The truth about 9/11

Post Reply New Topic

Of course you did. It caused pain to another person.

Here we go. No Machloket. Talking about Israel does not mean a person is mentally unbalanced. That is just what people like you say to turn a forums against someone who is exposing things you do not want exposed.

Everyone, please keep this civil. Attack the argument, not the person.

Bec (As Mod)

Lets take this argument to another perspective.
Have any of you heard about the power of Nightmares?
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/powerofnightmares/index.html

The Power of Nightmares is a documentary on Neo-Conservatism.

And they keep quiet about it even after it causes the deaths of thousands of people and billions of dollars of damage? Like I said, you'll never find that many sociopaths willing to go along with your scheme.



If it's my job to make sure the building is secure? Sure. And even if I don't, I'd sure as hell tell the reporters about it after the towers come down.



It would take an awful lot more than four or five people.









Jeremy

Well, I'm trying to be as well-grounded, level-headed, and rational as I can be here, and I do consider myself to have all of those qualities, but they can sometimes be weakened by my impulsiveness and my emotional sensitivity. But, I know, I know, I probably come off as some extremist or something, so read this post or don't, take it seriously or don't, whatever.

Thanks All this has made me realize what an interesting phenomenon conspiracy theories are, and from now on when I read them I'll do so for entertainment value and perhaps as well as a case study in the sociological factors behind them. I do believe investigative reports and research from credible sources that brings to light possible conspiracy-like events should be taken more seriously though.

That's true that after a major event such as this one, conspiracy theories are more or less inevitable. And the possibly unprecedented level of secrecy and security the government is operating behind certainly serves to explain it as well. While I now strongly disagree with the presentation of data manipulation and fallacies of logic and even propaganda (I am in very strong disdain of the somewhat anti-Semitic tones of some of what I read, I find that very troubling) as possible explanations and theories, I do believe it is quite healthy and necessary to question the government and view mainstream news reports with a bit of skepticism as to what they are leaving out, not reporting, and giving limited coverage. Usually though, conspiracy theories take this too far, although that's certainly not to say they don't contain some truth in them and can open one's eyes (and sometimes they're downright funny).

Mithrandir, thanks for the link. I've been interested in the relationship between neo-cons, the religious right, and the Bush administration for awhile now and have done quite a bit of serious reading about it (and I think the CBC has excellent documentaries-my fiance lives in Canada, so I've watched a lot of CBC). Of course terrorism is a dire threat, but I agree with the documentary that it's quite possible that the terror organizations are not as sophisticated or well-organized as has been suggested and that threat has been largely overblown by neo-conservatives and the religious right to achieve a number of political ends-to manipulate the general public with fear tactics, increase military and defense spending, increase a sense of nationalism, and create the image of an enemy (along with the other enemy, those America hating, terror supporting liberals ). One of the tenets of neo-conservatism is the control of the populace for easier political manipulation, by a number of means, one of which is religion-Leo Strauss, the father of neo-conservatism, was indifferent to them all, and Christianity (in it's more conservative, fundamentalist form) worked the best, which is one of the reasons why the political clout of the religious right has increased steadily since the '70's, and why the current administration and some Congressional leaders have ties to the religious right and pander to them by seeming devoutly religious (although certainly there may be some who genuinely are). The other is the need for a constant external threat and the need for an enemy, imaginary or real (in the case of terrorism real, but most likely overblown, and in the case of the liberal enemy, imaginary). Neo-conservatism also incorporates the teachings of the 15th century Italian political philosopher Machiavelli laid out in his work, The Prince (not to undermine Machiavelli's intelligence and not to say that he was necessarily bad, as The Prince seems to stand alone compared to his other works). Among these teachings are the two tenets of neo-conservatism discussed above, as well as the need to deceive the people, and that a leader need not be good, but only pretend to be good (which, arguably, fits Bush to a T). The religious right has basically been manipulated to vote for neo-cons and other politicians who support deregulation of industry (including and end to taxation of the wealthy and lax to non-existent environmental laws), cuts to social programs (if not an outright end to them), increased military spending, cuts to public schools, busting of labor unions, and other potentially harmful policies (it should be noted that many of these things are taking place at the moment) (see the Texas 2004 GOP platform). This basically plays upon and even tweaks there religious beliefs by making them fit with these policies-for instance, that they should not rely on the state to provide, but on God and the family to provide, therefore social programs are unbiblical (a sentiment I have heard again and again on fundamentalist Christian websites). The religious beliefs of Evangelical Christians have also been manipulated by the use of narrow wedge issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, to bring people to the polls on election day. Neo-cons also use their support to install strict constructionist judges on high courts, including the Supreme Court. A simple 5-4 majority of such judges (which is possible with the confirmation of Samuel Alito) could quite conceivably unravel decades, if not a century worth of social progess by undermining privacy laws, industrial regulation, civil rights and women's rights.

