Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: Conspiracy Theories Debunked

  1. #11
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by underway View Post
    Wow! You do not have the facts. I was in the military for 9 years, and fed law enforcement for 9. You are completely off base. You need to understand a very simple fact about conspiracies: the bigger, the more people involved, it cannot be kept secret. No way, no how. This is one of the fundamental pieces of rational logic you can bring to bear whenever you hear of these things. Do you really think the JFK assassination was a govt conspiracy or cover up? Do you really think NYPD, FBI, ATF, FDNY are involved in bringing down the towers, or, covering up the so-called 'real cause' as you suggest? I can tell you from first hand experience that our govt agencies do not and cannot operate that way for the simple reason that there are too many people (hundreds at least) and too many dependencies to carry out any operation in total secrecy, let alone a conspiracy. Same thing with NASA and moon landing. You can forgoe debunking all the wild speculative 'theories' and simply focus on the basic fact of the way organizations and people operate. It is the reason why large criminal conspiracies always fall apart. Even the damn mafia can't hold together. Eventually, people talk, rat each other out, etc. True, small conspiracies of a few people may be able to keep the secret (a single bank embezzlement for example), but these are also narrow in scope. What you are talking about in all these cases is too large to be put together and acted upon and covered up. I know I won't convince you and you have the right to your opinion.
    I can show you two videos that will change your mind about JFK. Im not into the moon landing thing. No evidence. Mafia is never important to me in any discussion. They are irrelevant. Sorry if I dont conform to your predetermined view of believers in alternative theories on large news issues. Did you believe SiriusXM was going BK? Of course you didnt. You dont believe the media. I find it amusing people will believe what they want from the media, but not other things. When its convienent to their worldview, and makes them feel comfortable, then its ok. You trust Fox and CNN and Newsweek, and I just read eyewitness accounts, actual footage, and testimony of involved parties. Im sure Larry Silversein in uncredible to you then. You dont trust him. He lied to make himself APPEAR to be responsible. Ok, that makes sense. Many eyewitness accounts of what happened that day, and they dont agree. But all that IS IRRELEVANT to any point Ive made. I said i was able to prove specific things about certain events. If you want to lump facts into a nut jobs conspiracy theories, thats up to you. In my view, as I would see it, then you would be closed minded, in my opinion. If someone comes up to me and says, hey I have evidence that JFK was shot by 2 gunman, I would listen. You wouldnt. Difference between me and you. I want to know the truth. Your happy with accepted cultural responses.
    No one still has offered a reasonable rational explanation to the facts Ive presented to support their theory. So I guess Im right then. Saying its impossible because it would involve too many people is not an agruement. Thats denial. Your bringing up issues I didnt discuss. Im talking about Tower 7, not the NYFD, and NYPD.
    Last edited by relmor2003; 06-10-2009 at 12:24 PM.

