Awesome post. Don't post here much myself but I would say, to put it simply, undeniable, point of fact proof is what it would take to disprove my current beliefs.

Out of what you've listed I feel I can't deny the truths, whether I like it or not, that speak to 9/11 and the history behind the Fed (and what follows that). I feel that I have invested enough time and research into those two issues in order to validate the truth as I've found it to be. I can't speak to your other examples, though I'm familiar with all of them. But I would say that I am personally at a point where disproving the aforementioned beliefs I have would be tantamount to proving the sky is green. It could happen, science could prove this that and the other about light waves and human vision etc., but it'd take a helluva lot - a helluva lot - and I don't forsee it. There comes a time where the truth is the truth, and barring earth shaking new data, that's that.

That being said (and to your point) I hear what you're saying and I think this IS an awesome post because it is extremely important that people research their so called "conspiratorial" beliefs seriously and with an open mind.

After all, I think we can all agree that taking things at face value is the issue, no?

It sure is the issue.

As important as research I'd say you should also grasp the situation that many of these things cannot be properly researched. If you're a true skeptic like me you won't be convinced by some anonymous source or some unnamed government official leaking god only knows what. This is not enough for me, I keep this in my conspiracy hypothesis compartment of the brain.

It's a very deep complex tapstry of different shades, it's never black and white. I just wish more people on here would remember that and stop taking things for face value just because they speak to them.

How to deal? Don't ask me, I'm just a cynical apathetic jerk. I can point out flaws in us all but when it comes to solving them I've basically given up.

I love discussing about conspiracies just like most of you but my philosophy in life is to just be kind to your neighbours, explore people and events before dismissing them and avoid negative things. We only get this one life on loan from gaia, yaweh or the universe. So make the most of it, if that involves exposing the truth about governments then fucking do that like a champ!

;) sure you were hehe

Hey Will_Eat_For_Food,

Taking you and your question at face value:

Well, the JFK conspiracy theory says "there was a conspiracy, it wasn't Lee Harvey alone".

That theory is supported by the 1976 House of Representatives' Select Committee, who concluded there was "probably" a conspiracy.

In order to falsify that, there would need to be some sort of decent level of proof that Lee Harvey did act alone. I think that's going to be hard to find.

If we invent time-travel, and someone wants to go back and tail him for a week or two with a video camera, so we have all his actions and conversations etc, and if that basically indicates he was acting alone (and an amazing shot) then I'll believe it.

On the balance of evidence at the moment, I don't think he acted alone.

Define "prove".

Edited to add: Can you prove Jackie didn't shoot him?

Jackie is his wife right ? Well for one thing, she didn't have a huge-ass gun in her hand of that caliber.

Prove it.

ETA: I don't believe Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper. I'm not sure there's evidence that I would accept as proof that she was. Does that mean my belief isn't falsifiable?

The point is that history isn't science.

Good scientific theories (some of them) are falsifiable. [Though not all of them are].

History isn't falsifiable in the same way.

I'm sure there's no evidence that I could show you that would persuade you that Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper.

Therefore, your belief that Queen Victoria wasn't Jack the Ripper is unfalsifiable.

Live with it :)

Well, start by examining your beliefs.

Which conspiracies do you believe, and what would change your mind?

I think you're making the common mistake of assuming that everyone here is an uncriticial 'conspiracy theorist', as opposed to you [and people like you] who critically weigh up all the facts before arriving at your position.

If you know anything about psychology, then you know it's extremely likely you don't weigh up the facts in that fashion -- the brain is not designed that way.

Equally, while you marvel at other people's 'conspiracy theories', it's likely you believe a few of them yourself -- except in your case of course you think of them as 'history'. Or 'current affairs'.

And you keep dodging my question!

What would persuade you that Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper?

Some conspiracies also clash with the knowledge and experience one already has.

And there's your answer. What you call your 'knowledge and experience' can really be thought of your as 'world-view', through which you (inevitably) look at everything.

When you arrive at a belief, most times is as a consequence of your world-view, not the end process of a deliberate chain of reasoning.

The reason why some conspiracy theories seem so bizarre to you is because the believers have a different worldview to you. It is not that they are any more or less intelligent than you.

So, do you believe we invaded Iraq because we genuinely believe they were a threat to the region, and refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors?

Your answer will depend on your worldview, and which particular set of facts you work from. You might think Bush and Blair were a pair of blood-thirsty scoundrels, the former intent on revenging 9/11 on someone (even if Saddam had nothing to do with it), and there's lots of facts to support that view.

On the other hand, you might point to Saddam's egregiousness (gassing the kurds), and the various pieces of evidence that he did have WMD etc etc, and exonerate Bush and Blair -- arguing they made a genuine mistake.

