This issue isn't going away...

[Don Hudson]

Mitch - thanks for the questions.

In philosophical work, William of Ockham figures in the debate between Realists and Nominalists - there is no need to go into it, but we know the name from the notion, (some say the principle) of parsimony, sometimes the most elegant explanation which, when we commit ourselves to the principle, "we commit ourselves to shearng from our theory all those irrelevant entities that play no essential explanatory role."* While many dismiss philosophy as something one does when one has both time and inclination, such notions have a great deal to offer in daily thinking and assumption-building.

What I think offends (not using the term in the personal sense!), the reasonableness of these arguments and questions is that they need so much work and bolting on of other explanations to the principle assumption, that the US government, (or "some factions 'high up' and in official capacity"), knew of and let 9/11 happen intentionally and knew they would kill Americans thereby, the reason, ostensibly, to provide support for a foreign policy target which was the invasion of Iraq and the assassination of Sadam Hussein.

The reason this simply does not stand up is not difficult or hard to understand. The principle of ROI is not limited to those who play the stockmarket. The risk and the cost of conspiracy is high, the threat to Washington if it had just chosen to invade Iraq for oil, to murder Sadam, to kill its citizens, (the US was already doing that) is low by comparison. Why bother with complex conspiracies which must necessarily involve very complex planning and actions, and difficult-to-sustain secrecies?

The US government and the Pentagon have never had much difficulty justifying such actions in the past. Why risk the murder of US citizens to ramp up the "War on Terror", when they can (and do) what they want with impunity? Take a look at the screenshot I took at 0859hrs PDT, May 1, 2003 of CNN's live broadcast of Shock and Awe. These people were bragging. Now look at them and re-consider the wisdom that was impossible to challenge then unless one was "anti-American":

If the goal was to find and 'justifiably kill' the nebulous target now known the world over as "Osama bin Laden" (essentially unknown before 9/11), the US might, power and military intelligence have not only collectively not done that but they have mired their country in what everyone else knew was going to be another Vietnam and have drained their coffers to the point where their position in the world is now under meaningful, significant threat by China, (who, through debt instruments, literally own Wall Street).

Both Iraq and, when the war planners got around to the real problem, Afghanistan, have been Gordian Knots for many empires, the last one being the British one, (now defunct and a shadow cast over history), and is so now for the United States. I think that very quickly the American people began to come to that conclusion but because it was and is "unpatriotic to question your government", (which is ironic, given the fact that most people do not trust government even to the point of Constitutionally ensuring that they had the right to bear arms against it, essentially creating an insurgency), so once again, in the name of the War On Terror, they, Great Britain, Canada and other nations are sending their best to fight a war than cannot be won on the battlefield.

What happened on 9/11 on United States soil is a tragedy without par in American history. They did not deserve it; no nation does. But if we focus on the improbable notion that it was somehow a conspiracy within the US government for all the reasons mentioned, we are in danger of too narrow a focus and too limited a series of assumptions. I don't think the free world can afford that but that is the track I think we are on.

* Michael J. Loux. Metaphysics, 3rd ed. (2006). Routledge, New York.

[RGT]

Yup me too, I have been reading this thread since day one. trying my darnedest to stay out of it. But... three buildings pancake into there own foundation, on the same day, in the same city. I guess I am a Nut-bar because I aint buying it.

[Kip Powick]

Jumping in (for the last time)

This thread encompasses a topic that will never have a definitive end, and if it ever ends it will not be to everyone's satisfaction.

This entire issue reminds me so much of a true story that happened at a police training academy. (My best boyhood friend was there and retired from the police force about 7 years ago)...........................

................................

The instructor was standing at the lecturn teaching his daily lesson to 15 ploice cadets and was about 1/4 way through the hour lecture when an individual in a beige/blue stripped shirt and wearing stone washed jeans walked into the classroom from the rear. The individual had on a baseball cap and sunglasses and continued to walk to the front of the classroom and then proceeded to pull out a revolver from the waistband and shot the instructor. The shooter then calmly exited out the door beside the lecturn.

Before the class could get to their feet the "shot" instructor quickly stood up and told them to all sit down and be quiet. He then passed out blank pieces of paper and asked the budding police officers to write down what they had seen and heard.

Fifteen minutes later he picked up the papers, read them quickly and then went out the door and brought in the shooter, who was dressed exactly the same as during the incident.....which included the baseball cap and sun glasses.