  2. #12
    underway is offline
    Addict
    underway's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 521
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    I can show you two videos that will change your mind about JFK. Im not into the moon landing thing. No evidence. Mafia is never important to me in any discussion. They are irrelevant. Sorry if I dont conform to your predetermined view of believers in alternative theories on large news issues. Did you believe SiriusXM was going BK? Of course you didnt. You dont believe the media. I find it amusing people will believe what they want from the media, but not other things. When its convienent to their worldview, and makes them feel comfortable, then its ok. You trust Fox and CNN and Newsweek, and I just read eyewitness accounts, actual footage, and testimony of involved parties. Im sure Larry Silversein in uncredible to you then. You dont trust him. He lied to make himself APPEAR to be responsible. Ok, that makes sense. Many eyewitness accounts of what happened that day, and they dont agree. But all that IS IRRELEVANT to any point Ive made. I said i was able to prove specific things about certain events. If you want to lump facts into a nut jobs conspiracy theories, thats up to you. In my view, as I would see it, then you would be closed minded, in my opinion. If someone comes up to me and says, hey I have evidence that JFK was shot by 2 gunman, I would listen. You wouldnt. Difference between me and you. I want to know the truth. Your happy with accepted cultural responses.
    No one still has offered a reasonable rational explanation to the facts Ive presented to support their theory. So I guess Im right then. Saying its impossible because it would involve too many people is not an agruement. Thats denial. Your bringing up issues I didnt discuss. Im talking about Tower 7, not the NYFD, and NYPD.
    But...the NYFD, NYPD, and hundreds of other responders were all over that area. So, you are talking about them, even if unintentionally.
    As far as SIRI going BK......I'm not sure what you mean, but, yes, it certainly was a possible strategy for them, just like hundreds of businesses. Restructuring is done all the time. I bought a lot of shares once I heard Ergen and Malone were competing to bail them out. A risk for me and other investors, because if both of those 'white knights' walked away, BK would have happened, and common shares made worthless.
    I have seen many films/theories regarding JFK on many sides of the issue. All are inconclusive really, but, then I fall back to what I said earlier about conspiracies. You discount the mafia? Why is that? It's an example of a huge conspiracy, well documented. But, notice how hundreds of wise guys are jailed...why?...because there are too many involved to 'keep the secret'. When the mafia was formed it was to be very secret society. It quickly disintegrated as such because too many people brought into the conspiracy. This rule of human behavior is absolute. I don't have specific numbers to say, statistically, when a conspiracy grows too large to sustain secrecy. Is it between only 2 people, 3, 10, 20..I don't know. But, when it's into the hundreds, no way it remains secret. Personally, based on my law enforcement background, I'd say once you go beyond three 'trusted' people, there's little chance it will remain secret for very long.

  3. #13
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by underway View Post
    But...the NYFD, NYPD, and hundreds of other responders were all over that area. So, you are talking about them, even if unintentionally.
    As far as SIRI going BK......I'm not sure what you mean, but, yes, it certainly was a possible strategy for them, just like hundreds of businesses. Restructuring is done all the time. I bought a lot of shares once I heard Ergen and Malone were competing to bail them out. A risk for me and other investors, because if both of those 'white knights' walked away, BK would have happened, and common shares made worthless.
    I have seen many films/theories regarding JFK on many sides of the issue. All are inconclusive really, but, then I fall back to what I said earlier about conspiracies. You discount the mafia? Why is that? It's an example of a huge conspiracy, well documented. But, notice how hundreds of wise guys are jailed...why?...because there are too many involved to 'keep the secret'. When the mafia was formed it was to be very secret society. It quickly disintegrated as such because too many people brought into the conspiracy. This rule of human behavior is absolute. I don't have specific numbers to say, statistically, when a conspiracy grows too large to sustain secrecy. Is it between only 2 people, 3, 10, 20..I don't know. But, when it's into the hundreds, no way it remains secret. Personally, based on my law enforcement background, I'd say once you go beyond three 'trusted' people, there's little chance it will remain secret for very long.
    Thats whats cool. Its not a secret. All these things are public knowledge, if they wanted the information. Just have to know where to look. Yes, NYPD was telling people the building was coming down, prior to its collapse. So if you want to bring them in, as a courtesy I wasnt going to. But if you insist. Ok. let talk about the NYPD telling bystanders to get back, that the building was coming down. Trust me, you dont want to go deeper. For your worldviews sake, Id stop right now.
    Last edited by relmor2003; 06-10-2009 at 12:51 PM.

  4. #14
    underway is offline
    Addict
    underway's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 521
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    Thats whats cool. Its not a secret. All these things are public knowledge, if they wanted the information. Just have to know where to look. Yes, NYPD was telling people the building was coming down, prior to its collapse. So if you want to bring them in, as a courtesy I wasnt going to. But if you insist. Ok. let talk about the NYPD telling bystanders to get back, that the building was coming down. Trust me, you dont want to go deeper. For your worldviews sake, Id stop right now.
    ok, good idea.

  5. #15
    winagain35 is offline
    Enthusiast
    winagain35's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 190
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    Thats whats cool. Its not a secret. All these things are public knowledge, if they wanted the information. Just have to know where to look. Yes, NYPD was telling people the building was coming down, prior to its collapse. So if you want to bring them in, as a courtesy I wasnt going to. But if you insist. Ok. let talk about the NYPD telling bystanders to get back, that the building was coming down. Trust me, you dont want to go deeper. For your worldviews sake, Id stop right now.
    http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Larry_Silverstein

    Claim

    Controlled demolition was used to bring about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

    This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demolition of WTC 7.

