ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

[Xorkoth]

The ideas have been pretty widespread ever since 9/11 happened. I've seen some compelling presentations... I wouldn't be too surprised to learn it was an inside job, but I don't claim to know one way or another. I've also seen compelling evidence against it.

 

[JessFR]

There's a lot of 9/11 stuff I've seen lately, like how WTC7 collapsed first etc, explosives yada yada. Do they count as alternative theories or have some actually now slipped over into the mainstream?

I would call them alternative. But conspiracy theories and "alternative beliefs" seem to be becoming increasingly mainstream thanks to the internet.

I find it kinda sad, It's pretty much indisputable that 9/11 was not an inside job if you both look at the evidence, but also far FAR more importantly, know how to interpret the evidence. The problem is most people don't know nearly enough science and how the human minds own biases work to interpret the evidence and know how to properly evaluate and challange conspiracy theories.

I also think there's a degree to which people feel more comforted by the idea that the evil government is behind it, than the sad truth that the government is so incompetent and poorly run that it failed to prevent such a destructive act of terrorism happening so easily.

Discussing 9/11 "truth" is almost impossible though. I completely understand why people believe it, why people become so convinced and so sure that they can't comprehend how anyone could see what they've seen and not come to the same conclusion. To them, the only explanation is that deniers must just not want to believe it so baddly that they ignore the obvious truth.

It's sad, cause a lot of believers in the 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't stupid. A lot of them are, but many are probably a little above average in intelligence. But they don't have the background knowledge in science and human psychological biases to interpret the evidence correctly and avoid making easily made mistakes in their evaluations.

9/11 was almost certainly not an inside job. But, in the EXTREMELY unlikely case that it were, it still went down the same way, there were still no explosives in the trade center, WTC7 still collapsed because of fires started in earlier collision.

While I find conspiracy theories very frustrating and frequently retarded, I do find it very interesting, and very sad, how people come to believe in such things. Honestly, I think of them more as victims than anything else. Victims of an autonomous phenomenon caused by this world of mass communication for which nobody is responsible for. Victims like victims of natural disastars.

 

[JGrimez]

um, just clear any preconceived assumptions and beliefs from your mind and watch this video:



What do YOU SEE?
Is this building engulfed in flames and fell uniformly because of office fires?
Or was that an obvious controlled demolition? (we've all seen how demolition experts bring down buildings - or watch some clips for a refresher)

The answer is painfully obvious but we are that dependent on what the authorities say, and so deathly afraid of delving into "alex jones territory" that we will delude ourselves to the point where we can honestly believe the official story regarding the collapse of Building 7.

Why do demolition experts even spend weeks rigging a building when we can just set it on fire and have it collapse so perfectly?

Also the fact that most Americans are not even aware that a third building fell down that day lends weight to them sweeping WTC7 under the rug.

Try a social experiment. Ask your friends (or better yet randoms) if they knew that a 3rd building fell on 9/11, or just show them that youtube video and ask them what they see (even better if they are educated in engineering or physics).

 

[JessFR]

I've already done this. I've already gone over EVVVVERRRYTHING several times.

This whole idea of "Look at it, it looks like a controlled demolition" means absolutely nothing. Because what you're comparing it too, how you imagine it should look if it were to collapse from failure of its structural supports caused by fires, is entirely made up. It's based entirely on your imagination of how you think it should look.

When I clear my mind of all preconceptions and watch the video, all I see is a building collapse. I don't see anything suspicious because once I remove any preconceptions, I no longer assume that I would know how a building collapsing from controlled demolition should look as opposed to how it should look if fires weakened its supports.

But I have already looked into it in depth, repeatedly. And my determination every time has been that the most likely, and indeed only plausible explanation, is that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist attack by islamists who had already made an attempt to destroy those very buildings only a decade prior.

And how many people know that WTC7 collapsed really doesn't matter. It's not a secret, we're talking about it now. People in general are extremely ignorant of just about everything. And it's hardly implausible that given the events of that day that WTC7 would be overshadowed by other events that were going on at the same time. Although my friends tend to fall into one of two categories, either conspiracy theorists like yourself (which is why I've ended up having to go over this to such an extent repeatedly), or they're fairly educated people, but not conspiracy theorists, most of which would know of WTC7 specifically because conspiracy theorists bring it up so much. But granted likely neither of those represent a fair average of the population.

Why do demolition experts even spend weeks rigging a building when we can just set it on fire and have it collapse so perfectly?