Not one of the 15 cadets had written an entirely accurate description of what had actually happened,( what the shooter did, or even what the shooter was wearing).

Can you imagine the classes surprise when the shooter removed the sunglasses and baseball cap and there stood a 8 year veteran of the police department, a female officer with a short but visible pony tail, (it was not stuck up under her baseball cap)?

She had walked the full length of the classroom, fired three shots at the instructor, and walked out and no one had noticed that the shooter had a ponytail ....and that is not all they missed.

The description of the shooter, ( and number of the shots fired), varied from 6 feet to 5 feet- 4 inches, wearing a black/blue/brown/dark green shirt and most wrote down ---black pants. Number of shots fired varied from 2 to 5 shots. No one noticed the logo on the baseball cap (NY Yankees)or the shade of the lenses of the sunglasses, (they were red).

What has the above to do with 9/11??

It is all about perception, observation, ( visual acuity), and the ability to see..... and hear and accurately define/describe...... what could be considered as unusual sights and sounds at an unusual time and place. 9/11 was a once in a lifetime event(we hope) and no ones senses were prepared for what they saw and heard......and further, as time marched on and the shock wore off, some people started to really wonder if what they saw or heard was true. I am sure some can reconcile themselves to their espoused theories, not only as fodder for thought but perhaps it seems more logical to their tired brains.......who knows?

I have been on three fatal aircraft accident boards of enquiry and that experience alone has taught me to be extremely wary of descriptions borne by "eye-witnesses" and even more suspect of witnesses who have had days, or even weeks, to think about what they saw.

Good luck to those of you that wish to "carry on" however, I am outta here

[Don Hudson]

Kip;

Spot on.

So why the impetus to carry on, I wonder? What will be resolved? What if George Bush and his administration even had an inkling, with dates, and intentionally ignored the warnings? What then?

The question is, does/did the US have a renegade government capable of murdering its own citizens even by inaction when it knew? No one on the thread has yet responded to the question and instead keeps re-focussing on building collapses as though the answers to a conspiracy theory lie in the witness statements and the wreckage. That's the detritus, not the pathway.

Anyway, I'll look at the videos but I'm half-way through the first link and its not a very good presentation so far. It relies upon dramatic music, heightened exclamations, rhetorical questions which are intended to raise suspicion, not advance knowledge. I just don't see the point for the reasons stated.

So far for me, if an accident investigation were conducted the same way, the conclusions and recommendations would not be valid.

[Mitch Cronin]

The question is, does/did the US have a renegade government capable of murdering its own citizens even by inaction when it knew? No one on the thread has yet responded to the question and instead keeps re-focussing on building collapses as though the answers to a conspiracy theory lie in the witness statements and the wreckage.

Don, perhaps there is no "conspiracy theory". There isn't enough information to formulate any decent theory. Including the US government's "official" theory, if you ask me. There hasn't been a thorough investigation.... There are only questions that cry out for answers. Surely you're not suggesting one needs a theory of some kind before he can suggest a reasonable investigation ought to be conducted? Those that have been done are riddled with the filth of "classified" information, conflict of interest, conflicting statement, missing answers, and missing questions.

I think it's far too big an issue to just say, "so what?".

Last week, I chanced upon a documentary on Nazi bunkers in Berlin.... The journalist (an American) was being shown all around by resident volunteers, who say they do that because, "If you forget history you may be doomed to repeat it".

If I haven't responded to that particular question, I apologize... Yes, I believe Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, were capable of doing that. Look how much power the US gov now holds over it's people? I think Iraq was just tip of the Iceberg stuff.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph in that.

There was also said to be a matter of something in the trillion$ which couldn't be accounted for, but all the documents were destroyed in building #7. And the man who compiled the info was himself killed on his first day at his new job.... (if I've got that story correct?)

[inchman]

Ok.... measure the distance between the engines to the flash in the second picture. Now apply that same distance from the engines forward in the first picture.

The aircraft has hit the building. The flash occurs well back from the nose, just in front of R1.

Get over it, Mitch.

I don't see what difference it makes to you, me, or anyone anyway. There has already been an inquiry. Any subsequent one will come to the same conclusions and the CT's will continue to rant.

Move on, people. Nothing to see here.

