babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Real Proof that security was Told to stand down on 9/11?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Real Proof that security was Told to stand down on 9/11?
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 13 April 2007 08:51 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MinkePants: "That being said, cheering the trade centre getting hit is an asshole's reaction, but not one i haven't heard before from the left. I can't say I've shed a lot of tears over the pentagon hit, but most of the people in the trade tower were just ordinary shmucks doing their jobs. I'm sure there were a fair number of evil multimillionaires too, but mostly secretaries, clerks, junior sales guys, janitors, admin staff...

I don't believe, as some do, that the planes were radio controlled, or that the hijackers weren't really on the planes or some of the more extreme theories.

But to say that anyone who doubts the official story is nuts is pretty goofy, too. Why was the air force doing an exercise involving multiple hijacked planes on September 11th? Where was the air force in the period between the first plane going off course and the last plane crashing? "

This is something thats been floating around in the back of my mind for sometime. I'm not big on the conspiracy theories for many reasons, some already debated on Babble, but at the same time there Was a lot of lies put out about the strange events of that day, many of which already forgotten by the public. I Don't believe in some of the more farout stories like plane shaped missiles or remote control 'overrides'. I think some maybe too eager to place All the blame on one already hated source, not at all necessary given that the US Does have real enemies. That doesn't however mean the Bush administration is necessarily innocent either.

The official story is basically that they screwed up, bad communication, bad preparation, jurisdiction rivalries, etc. That may very well be the case, as most disasters involve bureacratic bungling and crossed wires that arise out of sudden breakdowns in the expected routine, but does that explain everything that went down either? Possibly, but then why Did they lie about the nonexistent air-defences, why did they in fact change their official versions of the story? Could it be just to cover up for criminial incompetence or negligence, or could it go further and by how much?

CBC's Fifth Estate pointed out that Bush curiously let high profile business associates return to Saudi Arabia (can't remember who now, royal family members?) and Greg Palast says that while he doesn't believe in Bushes' direct involvement, he/they Could have encouraged agents in the CIA to close their eyes to suspicious behaviour to cover other shady business dealings. Would that perhaps be enough to explain events following, or would they require an actual executive if secret order for air defences to stand down? That may not be as much as some theorists suspect (which is all any of us can do) but would still involve behaviour that could only be described as high treason.

I'd like to ask those who follow this more closely (or those who find it all highly implausible) to forget for the time being the idea of planted explosives and such, and just focus on whether they could have for example shut down air defences (rather than mere bureacratic bungling or executive indecision) directly, and whether they might have actively suppressed information that could have prevented it all. To my mind it comes down to two things, One, is there solid evidence yet (printed beforehand say, in other sources) that point to clear and specific alerts from other agencies that were ignored, (as opposed to more generic warnings they might get everyday) and Two, is there actual evidence, as has been suggested, that air defence or traffic controllers were told to shut down during the critical period? Those two questions are IMO what this all hangs on, but by themselves maybe enough to build a real case that Bush and Co were involved in a truly criminal manner, rather than their usual incompetence and after-the-fact ass-covering.

Anyone have anything Demonstrating that either of these suggestions were more likely than the official explanations?

[ 13 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 14 April 2007 06:58 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting questions. I'm sceptical about conspiracies, too, which is a good place to start discussing this. Let me get back with some links in a day or so.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 07:02 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
One, is there solid evidence yet (printed beforehand say, in other sources) that point to clear and specific alerts from other agencies that were ignored, (as opposed to more generic warnings they might get everyday) and Two, is there actual evidence, as has been suggested, that air defence or traffic controllers were told to shut down during the critical period?

One: NO
Two: NO

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 April 2007 07:06 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The conspiracy theories are based on the premise that the U.S. is all-knowing and all-powerful, and that a handful of determined individuals couldn't possibly do much damage to the Great Nation.

That's why they're wrong.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 07:11 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Read Terence McKenna's summary of what happened on 9/11.

Was McKenna "in" on the conspiracy?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 14 April 2007 07:13 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Bush Administration were going to go to the time and expense of setting up 9/11 you'd think they would have built in a link to both Saddam and Osama bin Laden in order to better justify the war on Iraq.

These conspiracy theories take up too much political space on the left and detract from real work. They also help the Bush Administration by making its critics look like lunatics.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 14 April 2007 07:14 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is an excellent BBC documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Conspiracy Files: 9/11


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 14 April 2007 07:37 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with the all knowing all powerful assessment. Conspiracy theories offer comfort to people who cantr handle randomness in politics or life in general.

but that doesn't make Spector's patronizing retort an answer.

The original link to the NYT is by subscription only, so i have to link to this via Alex Jones, who, while asking some good questions, is also bonkers. But its still the verbatim article from the Times.

So while I'm reading Mckenna read this and tell me whethewr you find it odd:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/060504_scrapped_tape.html

quote:
F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements


NY Times| May 6 2004

At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said today.

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, on Long Island, but it was later destroyed by an F.A.A. quality-assurance manager, who crushed the cassette in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public today by the inspector general of the Transportation Department.

The inspector general had been asked by Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, to look into how well the Federal Aviation Administration had cooperated with the 9/11 Commission.

The quality-assurance manager told investigators that he had destroyed the tape because he thought making it was contrary to F.A.A. policy, which calls for written statements, and because he felt that the controllers "were not in the correct frame of mind to have properly consented to the taping" because of the stress of the day.

Another official, the center's manager, asked the controllers to make the tape because "he wanted a contemporaneous recordation of controller accounts to be immediately available for law enforcement," according to the report, and was concerned that the controllers would take a leave of absence immediately, which is standard procedure after a crash.

On the tape, the controllers, some of whom had spoken by radio to people on the planes and some who had tracked the aircraft on radar, gave statements of 5 to 10 minutes each, according to the report.

The center manager had agreed with the president of the local union chapter that the tapes would be destroyed once the standard written statements were obtained, the report said.

Neither the center manager nor the quality-assurance manager disclosed the tape's existence to their superiors at the F.A.A. region that covers New York, or to the agency's Washington headquarters, according to the report.

None of the officials or controllers were identified in the report.

Other tapes were preserved, including conversations on the radio frequencies used by the planes that day, and the radar tapes. In addition, the controllers later made written statements to the F.A.A., per standard procedure, and in this case, to the F.B.I. as well.

But when one of the controllers asked if she could review her portion of the audiotape to refresh her memory before giving her witness statement, she was told she could not, according to the report.

The quality-assurance manager destroyed the tape despite an e-mail message sent by the F.A.A. instructing officials to safeguard all records and adding, "If a question arises whether or not you should retain data, RETAIN IT."

The inspector general ascribed the destruction to "poor judgment."

"The destruction of evidence in the government's possession, in this case an audiotape particularly during times of a national crisis, has the effect of fostering an appearance that information is being withheld from the public," the inspector general's report said. "We do not ascribe motivations to the mangers in this case of attempting to cover up, and we have no indication that there was anything on the tape that would lead anyone to conclude that they had something to hide or that the controllers did not carry out their duties."

But keeping the tape's existence a secret, and then destroying it did not "serve the interests of the F.A.A., the department, or the public," the report said.

The report also noted that the official who destroyed the tape had no regrets or second thoughts: "The quality-assurance manager told us that if presented with similar circumstances, he would again take the same course of action."

The inspector general wrote that this attitude was "especially troubling" and that supervisors should take "appropriate administrative action."

Although the matter had been referred to the Justice Department, the report added, prosecutors said they had found no basis for criminal charges.

An F.A.A. spokesman, Greg Martin, said that his agency had cooperated with the 9/11 commission and that that was how the tape's existence had become known at the agency's headquarters.

"We believe it would not have added in any way to the information contained in all of the other materials that have already been provided to the investigators and the members of the 9/11 commission," he said.

Nonetheless, Mr. Martin said that "we have taken appropriate disciplinary action against the employees involved." For privacy reasons, he said, he could not say what those actions were or identify the employees


There's a controversy about the BBC reporting building seven falling while it still stands behind the reporter. While copies were made by viewers on the day, the BBC says it has lost its own tape. Funny that.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 14 April 2007 08:07 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 14 April 2007 09:16 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Read Terence McKenna's summary of what happened on 9/11.

Was McKenna "in" on the conspiracy?


Does McKenna ask any interesting questions? NO. Does he need to be in on a conspiracy when he is so stultifyingly incurious? Not so much.

Here's a tasty quote from McKenna's cursory and superficial account to illustrate my point.

quote:
Air traffic controllers realized immediately that United 93 [the fouth plane]had been hijacked but again, incredibly, no one advised the military.

Similarly, in his distillation of the official account no one tells the military of the first hijacking until its too late, no one tells the military of the second hijacking until its too late, and, after the second plane hits the towers, while the entirity of the planet is watching tv, the internet or listening to the radio as the situation develops, again,

quote:
Things were about to get worse. Shortly after 9 am, American Airlines realized that another of their planes, Flight 77, [the third plane] was probably hijacked. Again, relaying the news to the U.S. military would be delayed this time by half an hour.

So, planes were first scrambled by the US military at 8:37 am. That's two planes, count'em, two. The US Air Force currently has over 6,000 aircraft. They scrambled two. Oh, and they got sent in the wrong direction. Uh huh.

And, half an hour after that, while 2 billion people watched events unfold, they took half an hour to realize that another plane had diverged from its flightpath towards Washington and the pentagon.

