Conspiracy theorists

72 posts / 0 new

I heard Robert Fiske talking a bout 9/11 and he of course prefaced his comments with the familiar I am not a conspiracy thoerist. Fiske is one of the few who will actually say that there are questions surrounding 9/11, but he must still distance himself from the CT's. What facinates me is whow the topic turns logic upside down. The question of a persons standing towards 9/11 should be judged on how well they can quote established facts, use rational inferences, and set in the event in the proper historical context. Instead we start by framing them as someone who has done the opposite, as in someone who started with a belief about the ultimate cause of 9/11 and then looked for facts to support such a conclusion. Conclusion are the result of honest investigation, and the CT term seems to allow people to cut of the need for honest discussion with the indictiment.

I wonder if people have heard of this Cam Sundersteen (sp?) fellow in the Obama administration who has written a paper of the dangers of the 9/11 truthers. He even suggests that government infiltraters in the truth groups will be requested to perform terrorist acts as part of an initiation process. This guy tries to do a very logical beakdown of 9/11 an the public dialouge, but one thing is missing. Nowhere does Mr Cam suggest that any kind of panel or other public forum of discussion about 9/11 should happen

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I think its interesting how people who question what happened on that day are labeled as nuts. I suppose by collectively dismissing anyone who challenges the official story, its easier to forge on with the War on Terror.

As long as any US politician can invoke the memory of 9/11, wars in oil rich nations (which also happen to be mostly muslim) will always be an easy sell to the American public.

But wait until it becomes a war too many, and oil prices sky rocket, causing fuel prices to explode in this country.

karma?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think 911 demonstrates with out any doubt the power of the media.

Because you know, if just one big media outlet started running stories and documentaries questioning the official 911 story, then people would actually start to take it seriously.

For now, all one has to do is say is "Never Forget" and the conversation is over.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks for the replies. The Obama guy's name is Cass Sunstein, so sorry for the poor recall. Thom should talk about this in my opinion.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We are nearly a decade into Afghanistan and the media has not even mentioned Enron's power plant in Dabhol, India that needed natural gas from the CentGas project. James Baker threw the election for Bush and Baker is president of the US/Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. Azerbaijan is on the west shore of the Caspian Sea. John J. Maresca, VP of Unocal, appeared before a sumbcomittee of Congress in 1998 and urged Congress to help remove the Taliban so that the Centgas pipeline from the Caspian Sea, through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India could be finished. PNAC was formed about the same time and they called for a catastrophic and catylising event like a New Pearl Harbor, to convince the American public that we needed to intervene in the Middle East.

Israel imports almost all of their oil, some of if from Iran. Most don't know that, the media never talks about it. Need we go on?

The motive for going into Afghanistan was to control the Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves. This is vitally important to anyone who views themselves as a global power player. Big oil controls the reserves and their military has a base (many bases) in the Middle East. The excuse that "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" makes no sense whatsoever. If you hated hornets, if you knew how bad their sting hurts, would you purposfully walk up to a hornets nest and poke it with a stick?

The official motive was that Al-Qaeda hated us because of our presence in the Holy Lands, so they attacked us and this was supposed to accomplish, what again? Now we are fully ensconsed in many Muslim nations and our military is being used to secure natural resource assets for the global elites to control and sell to the global market's highest bidders. So we have this one glaring problem, the Muslims were clever enough to evade every one of our inteligence agencies and avoid all defense measures that are always set up and on the ready, but they weren't clever enough to realize that by attacking us that we would respond with a exponential increase of our presence in their Holy Lands?

I keep pasting this link and no comments so far. I'll try again. MOTIVE!

It's all sourced from news reports from around the world and the sources are included.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh, back to your point, Matt in Napa.

Yes Conspiracy Theorist is a term educated people shouldn't be running away from. It's been stigmatized and is used to suggest that someone is "unprofessional and uncritical."

Any good detective is a conspiracy theorists. Conspiracies happen everyday, just read or watch the news. Conspiracy is two or more people engaged in illegal activity or planning. A theory is what a detective forms when he arrives at a crime scene and starts putting the clues together. If he has a crime on his hands that has been committed by two or more people, he will form a theory as to why it happened, how it happened and will use this deductive logic to help him track down or anticipate the next move of the criminal. The detective is a conspiracy theorist by nature. I'd hate to think our intelligence agencies and agents don't first form theories. In fact the Bush Cheney administration provided us with a conspiracy theory, The Muslims did it is just their conspiracy theory, but one that is pushed along like a Solomon Asch experiment by the media, also owned and benefitting from war and war industries. I consider the oil companies as military contractors, face it. Big oil and big military are one and the same.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Watching Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday I noted he just listed the prevailing theories. Now if Bill Maher had been doing a comedy routine at the UN doing the same thing would the US representatives still walked out?