Edit: Just reread Don's post and he has already addressed my point. If you can't accept Don's logic, I suppose you won't listen to me either.

[Mitch Cronin]

Get over it, Mitch.

Well, thanks for your input Inchman... kind of you to drop by with that.

Just reread Don's post and he has already addressed my point.

At least you read his post.... clearly you haven't read mine.

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

First, it is the easiest thing in the world and we do it all the time, to attach our egos to that which is offered into the public domain. I learned from doing politics (in another life) that once the words, the dialogue, the thoughts are 'out there' they are on their own and divorced from the self and are "in the care of" others such as that may be constituted, (iow, for 'good' or for 'bad', etc).

On the "frozen" nature of contributions, I have great difficulty with this and have "culled" posts in response to such frozenness because I, we, change daily, monthly, yearly and what we were at one time is no longer, yet the words freeze us and are therefore "US".

In the Faurisson Affair, Chomsky came up against the very same problem you are now experiencing and which all those who contribute materially to a controversial set of notions where an eyebrow, not curiosity is raised. Some thngs are worth pursuing not for the establishment of "truth", (whatever that is), but for the journey itself, and that, (for me anyway) is the case here.

There is a vast difference between merely and with intended innocence of one theory or another, asking the question to establish further understanding, and adhering to any favoured answer in which one has invested one's "self", as it were.

If you yourself believe that conspiracy has actually occurred to the point where decisions were engaged at the Executive levels of the US government which permitted, facilitated or made 9/11 occur, then we are on a different course and in a different discussion altogether, as would be plainly obvious. This is not my assumption, and that we are investigating the available "work" in support of a conspiracy theory, (which I have found badly wanting and belonging in the same public category as televangelism and all of Fox News' work).

The dialogue is a "thing", frozen in time in the marketplace of ideas. Like Chomsky's response to his unfortunate dedication in which his words are used by detractors against him in an cynical attempt to portray him as an "anti-Semite", the freedom to ask the question is the key in this, not the view expressed. Otherwise we may as well be at a cocktail party where nothing of substance is intended.

One last item - I have spent years here discussing the notions of what successive US administrations are capable of and how such "work" is done, even in front of the American people's eyes and minds. That the people always wake up and tune in when it gets obvious and really nasty like in Vietnam, Iran-Contra, East Timor, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, Diego Garcia - (British and US actions on Diego Garcia - a perfect parallel to the film, Avatar!), even Israel when they murder Palestinians, and now Iraq. Public recognition and resistance comes to a slow boil which has the effect of driving the administrations underground and into proxy wars but, as Vietnam especially, demonstrates, protest works and the wisdom of ordinary people vice those who vest themselves in thoughts of Empire and Business (empire is as empire does) are forced to either cease until things go quiet or cease altogether.

One thing reading teaches one - secrets do not remain forever.

Washington, (not just Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Halliburton and Co.), are entirely, morally capable of 9/11 and rarely for the reasons we are told at "news" conferences and by the toady media. Killing other country's citizens and, we may as well say it - America's sons and daughers in Iraq, is one thing but killing innocent Americans and destroying a primary economic engine would be the very definition of insanity even for the Bush administration.

So...

I'm not convinced that their plan wasn't allowed to take place with full knowlege though.

What is the evidence you are basing this statement upon?

"Full knowledge" is a very strong term implying wide and deep distribution and not just knowledge and action at a surface level, (small group, like Nixon's Plumbers). Full knowledge means an Executive decision to murder Americans on American soil. It is difficult to imagine that a plan as complex to coordinate and execute as this one would have to be, that not one patriotic "I'm outa here" response can be found revealing some or all of such a plot.

Implicit in the question regarding knowledge is the question which I have asked three times in the above posts now and no one who thinks a conspiracy theory explains 9/11, (if indeed there is anyone), has responded: "Why?"

...and the falling building business ...three times in one day steel frame skyscrapers falling, just as if they'd been felled intentionally, by fire, we're told. Never before that day, or since, has a steel framed building collapsed by fire.... When people want them to fall like that, they pay big money to experts to make it happen.

Here is a link to a report by those very experts to which you refer, discussing this exact point. In fact their report reinforces the point I made just thinking about this and reviewing a number of videos, that there is no evidence of the towers collapsing "from below"; the collapse began in the area of the entry point of the aircraft. In fact, the top section of Tower One clearly fails and leans into the corner in which the United B767 entered.