WHy? Why oh why didn't they know for half an hour? Because the FAA failed to notify them. Because, unlike everyone else in the English speaking world they didn't realize a terrorist attack had occured. Because, being the United States military, they have no means of monitoring airplanes diverging from commercial flightpaths towards restricted air space. They need someone to call them. It's not like the US airforce has it's own radar installations......around Washington DC.... and across the Eastern seaboard .... .that they monitor..... continuously..... since 1945

Does that sound plausible to you?

They were caught totally by surprise by the scenario, even though they scrabled F-16s to intercept Payne Stewart's learjet within minutes two years prior, and that plane wasn't flying over Washington. Even though Samuel Byck tried to fly a plane into the White House in 1974.

Even though they had conducted two exercises focused on a highjacked plane scenario within the previous year, and, possibly, on that very day:

Includes footnotes referring to drills prior to 9/11 involving the use of jets as weapons from such loony conspiracy centres as USA Today, Daily Mirror, and The New Yorker:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060718232126585

C'mon speck. Does your case sound compelling to you?

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 14 April 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
...the United States military, they have no means of monitoring airplanes diverging from commercial flightpaths towards restricted air space. They need someone to call them. It's not like the US airforce has it's own radar installations......around Washington DC.... and across the Eastern seaboard .... .that they monitor..... continuously..... since 1945

Though feeling much like others, that theories, can be distractive from other things needing to be done. And for some, no doubt this is of certain importance to clarify. As many things that have happened that are tragic hinge on it.

We live in a, 'want to know' society, in some ways, especially when it becomes history, and that is where truth invariably wins out. How long that takes, is what is unknown. Some things have a shorter length to their being history, so to speak.

From this perspective, I feel those that want to pursue the truth of that day, have at her. Those that don't have any real reason/notion to participate, either for the yea or nay, but yet do. It is they, who are wasting their own time.

A few years back, there was a documentary program on Discovery, this would have been perhaps in 2000/2001, but prior to 911, on the US Strategic Air Command. Must have been the winter of 2000 actually, as I was working in northern BC at the time, snowbound, in a community that has an annual average snow fall of 11 ft, but I digress.

Part of the program was documenting activities, inside the command centre and speaking with the OPs peoples. They were showing the viewers the computer screens that showed the light line of every plane in NA and where it was going, in every second of the day, every day of the year.

The reason why, I remember this quite so clearly was,I was teed right off that the area above the 49th, was completely greyed out in the image on the screen, even though the lights of the air craft path and destination showed for all over Canada. Unlike the US where every state and city name showed.

Finally, the announcer actually noted that grey zone, and the OP responded that that was the terrority of Canadian Strategic Air Command, and though they could see what was happening, it was Canadian business. Conversly, he noted that Canadian Strategic Air Command also, saw all the USA's flights in the same manner. A fact that I had already known, as my uncle worked for well over a decade at the DEW Line.

Just something to add to that observation is all.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

quote:
The inspector general ascribed the destruction to "poor judgment."
That's exactly what it sounds like to me.

I have no reason to believe the tape was destroyed as part of a cynical conspiracy involving literally thousands of people bent on covering up the real story behind the deaths of 3,000 of their fellow citizens. Especially since not one of them has ever come forward to admit it and spill the beans.

Now that's what I call remarkable.

Does it sound plausible to you that the US could screw up so badly as they did in Iraq? In a thousand different ways? And yet they did.

What about the [non] response to Hurricane Katrina? Was that a mass conspiracy too?

Why is it so hard to believe the US is run by incompetents at many levels of government?

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 14 April 2007 10:47 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You bypass my entire post in the interest of more vacuous bon mots. And you bypass remind's post about SAC too. We all know that SAC and NORAD and the USAF monitor and drill and drill and drill for precisely the kind of scenario that occured on 9/11.

But you chastise me with an article which completely passes over the agency of the USAF as an actor, and seeks to put all incompetence at the feet of the FAA, 'cuz, y'know, air defence of New York and Washington is a civilian affair. Your analysis does precisely zero to address what the role of the primary agency reponsible, not the FAA but the USAF took on that morning.

And this tens of thousands figure is bullshit. last time I checked the US military had a hierarchical command structure.... and scrambling jets to intercept hijacked planes is a call made above 2nd louie.

My view does not preclude incompetence. I could fully accept that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney, who all dodged military service, when confronted with a real military crisis froze like terrified rabbits. Hell, Stalin went catatonic when Hitler attacked and he'd been a bank robbing guerilla and served in the gulag.

But I don't KNOW that. And I still wonder where the other 5,998 planes were. Not to mention the navy's planes, and the marines, and the coast gaurd....

And as for this whole "no one has come forward' thing, that's crap as well. All sorts of officials have claimed that their testimony never made the final report, or that it was altered.

And why is it so hard to believe that the US government would create such a massive snowjob? The Gulf OF Tonkin Incident? The deception there took years to leak out too. The WMD stockpiles in Iraq? The threat from Panama? Grenada? The secret invasions of Cambodia and Laos undertaken by Nixon with, y'know, tens of thousands of troops? The triangle trade of guns/ money and cocaine organized by Ollie North which took years to unearth? The COINTEL program to decapitate domestic dissent which was only unearthed when someone broke into an FBI field office?

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 April 2007 04:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes, they're still fretting about the burning of the Reichstag. Meanwhile, the time is coming for herr Bushler to pass the torch to the next cosmetic leader.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9457

posted 14 April 2007 05:15 PM      Profile for Phred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

CBC's Fifth Estate pointed out that Bush curiously let high profile business associates return to Saudi Arabia (can't remember who now, royal family members?) and Greg Palast says that while he doesn't believe in Bushes' direct involvement, he/they Could have encouraged agents in the CIA to close their eyes to suspicious behaviour to cover other shady business dealings. Would that perhaps be enough to explain events following, or would they require an actual executive if secret order for air defences to stand down? That may not be as much as some theorists suspect (which is all any of us can do) but would still involve behaviour that could only be described as high treason.

That would have been the Bin Laden family members. Also documented on Farenheit 9/11.

The movie Loose Change talks about how alot of fighter jets were diverted up to Canada as they were on a military exercise. I don't know where they got the source though.

Loose Change


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 05:21 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
And I still wonder where the other 5,998 planes were.
Funny, not one of those 5,998 pilots has yet come forward and said "I was told to stay on the ground on 9/11, when I could have been there to shoot down the hijacked planes." Not one. Or are the pilots all in on the conspiracy, too?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 14 April 2007 05:52 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phred:

That would have been the Bin Laden family members. Also documented on Farenheit 9/11.

The movie Loose Change talks about how alot of fighter jets were diverted up to Canada as they were on a military exercise. I don't know where they got the source though.

Loose Change


Loose Change also claimed a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 when it was actually the much small B-25 (the B-52 didn't even exist yet) and, in any case, a 747 is about 10 times the size. This isn't a reliable film. When they discover they've made a mistake they just make a new "edition" of the film without apology or explanation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9457

posted 14 April 2007 07:46 PM      Profile for Phred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Loose Change also claimed a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 when it was actually the much small B-25 (the B-52 didn't even exist yet) and, in any case, a 747 is about 10 times the size. This isn't a reliable film. When they discover they've made a mistake they just make a new "edition" of the film without apology or explanation.


I've seen the first and second edition and I can't recall whether they said it was a B-25 or B-52 BUT I can for sure recall they never mentioning a 747.

I'm wondering... if someone would have tested various dust samples from ground zero, would they have found traces of explosives?


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 07:54 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phred:
I'm wondering... if someone would have tested various dust samples from ground zero, would they have found traces of explosives?
That kind of speculation is completely worthless and proves nothing.

Come back when you have some verifiable facts.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 April 2007 08:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Funny, not one of those 5,998 pilots has yet come forward and said "I was told to stay on the ground on 9/11, when I could have been there to shoot down the hijacked planes." Not one. Or are the pilots all in on the conspiracy, too?

That's it. That's exactly what makes it a conspiracy. They're all in on it. All of them. Even more than all of them. Why are you trying so hard to deny it? What's in it for you?

Are you in on the conspiracy too? Is M. Spector even your real name!!??


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 14 April 2007 08:06 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Minkepants. And I will say unequivocally that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by criminal sectors of the government and security services. There is almost nothing to substantiate the official version of events.

Steel skyscrapers don't collapse at near freefall speed into a cloud of pulverized concrete from jet-fuel fires. Physists have shown this to be impossible without explosives. So the terrorists would have had to wire the buildings - something utterly implausible.

I think the media-trained masses are using this term "conspiracy theory" in a thoughtless and derogatory way. In the end it just amounts to name-calling, which is the easiest form of propaganda since it kills thought almost immediately.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 April 2007 08:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
Steel skyscrapers don't collapse at near freefall speed into a cloud of pulverized concrete from jet-fuel fires. Physists have shown this to be impossible without explosives.

Normally I would agree. But I have it on good authority from an academic journal of architecture (sorry I've lost the link, but you can Google it and I'm sure you'll find it), that these towers were "Made in U.S.A.". An OECD survey (can't recall the exact title) in the mid 1990s rated U.S.A.-made products (including skyscrapers) just below the 15th percentile among developed countries. Also, a Mafia capo turned government witness testified in 1998 (secret proceeding, so no link available) that corrupt awarding of contracts in New York state raised serious suspicions of substandard steel rods being utilized which did not meet ISRAEL (*) minimum tensile strength norms.

The conclusion is obvious: Capitalist America was hoist by its own monopolistic petard. It collapsed, symbolically, just as Marx and Engels predicted. It was indeed a conspiracy, conceived and conducted at the very highest levels of New Century. I had a link, but can't seem to located it now.

(*) ISRAEL = International Steel Rod Assessment and Evaluation League.