There are many questions about 9-11 and many theories. And one of those theories is the one discussed in the "Official Report." Fact is that down throughout history governments have used false flag incidents to get the populace to support war. Why would it be any different this time? They had a lot of technology at their disposal to pull such a thing off. In fact one of the first theorists I heard was an ex military guy who had written a 300 plus page book and claimed not only it was a false flag operation but a failed one. I shudder to think if it succeeded where we might be today. The behavior of people and especially the "macho awakened" high school boys in my area following 9-11 was frightening. I was glad it cooled off after a week or so.

Heh, yesterday I posted the first comment on Newsvine on MSNBC's site pretty much saying what that guy I mentioned above said and did it cause a spate of replies and got a "hidden by the community" and then eventually "deleted". Heh, so much for free speech in America.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Perhaps because 9/11 has been analyzed by countless organizations and experts and all the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists point to has been refuted by facts yet they still can't accept reality?

Kinda reminds me of birthers.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

Perhaps because 9/11 has been analyzed by countless organizations and experts and all the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists point to has been refuted by facts yet they still can't accept reality?

Kinda reminds me of birthers.

Those countless organizations can be counted on one hand and the arm attached to it connects to the people who most benefitted from the Sept. 11 attacks. There are now over 1,300 experts in Architects and Engineers who sign their names and list their degrees and occupations who all say the buildings were imploded, at best, and at worst admit the official story simply makes no sense. The proof of a cover up is that no one single mainstream news agency has dared mention Enron's power plant in Dabhol, India. For good reason, the motives by the Bush/Cheney Oil administration far eclipse the excuse that they attacked us because they hate us for our freedoms. What BS!

One more time: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So all the thousands of experts, inside and outside of government, who investigated beyond looking at the videos were were in on it?

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

So all the thousands of experts, inside and outside of government, who investigated beyond looking at the videos were were in on it?

No.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Anyways, I am sure all of us had this conversation countless times over the years and could give link after link supporting our point of view so lets just cut to the chase and agree to disagree.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

Anyways, I am sure all of us had this conversation countless times over the years and could give link after link supporting our point of view so lets just cut to the chase and agree to disagree.

You can leave the thread anytime.

It's not about what links to share, or even what theory to support. It's about understanding the context of why there are so many differing theories. What happened was not investigated as a crime at the time, and by virtue of that evidence was tampered with because it was cleaned up before it was properly examined as evidence in a crime.

So, what we have is a corrupted body of evidence. With such a body of evidence, 100s of different theories can be created that fit said evidence. Which means the truth will never really reveal itself.

I can say that the official story does not even fit the corrupted body of evidence. It is only the emotional resistance to look closely that prevents people from seeing this.

Personally, I don't have a favorite theory, and most seem outlandish to me (including the official one).

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The idea that a conspiracy of powerful interests could not happen without too many people knowing and talking about it is among the most naive around. There are several ways these 'conspiracies' work, and I use the single quote mark to indicate that we are referring to confluences of thinking and acting in addition to "plots."

We see how the media develops a bubble culture of access and then has to believe in the official story they tell. They declare all the ideas outside the official agenda as "nutty" or "dangerous." There are official "evil ones" and Americans whose beliefs do not get into the media conversation. David Korten should be on every week. Where is he?

The premise of the Big Lie is that people will believe enough of it just because it is said to make it work. When tagged to fear and hate, it becomes what we want to believe and will believe with any reinforcement. And, when it feeds a cult narrative that is threatened by reality, it will be embraced.

Were patriotic Americans supposed to wake up on 9/12 and take on the criminal investigation of our government instead of being focussed on getting bin Laden? The horror was shock and awe, and the misleaders ran the agenda. As vengeance for the martyrs became the story, questions about how and why it could happen were buried. Power would not be served by discovering that it was a crime. But it would also lose if it were only that Cheney was too busy with oil politics to be concerned about religious nuts who had warned us they were coming.

The PNAC script will become more persuasive to historians over time, particularly as the details of the military stand-down and keeping Dubya out of town shape up. The truth is that very few needed to know the full plot and there are many reasons for agencies and contractors to do things that are only a piece of a puzzle rather than a conscious part of a conspiracy.

Chains of command enforce discipline, and those who want to keep paying their mortgages do not blow whistles. Is that a conspiracy? Those who saw "peak oil" threatening the petro-military power of America could make a logical argument in favor of the PNAC empire, and if it took a "Pearl Harbor" to get America to do what was needed, why would they not be willing to have the cost paid by others?

But don't let it be known that you think the Emperor is naked or that the High Priests are screwing the Vestal Virgins. Particularly because it is true. I regard the rejection of some lines of inquiry as confirmation that there is something rotten being hidden. It may not be exactly what the theorists are claiming, but it is something that would give us a very different understanding of the events of 9/11.

The other question to ask is "what did 9/11 really change as opposed to what was changed opportunistically in the wake of 9/11? We knew about al Qaeda and terrorism before then. We knew there was "blowback" from bin Laden and Afghanistan Cold War CIA history. And, we were warned that they would use airplanes to attack buildings. Did we not think that global trade and the imperial army would not be the symbols targeted?