The "puffs-out-the-sides near the top evidence" which some CT videos point to regarding demolition explosions not only can be explained by the pan-caking floors creating huge pressure differentials between inside and outside the building as the floors collapse; the massive volume of air inside the collapsing structure has to go somewhere, but CTs do not address this alternate explanation.

The installation of any such demolition materials and equipment could not have been done beforehand due to the invasive nature of the process and could not have been done post-collision due to extreme conditions, time available, and technical issues such as inoperative elevators or the difficulties in storing such equipment in-situ for later installation, (point dealt with above).

I believe the questions being asked regarding the "demolition theory" are dealt with in the following. Of course anyone is free to dismiss such reports and often have in favour of more exciting explanations but when reason departs and ignorance occupies a privileged place the discussion and the questioning is over and a kind of local ideology takes over. "Yeah, but..." covers a lot of sins but explains nothing. Here is the link:

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

Why all the lengthy evacs and security shut downs in the twin towers in the few weeks prior?

Why was the head of Pakistan's ISI (their version of the CIA) in NY that day? Why had he given one of the pigs (Mohamed Atta) $100k two weeks prior?

How was Juliani warned?

How was the third building reported to have fallen almost half an hour before it fell? (on CNN and a Briitish broadcast as well) What reason was there to think it would fall? How would it fall straight down if indeed it fell due to damage? It wasn't even a symetrical structure.

How did molten iron appear at the bottoms of all three rubble piles?

What did Cheney mean "the order still stands"? Why, if they were watching the aircraft approach the Pentagon, didn't a fighter get it first?

etc...

As always, a balanced POV is preferred when examining questions which appear to have importance which may or may not have bearing depending upon deeper examination. I think those who earnestly believe that four aircraft were either "disappeared" along with their passengers or were taken over by operatives who were sanctioned and led by orders and plans from and by the Executive level of government in Washington have made up their minds and have canvassed and cherry-picked evidence rather than employing standard investigative approaches to see where the evidence leads. That process includes the requirement to not only posit theories but to accept alternate theories with no pet explanation in mind. I haven't exhausted a search of videos and don't intend to, but I don't find this approach the case with "CTs' " arguments or videos. They do not encompass the questions I (and certainly many I would think) have asked, relying instead upon the psychological factors and responses and a high level of ignorance of specialized topics which I discuss in previous posts.

I cannot answer the specific questions which many of the videos have asked and which you outline (quoted above) but their rhetorical nature, gently implying a preferred answer to an open thought process limits inquiry to that which is in accord with one theory, that of a conspiracy. It is far less plausible that they are related directly to the attacks than the widely accepted explanations of departmental incompetence, political interference with the job at hand (by managers, not Bush and Co.!), and bureaucratic siloing which, while it is accepted that "something was up", (I recall that summer vividly and distinctly recall such public expressions in the media as early as May of that year), delineating "what was up" was never done.

Same processes were still at work last Christmas. It is not the least bit implausible that, notwithstanding the appeal to racial emotions, the comments regarding "those who live in caves" could not have carried out 9/11, could have indeed carried out such a plan taking advantage of a complex, industrial and bureaucratic society in which responses even to the most disastrous occurences is notably slow and confused partially by ideologies, (response to Katrina) but mostly from Paralysis of Due Process.

In this way, I think it is established fact that the United States "knew", but failed to put it all together. For me, that has far more parallels to a company which is in possession of, say, flight data, so it "knows" about close calls, etc, but fails to put it all together possibly permitting untoward outcomes. It is not difficult to understand who, in this case, the attack on the WTCs occured out of inaction and incompetence, which, I would not be surprised if I learned it, was one of the major assumptions of those behind the attacks, and remains a primary assumption as demonstrated at Christmas.

Finally, I offer the following site which intends to address most if not all the questions posed by conspiracy theorists. A search for "chomsky 9/11" will bring up several sites as well. The "Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories site is an extensive examination so will take some time to go through to assess the quality of the thinking behind the site's authors' responses. What I have read so far addresses many of the questions quoted above, but I don't know yet if all of them are addressed.