Which narrative you believe depends (I would argue) on your worldview to begin with, rather than a careful weighing of the facts of the case.

Someone with the opposite view will tear their hair out at your irrationality :)

So your basic question about falsifiabilty is one you should post in every sub-reddit, not just come to this one specially as if we were a weird Amazonian tribe.

ETA: QED, you have an unfalsifiable belief about Queen Victoria.

There you go. You and your friend carefully rationally methodically come to completely the wrong conclusion :)

As you should know: there is rock-solid evidence acupuncture does work, for some forms of pain relief.

May that be a lesson to you, lol. You see the world in a very black and white way. 'I am a sceptic, and acupuncture doesn't work'. You've even managed to convince your friend.

Hurray for you and your rhetorical skills, but read up on pain relief and then go and tell your friend: whoops, it does work, in one instance :)

If you hang out here long enough, you will find a steady stream of people coming, like you, and asking (essentially) 'WHY won't you critically evaluate your beliefs?'

Which gets tiresome, after a while :)

Ah, and I'm glad your queen victoria belief is falsifiable.

ETA:

In this second case, what am I to conclude ? Their world-view is such that anecdote and appeal to emotion is superior to all and any kind of science or logic ?

Well, your rigorously applied science and logic totally wiped out your ability to find that yes, acupuncture does work in a specific instance.

Occam doesn't leave much flexibility, if you apply him as you do.

Re: Occam.

You say:

They don't seem to understand (or I can't seem to explain) Occam's razor where acupuncture working means a metric shit-ton of assumptions must be accepted.

Well, you accept that acupuncture does work, in one instance, so ... er ... where does that leave you and Occam?

So when you are arguing with these souls who use anecdote and emotion instead of science and logic, do you point out to them that they are right about pain relief?

So you position is: acupuncture is the placebo effect, for things which it's no better than placebo for?

But if it's better than placebo, then what?

Oh, back to Queen Victoria and Jack the Ripper ... how much of a consensus would require from the historians, before you believed it?

That gets to the nub of a lot of this. Do you require all historians to agree? Most? Some?

What if you read a book which really convinced you that the queen was jack -- like right down to the last detail -- but 95% of the academic establishment thought it was tosh?

And they could supply reasons why it was tosh?

Right, so let's assume the pain stuff is rock solid.

If so, you believe an aspect of acupuncture is clinically proven.

Doesn't that make you pause a bit? It's fricking acupuncture! Sticking needles in weird bits of people! And it works . Science says so, logic says so. Doesn't that make you wonder if there's something else in there waiting to be proven too?

Like personally i think homeopathy is completely explained by the placebo effect. I don't, personally, see any flaws in that argument.

If tomorrow they clinically prove that homeopathy works way better than placebo for pain relief, then I'd feel I have to revise my views a bit. I certainly wouldn't go round trying to invoke Occam as to why all the other bits of homeopathy don't work, when it's blatantly obvious that one does. :)

To me it feels like saying: oh ghosts are all bollocks, I don't believe in them. Except the ghost cat that's under the shed. I believe in that, there's video of that. But all the rest, are rubbish.

Okay, Queen Vic theorist says: 5 graphologists attest that the Confession Diary was written by Queen Vic.

Enemies say: 10 different graphologists say it was clearly not Queen Vic writing.

Now what? Are you going to study graphology? No. You're going to use your 'knowledge and experience' to weigh up whether you believe the theorist is credible or not.

We have no model that explains it perfectly right now ? How about we study it with a model that seems to work for pretty much everything and try to understand it through it (i.e. the normal medical science). That, or get a new model.

Absolutely. I love medical science. And I'm under the impression it's close to explaining (or has explained?) why pins = pain relief.

As i understand it, this is your position:

You will believe anything that is clinically proven, so you are fine with the clinically proven bit of acupuncture.

For the rest of acupuncture, you don't believe it (because it's not clinically proven, and you understand that placebo effect accounts for it), and you find no reason to put any trust in the acupuncture theoretical model at all.

For people who do believe the non-proven/placebo aspects of acupuncture, you try to explain to them that those areas of acupuncture are merely placebo, and you feel that these people's belief in these non-proven/placebo aspects shows that they are 'going against' science [in my wording], that they are using anecdote and emotion instead of rational understanding of scientific principle.

(because scientific principle would show them there's no scientific support for 95% of acupuncture).

How's that for a summary of your position?

Yes! Aha! You have fallen into my mighty rhetorical trap!