While the crime was huge and the loss of life tragic, neither the economy nor the military were really harmed by the attacks on the Twin Towers. It was a big psychological event in the Hollywood sense. We accept similar losses of life in the normal course of "doing business" without any shock or even awareness. What is going on inside Wall St. does more damage than the attacks could ever imagine doing.

We meekly accepted TSA even if we kiss bin Laden's sandals every time we fly. How fortunate to have a "Patriot Act" ready to go now that "everything has changed." United we stood, but if we fell we were on our own. Then we were misled into war with Iraq. Because "everything had changed."

The only thing that changed was the brazen aggression of the American Empire. Now our brutality did not need to be hidden. We could celebrate it as our new vitality. From cage fights to torture flicks, we identify with the fittest who survive and not the victims. Is that a change?

A decade later, we need to kick this evil metaphor in the nuts. Beyond the conspiracy theories, we have a pattern of abuse and misuse of the event. It is time for a lot of truth to power here.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hitler came to power with the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was instituted after the Reichstag Fire, believed to be a false flag scenario. At the conclusion of WWII the US imported many Nazi scientests, psychologists and intelligence persons. Some of these people worked hand in hand with the Dulles brothers and Wild Bill Donovan and transformed the OSS into the CIA, look at Operation Paperclip for a beginning on this.

The MO is the same. If it looks like a fascist, walks like a fascist, destroys like a fascist it's a fascist. If it looks like an implosion, acts like and implosion, then it is an implosion. The official story boils down to this: What you see is not reality, reality is what we tell you it is.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

So all the thousands of experts, inside and outside of government, who investigated beyond looking at the videos were were in on it?

No, because of "compartmentalization". This is something that happens a lot in military and intelligence organizations or organizations period including corporations. Sort of like "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing."

It has been theorized that it could have taken only around 100 people to pull this off. Some of those 100 may not have had a clue that they were in on it.

Let's say on the day of 9-11 that part of the war game that was going on was that a group of young guys at simulator were instructed to fly simulated airliners into the twin towers. They being part of the "game" do their best to pull it off wondering at what point they'll lose as a simulated fighter shoots them down. They don't lose and hope that the military gained something from the simulation. Then they go to the rec room to check sports scores on the TV and learn about the attacks on the twin towers and realize what has just happened. Do they blab or not?

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

For me, the biggest deal is not the implosion of the buildings. For me, the strongest evidence against the official story is the precision job done by the pilots hitting the towers. Not one single inch of metal from the planes missed hitting building. I don't believe that kind of top notch precision can be done by people who supposedly never learned to land a plane and never previously piloted a commercial jet.

That leaves us with a few options. Either the guys were better trained then we're told (but why lie about that?), or the planes were piloted by telemetry. I have a hard time believing that anyone infiltrated the transportation infrastructure and flew the planes by telemetry from a cave in Afghanistan. So it must have been people with access within the US. So either there are terrorists among us good enough to infiltrate the transportation infrastructure that got away with it, or it was an inside job.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

You can leave the thread anytime.

It's not about what links to share, or even what theory to support. It's about understanding the context of why there are so many differing theories.

Fair enough.

9/11 was a large, complex traumatic event. There was a lot of moving parts to it and we certainly do not know all the details but to say there are unanswered questions does not mean that the jump to "it was an inside job" is logical.

Whenever there is an event of this scope and ramifications there are peripheral aspects to it that when taken alone can lead a reasonable person to ask the age old question; why? From what I see theorists focus on these peripheral aspects, giving them undue weight while all but ignoring the proven mountain of evidence that points to the "Official story".


Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

You can leave the thread anytime.

It's not about what links to share, or even what theory to support. It's about understanding the context of why there are so many differing theories.

Fair enough.

9/11 was a large, complex traumatic event. There was a lot of moving parts to it and we certainly do not know all the details but to say there are unanswered questions does not mean that the jump to "it was an inside job" is logical.

Whenever there is an event of this scope and ramifications there are peripheral aspects to it that when taken alone can lead a reasonable person to ask the age old question; why? From what I see theorists focus on these peripheral aspects, giving them undue weight while all but ignoring the proven mountain of evidence that points to the "Official story".


Who's ignoring the official story? The official story is the only story most people have even heard of. The two wars are built on the backs of the official story. Our burgeoning security industry is built on the official story. Every TV announcer regurgitates the official story. Why haven't we heard anything about the pipelines? This is what's missing from the coverage. The official story is well covered. The real story is being pieced together like a big puzzle. It looks like the picture is starting to come into focus.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

For me, the biggest deal is not the implosion of the buildings. For me, the strongest evidence against the official story is the precision job done by the pilots hitting the towers.

Remote flying has been possible for a long time so you are probably correct in thinking the so-called half-ass trained pilots could not have pulled off these flights. But Bldg No. 7 is the smoking gun becuase it is mathematically impossible to have tempered steel crush itself and fall in a symetrical fashion at free fall rate. That is physically impossible. The only way the buildings could fall through the path of GREATEST resistance at or near free fall rate was if the resistance had been removed. That happens all the time with controlled demolitons and viewing clips of known controlled demolitions with those on 9-11 aptly demonstrate that these were indeed implosions and that's why the media won't discuss it and why they prefer to ridicule anyone who thinks differently. Ridicule is much easier than having to defend the indefensible.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You guys are kinda of illustrating my point here....talking about pipelines and power plants in India, theories about remote control planes while ignoring the straight forward facts.

Every one else is just a sheep and only you can see the truth......

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

9/11 was a large, complex traumatic event. There was a lot of moving parts to it and we certainly do not know all the details but to say there are unanswered questions does not mean that the jump to "it was an inside job" is logical.

Whenever there is an event of this scope and ramifications there are peripheral aspects to it that when taken alone can lead a reasonable person to ask the age old question; why? From what I see theorists focus on these peripheral aspects, giving them undue weight while all but ignoring the proven mountain of evidence that points to the "Official story".

Gotitdone—having trouble seeing the forest for the trees?

First, a few trees: Building number 7 managed to come down in under 10 seconds, when it hadn’t even been hit by a plane. These buildings, with steel impervious to jet fuel fires, came down in the manner of controlled demolitions in a city where no high-rise building had ever come down just like that, that is, by fire.

Backing up to see the forest: The conventional “wisdom,” or official story (that al queda—alone—planned and coordinated suicide airliner attacks on 9-11), is really more like conventional foolishness. And I do mean the word conventional too, with its connotations of conformity and conventional behavior. In the case of 9-11, thought control, conformity, is managed via branding —“conspiracy theory”— of any critical thinking contrary to the conventional foolishness. It’s all about burying the truth about a most staggering crime, a truth we will probably never exhume in our lifetimes.

The branding works because Americans are hugely fearful of being tarred as crazy, of looking abnormal. We are just so happy, normal and uncomplicated, aren’t we? This is how we wear our obedience, like a burqa.

“Conspiracy theorists” are people who are courageous enough to practice critical thinking. Critical thinking can become a healthy habit. Too bad most Americans don’t see it as a value and allow themselves to be cowed by buried complexities, by "an event of this scope and ramifications."

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Gotidone, the problem with the official case is that it leads us to a choice between criminal incompetence and criminal conspiracy, not to "everything's changed" and War in Iraq. The evidence was disappeared instead of used to demonstrate the integrity of the official story. We have to take it on faith, and I have too much respect for faith to do that with this bs.

It does not take much reach to believe the PNAC crowd would do what they thought was their historical mission and duty. They are nuts, of course. But emperors operating under delusions of power and grandeur are nothing new either.

As I have explained and others have as well, the ability to pull off a caper by compartmentalizing or compromising others reduces the load. In this case, it would take relatively few to know what the other activities were about. Even later, they would have nothing that proved anything because it was all ordinary work. Still, the point is that we don't and cannot know because the authorities decided to hide and destroy the evidence. That is enough for me to give conspiracy theories a very large place at the table on 9/11.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

First, a few trees: Building number 7 managed to come down in under 10 seconds, when it hadn’t even been hit by a plane. These buildings, with steel impervious to jet fuel fires, came down in the manner of controlled demolitions in a city where no high-rise building had ever come down just like that, that is, by fire.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I am sure you have seen this though..

There were thousands of firefighters on the scene witnessing the lead up to the collapse, were they in on it to?

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

There were thousands of firefighters on the scene witnessing the lead up to the collapse, were they in on it to?

There were also firefighters who noticed the sound of explosions below ground, but they aren't given any credence, or the media ear. There was a janitor (you'll have to google it; I don't have time right now to go searching) who gave a long account on C-Span of his experience of having heard explosions in the basement of one of the twin towers; he made it out, but the building came down soon after that, as I recall—very believable, very credible. But was he called to testify? I don't think so. Another "conspiracy theorist?" How many questions are you willing to ignore, before there grows a crack in your head and you begin to let the light come in?

I do believe you are trying hard to miss the point, with regard to how this crime may have come about under everybody's noses, completely transparent but safe from exposure, by failing to comprehend the psychology of mass hypnosis and thought control. State criminality with permissions granted by a populace are not a new thing, not unheard of. Ever hear of Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chompsky?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

When buildings fall I would assume there are loud booms similar to explosions that occur as the floors begin falling in on one another, particularly given the exoskeleton nature of the towers.

The NIST did a formal analysis of how the buildings fell, if there were planted explosives one would presume they would have seen the evidence of it. Since the report does not say this for this theory to be correct the engineers at NIST would have had to turned a blind eye to it.

Regardless of all that what would be the point? If the theorized goal was to anger and scare Americans would the thousands of deaths and the horror of watching the planes hit the tower not be sufficient? Why risk the tremendous amount of set up required to plant for a controlled explosion? There are thousands of people who worked in these buildings and it would be logical that there would be a high probability someone would notice?

Why bring building 7 down at all? Why in addition to NY would they also attack the pentagon and the capitol building?

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

There is also the theory that flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC 7 not instead of going on to DC. Many believe 93 was shot down because the wreckage was strewn over miles instead of one location like a crash. So they had to make up a story and then "pull" WTC 7 which really doesn't make any sense. There is also the thought that the real target was 7 because it contained a lot of incriminating evidence for upcoming court cases.

Quote Choco:

The real story is being pieced together like a big puzzle. It looks like the picture is starting to come into focus.

And I think the real perpetrators are getting VERY nervous and are ready to do something rash.

And it is so funny how so many liberals who are generally open minded folks close up once the subject comes up. They seem to throw intellectual curiosity right out of the window. I think it might have something to do with tiring of JFK conspiracy theories which the planners for 9-11 knew would help block any full investigation.

Webster Tarpley makes a good argument that Bush may have not been in the loop (hence the "Angel is next" scenario). In fact many think 9-11 was indeed pulled off by a foreign entity just not the one from the official story and they blackmailed our government to do their bidding.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The alternate definition for conspiracy is Business plan.

MA'AT's picture
MA'AT
Joined:
Jul. 6, 2010 6:45 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

... if there were planted explosives one would presume they would have seen the evidence of it. Since the report does not say this for this theory to be correct the engineers at NIST would have had to turned a blind eye to it.

Regardless of all that what would be the point? If the theorized goal was to anger and scare Americans would the thousands of deaths and the horror of watching the planes hit the tower not be sufficient? Why risk the tremendous amount of set up required to plant for a controlled explosion? There are thousands of people who worked in these buildings and it would be logical that there would be a high probability someone would notice?

Why bring building 7 down at all? Why in addition to NY would they also attack the pentagon and the capitol building?

Good questions. I would respectfully suggest you follow through. Open-minded inquiry can be an amazing trip.

If you had been asking these questions all along and had been open to the evidence presented by some of the respectable, independent investigators (Paul Thompson, for one), you would have discovered, for example, that there was evidence of explosives, but, the evidence remained unexamined by the authorities. I can't answer all these questions, as to why individuals would choose to be silent and disappear the evidence, such as all the steel beams that were shipped off to China (evidence disappeared and unexamined), so that it is now impossible to do a proper investigation of them (who made that decision?); but, I know that it is within the realm of possiblity for people to do these things, not always in a sinister or conspiratorial way, but sometimes because the pressure of the moment, grief, horror and so many other human, psychological forces that come to bear, when the thought that rogue elements in your government could devise and execute such an evil plan is the last thing you're going to consider. Just get the thing "cleaned up." Or, the truth could be something else. The point is to have a real, criminal investigation, as is carried out for any other criminal event. But this is not what happened with 9/11.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Gotitdone- It seems your strategy is in the backwards direction I suggested originally. You wish to focus on how the explosives could be planted, all the people that would be in on it, why bring building 7 down, etc. All seem to be assertions about a final conclusion. The events of 9/11 lend themselves to forensic evidence, and so if I understand the common tenets of rational investigation I suggest starting there. And then use the old ledger effect where each side gets to post their facts in scientific rational playingfield. Also I suggest that historical precedent, following established procedure, reproducible results, the laws of physics, and the other types of info that are usually given standing in a court should be the top criteria in any contest of evidence we might partake in. I am not saying a conversation can't be had about the likely hood and the scope of it actually being an inside job, but I would suggest it is not the typical way to proceed in investigating criminal or military matters

Got said-

So all the thousands of experts, inside and outside of government, who investigated beyond looking at the videos were were in on it?

What thousands of experts? I doubt we are privileged to know how many have worked on this, but I would suggest the known amount is maybe a few dozen.

There was a lot of moving parts to it and we certainly do not know all the details but to say there are unanswered questions does not mean that the jump to "it was an inside job" is logical.

Who said this? At least for me I have emphasized not jumping to a conclusion. If you could point out who has said this I would appreciate it, otherwise it seems indicative of a psychology that places upon the opponent a trait for riducule without any evidence of said existing trait.

As to your statements that everything has been answered. I would ask what are your sources to which you draw your conclusion?. Are you clear on what the truthers are asking? Or do you just trust the history channel and the like to represent our arguments for us? Yes Griffin and others that are reputable truthers appear in such productions, but that is no means a guarntee that truthers points are being represented fairly. In fact, I would suggest that if you knew truther arguments you would see the obvious deception that has been used to not answer the most telling questions directly. One example from the history channel was on the question of the Hani Hanjour, the supposed hijacker pilot of 77 which flew into the pentagon, and the reportedly near impossible manuever he made descending at a sharp angle towards the building. Most pilots that have gone on record have said this was near impossible for an expert pilot. History channels answer from it's self annointed experts - None of the 9/11 hijackers took off or landed that day and those are more difficult than average piloting therfore the pilots did not perform the most difficult performance required of pilots. Apparently you and those who claim all questions are answered consider this an answer. It is a buffonery of logic. But apprently the public cognates this as a valid explanation. Otherwise I would have to wonder why H.C are not laughed off the stage of public investigation.

Another example is the question of both the likelyhood of complete collapse, and the rate at which a collapse could occur. NIST never did a calculation. They simply state that once an initial collapse initiated universal collapse was inevitable. Why? There is a challenge out there for anyone to use a proportional physical model of the sections of buildings involved at the towers, and then be able to reproduce anything resembling the anhiliation of the lower portion at the towers collapse. Smaller mases of these proportions simply do not crush through existing larger masses under them. The point is that this is one of the most basic questions and it is clearly un-answered.

I would suggest the molten metal and the damage to the momentarily uncollapsed portion of the impact wall at the pentagon still remain un- answered

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What thousands of experts? I doubt we are privileged to know how many have worked on this, but I would suggest the known amount is maybe a few dozen.

A few dozen? When you consider the 9/11 commission, the NIST investigation, the FBI etc, there were countless people looking at all aspects of the attack. The mechanics of how the buildings fell is a small part of a larger puzzle.

Who said this? At least for me I have emphasized not jumping to a conclusion. If you could point out who has said this I would appreciate it

In this thread you have people posting about false flag operations, PNAC and in post #16 Jason said "So it must have been people with access within the US."

reportedly near impossible maneuver he made descending at a sharp angle towards the building. Most pilots that have gone on record have said this was near impossible for an expert pilot.

Yet it happened. If your goal is not to land safely that makes things a little easier. There were 2 calls made from that flight.

It seems your strategy is in the backwards direction I suggested originally. You wish to focus on how the explosives could be planted, all the people that would be in on it, why bring building 7 down, etc. All seem to be assertions about a final conclusion.

Because the bulk of the evidence all point to this final conclusion. Theorists come up with these ideas regardless of how feasible they are. If you are suggesting that the buildings were taken down by planted explosives isn't it logical to question how they got there? Buildings the size of the towers would require countless separate explosives all tied together across multiple floors. Does it seem even vaguely plausible that something like that could happen without anyone noticing it?

For any of these far fetched theories to hold water you have to ignore all the contradictory evidence that points in another direction and that countless experts investigating it willfully ignored the points you raise.

This is why I use the birther analogy. Despite all evidence to the contrary they want to focus on travel to Pakistan and the short for birth certificate instead of the long form while ignoring everything else.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

If you are suggesting that the buildings were taken down by planted explosives isn't it logical to question how they got there? Buildings the size of the towers would require countless separate explosives all tied together across multiple floors. Does it seem even vaguely plausible that something like that could happen without anyone noticing it?

On page 180 of The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin, answers to the question of how the twin towers could have been prepared for a controlled demolition are suggested, but only as questions to be considered, not as absolute theory. I won’t quote the text in its entirety, but only to mention a few interesting facts that may shed some light:

“‘Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom, which provided security for the World Trade Center.” (from The World Trade Center Demolition, An Analysis) ...The White House has not...publicized this connection of the president’s brother with the company that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center.

...according to Barry McDaniel, who has been the company’s CEO since January of 2002, its security work has not been subjected to any 9/11-related investigation by the FBI or any other federal agency.”

“...some WTC personnel reported that ‘after the security detail had worked 12-hour shifts for the previous two weeks because of threats, five days before 9/11 the security alert, which had mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, was lifted.’ This fact is possibly significant, because, if the wiring for controlled demolition had been installed earlier, the explosives could perhaps have been affixed during that period.”

Also, your comment ("Buildings the size of the towers would require countless separate explosives all tied together across multiple floors. ") begs the observation that without explosives it should be common sense that buildings the size of the towers could not have come down via airliner. The buildings were not vulnerable to jet fuel fire. To come down as they did, demanded explosives. Common sense, please!

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The official story is a "theory". What constitute fact, even in the official government version, is fanciful and has no validation of fact to explain how the event transpired.

What "we" know is what "we" were fed by the gov't and a largely duplicitous US propaganda medium. At the very least one has to admit anything that came out of the Bush/Cheney regime had to be circumspect. After all, they were't even elected so what dedication did they have to the country and its people?

On the whole conspiracies are real and the best way to destroy truth is to create doubt, not a factual theory.

Dusty's picture
Dusty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

While the architects and engineers debate explosives and how buildings collapse, I return to the behavior and actions of the Cheney as my primary "smell a rat" indicator. I don't buy the "we just won't do anything Bill did" pout defense, and in addition to planning the war in Iraq and lining up the petro players, he absolutely ignored bin Laden despite there being a ton of intelligence on him and al Qaeda from the Clinton administration.

With the PNAC script in mind and Cheney's "true believer" paranoia, it is not hard to imagine that he could recruit a small cadre of disciples who would also think they were "saving America" by sacrificing a few to save the rest of us. The price of being a whistleblower is already very high, and here it would have been as high as it goes.