None of the videos I have watched deal with the questions I have asked:

The key question regarding conspiracies is "why?" Implied in such a decision to murder one's own is the risk and cost of doing so. In fact it would be insanity when assessed against other ways of accomplishing their foreign policy objectives. Also, we, the psychologists and sociologists (and Shakespeare...) know that such human enterprises are notoriously difficult to carry off successfully but "hiding things in plain view" is not. Sociologists will tell us that legitimacy is granted latently, (without conscious thought) to those who behave as we wish - (in other words, those who "fit in") and so very often, those who carry nefarious purpose are hidden in plain view while the real mavericks, good and evil alike, are pursued for being different.

Gotta get back to the kitchen reno's for now...

[GDR]

I have problems with WTC Building 7. If someone can cogently explain the spontaneous fall of that building, I will be content with just about everything else.

ccairspace

Hi cc

This from wiki:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[4] The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[4] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[4] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[33][35] At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely[1]. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Happy 2010

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

The link to the engineering study also has a good discussion on the collapse of Tower 7 under "Assertion 7" that WTC7 was "pulled down" by explosives. The document states that the scenario is "highly unlikely".

As well CC, Happy 2010; we may differ in some views but I hope we are still fellow travellers - your vision of a windy, snowy afternoon on the prairies with a couple of glasses of red in hand certainly captured my imagination and I put that image into action right away even to the "two" glasses... - sans snow in the back yard in this Olympic year... Don

[Mitch Cronin]

Don,

I said: "I am not convinced" that it wasn't allowed to happen... You then ask "what evidence" do I base that statement on? I need to provide evidence to show why I'm not convinced?

I've read all the debunking, and the counter debunking and so on... I remain convinced of nothing...

The only things I'm fairly sure of are; a lot of people died. ... the average American has less freedom and fewer rights.... a lot of very rich people are a lot richer now.... and the world seemed like a better place before all that happened.

Rest assured, I will not bring this topic up again.

[inchman]

Well, thanks for your input Inchman... kind of you to drop by with that.

At least you read his post.... clearly you haven't read mine.

Yes, I have read some of yours, Mitch, but not all.

Frankly, I could say the same about you reading mine. I presented many clear and concise explanations through links and quotes about the fall of WTC 7 in the previous thread, yet you seem to have ignored the expert views (and my own, simple, opinion) which I referenced in those and, apparently, have clung to the opposite view of, well, Conspiracy Theorists. Accepting the "generally accepted" or "official" view does not make the rest of us sheep.

I would recommend that you watch one of the demolition programs on Discovery. (At least they are entertaining). Knocking down buildings intentionally with the accuracy which is attributed by the CT's as only being possible with explosives seems much more than could be done surreptitiously in an office building. There is drilling and wires everywhere. And not just one or two windows being blown out during the explosives ... hundreds.

While all of the WTC collapses were quite vertical (as is, surprisingly, gravity), none of them bear ANY resemblance to even one of the building demolitions that I have seen in various programs or news footage, except that they fall towards the earth.

And, even though there were no explosives even implied by the CTs on the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2, these 80+ floors, amazingly, fell vertically, too. To coin a phrase... "almost in their own footprint". Thank Newton for that, not explosives.

I wasn't even going to join this conversation, but that's what the CT's count on. The only ones left at the end of the day are people who agree with them. So it looks like everyone is on board.

Don, as usual, is being very gracious in trying to help you see errors in your mentors' "proof". I tend to be a bit more blunt and that was my plan. I thought I could give you a shake. Not to insult you, but to try to just give you a wakeup call.

Bottom line... you getting deeper and deeper into this view will not change the outcome nor will it change for the better any part of the rest, real part of your life. In fact, it can only have the opposite effect. How many Truthers' marriages or social lives have collapsed since they became inoculated? This type of thing starts to take up a lot of time that could be better spent with your family or friends.

It's time to just let it rest. I'm going to. I would love to see this thread just gradually work its way down the page. But if it doesn't, I'm just going to ignore it, which was my plan when I saw the subject start up again. I only jumped in because it seemed to keep getting promoted.

I enjoy coming to the forum to get different perspectives, but this subject is one where it just isn't worth my time.

Edit... ironically, posted after Mitch posted his last entry.

[Mitch Cronin]

I do not subscribe, accept, believe in, cling to, or otherwise like ANY theory.

I just want that to be clear.