ETA: I guess, for historical purposes, I should mention here that the above is a spoof, in its entirety. I thought it was obvious, but just in case anyone takes it seriously or quotes out of context. You never know.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 14 April 2007 09:02 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I have it on good authority from an academic journal of architecture (sorry I've lost the link, but you can Google it and I'm sure you'll find it), that these towers were "Made in U.S.A.". An OECD survey (can't recall the exact title) in the mid 1990s rated U.S.A.-made products (including skyscrapers) just below the 15th percentile among developed countries.

Fine, but it is simply not the case with the WTC buildings. In fact In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”* Others noted that “the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities.” This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”*

source *:Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 April 2007 09:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
Physists have shown this to be impossible without explosives.
More generalities. That's exactly what these stupid theories feed on.

How about giving us the names of these "physists" and references to where we can actually read their scientific studies? Doesn't have to be online - I'll go to the university library and track down their works. Just tell me what they are.

quote:
I think the media-trained masses are using this term "conspiracy theory" in a thoughtless and derogatory way. In the end it just amounts to name-calling, which is the easiest form of propaganda since it kills thought almost immediately.
No, it's the unsubstantiated rumours, urban legends, and wacky speculative theories that "kill thought".

BTW, is "media-trained masses" your way of insulting people who actually read and listen to the media? Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 14 April 2007 10:04 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could we please get back to the original question here? I consciously tried to avoid the speculation about planted explosions and such, so that more useful questions could be examined for a change. There are some good reasons to doubt the official story, but it's impossible to do anymore than speculate what, if anything, may actually be behind them until certain basics are settled first. Do any of those who follow these theories have any substantial evidence that A) US intelligence agencies were informed of this specific threat beforehand, B) that there truly were unusual failures in established protocals during the main feature which allowed these hijacked planes through, or even C) whether earlier reports that extra US warships were being sent to the Persian gulf Before this even happened have been verified or refuted(??) If so I'd truly like to see it.

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 14 April 2007 10:27 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

These conspiracy theories take up too much political space on the left and detract from real work. They also help the Bush Administration by making its critics look like lunatics.

I tend to agree Mycroft, there's lots of things that can distract the left from the real tasks at hand and sometimes make us all look bad. But until some of the more valid questions Re 9/11 are dealt with more systematically it'll be hard to get either a sense of how far we really have drifted towards real fascism, how it could better be dealt with (starting with how in/competent these thugs really are), what they could actually be pursued with, or whether it can all be safely tossed aside as another silly fashion or publishing gimmic. This kind of speculation doesn't seem to be going away on its own. (which might just be part of the Bigger Conspiracy. ) Either way I'd like to see what if anything they've actually got after five and a half long years of this.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 14 April 2007 11:32 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Funny, not one of those 5,998 pilots has yet come forward and said "I was told to stay on the ground on 9/11, when I could have been there to shoot down the hijacked planes." Not one. Or are the pilots all in on the conspiracy, too?

I don't know that every pilot would have to be ordered to stay grounded, as scramble orders go through filtered channels first, and seemingly rational reasons could be given to local flight commanders who'd probably prefer denying any doubts after the fact. According to even the official version of events there were surprisingly few pilots available anyhow, and from surprisingly far away. I do recall that they did change their story a few times in the first couple weeks after, all of which were bound to raise more questions. Without 'planted explosives' and the need for fellow Americans to do anything more than looking away at times, it would have involved fewer hands and fewer potential leaks.

Look, I share most of your perfectly reasonable doubts about all this, but even if it was only a matter of some judiciously closed eyes (in institutions that do have a history of breaking laws under executive order) and highly placed suspects freed without even routine interrogation, then some illegal conspiracy could still be said to have happened. They do occur, but if anything even close to this happened then anyone concerned should start focusing on more plausible methods instead, and as a matter of process should also consider the real possibility that the Bush regime only had to take advantage of one bad break to push their reactionary agenda on ---if they ever want their suspicions to get taken more seriously that is. Even theories that noone can do anything with should be tested a bit, once they gain enough currency.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 15 April 2007 02:22 AM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about Tower 7, which crashed apparently all by itself, without being hit by any planes? Doesn't that seem odd?

I don't think that a conspiracy requires thousands of people to be "in on it" for it to succeed.

I also don't think we have to believe that GWB planned the whole thing himself just because we disbelieve the official version of the story.

There's a lot of strange things that happened that day. And the amount of "missing" or "accidentally destroyed" files and recordings also seems suspiciously high.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 15 April 2007 02:32 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about giving us the names of these "physists" and references to where we can actually read their scientific studies?

Quite right, my apologies. Here is a link to an article. You will find a compendium of articles by physisists on this site if you click the header.

I'd like to respond to the 3 questions outlined by Eric.. but will do so later as I'm short on time today.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 15 April 2007 02:47 AM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The pilots didn't need to be told to stand down. There was a bunch of fake attack "exercises" going on that day which confused everyone.

** There was Day 2 of Operation Vigilant Guardian, a NORAD exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide.

According to one NORAD employee, “everybody” at NORAD initially thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02, ABC News, 9/11/02]

http://cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/newhousenews012502.html

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm

** In addition, yet another drill titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE, was running on 9/11 simulating an air attack coming from Russia.

** The National Reconnaissance Office headquarters near Dulles Airport, Virginia, was running a simulation on 9/11 which simulated the emergency response procedures needed if a plane hit their compound while on the landing approach at Dulles.

http://www.oilempire.us/nro.html

http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 08:14 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
In fact In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.
And what was the ASCE's opinion of the Titanic before it went down?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 15 April 2007 09:29 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"And what was the ASCE's opinion of the Titanic before it went down?"

Why would they have an opinion on something totally unrelated to their field? If the integrity of structural steel is called into question, they are qualified experts in that area.

What I'm pointing out, in case you missed it, is that the collapses were unrelated to the airliner collisions. The buildings were over-designed to withstand such events.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
CanadianAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1219

posted 15 April 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for CanadianAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job web page

A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.

Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book soon to be released will include new info from Robin Hordon about this. Griffin is speaking about this book and this info in Vancouver May 16, Seattle May 18 and Portland May 22.

Forget about controlled demolitions (even though I believe WTC 1, 2 & 7 were those) and you can still make a good case for official complicity in 9/11 by focusing on the avoidance of advance warnings (FBI agents stymied, foreign intel ignored) and changes in policy and procedure that served to obfuscate military, FAA response (war games, multiple live events similar to real events, change in shoot-down procedures in mid 2001 which were then changed back after 911).

You can believe in any "degree of conspiracy" but regardless, there are so many reasons to ask more questions.

It is mind-boggling that anyone can just dismiss any questioning with a blanket statement of "I don't believe in conspiracies".

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: CanadianAlien ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 10:20 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CanadianAlien:
A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.
I don't know what's so "astounding" about it. Hordon was interviewed by telephone, not in person. He hasn't worked as an air traffic controller since 1981, when Reagan fired them all.

What he says is not personal inside information, but opinions based on speculation and suppositions - exactly the same kind of stuff that all the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists base their heartfelt opinions on.

What do we know about Hordon that would allow us to assess the value of his opinions? For all we know, Hordon could be a religious wingnut, like "philosopher and theologian" Dr. David Ray Griffin, the author of "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" and other books.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 April 2007 10:27 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CanadianAlien:

It is mind-boggling that anyone can just dismiss any questioning with a blanket statement of "I don't believe in conspiracies".

I don't believe in anything at all - until I see the proof. How's that for a blanket statement?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CanadianAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1219

posted 15 April 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for CanadianAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Spector:

Hordon could be a religious wingnut, like "philosopher and theologian" Dr. David Ray Griffin, the author of "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" and other books.

I encourage you to actually find out more about Griffin before labeling him a "religious wingnut". Respectfully, you are quite wrong.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 April 2007 10:38 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The hawks were looking for a pretext to bomb an oil-rich sovereign nation, and it dropped into their laps. Everybody knows they were focused on Iraq since the beginnig of Bush Senior's medieval siege that led to the deaths of over a million Iraqi's in softening them up for a carpet bombing. That's not a conspiracy, it happened, and the UN can verify the body count.

At any given time, the hawks are waging real war, proxy war or economic warfare on at least one resource-rich nation in the world. That's not conspiracy theory either.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 15 April 2007 02:34 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, I don't think we give osama bin laden, or whoever planned it, enough credit. This guy wanted to draw the U.S. into a war. I'm sure he didn't think destroying the WTC and the three thousand people in it would destroy the U.S. as a country.

So why would he spend so much time, money and effort? To get the U.S. to do something he knew they would do. Go on a bloody rampage in the middle east.

I think alot of conspiracy theories, and I'm not directing this at anyone, stem from westerners refusing to believe that a "ragtag" bunch of people from the hills of Afghanistan could possibly pull this off.

Remember, the soviets were there for ten years and left with their tail tucked in between their legs.

Six years ago the U.S. was coasting along and enjoyed a mildly tarnished rep in the rest of the world. Today it is mired in a no win war in Iraq and is one of the most hated nations on earth.

I can't see why anyone in the U.S. would have wanted this outcome. But I can think of a few people in the Afghani hills who might be smiling.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 04:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NOVA producer Larry Klein discusses WTC conspiracy theories with NIST civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder. - 6˝ minute audio (requires Adobe Flash player)

Building on Ground Zero


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 15 April 2007 05:07 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NIST report "collapses under scrutiny." Its been debunked as a politically motivated sham. The crack-head in the video you posted tries to explain the yellow molten steel pouring out of tower 2 as "aluminum mixed with furniture and computers."
From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 05:38 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a video. He wasn't on crack. And how do you know it was "molten steel"? I thought the "9/11 truth" people maintained the WTC inferno wasn't anywhere near hot enough to melt steel. Now you say it was?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 15 April 2007 07:02 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
The NIST report "collapses under scrutiny." Its been debunked as a politically motivated sham. The crack-head in the video you posted tries to explain the yellow molten steel pouring out of tower 2 as "aluminum mixed with furniture and computers."


