Should we know and do we care?

[pap]

You've gone off-piste yet again. Where have I said this?

 

You're also conflating two quite distinct 'possibilities'. They could well have been 'compromised' by any number of people/organisations/security services/Bruce Forsyth. But does that mean therefore that Khan was 'manipulated' by Forsyth et al into committing the Underground bombings? And if so, WHY?!!

 

Weren't you using the AQ safehouse to validate Khan's lack of manipulation?

[pap]

Pap, no one is saying that they couldn't have been manipulated but the truthers are never able to say by whom and for what ends. The old adage that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one appears to be correct regardung 7/7.

 

Is it reasonable to expect truthers to be able to tell you everything?

 

Most of the professional organizations out there looking for 911 Truth specifically avoid ascribing blame, preferring to voice professional opinions on the elements they can speak authoratively about.

 

Does their lack of a complete answer mean that their questions should be ignored, or their professional opinions on the stuff they know about should be considered invalid?

[Verbal]

Weren't you using the AQ safehouse to validate Khan's lack of manipulation?

 

Not at all. His handlers in the safe house were clearly manipulating him in at least the minimal sense that they were preparing him to be a suicide bomber.

 

Your contention appears to be that these handlers were not AQ, but some other agency which you refuse to specify or even allow speculation on.

 

Which I have to say simply defies common sense as an argument. What the hell is the point of thinking up wildly implausible 'possibilities'? The only reason I keep coming back to is that deep down you understand the foolishness of your argument and don't want to embarrass yourself by making it explicit.

 

So let's try putting some words into your mouth. Let's assume you mean MI5 or some rough equivalent. If you think it was a British/Western intelligence agency, you've then got to deal with the rather tricky problem of explaining, first, exactly WHO that 'manipulator' might be (rogue operators? officially sanctioned?) what MOTIVE exists for a British agency to attack its own people in the most brutal way. And WHY a British agency would want to do that.

 

As you see, silly isn't it?

[Verbal]

Is it reasonable to expect truthers to be able to tell you everything?

 

Most of the professional organizations out there looking for 911 Truth specifically avoid ascribing blame, preferring to voice professional opinions on the elements they can speak authoratively about.

 

Does their lack of a complete answer mean that their questions should be ignored, or their professional opinions on the stuff they know about should be considered invalid?

 

It's not that they don't 'say everything'; it's that they say NOTHING. It's a hackneyed old truther get-out clause that they only put the 'evidence' out there and make no comment on it. Such utter CRAP. Of course they have their theories - and in some cases their certainties. When I made the Flight 11 film, I was accused of being an 'Israeli psyops agent' (after all, it IS 'possible, isn't it?). My name and address was published, presumably in the hope that someone would take up the cause... The 'truthers', or the majority of them at least, have some very clear ideas about who they think is responsible. But they hide behind this cloak of feigned disinterest: we're only interested in the 'facts', but these facts do not include putting a name on this epic so-called conspiracy.

 

Don't be too taken in by the 'professional' bit either. In every profession there are paranoid personalities looking for the underlying grand conspiracy that unites all events into a single Matrix-like explanation.

 

As I say, read The Looming Tower and THEN tell me whether you can see that AQ committed 9/11, and that franchises followed up with Bali, London, and Madrid. The one incident that WAS as likely to be intelligence agency controlled was the Mumbai attack. There's mounting evidence for this, including personal testimony and recordings at an ongoing trial, as well as the trial of the one survivor among the attackers.

 

So you have one attack with plausible evidence; the rest - none whatsoever. However, the conspiracy theorist - and I imagine you falling into this trap - will simply attach the Mumbai attack to a bit of false logic and say: if Mumbai, then all the rest too...QED.

[pap]

All along, I've talked about keeping an open mind and possiblity. You make a good point about the motive for 7/7. I don't see a clear motive either.

[pap]

It's not that they don't 'say everything'; it's that they say NOTHING. It's a hackneyed old truther get-out clause that they only put the 'evidence' out there and make no comment on it. Such utter CRAP. Of course they have their theories - and in some cases their certainties. When I made the Flight 11 film, I was accused of being an 'Israeli psyops agent' (after all, it IS 'possible, isn't it?). My name and address was published, presumably in the hope that someone would take up the cause... The 'truthers', or the majority of them at least, have some very clear ideas about who they think is responsible. But they hide behind this cloak of feigned disinterest: we're only interested in the 'facts', but these facts do not include putting a name on this epic so-called conspiracy.

 

Don't be too taken in by the 'professional' bit either. In every profession there are paranoid personalities looking for the underlying grand conspiracy that unites all events into a single Matrix-like explanation.

 

As I say, read The Looming Tower and THEN tell me whether you can see that AQ committed 9/11, and that franchises followed up with Bali, London, and Madrid. The one incident that WAS as likely to be intelligence agency controlled was the Mumbai attack. There's mounting evidence for this, including personal testimony and recordings at an ongoing trial, as well as the trial of the one survivor among the attackers.

 

So you have one attack with plausible evidence; the rest - none whatsoever. However, the conspiracy theorist - and I imagine you falling into this trap - will simply attach the Mumbai attack to a bit of false logic and say: if Mumbai, then all the rest too...QED.

 

Ah, c'mon. There are plenty of sites and authors out there who are happy to give a full working theory as to what went down and where. Webster Tarpley goes all out, naming names and giving a precise description of what he thinks went down. The people with the biggest theories are the ones who get shot down the most.

 

Looking at some of the responses in this thread to people poking holes in the official account, it's pretty obvious why most of the professional groups don't want to commit to providing a full explanation. They can't prove who might have been running the conspiracy, so they stick to what they do know. Speculation without proof whatever credibility they have left after making their mission statement.

[Verbal]

Ah, c'mon. There are plenty of sites and authors out there who are happy to give a full working theory as to what went down and where. Webster Tarpley goes all out, naming names and giving a precise description of what he thinks went down. The people with the biggest theories are the ones who get shot down the most.

 

Looking at some of the responses in this thread to people poking holes in the official account, it's pretty obvious why most of the professional groups don't want to commit to providing a full explanation. They can't prove who might have been running the conspiracy, so they stick to what they do know. Speculation without proof whatever credibility they have left after making their mission statement.

 

No, 'they can't prove who might have been running the conspiracy' (for reasons you're going to find hard to accept, I imagine), but neither they nor you can avoid the clear implication of their/your position on the 'evidence' that there must indeed be one. The problem is that when you follow the logic of this, it just starts to look ridiculous.

 

And - once again with feeling - your reference to an 'official account' is really quite amazingly simplistic and misleading. To repeat: the 'official account' is a catch-all phrase that encompasses everything from the 9/11 Commission report to the work of journalists like Dexter Filkins, Lawrence Wright, Ahmed Rashid, Declan Walsh, Sean Smith and the late Tim Hetherington. These and others have spent the last decade working in the often dangerous margins of South Asia and Arabia to piece together, with copious first-hand evidence and testimony, the story of what happened before, during and after 9/11. To have this kind of work dismissed as 'the official account', and even lumped in as part of the nameless conspiracy merely because it accepts that Bin Laden's acolytes carried out the attacks, is insulting and stupid.

 

Ask yourself a question: who's more credible: a New Yorker journalist spending five years researching first-hand and writing The Looming Tower, or a Google warrior (even a 'professional') jumping to conclusions based on pictures downloaded from google?

[pap]

Not a loaded question at all.

 

I have no problem reading the Looming Tower, as long you're happy to read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin.

[teamsaint]

its the people who don't think that western governmemts will sacrifice their own people who need to think again.

WW1, Vietnam, are two pretty good examples of this.

Who benefits from our endless wars?

[aintforever]

Not a loaded question at all.

 

I have no problem reading the Looming Tower, as long you're happy to read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin.

 

What's your theory on 9/11 then, based on the evidence?

 

If the towers were brought down by explosives how did they rig them up without being noticed? How did they manage to fly the plane into the exact point where the explosives were set up and delay the explosion by about an hour despite the impact and fires?

 

If it wasn't a plane flying into the Pentagon what happened to the plane? How did a military aircraft fire a missile into the building in a heavily populated area in broard daylight? Who was in on the plot - the whole CIA, Police, Military, Fire service and American Airlines staff?

 

The problem with conspiracy theoriests is that when they try and explain an alternative you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes in the plot.

[buctootim]

its the people who don't think that western governmemts will sacrifice their own people who need to think again.

WW1, Vietnam, are two pretty good examples of this.

Who benefits from our endless wars?

