9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

[William Seger]

34. So, the best you can do is fart in the general direction of some of the confessions

... and ignore the rest? Impressive.

> What gives you the idea that I'm a conspiracy theorist?

As if that wasn't already obvious, maybe this is a clue:

> The plan was complicated and a whole hell of a lot went wrong. Flight 77 got delayed, so Bush had to sit on his ass in a schoolroom and do nothing until the plane hit its target. WTC7 didn't blow up on schedule so they had to do the job right out in front of everybody instead of under cover of a cloud of dust from WTC1. Flight 93 had a passenger revolt and had to be terminated. The fires were going out in WTC2 so it had to be brought down early. That meant WTC1 had to come down early too.

And then we have this:

> You claimed that the plan to get four hijacked planes past the most powerful defense establishment the world has ever seen was "not at all complicated or prohibitively expensive" and I showed that you were wrong and it was extremely complicated.

You seem to have misunderstood; you described why an "inside job" conspiracy would have been complicated and risky. As commercial domestic flights, these planes were already "past the most powerful defense establishment" which was geared for attack from abroad and completely unprepared for commercial airliners being used as weapons. While it's a good question why not, 9/11 conspiracists have done nothing but detract attention from valid 9/11 questions by focusing on perfectly idiotic "controlled demolition" theories. There was nothing "complicated" about the hijackers gambling that they would not be shot down, since there was virtually no chance of that at least until the first plane hit its target. And even if only one plane had hit its target and the other three were shot down, killing the passengers, I do believe the hijackers would have considered that a successful attack. Taking over the flights was not complicated, given the standing policy to not attempt to use force against hijackers, and pointing a plane at a large building is not complicated for someone who has had at least a few hours training. You have shown nothing, "Ace."

> You don't know what "fat Osama" said. You get your talking points from lying propaganda websites.

Which reminds me of another characteristic of conspiracy theorists: hypocrisy. To wit:

> The access to the WTC core columns from the elevator hoistways can easily be verified simply by looking at the WTC blueprints. Photos showing this can be found on the internet or in the movie "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out".

You are hypocritically parroting a claim that's very popular in conspiracy propaganda but which is simply not true, as can be verified by looking at the floor plan above the 78th floor "sky lobby" (rather than at the ground floor):



Now tell me how core columns were accessible from elevator shafts (and I should warn you that you should probably first do some homework to identify which shafts are elevator shafts, if you don't want to look even more hypocritical.)

> There is no need for silent explosives. It is sufficient to weaken the columns, and incendiaries can handle that.

And as I pointed with Gage's cognitive dissonance, that's what conspiracists claim when they want to "explain" why there were no explosive sounds, but then they claim that only a "controlled demolition" can explain the sudden and supposedly symmetric collapses. Sorry, you can't have it both ways, and the fact that you can't come up with a coherent theory doesn't excuse you from being a conspiracy theorist. Another characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that they are willing to give credibility to anything except the "official story" -- i.e. the story told by the actual evidence.