Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

9/11. Not interested in a debate here, but can we just have a quick show of hands?

663 replies

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 12/10/2015 12:36

I'm just interested in how many people around here are also highly skeptical of what we have been told about 9/11.

I'm really not after a debate (it would be long, involved, probably pointless and personally I have done this elsewhere), but I just wanted to see who is around.

It has very strong ongoing relevance for current world events.

Many thanks.

OP posts:
CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 11:58

"Top conspiracy researchers"....now there's a thing!

Anyway, I was asking Corbyn what s/he thought, not putting forward any specifics myself.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 12:15

When the towers fell I had no doubt it was because of the planes hitting them.

This, Culture, that you said earlier, interests me.
It's a very natural conclusion, after seeing two planes slam into two buildings. Especially when this belief is repeatedly reinforced.

But it doesn't, in my opinion, hold up to scrutiny, especially in the context of WTC7's very similar (unprecidented) collapse.

When we're told something as a default, as an "a priori", it is extremely difficult not to interpret everything in that light. People will consider a shorter line to be longer than a longer line if those around them convince them of it. If you are told from early on that there is a God who said certain things which are now on the pages of a holy book to be followed, and if all those around you also believe that, then that is what you will believe. We humans are not logical creatures. We are social, and our beliefs and opinions contextual. Understanding this is a powerful tool employed by politicians (and others with power) and their associated media.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 12:21

By the way, I think we are all (pretty much) subject to these influences. I see it happening in myself. It is seeing my own beliefs and opinions as contextual which helps me to realise that I do not know "the truth". I just don't think what we have been told is it, either.

pebbletime · 22/10/2015 12:39

"We don't know the whole truth about anything. What we hear is what the government want us to hear. If it's not in their interests for us to hear it then we won't."

^^ this. Said by BodenBiscuit

CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 12:43

It may well have been the natural conclusion when watching the awful awful events unfold. It is also the conclusion that I am confident to draw, a posteriori, from the evidence and facts related to what happened that day. You obviously disagree.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 12:45

Yes, Culture, we disagree on that bit. I can live harmoniously with that, though, and I've enjoyed "talking" with you on here.

pebbletime · 22/10/2015 12:58
CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 13:00

Every single one of us is out of our depth here, pebbletime!

pebbletime · 22/10/2015 13:19

Phew! Grin

CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 13:29

Hmm, well I didn't particularly enjoy being called unpleasant by you Corbyn, merely for disagreeing with you but there you go.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 13:42

OK, well I apologised for my specific mix-up about a comment I thought you hade made but hadn't, and I hope I have been clear throughout that I have absolutely no problem with being disagreed with. I myself have felt no animosity to you, Culture, and wish you all the best (as I generally do). But hey ho, each to their own.

GruntledOne · 22/10/2015 14:01

Do you think a third of Americans and a quarter of Germans are all nuts?

It totally depends on (1) the reliability of the statistics that tell us that those proportions of the relevant populations have differing views and (2) what those views are, since it is highly unlikely that each and every one of those with dissenting views hold identical views. Tell us precisely what their theories are and what is the evidence on which those views are based, and I'll tell you whether I think they're nuts.

GruntledOne · 22/10/2015 14:03

I'd say it's evidence (not brilliant quality evidence, but an indication) of the proportion of MNers who do not think we have been told the truth about 9/11.

No it isn't. It's only evidence of the self-selecting proportion of MNers who have chosen to reply to this thread, which is an absolutely minute proportion of MNers as a whole or even active MNers. In statistical terms it is totally meaningless.

nauticant · 22/10/2015 14:19

In statistical terms it is totally meaningless.

Nothing is insignificant to a conspiracy theorist. Unless it's something that goes against their conspiracy theory and then it's disinformation.

And suddenly, without intending to, I spontaneously become a luvvie.

GruntledOne · 22/10/2015 14:21

I really don't buy it about wtc7 collapsing in that way because of office combustibles.

Nor does anyone, because no-one thinks that is how or why it collapsed.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 14:32

"WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when it collapsed. This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

"WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."

"fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7"

Do you agree with this?

CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 16:32

The first of your quotes is easily verifiable, and surely uncontroversial.

The second quote is a brief comment about the building collapsing. It's not clear what is meant. Yes the building definitely collapsed. Yes it was definitely on fire. Did it "succumb to its fires", well nothing in the NIST report makes me think that there could be another cause.

Your third quote about fuel oil, well this seems a reasonable conclusion from the facts given in the investigation document eg about how much oil was recovered subsequently, where the fires were, the fact that the sprinklers were not working etc.

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 16:50

I'm just trying to understand Gruntled's point.

How is it that the fire is not officially deemed to be caused by office/building combustibles (as in something things that burn)?

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 16:51

Sorry, stray "something" there

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 16:53

Aargh, how is it that the building's collapse is not deemed to be due to this. Been a long day....

ProfessorDent · 23/10/2015 12:36

I remembering reading a site devoted to the idea that Paul McCartney died in 66 and a replacement was brought in.

Now, kind of obviously rubbish. I mean, the imposter would have to have the same voice, presumably same talent (though I think they made out that a backlog of Macca songs saw them through to the early 70s) and also a massive cover up by all the Beatle hangers on who would stand to make a fortune from revealing it.

But, you know, I almost started to believe it. It's when you appear to be up against someone who believes in the theory 100 per cent, so if you only don't believe it 99 per cent, they will have the edge, if you give them your time. What's more, the sheer weight of 'evidence', or rather the scale of it, and the sheer conviction behind it leads one to think, well, there must be something in it surely, or no one would go to all that trouble?

It is similar to how Trevor-Roper got hoodwinked by the fake Hitler diaries, as detailed in Robert Harris' excellent book Selling Hitler. He was presented with simply so much 'evidence' all together that it becomes persuasive in itself, you think, surely no hoaxer would go to such elaborate lengths?

nauticant · 23/10/2015 14:03

I think there's also a fair bit of this going on ProfessorDent:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

CorbynsTopButton · 23/10/2015 14:51

It's when you appear to be up against someone who believes in the theory 100 per cent, so if you only don't believe it 99 per cent, they will have the edge, if you give them your time. What's more, the sheer weight of 'evidence', or rather the scale of it, and the sheer conviction behind it leads one to think, well, there must be something in it

Yep. Precisely how the mainstream media works, too.

StanStreeson · 24/10/2015 21:07

Just in case anyone here has not yet peeked down the rabbit hole, l think that this thought provoking YouTube documentary gives a good introduction to potential scepticism about the official account of what happened on 9/11.

GruntledOne · 25/10/2015 00:40

The point of my earlier post was that Corbyns' use of the term "office combustibles" suggested that the official view was that the collapse was caused simply by fires in the sort of furnishings and equipment to be found in offices and that there was no precedent for this. However, the reality appears to be that this was a number of intense fires spread over several floors which were caused by intense heat from WTC1 and debris from there; and that after several hours of that intense heat the structural integrity of the frame was lost. It is idle to try to make anything of the fact that other office buildings haven't collapse in this way, because they have not experienced anything directly comparable.