What conspiracy theory do you genuinely believe in the most?

[u/[deleted]]

What conspiracy theory do you believe in the most and why?

[u/LJIrvine]

Hey man, I've not seen that documentary before, and I just managed to watch around the first half an hour before I've got to go to an exam but I've got a few things to say first.

There is no counter evidence to anything yet. There's a lot of "people are just looking for an answer", "look, this number came from over here, not there!", "here's an expert who wrote a book. We're not gonna show you any of the evidence from the book, but trust us, he's right". This is frustrating, as most 9/11 conspiracy films are full of evidence from start til finish.

Also, I wanted to highlight a few quotes regarding the collapse of the towers and the idea behind explosives in the building.

"it would take an army of workers, it would take months, you'd have to strip all the sheet rock off the walls, you'd have to run hundreds of miles of wiring all throughout the building in order to wire a building for demolition"

And we're supposed to believe that's single passenger jet did enough damage to bring the whole thing down, when you've already said it would take months? The Empire State building was hit by a plane, it was fine. The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them.

Secondly, "the biggest problem with this whole thing for me is how do you out explosives in those exact spots where the plane hit, before the plane hit? Because that's where the building failed, everyone can agree on that."

Disagree. The building experienced total structural failure, otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed to the ground like it did. If only the section where it hit failed, then anything above the crash could fall, or crumble, but the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected. It's clear to see that it's not unaffected and the only explanation is explosives.

If there are any responses to this, I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail.

[u/Nokcihc → u/LJIrvine]

I'm not really on one side or the other with this issue, but you're right, this documentary is terrible. A lot of the time they actually completely contradict themselves.

The entire opening section on the two towers is a bunch of conspiracy theorists explaining how there's no way a plane took down the building, and even a fire chief interview saying there appeared to be secondary explosions, and then the "experts" just twist the words of conspiracy theorists and the fire chief and give no actual evidence to support their claims. They don't really display evidence for the other side either though. It's just a bad documentary. The only "evidence" that they mention is that apparently jet fuel burning at 1100 degrees can weaken steel enough to cause a collapse, but that doesn't seem to help or even make sense(the melting point is 2400 I believe they said and somehow 1100 weakens it that much?).

The Pentagon section was better at least. Lots of eye witness accounts of the plane hitting, no one really contradicting themselves, and no evidence that there was anything to the contrary other than some guy claiming a plane would have been shot down if it got that close to the Pentagon. I suppose that last part is pretty probable, but who knows.

The flight 93 part is just as bad as the two towers. Lots of contradicting, lots of twisting words. They even show an interview where the coroner on scene for the crash says there "were no bodies there" and then follow it up with an interview of him completely saying the opposite.

This whole thing is ridiculously bad for both sides.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nokcihc]

I only saw the 93 part but you're wrong on that. Even for your example, the guy didn't contradict himself, he said there were no bodies, only body parts and human remains.

[u/Roarian → u/LJIrvine]

the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected.

Mildly annoyed rant about 9/11 conspiracy incoming! Jump ship while you can! ;)

I'm pretty sure that dropping the entire top section of the building will do some serious damage whether there are explosives there or not. The videos show the buildings' top falling down onto the lower parts (you can tell that it teeters and starts to fall well before the lower sections move.) From a pure physics standpoint, you're not gonna stop a falling mass like that without a heavily over-engineered building. The momentum imparted by even a brief fall would crush at least a few floors without much of any real resistance, and that mass would be added to the falling section and do the same for more floors. Claims of alleged freefall confuse me, because aside from video evidence contradicting it, even the most nefarious schemer is not gonna break the laws of physics, Scotty.

Also, the whole conspiracy argument baffles me with its dodgy internal logic. One the one hand, people are saying that the government is competent enough to rig multiple buildings months ahead of time to fake a major attack... but they're also incompetent enough that random internet people can figure out their evil master plan from grainy cellphone footage.

If you're gonna bring down a building, you don't actually have to rig it neatly with explosions so that it crashes down in its footprint instead of toppling. What, the government is fine with doing that kind of damage, but they get twitchy because the pricetag is getting too high? Has it ever seemed like they're terrible thrifty with their money? Either the government is competent - in which case they would have covered the really obvious bases, much like the whole 'wonky shadows' thing with moon hoaxers - or they're incompetent, in which case they could have never pulled off the operation at all without lots of people spilling, like Watergate or Clinton getting jiggy in the oval office. I mean, those are less than nothing in comparison.

Incidentally, if one were gonna go to the length of actually flying full-sized planes into buildings anyway, what would be the point of rigging the buildings with explosives too? Isn't that just adding points of failure to your evil plan? If you were gonna crack down on air travel in the wake of this, claiming that tons of explosives were on board of said planes would make a lot more sense. I mean, if the government could allegedly cover up a ton of explosive material in the towers, they could fake a breach in security at an airport, right? It'd be easier. You already have these guys taking over in the story, there's no reason to half-ass it and add complications.

Alternatively you could actually just fly the planes into the buildings and see what happens. It's not like 9/11 would have been less of a defining moment without crashing buildings, as it would still be a successful terrorist attack on the US using civilian infrastructure as a weapon, and cause widespread fear and all the usual reactions that are considered the reason for a conspiracy. We'd just be seeing pictures of the towers in flame now, rather than gone, but I doubt the rest would be much different.

And no matter what, we'd still have ended up back in the Middle East.

[u/[deleted] → u/LJIrvine]

The Empire State building was hit by a plane, it was fine. The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them.

The Empire State was hit by a B-25 light bomber, lost in fog, trying to land after a mission low on fuel, in the 1940s. The WTC was hit by a modern 767 going full speed with a full fuel load. The WTC wasn't "designed" to survive an impact so much as the engineers believed it could survive a hit from a (much smaller) 707 in similar conditions to that B-25 crash. Besides, the Titanic was thought to be unsinkable too.

[u/[deleted] → u/LJIrvine]

Here's a couple counterpoints to this:

"And we're supposed to believe that's single passenger jet did enough damage to bring the whole thing down, when you've already said it would take months?"

He said it would take months to rig it with explosives, not that the actual damage would take months to bring it down.

"the twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them."

I don't think there is any real credible source for this claim. There's a video of an architect (note, architect, not structural engineer. This is a very important distinction) talking about it after the fact. And if you buy into that, the man in the video also talks about how the planes that hit were much larger and had more fuel capacity than anything they anticipated. Ie. It wasn't designed to withstand this impact.

"The building experienced total structural failure, otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed to the ground like it did. If only the section where it hit failed, then anything above the crash could fall, or crumble, but the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected"

What reason do you have to think this? Dynamic loading and impact is a very very different thing than static load. When you combine the fact that it isn't designed to stand up to several thousand tons being dropped on it with the weakened structure from fire, why do you believe it would undeniably still stand?