No, I can't leave the thread like that.... Inchman, I appreciate what you've said. I even agree with much of it, but you're not talking to me. You're talking to someone you think I am. Honestly, I'm not "deep" into this subject.... I've watched some videos and read some stuff.... At the same time, I've read stuff and watched videos and lectures on a whole host of other topics... physics, astronomy, quantum physics, cosmology, geology, guitar, history, meditation, philosophy, yada, yada, yada.... That all takes up a lot of spare time...

I haven't become one of those CT's you speak of.

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

I do not subscribe, accept, believe in, cling to, or otherwise like ANY theory.

I know. To me the discussion has been about the validity of CT claims, not about convincing others of such claims. The discussion has wandered substantially and I think that is the whole point.

I promise to never bring up religion, evolution or Chomsky again.

inchman;

I enjoy coming to the forum to get different perspectives, but this subject is one where it just isn't worth my time.

CT arguments, I concur, have nothing to say to the curious or the perplexed but sceptical. To me the actual theories do not appeal and do not beckon for explanation. The effect, since 9/11, has been to take citizens' eyes, minds and thinking away from truly serious issues of foreign and domestic policy and actions and I tried to examine this perspective within the CT dialogue while examining the basis for claims and evidence.

[Kip Powick]

New Photos released. Link to news article & pictures

\

I think the title of the article is rather over stated.....

Dramatic new images of September 11 attack

........... basically some photos from another direction that show/indicate nothing new...but that is just me..

[Guest woxof]

Get over it, Mitch.

I don't see what difference it makes to you, me, or anyone anyway. There has already been an inquiry. Any subsequent one will come to the same conclusions and the CT's will continue to rant.

Move on, people. Nothing to see here.

Edit: Just reread Don's post and he has already addressed my point. If you can't accept Don's logic, I suppose you won't listen to me either.

I suspect an ulterior motive here. We have seen in another thread a statement by our cospiracy advocate that the U.S. is the world's largest terrorist organization(or words to that effect). This theory seems like a ploy to forward that belief to others. It is hinted that the terrible U.S. is willing to kill its own. Therefore they must be terrible(along with capitalism I suppose).

On the other hand perhaps the theorist really does believe what he is saying, but that would be nutbar stuff. Fortunately for me, I have avoided wasting time arguing rationality and saved much personal time.

The conspiracy theorist will always ask more and more unanswerable questions. Try it yourself on any well known subject. How about the world's worst air crash in Tenerife(for thise that know it well) or any major event. Its easy.

Woxof...only logic.

[boestar]

Look at this site and tell me if you believe that humans have been to the moon.

All I see is a website full of broken links with alot of un proven and, for that matter, rediculous claims by uneducated people.

I have a far easier time accepting that a government with a hidden agenda could systematically create incidents such as 9/11 and other acts to create fear and panic among the masses.

I do believe there is something at play that we as the general public are not aware of. The freedom of the american people is being stripped away slowly under the guise of protecting it.

[Guest woxof]

All I see is a website full of broken links with alot of un proven and, for that matter, rediculous claims by uneducated people.

I have a far easier time accepting that a government with a hidden agenda could systematically create incidents such as 9/11 and other acts to create fear and panic among the masses.

I do believe there is something at play that we as the general public are not aware of. The freedom of the american people is being stripped away slowly under the guise of protecting it.

A month later and I am still reeling them in. Look at post #18 on this thread to see a full explanation of my pretending to believe in the faked moon landings conspiracy theory. I see you said earlier that you are with Mitch on the 9/11 conspiracy.

[DEFCON]

Don

“The effect, since 9/11, has been to take citizens' eyes, minds and thinking away from truly serious issues of foreign and domestic policy and actions”

As you say & by extension , the events of 911 could well be part of a ‘plot’ to “take citizens’ eyes, minds, and thinking away from ….?

“I tried to examine this perspective within the CT dialogue while examining the basis for claims and evidence.”

I respect your perspective, but debate being what it is, there’s always a counter-view.

Can we strip away all the other related ‘stuff’ and focus entirely one question; what logical argument is available that could remotely support the ‘extremely hasty conclusions of the ‘911 Commission’? As I’ve said before, this is especially mysterious considering the gravity of the situation and the concurrent rush to destroy the physical evidence?