Because they don't just have to have it collapse eventually and with no concern as to where the debris ends up going. Controlled demolitions need to make sure that surrounding objects don't get hit by hot debris. Which is btw exactly what caused WTC7's fires in the first place. That the buildings were NOT controlled demolitions is WHY they caused so much surrounding damage.

Controlled implosion demolition has a lot more concerns than just making sure the building eventually collapses. And this idea that "it looks so perfect" is based on nothing more than peoples imaginations of how they think it should look, which is hardly a valid comparison.

 

[JGrimez]

So you're just saying that by chance, the building fell UNIFORMLY, because raging fires inside weakened the structure in such a way that it collapsed at seemingly free-fall speed into its own footprint.
You might as well be arguing for the existence of God. Because that was a fucking miracle.
Even if your fantastical theory was true it would have fell in a lopsided fashion.
The reason why some people won't admit the obvious is because that will lead to some very uncomfortable questions (i.e. now you're literally Alex Jones).
You can objectively analyze an event without being a conspiracy theorist.
Refusing to state that it even looks exactly like a controlled demolition is suss.

This is also only one suspicious part of the entire thread of 9/11. If you deny that the government was at least complicit then you haven't done enough research or you're being dishonest.

-WTC 1+2, in the lobbies, there were secondary explosions, it's on video and there's multiple police & firefighter reports of this. The towers shouldn't have dropped from the plane impacts alone.

-If you've researched it then how do you explain the testimony of Norman Mineta?

-The US has the most expensive military in the world. How in the hell, after 2 planes hit the WTC towers, would a 3rd plane be allowed to hit the Pentagon?

-Four Israelis were arrested that morning. The camera they had on them was developed and there were pictures of them celebrating the first plane impact, high-fiving, flicking lighters and smiling. I read the police report. There are other government reports at the time sending out a warning that Israelis posing as art students were infiltrating secure govt agencies and employees' homes. There were art students that had access to the WTC towers. These guys also had a sock full of cash and each had plane tickets to separate locations leaving that day.

This is the reaction of a demolitions expert who saw it for the first time:

 

[Xorkoth]

I think what Jess is saying is, have you ever seen a skyscraper collapse when you knew 100% for sure that it was a controlled demolition? have you ever seen one collapse when you knew 100% for sure it was because of structural fires? I'm guessing not, so going by what you see, when you don't actually know what it looks like, it a logical fallacy.

And for the record, I don't know what to believe about 9/11, I just wanted to try to clarify what I believe Jess meant by her post.

 

[JGrimez]

I think what Jess is saying is, have you ever seen a skyscraper collapse when you knew 100% for sure that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, many times

One that collapsed from fire (a lot of fire)

Grenfell Tower after burning all night

This is WTC7 - one hour before it collapsed:

Yes there were some serious fires.
However updated research from 2017, after a two-year computer modeling study of the collapse of WTC 7 found that the building did not collapse from fires.
This Doctor of Structural Engineering does not say that it was a controlled demolition - but he does scientifically prove that the building DID NOT collapse from fire.

 

[invegauser]

So you're just saying that by chance, the building fell UNIFORMLY

yes

 

[JessFR]

It's not by chance, this idea that it shouldn't fall uniformly is nothing more than an assumption. Once the structural support weaks enough that even a single floor starts to collapse, gravity and interia will take down the rest. You can't just make up an imagined "this is what I bet it should look like" and just take it as a fact that that's true. You gotta compare it with the reality of how you'd expect the building to collapse in the claimed circumstances. Your assertion that it should have fallen lopsided is nothing but an assumption. And as for it falling free fall. Strictly speaking that's not free fall speed, but I'm gonna assume you're speaking generally not literally. In which case, it's absolutely falling as fast as you'd expect gravity to collapse a structure that's largely hollow inside once the supports fail and momentum destroys the rest.

Also, just a rule here... not a bluelight rule, a personal rule of my own as an individual. I personally am not gonna watch an hour and a half long youtube video. If you wanna make the points the video makes with the videos sources, that's fine I'll respond to that, but I've made it as a rule for myself that i've already sat through more conspiracy videos than I'd have liked to for one life time. I can't argue with a video. I can argue with you. And I don't think it's asking much that you make your points yourself. If you wanna use youtube videos to work out those points, that's fine, if you wanna reuse their sources, that's fine. But just displaying a video on youtube is just passing off the argument to someone else who can't respond to my retorts is not something I'm gonna do.

Youtube videos in and of themselves aren't a source.

EDIT: Actually just to clarify something, the reason I won't watch the youtube videos is because first, they tend to be quite long, and second, it's basically an information flood where i'm expected to go point by point over everything that it discusses, which is a massive undertaking not a great approach to debate. It's much better to resolve each point one at a time rather than trying to do them ALL at once. And also, I've seen many instances in the past where once something in one of these videos is conclusively debunked, in the rare occasion the theorist accepts that, they then just say "Oh well that video wasn't that great, BUT TRY THIS ONE" and we start all over again.

Since the reasons are basically time and the amount of information presented at once time, I'm not saying I won't watch short youtube videos of say, under 15 minutes. I don't have a problem in that instance.

 

[JGrimez]

It's not by chance, this idea that it shouldn't fall uniformly is nothing more than an assumption.

It's actually physics and common sense. The reason we have demolition experts, who spend weeks if not months planning and rigging an implosion, is because shit doesn't fall uniformly on its own.
It just doesn't happen like that, even if the entire building was engulfed in flames and burning for an extended period (which is not what happened).
Even with structural damage the chances of it falling uniformly at that speed is basically zero.

Once the structural support weaks enough that even a single floor starts to collapse, gravity and interia will take down the rest.

I'm actually flabbergasted that you will claim that uncontrolled fires weakened all the separate structural supports at the exact same intensity. Again, where was Jesus?
And who designed this fucking building??

Also, just a rule here... not a bluelight rule, a personal rule of my own as an individual. I personally am not gonna watch an hour and a half long youtube video. If you wanna make the points the video makes with the videos sources, that's fine I'll respond to that, but I've made it as a rule for myself that i've already sat through more conspiracy videos than I'd have liked to for one life time.

I love how you call scientific evidence presented by a Doctor of Structural Engineering at a university - a "conspiracy video" WTF does that even mean?
Any logical argument that contradicts an illogical government narrative is a conspiracy video?
Anything that you cannot explain or that doesn't fit with your worldview you instinctively label "conspiracy" - even though conspiracies exist, conspiracy is a crime and the CIA invented that term to trick people like yourself. You don't make much sense when you continuously throw out that blanket statement, or talk about how you have "conspiracy theory" friends, as if that takes away from my well-researched arguments. If you were actually constantly debunking people that offer alternative theories - I'd expect you to be much better at it (i.e. minus the insults, ad homs and armchair psychoanalysis of someone you don't know).

Youtube videos in and of themselves aren't a source.

Thanks for that obvious explanation.
Youtube is a site where anyone can upload any video, even news reports or scientific evidence!

I'm not saying I won't watch short youtube videos of say, under 15 minutes. I don't have a problem in that instance.

You're right that not many people have time to watch entire videos of lectures (especially when it debunks their theories), and there is a lot of information contained in this one.
I'll summarize it for you since this is an updated investigation:

WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.

Of course it's your choice not to watch it and subsequently debunk it (I doubt that you could anyway as you're not a structural engineer), but maybe you should heed some of your own advice and accept scientific evidence when it's in front of you. The Dr goes into extreme detail regarding how the building was built, the architectural plan, the structural integrity, the amount of fire that was involved, and what would be required for a building like that to fall as it did on video. And fire is not adequate enough, OBVIOUSLY.

 

[JGrimez]

Also if you clicked the link you'd see further information:

Institute of Northern Engineering - A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

WTC 7 Evaluation

Here's a short 2 min intro:

Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:

To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building?s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey
Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks

 

[JessFR]

I looked into the video.

Am I right in saying that this is nothing more than the promise of a study... A promise made years ago and still hasn't resulted in anything?

Cause if so, man, I'm pissed. Because if that's the case, you wanted me to watch an hour and a half long promise made years ago of the possibility of a study that still hasn't resulted in anything. WTF kind of proof of anything is that? Even if it had, it might have come to the same conclusions, and if it hadn't, it still might have come to different conclusions that STILL ruled out controlled demolition.

And I haven't even gone into the strong evidence of outright factual errors in what exists of the presentation. Specifically how what it claims the official conclusions were actually wasn't what the official conclusions were.

This is why I dismiss these videos out of hand now without watching even a second of it. Cause every time I give them a chance I get burned for it.

Man, just forget it, I believe you're brainwashed, you believe I'm brainwashed. Both of us think the other is so caught up in a world view that completely distorts critical thinking.

One of us is right. Let's leave it at that. Cause, iunno maybe you could enjoy talking about conspiracy theories until the end of time, but I've already spent far more time on it than I think it was ever worth.

 

[invegauser]

^ agreed. more time washing the brain and less time being brain washed.

clean brains leads to a healthy, happy life and better opinions.

 

[JessFR]

Thing is, I frustratingly know a lot of conspiracy theorists in my real life. I've seen em spend hours every night watching videos on YouTube for hours, seen exactly how they come to their conclusions and been asked (and against better judgement agreed) to watch their evidence.

The problem is a couple different things...

One is that the ability to critically analyze things and protect yourself against arguments that seem airtight but are actually manipulative distorted, doesn't actually come naturally. A very small number of people have a talent for critical thinking, but even they can be manipulated so easily if they haven't taken a lot of time learning all the flaws in the human mind that make it vulnerable to manipulation.

The next is that the mind is so vulnerable at all. And it is. There's a whole industry dedicated to exploiting its flaws called advertising. Getting you to think things are true implicitly without too much questioning.

And the third and undoubtedly worst of all, is that YouTube and the internet has resulted in a system much like biological evolution, where the strongest most powerfully brainwashy videos rise to the top and continually grow more powerful.

Nobody's in charge of it, it runs itself, and so the most seemingly radical, novel and interesting ideas rise to the top.

So I get it, I don't think most conspiracy theorists are stupid. I knew a guy, we used to use together before I got clean. He virtually self sabotaged for a while because he truly came to believe the world was ending in a couple weeks.

And he's not dumb, I've known him for years, and he might not exactly be a genius, but he's not stupid. But you don't have to be.

So I don't hate conspiracy theorists and I don't think they're idiots. Worse I think a lot of them are a little above average in intelligence. It's worse because it means they realize they're smarter than a lot of people and underestimate their own capacity for mistake. And it helps rationalize for them how so many others could be blind to what seems so undeniable to them.

The human mind SUCKS at objectivity and its utterly awful at determining probability. Which is why scientists spend so much time learning just how to think, and then after that still keep themselves away from influencing the data as much as possible.

 

[invegauser]

^ agreed.

i could tell that by reading your older posts when i first joined up here. nice to get the details though.

it's almost to the point scientists aren't worth their salt anymore and conspiracy theorists are a new classification of mental illness.

strange how we let things go by the way side and they end up turning into something they are not. i hold out hope that a small breathing period is what's going on and scientists resume right where they left off with more vigor and renewed passion that might lead to them finalizing some original understandings, attacking new ones with newer perspectives and don't let industry bully them around anymore.

it would be a shame to see science go the way of religion. they are a good counter balance to each other in this life.

 

[JessFR]

I don't really see science and religion as counter balancing each other. I think religion counter balances itself through all the different religions plus atheism (if you don't consider that also a religion which personally I don't).

It's started to be seen that way, especially by religion itself, but there was a time when religion and science were a lot less hostile to each other.

The big bang theory as I recall was originally developed by a Christian. Which unsurprisingly resulted in a lot of initial distrust by the wider scientific community, who naturally thought to itself "well of course a Christian scientist would think the universe just went from not existing one day to existing the next, just like it says in Genesis."

But that's the wonderful thing about science, if your argument has real evidence behind it, it tends to get adopted by the community. Even if it initially seems hard to believe.

 

[invegauser]

i see science and religion the same way you see religion. i also see both as you see science. again Jess... you bring up good points.

i think they are a good balance because religion teaches you to be humble and mindful among other things where science teaches you to be logical and pushing the limits of what you know among other things.

they are not the only tools in this life but they are a solid foundation when used in moderation and balance to each other. just like experience and society in balance and moderation. getting all 4 to be in moderation and balance is tough in today's world but i'm not a materialistic girl, i'm only living in a materialistic world.

 

[JGrimez]

One is that the ability to critically analyze things

If you watch the WTC7 controlled demolition and believe that a building would fall in that fashion (straight down) from fire, it is yourself that need to work on their critical thinking skills.
Most other "conspiracy theories" can be plausibly explained away, but this was on video so there's no denying it.... unless you allow your mind to go into the same type of denial that your project onto the "conspiracy theorists".

Worse I think a lot of them are a little above average in intelligence. It's worse because it means they realize they're smarter than a lot of people and underestimate their own capacity for mistake. And it helps rationalize for them how so many others could be blind to what seems so undeniable to them.

You should listen to the ones that are smarter than you.

You've also gone on this rant about a dozen times before - armchair psychoanalysis of all conspiracy theorists, and then insinuating why you know better than them, or that your mind operates on a superior level. It's sad. You won't even recognize how and why the CIA created the term "conspiracy theory" after I've factually proven it's origin. It's your defense mechanism against things that you can't explain and your dependency on the illusion of authorities keeping you safe.