January 18, 2008

Why Americans Have Swallowed an Official Conspiracy Theory More Full of Holes Than Swiss Cheese
posted by Scary Corn Imp 16 years ago
  • I'll bet he ran out of tin foil.
  • Scary Corn Imp: Your profile lists your last 5 posts, and three of them are 9-11 Conspiracy posts. Since threads last forever here on Monkeyfilter, you might want to consider adding new links to one of your existing threads instead of creating new ones.
  • I think we should give him a go, since 'conspiracy theories' have proven to be quite accurate, given the findings on the Gulf of Tonkin incident being faked to escalate the Vietnam war, a theory much derided by skeptics for years, and new information on the USS Liberty incident, which again favour the 'nutty' conspiracy theorists rather than the official historians.
  • I like how the blogger copied and pasted an entire excerpt from Michael Shermer, without understanding it. Man that is teh funny. The 9/11 truth movement is its own worst enemy. If there was something concrete to a real conspiracy, you would expect some of the explanations to converge. Evidence would point to some common theory. Instead they're diverging rapidly. I mean, mini-nukes? What the 9/11 truth movement lacks is evidence, plain and simple.
  • Really, do we NEED a conspiracy to know that this was a #$%@up?
  • Alert me when there's a theory with evidence to back it that answers all the "unanswered" questions.
  • I heart Mike Taibbi.
  • Mind if I give this whole business a shave with Occam's Razor? How could planes crashing into the Twin Towers bring them crashing down? I recall a Discovery Channel documentary made between the 1993 bombing and 9/11... It covered some construction problems they had with the buildings swaying too much in the wind due to their monolithic structure and what they did to shore them up... maybe that didn't make them more secure, just more stiff - and brittle. If there is a big 'secret' that hasn't been exposed, could it be that the towers were too easy to destroy? What about Building 7? I don't have the source in front of me, but I heard that a middle floor in the 47 story structure was used to store all the heating oil for the entire WTC complex of buildings. If that's true, all you need is a fire in there untouched by the normal fire suppression means (since electricity and water were cut off) and sooner or later, the building burns itself out and collapses into itself. Now, how did the fire start and get to the fuel storage? Good question, build a conspiracy around THAT. The Pentagon? We're talking about a building that was as well built and super-reinforced as the WTC was not. And a direct impact at full speed into such a strong building, not like the crashes you've seen, hitting the ground at an angle, the plane is much less an irresistible force than the pentagon is an immovable object. Ditto for the Pennsylvania crash site. Not enough debris? The plane most likely hit going straight down at maximum velocity. Now, how the pilot of the Pentagon plane was able to thread the needle and hit the building so close to the ground without scraping the ground... and the reports that the plane veered away from a course aiming toward Downtown DC (where the landmarks are less reinforced)... those things bother me. I'd rather we spent our time with the many many ends that are still loose rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, the way the Truthers (or as I call them Mythers) do. Want an easy conspiracy theory? The hijackers, most of them citizens of American Ally Saudi Arabia (as is Osama Bin Laden), were the end of a long chain of command that led back to the Bush/Cheney Administration. It really is the best explanation why we never "got" Bin Laden... because he was working for "US" all along. With a dozen layers of deniability in between. Do I believe that? No, but it sadly is plausible, which the whole "Loose Change" controlled explosion scenario simply is NOT.
  • Utter tinfoiler lunacy, wendell. Why, if such a Saudi-Bush admin. plot was even remotely pausible, instead of fighting terror all over the middle east, right now Bush would be calling them allies, furbishing them with weapons and dancing to their tune... now that would be just way too weird to even imagine.
  • The linked piece seems contradictory. To begin with, we're invited to consider whether the US provoked or deserved an attack by being aggressive and imperialistic. Then we're invited to believe that the attack in question actually came from the US government.