I don't see how its' been debunked. The guy who wrote that so called debunking is a Mark H. Gaffney, ummm...as far as I can tell he wrote a couple of books, but he's not a scientist, so what qualifications would he possess to be in a position to contradict a scientific analysis.

The internet has made alot of people pseudo-lawyers,doctors and now apparently, scientists. But until Mr.Gaffney can provide photos of his lab where he has conducted research on the melting point of various substances, I'll just have to chalk up his "debunking" as NWKB. (nutwithkeyboard)


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 15 April 2007 08:22 PM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are two websites that go a long way towards deconstructing many common arguments about 9/11:

http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 April 2007 08:38 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
I'd like to respond to the 3 questions outlined by Eric.. but will do so later as I'm short on time today.

I'd apreciate that, those are the only three I'm concerned with at this moment.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 01:41 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A) US intelligence agencies were informed of this specific threat beforehand, B) that there truly were unusual failures in established protocals during the main feature which allowed these hijacked planes through, or even C) whether earlier reports that extra US warships were being sent to the Persian gulf Before this even happened have been verified or refuted(??) If so I'd truly like to see it.

A) Since, as I believe, compartments of US intellegence agencies helped co-ordinate the attacks, specific foreknowledge is a given, but if you are asking me for the blueprints I don't have supbeona power and they probably were destroyed with the demolition of WTC7 which housed offices of several intelligence agencies.

But you can find a plethora of evidence of specific warnings that were ignored or brushed under the rug, at this site:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

B) Besides the obvious failures, like for example, failure of the secret service to removie the president from the elementary school when it was known the nation was under attack? Thereby jeopardizing not only the president's life but that of the classful of children?

Well, but to the point, a document showing that normal procedual command of flight intercepts during a hijacking had been altered to require initiation from the Secretary of Defence before 9/11, meaning if Rumsfeld didn't act it was equivalent to a "stand-down" order.

C) According to the [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
]BBC[/URL], the US had plans to go into Afghanistan months before 9/11.
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."
Tony Blair ""To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002).


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 16 April 2007 02:21 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Here are two websites that go a long way towards deconstructing many common arguments about 9/11:

http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com


Viewer's Guide to Loose Change

Scientific American

Popular Mechanics


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 04:42 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Viewer's Guide to Loose Change

Scientific American

Popular Mechanics


All of these attempts at debunking have themselves been debunked.

Frankly, if you really think 19 Arab terrorists were able to hijack 4 commercial flights and hit 75% of their targets show me your evidence. Where is the criminal investigation? Where is the forensic or photographic evidence to prove commercial airliners are what struck the Pentagon and crashed in Shanksville? Why did those particular flights vaporize while all other crashes in history have left tremendous amounts of fusilage?

How does a plane strike the most defended building on earth almost an hour after the first plane hit the WTC and the nation realized it was under attack? How did this plane bypass the Pentagon's automated missile-defense system?

Why did Atta, chief hijacker among the accused, receive a 100 grand from Pakistani ISI chief General Mahmoud Ahmad who worked closely with the US, and was visiting the State Department and the CIA in the days before 9/11? Why wasn't this amazing revelation pursued by either the mainstream media or US auuthorites? Don't believe me? It bothered a British MP enough to write an article about in London's Guardian


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 April 2007 05:14 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:

Frankly, if you really think 19 Arab terrorists were able to hijack 4 commercial flights and hit 75% of their targets show me your evidence.

Moses,

I am increasingly concerned about your posts.

They appear to disclose a higher level of information than has ever been released in the media.

For example, you refer to "19 Arab terrorists". Where did you get the information that all 19 were Arabs?!

Obviously you have sources that are not available to the rest of us.

Do you mind if I ask:

1. Where were you and what were you doing in the period leading up to September 11, 2001?

2. Have you ever visited the Red Sea?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 16 April 2007 05:37 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't find anything on these 'debunking' sites about Flight 93. This bit of mythmaking is one of the most disturbing of the 9/11 discrepancies to my mind. I am virtually convinced that this flight was brought down by military action - because of the lack of debris, reports I heard myself on that day, odd statements by officials since, and the unlikelihood that cell phones connected with anyone from 7 or 8000 ft. in the air.

Overall, I agree with what Dana had to say:

quote:
I also don't think we have to believe that GWB planned the whole thing himself just because we disbelieve the official version of the story.

There's a lot of strange things that happened that day. And the amount of "missing" or "accidentally destroyed" files and recordings also seems suspiciously high.


Adding to the strangeness is the bizarre number of coincidences we're all supposed to accept - such as the military simulations for just such an event happening on that very day.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 05:39 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not claiming 19 Arabs did anything so there's nothing for me to disclose. 'Islamic terrorists' is perhaps a more accurate discription of those framed by the criminal US government. Six of them turned up alive, but apparently finding out who was using their identities is not of interest to Washington.

Unionist, I'm not sure what your point is but I've a feeling its quite a meaningless one.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 05:44 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't find anything on these 'debunking' sites about Flight 93.

Here is a link to rare FOX and NBC footage of the Flight 93 crash site. "nothing larger than a phone book."


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 06:03 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Adding to the strangeness is the bizarre number of coincidences we're all supposed to accept - such as the military simulations for just such an event happening on that very day.

On the subject of simulations, COINCIDENTALLY, simulations were going on during the 7/7 London bombings, drills that predicted precisely what happened in reality.

Visor Consultants, a 'crisis-management' firm, was hired to simulate what would happen should terrorist attacks take place in London. Managing Director, Peter Power, had this to say to BBC5

quote:
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it.


While 9/11 military simulations might be said to be at the least a bizarre coincidence, what do you say when the very same coincidence takes place again in London on 7/7? Its no longer a coincidence. These drills have a definite purpose. Like for example, should the plan be foiled or discovered by local police in the execution, it can always be explained away as part of an 'exercise drill.'

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Moses ]


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 16 April 2007 06:06 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I can't find anything on these 'debunking' sites about Flight 93.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93.html

As an aside, here's a link that discusses both the stand-down hypothesis and the concurrent military games on 9/11:

http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Regarding the exercises on 7/7:

http://www.911myths.com/html/7_7_exercise_probabilities.html

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 16 April 2007 06:14 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Neither that site, nor the Popular Mechanics site that it links to addresses even one of the issues I mentioned.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 16 April 2007 07:41 AM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michael Nenonen purports to be a journalist from The Republic (yes, Kevin Potvin's newspaper). However, it was made very clear to readership who called and wrote to complain that Nenonen was only writing in the capacity of an op-ed when he wrote the piece called What if 9-11 truth movement is wrong? in the March 1 to March 14, 2007 • No 158 of the Republic.

The piece Nenonen wrote was ill-informed, and were simple hollow echoes those straw man arguments that mirror those found on the websites that he refers to above (911 myths, Popular Mechanics, etc).

Nenonen was handily rebutted by a flood of letters to the Republic.

However, it is clear that Nenonen hasn't learned anything since because he is still clinging to the same old info. He should come to the David Ray Griffin talk on May 16th in Vancouver and listen to Dr. Griffin demolish each and everyone of the arguments put up by Popular Mechanics, or 911 Myths. Or is he not interested in real journalism?

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: blogbart ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 16 April 2007 12:09 PM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists remind me of the JFK conspiracy theorists in the early 90s...too much of the energy of the Left gets sidetracked into these conspiracies.
From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 16 April 2007 03:07 PM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lard Thunderin' Jeezus (love your name, by the way): Here's a link to a site that addresses the issue of cell phone use aboard Flight 93 in some detail:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Cell_phones

For a general overview of the evidence surrounding Flight 93, go here:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93

Blogbart: Yes, the paper was flooded with e-mails, some accusing me of using "straw man" arguments...though it was never quite made clear which of my arguments were "straw men". A number of the letters made use of arguments that, I believe, have themselves been discredited.

In the subsequent issue of The Republic, I wrote an article that obliquely addressed the 911 truth movement. You can find it here:

http://republic-news.org/archive/160_repub/160_nenonen.htm

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 April 2007 03:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Scientific American

Popular Mechanics


Aha! CIA front organizations both.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 16 April 2007 04:56 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Max Mialystock and Michael Nenonen

It is cowardly to disparage the truth movement with your blanket labelling and uninformed arrogance. It is obvious you have an agenda and are unwilling to engage with the facts as they stand. Frankly I find your attitude disrespectful.

If you would group us all under the heading "conspiracy nuts", among those you slander are:

Paul Craig Roberts, economist and former Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan.

quote:
I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. [4]

Michael Meacher , British MP and former Environment Minister, now running for leadership of the Labour Party.

Andreas Von Bulow , Former German Secretary of Defence.

quote:
"They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence - that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda - in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation"

Numerous eyewitnesses including
William Rodriguez , a national hero, and the last person to leave the tower alive.
Along with 100+ survivors and family members.

The list goes on: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are calling for a new independent investigation of 9/11.

So your position is untenable. The official version is untenable and you are ill-informed if you think otherwise.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 16 April 2007 05:13 PM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moses: Paul Craig Roberts is mistaken to buy into the Free Fall fallacy:

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

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

I'm not terribly impressed by the politicians who are calling for an inquiry into this matter. Politicians are no more qualified, in my mind, than the legions of engineers and physicists who reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.

As for the "eyewitnesses", what they tend to report is the sound of explosions inside the WTC, but these sounds weren't caused by explosives:

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

I realize that you believe that these sites have been "debunked," but I haven't seen any credible evidence of this.

And, yes, perhaps I am painting the 9/11 truth movement with a broad brush. Still, I don't feel too bad about doing so, as I've come across many proponents of the truth movement who've argued that psychological defense mechanisms provide the real reason why so many people deny the truth movement's claims. What's good for the goose is equally good for the gander. Besides, as I hope my article has illustrated, there are a number of similarities between the truth movement and the Satanic Panic of the 80s and early 90s...enough similarities to warrant caution, at any rate.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 April 2007 05:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Scientific American

Popular Mechanics

Aha! CIA front organizations both.


Way to refute them conspiracy theories!!

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 16 April 2007 05:36 PM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:
Max Mialystock and Michael Nenonen

It is cowardly to disparage the truth movement with your blanket labelling and uninformed arrogance. It is obvious you have an agenda and are unwilling to engage with the facts as they stand. Frankly I find your attitude disrespectful.

...

So your position is untenable. The official version is untenable and you are ill-informed if you think otherwise.



The "truth" movement, not to be confused with the "conspiracy" movement, bases its entire case on the weak argument that since the "official story" cannot fully answer all questions, it must be based on a lie. The illogic is mind-numbing.

All the answers have not come out. There is certainly a huge pool of incompetence to be answered for.

But because X is not true does not immediately make Y true.

I am curious how the "truth" movement reconciles the overwhelming indifference the global scientific community has shown to their cause. I've asked this question before of a "truth" movement member, only to be directed to Scholars for Truth, which mostly made up of social scientists, and includes a handful of neo-nazis just for good measure.


From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 16 April 2007 07:25 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nenonen: Here are two websites that go a long way towards deconstructing many common arguments about 9/11:

http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com

You appear to have a lot of faith in these two sites. You said above that you wouldn't trust former politicians judgements on 9/11 topics. Do you have any idea who is posting the info on those sites? Do you know what credentials they might have to make the arguments they do? Why do you advocate for them? What is the basis for your trust?

Or are you just limiting your "journalist research" to these unaccredited and dubious sources?

What else you got kid?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 17 April 2007 12:29 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nenonen
Exactly. While you don't trust witnesses and politicians, you seem to put all your faith in www.911myths.com and www.debunking911.com Who are the authors of these sites and what are their credentials? Why don't they sign their name to anything they write?

As to:

quote:
there are a number of similarities between the truth movement and the Satanic Panic of the 80s and early 90s...enough similarities to warrant caution, at any rate.

Yeah right. 9/11 truth engages in events that took place before thousands of witnesses and millions of viewers. It is scientifically based and the numerous pilots, physicists, academics, politicians, whistle-blowers, firefighters, engineers, and ground zero witnesses will testify to.

There is no comparison to the Satanic Panic, however the Panic itself had some basis in actual crimes, many unconnected, but some fairly large scale pedophile operations were going on and led up to the higher echelons of the Republican party. It culminated in what became known as the Franklin Scandal. Recently leaked documentary Conspiracy of Silence shows how former Nebraska senator turned lawyer John DeCamp tried to prosecute the ring-leaders who had close ties to the Republican party.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 17 April 2007 05:09 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What else you got kid?

How about the NIST?

These guys are not politicians. They are (mostly) engineers.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 17 April 2007 05:44 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:

How about the NIST?

These guys are not politicians. They are (mostly) engineers.


Ah, but of course they're in on the conspiracy.

Has anyone else noticed the double standard at work here? Proponents of the Truth Movement seem to be infinitley credulous about their own sources, but supremely skeptical about sources disagreeing with their own, even when those sources are providing arguments that are supported by the vast majority of scientists who've looked into this matter. I mean, really, their shining star is a theologian, for God's sake.

The parallels between the arguments of the 911 Truth Movement and those of climate change contrarians are pretty vivid.

Speaking of parallels, I stand by my comparison between Satanic Panic and the 911 Truth Movement. Human beings are predisposed to see conspiracies where none exist. Imagined conspiracies serve important psychological functions, and tend to be unself-consciousnly defended with all sorts of rationalizations, regardless of the weight of opposing arguments.

Members of the truth movement seem oblivious to the implausibility of their position. The larger a hypothesised conspiracy, the less plausible it becomes. There are three reasons for this. First, in order to safeguard their operation, conspirators are unlikely to plan a conspiracy that involves a significant number of people. Second, the more people who are required to pull a conspiracy off, the more chances there are of mistakes occurring, threatening the operation’s success. Third, every person involved in a conspiracy, however peripherally, is a potential snitch: a single exposed thread can unravel an entire ball of yarn. Even the tightest conspiracies, involving only a few people with modest aims, are regularly exposed for these very reasons.

So, how many people would have to be part of the conspiracy alleged by the 911 Truth movement? Even if only a handful of people were aware of the entirety of the conspiracy, a vast number would have had to realize something dreadfully wrong was afoot, and to know enough to keep silent about their complicity. The cover-up alone would have required either the direct complicity or the motivated blindness of a legion of investigators, scientists, and journalists. Military historian Gwynne Dyer estimates that the conspiracy would have included at least 10,000 people.

Let’s assume that the Bush administration orchestrated the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building Seven, a missile attack on the Pentagon, the disappearance of Flight 93, and the conspiracy’s cover-up. Let’s also assume the accuracy of reports of insider trading before 9-11, as well as of the conspicuous absence on 9-11 of numerous people who would otherwise have been at the World Trade Centre. Finally, let’s assume that various anomalies in the news coverage of 9-11 demonstrate media complicity. In this pared-down version of the conspiracy theory, how many people would be needed to pull it off?

To start things off, as the ringleaders of the operation, the Bush administration had to have full knowledge of the conspiracy. Bush’s Secret Service team would also have to know enough to avoid getting Bush to safety after it became clear that America was under attack. In order to ensure the conspiracy wasn’t exposed beforehand and to implement the cover-up afterwards, the conspiracy would need the knowing co-operation of, at the bare minimum, hundreds of well-placed people in the CIA and FBI.

The conspiracy would have included the many people who were supposedly warned not to fly on 9-11 or come into work that day, and who later kept quiet about the warnings, as well as the people who issued the warnings, and all the people involved in insider trading before the attacks took place.

Whoever piloted the planes would have to be willing to lay down their lives for the conspiracy. If, on the other hand, the planes were remote-controlled, then the owners of the airplanes, the people who re-designed them so that they could be piloted from a distance, and the people who were guiding the aircraft would have been part of the operation. Assuming that it’s possible to intercept planes over American airspace that have their transponders turned off, and that it’s possible to do so at the drop of a hat, the Air Force would have to know enough to avoid intercepting them before they reached their targets.

The security company Stratesec and the Silverstein Group would have had to give permission for demolitions to be placed in the towers. There would have to have been a number of people involved in researching the Twin Towers and Building Seven in order to find the appropriate places to set the explosives. Hundreds of workers would be needed to hide the demolitions over the course of many months, and at least a few people would be needed to set off the demolitions at various times of the day on 9-11. Larry Silverstein’s insurance company would have to ignore the evidence of his complicity in the towers’ destruction and pay out 2 billion dollars in compensation, even though it took him to court to try and get this amount lowered.

People with the means to fire at least one rather large long-range missile from within the USA would have been needed to blast the Pentagon. Every Pentagon official who was important to the Bush administration would have been warned to stay away from the targeted section of the building. Every liar who falsely reported seeing a plane heading into the Pentagon would need some knowledge of the conspiracy. Scores of people would be required to remove any evidence of a missile attack and to plant extensive evidence of plane wreckage and human remains at the Pentagon immediately after the missile attack. They would also have to cause damage consistent with a plane crash, such as broken lampposts, in the vicinity of the Pentagon. Everyone who saw this evidence being planted would need to be silenced or co-opted, and everyone involved in silencing or co-opting the witnesses would be part of the conspiracy.

A lot of people would have had to be involved in the disappearance of Flight 93 and all of the passengers on board, as well as in faking their phone calls, covering-up the deception, and silencing or co-opting their relatives.

The news outlets that provided misinformation on the day of the attacks, such as the BBC for reporting that the Building Seven collapsed twenty minutes before it actually fell, would have to be part of the conspiratorial loop. All of the world’s major media, including Al Jazeera, would have to consciously avoid investigating and exposing the conspiracy.

The cover-up would have required the complicity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 911 Commission as well as the hundreds of scientists and engineers involved with the National Institute for Science and Technology and the various magazines that have examined the physics of 9-11, including Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, and Counterpunch. There’s no other way to account for their promotion of theories that the Truth movement believes are incapable of explaining the towers’ collapse.

Some would argue that even more people would be needed to pull off the “official” conspiracy story. Frankly, I’m hard-pressed to see how.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 17 April 2007 06:17 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The parallels between the arguments of the 911 Truth Movement and those of climate change contrarians are pretty vivid.
It might seem that dismissive blanket statements about anyone with any doubts would work in your favour - but I'm guessing that assumption, like many of your others, is wrong.

Not a single one of your sites addresses the likelihood that military action accounts for the oddities in the story of Flight 93. Whereas they can be accounted for: the small debris from it being blown out of the sky, the large scatter zone due to the same. The news reports the same day stating/speculating that this had occurred - I heard them more than once myself. And there have been several subsequent 'slips of the tongue', most famously by Dick Cheney, speaking of the shooting down of the flight.

So go ahead, ridicule our honest questions. Lump them in with the most wingnut theories of conspiracy you can find. I'm afraid it only weakens your case.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 17 April 2007 06:20 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lard Thunderin' Jeezus: So, what did you think about the link I provided regarding cell phone use aboard Flight 93?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 17 April 2007 06:51 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

So go ahead, ridicule our honest questions. Lump them in with the most wingnut theories of conspiracy you can find. I'm afraid it only weakens your case.

This is the tact taken by the official story believers, take the most lidicrous conspiracy theory out there and focus on that implying that anyone who doesn't believe the official story is a 'loon' a 'crackpot' an 'unstable person' Someone earlier alluded to us being 'nazis' (thanks for that btw) and all the rest.

It's so bad I sometimes wonder if people looking to discredit the movement are out there planting ridiculous stories only so they can tear them down lumping any legitimate questions with them.

Some of us don't believe that a missile hit the pentatgon, some of us don't believe flight 93 was replaced by pod people, some of us don't believe in a lot of the conspiracies, but we do ask legitimate questions still begging to be answered like...

How the authorities managed to find Mohammed Atta's Passport in the WTC rubble when the fire from the planes was apparently so strong it melted a building?

But...you're right... I'm the lunatic.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: quelar ]


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 17 April 2007 07:26 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

This is the tact taken by the official story believers, take the most lidicrous conspiracy theory out there and focus on that implying that anyone who doesn't believe the official story is a 'loon' a 'crackpot' an 'unstable person' Someone earlier alluded to us being 'nazis' (thanks for that btw) and all the rest.


[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: quelar ]



I didn't actually compare you to nazis. I said the group often cited by the "truth" movement includes neo nazis, specifically members of the America First Party.

From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 17 April 2007 07:31 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, but that sort of broad brushed inference is pointless and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

There are neo nazis who believe that health care is important, children should have access to schools and that working people deserve a fair wage. We don't bring them up when we discuss these issues.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 17 April 2007 07:43 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, what it shows is that the group is desperate for numbers, so they will allow anyone to join.
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 17 April 2007 07:45 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, real desperate.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 17 April 2007 08:19 AM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To the defenders of the faith. I see you trying to prove what is wrong, but what are you doing to uncover the incompetence that you claim gave rise to the tradegy of 9/11?

I see you giving the incompetent a pass for their incompetence. I see you giving them a much bigger pass for their cover-up of their incompetence. I see you defending a conspiracy of huge proportions - like the WMD affair and the Iraq-9/11 connection were covered up. You are saying that the government and media are keeping this massive story of incompetence from the public. How many people are involved in this conspiracy? By your own arguments ... it doesn't look plausible ...

But, fact is, it is very plausible .. a growing majority of people sense the dissonance caused by variance between the story told by media and government and what they have seen with their own eyes, and realize with their own faculties of logic and awareness.

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation link

Here are those Angus Reid poll results combined with April 2004 NTY/CBS polling (Source: NYT) link


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 17 April 2007 08:39 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're all over the map on this one thread. Do I think the whole truth has come out? No. And that polling data speaks rather vaguely to that.

But it's a pretty long leap from there to arguing that United 93 was shot down, as LTJ implies is possible, or that the US government planned the whole damn thing, which another poster initimated.

The problem with a lot of the arguments is that they're just so specious. There's no proof to any of it. Yes, finding Mohammed Atta's passport in the rubble is incredible. But it's also perfectly plausible. Notice in all the video footage, all that paper floating down from the buildings? Not everything was incinerated or pulverized.

If we're talking about incredible events, why isn't anyone asking about the incredible rescue of 20 people from the rubble? How was that possible?

I'll ask the same question, though: why has the global scientific community more or less yawned at the issue? How is it possible that a handful of people on the internet are able to see through the official story, but those who have the broadest expertise in the physical science don't see the problem?

(That, by the way, is the most relevant way in which this compares to the climate change debate: the global scientific community says one thing, but a relative handful of skeptics grasp onto what they see as small inconsistencies and use them to claim that the whole story is false.)


From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 17 April 2007 08:47 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fartful Codger:
Do I think the whole truth has come out? No.

Then we agree.

What is so wrong then in trying to get answers out of people?


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 17 April 2007 04:11 PM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
blogbart: Those are impressive poll results. Equally impressive is the fact that in 1994, Redbook magazine conducted a survey that found that 70% of American adults believed in the existence of abusive Satanic cults, and 32% believed that the FBI and police were ignoring evidence because they didn't want to open their eyes to what was going on. These results--like the ones you've posted--reveal nothing more than our collective eagerness to believe in conspiracies, regardless of the evidence at hand.

Quelar: The notion that the fires were hot enough to "melt" the WTC buildings is itself a bit of misinformation widely used by the 911 Truth movement. The heat inside the buildings didn't cause the steel to melt--it caused it to expand, catastrophically shifting the building's weight and causing it to collapse.

Here's a link to a discussion about the "molten steel" story:

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

Here's a link to a discussion about the passport found in the wreckage:

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 04:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
The conspiracy theories are based on the premise that the U.S. is all-knowing and all-powerful, and that a handful of determined individuals couldn't possibly do much damage to the Great Nation.

That's why they're wrong.


They said the same thing about bin Laden and his small army being solely responsible for taking down the Soviet Union. The permanent shadow government is all about conspiracies.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 17 April 2007 09:30 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michael Nenonen
quote:
Here's a link to a discussion about the "molten steel" story:

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

Here's a link to a discussion about the passport found in the wreckage:

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html


THESE SITES HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. The respective authors don't even dare sign their names to the articles posted there. If you were worth your salt, you would not quote or link to dubious and anonymous sites. If you have something to say, something to refute, say it yourself, refute it yourself - and provide your sources - instead of linking to bullshit.

Tell me Nenomen, are you aware of the bomb simulations that were going on at the same time as the actual bombings in London 7/7 ? You certainly must be aware that hijacking drills were going on on 9/11 - that's been reported on sufficiently.

But on 7/7 too? Too much of a coincidence don't you think?
Peter Power of Visor Consulting told the BBC his company was hired to run a crisis-response exercise to simulated bombings in precise locations and then the bombing actually took place!

quote:
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it.


So what do you make of that Nenonen? No wonder bad-boy Blair rejected an investigation into the bombings.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Moses ]


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 18 April 2007 06:23 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moses: The arguments on the sites I've referenced are sound, they provide appropriate references to their source material, and they're in perfect accord with the research conducted by Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, Counterpunch, etc. After the vitriol I experienced following my article in The Repulbic, I can easily understand why the authors don't want to expose themselves to harassment by the Truth Movement. If you don't like the arguments they're making, rather than simply dismissing the sites--along with all the other evidence from every other source that doesn't agree with your position--I suggest you target those arguments.

As for the exercises carried out on 9/11 and 7/7, I've already posted links that specifically address this. Look for it in my April 16 posts earlier in this thread.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 April 2007 06:54 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Lard Thunderin' Jeezus: So, what did you think about the link I provided regarding cell phone use aboard Flight 93?

Interesting, though not conclusive.

The data presented directly contradicts some others I've read (and some of my experience in terms of planes and cellphones), and the call timings and altitude charts also vary significantly from other sources (where people are willing to provide names and means of contact).

With so much misinformation floating about, don't you think a comprehensive investigation is in order?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 07:10 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
.... and they're in perfect accord with the research conducted by Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, Counterpunch, etc.


Did you read these 'research' papers? If you had, you would know that they're all complete crap, all the writers did was to contact US Government Officials and ask them a bunch of questions.

The editor of the Popular Mechanics article in a radio interview admitted that part of their 'independant' research included copying and pasting information from the 9/11 commission report. This included the confirmation of who the hijackers were through DNA samples. Despite the fact that the investigators had no previous DNA samples to confirm and the fact that when the planes hit the building they exploded in human material vaporizing fireballs. But, after the buildings burned hot enough to melt steel supports (completely unheard of previous to that fateful day), after collapsing into a giant dust ball that pulverized concrete into dust, they still managed to find enough DNA evidence to 'confirm' that those hijackers certainly were the ones the FBI told them.

When asked to explain this the editor said something along the lines of "Uuuh.. Um. Well, it's ...ahhh.. you see... uhh."

It's lazy journalism by the same lazy journalists that let the government get away with the Iraq war lies.

Come back when you have an independant investigation instead of parrotted responses.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 18 April 2007 07:20 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
But, after the buildings burned hot enough to melt steel supports (completely unheard of previous to that fateful day)

And it's still unheard of. No-one claims that the steel supports were melted.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 18 April 2007 07:39 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

Interesting, though not conclusive.

The data presented directly contradicts some others I've read (and some of my experience in terms of planes and cellphones), and the call timings and altitude charts also vary significantly from other sources (where people are willing to provide names and means of contact).

With so much misinformation floating about, don't you think a comprehensive investigation is in order?


It depends what you're trying to get out of this. If you want conclusivity, you won't get it. This was a singular event. There is nothing to compare it to. There's no baseline data.

If you're trying to satisfy the current critics, you won't do that either. The "truth" movement has a certain religious fervour to it. There is a pretty large segment of the population that loves to believe in wild-eyed conspiracies.

Hey, I'd love to see a comprehensive investigation (which is no longer fully possible since a lot of the evidence was destroyed by the a-bit-too-hasty removal of the debris from the site -- a big reason why the NYFD is pissed at Rudy Giuliani) but any key finding would mostly be one of negligence on the part of intelligence agencies and of poor co-operation on the part of the myriad rescue agencies.