But the point I keep raising with the Gotidones of this world is that the official story has not been proved by anything authoritative. Had they kept the evidence, we would be able to disprove conspiracy theories--so it makes sense that had they wanted to prevent more "JFK type questions" they would have kept it. Admitting that we do not know what happened on 9/11 does not lead us to accept what has been presented. It gives credence to the inquiry and to those who call for it. We do not have to believe the theories to believe they represent credible doubts.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

buildings the size of the towers could not have come down via airliner. The buildings were not vulnerable to jet fuel fire. To come down as they did, demanded explosives. Common sense, please!

If you look at the video the collapse began at the impact points. The combination of the structural damage and the the heat from the fire causing the steel to loose strength brought the building down. If there were explosives at the location were the collapse began how would they have survived the impact and initial fire?

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

They counted on the uninformed US public to think that the jet fuel would cause such damage. Mike Rivero, an effects tech for Hollywood films and TV shows and knows about such explosions explains that the fuel was burned out in the first few moments of the explosion during the flash we saw. The buildings were build to withstand such a crash (remember people were seen quite alive standing on the edge of the holes created by the blast so they weren't all that devastating). Others who worked in the building said it was closed for some "renovations" a week or two before the attack and hence the explosive work could have been done then.

And "official" committees can be coverups. They just counted on the public being really dumbed down and then smear anyone getting too close to the truth. We're mystery fans who want to see this "whodunit" solved.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

@captbebops

That just brings me back to my question of how many people would have to be involved. Its somewhat feasible that the attacks themselves could have been carried though compartmentalization, as suggested earlier, but its not feasible that the cover up could have been compartmentalized.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

Why couldn't it have been compartmentalized? I gave an example when I mentioned it.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Because of the sheer number of people who were involved in all the aspects of the investigation.

remember people were seen quite alive standing on the edge of the holes created by the blast so they weren't all that devastating

No, I don't remember this and I went back and looked at the video. What I saw was the area of impact was engulfed in flames.


Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

There are newsclips on the net of them. You just didn't look hard enough. Some of the 9-11 documentaries have those clips. They are from news stories of the day the networks just as soon you not see but people ran their VCRs and computer captures and got a lot of this stuff.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

They are on youtube. The vids I saw showed people at blown out windows, not at the point of impact.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

Sorry but this nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, and a continuance to rely on debates about final conclusions

Unsubstantiated? This was the conclusion reached by the investigation, are you suggesting that the issues you raise are more substantiated then the official investigations?

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

[quote=Gotitdone]

A few dozen? When you consider the 9/11 commission, the NIST investigation, the FBI etc, there were countless people looking at all aspects of the attack. The mechanics of how the buildings fell is a small part of a larger puzzle.

Matt replies-

Well then there should be official figures and reports. Where are the FBI reports? And why did thet break protocol in picking up evidence immediately after the crash at the pentagon? The countless people working on this you have correct.

In this thread you have people posting about false flag operations, PNAC and in post #16 Jason said "So it must have been people with access within the US."

The point in my mind is whether it is a fact or not, and not to jump to a debate about an inference or a conclusion that can drawn from the fact.

reportedly near impossible maneuver he made descending at a sharp angle towards the building. Most pilots that have gone on record have said this was near impossible for an expert pilot.

Yet it happened. If your goal is not to land safely that makes things a little easier. There were 2 calls made from that flight.

Do you have a picture of Hanjour piloting or something? Yet what happened? The plane made the maneuver or Hanjour flew it.As to the calss, quite right One of them alerted the FBI to the hijack well before they claim to have known

It seems your strategy is in the backwards direction I suggested originally. You wish to focus on how the explosives could be planted, all the people that would be in on it, why bring building 7 down, etc. All seem to be assertions about a final conclusion.

Because the bulk of the evidence all point to this final conclusion. Theorists come up with these ideas regardless of how feasible they are. If you are suggesting that the buildings were taken down by planted explosives isn't it logical to question how they got there? Buildings the size of the towers would require countless separate explosives all tied together across multiple floors. Does it seem even vaguely plausible that something like that could happen without anyone noticing it?

Sorry but this nothing more than unsubstaintiated opinion, and a continunce to rely on debates about final conclusions

For any of these far fetched theories to hold water you have to ignore all the contradictory evidence that points in another direction and that countless experts investigating it willfully ignored the points you raise.

This is why I use the birther analogy. Despite all evidence to the contrary they want to focus on travel to Pakistan and the short for birth certificate instead of the long form while ignoring everything else.

Matt replies-

Your motivation for using the birthing analogy is fascinating. The ability of you non-conspiracy types to weave the meaning and connections to our various self motivated delusions is an awesome ability of yours.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Gotitdone:

... This was the conclusion reached by the investigation, are you suggesting that the issues you raise are more substantiated then the official investigations?

You assume that an "official investigation" will be ipso facto trustworthy and credible. Where did you get this idea?

To question authority is always a better idea. Human beings are subject to corruption, especially those human beings in positions of power.

The knee jerk refusal to scrutinize the official conspiracy theory, the allergy to doubts about the official story, the "official 'investigation,'" is about authoritarian followership—the authoritarians want the truth buried; the authoritarian followers cannot imagine questioning the motives and conclusions of the authority: "It's the official investigation; it must be right."

Democracy requires civil disobedience; questioning authority is an aspect of civil disobedience.

I wouldn't assume that an unoffical investigation is automatically less valid than an official one. That's a big mistake. You miss so much of what just might be true that way.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Democracy requires civil disobedience; questioning authority is an aspect of civil disobedience.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. I certainly agree that those who have doubts should raise their voice and ask these questions, I just do not give the same weight to these points that have been raised here. From my point of view they seem based on skimpy "evidence" at best.

I do appreciate the respectful tone of this conversation. Often conversations like this quickly devolve into personal insults and one big flame fest, particularly on a forum rooted in a particular political outlook. Kudos to the community here :)

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

The evidence is by no means skimpy. We aren't going to take the time to paste pages of evidence when there are groups and web sites devoted to 9-11 truth. And BTW those people standing at the blown out windows were near the floors of impact from what I recall. BTW, how much is Cass paying you?

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, Bush/Cheney can take solace that at least one person buys the impossible "official story", eh gotitdone? Henh.

- If you look at the video the collapse began at the impact points.

Don't make up your own facts, dude. God only knows how many videos there are showing the destruction of the 2 World Trade Center towers that free fell neatly into their own footprint and none show the collapse beginning at the impact point.

BTW, I have listened to audio recording of fire fighters describing the explosions they heard from WTC 7? In fact, video shows blow outs during the collapse of WTC 7 and similar blow outs from WTC Towers 1 & 2 as well.

And that ends my rehash of this tired subject.

Dusty's picture
Dusty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Don't make up your own facts, dude. God only knows how many videos there are showing the destruction of the 2 World Trade Center towers that free fell neatly into their own footprint and none show the collapse beginning at the impact point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCY-ZNWKYQ

Look at the white line that is the corner of the builing, note the line move to the left directly above the point of impact as the fall begins.

Gotitdone's picture
Gotitdone
Joined:
Sep. 21, 2010 12:11 pm

Conspiracy just means non-accidental, but people that don't want anyone thinking about something too much put it on their list of perfectly good terms to hijack and weaponize back in the 80's and it has served them well.

When I hear 'Conspiracy Theory' (as a slur) I am alerted to the possible presence of a non-hibernating brain being referred to by a sly one.

For me, the biggest indicator that something was amiss on 9-11, is that the folks in charge of investigating such things, didn't want to investigate this thing (that happend on their watch) and trotted out the notion that wanting to know how a couple thousand people came to violently die that morning - was somehow just a political ploy.

Attorney General taking private planes, pentagon staff cancelling their reservations for that day, Baby Bush using Florida school children as a human shield (he wasn't waiting for them to finish reading, they were waiting for him to finish voiding his bladder).

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Rodger97321:

Conspiracy just means non-accidental, but people that don't want anyone thinking about something too much put it on their list of perfectly good terms to hijack and weaponize back in the 80's and it has served them well.

When I hear 'Conspiracy Theory' (as a slur) I am alerted to the possible presence of a non-hibernating brain being referred to by a sly one.

...

Attorney General taking private planes, pentagon staff cancelling their reservations for that day, Baby Bush using Florida school children as a human shield (he wasn't waiting for them to finish reading, they were waiting for him to finish voiding his bladder).

In fact, the official narrative of 9/11/01 amounts to a monumental Coincidence Theory (c.f. http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/coincidence_theorist.htm) that's way outside the boundaries of statistical probability.

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Gotitdone- The North tower begins to collapse above the impact floors.

I just do not give the same weight to these points that have been raised here. From my point of view they seem based on skimpy "evidence" at best.

From my perspective you have done nothing but dismiss every discussion of what factual evidence exists. You have made it clear that you prefer to discuss conclusions outside the evidence. As far as I see all your arguments would be the same regardless of the particulars of an attack. If you believe strongly enough in the "impossibility" that the attacks 'could be orchestrated" then the facts become irrelavant. At the least they are seen through a critical lens which allows only the experts voices to be known.

So yes I have trouble with your claim that we are not supplying proper evidence. You have clearly simply not answered questions about specific facts, and then glibbly dismissed others. To me it is crystal clear that you have no interest in looking at evidence. You have offered nothing I would consider a fact beyond the refrence to the collapses beggining at the impact zone

Pardon the pompous tone here, but you might want want to consider what goes on at trials. Witnesses talk only about what they perceived at some particular relavant event. They are explicitly instructed not to make inferences about the meaning or conclusions of what they have seen. Further various scientific experts report only facts and do not speculate on the meaning of things past forensics. Then in closing arguments the logical inferences are made to tell us the true story. I sugget the same approach is appropriate here

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

We Need to Listen to the Founders and Stop the Forever War.

Just a little over a year ago during his speech at the National Defense University here in Washington, D.C., President Obama talked about winding down Bush’s War on Terror. But as American bombers continue to strike against ISIS in Iraq and now Syria, it now looks like the War on Terror will be with us for years to come. And that’s a really dangerous thing for our democracy.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system