From my POV, the 911 Commission, its report, and the order to destroy the physical ‘evidence’ soundly fails the sniff test. That’s enough ‘evidence’ to support the ‘where there’s smoke, there’s also fire’ sense of curiosity in anyone, I think

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON;

That’s enough ‘evidence’ to support the ‘where there’s smoke, there’s also fire’ sense of curiosity in anyone, I think

Well, I wouldn't call it "evidence" but, as it is with anything we don't know about where it doesn't coincide with our notion of how things should be, our curiosity is aroused. That is a natural reaction but I think it is a very long leap to conclude from such a reaction that there is actually something factual behind the perceived oddities. I have the report as you may but have not read the entire document so I don't know what I'm talking about when I disagree with the claim that the 9/11 Commission rushed its investigations and whitewashed alternate interpretations which include CT theories. There are many however who disagree with the fundamental notions and sentiments expressed in the above statement. I know that isn't good enough as "counter-evidence" of course but it is important to bear in mind that counter-argument, in and of itself, is not a case for either theory - it is just a posited counter-argument with no proof one way or another.

I think however that the suggestion I offered in rebuttal to CT notions is entirely reasonable and plausible because it is a matter of the historical record: - that the US government can and has in the past, acted in clandestine ways and even overt ways against both the governments and the citizens of other countries for the sole purposes of advancing US interests. The US administration is fully capable of organized (proxy) murder where deemed "necessary' and, in the case of "despots" sometimes announces the intent of assassination in advance, knowing that such decisions will be supported by a large portion of the US and perhaps world populations.

That's not to say that such acts of state are not warranted where genocide of a country's population is threatened but world events are rarely that obvious or clear as many such events which can be cited, show. In such cases where "despots" or erstwhile "leaders" are the targets of US 'intervention" or "pre-emptive actions", let us be absolutely clear that what applies to other nations in terms of the notions of what defines "terrorism", also applies to the United States and that there is no "fundamental, primary, god-given justice" to which such acts may be referred for final "blessing" - no matter who it is, because war has not been declared and no strong reasons for pre-emptive action have been demonstrated let alone vetted by the world community, it is state murder even though those who seek their knowledge from Fox News etc etc and then raise their hand and say, "aye" may think otherwise.

Given that the United States has announced that it reserves the right to "pre-emptive action", the line between defence and invasion has essentially disappeared in a sea of propagandized justifications.

In other words, Washington can do and does do what it wants when it wants, with impunity. That has not changed under the Obama administration because even a President can't challenge such power beyond the Presidency without result.

To return to your point and the implied question then, why mount a tremendously risky "conspiracy action", necessarily involving hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators of varying loyalties and intelligence, such as that claimed by CTs? Why consider such, when the pattern of former US administrations who brought the world Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti (invasion), Chile, Diego Garcia, Panama and the whole matter of Latin America, would permit the invasion of Iraq as the Bush administration was planning to do before 9/11?

I'm sure you have read sufficiently in the documents "justifying" the invasion, beginning with the WMD's dog-and-pony, the most obvious being Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations General Assembly. These people knew what they were doing beforehand, and they certainly did not require the killing of innocent American citizens in New York and the destruction of the main financial centers of the western world's capitalist economy to do so, especially when, despite the doubters, who thought Powell an honest man who was being used by Bush, Bush and his war administration knew they had the support of the American people to "get Saddam, whatever the cost".

To think that Washington actually "needed" 9/11 to justify the bombing of Baghdad and the invasion of Iraqi simply isn't thinking things through and looking at the forces and pressures in place at the time.

I thought at the time that the invasion of Iraq was among the most stupid and risky adventures the US committed itself to and lost some friends over the fundamental disagreement who dismissed my views as just another bleeding-heart liberal and left-wing radical but for me it wasn't for reasons of politics, the eschewing of right-wing foreign policies or hegemonies: - all it took was some reading and some thinking to know that the US was going to invade Iraq come what may. I thought it risked American lives and was doomed from the beginning as a campaign, if only because both Britain and, where the other traditional target, Afghanistan was concerned, Russia, utterly failed to come to terms with the culture and the vastly different world view of the people who live in this region.