I'd argue that more people would be amenable to such an investigation if the conspiracy theorists would stop fomenting their nonsensical agenda. If there was one focus: on why the US/NORAD/NATO didn't or couldn't prevent the attacks or why they seemed to respond so slowly to them after they were underway, there might be enough political will to move that forward.

But as soon as you start talking about controlled demolitions, or secreting away entire planeloads of people, or missle strikes, most people start thinking you're nuts. They don't like being associated with nuts. So you'll lose support.

I'll ask again, by the way. How does the "truth" movement reconcile the complete lack of interest shown to this by the global scientific community? Scientists tend to be curious folk; if there was something there, why wouldn't they be speaking out?


From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 08:20 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

And it's still unheard of. No-one claims that the steel supports were melted.


Fair, 'melted' isn't the word they used, 'structurally weakened' is the official term. Still, fire had, previous to this never brought down a tower like this.

quote:
I'll ask again, by the way. How does the "truth" movement reconcile the complete lack of interest shown to this by the global scientific community? Scientists tend to be curious folk; if there was something there, why wouldn't they be speaking out?

This one's easy. Look at the kind of attacks us Rabblers are dealing with from our fellow rabblers. We've been called crazy, stupid, wasteful, a mild indirect allusion to the nazi's, crackpots, etc. Which scientist in his right mind wants to come out publically with any statements when the response is so vitrolous and hateful like This.. again, allusions to Holocaust Denial, socialy irresponsible, morons, etc.

Say you do have some proof? Do you want the Victoria Plame treatement for your troubles? Or do you just stay quiet?


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 April 2007 08:30 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And given the dependence of the scientific community on government grants (in the U.S., often channeled through the military) and academic placement, I can't see a great deal of 'curiosity' being stimulated amongst them.

Still, they are not silent or unknown amongst those sceptical of the official story line.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 18 April 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, no control of scientists on global warming, complete control on WTC collapse. That's just not credible, and arguing it damages your own credibility.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 10:13 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was control on the Global Warming front, especially in the US. Their government and the supporting studies were the last in the developed world to accept it as a possibility.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 18 April 2007 10:22 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
There was control on the Global Warming front, especially in the US. Their government and the supporting studies were the last in the developed world to accept it as a possibility.

US scientists have been quite active in examining climate change. It's been government bureaucrats that have been the wrench in the works. Contrary to the way they've treated the whole 9/11 issue, they have spoken out when the current administration has tried to muffle the fair-minded investigation of issue.


From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 18 April 2007 10:27 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phred:

I've seen the first and second edition and I can't recall whether they said it was a B-25 or B-52 BUT I can for sure recall they never mentioning a 747.


Sorry, 767s. Anyway, the issue remains that their comparison with the Empire State Building incident is completely fatuous and that they got the facts wrong as well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 18 April 2007 10:29 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
And what was the ASCE's opinion of the Titanic before it went down?

The Titanic didn't hit an iceberg. It was a controlled demolition.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 April 2007 10:30 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Right, no control of scientists on global warming, complete control on WTC collapse.
Where does this nonsense come from?
Are you claiming this is the position of someone here?

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 18 April 2007 10:31 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maritimesea:
Also, I don't think we give osama bin laden, or whoever planned it, enough credit. This guy wanted to draw the U.S. into a war. I'm sure he didn't think destroying the WTC and the three thousand people in it would destroy the U.S. as a country.

I think there's a certain element of racism at play in 9/11 theories ie Arabs are too stupid to pull anything like this off - I mean it's not like Osama Bin Laden is a civil engineer whose family runs one of the largest demolition companies in the Middle East and would therefore know exactly where to aim the 767s in order to cause the most damage.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 18 April 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Moses:

Frankly, if you really think 19 Arab terrorists were able to hijack 4 commercial flights and hit 75% of their targets show me your evidence.

Why wouldn't they be able to? I know Hollywood films portray Arabs and Arab terrorists as stupid incompetents but that doesn't mean they are in real life. And you forget bin laden is a civil engineer and he has experience in his family's construction (and demolition) company so he's not without knowledge as to how to bring down large buildings.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 01:39 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So who care, let's assume that the hijackers were the ones they said, the planes weren't missiles, the building did collapse on their own, Guilliani's 'pulling the building' comment was a mistake, the various videotapes of that day that have gone missing really did just go missing.
It was a random chance that the plane hit the pentagon on the side of the building that was being reno'ed.
It was an honest mistkae that the FBI agent who was investigating the flight school students was told to leave them alone.
It was someone else that was out partying and drinking at a strip bar, not the 'radical muslims' that were about to destroy themselves for their beliefs the next day.
It was a fluke that Norad was running a number of confusing airplane hijacking scenarios the same day of actual hijackings.
It was an oversight that they ignored the warnings despite the German, French and Israeli warnings to the US government.
It was a fluke that the attackers just happened to be from a country who had recently told the oil industry to go to hell. And it's also a coincidence that the government is all oil people.

Accepting ALL of this, why has no one yet to explain why July 31, 2001 the typical 'auto responce' to a plane hijacking system was altered to fall entirely ont he head of Donald Rumsfeld, and why, despite over an hour of various levels of government being informed, why had he not given the order to scramble, and why, once they finally did get in the, did they fly out over the atlantic??


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 18 April 2007 01:54 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[QB]So who care, let's assume that the hijackers were the ones they said, the planes weren't missiles, the building did collapse on their own, Guilliani's 'pulling the building' comment was a mistake,

1) A missile is any sort of projectile, including a plane.

2) Guiliani didn't say anything about "pulling the building" what was said on the radio was "pull it" which is emergency services speak for pull your personnel out of the building. Why? Because it was about to collapse.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 03:08 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, it was Larry Silverstein, the WTC owner who said "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The term 'pull' was never, and never has been used to evacuate a building.

However, I told you to accept that this was an honest error, so no need to argue, right?


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 18 April 2007 08:21 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
blogbart: Those are impressive poll results. Equally impressive is the fact that in 1994, Redbook magazine conducted a survey that found that 70% of American adults believed in the existence of abusive Satanic cults, and 32% believed that the FBI and police were ignoring evidence because they didn't want to open their eyes to what was going on. These results--like the ones you've posted--reveal nothing more than our collective eagerness to believe in conspiracies, regardless of the evidence at hand.

Not sure this is a valid comparison. I don't remember anything called the "Satanic Panic" of this era, but I would guess it was in large part fueled by media reports, and by the more open public discussions on child sexual abuse and ritual abuse that began at this time.

In any case, the media reports for 9/11 are pretty much unilaterally in confirmation of the official story. The figures that BB cites are those of people who believe in cover-up or conspiracy DESPITE what the bombardment of MSM messaging has been on this issue. Significant difference.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 18 April 2007 08:56 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These results--like the ones you've posted--reveal nothing more than our collective eagerness to believe in conspiracies, regardless of the evidence at hand.

What are your credentials for making such sweeping human behavior statements? Its a dubious and unsupported claim. Have you interviewed, or surveyed all those who responded? What is the basis for you to equate the two surveys? And in any case, this has nothing to do with the motivations of many people i know personally .. who are simply interested in justice, good government, and trust. Further, are you saying that because people love a good conspiracy, that is a reason the conspiracy is not real?? The official story is a story about a conspiracy. Your odd logic now says that your belief in the official story is invalid because you too love a good conspiracy!

Quelar: The notion that the fires were hot enough to "melt" the WTC buildings is itself a bit of misinformation widely used by the 911 Truth movement. The heat inside the buildings didn't cause the steel to melt--it caused it to expand, catastrophically shifting the building's weight and causing it to collapse.

You had better be VERY careful what you say in this regard. NIST has never claimed to know the collapse mechanism for WTC 1 & 2. They only speculate as to how the collapses may have started. Period. Your statements put you in a position of theorizing far past what NIST was willing to speculate. But don't kid yourself; the NIST WTC reports, while prepared by qualified persons, were framed in such a way to avoid asking too much. Many of the analyses conducted were computer models which were made to fit the outcome - namely, that the buildings did collapse.

In fact, a very detailed petition has recently been made to have NIST amend its WTC reports, based on its faulty satisfaction of a variety of governmental regulation. It was submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (google for it "NIST_DQA_Petition%28redacted%29.pdf")

Finally, to those of you who support the official story of 9/11 .. or at least are attacking alternative stories ... since part of your argument is that 9/11 happened due to incompetence .. why are you not demanding answers into incompetence and its consequent coverup?! You need to answer this:

what are you doing to uncover the incompetence that you claim gave rise to the tradegy of 9/11?

I see you giving the incompetent a pass for their incompetence. I see you giving them a much bigger pass for their cover-up of their incompetence. I see you defending a conspiracy of huge proportions - like the WMD affair and the Iraq-9/11 connection were covered up. You are saying that the government and media are keeping this massive story of incompetence from the public.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 19 April 2007 02:59 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Next thing you know people will be denying that there was any involvement by UFOs.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 April 2007 03:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps. But they'll be doing it in the next thread, since this one is long.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 19 April 2007 06:25 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Blogbart: For a good analysis of the reasons why the towers collapsed, drawn from the NIST investigations, go here:

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

Follow the links at the bottom of the page, as it's divided into several sections.

