Exactly what I was thinking. :laughing:

The biggest problem with these 9/11 conspiracy theories is I don't think their proponents ever stop and think about how absurdly huge the scale of such a conspiracy would have to be. The Bush administration proved time and time again that they couldn't find their own asses with a flashlight, it's ridiculous to think they could orchestrate such an elaborate plot on such a truly massive scale, on such a public stage, with every last person involved keeping quiet about it. If they could pull something like that off, why couldn't they cover up the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq? It seems like a conspiracy surrounding that would be child's play by comparison.

^I agree Jans, it just sounds too elaborate and risky for anyone to attempt, I think.

Where do you get your info from? Like how do you know no boxes were recovered?

CNN.com - 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found - September 13, 2001

And even if they were/weren't, how strongly does that really support the conspiracy hypothesis? If it was a terrorist attack on America and these black boxes contained sensitive information pertaining to that, wouldn't you consider the possibility that FBI (or whatever) might be a bit secretive/protective with that as well?

Isn't it funny how conspiracy theorists are totally skeptical about so many pieces of information but completely credulous when it comes what some random dude on YouTube has to say?

It's funny, but it also makes perfect sense. Obviously, the youtube weirdos is the only group of people who are not the puppets of The Government / The Aliens / The Illuminati / The Great Cthulhu / Etc. :p:

The 9/11 Commision's Report says they weren't found. I understand wanting to keep them and not release them to the public, but denying their existance?
And how about building 7, that fell the same way as the other buildings, but was not struck by a plane?
How about the fact that the South tower, that was struck later and had smaller fires than the North towers, fell first?
How about the fact that steel-framed buildings have NEVER, before or after 9-11, fallen because of fire? And don't say the planes made them fall because they were standing for a while after the impact.

And the only explanation is that there's a conspiracy? Analyse your own reasoning here for a moment.

These are tall buildings being hit by planes and all the consequences of that. Is it really that unlikely that they would fall over? If you think "yes" is the answer, then what is it that makes you an expert? Are you an architect or engineer specializing in skyscrapers and security? As for which one falls first and how they fall, how the **** are people supposed to perfectly predict what happens when you hit a skyscraper with a plane? There are a million variables here, the most obvious ones being the size of the plane, the speed of impact, the structural integrity of the building and the location of impact and the force of the explosions and warmth of the following fire. Then there are thousands of other little factors which will add to the final conclusion, yet you somehow seem to know how this "should" have gone down.

There are some people who, when standing in an old empty house and getting a cold feeling down their backs think the immediate logical reason is that there's a ghost. Then there are some who realize that a more plausible explanation, though less fantastic, is that there's a draft coming from an open window somewhere. Conspiracy theorists usually strike me as the first kind. Don't you think there may be more logical reasons for the patterns of destruction?

You mentioned thermite earlier .. Check this out, a video which shows an alternative and perhaps more plausible explanation :



You have to realize some people strongly want the explanations to be sensational and the loudest of these are not critical thinkers. There will be an X amount of misinformation spread about this, but instead of being critical about it, you seem to accept everything and swallow it raw before analysing it first. At least, that's the impression I get.

Tore already addressed this with his link so I won't take it on

I do find it interesting, though, how every time I post a rebuttal to your points you move on to another topic rather than trying to prove what I say is wrong. Eventually your going to run out of points to fall back on.;)

Also, idiots like this are the reason I hate conspiracy theories so much:

That guy is so awful it hurts. Listening to him attempt to argue was as painful as watching the last fertile baby be murdered in a post apocalyptic world.

^It is pretty sad. A good point made by one of the debaters there is that yeah, one should ask questions, but when asking questions one should also look for answers and when you get those answers, you don't just ignore them.

The conspiracy theorists in that video argue that in 2001, you couldn't make a call from a commercial airplane. When they are told that according to experts and observational evidence, you in fact can make phone calls from commercial airplanes even back then, one of the conspiracy theorists response is simply "that's a lie". It illustrates beautifully how these conspiracy theorists are really the ones handpicking what they want to believe in or as the other guy in that debate might say, ignore the answers when they get them.

Stupid!