But why "get" Saddam? He was a "useful" ally of the US for decades. His mistake was invading Kuwait, not "facilitating 9/11". He had nothing to do with the Taliban, bin Laden or 9/11. Is the key to this invasion more than just GWB's ego? Many have suggested the reason was assured access to the richest oil deposits on earth, and completing the pincer-like arrangement for US control of the eastern region of the Middle East just they have controlled the western region since 1948. There are disagreements with this of course but in such disagreement one needs to provide an accounting for the invasion which then does pass a real smell test. Such accounting needs to include the reasons why it is rational to believe that the entire campaign wasn't about oil and that killing millions of Iraqis and over 4300 Americans was just about "getting Saddam" and "setting up democracy", US-style.

The logic you are asking for in terms of justifications may not exist for the decision to "rush the destruction of evidence" of the WTCs and "whitewash 9/11 with the 9/11 Commission Report", and what's more, the requirement of such evidence to prove the negative is, as we know, impossible to fulfill because one can always say, "it was possible, so prove it wasn't". I don't think we have to prove this.

But there is plenty of evidence in terms of reasons for NOT "arranging" 9/11 or even "permitting by inaction", 9/11 to "occur". I don't think that even the "folks" like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and their credulous and obedient commander-in-chief in Washington were that insane. That said, only history and the slow but steady access to documents over the next few decades will place the Bush administration and this "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq in perspective.

[DEFCON]

Don

Ok, let’s look at this a different way, from the perspective of ‘evidence’.

At present there’s quite a debate raging as to where the trial of the 911 ‘architect’ was, or is to be held. There’s also a second debate underway with respect to the merits of civilian ‘criminal’ proceedings versus the military tribunal approach.

Regardless, is it not a criminal offense for someone to knowingly destroy physical ‘evidence’ that is or may be related to a crime?

I doubt anyone could argue with the notion, ‘bringing those responsible to justice’ has been anything less than a ‘top’ stated priority of the American government & people.

Who or what form of authority provided the ‘unlawful order’ directing others to violate law and undertake a large & deliberate operation intended by design to accomplish one thing, the complete destruction of all physical ‘evidence’ recovered from and related to what is arguably, the largest ‘crime scene’ in US history?

There’s just too much smoke to agree with ‘Big Brothers’ rendition of events Don.

[Don Hudson]

Don

Ok, let’s look at this a different way, from the perspective of ‘evidence’.

At present there’s quite a debate raging as to where the trial of the 911 ‘architect’ was, or is to be held. There’s also a second debate underway with respect to the merits of civilian ‘criminal’ proceedings versus the military tribunal approach.

Regardless, is it not a criminal offense for someone to knowingly destroy physical ‘evidence’ that is or may be related to a crime?

I doubt anyone could argue with the notion, ‘bringing those responsible to justice’ has been anything less than a ‘top’ stated priority of the American government & people.

Who or what form of authority provided the ‘unlawful order’ directing others to violate law and undertake a large & deliberate operation intended by design to accomplish one thing, the complete destruction of all physical ‘evidence’ recovered from and related to what is arguably, the largest ‘crime scene’ in US history?

There’s just too much smoke to agree with ‘Big Brothers’ rendition of events Don.

DEFCON;

I'm not denying that it was/is possible and that through intentional "failures of intelligence", 9/11 was permitted to occur. I'm not saying that's not possible; it's just not plausible for reasons stated. Changes of venue, delays and so on are not "evidence" of conspiracy.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by the term, "Big Brothers rendition of events", can you elaborate? - do you mean the US government's version of events? If so, again, that is entirely possible and I do not deny that. What I am saying is, conspiracy notions just don't make sense even given the capacity of an administration to "plot" against it's own population in perhaps, other less nefarious ways.

My counter-example to "too much smoke" would be the case against Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who, with Nixon, secretly ordered the bombing of Cambodia, a target which had no strategic significance and which occurred very near the end of the war. We KNOW this happened - it was outright murder of civilians on no justification but because they are unworthy people in the eyes of many, nothing was ever done. Even Mai Lai was prosecuted - but not Cambodia.

But, let's say for discussion's sake that if 9/11 was an intentional, clandestine "arrangement" to murder US citizens using US aircraft hitting the primary US financial target? What then? What are the expectations? How will things change? Given history of past empires and rulers, even with the possibility of such an arrangement there is no epiphany here.

[deicer]

Now it seems Mitch isn't the only one asking these questions....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns

[Airband]

Now it seems Mitch isn't the only one asking these questions....

.

indeed, yet another skeptic lends his voice....

.

[Mitch Cronin]