 

Totally different situation imo. Those wars may have been wrong, waged with too little regard for human life and not worth the candle but they were started by Governments openly, publically and in what they believed were the best interests of their country. AFAIK no-one accused the government of Herbert Asquith of faking Zeppelin raids so that the lizard people could take over.

[pap]

This is just second hand, but some possible explanations for the above are as followed:-

 

1) If the towers were brought down by explosives, how did they rig them up without being noticed?

 

The contention is that this was accomplished in the weeks leading up to the attack. This article mentions a company called Turner Construction, a company that was hired to renovate the building and was apparently working right up until the day of the attack. They are out of business now, and there are no records of their activities. Available (linked article has a FOI request/response which claims that the records were destroyed in the fire).

 

The Architects and Engineers handle this point pretty well. They show the floor plan of the WTC, illustrating that access to any of the structural steel columns, which basicaly formed a square ring around the perimeter of the elevator shaft, are very easily accessible from the elevators.

 

So, a possible answer to your question is that the explosives were set up well in advance of the incident.

 

2) How did they manage to fly into the exact point where the explosives where setup....

 

They didn't. Go back and watch some slow mo footage of the Twin Towers going. The top of the building goes first - not where the planes hit. The NIST report claims that the bottom of the building went from the amount of mass being pushed down on it, yet the mass as the top of the building was already widely dispersed ( i.e. dust ) at that point. So if the top of the building is dust, people are asking where the mass that would be required to turn the lower floors to dust is coming from.

 

3) and delay the explosion by about an hour despite the impact and the fires.

 

There is some debate on the precise nature of the explosion, but most point to a variant of thermate. This stuff is normally triggered by a catalyst of intense heat, and by that, I mean a chemical catalyst.

 

4) If it wasn't a plane flying into the Pentagon what happened to the plane?

 

Don't know, but I do think some of the questions relating to the Pentagon incident are interesting, if you'll indulge me.

 

a) A number of professional pilots have gone on record to state that they would have not been able to pull off the manoeveure that led to a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

 

b) The supposed pilot was an amateur who had problems controlling a Cessna. He is alleged to have pulled off a move that commercial airline pilots have characterised as 'impossible'

 

c) There is also a question concerning the part of the Pentagon that was hit. The section that was hit was sparsely populated and under renovation and on the complete opposite side to the pilot's flight path. He had to go out of his way to hit it. Dive bombing for the roof would have been an easier way to exact more death and destruction.

 

 

5) How did a military aircraft fire a missile into the building in a heavily populated area in broard daylight?

 

 

Here is an aerial shot of the Pentagon.

 

 

I'd question "heavily populated". The building has no residential dwellings around it - mostly car parks. The side that was hit has a large field in front of it. So on a normal day, the Pentagon is not heavily populated, certainly not by people who don't have some form of business there. During the hysteria of that morning, it would probably have been even less so.

 

5) Who was in on the plot - the whole CIA, Police, Military, Fire service and American Airlines staff?

 

This is another big defence of the official account. People must have known. Someone must have talked, etc.

 

Keeping stuff secret is not hard. Consider the sheer amount of manpower that went into the Manhattan Project, then consider how many people actually knew about it. The project was so secret that Harry S. Truman had to be told about it when he assumed the office of the presidency.

 

As I said earlier, knowledge of a conspiracy isn't a pre-requisite for participation, especially in hierarchical military structures where people are used to following directives without questioning them.

 

The problem with conspiracy theoriests is that when they try and explain an alternative you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes in the plot.

 

The same can be said about many aspects of "the official conspiracy theory".

 

FWIW, I think the truthers are asking the more pertinent and realistic questions.

 

You're asking "who did it, where, why"? That's a tall order. If it was a conspiracy, it is unlikely that too much evidence would have survived.

 

Instead, truthers are focusing on stuff they know they can prove. In dealing with the accusations of a conspiracy theory, the authorities have had two main strategies so far. First, emphasise the stuff that is totally batsh*t crazy, presenting it as what all conspiracy theorists believe. Second, completely ignore the stuff that they can't explain. Verbal's citation of the Popular Mechanics work is a case in point.

 

If you're genuinely interested in the other side's case, this video is worth watching. If you are going to call me a crazy person of some description, I'd appreciate something different than "'kin loon" or "utter utter nutjob". Those two have been taken.

 

Edited 17 September, 2011 by pap
quoting up

[pap]

Totally different situation imo. Those wars may have been wrong, waged with too little regard for human life and not worth the candle but they were started by Governments openly, publically and in what they believed were the best interests of their country. AFAIK no-one accused the government of Herbert Asquith of faking Zeppelin raids so that the lizard people could take over.

 

There is some serious doubt of how the Vietnam War actually started.

 

Read up on the Gulf of Tomkin incident.

[pap]

Totally different situation imo. Those wars may have been wrong, waged with too little regard for human life and not worth the candle but they were started by Governments openly, publically and in what they believed were the best interests of their country. AFAIK no-one accused the government of Herbert Asquith of faking Zeppelin raids so that the lizard people could take over.

 

I must admit, I do find your line of reasoning brilliant, buctootim - especially as you likened debating with me to arguing with a cat.

[Verbal]

This is just second hand, but some possible explanations for the above are as followed:-

 

 

 

The contention is that this was accomplished in the weeks leading up to the attack. This article mentions a company called Turner Construction, a company that was hired to renovate the building and was apparently working right up until the day of the attack. They are out of business now, and there are no records of their activities. Available (linked article has a FOI request/response which claims that the records were destroyed in the fire).

 

The Architects and Engineers handle this point pretty well. They show the floor plan of the WTC, illustrating that access to any of the structural steel columns, which basicaly formed a square ring around the perimeter of the elevator shaft, are very easily accessible from the elevators.

 

So, a possible answer to your question is that the explosives were set up well in advance of the incident.

 

 

 

They didn't. Go back and watch some slow mo footage of the Twin Towers going. The top of the building goes first - not where the planes hit. The NIST report claims that the bottom of the building went from the amount of mass being pushed down on it, yet the mass as the top of the building was already widely dispersed ( i.e. dust ) at that point. So if the top of the building is dust, people are asking where the mass that would be required to turn the lower floors to dust is coming from.

 

 

 

There is some debate on the precise nature of the explosion, but most point to a variant of thermate. This stuff is normally triggered by a catalyst of intense heat, and by that, I mean a chemical catalyst.

 

 

 

Don't know, but I do think some of the questions relating to the Pentagon incident are interesting, if you'll indulge me.

 

a) A number of professional pilots have gone on record to state that they would have not been able to pull off the manoeveure that led to a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

 

b) The supposed pilot was an amateur who had problems controlling a Cessna. He is alleged to have pulled off a move that commercial airline pilots have characterised as 'impossible'

 

c) There is also a question concerning the part of the Pentagon that was hit. The section that was hit was sparsely populated and under renovation and on the complete opposite side to the pilot's flight path. He had to go out of his way to hit it. Dive bombing for the roof would have been an easier way to exact more death and destruction.

 

 

 

Here is an aerial shot of the Pentagon.

 

 

I'd question "heavily populated". The building has no residential dwellings around it - mostly car parks. The side that was hit has a large field in front of it. So on a normal day, the Pentagon is not heavily populated, certainly not by people who don't have some form of business there. During the hysteria of that morning, it would probably have been even less so.

 

 

 

This is another big defence of the official account. People must have known. Someone must have talked, etc.

 

Keeping stuff secret is not hard. Consider the sheer amount of manpower that went into the Manhattan Project, then consider how many people actually knew about it. The project was so secret that Harry S. Truman had to be told about it when he assumed the office of the presidency.

 

As I said earlier, knowledge of a conspiracy isn't a pre-requisite for participation, especially in hierarchical military structures where people are used to following directives without questioning them.

 

 

 

The same can be said about many aspects of "the official conspiracy theory".

 

FWIW, I think the truthers are asking the more pertinent and realistic questions.

 

You're asking "who did it, where, why"? That's a tall order. If it was a conspiracy, it is unlikely that too much evidence would have survived.

 

Instead, truthers are focusing on stuff they know they can prove. In dealing with the accusations of a conspiracy theory, the authorities have had two main strategies so far. First, emphasise the stuff that is totally batsh*t crazy, presenting it as what all conspiracy theorists believe. Second, completely ignore the stuff that they can't explain. Verbal's citation of the Popular Mechanics work is a case in point.

 

If you're genuinely interested in the other side's case, this video is worth watching. If you are going to call me a crazy person of some description, I'd appreciate something different than "'kin loon" or "utter utter nutjob". Those two have been taken.

 

You seem to have problems with the English language. You talk about 'proof', and then write a highly detailed post that contains nothing but wishful speculation - although I can tell how desperately you want to believe it.

 

And the 'official conspiracy theory'? Again? WTF is that? And who's in on it?

 

Oh, and do have a word with the hundreds of eye witnesses of the Pentagon crash, including motorists sitting in a traffic jam, over whom the plane passed, shedding bits as it struck objects on the ground. Some of these shards were picked up and kept by these witnesses, who clearly describe an AA 757 flying 60 feet over their heads.

 

But I guess there isn't any point, is there? They are part of the official conspiracy too.

[pap]

The official conspiracy is the one that was on the news.

 

Tom posted a link earlier in the thread, reproduced here:-

 

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

 

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

 

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

 

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

 

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

 

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

 

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

 

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

 

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

 

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

 

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

 

If you have any questions about this story…you are a bat****, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

 

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

 

Do look at the full article though. Contains links to sources, etc.

[Verbal]

Yes, I saw that garbage. It is the essentially racist argument that a bunch of ignorant A-rabs marooned in the Afghan desert couldn't possibly bring down the crowning edifices of US economic and military might. It then wraps itself in knots with the idea that the story is 'brought to you' by 'the media', all and every one of them wrapped up in the conspiracy.

 

The sooner you get started on The Looming Tower the better. You need to get away from your computer.

[pap]

You've talked about plausibility, and there's a hint of Occam's razor implied. The problem is that while you're happy to apply that to the concept at large, you're somewhat less keen to apply it to the finer details.

 

You've put up the Popular Mechanics article as evidence of the fallacies of 9/11, a deeply flawed article which targets the low-hanging fruit, ignores the bigger questions, and was compromised from the start due to the inclusion of Benjamin Chertoff on the investigation, cousin of Michael Chertoff, then Secretary of Homeland Security, on the scientific investigation team.

 

The David Ray Griffin video posted earlier characterises this evidence as a hit piece and demonstrates that the article didn't even try to address some of the firmer stuff. Can you honestly pin your mast to this 'evidence'? Evidence that began, not with independent rigorous scientific investigation, but took NISTs findings as a point of absolute truth.

 

I'm a scientist at heart, so if anyone can provide me with decent evidence of why I am wrong, I'll admit it. So far, your track record on producing conclusive rebuttal evidence has been almost as disappointing as your unwillingness to accept there is anything dodgy with the official account.

 

The document I just linked contains links to numerous sources which validate the things it is saying. So far, you've come up with likely propaganda and an invitation to read The Looming Tower, as if one book is going to disintegrate all of my doubts. Is it really that well researched? Does it cover every question? How does it stack up against the claims of The Power Of Nightmares, the BBC documentary which covers the same ground ( the formation of Al Qaeda ) but reaches different conclusions concerning the threat they pose to Western societies? That our politicians wilfully portrayed Al Qaeda as a sinister organised Islamic force?

 

If this one book sorts it all out for you, fair play to you. I prefer the process of investigation and corroboration.

[Verbal]

It's not 'the one book' at all. I'd recommend Dexter Filkins' The Forever War, or Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos, or Peter Bergen's Holy War, Inc. Or any number of others written by journalists who used a little more than google to get out there and research. Of course, they're part of the conspiracy too, no doubt.

 

As for Power of Nightmares, a film I know very well, you miss the point completely. It is NOT about the formation of Al Qeada. Curtis is arguing that there is an ideological parallel between the Neo-Cons and Sayyid Qutb. He is NOT arguing that 'our politicians' wilfully do anything - only that the Neo-Cons and Qutb (who spent time living in Colorado before going on to be the inspiration for Zawahiri) have a mutual interest in creating a mythic view of a world worthy of destruction.

 

It's kind of funny that truthers exist outside the US, because the movement is really the bastard child of an old ideology indigenous to the US - American exceptionalism. The truther variant is: how DARE anyone suggest that 9/11 could be carried out by anyone but the most technologically sophisticated country in the world. THAT is the circular argument that the flag wavers of the truther movement wrap themselves in, and it seems more than a little slavish being repeated by impressionable googlers outside the US.

 

As I say, read Looming Tower, because you talk as if 9/11 was the only event Al Qeada was involved in. Unless, that is, you have a headful of conspiracy theories for The Cole, Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, Luxor, as well as the murder of Masood on 9/10, etc, etc.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by Verbal

[pap]

A few more books on my "to read" list is nice, but how is this addressing any of the concerns that I've enumerated?

 

How do these books explain that? How do you?

 

Do they address the evidence that was left out, by say, the 9/11 Commission?

 

The problem is Verbal, you only want to have a discussion on your terms, with the evidence you deem is submissible. Furthermore, you're listing books, which you know I don't read, that are already narratives on account of being books in the first place.

 

I've linked scientific studies, eyewitness testimony and videos from the day which all contradict the official account. You're telling us to read stories. Please correct me if I'm wrong, your argument seems to be "because a few authors have written books, there is nothing dodgy about the official account, and everything is tickety-boo" ( paraphrasing of course ).

 

Primary evidence and scientific study trumps the written word every time, especially when corroborated. So unless you're telling me that reading a few books will invalidate all the copious quantities of uninvestigated forensic evidence out there, what is the point in reading them?

[Verbal]

Well if you READ the books I'm suggesting it might help.

 

I'm happy to think about any credible evidence. I won't take seriously 'evidence' based on sophomoric mistakes, ignorance and paranoia.

 

I also come back to plausibility, because you have to be something of a demented fool to think it's worthwhile spiralling after ever more arcane bits of 'evidence' if it's not in pursuit of a plausible scenario. But you deal with this with a simple logical fallacy: because governments have a record of lying, they are not only lying about 9/11 but are at the heart of it. Of course governments lie. For example, the British government lied about the existence of Gulf War Syndrome, the Chinook crash that killed a number of senior special forces operatives working in Ireland, the removal of the indigenous people of Diego Garcia, etc, etc, etc. In EVERY case, though, the government lied for plausible reasons. You could see why they acted as they did, as reprehensible as it was. But to kill thousands of people, to attack and destroy the emblematic buildings of American economic and military might? Or to bomb the Underground and a bus? Give a PLAUSIBLE reason why they should do this. What - as I keep asking you - is their MOTIVE?

 

And let me see if I understand your point about the books. You're saying that because these books are already 'narratives' they are less trustworthy 'in the first place'. What on earth does that mean? I have Ahmed Rashid's email address - would you like to tell him, given his experiences, that his book is merely 'a narrative'? Do you even know who he is and what he's done?

 

Do also tell us about the conspiracy theories you have that provide an alternative explanation for Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, The Cole, Luxor and the murder of Masood.

[skintsaint]

c) There is also a question concerning the part of the Pentagon that was hit. The section that was hit was sparsely populated and under renovation and on the complete opposite side to the pilot's flight path. He had to go out of his way to hit it. Dive bombing for the roof would have been an easier way to exact more death and destruction.

 

 

 

Here is an aerial shot of the Pentagon.

 

 

 

I'd question "heavily populated". The building has no residential dwellings around it - mostly car parks. The side that was hit has a large field in front of it. So on a normal day, the Pentagon is not heavily populated, certainly not by people who don't have some form of business there. During the hysteria of that morning, it would probably have been even less so.

 

but the Pentagon is sandwiched between two busy roads which during the week are always busy. I'm sure there was enough witnesses to see if it was a plane or not.

[Verbal]

but the Pentagon is sandwiched between two busy roads which during the week are always busy. I'm sure there was enough witnesses to see if it was a plane or not.

 

You mean like this guy (although having an Arabic name naturally makes him part of the conspiracy):

 

[pap]

As we've already established, Verbal - there are plenty of motives for a 9/11 conspiracy. 7/7 is shakier, and I believe I conceded that point.

 

9/11 has plenty of potential motive, broadly power and money driven by a perverse assessment of what America should be.

 

Do you deny that there were plans to invade Iraq prior to the September 11th attacks?

 

What about "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?.

 

What about pre-emptive war doctrine? Would the US people have stood for that if not for 9/11?

 

The money that is made selling heroin from Afghanistan? The oil in Iraq? The no-bid contracts which went to major US corporations to rebuild Iraq once the "Coalition of the willing"?

 

The strategic position on either side of a stated adversary?

 

Western friendly governments in the Middle East?

 

No. No motives at all.

[pap]

You mean like this guy (although having an Arabic name naturally makes him part of the conspiracy):

 

 

The Arabic name doesn't bother me. But this is the same Aziz El Hallan that as this guy?

 

[Verbal]

Plenty of evidence of motive? Like what?! Because as sure as **** that list of yours is pathetic.

 

Yes, there were ideas among the Neo-Cons that Iraq should be invaded prior to 9/11 So what?

 

Rebuilding America's Defenses is a policy document written by a right wing American think tank, not the government. And again, so what?

 

Pre-emptive war doctrine proves the OPPOSITE of your case. The doctrine - quite an old one! - states that the US should reserve the right to invade pre-emptively. Therefore it wouldn't need some hugely convoluted conspiracy to attack itself in order to achieve this. All you needed were the claims about WMDs. And that's exactly what the basis of the invasion was.

 

The money made selling heroin in Afghanistan? Are you kidding?

 

Benefits in oil contracts was a result of the Iraq War. As I say, that did not require anything remotely as preposterous as an attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon.

 

Western-friendly governments in the ME? What does that MEAN? That 9/11 was necessary because there are (or were) such governments?

 

So, yes - you're right on one thing at least. No motive s at all. Even I thought you could make a better fist of it than this.

 

Oh, and about Aziz ElHallan? EDIT: Oh, I see. The conspiracy nuts have already taken him apart. What a surprise. He's a Mossad agent apparently. That link of yours is interesting in that it seeks to cast as an outright liar everyone who witnessed the plane going into the building. What charming company you keep.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by Verbal

[View From The Top]

I'll assume Pap that you understand Occam's Razor?

 

In the case of 9/11, despite all the views regarding the USA's military/industrial complex, neo-cons and the desire for war in the Middle East, the elephant in the room, for all truthers, is AQ.

[pap]

Plenty of evidence of motive? Like what?! Because as sure as **** that list of yours is pathetic.

Yes, there were ideas among the Neo-Cons that Iraq should be invaded prior to 9/11 So what?

 

You may be well read, Verbal, but I think you're either lacking in deductive capacity or deliberately being thick to hang on to some sort of point.

 

As you well know, democracies can't go around invading countries without a reason. Absent Saddam taking leave of his senses and getting uppity, there was no way America would have gone back to war with Iraq. 9/11, and by extension, the policy of pre-emptive war allowed the neo-cons to carry out a long-stated aim.

 

And you don't see the possibility of a link between the two events?

 

 

Rebuilding America's Defenses is a policy document written by a right wing American think tank, not the government. And again, so what?

 

Quite right. But what you omit ( common theme this, isn't it ) is that some of that think-tank went on to become very powerful figures in the Bush administration, including **** Cheney (VP), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Dep Secretary for Defense), John Bolton (UN Ambassador - how did that ever happen?) and Richard Armitage.

 

So senior members of the US Government signing up to a document advocating American dominance through force of arms isn't germane to this discussion?

 

Pre-emptive war doctrine proves the OPPOSITE of your case. The doctrine - quite an old one! - states that the US should reserve the right to invade pre-emptively. Therefore it wouldn't need some hugely convoluted conspiracy to attack itself in order to achieve this.

 

The age of the doctrine doesn't matter. The fact is, without 9/11, it would have been politically impossible to sell.

 

All you needed were the claims about WMDs. And that's exactly what the basis of the invasion was.

 

And claims is all they turned out to be, mostly based on an utterly reliable Iraqi asset codenamed Curveball. It is now a matter of public record that members of our own Government cooked up the case for war, misleading Parliament and public in a conspiracy. I guess that's not relevant either.

 

 

The money made selling heroin in Afghanistan? Are you kidding?

 

No - only a web page, and not a book - but some interesting stuff nonetheless.

 

I take it that you've forgotten all about the Oliver North thing, a conspiracy in the 1980s that involved government agents selling drugs to finance covert operations?

 

Benefits in oil contracts was a result of the Iraq War. As I say, that did not require anything remotely as preposterous as an attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon.

 

And as I think we've already established, Iraq could not have happened without some catalyst - Saddam was not going to oblige, and as has been proven, the West could have had weapons inspectors in there for years and not have found any pre-text for war.

 

Western-friendly governments in the ME? What does that MEAN? That 9/11 was necessary because there are (or were) such governments?

 

Are you telling me that you see no potential benefit to having enormous influence in these two countries? Natural resources? The strategic location.

 

So, yes - you're right on one thing at least. No motive s at all. Even I thought you could make a better fist of it than this.

Oh, and about Aziz ElHallan?

 

If you honestly don't see any motive in any of that, then I can't help you.

 

The faux-clueless thing doesn't suit you, Verbal.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by pap

[pap]

I'll assume Pap that you understand Occam's Razor?

 

In the case of 9/11, despite all the views regarding the USA's military/industrial complex, neo-cons and the desire for war in the Middle East, the elephant in the room, for all truthers, is AQ.

 

As I said before, it works perfectly on the overall picture, VFTT.

 

It's the details where it doesn't work. Take the Towers as an example. The first two Towers don't share all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, but the official account tells us that the impact of two planes, plus the burning of jet fuel evaporated the central steel columns causing the building to pancake. Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building in similar circumstances ever did what those buildings did on that day. The tops of the buildings turn to dust first, yet somehow, the weight of all this dust is bearing down on the rest of the tower so fast it turns everything below it to dust too. The Architects and Engineers vid illustrates this impossibility well.

 

So while you're quite right, and Occam's razor doesn't slice the theory as a whole, when we look at the destruction of the Towers in isolation we get something that :-

 

Shares characteristics with a controlled demolition

Scientifically impossible

Not consistent with plane crashes into skyscrapers

Not consistent with fires in steel-framed skyscrapers

 

The simplest explanation is some form of controlled demolition.

 

So yep, Occam's razor slices very well for the official account on the whole, but the devil is in the details.

[aintforever]

This is just second hand, but some possible explanations for the above are as followed:-

 

 

 

The contention is that this was accomplished in the weeks leading up to the attack. This article mentions a company called Turner Construction, a company that was hired to renovate the building and was apparently working right up until the day of the attack. They are out of business now, and there are no records of their activities. Available (linked article has a FOI request/response which claims that the records were destroyed in the fire).

 

The Architects and Engineers handle this point pretty well. They show the floor plan of the WTC, illustrating that access to any of the structural steel columns, which basicaly formed a square ring around the perimeter of the elevator shaft, are very easily accessible from the elevators.

 

So, a possible answer to your question is that the explosives were set up well in advance of the incident.

 

 

 

They didn't. Go back and watch some slow mo footage of the Twin Towers going. The top of the building goes first - not where the planes hit. The NIST report claims that the bottom of the building went from the amount of mass being pushed down on it, yet the mass as the top of the building was already widely dispersed ( i.e. dust ) at that point. So if the top of the building is dust, people are asking where the mass that would be required to turn the lower floors to dust is coming from.

 

 

 

There is some debate on the precise nature of the explosion, but most point to a variant of thermate. This stuff is normally triggered by a catalyst of intense heat, and by that, I mean a chemical catalyst.

 

 

 

Don't know, but I do think some of the questions relating to the Pentagon incident are interesting, if you'll indulge me.

 

a) A number of professional pilots have gone on record to state that they would have not been able to pull off the manoeveure that led to a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

 

b) The supposed pilot was an amateur who had problems controlling a Cessna. He is alleged to have pulled off a move that commercial airline pilots have characterised as 'impossible'

 

c) There is also a question concerning the part of the Pentagon that was hit. The section that was hit was sparsely populated and under renovation and on the complete opposite side to the pilot's flight path. He had to go out of his way to hit it. Dive bombing for the roof would have been an easier way to exact more death and destruction.

 

 

 

Here is an aerial shot of the Pentagon.

 

 

I'd question "heavily populated". The building has no residential dwellings around it - mostly car parks. The side that was hit has a large field in front of it. So on a normal day, the Pentagon is not heavily populated, certainly not by people who don't have some form of business there. During the hysteria of that morning, it would probably have been even less so.

 

 

 

This is another big defence of the official account. People must have known. Someone must have talked, etc.

 

Keeping stuff secret is not hard. Consider the sheer amount of manpower that went into the Manhattan Project, then consider how many people actually knew about it. The project was so secret that Harry S. Truman had to be told about it when he assumed the office of the presidency.

 

As I said earlier, knowledge of a conspiracy isn't a pre-requisite for participation, especially in hierarchical military structures where people are used to following directives without questioning them.

 

 

 

The same can be said about many aspects of "the official conspiracy theory".

 

FWIW, I think the truthers are asking the more pertinent and realistic questions.

 

You're asking "who did it, where, why"? That's a tall order. If it was a conspiracy, it is unlikely that too much evidence would have survived.

 

Instead, truthers are focusing on stuff they know they can prove. In dealing with the accusations of a conspiracy theory, the authorities have had two main strategies so far. First, emphasise the stuff that is totally batsh*t crazy, presenting it as what all conspiracy theorists believe. Second, completely ignore the stuff that they can't explain. Verbal's citation of the Popular Mechanics work is a case in point.

 

If you're genuinely interested in the other side's case, this video is worth watching. If you are going to call me a crazy person of some description, I'd appreciate something different than "'kin loon" or "utter utter nutjob". Those two have been taken.

 

 

I'm sorry but I've seen the footage a hundred times and the towers clearly give way where the fires and impacts were, the first tower to come down even leans towards the side where the plane hit. The second comes down straighter because the plane hit dead on and obviously took out most of the central core. To suggest those floors were rigged with explosives that somehow could stay intact during the plane strike and fires and then be correctly detonated an hour later is nonsense.

 

The pic of the pentagon shows what a huge target it was, you don't need to be a genius to see that and push down on the controls. To hit it at a specific point and angle would be very hard but these guys didn't care where it hit.

 

The only possible conspiracy theories IMO are:

 

1. The Yanks knew a bunch of rag-heads had something planned but let them get on with it knowing that any attack would suit their agenda. OBL cottoned on and went for the nuclear option. This would explain any foreknowledge and also Bush's sheepish reaction to being told. He was probably expecting them to just do a standard hijack.

 

2. A small rougue group of agent pilots infiltrated the terrorists and the rag-heads were as surprised as us when the planes ploughed straight into the towers.

 

3. The terrorists planned a straightforward hijack but the planes were being flown by remote control.

 

All of these are far fetched but the idea that any more than a handful of people could be behind mass murder of their own civilians is laughable.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by aintforever

[View From The Top]

As I said before, it works perfectly on the overall picture, VFTT.

 

It's the details where it doesn't work. Take the Towers as an example. The first two Towers don't share all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, but the official account tells us that the impact of two planes, plus the burning of jet fuel evaporated the central steel columns causing the building to pancake. Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building in similar circumstances ever did what those buildings did on that day. The tops of the buildings turn to dust first, yet somehow, the weight of all this dust is bearing down on the rest of the tower so fast it turns everything below it to dust too. The Architects and Engineers vid illustrates this impossibility well.

 

So while you're quite right, and Occam's razor doesn't slice the theory as a whole, when we look at the destruction of the Towers in isolation we get something that :-

 

Shares characteristics with a controlled demolition

Scientifically impossible

Not consistent with plane crashes into skyscrapers

Not consistent with fires in steel-framed skyscrapers

 

The simplest explanation is some form of controlled demolition.

 

So yep, Occam's razor slices very well for the official account on the whole, but the devil is in the details.

 

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that those towers were brought down by a controlled demolition is totally retarded.

 

I've watched all the videos, heard the varying explanations, read the books and I sorry, but you come under the retard umbrella. A pity, thought you were a bright bloke.

[Verbal]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that those towers were brought down by a controlled demolition is totally retarded.

 

I've watched all the videos, heard the varying explanations, read the books and I sorry, but you come under the retard umbrella. A pity, thought you were a bright bloke.

 

You raise an interesting point, though. Why is it otherwise intelligent, seemingly sane, non-American people fall into this paranoid hole?

 

One explanation is a kind of imperialism of imagination. The 'truther' movement is a predominantly American phenomenon, with an overwhelmingly American focus. It's as if nothing other than 9/11 ever happened. Hence wannabe 'truthers' like pap can happily ignore events in Dar es Salaam, The Cole, Nairobi, Luxor and the assassination of Ahmad Shad Masoud. It's as if these prequels to 9/11 never happened. There re no conspiracies about them because, although their targets were American or Western-related, they didn't happen on American soil.

 

Then those more 'moderate' truthers, who desperately try and avoid spelling out the exact nature of their conspiracy theories for fear of looking completely foolish, get lost in a blizzard of googled detail. Which is why, as aintforever memorably put it, arguing with them is like arguing with a cat.

 

But the lack of sense - the lack of any coherent thought as to who and why - is deployed as a good thing: it demonstrates some kind of spurious objectivity in the face of those Mossad agents or dupes like you or me, who have swallowed whole some fictitious 'official account' (so aptly and ludicrously expressed in that link that pap was so desperately proud of).

 

And when they do finally come up with some 'motives', they reveal - surprise, surprise - the hopeless, paranoid vacuity of the truthers' view of the world. The appeal to these 'motives' also betrays a stunning ignorance. It's as if the actual pre-emptive pretext for the second Iraq invasion, for example, the faked existence of WMDs, was never offered as the reason for war! Tiny bits of tangential or irrelevant trivia (like the non-governmental think tank report, which is laughably supposed to be evidence of a government conspiracy to murder its own people) are nailed to the theories in an attempt to make the whole thing make sense, but only has the effect of making it look even more ridiculous.

 

What's worse, the 'truther' movement is an American exceptionalist phenomenon with a racist undertow. Only the good, whitebread, technologically savvy good people of Langley and DC could pull off 9/11 - certainly not that bunch of towelheads. However ludicrous the 'truther' movement is in the US, I have no idea why it should appeal to people in other countries, where, you might reasonably hope, they have a bit of perspective. But no. Pap and other papists have no answers about AQ prequels in Africa and the Middle East because they have no interest in them. Or the slightest knowledge. They are doomed to wallow in a google soup forever - seeing mysterious 'patterns' in everything. They even get a certain thrill from this - because they are privileged. Like John Nash, they see shapes and sinister connections no one else can. From the simple truism that governments are often devious, they've constructed an edifice of such obvious nonsense that they comfort themselves with the thought that only they have the special mental goggles to see it all.

 

Or maybe it's just as you say it is.

[pap]

I'm sorry but I've seen the footage a hundred times and the towers clearly give way where the fires and impacts were, the first tower to come down even leans towards the side where the plane hit. The second comes down straighter because the plane hit dead on and obviously took out most of the central core.

 

For argument's sake, I'll honour your assessment of the footage.

 

Does that explain why ALL of the buildings turned to dust? Even if the planes hit the central core, the only part of the core they could have conceivably hit is around the area of impact. The central core runs right through the building. How does the entire core, top to bottom, get compromised? Why does the entire building turn to dust, collapsing at almost freefall speeds?

 

The NIST report tells us that the mass at the top of the building pushed down on the rest of the building. This is the official explanation.

 

Regardless of what went first, I think we can both agree that the top of the building was gone. Either dust or smaller chunks of building. However you might describe it, the top of the building's mass was totally dispersed. Bits were exploding away from the tower. The amount of weight the bottom of the tower had to support was greatly reduced.

 

So straight away, there is a big problem with the official explanation. Those towers had supported the weight of the intact mass for decades, yet they are unable to support the dispersed mass of dust and debris?

 

To suggest those floors were rigged with explosives that somehow could stay intact during the plane strike and fires and then be correctly detonated an hour later is nonsense.

 

The suggested explosives are something called thermate, supposedly attached to the central cores. It's a cutting explosion set at a diagonal angle, the reaction takes intense heat to start. The Architects and Engineers video gives a good account of this, but long story short, the reaction of the material creates molten metal, cutting through the beams. With the support gone, the whole building slides in on itself.

 

The explosives are not explosives in the Hollywood sense. They're just there to break the structural integrity of the building.

 

The pic of the pentagon shows what a huge target it was, you don't need to be a genius to see that and push down on the controls. To hit it at a specific point and angle would be very hard but these guys didn't care where it hit.

 

The problem is that they didn't do that. They could have done exactly as you describe. It's the simplest and most logical approach. If they had done as you suggested they would have caused a lot more destruction.

 

They didn't. They apparently went out of their way to hit the side of the Pentagon on the other side, performing an aerial manoeveure that commercial pilots have said would be impossible to do. This expert feat of flying was accomplished by a pilot described as unsafe by his former flight instructors.

 

The only possible conspiracy theories IMO are:

 

1. The Yanks knew a bunch of rag-heads had something planned but let them get on with it knowing that any attack would suit their agenda. OBL cottoned on and went for the nuclear option. This would explain any foreknowledge and also Bush's sheepish reaction to being told. He was probably expecting them to just do a standard hijack.

 

2. A small rougue group of agent pilots infiltrated the terrorists and the rag-heads were as surprised as us when the planes ploughed straight into the towers.

 

3. The terrorists planned a straightforward hijack but the planes were being flown by remote control.

 

All of these are far fetched but the idea that any more than a handful of people could be behind mass murder of their own civilians is laughable.

 

Well, it's good to have some debate, but I'd have to disagree on the last point. Mentioned the Manhattan Project before in this thread, a project so secret that Truman had to be told about it, yet 129K people were involved in bringing it to fruition. They all played a part, but very few of them would have been told what their part in it was.

 

I know that the proposed big picture looks ridiculous, but look at the example given with the Towers. The only explanation that fits our understanding of science is a massive failure of structural integrity, and the most common mechanism for that is controlled demolition. We've seen planes hit steel-framed buildings, we've seen fires in steel-framed buildings, burning hotter and lasting longer. Prior to 9/11, no other similar edifice had ever turned to dust in less than 2 hours.

 

Science, tried, trusted and refined over centuries is telling us one thing. The Bush administration has told us another.

 

Lest we forget, these guys were lunatics. In the 1980s, their rest of the Republican party called these guys "the crazies". During their time in office, they approved the use of detention, rendition and torture, conspired their way into war with Iraq, an act that they'd planned prior to the September 2011 attacks.

 

Now, given the way that they conducted themselves in the open, science wins every time.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by pap

[pap]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that those towers were brought down by a controlled demolition is totally retarded.

 

I've watched all the videos, heard the varying explanations, read the books and I sorry, but you come under the retard umbrella. A pity, thought you were a bright bloke.

 

 

If you're going to make assessments about my mental capabilities, at least do me the honour of pointing out why.

 

Just calling someone a retard without backing it up is, pardon my French, a bit out of order.

[Verbal]

As for the supposed detonation of buildings at WTC, your argument (although you pretend otherwise) is really only that it’s possible to do this, not that it happened. This is like your ludicrous argument earlier: that because a construction/demolition company was allegedly working on WTC, and was also based in it, that’s conclusive proof that they were busy rigging detonation points. Beyond a nudge and a wink among conspiracy nuts, this is rubbish.

 

‘Commercial pilots’ have NOT said the maneuvers of AA77 were impossible – only a few ‘truther’ pilots have. You’re falsely casting this argument is if there were some consensus about it.

 

The Manhattan Project comparison is absurd. You claim that 290,000 people (actually it was 130,000) were involved in it, yet only a very small number of them knew what the ultimate aim of the project was – and they were all ensconsed in remote hills near Santa Fe, New Mexico. It was in the midst of World War Two, when secret programmes were necessary and quite common. That Truman wouldn’t know about it is hardly a surprise – and pretty stunningly irrelevant to 9/11. Did you know, however, that the Soviets DID know about it, and had penetrated it?

 

So let’s wait and see, shall we? After all, the leaders of the Manhattan Project subsequently wrote extensive accounts of the work they did (notably Oppenheimer). Who do you think is going to write an account of how they, and not AQ, brought down the Twin Towers with the assistance of a quarter of a million or more (presumably) absolutely silent participants, in the gravest crime committed against America, on American mainland soil, in modern times.

 

‘Science’ does NOT ‘tell us one thing.' It’s capable of looking at a problem in many different ways and coming up with many different conclusions. Ultimately, however, science is poorly served by people hitching it to conspiracy theories that have so little contact with recognisable reality.

 

Truthers offer no credible names, and no credible motives – or when they think they do, they look particularly silly.

 

What’s depressing for someone who claims to be a ‘scientist at heart’ (what does that mean, by the way, other than making some feeble attempt at claiming a special privileged access to wisdom?) is the lack of coherent thinking.

 

Bigger picture, pap, bigger picture. Read Looming Tower, then come back and say that AQ could not have carried out the attacks.

[pap]

So let’s wait and see, shall we?

 

The most sensible thing you've said so far. As the US Senate Committee into the Kennedy assassination proved, a bit of space can be a valuable asset in an independent investigation.

 

Hopefully, a future generation will get to examine these events from a fresh perspective.

 

Bigger picture, pap, bigger picture. Read Looming Tower, then come back and say that AQ could not have carried out the attacks.

 

But you're blind to the details, your big picture is fundamentally flawed, and there really is no point in perpetuating this discussion.

[Verbal]

But you're blind to the details, your big picture is fundamentally flawed, and there really is no point in perpetuating this discussion.

 

I'm not blind to the details - just determined not to get into a pointless google-duel with you. Arguing details with truthers is like arguing with Scientologists. You have no first-hand knowledge of the subject, as far as I can see, and have never ventured away from your computer to look at any aspect of this.

 

If my 'big picture is fundamentally flawed', you'll have a ready answer to the question I've been asking for so long now about the AQ prequels. Why no conspiracy theories about them?

 

Now go away and read a book, instead of obsessing over the non-existent evidence for the use of thermate. You need to break out of your oddly US-centric view of the world and realise that you don't HAVE to be American to have committed the atrocity on 9/11.

[pap]

I think you've just ignored every detail on the way. You have no argument, spent a great deal of the thread asking for answers you knew people weren't in a position to give, as if their inability to prove them is somehow validity of your claim. Then, when confronted with specific points about things about specifics that do not add up, you simply ignore them. Throughout, you have been unfailingly condescending, ascribing statements to me that I didn't make, constructing your own conspiracy theories. Your rebuttals, such as they are, amount to "that's wrong" or no "that's wrong", and pretty much every source you've wheeled out has been debunked or thrown into question.

 

From the way that the likes of Turkish and dune went on, I was led to believe that you were some intellectual heavyweight. Having had the opportunity to 'debate' with you on this matter, it's pretty clear that you believe you're always right, and that there is nothing that anyone can do to get a more conciliatory kind of response. Even when presented with a series of credible resources, you simply dismiss the lot because someone won't spin you a fairytale.

 

You may have a lot of knowledge in your head, but if you're only going to fill it with the stuff you want to hear, insulting anyone who says otherwise, then I'd say you're not making optimal use of resources.

 

I'm sending 5 minute YouTube videos in support of the arguments. You're asking me to read entire books to prove your case. You won't say whether the books disprove some of the contradictions that have been enumerated. You just won't even address them.

 

Are these the standards of debate that Verbal, unofficial king of the intellectuals, adheres and subscribes to?

 

I'm almost anxious to know what you do for a living. I hope it isn't any form of investigation.

Edited 17 September, 2011 by pap

[Viking Warrior]

I cannot believe that some believe the plane crashes on 9/11 were part of an elaborate conspiracy . Tell that to my american cousin who lost a close friend in one of the incidents . They happen to be a doctor working for the military are you saying they have been brainwashed into believing it was a group of al queda misfits ?

[Verbal]

I think you've just ignored every detail on the way. You have no argument, spent a great deal of the thread asking for answers you knew people weren't in a position to give, as if their inability to prove them is somehow validity of your claim. Then, when confronted with specific points about things about specifics that do not add up, you simply ignore them. Throughout, you have been unfailingly condescending, ascribing statements to me that I didn't make, constructing your own conspiracy theories. Your rebuttals, such as they are, amount to "that's wrong" or no "that's wrong", and pretty much every source you've wheeled out has been debunked or thrown into question.

 

From the way that the likes of Turkish and dune went on, I was led to believe that you were some intellectual heavyweight. Having had the opportunity to 'debate' with you on this matter, it's pretty clear that you believe you're always right, and that there is nothing that anyone can do to get a more conciliatory kind of response. Even when presented with a series of credible resources, you simply dismiss the lot because someone won't spin you a fairytale.

 

You may have a lot of knowledge in your head, but if you're only going to fill it with the stuff you want to hear, insulting anyone who says otherwise, then I'd say you're not making optimal use of resources.

 

I'm sending 5 minute YouTube videos in support of the arguments. You're asking me to read entire books to prove your case. You won't say whether the books disprove some of the contradictions that have been enumerated. You just won't even address them.

 

Are these the standards of debate that Verbal, unofficial king of the intellectuals, adheres and subscribes to?

 

I'm almost anxious to know what you do for a living. I hope it isn't any form of investigation.

 

Actually I'm just applying to be a school governor. Will you give me a reference?

 

...and do read the damned book.

[pap]

I cannot believe that some believe the plane crashes on 9/11 were part of an elaborate conspiracy . Tell that to my american cousin who lost a close friend in one of the incidents . They happen to be a doctor working for the military are you saying they have been brainwashed into believing it was a group of al queda misfits ?

 

No I'm not. I'm saying that key planks of the official story are undermined by scientific investigation, eyewitness accounts and what we know about science.

 

I am sorry to hear about any that lost their lives on that day, but your cousin's grief doesn't mean we should not agree with everything we are told.

[View From The Top]

No I'm not. I'm saying that key planks of the official story are undermined by scientific investigation, eyewitness accounts and what we know about science.

 

In your world maybe.

 

I'm sorry, but you've come across as a truther nutter who appears to need it to be a secret dark conspiracy and cannot accept that a few lowely AQ operatives pulled off the most audacious terrorist attack in human history.

 

As Verbal says, read up on it, as I have done, with an open mind in the beginning, and you'll reach one simple truth and that will be that AQ did it all one their lonesome.

 

I had really wanted it to the the Israelis.

Edited 18 September, 2011 by View From The Top

[John Smith]

So the plot thickens...as it always does when theorists head off in this direction. You're now saying that despite Khan's extensive training in Pakistan, and residence at a now-known AQ safe house, it's 'possible' (see? I'm being careful!) that actually the plot was discovered and then taken over by...who exactly? And WHY? We come back to the same tiny problem: that you end up saying how 'possible' it is that the Labour Party (or MI5, or WI, etc) blew up the Underground. Doesn't that sound funny to you?

 

No offence, but I suspect part of the problem is that like JS you're poorly read. And I mean poorly read around serious writers who really do know their stuff. Read The Looming Tower and then tell us about your 'possibilities'.

 

LOL, I see you still haven’t been able to comprehend the obvious yet. You ask for answers and you get all flustered when you receive them. I imagine you to be banging away on that keyboard, in an absolute frenzy, like a chimp from the PG Tips advert on his night off!

 

I like the assumption that ‘I’ am poorly read, lol, and you take that ‘assumption’ as fact by stating as a matter of fact, without any proof whatsoever. So, Chimp boy, let’s try again. Why? Because I shall endure your naivety as it is becoming quite endearing. You appear lost and are in need of guidance in this big bad World, like a voice in the wilderness crying for help.

OK, I’ve proved to you that a Boeing 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon, and you have confirmed that you believe this. Now, you want to know if the Bush Administration sent a missile into it’s own defence HQ? Or if the British Government blew up the London underground on 7/7? Or maybe Bin Laden? Well, you’ll have to be slightly better read to be able to even comprehend the beginnings, let alone the conclusion. No, not because it is so complicated and utterly ridiculous, but, because it is staring you right in the face. Bush knows who did it, and he’s thicker than you, lol! You ask me if I’m well read enough and you’re being pwnd by G. Bush Jnr, lol, quality. Do you want fries with that, sorry, you must be tired of hearing that all day...

The spectacle is not a collection of images, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.

I'm sure you'll go on and on and on, or runaway and hide, either way, you should think again before you make your assumptions, one day, you will understand, unfortunately, evolution is likely to have moved on by the time you're able stop dragging those knuckles. In the famous words of one so great: I wanna walk like you, talk like you, it's true. (don't worry, evolution will help you out).

[View From The Top]

LOL, I see you still haven’t been able to comprehend the obvious yet. You ask for answers and you get all flustered when you receive them. I imagine you to be banging away on that keyboard, in an absolute frenzy, like a chimp from the PG Tips advert on his night off!

 

I like the assumption that ‘I’ am poorly read, lol, and you take that ‘assumption’ as fact by stating as a matter of fact, without any proof whatsoever. So, Chimp boy, let’s try again. Why? Because I shall endure your naivety as it is becoming quite endearing. You appear lost and are in need of guidance in this big bad World, like a voice in the wilderness crying for help.

OK, I’ve proved to you that a Boeing 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon, and you have confirmed that you believe this. Now, you want to know if the Bush Administration sent a missile into it’s own defence HQ? Or if the British Government blew up the London underground on 7/7? Or maybe Bin Laden? Well, you’ll have to be slightly better read to be able to even comprehend the beginnings, let alone the conclusion. No, not because it is so complicated and utterly ridiculous, but, because it is staring you right in the face. Bush knows who did it, and he’s thicker than you, lol! You ask me if I’m well read enough and you’re being pwnd by G. Bush Jnr, lol, quality. Do you want fries with that, sorry, you must be tired of hearing that all day...

The spectacle is not a collection of images, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.

I'm sure you'll go on and on and on, or runaway and hide, either way, you should think again before you make your assumptions, one day, you will understand, unfortunately, evolution is likely to have moved on by the time you're able stop dragging those knuckles. In the famous words of one so great: I wanna walk like you, talk like you, it's true. (don't worry, evolution will help you out).

 

Yet another non answer.

 

One day, when you leave your bedroom, you'll witness the real world and perhaps, maybe, actually talk to real people. Until then, I pity you.

[pap]

I've watched all the videos, heard the varying explanations, read the books and I sorry, but you come under the retard umbrella. A pity, thought you were a bright bloke.

 

In your world maybe.

I'm sorry, but you've come across as a truther nutter who appears to need it to be a secret dark conspiracy and cannot accept that a few lowely AQ operatives pulled off the most audacious terrorist attack in human history.

 

You are entitled to your opinion - but honestly, don't really think you've done much to verify it.

 

Weird how everyone thinks you're a bright bloke until you say something that they do not agree with.

[saintbletch]

A fascinating debate and for what it's worth I'll add my thoughts. I have to say that reading some of the posts on here has altered my view slightly. I never thought I'd say that following the OP's post.

 

I've seen the way debates work on forums such as this and it appears to be important to qualify every post you make with caveats and full explanations because otherwise someone will jump into a specific post and accuse you of something you'd already made clear 2 pages earlier.

 

So with that in mind. I don't believe that the 9/11 atrocity was a conspiracy from within.

 

But I have to admit that some of the 'evidence' I've read / watched as a result of this thread has made me think 'That is odd'. I am also mindful, as I am when reading the mainstream press, that editorial agenda can make anything appear to be what it isn't. I realise that ALL of the 'evidence' I've seen has been presented with an agenda. Even knowing that, I still think some of the things I've seen with my own eyes appear 'odd'.

 

In principle, I don't have much time for conspiracies. I look at people who believe in conspiracies with a little suspicion if I'm honest. But ironically, for a conspiracy to be covered up it would rely completely on people having the attitude of "My government wouldn't / couldn't do this therefore that bloke's a nutter".

 

And 'odd' doesn't mean that I've changed my view. It means that I can see how people who ARE prepared to believe that their governments are capable of colluding en masse to deceive them would start to question what is going on. I guess that once you make the leap into believing that, then nothing will ever seem the same again. I came close to that with the Iran dossier and Dr. David Kelly. Some things about that still appear 'odd' to me.

 

Pap. Kudos for having the courage of your convictions and for your debating style. The dry, bald-headed architect video was very interesting. I'd never really thought about the coincidences involved in making the twin towers fall vertically. The same for the third tower and the force that caused it to fall. Although as I've said already, whilst watching it I realised that all of the material was put together and presented by someone with an agenda. Still an interesting watch though. A question for you. Do you think it is possible to put together and cover up a conspiracy on this sort of scale with so many moving parts? If so, how and how could it stay secret once the colour of successive governments change? (ok, several questions).

 

Verbal. Really enjoyed you sharing your thoughts so eloquently on here too. I've always admired people who can reach such firm conclusions and believe them without question. My world is full of grey and I envy anyone who can see only the black and the white. But one question. Why did you feel the need to read the book you've advocated others should read? Was there a point where you questioned this subject yourself and needed to read more? If so then I can't see how you can be so hard on people that are still at the stage of asking questions. Alternatively, did you read it to re-affirm the beliefs that you already held? If so, then I'm not sure you can put so much stay in its content as you wouldn't have read it with a particularly forensic eye.

[John Smith]

Yet another non answer.

 

One day, when you leave your bedroom, you'll witness the real world and perhaps, maybe, actually talk to real people. Until then, I pity you.

 

And so, your whole side capitulates. Currently, I am not in my bedroom, when I wrote what I did yesterday, not in my bedroom. When I took a lot of time responding to you twice before, not in my bedroom. You on the other hand, I couldn't care less whether you were in your bedroom or half way up a gum tree. You have brought nothing to this debate. I have answered your feet stomping questions, and you have nothing in return, lket me point that out again, "nothing". For all your prevado and put downs about intellect, you, Mr. Thicky have missed the obvious. Yes, I did do a little test on you, and yes you failed, Mr Well Read.

 

So, climb back up your Gum tree, swing from the tree's and you will know more than you do today. You're not worth my time, Corrie is more your level of debate, enjoy the muppet show!

[buctootim]

John Smith's limitations have long been obvious, but finding this out about Pap is like discovering your favourite uncle is a cross dressing astrology devotee.

[John Smith]

A fascinating debate and for what it's worth I'll add my thoughts. I have to say that reading some of the posts on here has altered my view slightly. I never thought I'd say that following the OP's post.

 

I've seen the way debates work on forums such as this and it appears to be important to qualify every post you make with caveats and full explanations because otherwise someone will jump into a specific post and accuse you of something you'd already made clear 2 pages earlier.

 

So with that in mind. I don't believe that the 9/11 atrocity was a conspiracy from within.

 

But I have to admit that some of the 'evidence' I've read / watched as a result of this thread has made me think 'That is odd'. I am also mindful, as I am when reading the mainstream press, that editorial agenda can make anything appear to be what it isn't. I realise that ALL of the 'evidence' I've seen has been presented with an agenda. Even knowing that, I still think some of the things I've seen with my own eyes appear 'odd'.

 

In principle, I don't have much time for conspiracies. I look at people who believe in conspiracies with a little suspicion if I'm honest. But ironically, for a conspiracy to be covered up it would rely completely on people having the attitude of "My government wouldn't / couldn't do this therefore that bloke's a nutter".

 

And 'odd' doesn't mean that I've changed my view. It means that I can see how people who ARE prepared to believe that their governments are capable of colluding en masse to deceive them would start to question what is going on. I guess that once you make the leap into believing that, then nothing will ever seem the same again. I came close to that with the Iran dossier and Dr. David Kelly. Some things about that still appear 'odd' to me.

 

Pap. Kudos for having the courage of your convictions and for your debating style. The dry, bald-headed architect video was very interesting. I'd never really thought about the coincidences involved in making the twin towers fall vertically. The same for the third tower and the force that caused it to fall. Although as I've said already, whilst watching it I realised that all of the material was put together and presented by someone with an agenda. Still an interesting watch though. A question for you. Do you think it is possible to put together and cover up a conspiracy on this sort of scale with so many moving parts? If so, how and how could it stay secret once the colour of successive governments change? (ok, several questions).

 

Verbal. Really enjoyed you sharing your thoughts so eloquently on here too. I've always admired people who can reach such firm conclusions and believe them without question. My world is full of grey and I envy anyone who can see only the black and the white. But one question. Why did you feel the need to read the book you've advocated others should read? Was there a point where you questioned this subject yourself and needed to read more? If so then I can't see how you can be so hard on people that are still at the stage of asking questions. Alternatively, did you read it to re-affirm the beliefs that you already held? If so, then I'm not sure you can put so much stay in its content as you wouldn't have read it with a particularly forensic eye.

 

A very good post saintbletch. I'm glad you took the time to hang around and view things with an open mind. I for one, certainly would expect most, even slightly curious people, to at least consider the available scenario's, before jumping to conclusions about something so massive as the murder of so many people, regardless of who you think is responsible.

 

Just for added interest, it nearly came up with buctootim, but, I don't like to attack people who have a personal involvement, but, for someone such as yourself, who is probably dislocated from the actual sensitivities of personal involvement, you should check out 2 things:

 

1. Who were incharge of security of the twin towers, leading up to 9/11?

 

2. Who was in control of the police on the ground during the whole incident (the answer for this, isn't as simple as you may think, certainly isn't what we'd have in England)

 

Also, if you're interested, maybe you'd look at "how many times the owners have requested the Twin Towers to be demolished". Check out the change of ownersip, who actually owned the Twin Towers at the time, who owns the site now, who will own the new site. What was the payout on the old site, what were the clauses, why were these written in? Also, sorry to cram this all in, but I have limited posts, but you might want to consider the architects and their views and also the good guy in all this, the MAyor of New York, surely he wouldn't be tied up in all this.

 

Lastly, if it really gets under your skin, try ignoring the 'religion' thing, for example, it may surprise you what the 'Bin Laden' group do. Check out one of theoir latest offerings at Mecca. Also, if you see this, check out the new architects for the building, also, interesting stuff.

 

Welcome to the debate, sorry if you are being associate to a nutjob...

[pap]

Pap. Kudos for having the courage of your convictions and for your debating style. The dry, bald-headed architect video was very interesting. I'd never really thought about the coincidences involved in making the twin towers fall vertically. The same for the third tower and the force that caused it to fall. Although as I've said already, whilst watching it I realised that all of the material was put together and presented by someone with an agenda. Still an interesting watch though. A question for you. Do you think it is possible to put together and cover up a conspiracy on this sort of scale with so many moving parts? If so, how and how could it stay secret once the colour of successive governments change? (ok, several questions).

 

Thanks for your considered approach on this, saintbletch.

 

As to your questions of possibility? They break down into largely two sections, which I'll cover separately. I've paraphrased you a little bit.

 

1) Is it possible for this to have been implemented?

 

History has shown us that people at the top of Government have been involved in conspiracies. Kennedy, Oliver North Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, etc. There is a hierarchical framework is in place to involve people in a conspiracy without them actually being complicit.

 

9/11 was a conspiracy, irrespective of who committed it.

 

If were able to treat this topic dispassionately, and looked at 9/11 from the perspective of being a crime, we'd be looking at things like motive, capability and the evidence.

 

I've laid out potential motives for 9/11, and tried to back them up with documents proving that many of the things made possible by 9/11 (such as pre-emptive war doctrine and the invasion of Iraq) were desired by the Bush administration before 9/11.

 

I think we can all agree that on capability terms, an internal conspiracy with hooks into the Government has a far better chance of pulling this off than ( as VFTT puts it ) 'lowely Al Qaeda' operatives. Indeed, some have questioned whether the AQ boys had the capability at all. Let's not forget that these guys managed to hi-jack four planes and navigate three of them to highly symbolic targets through some of the most protected air-space in the world.

 

In a typical investigation, conclusive evidence beats pre-held conceptions every time. If a detective is investigating a murder, and uncovers evidence that points the blame away from someone who was previously the prime suspect, then the detective will rightly construct alternate hypotheses, taking the new evidence into account. Yet, for the most heinous crime in our collective memory, we've effectively suspended this method of investigation. The story is the story, and damn ( or simply ignore ) any facts that contradict it.

 

So yeah, I think it is possible for a conspiracy to be implemented.

 

2) 1) Is it possible for this to have been covered up, particularly after new Governments, etc, come to power?

 

This is actually a more interesting question.

 

In the immediate aftermath, it would be relatively easy to cover up.

 

Proceeding from the assumption that people in the Government were involved, they have all the apparatus of state at their disposal plus the power to set the terms of the investigation.

 

The 9/11 Commission is a case in point. Underfunded, with a short time span, and rife with conflicts of interest, the Commission is supposed to have produced the definitive account of the event using the best evidence at the time. Max Cleland resigned almost immediately, citing that "I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.".

 

Even two of the commisioners that stayed on have both since claimed that the investigation "was set up to fail". In the end, the Commission's report ended up being a regurgitation of the official account. It doesn't cover the destruction of WTC7 and treats the matter of who funded 9/11 as "no practical significance". How can the moneyman behind the biggest atrocity on US soil be of "no practical significance"? In every other investigation, people follow the money.

 

You also ask a decent question about successive Governments. My hope is that in time, as happened with the Kennedy assassination, a future government will have the courage to look at the matter with fresh eyes.

 

It took almost 15 years to even get close to the truth on JFK. In terms of scale, 9/11 is much larger. It is one thing to admit that Kennedy was "very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy". It's something else entirely when you have to say "elements within our Government may have been complicit in the murder of 3,000 citizens".

 

Assume for a second that you are President Obama, entering the Oval Office for the first time after inauguration. During your first intelligence briefing, you discover that 9/11 was orchestrated by members of the previous administration. What do you do with that? What, indeed, can you do with that? The only two options at that point are to plan for full disclosure or continue the cover-up.

 

Full disclosure is tricky. You have your sons and daughters fighting wars in foreign lands based on an entirely false premise. What do you say to the parents who have already lost loved ones? What do you say to the international community that supported you in these efforts. What would your standing in the world be if you had to admit that your foreign policy was essentially based on a lie, and that the hundreds of thousands of people slain to date had effectively died to sate the perverse ambitions of a twisted few?

 

In those circumstances, what would most do if they were new to power, and had just found that out? Especially if as in Obama's case, you represented an unprecedented choice of President that a few people, rightly or wrongly, were not sure of because of his colour.

 

I'll make one further point on this. I've said many times on this forum that I believe that true power lies not in governments, which are effectively transient, but in the institutions that retain their power through governments, such as corporations, security services and the military.

 

If there was a conspiracy, it is unlikely that it could have happened without the partial complicity of institutions that fall into this category. While the Bush administration is mercifully now an artefact of history, there could still be people in a position of power with a vested interest in keeping things as they are.