Actually, no, you're safe. :)

But from their point of view, can you see that it looks a bit odd that you're saying to them:

"Behold the mighty scientific method, oh benighted ones! It shows the healing powers of acupuncture to be rubbish!"

when the mighty scientific method shows the pain-relieving power of acupuncture to be valid.

I guess the difference between my position and yours is that I'm much more fascinated than you by the idea that a valid pain-relieving technique might have survived for 23 centuries (even though the 23 century old theory doesn't, unsurprisingly, map on to 21st century medicine).

I don't find homeopathy at all interesting, because it's relatively late and it's wrong and there's sod all evidence for it. And I'm sure acupuncture doesn't do much of what it's claimed for it.

But ... from a bottom-up point of view, I like that there seems to be one valid data point.

If I can't distinguish between the graphologists but I still care about the subject matter, I'll have to say "I don't know". Or at least, I hope that's how I'd act.

Aren't you in that position re, say, (some) engineers' claims that WTC 7 was demolished?

Can you tell the sensible engineering arguments from the silly ones?

Can you REALLY weigh one set of evidence against the other?

My hunch is that you can't, without falling back on higher-level justifications, or invoking a cheap and dirty Occam [how likely is it that the government would blow up that building etc etc]

I'm agnostic on WTC 7. I haven't studied it.

If you fancied a WTC 7 study group, it would be an interesting exercise in how to evaluate theories you and I have no expertise in.

re: acupuncture.

I guess you feel about acupuncture the way I feel about homeopathy/osteopathy etc etc :)

I understand your position.

But as a fellow scientist (yup, I am) I think the argument I strongly object to is this:

Acupuncture can't work, because if it did it would require us to rewrite all our medical theories.

Or:

If acupuncture worked, we would have to rewrite medicine, therefore Occam tells us to prefer medicine and reject acupuncture.

FINALLY I've identified my problem with that. :)

Acupuncture DOES work (a tiny bit) and it works IN SPITE of the theory -- as we know, sham acupuncture works for pain as well as 'real' acupuncture.

SO it is a scientific mistake to throw everything out because of the top-level theory, when the bottom-level data shows that actually there IS a data-point. Eg the theory can be wrong, but that doesn't mean something doesn't work.

Wiki quotes Crick: "While Ockham's razor is a useful tool in the physical sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology. It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a guide in biological research."

SO. Continue the good fight against alternative rubbish. But you're not allowed to use the above argument, because i think it's wrong. Lol.

[though am willing to be persuaded otherwise]

WTC 7.

I propose you find the most promising possible 'Engineers for truth' site, with as much academic weight as you can.

Link me to it, and choose a specific page/paper/whatever from it for discussion.

As I say, I am agnostic on WTC 7. I am suspicious of the Grand Narrative of 9/11, and personally I think Someone knew Something. Who knew what will take a century to discover, alas.

(Though of course, as with you, I suspect I err on the side of WTC7 being non-demolished)

Choose a page or a paper from it. I've not been there yet.

I believe nothing that is reported other than sports scoreboards. I've learned to be skeptical of everything until what is asserted can either be proven, or the facts add up to a logical conclusion. So, the conspiracy is always the story based on facts or logic. Show me a failure in fact or logic and I change my mind. This happened for me with AGW where I went from being a believer to a skeptic based on better information. I also changed my mind on several other points of science that we need not go into here. By and large, yes, falsify my opinion and I will change my mind.

When I normally ask for what a poster believe in on believe in conspiracy it's to pick it apart, but I'd be genuinely interested to see some (that you've based on logic). You appear to be one of the rare conspiriatorialus notstubbornus and I'd like to study more.... Excellent .

Well I'd be happy to oblige. Offer me up something you're interested in and I'll do my best to explain my thoughts.

I can think of one conspiracy theory that I used to believe that I have been convinced otherwise: 19 guys with box cutters took over four planes, crashed two of those planes into buildings and it was the burning jet fuel and paper that made those buildings, plus one next door, collapse.

What would convince you the moon is made of swiss cheese?

Edit: Better still, what would convince you the earth is flat?

I wish anything nearly as comprehensive as what you describe had been done after 9/11.

Instead, the victims got a commission run by Philip Zelikow , one that may of the commission members themselves feel didn't get the full and accurate story . Edit to fix link.

The victims got Popular Mechanics to 'debunk' the conpiracy theories. That debunking had to be debunked . I guess NIST was involved in the 'debunking' investigation, but weren't adequately funded .

As for the scientists. Steven Jones did the best he could with what the materials he had access to. He didn't have government budgets to fund his research. The crime scene was being cleaned up before his investigation got started. It would've been nice for samples of all the debris to be tested by multiple labs throughout the world. Richard Gage, from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth also does an admirable job of explaining his evidence, considering he also isn't funded by a government budget.

I wish the people we trusted had done half as much as you jokingly talk about doing for a moon made of cheese in regards to the real events of 9/11 that resulted in thousands of deaths, a decades long war with hundreds of thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq. The abuses of the patriot act. The growing police state and surveillance society. It all goes back to that day.

The thing is, ALL of your sources link back to the same few people who have been proved wrong countless times yet still propogate their weak ideas.

David ray griffin, Infowars, Steven Jones. They're all the same bunch and have zero intellectual respect outside of the conspiracy community.

Please provide some proof of your assertions. Or, at least, evidence.

I predict it would be wasted. Pick one point and we'll analyze it more in depth.

Edit: I wasn't wrong.

Didn't collapse at freefall speed. Again, look for sources other than what you're normally used to - Conspiracy sites will always show you cherry picked sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=player_detailpage#t=178s

Time the collapse. At least 12 seconds - not freefall. Building 186M Tall

2d = at ²

372 = at ²

372 = 9.81 * t ²

372 / 9.81 = t ²

37.92 = t ²

sqrt 37.92 = 6.15

Freefall for that speed would be the entire distance in 6.15 seconds. Please show me that as I would love to know how the laws of phsyics have been broken.

Edit: As for WTC 1/2 I can go through the calculations if need be but I think this will suffice: Free Fall huh?

Edit2: I didn't downvote you.

You conveniently forgot to mention that NIST was forced in their final report to admit that WTC7 fell at freefall speed for 2.5 seconds. This is exactly what the OP was asking about. You refuse to consider or present evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

I'll rewrite it nicely.

So you're disagreeing with every conspiracy theory that says the towers and WTC7 collapsed faster than free fall speeds?

Edit: Can't resist the cherry picking bit. If you look at my post there is one source, which is unfortunately a youtube video (I hate linking to youtube videos but can't find a seperate file) and common mechanics / physics knowledge - nowhere did I omit evidence or cherry pick.

It can't, my point exactly.

So you're disagreeing with every conspiracy theory that says the towers and WTC7 collapsed faster than free fall speeds?

Show me even one theory that says that.

And stop putting words in my mouth. You have a very nasty habit of doing that to everyone.

Let's try this:

So you're disagreeing with the final NIST report that admits WTC7 fell at freefall speed?

It's called logic, if they "fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds" - they're your words - Then you must obviously disagree with the conspiracy theories that say they fell faster than free fall.

Cognotive dissonance - you can't have two thing saying different or else you're an idiot.

So which one is it?

• Fell at FF for 2.5 seconds and all the theories that say faster than free fall are bunk.

or

• The other theories aren't bunk, and you're an idiot with minimal comprehension skills.

I'm going on exactly what you've said.

Edit: Note I have't commented my take on the 2.5 seconds of freefall. I've not agreed with it or disagreed with it.

And as for show you one theory, if you want me to intentional find a conspiracy theory that says that, then no. I can think of much more banal things to do, commenting on reddit being only slightly less. Several posters have mentioned it here and it's pretty common conspiracy folklore that WTC7 fell in 8 seconds (lol) and WTC1/2 fell faster than free fall. (and had bits of the facade fall faster than that, so faster than faster than freefall.

Once again. Show me even one single theory that says they fell "faster than freefall".

Loose change and Zeitgeist both mention it, host of youtube videos , infowars , Similar theory debunked

Your turn. Now answer my question rather than deflecting.

None of those say anything about "faster" than freefall. I've seen them. They say "at" freefall. Even your "similar theory debunked" says "The story... The towers fell at or near free fall speeds, a possible sign of controlled demolition."

So, for the third time, show us even one! Show us the quotes.

I would never even consider the possibility that buildings could fall faster than freefall speed. It's just stupid to consider. It's even stupider to ask while lying about such a theory even existing.

OK, as I can't find the specific piece I'm thinking of I concede the faster than free fall part. All of the articles mention Free Fall speed though

infowars

, which fell at free fall speed into its own footprint on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, after suffering only relatively minor fire damage.

What do you make to that - do you think WTC7 fell at free fall speed?

Ignore the 'faster than' part of everything I said.

Yes. I think WTC7 fell at free fall speed for at least the 2.5 seconds NIST admitted to.

it's pretty common conspiracy folklore that WTC7 fell in 8 seconds (lol) and WTC1/2 fell faster than free fall.

You are so full of bullshit. C'mon let's see a citation. Put up or shut up.

See my instantly downvoted post in reply to browncoatsunite.

Edit: bonus

Edit 2: bonus video I remember a lot of sites citing

i just watched a random vid of wtc7 collapse and counting down from time it started to fall till bottom was around 7 seconds. i timed it as i watched. 1500 architects and engineers disagree with the original " buildings just randomly fall for no reason theory" http://www.ae911truth.org/

You don't think i've heard of Richard Gage and his half made up team of "architects and enginers" (dutch radio show hosts) before? It's old news.

Look for some different angles of the collapse rather than the ones the conspiracy community want you to see.

FYI, there's about 120k registered architects in the USA.

Your "Bonus" concluded that WTC7 fell at freefall speed with no air resistance just as would happen in a controlled demolition.

Care to try again?

Handy for when people go on about richard gage / AE911

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ae911truth

There is no doubt that we are still waiting for a feasible explanation about what happened that day. Why did the towers fall at freefall speed, and why did they both fall when both were designed to absorb two direct airliner strikes.

Even ignoring that, there is the unavoidable, damning, irrefutable fact that building seven imploded JUST LIKE the other two towers, out of nowhere (although many first responders recount hearing a countdown and were evacuated from the area).

The question of what actually happened remains unanswered, but to convince me that prevailing wisdom is wrong would simply be another explanation being presented with good evidence and which makes more sense.

• Towers fell at free fall

• Designed to absorb 2 direct airliner strikes

• Building 7 Imploded

• Other towers imploded

• First responders countdown?

• Evacuated

Right.

• They didn't fall at free fall speed - this would be impossible. Work out the mathematics behind it , or if you're lazy .

• Designed to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter aircraft on assumption it was lost in fog trying to land (Slow airspeed).

• Building 7 Imploded - If you mean collapsed internally at first, yes. I think you'll find that when buildings fall, they generally fall downwards - not topple over like in cartoons.

• Other towers imploded. Again, source? This is your assertion.

• First responders countdown? For once, something new I've heard about from the 9/11 conspiracy thoeries. Can't wait to see source on this one.

• Evacuated - From a burning building that was in danger of collapse? oh shucks this proves the conspiracy.

In a cartoon someone could also shove a stick of dynamite up your ass and light it too, you condescending prick. Lol...

if I said freefall speed, I meant near-freefall.

I knew it was two slightly smaller aircraft, but not at lower speeds. I'll keep this in mind.

Steel-reinforced buildings don't just collapse out of nowhere, friend. Even if there is a fire inside. If that doesn't get the point across, I honestly don't know what would.

The countdown was recounted by first responders in several 9/11 documentaries. You'll have to source it yourself as I haven't read about this stuff much over the past couple of years.

The evacuation was of people around the building. The reports are that first responders were pulled back, a countdown was started over walkie, and the building fell.

You call me condescending, but you're the one making people's mind up for them:

There is no doubt that we are still waiting for a feasible explanation

Implying that the official story isn't feasible

Even ignoring that, there is the unavoidable, damning, irrefutable fact

You really shouldn't go round calling people condescending.

Back to your point's 'cus I'm bored of showing your condescendance.

• Well you said 'Free-Fall' - I don't count 5seconds vs ~12seconds for WTC 7 'Near Free Fall'

• It's not two aircraft, and if you knew they were different why are you using it as a point in an argument? bad PersonOfInternets, that's deceiving. Almost Misinformation!

• Steel reinforced buildings - THAT HAVE BEEN HIT BY A PLANE / BUILDING .

What part of Fires causing collapse don't you understand? Fires continuing on unabated by sprinkler systems will burn, and burn, and burn, weakening support structures and trusses and eventually, when combined with structural damage will collapse. (In before 'Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!!!1)

I'm surprised that you repeating what you said two comments ago hasn't got the point accross, I wonder why that could be?

• Countdown - I've not heard nothing about this, I'll have a look.

• Evactuation - expected with damaged buildings, I can think of at least two times this happened on 9/11.

What do you mean "it's not two planes?" not sure what to make of that. I said the building was designed to withstand 2 airliners slightly smaller than what it was hit with, because of the standards during the time it was built I guess.

If you can point me to another steel-reinforced building that has collapsed due to either fire or being struck by a plane I would be happy to look at it. You are the one who needs to produce evidence on this point, because I've never heard of it happening. I do, however, know of cases of both long-burning fires and airliner strikes on buildings, neither of which caused collapse.

Two planes as in it was designed for the impact of one.

Can you point me to another massive building that was hit by a jetliner and sustained fires, and didn't collapse?

How about a b-52 ?

I'm pretty sure it was designed to absorb two, based on an interview I saw with one of the building's designers.

All I've seen is about one plane, the B-52 crashed into the empire state building as your link states.

Which designer was this? Minoru Yamasaki? he died in 1986 as far as I remember.

I can't find the video. I remember it was a Japanese guy. I'm now finding that most people are saying it was designed to absorb one 707 hit, including NIST who specifically claims to have checked for documents with New York Port Authority stating otherwise.

That goes with what I remember too. Nevertheless, an impact with a fully laden jet at cruising speed isn't what the buildings were designed withstand. From memory it was a Plane trying to land at (is it JFK airport?) in heavy fog that got lost and impacted the towers at a much slower speed.

Yeah, I feel that we are looking at controlled demolitions on all three towers, but at least there is some reason why the first two would fall -- the planes hitting them and the subsequent fires. I am far more concerned with tower 7 since there has so far been no explanation offered that even approaches feasibility.

A b52 once ran into the Empire State Building, and of course that structure is still with us. There are other examples but I dont quite have the motivation to go looking now.

What are the main factors that lead you to believe it was a controlled demolition? Both WTC1/2 and 7.

If it weren't for building 7, I would probably not believe the first two were controlled demos. Steel-reinforced structures don't just catch on fire and collapse.

How about steel reinforced buildings that have significant structural damage, coupled with fires, and inability to quench them (Both from a Human efforts and automated fire defense systems) resulting in one of the main three truss's failing bringing the building down? It's a bit more in depth than catching fire and collapsing.

That's not even mentioning the logistical issue of planting explosives, rigging, detonation, hiding the signs of a demolition etc.

Happy to discuss this if you'd like to?

Edit : I've just seen your link about the Rock Lobster flying into the Empire State Building - Just out of interest I went out to find the base size of each tower, ESB is 8096 m ^2, (Wiki) whereas as WTC1 / 2 are 4000m ² (According to sigh answers.com, the size of WTC1 footprint is 208' which works out at little over 4000m ^2.)

I know answers.com aint the best source, if it's an issue I will find a better sourced measurement.

I'm assuming you've watched 7 collapse right? It's eery to watch as it creases on top and collapse right into it's footprint, just like a controlled demo. I'm not saying its impossible that it wasn't, it just looks exactly like one.

Check out this map here. Seriously take a step back and look at this thing objectively. There are at least 3 other buildings that should have been "damaged by debris" before building seven, way on the other edge of the plaza (it's a NIST map). 6 and 4 are RIGHT NEXT to 1 and 2 respectively. 3 is right in between both. Even 5 is closer than 7, and 7 has a building between it and 1.

It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. Why was 7 damaged at all before the others, much damaged to the point of collapsing into it's own footprint.

Forgot the link

The leaseholder (can't remember name) was caught on film messing up and talking about how they gave the order to "pull" (demolish) building 7 because of fires (lol?? Doesn't even make sense).

My point is there were very high connections involved. Getting people in under the guise of "maintenance" would be easy. There is evidence that happened and they may have been Israeli.

Again, another person who's been brainwashed by reading analysis of evidence first, from one source, who then presents that evidence.

Example: "Pull It" - any video you see that's slightly conspiratorial will show the (short) clip and offer it without context. In context, it's obvious that he's talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building. But the conspiracy videos won't show you that bit as they can't warp it to fit their worldview somehow.

Hey look! a Youtube Video - a form of media the conspiracy theorist can relate to!

(lol?? Doesn't even make sense).

It doesn't make sense based on the conclusion presented as the conclusion made is bullshit.

It doesn't matter, building 7 collapsed for no reason. This is still unexplained to rational people who have looked into it. All conspiracies aside it happened and so far there is no rational official explanation. You're welcome to live in your own little sphere of reality for as long as you want.

Aside from intense structural weakness and fires right? but they must not count.

Just 'cos an explanation isn't rational to you doesn't mean it's bunk. Case in point - explaining Evolution to religious people.

There's been quite a lot of discussion on WTC7 structural aspects - according to everything I've seen there were three main trusses, the leftmost which buckled causing the initial collapse (Of the penthouse) and then the other two trusses couldn't handle the redistributed load.

The fire thing is quite visible - don't take no notice of the conspiracy picture of WTC7's north face that shows almost no damage. The reason why fire's spread so ravagely was the lack of water pressure after the other towers destruction hindered the fire supression systems.

Here's a really decent one perusing the plans of WTC 1 & 2. I'll try and find the link I'm thinking of.

Thanks for been polite. I love discussion, which Is why I frequent this subreddit so much, it's just rare to find someone who is open to challenging what they believe.

Me too, it's nice to talk with someone who isn't set in a viewpoint. Arguing with someone who you know aint gonna change their viewpoints is an excercise in futility. It's been nice debating with you though. Thanks.

There are so many holes, inconsistencies, lies, manipulations, distortions, etc etc in the official 9/11 fairy tale that we have reached a point where proving the conspiracy as false would be akin to proving Santa Claus's existence.

List a few, then I will explain then, and you will call me a shill etc for daring to disagree with your assertions.

Lack of any plane debris in the pentagon.

This took 2 minutes of searching - rather than copy & paste each photo and account I'll just leave these two links.

Accounts

Photographs

So there's two conclusions:

1 - A Plane hit the pengtagon 2 - All of this evidence is faked (photos, eye witness accounts)

Which one do you choose? if it's 2 - then the burden of proof is on you to prove these are faked.

Great counter guys. Clap clap clap.

You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. It isn't your fault, if you can't see it by now there is nothing that will help you to at this point. It isn't from a lack of intelligence so don't think that i am insulting you. Your mind will never allow you to see it, it has erected a defence mechanism that no amount of scientific fact, common sense or plain logic can overcome. It isn't a choice. All the best to you.

The only cognotive dissonance I have is trying to comprehend some of these comments. Which exact example are you talking about?

My mind is ruled by common sense, scientific fact and logic. I really think you're describing your own beliefs in conspiratorial topics pushed onto me for some reason.

I think you're also suffering from delusions of grandeur. From a quick minute look at your comments it's obvious youre quite the typical truther who will sucker down any shite by the likes of david ray griffin. The dissonance is that how come somebody like me who isn't an idiot can disagree with your stories and beliefs. We can't both be right and I think if we go by common sense, one of the attributes you mentioned as desirable up there then all the people you believe in have been debunked, proven wrong countless times.

Don't think that because you have your doomer buddies around to downvote me, that this implies i'm wrong. The truth is hard to accept here.

When you speak of 'changing my mind' it is as though i have a mere 'opinion' that is subject to change. When facts and scientific data have proven something beyond a shadow of a doubt as well as a whole other world of understanding behind false flag attacks, the military industrial complex, US imperialism, the central banking system,psychopathy of the elite and how all the dots connect together to reveal a blatantly obvious picture etc etc. the question of 'changing minds' doesn't even come into play. It is like asking someone to change their mind about water being wet. The huge discrepancy is quite easy to explain and not an unusual phenomenon. These two words should suffice: 'cognitive dissonance'. The conditioning machine is extremely powerful and only few are able to transcend it, and it isn't a choice. You either see it or you don't. If one's mind has not allowed them to see it by now, nothing will. The defence mechanism in place to preserve one's paradigm, value system and generally accepted understanding of the world once erected can be likened to someone trying to drill through a 5 foot thick titanium wall with a 2 inch drill bit. It isn't going to happen. The titanium wall in the mind is a physiological mechanism that overpowers any amount of logic or fact.

Take that energy and venture down the rabbit hole. No need to take a philosophical 'quantum mechanics' approach to this. We don't need to entertain the possibility that the twin towers were just a mirage or a figment of our imagination either. In fact, common sense alone is enough to discredit the official tale. There are far too many holes which cannot be filled regardless of any new 'data'. This would involve the re-writing of the whole series of events into a different fiction. Not plausible. It really isn't that complicated, in fact they didn't even do a very good job with the cover-up. It's embarrassing if you must. I will say it again, if you have spent enough time doing the research and still can't see it, you never will.

I truly think that anyone who is pre-disposed with the capacity to accept the deception of 9/11 and all it's psychological ramifications has done so by now. I believe there are very few left that haven't been exposed to the facts and maintain receptivity to seeing the light. It's been nearly 10 years, those with the thirst and passion to achieve awareness in this regard have embarked on the journey, and it is a journey, once you start connecting the dots, the natural progression is to continue to do so. The picture then begins to take form at an exponential rate. I appreciate the fact that you did not adopt an immature stance to this discussion and I truly hope you invest the time and have the volition to challenge your conditioned paradigm. For many, coming face to face with this foundation shattering reality has triggered many an existential crisis and episodes of depression, including myself. What to do once you know, also involves great inner conflict. I wish you well, there really is no point as you say to continue this discussion. Everything you need to know is literally at your fingertips. What we don't know is killing people. The madness needs to stop. All the best my friend.

hear hear!

It's hard to say. Simply because the theories do not come from thin air. They come from proof or strongly implied proof existing.

I guess the answer would be the same for all of these. To have complete transparancy in the governement, and corporate associates, including their history.

Oh I agree. It would be totally impossible.

Which is what makes a conspiracy theory so tricky. Hell, even on smaller scales such as relationships.

Without access to more information, probably not falsifiable. Of course each situation is different.

I see it like a murder trial. There is evidence for(sometimes) and against. There is an argument that spins the evidence favouring each side. The defendant has a story which needs to be be debunked else it will be accepted as fact.

Then I look at the murder trials that have been reversed in the past, and what evidence is needed to change a guilty man into a free one. Most of the time it never happens. On the few times it does, the evidence that tips it, is usually information discovered with new technology, or records declasified.

I don't think reassessing old evidence with new Tech is really an option in most of these conspiracy theories though, as they're swept under the rug. Destroyed or cleaned up not allowing any new investigation.

I'm also quite tired, so probably making no sense. Haha.

That's what I said. :P

The official story, is the official story. Conspiracy theories pop out when the story does not match the events. So in order for the theory to exist, you must already have evidence of some kind that proves guilt, so to speak.

Granted the government has such a history of lying, it's hard now to believe anything they say straight up.

But then the questions comes up again: when will you know you have all the information if the information you have doesn't match with your beliefs ?

Well that depends on the individual. But I would argue that in order to believe something other than the story. Your beliefs must be open to new information. If you simply believe something blindly ignoring evidence (including new information that may disprove a theory), surely you would only believe the official story in the first place?

So by their very nature, a conspiracy theorist is more likely to change their view based on the information they have at the time.

Om 9/11, if there was a reasonable explanation for the molten steel, the high temperatures for over a month, and the collapses of the buildings, then I'd be open to the official story. But, there is no reasonable attempt to explain these thing, and there is a coverup. If there was a real open discussion, that would be a good first step; but, there is no effort to prove these things.

How about this. What specific proof is there that a group called alqueda or osama bin laden were involved in the attack? Prove it.

If the government actually showed any actual sound evidence backing up what they claim. Unfortunately their supposed evidence is so shitty it leads people to other conclusions. Not to mention they have been caught lying non-stop. Eg. Hundreds of different camera angles at pentagon and they give us a couple frames that show nothing. Eg. They claim that the luagage, passengers, plane were all pretty much vaporized that hit wtc( by that I mean totally destroyed No parts lugauge, black box destroyed, etc. But they just happen to find a random passport unscorched which is their proof of who did it.( later proved by BBC. That half of supposed hijackers were still alive.) they say osama did it but never charged him with any crime related to 911. But the cherry on the top is no one can explain why there was large amounts of molten metal in the rubble of wtc. There is ablosutely nothing in the planes or buildings to burn hot enough to actually produce 3000 degree + temps. It's like saying your BBQ melted from the burning propane. And about a million other pieces of evidence. You see conspiracy theories don't just pop up because people are paranoid or bored. They are fact based. Usually the central fact is the government lied and is covering it up. This is easy to prove by there actions. What isn't easy to prove and why there is so many theories is why and how. But don't put people down for trying to keep the goby honest.

Sorry my spelling and senteces got garbled at the end. I'm typing on my iPod. Sorry.

The threshold of believing in a conspiracy is much less than to disprove it.

Strange disparity.

The level of evidence that is needed for a conspiracy theoriest to accept a conspiracy is a lot lower than the evidence that's needed to debunk them.

For conspiracy theorists, I highly doubt that they would be falsifiable because they usually choose to disregard every single FACT that doesn't support their "version" of how things went down, while at the same time, spouting mostly facts that are completely unbelievable or just downright crazy.

Most of the time, I think their logic is simply wrong also. You can tell that most of these people figure out the "story" first, and then develop their own pre-event factual scenario to justify their interpretation of what happened.

Edit: Why all the downvotes? I guess the truth hurts.

To be fair, this is how most people reason to begin with. Go have a debate with [nearly] anyone about [nearly] anything, and deconstruct their argument for a minute or so.

Also, think of conspiracy theorists as the counter to happy-go-lucky apologists who never think anything is wrong or serious. Sometimes they're right, but often times they're not. It's up to you to figure out which is the case.

Yup, this is why we're in the position we are as a civilization. Because people are generally sheep, regardless of their interest in conspiracies, pop-icons or other dieties.

Notice how quickly he got downvoted though? ;)

Pretty much. There's not a whole lot of options, from where I'm standing.

Also, anything that isn't written as dispassionately as a Wiki article gets downvoted here :P

So there is no conspiracy theory you will credit?

Edit: Why all the downvotes? I guess the truth hurts.

Because you've shaken the base their entire beliefs are based on, or otherwise yeah - the truth hurts.

Who is "their"? Who are "them"?

Don't subscribe to the 'conspiracy theory' slandering of the title.

The people who are downvoting him? who else?

Please provide some proof of your assertions. Or, at least, evidence.