Another conspiracy theory?

If there is any chance of being true, what then would hit the twin? For what purpose?
Excuse for a war against Iraq? Burning files?

How easily disprove this theory?

'The debris of the collapse shouldnt have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including three engine colors Approximately weighing 9000 pounds apiece Which Could Not Have Been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of These massive structural components Either from 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible. '

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

I watched the second one hit the second tower live so believe me it was two hijacked airplanes. No conspiracy my friend.

John Lear is a regular guest on AM Coast to Coast. Which is stack packed with kooks and conspiracy nuts. This website the link goes to is telling those same stories and serves them up as 'facts'. If it quacks like a duck...

If jet fuel burns hot enough to melt girder steel then it burns hot enough to melt aircraft aluminum.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melti ... d_860.html

Won't reveal his name but I know someone who believes they used holographic projectors to project the planes hitting into the towers. I respect the guy too much to tell him he's delusional, but......

So that's what I saw?

I'll tell him for you.

Yeah; you would tattle-tale on me aye Molly? lolol

yup, cuz that issue has been over with and solved and too painful to rehash. Just my opinion

Conspiracy theories like this will always flourish in some parts of the internet. For most to work you must have a very naive view of the world and people's ability to keep their mouths shut. A classic example I get a lot is that "scientists" all are conspiring to hide things. I've seriously gotten questions by people who seem to honestly believe that I do know "the truth" about UFOs except I cannot tell. What they fail to realize is that "scientists" are per definition curious, investigative, competitive and non-conformant to authority. That is sort of the hallmark of a scientist you know. If any of us had actual proof (you know, the proof that can be verified by other scientists), there would be a race to be the first to publish that and probably earn multiple Noblel prizes.

Conspiracy theories can be surprisingly durable. From those denying the holocaust to those doubting the US ever landing on the moon. As an astronomer I still get questions about the latter now and then. I once visited the website of the guy who came up with the idea (yes it's basically one guy). He's still making a dime appearing in talkshows and various "mystery" TV shows. These days he claims NASA's rovers are hiding a Martian civilisation. He has toned down his Moon-landing stuff but are suggesting they are also hiding massive moon structures (domes on the moone). The fact that independent sattelites have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites or that you can perfectly well study the moon yourself with even a small telescope nonwithstanding.

The fun thing is that his "proof", at least for the moon structures, are low-resolution jpegs from the landings. He literally picks out and looks for patterns in jpeg artifacts. I kid you not. And those already believing are just eating it up. Sad thing, but if people's standards of proof are that low I'm surprised they don't believe in faeries and unicorns too.
.
Griatch

I was living in NYC at that time and it was crazy. When the whole thing began, I thought to myself that the towers would be fine. What actually happened was not part of what I thought was going to happen. Total collapse was not part of what I was thinking. I was there and the entire thing felt like a dream.

Assume you can hold two positions (beliefs) about a certain event. One position is supported by factual evidence from multiple sources whereas the other is just something you "feel" is right. In that case the two beliefs are not created equal and should not be treated as such.
.
Griatch

Of all the things that can be questioned in regards to the events surrounding 9/11, the fact that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings is indisputable.

The question as to whether planes were flown into the WTC is what I would classify as "A step too far", which is common place in many so called "conspiracy theories". You see, once an absurd claim is made in any given conspiracy theory, it serves to discredit all other questions surrounding the event, including legitimate questions where there are no clear answers.

For example, I could claim the planes that struck the WTC were piloted by aliens, which is absurd to most people, but once an absurd idea gets out there, it's easy to discredit an entire theory by pointing to a few absurd claims.

I believe, at times, there are those with ulterior motives, who make wild assertions in an attempt to discredit an entire theory and shift the focus from away from the more legitimate questions.

I suppose you could call that a conspiracy theory too.

The real conspiracy is that the towers never existed. They were just holographic projections used to lure tourists. But they were too expensive to maintain and had to disappear. Of course they could have just switched off the apparatus, but that would have given the trick away and maybe reveal the other fake tourist spots, such as the Eiffel tower. So they had to invent a big hoax to hide all this.

Still doesn't mean that two beliefs or "hunches" are always of equal value in an objective sense.

Sure you can have a "hunch" and "get inspired", "thinking out of the box". But the great discoveries that have come from such inspiration are great discoveries because they were then checked and double-checked and found to be supported by actual verifiable evidence. Newton or Einstein could have had as many "hunches" as they wanted and no one would have payed them any heed. Why we remember them is because their theories are verifiable and testable with reality.
.
Griatch

@Akros



To be picky, people has known for quite a long time that the Earth was spherical. Apparently no major scholars have believed in a flat Earth even during the Middle ages (although there were many fancifull pictures of it in popular "media"). The myth that people thought the world was flat during the middle ages is apparently something rather new - it was popularized during the evolutionary debates of the late 19th century. The urban legend is described quite succinctly here.

Overall I like that the comic puts the evolution argument in the 19th century, that is after all where it belongs (and where it was resolved).
.
Griatch

That's what is now called the "Sagan standard": "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"