I'm not sure what it is that you would like to debate? Your post is all over the map. Is there any one theory that you would like to discuss?

Is there any one of these theories in particular that seems to bother you? Or are you just venting in general? I hardly hang out here but, I do subscribe to the way of thought that most of the posters here express. So from time to time I have commented and asked for opinions on something that may have struck me as odd in current events, and I have always been treated with respect. I am up for any questions that you may have regarding why I see the world in the way that I do.

I can say that I do not believe that aliens had anything to do with our early history engineering or influence on religions. I am not sure what "cancer" conspiracy you are referencing? As for the moon landing, I happen to be someone that does not believe that we landed there. The race to land on the moon's surface and claim victory was reckless on the part of the U.S., where as Russia was taking a much more calculated approach. All that said, my biggest reason for not believing in the moon landing is, the Van Allen Radiation belts. My understanding is that a flesh and blood being could not pass through them without dying. If I am wrong and we did land there, why have we not returned? Our country has a rich history of exploiting anything or anyone that we have viewed as conquered. That is my basic belief of the moon landing.

If I am wrong and we did land there, why have we not returned?

My understanding is that the US had not returned because the initial reason to go was the cold war. Nothing to show off means NASA's budget has been cut substantially. Also, the moon has been studied with satellites since the Apollo mission ended, has been mapped and is considered for building/assembling spaceships.

Our country has a rich history of exploiting anything or anyone that we have viewed as conquered.

What would you go get there ? There is lunar rock and dust, things we've returned and studied. Lately, we've discovered there is water but we had to slam satellites into the poles to discover that. If the moon was filled with Unobtainium, the question would make more sense to me.

No problem, sometimes a lot of these theories can be tough to swallow. Sometimes they are just plain silly. But no matter what a person believes, it is very important to have open discourse to exchange points of view to rule out what simply does not add up.

My apologies, my day got away from me yesterday. I saw that you had posted something in regards to the radiation belts. I need to take another look at the article that was posted. As for the cancer theory... That is a tough one. There is part of me that refuses to acknowledge that it is in the best interest of a corporation to keep people sick in the name of profits. The other part of me believes that to be true. A corporation only has interests in keeping the shareholders profitable. Corporations have been know to display psychopathic behaviors in order to retain profits. Take for example Bayer. They knowingly unloaded AIDS tainted medications on unknowing countries, simply because they could not take a loss. There were no consequences to be had, other than being found not guilty (by American courts) since they had acted to protect the financial viability of the share holders. Simply put, they behaved as a corporation should according to law. Only to generate profits. Relevant.

I hate to be a spelling nazi, but if you want to have a legitimate discussion, work on your spelling and grammar.

WTF is a pharough? That like a omnipotent sadistic ruler?

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Here is the list and note that a large percentage list their architectural or Professional Engineer license number. These were confirmed by the organization and can be confirmed by anyone with enough knowledge of where to look. It appears to me that it is you that is full of bullshit.

Edit: Pilots for 9/11 Truth are more concerned with the impossible flight path allegedly taken by the plane that allegedly hit the pentagon. They don't have much to say about building architecture. You'd know that if you had even bothered to look at their website.

And of those 1.5 million engineers what percentage have actually looked into what really happened and what percentage are "don't make waves" types? Your argument is statistically unsound.

WTF? I never said anything about global warming.

However, I do give credibility to those who say that governments are using global warming as an excuse to further tax their populations and for the carbon trading scams.

WTC : Global warming :: apples : oranges.

How is saying that because such a small percentage of engineers are for it, that it is proof that it was an inside job?

I did not say that! You keep trying to claim I'm saying things that I am not saying. There is no "proof" that it was an inside job. There is only "evidence" that the official conspiracy theory is wrong. The issue is not really how many (which you brought up, by the way) architects or engineers or pilots there are, the issue is what they have to say and the evidence they cite to back it up.

Back to your other argument, huh? Ok. I can do that.

Only 1500 did out of millions.

You claimed 1.5 million a while back. Now it's "millions"?

Your hyperbole devastates your own arguments.

Unless you're actually willing to discuss the actual evidence I'm done here. Never mind. Considering your continuous logical fallacies and misstatements of my comments I have no interest in even discussing evidence with you.

I have a feeling this will be like talking to a wall but I'll try one.

The Flight Data Recorder for Flight 77 (allegedly hit the Pentagon) showed that the cockpit door was never opened after takeoff (scroll down to post by Turbofan. His charts are no longer there but he does cite where they can be found). How did the hijackers get control without entering the cockpit?

Oh, heck. Here's some more questions for the NTSB from Pilots for 911Truth.

The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation?

Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).

Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44? (You'll recall that the official conspiracy theory claims Flight 77 hit light poles)

Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?

That'll do for a start.

... Crickets ...

He doesn't really want a debate. He;s only interested in denigrating those who question the official story.

Show me a plane that hit the pentagon. It's one of the most protected buildings in the world and we don't have any footage of a plane hitting it. Try not pointing me to the one clip they put out because that didn't show anything. The problem is we could go on and on about 911 so many things just don't add up. When 1 + 1 doesn't add up to 2 I personally start asking questions. Apparently you don't, you just go ahead and listen to whatever the boobtube tells you what 1+1 is. Leave the rest of the serious stuff to us adults who cares about our kids future.

Unfortunately, the world is more complex that 1 + 1 and trying to oversimplify it doesn't produce truth.

So what are your thoughts on no video or pics of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Do you not find that strange at all? I mean we seen the planes hitting the WTC a gizzilion times.

I think that lack of evidence of an event is just that. It doesn't confirm, it doesn't infirm.

Are you serious? Maybe just maybe the lack of evidence is because there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon. So if you want real evidence to something does that make you a conspiracy theorist?

So if you want real evidence to something does that make you a conspiracy theorist?

Of course not ! Asking for evidence is always a good idea. I encourage that and knowing what subreddit I'm in, I think one should ask for evidence from all camps, for all claims.

Maybe just maybe the lack of evidence is because there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is no evidence, that's the whole point.

Also, you're asking to prove a negative by saying "show me there was no conspiracy". Proving a negative probably means the burden of proof lays on the other side of the question.

Example of proving a negative: Prove there isn't a massless and perfectly invisible small floating orb in the room you're in.

Honestly do you really believe the official story?

Whatever, study another author's books.

Honestly do you really believe the official story?

I'm not sure why I shouldn't.

Maybe you shouldn't just believe everything your told. Do some research so we can hopefully prevent this kind of event from happening again by bringing the right people to justice. Tell me your thoughts about the Kennedy assassination? Do you believe the magic bullet theory? I hope I'm not sounding disrespectful because I do not mean to be.

[Sorry btw, the first half of my last post that says "Whatever, study another author's books" is actually intended for another reply but the second part is my valid response]

[Also, props for staying civil]

Maybe you shouldn't just believe everything your told.

It's true that one should question, I agree. But one must never despair, in my opinion, and reach for conclusions not supported by all facts. Most importantly, one should not set one's mind on a conclusion and then work backwards and data mine

Do some research so we can hopefully prevent this kind of event from happening again by bringing the right people to justice.

I saw evidence from both camps. Wasn't very convinced by the conspiracies. It's not that it wasn't impossible but the proofs presented required a lot of assumptions.

Tell me your thoughts about the Kennedy assassination? Do you believe the magic bullet theory?

At first I was unsure. There were lots of people on the scene used as evidence that there was more than one shot. But then I remembered humans have the worst time remembering anything correctly and can modify their own memories without realizing it (which is why testimonials in court suck so much for everyone).

Of course, the questions still remains, what's up with the crazy bullet trajectory. I saw a TV show that calmly and clearly debunked it for me by showing the layout of the car, presented how the people aboard the vehicle had only to be slightly turned for the bullet to follow the path. And then, they reproduced the layout, put it ballistic gelatin and bones within it (to simulate the bodies) and had a guy shoot from same distance and angle with the same gun. He didn't get the bullet exactly at the same place, but it was close enough to convince me it was not at all impossible.

Now, could JFK have been shot by the CIA ? Sure, possible. Believable. Can I prove he wasn't ? No, I don't feel like proving a negative of this size. Is the official story possible ? It is as well. The official story requires me to make less extra assumptions that the unofficial story so I chose to believe the official story.

check this one out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk How about this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60 This seems pretty logical to me how about you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=related wonder how we explain these conclusions away? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=related I also want you to know that when people claim that this was an inside job committed by our government I don't. It's a pretty broad statement considering the size of our government. I do believe a small amount knew it was gonna happen.

I looked at the youtube videos and in reply, I ask: Have you looked at http://www.debunking911.com/ ?

Edit: as well as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4

For every website that tries to debunk 911 conspiracies I can give you one that claims otherwise. http://physics911.net/stevenjones Everybody is pointing at building 7 like it is the smoking gun. I do agree that it is enough evidence itself but the Pentagon is what does it for me. How does one explain away the damage at the pentagon not matching up with the size of a huge plane. Also no REAL footage of a plane striking the Pentagon. I mean to be one of the most protected buildings and all they give is some crappy blurry shit that doesn't even look like a plane.I would like to believe the official story but there is just no real evidence to. There is a lot of stuff point out there as proof of a conspiracy that is just not true I believe it's being done on purpose to discredit the good stuff. You have to sift through it all to get to the logical stuff.I know it's a lot of work but it most be done to find the truth. They tell you that the engines on these planes just disintegrated but these engines are made of titanium also jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel let alone titanium. Why is this so hard to believe? It's not like they haven't used false flag operations before.

For every website that tries to debunk 911 conspiracies I can give you one that claims otherwise.

And that's the main problem with all these discussions. It's also hard to sort because you'd need a panel of at least slightly knowledgeable people to evaluate claims and sort out important but small details.

Here's an pseudo-example of an exchange:

• Fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt the steel in the Twin Tower's metal frame
• But it doesn't need to melt, only to weaken the steel.
• But it didn't burn uniformly, howcome the building didn't collapse at an angle or snap in two ?
• It's because of the weight distribution and heat conduction in metals.
• That's not what the plans showed !
• The plans were not respected in the construction and some beams were different.

And so on. How am I supposed to evaluate these claims ? I don't know nearly enough material sciences and civil engineering and project management to evaluate all these claims. And even if I did read about them, how many intricate details particular to the situation am I missing out on ?

I say this looking at my own technical field where you need to be in it to understand how it works and how it's more than just the theory and case situations in the manuals. Which is what people have access to in such cases. In the end, I think that sadly, unless it's a major fuck up, you can't really truly tell and you have to rely on the honesty and bravery of the people in the field, not on amateurs.

That being said, you can spot big discrepancies without being in the field, like when you look at acupuncture or homeopathy.

That and people being very condensing and rude or downright insulting (or maybe I do the same) in these discussions.

How does one explain away the damage at the pentagon not matching up with the size of a huge plane.

With everything I just said, I'll answer this by saying I don't know how a plane acts when it crashes into a reinforced Pentagon. From the shots I saw it looked legit. There were markings from the nose of the plane and a wing. After a while, there was a huge collapse which might have also kept the fire from spreading. There apparently was a huge-ass generator that was clipped by the plane so that seems to confirm it also.

Also no REAL footage of a plane striking the Pentagon. I mean to be one of the most protected buildings and all they give is some crappy blurry shit that doesn't even look like a plane.I would like to believe the official story but there is just no real evidence to.

As for the footage, you know, you're asking people to prove a negative. "Prove to me there isn't footage that shows a not-plane devastate the place". Sadly, lack of proof is just that, it doesn't confirm or infirm anything, it's just lack. Maybe the Pentagon didn't think it necessary to film it's every outside walls. Why would they, they have guards and fences; I've no idea. Maybe it's regulations from the past, maybe it's budget cuts, maybe it's tradition, maybe it's bureaucratic incompetence, maybe it's a conspiracy. Lots of possibilities.

I still feel the plane .."hypothesis" sounds more reasonable to me. It asks me to accept a lower number of assumptions.

They tell you that the engines on these planes just disintegrated but these engines are made of titanium also jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel let alone titanium.

This relates back to my "no expert in everything" rant. Maybe the engines suffered stress while the plane plunged. Maybe a combination of fire and impact did help disintegrate as engines are made to deal with air pressure, not impact pressure. Maybe no one has experience with these things so there is no guy you can go ask that will know.

Why is this so hard to believe? It's not like they haven't used false flag operations before.

It's hard to believe, for me, because it asks me to accept a shitton of assumptions that go against what I know, what I read, what I've experienced and my perception of the world.

Nobody cares what you believe, except maybe the rich bastards who own your ass.

Do some research, noob:

Operation Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Edit: Having the cure for cancer is actually quite obviously a cover up, but not by the governments so much as the pharmaceutical companies. http://nutritiondietnews.com/canadian-researchers-obtain-a-simple-cure-for-cancer-but-major-pharmaceutical-corporations-arent-interested/853757/

Evidence of Aliens: Ever heard of the "Ancient Alien" series on the History Channel? It'd be good to watch.

I take it you've never heard of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth"? http://www.ae911truth.org/

I could go on. Engage me and I will teach you all about Conspiracy FACT, my man.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Just, wow.

Actually, what I want to know is what level of proof would convince conspiracy theorists they are wrong.

I remember hearing an interview about Jon Kay who recently wrote a book after interviewing a lot of conspiracy theorists. The gist as I remember, besides what wiki states, is that conspiracy theorists are actually smart & educated people. He describes how conspiracy theories are an integral part of their lives and how they have a deep emotional attachment to them first and then rely on their intellectual skills to retroactively explain everything second. Basically, start from an emotionally-driven conclusion and data mine the facts.

Also, keep in mind the human brain is easily fooled and likes to see correlation everywhere, an artifact from human evolution. The brain also sucks at estimating relative risk and calculating probabilities as well as hating uncertainty.

Last, our greatest enemy, cognitive bias, is probably very much at play here.

Wiki summary says it well:

He argues that many people prefer explanations for disasters which feature expansive conspiracies because it is more difficult to cope with the underlying incompetence or vulnerability at the root of such events.

I guess each human has his or her defense mechanism and this is how some people cope.

I think there are several reasons this thread isn't going anywhere.

For one, they're probably always on the defensive and for good reason. I really see a us vs them mentality from both sides. People are calling conspiracy theorists crazy, stupid or retarded and conspiracy theorists see everyone as either as corrupt or blatantly blind. So from their perspective, it's a them asking a question; tribal instincts for the win. I've also seen similar responses when a conspiracy theorists asks a similar question (''why do you non-conspiracy theorists don't see the truth ?'') somewhere besides /r/conspiracy .

And for second, all this is like old news to them. They're convinced and you questioning them might be the equivalent of someone coming up to you and asking ''I heard this Newton dude say something about gravity; what's this gravity stuff and why do you believe it? You sure all objects have masses ? You sure all masses suffer acceleration ? You sure it's 9.81m/s ² on average ?''.

In general though, I really think people underestimate the complexity of the universe and science & the incompetence of humans.

Being in a technical field, I know the details tell the 'most' truth and it's hard to understand the details when the field is not your own. This, coupled with belief in conspiracy theories, makes it nearly impossible to present proof that all who doubt will understand unless they have lots of time to understand the field and a big open mind.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Just, wow.