As for my support for the official conspiracy theory: You'll recall in my article on Satanic panic, I wrote that there are destructive conspiracies that occur in the world, and that it would be foolish to ignore them. Still, it's much, much easier to attack a highly coupled and very complex system than it is to comprehensively manipulate that system. Thus, it's much easier to hack a sophisticated computer network than it is to defend that network from hackers. The official conspiracy story asserts that a highly complex system was attacked; the Truth Movement's story asserts that a highly complex system was comprehensively manipulated. The official story is, quite simply, far more plausible.

As for my credentials, they're pretty irrelevant. I'm drawing upon the work of Ernest Becker and the school of psychology inspired by his work, a school called Terror Management Theory. My analysis stands or falls on the credibility of this school. If you want to deconstruct my analysis, take some time to target the theory base.

Finally, you ask if I think that people should be called to account for their incompetence on 911. Yes, I do. You then ask what I'm doing to advance this goal. Well, like many people who might otherwise be pushing for this goal, while I'm not participating in antiwar actions (which is my first priority), I find myself sidetracked by the need to respond to a growing conspiracy theory that threatens to undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement. If the Truth Movement wasn't luring masses of potential activists away with the scent of a thousand red herrings, it would be much, much easier to challenge the Bush administration for the sins they're actually responsible for.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 06:48 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, like more controversial issues like Marilyn Manson & Eminem music, Ernst Zundel rants, and other insane conspiracy theories the ney sayers are all tripping overthemselves to show us the error of our ways. However the best way to shut down the theories is simple. STOP paying attention to them.

The more people arguing so vehemently against the conspiracies only emboldens (thanks shrub) the people trying to get to the truth. If we're so far off the mark, and we're so insane for believing it then why bother spending all your time trying to disprove us. You even mentioned the actions to bring Bush down through his provable crimes, so go focus on that and stop attacking us then.

"Methinks she doth protest too much"

And for those thinking these larger conspiracies are impossible, think back to the Belgian Child Sex Ring Case. where not only were many prominant business people accused, but city mayors, and police officers. Most of whom are still yet to be investigated despite the accusations of a couple of the guilty parties who laid out in great detail how the ring worked. The problem is that not only does the media not want to investigate it, but the police and government who were accused of horrific crimes want nothing to do with it either. So it's not that hard to believe that if there were a few dozen people involved none of them want to be the one to crack implicating themselves in the crimes.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 19 April 2007 07:04 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:

I find myself sidetracked by the need to respond to a growing conspiracy theory that threatens to undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement. If the Truth Movement wasn't luring masses of potential activists away with the scent of a thousand red herrings, it would be much, much easier to challenge the Bush administration for the sins they're actually responsible for.

I'm sorry. I've heard this argument here from others as well. What a crock of shite. NOBODY is stopping you from doing the work you need to do. Stop blaming "conspiracy theorists" for your own inaction.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 07:12 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:

I'm sorry. I've heard this argument here from others as well. What a crock of shite. NOBODY is stopping you from doing the work you need to do. Stop blaming "conspiracy theorists" for your own inaction.


*round of applause*


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 19 April 2007 07:51 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Where does this nonsense come from?
Are you claiming this is the position of someone here?

Yes, you and quelar.

You want to correct this impression, start explaining what you do mean.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 08:02 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe you're misinterpretting what has been said here. For one I've supported virtually NO theories in this thread, the only think I've been saying is that I do NOT support the official story and find people believing the government that has an enourmous pattern of lying to be a little naive, even if the counter theories are, in some cases, ridiculous.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 19 April 2007 08:26 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the inference that I have drawn from what you've written is that you are willing to support any theory out there.

What is way beyond reasonable doubt is that the towers were hit by hijacked aircraft and collapsed as a result of that.

What is also beyond reasonable doubt is that al-Qaeda planned and financed the attacks.

What is more uncertain is why the attacks were not prevented and why some post attack activities occurred (Bin Laden family members leaving the country, for example).

Do I think the full story has been told? No.

a) It's impossible, there is too much going on to get it all down. I've never been involved in anything that was perfectly accurately reported int the media. Why should this be any different?

b) There are a lot of people in positions of power trying to cover their asses. I would not be surprised at all to find some errors that have not come to light could have resulted in firings or worse. Given a choice between incompetence and venality you need real evidence to show venality.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 08:39 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
What is way beyond reasonable doubt is that the towers were hit by hijacked aircraft and collapsed as a result of that.

What is also beyond reasonable doubt is that al-Qaeda planned and financed the attacks.


It's not 'way beyond reasonable doubt' that the towers fell due to the planes. There are still many uninvestigated reports by people in and around the WTC buildings that say there were explosions previous to the tower collapsing. Second to that this would be the first recorded history of a building fire bringing down a building, see here. for a raging inferno that burned many more hours yet the structure still stood.

It's also not 'beyond reasonable doubt' that al queda funded it. There was never a direct causal link made to the financing. In fact the government avoided links back to Saudi Arabia in their investigation.

So what theories do I support previous to this?

Personally I think that any and all possibilities shoudl be analysed, not attacked because they don't fit with the official story. I'm sure with a proper, thorough investigation MOST of the conspiracy theories will be proven to be complete bullshit, along with a lot of the official story.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: quelar ]


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 19 April 2007 09:22 AM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

It's not 'way beyond reasonable doubt' that the towers fell due to the planes. There are still many uninvestigated reports by people in and around the WTC buildings that say there were explosions previous to the tower collapsing. Second to that this would be the first recorded history of a building fire bringing down a building, see here. for a raging inferno that burned many more hours yet the structure still stood.
[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: quelar ]


It wasn't just a simple fire though, was it? It was an intense fire, powered by thousands of litres of jet fuel. And it was on the heels of the building being struck by a huge 'missle' which struck the building at 800 kph and did significant damage to vital building supports.

You've obviously watched the loose change video or something similar. You really should watch the annotated version. Google screw loose change. It has its own poor reasoning, but it does a pretty good job and comparing the collapse of the towers with real controlled demolitions.


From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 09:33 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not a fan of loose change, too simplistic in virtually all of it's explanations. All of the 'theories' trumpetted in it are rehashes of ones that have been floating around since the initiall days after the attack (I think my first conversation about inconsistancies was 2 days after).

And again...I'm not saying that it didn't fall for those reasons, I just want a thorough investigation into the other theories to disprove.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 19 April 2007 09:51 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's not 'way beyond reasonable doubt' that the towers fell due to the planes.

I infer from this that you are incapable of reading English. The NIST investigation is definitive.

The financing question is more open, and Saudi financing is certainly conceivable.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 10:13 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:

The NIST investigation is definitive.


Why not just call it a 'Slam Dunk'.

I can read, but sorry that I'm not going to just accept what the US government tells me. Last time I checked they didn't exactly have a perfect record on being honest.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 19 April 2007 11:34 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, now that this has been definitively settled, and everyone's getting along, I'll close this for length.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 April 2007 11:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peep.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 April 2007 11:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peep peep.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 12:10 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hehe, do you moderators need a manual on closing threads??
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 19 April 2007 12:39 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BEGIN
P_CLOSETHREAD(002802);
END;
COMMIT;

From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 April 2007 01:02 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is the thread that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting it not knowing what it was
And now we keep on adding more forever just because
This is the thread that never ends...

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 01:21 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hmm, I know about the black title thread party policy, but is there a policy for threads that can't be closed?

If not I suggest we follow Lard's lead and make it a poetry thread


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 19 April 2007 01:29 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a smell
they say
about the fallen towers.

But death masks it all
and finding it becomes
futile.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 April 2007 01:54 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see stars
I see light
I see colours and raindow of beauty
I should not have had that last drink

From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 April 2007 02:35 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see you
and stare
but it is not you
I see everywhere
it is not you
staring back
wondering
nervously

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 April 2007 02:36 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And there were crackdowns on dissident news journalists in the aftermath as a lesson to others. They need another revolution in America
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 April 2007 04:45 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I dreamt I was a butterfly who dreamt I was a man. So I stepped on the next caterpillar I saw just to see it taint so. Didn't look like it appreciated it much, but didn't protest much neither.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 19 April 2007 07:17 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For a good analysis of the reasons why the towers collapsed, drawn from the NIST investigations, go here:

Nenonnem, I don't need an unsigned, unreferenced urban myth website to interpret the NIST reports for me. I read them myself. As a journalist in training, one might think you would see the red flags when quoting unattributed sources. Its simply not done.

You are absolutely wrong in your statements about what they mean. NIST has unequivocally stated that their investigations do not explain the collapses themselves. Also, because the bulk of their investigations rely on models, which were tweaked to account for the outcome, they are simply informed, but biased, speculation. A scientist would never accept these models in support of a theory, maybe starting points, but there is nothing definitive about them.

I find myself sidetracked by the need to respond to a growing conspiracy theory that threatens to undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement. If the Truth Movement wasn't luring masses of potential activists away with the scent of a thousand red herrings, it would be much, much easier to challenge the Bush administration for the sins they're actually responsible for.

A crock indeed. Its pretty silly to think that people are capable of pursuing only one thing.

But, if you spent half the energy you've spent on that Republic op-ed the many posts you've made in this forum, on dogging the incompetence and coverups you claim exist, you'd have advanced your cause.

Have you done a poll that indicates that those who reject or question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory are not also working for peace and anti-war movement? If anything, my personal experience is that it actually strengthens the pursuit for justice in all quarters. What is the reason Cdn Def Min Gordon O'Connors said Canada was in Afghanistan? Revenge for 9/11. Iraq, the "war on terror" all find their roots in 9/11.

Show us your fight for peace and justice, specifically your fight to reveal the incompetence and its coverup!

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: blogbart ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402

posted 19 April 2007 08:53 PM      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I'll give this closing thread thing a try.
From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca