9-11 Video

[Ocean11 0]

Rag-Doll, that's a more honest post.

 

I haven't actually read the government report on 911 or the NYFD reports. Why not? I read reviews of them by reliable scholars that challenge every aspect of them, from the way they were conducted, to their detailed content. And I know that the government in question here is a serial liar. Nothing they say convinces me.

 

You ask two kinds of questions -- ones that have scientifically verifiable answers, and ones that involve conspiracy theories. The scientific questions are easy to answer - you just have to look at how the buildings were designed and how they fell down. If the science of these things doesn't fit with the explanation given, something is wrong. Unavoidably. As to how the conspiracy was carried out, I don't know. But I suspect it relied heavily, and continues to rely on people refusing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, and the scientific facts.

 

I can only recommend that you look at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Look at the list of people who are involved, and ask yourself, do they seem more trustworthy than George Bush and Dick Cheney and Rudolf Giuliani. Consider what they stand to lose by their advocacy. Look at what they've written and see if you can find any logical flaws in it. See if you can find anything that relies exclusively on rhetoric, and discount those parts. See what is pure speculation and discount that. Look at the videos they present and ask if they prove what they say it does. See what you're left with.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Ocean – fair enough but I think this is a good example of the problems with this sort of stuff. Here is the list lifted from the website you linked to:

 

I accordance with letters I have inserted:

 

(A) These go to the science point. If their science is wrong then these arguments fall away. Science is has often been wrong and buildings are occasionally not built to spec.

( Why does the BBC get more credence than other news services?

© Don’t know about this, but weren’t the transponders on the aircraft turned off making them nearly invisible to air traffic controllers? From the 911 report, part of the problems they had early in the day was actually identifying which aircraft were affected – it was pandemonium.

(D) This doesn’t have a lot of probative value and is based pretty much on baseless speculation.

(E) If that is the case then fair point. Personally it wouldn’t surprise me that if any planes were shot down then that one was. The idea of the military shooting down an airliner would be so repugnant to the community that a government may well believe that it is easier to let people believe the plane crashed as a result of the heroics of the passengers. But that act would be a far cry from arranging the whole 911 event and wiring the towers with explosives.

(F) The fact that information is missing doesn’t automatically mean that the information was sensitive in anyway. Shit happens. There still seems to be quite a lot of information relating to the air traffic control points and the controllers are still around. It should be relatively easy to fill in any gaps. The results from their efforts to do so might provide more support to their argument that the innuendo of missing information.

(G) Don’t know about this. Did MASCAL relate to an attack or was it an accident scenario that they were looking at? Pretty big difference.

 

Edit - Sorry just to finish off this list. By addressing each of the "profoundly troubling" points I'm trying to show that the argument of the government did it group is based on conclusions that represent a real mixed bag of points; some valid, some questionable and some out right spurious. - end of Edit

 

Clearly the events of what took place on 911 are sufficiently complex as to create gaps in our understanding of how and why things happened as they did. The prospect that the government of a well educated and (reasonably) well informed democracy would inflict such violence and deception on its own people is, objectively, so monstrous that the probably of it occurring without it being undermined by significant security leaks should rightly be considered to be extremely remote. That remoteness imposes an enormous burden of proof on those supporting the government did it argument. I don’t think that burden has been met. I don’t think it has come anywhere near being met.

 

 

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

• In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible? (A)

 

• The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? (

 

• Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible? (A)

 

• Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? (A)

 

• Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible? ©

 

• Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible? (D)

 

• Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible? (D)

 

• A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible? (E)

 

• A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible? (F)

 

• The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? (G)

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

(A) These go to the science point. If their science is wrong then these arguments fall away. Science is has often been wrong and buildings are occasionally not built to spec.
( Why does the BBC get more credence than other news services?

Exactly. But we know the WTC towers were built to spec and that the spec was extremely high. They were sufficiently novel to garner intense scrutiny at all stages of design and building, and they stood up in high winds for decades. Buildings that are the highest in the world at one time are not generally shoddily built. The chances of them just falling down can be calculated mathematically, and the results prove that the chances of them being blown up with explosives is statistically higher.

Nobody is saying the BBC is more reliable than any other source. Where do you pluck these red herrings from? They simply note that the BBC reported this (and it hasn't been credibly refuted, amazingly enough). If some of them are actually still alive, how can anybody say that the hijackers were even Muslims?

You and many others are devoted to your emotional view that it's too horrible to contemplate, so you clutch at straws and come up with rhetoric.

The government hasn't met the burden of proof that some Muslims did it. Not nearly.

[Ocean11 0]

Here's another thought about the release of this 'evidence'.

 

Judicial Watch is clearly a conservative outfit with links to the Republicans, and by 'releasing' this 'evidence' 'under pressure' from conservatives, the regime is simply pretending that all is as it should be in the Republic, and checks and balances are in place. The government clearly judges it a good time to put out a reminder of the horrors of 9/11 as well. As some Americans have noted, any mention of 9/11 shuts people up automatically.

 

And we see that at work here too.

[manuel_arg 0]

Thats really interesting Rag-Doll, thanks.

[NoFakie 45]

The Pentagon is the most heavily defended building in the world, and the only security cameras there are in the car park?

 

The official story of 9-11 is a long series of incredible coincidences and human errors for which no-one has had to take responsibility. Condi even got promoted. The piece de resistance are the collapse of the WT7 building, the official version of which is clearly false, and the foreknowledge in the form of numerous individuals being warned, many countries' secret services knowing in advance, and the put options on the airlines' stock.

 

The US elections were rigged and the whole Iraq-Al Qaeda and Iraw-WMD campaigns were barefaced lies that anyone paying attention knew about at the time. The US administration continuously lies about global warming, about its foreign policy, about torture and domestic surveillance, about the handling of Katrina, and about the true state of the US economy. I don't understand how anyone can assume the official version of 9-11 must be

true. Was Jessica Lynch heroically saved? Did Saddam's men throw babies out of incubators? Is Hugo Chavez a new Hitler? That's what you're supposed to believe. They're taking you for fools.

 

As a British man living in Japan, both countries' compliance with the US fills me with shame.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

well said Mr. Wiggles

[Ocean11 0]

Add to the foreknowledge the documents of the Project for the New American Century. Events happening in the world today are as faithful to that playbook as events in the 1930s and 40s were to Mein Kampf. Including the 'new Pearl Harbor'.

 

From Wikipedia;

 

 Quote:

A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.

That is clear evidence of conspiratorial thinking by people who are now in government.

 

Oh sorry, we 'hate' conspiracy theories. They're just too horrible.

[igloo 3]

Neil Cavuto

 

"A reminder of Evil"

 

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.h...&Opinion&-1&exp

 

Off topic, Gibson is an even greater guy. (And nice hair. Reminds me of Max Headroom)

 

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.h...&Opinion&-1&exp

[Rag-Doll 0]

Mr. Wiggles,

 

“The Pentagon is the most heavily defended building in the world”

 

Really? Is that something you know as a fact or is it just your guess because it’s a very very big military building. What defenses does it have? You tell what defenses it has and I'll tell you why they didn't work.

 

The claim that the pentagon’s defenses didn’t prevent the plane that hitting the building is often used to support the claim that the government/military were involved to some degree. A fine argument, but people never seem to actually identify what defenses the pentagon has that failed to act on the day. It’s just an assumption people make which they then use to support their hypothesis.

 

Ocean,

 

We don't hate conspiracies or even the people who believe in them. They’re too funny to hate. Skepticism is healthy but it should run both ways. Everybody has an angle they’re pushing and will be selective with how they present information. There are many very valid questions about 911 that have not been answered satisfactorily but a significant portion of what the 911 government did it group use to support their claims is simply uninformed nonsense. Unless you were joking in your last post is a good example of this.

 

Here is a web site that has a lot of information on 911 and SOME fairly balanced analysis of the facts and events. The site is based upon the premise that the government had a hand in 911 and therefore many of its conclusions support this. Some of the conclusions are pretty far out and there seems to be a selective use of information but nevertheless it is balanced enough to dispel some of the more popular myths dear to the conspiracy supporters. I particularly like the acknowledgement that there are many witnesses to the pentagon attack who saw an airliner hit the building. Not a fact you often see mentioned in some of the other more rabid 911 websites.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

[2pints-mate 0]

Good link that Rag Doll been reading some of it here while supposed to be working.

 

The last one I read was the "hologram plane" theory here:

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

 

There sure is a lot of reading.

[Ocean11 0]

> There are many very valid questions about 911 that have not been answered satisfactorily but a significant portion of what the 911 government did it group use to support their claims is simply uninformed nonsense. Unless you were joking in your last post is a good example of this.

 

Oh. I see.

Kindly explain why.

 

People who even entertain the hologram theory have let their emotions run completely wild in the opposite direction to the 'attacked by fanatical Muslims out of a clear blue sky' conspiracy theorists.

 

I just want to see some unequivocal evidence that shows me who did it and how. I'm sure that evidence must be there if things were as they are claimed to be.

 

In the meantime, I'm curious to know why there are no good pictures of the Pentagon attack. I'm curious to know why all those buildings fell down, and not only that, fell at free-fall speed. I have no detailed theories about any of it. Just show me the proof and I'll be happy to believe the fanatical Muslims story.

 

(As for the Pentagon being well defended, if you look a bit harder you'll find talk of Cheney being asked to revoke his order to hold fire, and refusing to do so. That may or may not be meaningful - maybe the avuncular old VP thought it better to wait and see what happened, even if it meant toasting some Pentagon staff. But it does suggest that the capability to shoot the plane down was available. Knowledge - it's a good basis for thought.)

[Curt 1]

Thanks for the links folks. You can spend literally hours and hours reading that stuff and while a fair bit is interesting some is just utterly incredible.

[NoFakie 45]

Ragdoll,

 

My point was that there must be quite a few security cameras at the Pentagon - common sense suggests so. They also seized film from nearby businesses, in case you're more interested than you appear. It doesn't really matter though. The most defended line was actually brought out in response to the "airliner would make a bigger hole" one. Thick reinforced walls, you see. In that sense, it is very heavily defended.

 

I don't see much value in amateurs arguing small points based on the parcity of evidence that has been released. My main line is that the current US administration especially tell lie after lie and that the official report is very suspicious. Previous US governments have used the spurious "we've been attacked" one before (Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty) to justify overseas aggression, as have many other countries throughout history. As the saying goes, there's nothing new under the sun.

 

It should be remembered that with all that nasty stuff going on in the name of the War on Terror, it is the US government who are making a big thing of 9/11, not citizens with websites who are concerned about why Air Defense doesn't defend and buildings that aren't supposed to collapse collapse. There are idiotic sci-fi (*) versions for sure, but all they do is confirm the wonderfully low price of entry of the Internet. Unlike the US press that simply echoes everything their mate GWB says, its a very democratic medium. Anyone can have their say, albeit in their own little corner tucked away somewhere.

 

Whatever did happen on 9/11 itself, the story of that day is not going to have a happy ending. Personally speaking, I hope that the official version is accurate. However, even if the nefarious activity is limited to the hijackers, there is still massive (probably criminal) incompetence being covered up. The American people pay many many tax dollars to be defended and for buildings that don't collapse. They deserve full disclosure, to say nothing of those killed, maimed, or tortured in the War on Terror.

 

(*) Holograms are more Scooby Doo than sci-fi, but never mind.

[Ocean11 0]

I'm going blue holding my breath until I hear how events of the last few years have differed from 'the Project'. I hate to spout uninformed nonsense, and I'm going to burst waiting to be informed.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Mr. Wiggles,

 

Mate, I completely agree with just about everything you've just said. I also quite like the neat reference to thick walls to support the "heavily defended" line

Perhaps you've summed it up very well when you said there is not much value in amateurs arguing small points based on the paucity of evidence that has been released. I think ultimately that is where we end up with this stuff. There are only points in your post on which I would differ. One is whether a government orchestrated 911 (involving the deaths of thousands of Americans) is comparable to the Gulf of Tonkin incident or other such events. I don’t think it is. Despite the Orwellian nature of the use of Al Queda these days, I don’t think the US government has reached Stalinest levels of criminality. There is still too much freedom of information and expression for this to be the case. There are some restrictions granted, but web blogs from soldiers in Iraq and the disclosure of Abu Ghraib are good examples that the US government doesn’t totally control information. If there was something to the 911 theory there should be significant information coming from people directly involved on the day. There doesn’t seem to be – 5 years is plenty long enough for someone to become disgruntled and decide to expose the truth with quality first hand info rather than leaving us with second hand supositions and speculation. The second point is that there isn’t a paucity of information, rather there is an excess of information. The problem is how it is being interpreted. The government did it school dispute an amazing number of points from the official story. Lots of people saw an airliner hit the pentagon but in the absence of CNN quality video the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it. Most information is open to interpretation to some degree or another. The conspiracy guys seem to pick the most sinister of many possible interpretations and there seems to be no limit to how outlandish their theories are, so long as they don’t have to admit that the government’s story might contain an element of truth – it comes right back to my point about closing their eyes to anything that doesn’t fit within their frame work of beliefs. Their starting point is that the government did it and interpret the info accordingly.

 

Of course it could be argued that the conspiracy deniers also do this – the difference is that our frame work is the more rational one, i.e. the government of a liberal democracy would not plan and execute the murder of thousands of its citizens. Unless your start point is the belief that the US government is capable of such a thing, it is a reasonable assumption that the official story is largely correct. If that assumption can only be over turned by interpreting every inconsistency and every equivocal fact as evidence of government culpability then I think the likelihood of that the government is responsible for 911 so remote as to make it fanciful.

 

 

Ocean,

 

Mate, we're do I start?

 

The quote you lifted from Wikipedia could also be regarded as being a rather obvious and common sense assessment of the cause and effect for public support for military spending. But you're right, suggesting that it indicates a conspiratorial thinking of the government is not uninformed nonsense. It's just average, garden variety nonsense.

 

The Cheney point is interesting but hardly unequivocal.

 

The thing I find most troubling about the conspiracy view is the way its proponents spin information. Why do they need to do this if their view is so obviously correct? The wikipedia quote is like that don’t you think? It really doesn’t prove anything but is held up as if it is iron clad proof. The “Scholars for 911 Truth” to me sounds a lot like the same style as used by Christian fundamentalists; the kinds of people who claim that “scientists” have found Noah’s ark. They offer up supposedly ‘scientific’ proof whilst dismissing whole fields of science including, geophysics and biology, etc. which demonstrate the impossibility of the story. Who seriously calls themselves “scholars” these days? It smacks of someone trying to rise above the general erosion of credibility that “academics’ have suffered recently. Some of the proponents of Intelligent Design are ‘scientists”, they’re also crack pots.

 

I don’t think you’re a crack pot , but I don’t think you’re quite as well informed or as open minded as you would like to believe you are.

[Ocean11 0]

> Who seriously calls themselves “scholars” these days?

 

People who work at universities, study things, check each other's work through peer review, stick their necks out even when it's not in their immediate interest to do so, and probably couldn't care less for the sneering of people with far lower standards.

 

You need to read up on the 30s to see how easy it was for Hitler and Stalin to achieve complete control through lies on their side, and gullibility and obedience on the other side. That was quite effective even before the heavy coercion kicked in.

 

> It's just average, garden variety nonsense.

 

With bold faced assertions like that you just try to hide the fact that you're too lazy even to find out what the 'nonsense' is about, let alone evaluate it for yourself.

 

> Their starting point is that the government did it and interpret the info accordingly.

 

I think you'll find that's wrong too. I think you'll find most scholars and skeptics were quite credulous at first, and they began to entertain their first doubts when they saw how 'the Project' was being carried out.

 

You know nothing, really. You attribute all sorts of behaviours to skeptics that aren't true, lump all of them together as if they all say the same things, while adhering strictly to your laughable view that people with power are inherently benign.

 

Sleep tight now, baby.

[yamayamayama 2]

 

(Don't let him bother you Rag-Doll, he gets a bit too worked up from time to time - just laugh at him like the rest of us)

[Rag-Doll 0]

Ocean,

 

I think you’re just impressed by someone with a fancy title. You didn’t read the reports yourself and formed your own views, you just accepted the views of other people whose motives and qualifications (I'm assuming) you have accepted without question. Don’t you think it is ironic that you so glibly accept the rubbish that these guys put forward yet pride yourself on being such a thorough skeptic of the official view? Your simplistic world would nice if it wasn’t so bleak. So Bush is like Hitler or Stalin, eh? I guess the truth of that will be borne out when he suspends elections in 2008 and retains power - I do hope you won’t be disappointed.

 

“You know nothing, really. You attribute all sorts of behaviours to skeptics that aren't true, lump all of them together as if they all say the same things,”

 

But they should be saying the same things! If their views had any credibility their views or conclusions should be consistent. The fact that they are not demonstrates at the very least that the information on which they base their conclusions is open to alternative interpretation. The more varied the theories the more the 911 conspiracy camp resembles a ship of fools.

 

“while adhering strictly to your laughable view that people with power are inherently benign.”

 

I don’t think at any time I have suggested that this is the case, but there is a vast difference between misuse or even abuse of power and butchering thousands of civilians.

 

 

YYY,

I hope you haven't made yourself a target for Ocean's acerbic wit!

 

I don't know why I'm bothering with this, but I do find it intriguing that seemly bright people can hold on to such distorted realities. But you're right, it might be better to let this drop.

 

Ocean,

 

I’ll let you have the last word, fire away mate.

[yamayamayama 2]

 Quote:

I hope you haven't made yourself a target....

I'm almost looking forward to it, boring day at work and not much to do

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

our frame work is the more rational one, i.e. the government of a liberal democracy would not plan and execute the murder of thousands of its citizens. Unless your start point is the belief that the US government is capable of such a thing, it is a reasonable assumption that the official story is largely correct.

There is your view that people with power are inherently benign. Bush's government planned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed over 2,000 of its citizens and made casualities of some 20,000 more, not to mention the uncounted thousands of Afghan and Iraqi dead. So believing that the US government is not capable of such a thing is irrational. (3,000 dead is nothing on a national scale anyway. You know how many people die in car and industrial accidents without making a stink about it? Hint: It's a lot more than 3,000.)

Your position is still that, since believing that the US government is capable of killing people will make you unhappy, it's better to resort to self-deception, dishonest rhetoric, mockery, and suspension of established scientific principles, than to consider the alternative and be unhappy.

If you want to about that, go ahead. I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of others to with you.

[daver 0]

if i may be so bold as to applaud both of you on a very entertaining and provoking debate. however after much deliberation i must, as an observer, crown rag-doll champion. his arguement is simply more lucid and succinct.

 

Ocean11, don't feel bad that doesn't mean i disaggree with you. you points are interesting and i too want to believe that there is more to this than what we are being spoon fed, however i think in the midst of your name calling you may have lost the plot a little. by the end i can't determine if you are trying to debate that the information you have proposed denotes the sound plausiblity of government withheld information regarding said issue, or that it should be taken as scriptural certainty, utterly proving a bleak and terrifying cover up from a manical regime bent on total world domination. that is a fun idea to play with for sure, but a little far fetched. (i hope) as rag-doll points out, the american people are still relatively well informed. but on the off chance, maybe we should all take out NRA memberships.

 

i completely agree with you that there are far too many people today unwilling to even entertain the idea of there being more to this issue that what the status quo suggests. and that is what is most terrifying.

 

if the last thirty years of the US government's international policies have demonstrated anything, it is that the truth will eventually leak. if there is indeed more to this issue than what we are being told, it will come out. just as the truth regarding Cambodia and Laos was revealed, just as the truth regarding latin america was revealed, the full undisclosed truth to this issue will also leak if it is indeed being withheld.

 

once again thanks to both of you for a very entertaining read.

[Ocean11 0]

Certainly Rag-Doll has stayed on message very well -- "Ignorance is bliss" and "Too horrible to be true". Lucid and succinct as you say, if circular and naive.

 

Evidence. I want to see some more evidence.