    Fact

    Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.

    The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.

    "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

    His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.

    FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.

    FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:

    "I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]

    Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.
    Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street. [2]

    Here's another good site that debunks the conspiracy theories about 911
    http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

  6. #16
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by winagain35 View Post
    http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Larry_Silverstein

    Claim

    Controlled demolition was used to bring about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

    This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demolition of WTC 7.

    Fact

    Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.

    The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.

    "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

    His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.

    FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.

    FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:

    "I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]

    Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.
    Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street. [2]

    Here's another good site that debunks the conspiracy theories about 911
    http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
    1. Larry Silverstein would NEVER be allowed to make that call. The owner of the buidling? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    HILARIOUS!!! Keep it up, your funny. I needed that today.
    And you still didnt explain why it collapsed exactly as a demolition building would. Fire wasnt enough damage, as if a fire like that EVER caused a demolition style collapse. Your too funny. Only thing funnier in that piece is the biased journalism, and the "conspiracy theorists claim". They are the conspiracy theorists, to make me believe a small fire on the top floor caused that collapse. I dont care if the whole building was on fire, still not going to collapse like that. He gave the order to drop the building. And yes, it is a term used. For smaller buildings.... BALLHHAHAHAHAHHAAAA. They even admit its a term, yet is for "smaller buildings". Hilarious.Thanks for sharing. I believe it even MORE now. Funny how information used to debunk adds to it.

  7. #17
    winagain35 is offline
    Enthusiast
    winagain35's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 190
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    1. Larry Silverstein would NEVER be allowed to make that call. The owner of the buidling? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    HILARIOUS!!! Keep it up, your funny. I needed that today.
    And you still didnt explain why it collapsed exactly as a demolition building would. Fire wasnt enough damage, as if a fire like that EVER caused a demolition style collapse. Your too funny. Only thing funnier in that piece is the biased journalism, and the "conspiracy theorists claim". They are the conspiracy theorists, to make me believe a small fire on the top floor caused that collapse. I dont care if the whole building was on fire, still not going to collapse like that. He gave the order to drop the building. And yes, it is a term used. For smaller buildings.... BALLHHAHAHAHAHHAAAA. They even admit its a term, yet is for "smaller buildings". Hilarious.Thanks for sharing. I believe it even MORE now. Funny how information used to debunk adds to it.
    Silverstein's Quote:

    "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

    -Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

    -Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

    Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

    "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

    He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

    "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...2_WTC_GRAPHIC/
    Banaciski_Richard.txt

    Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

    "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...2_WTC_GRAPHIC/
    Nigro_Daniel.txt

    "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

  8. #18
    winagain35 is offline
    Enthusiast
    winagain35's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 190
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    1. Larry Silverstein would NEVER be allowed to make that call. The owner of the buidling? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    HILARIOUS!!! Keep it up, your funny. I needed that today.
    And you still didnt explain why it collapsed exactly as a demolition building would. Fire wasnt enough damage, as if a fire like that EVER caused a demolition style collapse. Your too funny. Only thing funnier in that piece is the biased journalism, and the "conspiracy theorists claim". They are the conspiracy theorists, to make me believe a small fire on the top floor caused that collapse. I dont care if the whole building was on fire, still not going to collapse like that. He gave the order to drop the building. And yes, it is a term used. For smaller buildings.... BALLHHAHAHAHAHHAAAA. They even admit its a term, yet is for "smaller buildings". Hilarious.Thanks for sharing. I believe it even MORE now. Funny how information used to debunk adds to it.
    Relmer,
    You're the one who brought up the Silverstein quote - I simply supplied an alternate explanation to your claim using facts. I thought that's what you asked for.
    You say that if someone came up to you and said they had proof that there were two gunmen in the JFK assasination you said you would listen. I would too! But would you also listen if someone said they had proof that Oswald acted alone? It seems like you're the one with a closed mind.

  9. #19
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    1. Larry Silverstein would NEVER be allowed to make that call. The owner of the buidling? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    HILARIOUS!!! Keep it up, your funny. I needed that today.
    And you still didnt explain why it collapsed exactly as a demolition building would. Fire wasnt enough damage, as if a fire like that EVER caused a demolition style collapse. Your too funny. Only thing funnier in that piece is the biased journalism, and the "conspiracy theorists claim". They are the conspiracy theorists, to make me believe a small fire on the top floor caused that collapse. I dont care if the whole building was on fire, still not going to collapse like that. He gave the order to drop the building. And yes, it is a term used. For smaller buildings.... BALLHHAHAHAHAHHAAAA. They even admit its a term, yet is for "smaller buildings". Hilarious.Thanks for sharing. I believe it even MORE now. Funny how information used to debunk adds to it.


    First of all, winagain35 thanks, you you must have seen the same special. You saved me alot of typing.



    relmor you are a nut job, buildings are designed to collapse in that way, buildings dont fall over like trees unless they are design very poorly (some still around in third world counties). Next it was not only the fire that did it the fire surpression system would have been able to take care of that. The problem is, that was distroyed along with much of the supporting members. The fire resistant beams (beams covered in fire resistant material) were never meant to take that much heat for so long because the sprinklers were there to put it out by that time. So when the beams gave way due to heat on the damaged floors the floors below were never meant to take that much weight/force coming down on them at one time which then created a chain reaction of force that got greater with each floor that went simple physics. You remind me of the same people that think the moon landings were faked. Like I said every item of the conspiracy theorist were debunked in that 2 hour special.

  10. #20
    underway is offline
    Addict
    underway's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 521
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    First of all, winagain35 thanks, you you must have seen the same special. You saved me alot of typing.



    relmor you are a nut job, buildings are designed to collapse in that way, buildings dont fall over like trees unless they are design very poorly (some still around in third world counties). Next it was not only the fire that did it the fire surpression system would have been able to take care of that. The problem is, that was distroyed along with much of the supporting members. The fire resistant beams (beams covered in fire resistant material) were never meant to take that much heat for so long because the sprinklers were there to put it out by that time. So when the beams gave way due to heat on the damaged floors the floors below were never meant to take that much weight/force coming down on them at one time which then created a chain reaction of force that got greater with each floor that went simple physics. You remind me of the same people that think the moon landings were faked. Like I said every item of the conspiracy theorist were debunked in that 2 hour special.
    Conspiracy theorists refuse to listen. It's an interesting paradox, of course. They always charge those with the other point of view with being myopic, but it's interesting that for some reason, they always give credibility to a bunch of people who they do not know, simply because they put together a string of so-called 'facts' that are counter to mainstream thinking. And, they similarly reject the facts presented by the mainstream. Why? These folks thirst for the counter-culture conspiracy, almost in any area they can think of. They have a fundamental need to mistrust gov't, and look for groups and people to blame for everything. Stuff never just happens. There's always a sinister conspiracy behind events, and when there are obvious culprits, they ignore them and find the hidden bad guys to blame that better fit their own agenda. It's a similar mindset with many of society's 'professional' protestors, who show up at as many counter-culture events as possible. Nothing wrong with protesting and exercising right of dissent and free speech. But, what I find interesting is how these counter culture folks find each other and latch on to the 'cause de jour'. It's a psychological phenomenon......there are those in society who find it uplifting and motivating to find causes which stir the pot. I suppose that's good in some cases where the pot needs some stirring. But, when it comes to credibility, when you see the same names and faces at rallies, on TV, and such that are totally unrelated, other than anti-establishment, they lose credibility....at least with me.

    sorry...forgot to ask a basic question: what is behind this conspiracy surrounding the collapse of 7 World Trade? What's behind this plot? Are they saying the 9/11 hijackers were part of a plan hatched in the US, and somehow some co-conspirators on the ground brought down 7 World Trade, and that owner Larry Silverstein was part of this plot? I don't get it.
    Last edited by underway; 06-10-2009 at 03:41 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •