Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

[Ron Mexico]

I don't have a lot of time to give a thorough response right now, but one thing worth noting is if you think it's the opinion of one or two experts compared to that of hundreds, then your apparent grasp on the conspiracy is poor.
Put it this way, if someone put a gun to my head and said, based off what 100% actually happened, and said was it a missile or a plane that hit the Pentagon and if you choose wrong, you die - I'd be nervous as hell.
There are so many things that don't add up with 9/11 and substantial evidence, witnesses, expert opinions and science that support a conspiracy as much as it being just a terrorist attack. Like I said before, I used to make fun of 9/11 conspirators, but after doing research, I'd be lying to myself if I thought it was just a clear cut terrorist attack.

Fair enough. I think the evidence is pretty solid but I understand where the conspiracies from. I also understand the rabbit hole of info with the conspiracy theories are, especially this one. I feel confident in saying a plane hit the Pentagon based on the evidence from good sources.

 

[franklin]

Fair enough. I think the evidence is pretty solid but I understand where the conspiracies from. I also understand the rabbit hole of info with the conspiracy theories are, especially this one. I feel confident in saying a plane hit the Pentagon based on the evidence from good sources.

You mean like all the video evidence, including evidence from a local camera? Or all the debris from the plane all over the ground? Or the airplane sized hole in the side of the Pentagon? Or that our missile defense systems and radar systems don't have any evidence of a missile? Or that the first responders have not come forward with a claim of a missile?

I walked down this avenue when I was young and dumb. I mentioned something about 9/11 could have been a conspiracy to a guy and his response [paraphrased] was "you know, I've worked for government for a long time and I can tell you it is too inept to pull something like this off. For one thing, you'd have to have so many people in on the conspiracy that it would be impossible to cover up.".

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't have a lot of time to give a thorough response right now, but one thing worth noting is if you think it's the opinion of one or two experts compared to that of hundreds, then your apparent grasp on the conspiracy is poor.
Put it this way, if someone put a gun to my head and said, based off what 100% actually happened, and said was it a missile or a plane that hit the Pentagon and if you choose wrong, you die - I'd be nervous as hell.
There are so many things that don't add up with 9/11 and substantial evidence, witnesses, expert opinions and science that support a conspiracy as much as it being just a terrorist attack. Like I said before, I used to make fun of 9/11 conspirators, but after doing research, I'd be lying to myself if I thought it was just a clear cut terrorist attack.

I would confidently say "it was an airplane and it was a terrorist attack, now pull the trigger if I am wrong", and then I would expect the person to walk away with their head held low for hoping I would guess wrong. But regardless he would walk away because that was the truth of it. No doubt whatsoever, not even a glimmer.

For me the gorilla in the room on this one is the missing plane. Where did it go, if it did not crash into the Pentagon? Can we show a systematic disabling of all air traffic control systems in the country to facilitate it going elsewhere? Can we show that there was suspicious activity at another airport where it may have landed, after which, what, all several hundred people on board were either silenced or paid off or, what exactly? Or was there another crash site that was used to "dispose" of the plane? Seriously what happened to it? So in the interest of being fair I spent a good hour last night googling this exact thing and you know what I found? Crickets. In fact from most conspiracy sites I visited their theories centered around the supposedly "fake" passenger lists, which were thoroughly debunked. The idea that these were "staged" planes is also silly because the whole premise of the specific conspiracy at the Pentagon was that NO PLANE struck it, but if the plane was staged or faked then it could have been simply loaded with explosives and then flown into the Pentagon without all the rigamarole of how you hide BOTH a gigantic plane full of people AND cover up a missile attack instead of a plane. Here are a couple places where this is discussed:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-9-11-flight-77-suspicious-passenger-list.t1329/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/#7f1d5531be3b

Here is a breakdown of that flight and talks about some of the known phone calls from the passengers to loved ones. How did they fake all of these?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...bb5-b1f7-00cc8c37b75e/?utm_term=.a61d94a9023e

And this last one also details what was seen from air traffic control. There is no question the plane was in DC, that it was headed toward the Pentagon when it disappeared from radar view as it flew too low, but no one noticed a plane suddenly ascending from an area where planes NEVER fly this low? No one saw that? It would strike me as a prime candidate for eye witnesses but I couldn't find anything where they talked to people who said something like "yeah I was walking about a mile from the Pentagon and saw this plane right overhead and suddenly it just turned and flew off in another direction and then after it did that there was this explosion at the pentagon". But there ARE eyewitnesses that saw a plane flying like that then seeing an explosion at the pentagon. What is more likely, that what they saw, which fit exactly what air traffic control said was a plane, was actually a missile and that the plane that ATC was tracking just, what vanished? at exactly the same time?

Again, Occam's razor comes into sharp focus. The depth and complexity required for this to hold any water at all is just beyond imagination. And remember, the missing plane is just one aspect. There are literally THOUSANDS of equally complex aspects that would have to be carefully controlled and that would require, in the end, literally THOUSANDS of people remaining quiet or being quieted and if Julian Assange has proven anything it is that people notoriously do NOT remain quiet regardless of the incentives.

I respect you a lot Arch but this is just a lost cause. There was no conspiracy. It went down as we all know it did. There is just no way this was faked. It is far more likely that they faked the moon landing AND every single rocket/satellite launch since, as those crowds and groups would be less random, less public, and easier to control.

The tough thing is that once someone gets caught in the conspiracy web, it is all but impossible to get out. It is like buying a new car. Before you bought it you hardly ever noticed them, then after you buy it, you see them everywhere and are amazed you never noticed them before. Does it make the conspiracies more valid? No it doesn't. But it does make it VERY VERY hard to shake.

 

[Gameface]

There is no possibility of that plane not hitting the Pentagon unless thousands of people who have worked their regular middle class jobs for years and years all decided that they wanted to participate in the U.S. government attacking itself and killing civilian men women and children as well as military service members.

And if the Pentagon is fake then the WTC attacks are fake. And now were talking at a minimum 10s of thousands of regular people have to be liars. They all have to be pretty cool with the idea that the U.S. government attacked the Pentagon, destroyed two sky scrapers in the middle of New York full of people.

The only way to believe that is to just use the concept of "they" and since no one really knows who "they" are then "they" can do almost anything, have nearly magical powers... yet can't figure out how to silence all the internet sleuths who have them figured out.

 

[Rubashov]

There is no possibility of that plane not hitting the Pentagon unless thousands of people who have worked their regular middle class jobs for years and years all decided that they wanted to participate in the U.S. government attacking itself and killing civilian men women and children as well as military service members.

And if the Pentagon is fake then the WTC attacks are fake. And now were talking at a minimum 10s of thousands of regular people have to be liars. They all have to be pretty cool with the idea that the U.S. government attacked the Pentagon, destroyed two sky scrapers in the middle of New York full of people.

The only way to believe that is to just use the concept of "they" and since no one really knows who "they" are then "they" can do almost anything, have nearly magical powers... yet can't figure out how to silence all the internet sleuths who have them figured out.

Logic will not work here, maybe it was aliens? Or Scientologists working with aliens?

 

[Archie Moses]

Logic will not work here, maybe it was aliens? Or Scientologists working with aliens?

Logic and science.
"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per-
suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching impli-
cations, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hDjMQFgg2MAM&usg=AOvVaw0BatGIAz6HFxH989ui7bT8

I like and value these guy's opinions more than the average Joe's.

 

[candrew]

And if the Pentagon is fake then the WTC attacks are fake. And now were talking at a minimum 10s of thousands of regular people have to be liars. They all have to be pretty cool with the idea that the U.S. government attacked the Pentagon, destroyed two sky scrapers in the middle of New York full of people.

I love the controlled demolition theory that still to this day resonates with people.

I worked down the block from the World Trade Center for 2 years and commuted through it for 7 years. What many folks that have never been to NYC don't know is that the WTC was a huge transportation hub for the NYC Subway System and the NJ Path System. Literally hundreds of thousands of people commuted through the WTC on a weekly basis and the buildings had their own dedicated police force (The Port Authority). There was even a mall below the ground level - and on weekends the entire place was packed with tourists. And ever since that dumbass parked a rental car full of explosives in the basement of Tower 1 in 1993 - the cops were basically everywhere.

The idea that some shadowy group of whomevers disguised as construction workers rigged BOTH buildings with explosives is laughable.

 

[Rubashov]

I love the controlled demolition theory that still to this day resonates with people.

I worked down the block from the World Trade Center for 2 years and commuted through it for 7 years. What many folks that have never been to NYC don't know is that the WTC was a huge transportation hub for the NYC Subway System and the NJ Path System. Literally hundreds of thousands of people commuted through the WTC on a weekly basis and the buildings had their own dedicated police force (The Port Authority). There was even a mall below the ground level - and on weekends the entire place was packed with tourists. And ever since that dumbass parked a rental car full of explosives in the basement of Tower 1 in 1993 - the cops were basically everywhere.

The idea that some shadowy group of whomevers disguised as construction workers rigged BOTH buildings with explosives is laughable.

It was Tom Cruise and Xenu man, i saw it on the internet, a guy i used to hold down while they injected him with drugs that stopped his toaster talking to him told me all about it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Logic and science.
"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per-
suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching impli-
cations, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hDjMQFgg2MAM&usg=AOvVaw0BatGIAz6HFxH989ui7bT8

I like and value these guy's opinions more than the average Joe's.

Let's compare apples to apples. How many other skyscrapers built around the same time as the WTC with similar internal structure and fire retardant/suppression systems...now this part is even more important...THAT WERE STRUCK BY A FULLY-FUELED JETLINER AT HIGH SPEED then survived the impact and subsequent fire without collapsing? Otherwise it is not an apples to apples comparison. I am sure the WTC could have survived a normal fire driven by normal circumstances just fine, but this was anything but a normal circumstance.

Then add in the immense project to install and wire the explosives, which in an empty building with full access to the key points takes days of solid work, if not weeks in a building this size (also have you ever seen the control room for a controlled detonation like this? it isn't a small space, it is large), and again, the number of people that would have to be complicit and again Occam's razor asks which is more likely?

So the appeal to logic fails at least on the logic portion. Science? Again, show us an apples to apples comparison otherwise it is just a hypothesis with no way to test it, which is really just a theory, which isn't really science.

 

[franklin]

Logic and science.
"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per-
suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching impli-
cations, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hDjMQFgg2MAM&usg=AOvVaw0BatGIAz6HFxH989ui7bT8

I like and value these guy's opinions more than the average Joe's.

Ah, Steven Jones. I really liked the way BYU handled that crackpot by basically forcing him to quit instead of firing him, and also still giving him an unearned pension so his entire life wouldn't have been torn apart over this. I thought it was really classy of them. I've always wanted to hear what Dr. [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] has to say on that situation but he's too classy to comment on it in a public forum.

BTW, this is a semi-decent troll Archie, even though we all know it's going to end in your typical "I'm just messing with you guys" statement while everyone knows you really believe it.

 

[Archie Moses]

Let's compare apples to apples. How many other skyscrapers built around the same time as the WTC with similar internal structure and fire retardant/suppression systems...now this part is even more important...THAT WERE STRUCK BY A FULLY-FUELED JETLINER AT HIGH SPEED then survived the impact and subsequent fire without collapsing? Otherwise it is not an apples to apples comparison. I am sure the WTC could have survived a normal fire driven by normal circumstances just fine, but this was anything but a normal circumstance.

Then add in the immense project to install and wire the explosives, which in an empty building with full access to the key points takes days of solid work, if not weeks in a building this size (also have you ever seen the control room for a controlled detonation like this? it isn't a small space, it is large), and again, the number of people that would have to be complicit and again Occam's razor asks which is more likely?

So the appeal to logic fails at least on the logic portion. Science? Again, show us an apples to apples comparison otherwise it is just a hypothesis with no way to test it, which is really just a theory, which isn't really science.

Apples to apples. Ok.
Building 7 didn't have a plane flown into it, but it still fell.
https://goo.gl/images/NYuvzC

Thoughts?

 

[Archie Moses]

Ah, Steven Jones. I really liked the way BYU handled that crackpot by basically forcing him to quit instead of firing him, and also still giving him an unearned pension so his entire life wouldn't have been torn apart over this. I thought it was really classy of them. I've always wanted to hear what Dr. [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] has to say on that situation but he's too classy to comment on it in a public forum.

BTW, this is a semi-decent troll Archie, even though we all know it's going to end in your typical "I'm just messing with you guys" statement while everyone knows you really believe it.

I'm being completely sincere when I say I have too many doubts to simply believe it was just a terrorist attack. Could it have been and is it highly likely? Absolutely. I just see the other side of the argument too and can't deny tons and tons of valid counter arguments.

 

[LogGrad98]

Apples to apples. Ok.
Building 7 didn't have a plane flown into it, but it still fell.
https://goo.gl/images/NYuvzC

Thoughts?

Ok. How many instances of a similar building being completely engulfed in flames where no one responded to the fire and all fire suppression systems were inoperable, and no fire department was raining fire on it from the outside have occurred and resulted in the building surviving intact? In this case the fire raged, burning all available debris (office stuff is incredibly flamable, desks chairs, files, paper, wood, plastic, etc.), for HOURS with no fire department able to respond with water, and with the complete failure of the sprinkler system due to the damage to the city water supply lines. Any apples to apples comparisons there?

Here is one way it could have gone down, and they even admit in the article that it was unprecedented. But that is kind of a duh as the entire situation was unprecedented.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

 

[franklin]

I'm being completely sincere when I say I have too many doubts to simply believe it was just a terrorist attack. Could it have been and is it highly likely? Absolutely. I just see the other side of the argument too and can't deny tons and tons of valid counter arguments.

There isn't a single valid counter argument containing any remotely reasonable case. Thermate? Completely fabricated by Dr. Steven Jones. Not one scientist has been able to replicate his claims. The guy is an absolute shyster who hides behind pages of Appeal to Authority in order to dupe those who will fall for his stuff. Starting off with that in his papers, followed up by pages of elementary scientific principles, has no place in real science. It should be a big enough red flag to anyone.

 

[Archie Moses]

There isn't a single valid counter argument containing any remotely reasonable case. Thermate? Completely fabricated by Dr. Steven Jones. Not one scientist has been able to replicate his claims. The guy is an absolute shyster who hides behind pages of Appeal to Authority in order to dupe those who will fall for his stuff. Starting off with that in his papers, followed up by pages of elementary scientific principles, has no place in real science. It should be a big enough red flag to anyone.

I disagree. I'm not a scientist, but there are many scientists, engineers and military officials who support Jones and his theory. I'd be happy to provide you with their names, backgrounds and research articles they've written about 9/11. I know you're a smart guy (I think you're an engineer or something, right?) but how can one completely invalidate many scientists and engineers opinions on this? Obviously, if it were so clear cut, you wouldn't have so many credible people support such a bogus claim.

 

[Archie Moses]

Ok. How many instances of a similar building being completely engulfed in flames where no one responded to the fire and all fire suppression systems were inoperable, and no fire department was raining fire on it from the outside have occurred and resulted in the building surviving intact? In this case the fire raged, burning all available debris (office stuff is incredibly flamable, desks chairs, files, paper, wood, plastic, etc.), for HOURS with no fire department able to respond with water, and with the complete failure of the sprinkler system due to the damage to the city water supply lines. Any apples to apples comparisons there?

Here is one way it could have gone down, and they even admit in the article that it was unprecedented. But that is kind of a duh as the entire situation was unprecedented.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

Yes, all the fires were different although some burned a lot longer than building 7. That said, I can not produce an exact example of a building burning exactly like 7.

 

[fishonjazz]

Obviously, if it were so clear cut, you wouldn't have so many credible people support such a bogus claim.

Oooohhhhh, but why are so many credible people supporting the bogus claim? Maybe there is a conspiracy there too? Those people are being paid by the rockafellers to come up with alternate possibilities for what happened on 911 I bet. They know that the planes were responsible for 911 but are being paid by someone (maybe the leader of the new world order. Possibly aliens) to come up with a different account of what took down the towers.

So many layers. So many possibilities.

 

[Archie Moses]

Oooohhhhh, but why are so many credible people supporting the bogus claim? Maybe there is a conspiracy there too? Those people are being paid by the rockafellers to come up with alternate possibilities for what happened on 911 I bet. They know that the planes were responsible for 911 but are being paid by someone (maybe the leader of the new world order. Possibly aliens) to come up with a different account of what took down the towers.

So many layers. So many possibilities.

Except that conspiracy can not be backed up by anything credible. The 911 conspiracy can. Pretty simple. Dumb counter argument/point.

 

[fishonjazz]

Except that conspiracy can not be backed up by anything credible. The 911 conspiracy can. Pretty simple. Dumb counter argument/point.

So you are saying that scientists can't lie? That's an interesting theory.

 

[Archie Moses]

So you are saying that scientists can't lie? That's an interesting theory.

No, that's not what I said at all.