It is worth noting that the formation of the CIA during the Truman administration came about due to political pressures to centralize intelligence and accusations of harboring communists from the religious right, including a Norwegian immigrant named Abraham Vereide, who was known to have pushed an anti-union, anti-socialist, pro-nazi agenda (although not an official member of the party), and his contemporary, Frank Buchman, a nazi sympathizer and founder of the Moral Rearmament Movement. Vereide founded the International Christian Leadership (ICL) which was to have close ties with the CIA-ICL activities coincided with areas in which the CIA was particularily active. His associates favored using private organizations and individuals to do things the CIA could not do; Congo's first prime minister was executed by U.S backed mercenaries working for the CIA, for instance. While the CIA certainly may not have been directly or indirectly involved in the support of right-wing dictatorships in Latin and Central America, but the right wing version of the Council on Foreign relations, founded by Christian right leader Tim LaHaye, and whose members included Jesse Helms, were, along with other right wing activists, supporters of the fascist dictatorships in Latin America, and most likely had some involvement there.

Another thing worth noting is that there a number of possible explanations as to the secrecy of the Bush White House as opposed to other administrations. One obvious explanation is Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who is well known for going below the belt politically and is feared in Washington. Another is that the administration has quite a wide network of supporters including neo-cons and members of the religious right (and yes, I can list them and provide ample, credible evidence of their existence and ties, thank you very much); they and their predecessors were not as crazy about the Nixon, and Ford administrations and did not exert as strong an influence on the Reagan administration as they do on this one. The maintanence of a constant external threat and a wartime situation have provided convenient justifications for increased security as well. I'm just sayin'.

ok, im getting on my soapbox here, and GOD help, but Im going to offend some folks with what I am going to say. So, if you are easily offended, or you are easily unsettled, I say stop here, and read no more.

On the Tower collapse:
Two 757's and two 767's were hijacked for specific reasons. All 4 of the planes were headed cross country on a non stop flight. Therefore they would be carrying the Max amount of fuel. A 757 holds aproximately 11,300 gal of Jet A fuel and carries about 180 passengers and crew (Depending again on configurations) A 767 holds about 17,000 ga of Jet A fuel and carries about 300 passengers and crew (depending on configuration) These are the Max numbers as found in Jane's Aircraft Guide, and other public avaition data sourses. Jet A is what all jets in the commercial airlines world, and almost all of the rest of the jet world use. Other fuels are not applicble. Jet A is simmilar to kerosene. It has a flash point of no less than 100F. It burns at around 1500F.
Steel, as used in the WTC, enlongates 9 inches per 100 feet at 1000F.
Concrete, as used in the WTC, begans to break down at about 300F. (get it hot enough and it turns to glass, they saw this with the HTA fires in seattle in the 1990's)
Concider the structural damage the force of a fully loaded 767 would have when flown at flight speeds into a structure.
Now figure in the fuel, which would have been ignighted upon impact, burning at tempatrures over the failure point of the two main componants of the building it hit.
The weight of the floors collapsing, in addition to the aircraft now melted into the remains, would create a pancake effect. One layer then another gaining momentum and weight with each floor that fell.
and we arent even figureing in the other stuff that goes into an office building.

there is no conspearacy. there is no government plot. That is the facts. If you doubt them, feel free to check my numbers, drudge up the plans for the building, or what ever. Im not an engineer, Im a firefighter. But I do understand fires and structural collapse as well as the failure points of structural componants. And I know aircraft.
On 9-11
First let me get something straight: (and midge this is NO offense to you at all, but is directed at those that came up with this stuff in the first place) the attacks on our soil WERE NOT AN INSIDE JOB!! ! I agree that our government was foolish not to have seen it comming. But anyone in the business knows that prior to 9-11, none of the agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc) shaired information very well. That is a well established fact.
Some things were clearly "hokey" about the entire senerio, and it may have been that some people had "inside info" that it was comming eventually, or it might have been luck that they got insurance, leases and paper work in order weeks before.... that we may never truly know.
As far as the attack itself. When it comes to secutiry measures, as a firefighter and emergency first responder, I have less than "top secret" clearance, but the training in my speciality is above the average in my line of work. That said, prior to 9-11 the groups we trained to look out for were domestic. The FOCUS was domestic. The overseas groups, such as Al-queda, were not expected to create as much havoc as they did, so they were a lower risk than the "home grown" terrorists, but a risk factor none the less. What, prior to 9-11, was expected was biological warfare, and chemical attacks. No one really expected planes to be hijacked and flown into important landmarks. By the time an FBI agent in Arizona had discovered the patterns of pilot training that brought up a red flag, another agency had also discovered partial plots. these things were turned over and lost in the governmental wasteland of paper woek until it was too late. That IS our countries fault. We did not see the red flags in time, and in the precice order.
Putting intel together is like putting together a puzzle: you have many peices that may or may not fit to each other, but they fit to another peice somewhere in the picture. It takes time and many minds to put those peices into place. Imagine if you lost 50 peices randomly in a 500 peice puzzle. You would not have the full picture, and therefore could not appreate the image in its entierty. You would "miss" some details. THAT is what happened prior to 9-11. EACH government branch had a bunch of pieces, that didnt fit with each other, but in the whole they would have made the image clear.
Hind sight is always 20-20. We can look back and say "why didnt we see that comming" and learn how to better use resources in the future, or we can ignore that and learn nothing.
As a firefighter, I know that, to the government, and oftentimes to the comunitty that I serve, I, as are my brothers in arms, am expendible. But to think for even an instant that the lives of 343 firefighters, 50 police officers, plus over 125 military personnel, and thousands of civilians, were part of a plot to get insurance money, or to go to war for drugs, is lunacy. Do you have any idea what the loss of 343 firefighters is? Do you have any clue what loosing 50 police officers means? The loss is staggering.


Machloket, you made some valid points. I hope that the data I have here is more of what you already know.

Sean, the picture was funny.

midge, the debate you have sparked has made me use some of that "usless" trivia in my firefighting brain to prove a point. (all of which can be varified our side my brain...) Thank you for the intelectually stimulating conversation you thus created.

To the ones that accually buy into the "government planned this" stuff:
How dare you tarnish the memory of those 3000 people that perished in a henious act of viloence. I know that the government is willing to sacrifice a great deal to get what they want. this was not one of those times. We could have cried any number of fouls and still been able to go to war. We could have even sent our own agents in on forgin soil to stir up something so we could have a reason to swoop in. Shoot, the President has the power to send troops in without congress for a limited amount of time. Any number of other senerios could have resulted in the same "lets go to war" attitide.
But I want you to look one of the survivors in the eyes and tell THEM that it was a plot by our own government. I want you to look one of the firefighters that survived that day, that barely made it out of those towers alive, and tell them that it was a conspiercy. I think if you did, you'd "tote a butt woopin'" back to the house.

One thing you have to realise is that the President and the corporate elite do not care about you. They don't care that every 3 seconds a child dies from starvation, or that 27 Million people are born into slavery in the Third World. They don't care!! !!

That is why we must ask questions, and be open minded. Your closed-minded faith in your government is very foolish, and is a likely product of your lack of inner strength to face a possible mortifying truth about your leaders.

The people that come up with these theories and question the government are top level physicists - 100 times more intelligent than you or I!! !!

I do not know whether there was a conspiracy. If the US were not responsible, then they certainly allowed the terrorists to go about their job with ease. The benefits for Bush and the corporate elite from this tradegy were enormous. Lives mean nothing to Bush. He is evil!! !!

Agreed. but it was more than individual lives at stake. It was even more than corprate greed at stake. It was the health of the nation as a whole. When a tragedy of that maginatude occors, it can break a nation. Im not talking about faith in individual leaders, Im talking about faith in the governtmental body as a whole. It also shakes the democratic roots to its core. Another such example would be the assination of the elected leader. People may not like the person, but the office is bigger than any one man, and to show a vuneralbility in that office by assinating he who holds power is again devistating to the country as a whole.


Its not "closed minded" faith in government that I posess. Its a rare thing known as patroism. That you back your country as a whole even if you dont care for the elected officals, or current state of things. I can "face" the possibility that our leaders are fallable, that our government isnt perfect, and that corprate greed is the root of much evil. But I also can look at if objectively and say, that no government is perfect, as all governments are created and run by humans. Our fallacies are the fallacies of our system. Sure the government is gonna stick it to ya, sure our leaders are pomous dishonest windbags, but what other countries can we field this discussion with out the fear of being shot?


Perhaps. But sometimes it takes a simpleton to see whats stairing you in the face. Or perhaps the people that cook up all this stuff have less to do that I.


I doubt we "allowed" the acts of 9-11 to happen intentally. Our own buracratic BS is to blame. Too much pride and too little shairing in the agencies it to blame. We were expecting attacks from our own, not from the outside. Our focus was off, and our nation paied dearly for it.
As far as Bush being Evil? He is in government, so it is likely that he is as corrupt as any other leader we have had. Im not sure what Benifits the corprate elite and the president as an individual have had over this. The airlines havent had any benifits, nor have many other businesses that have suffered when the economy slowed after the attacks. Insurance payouts are not likely to be the Benifit. After all, why not set up a puppet government in some third world country and steal its resources, its much easier and maybe more profitible.
RobertN, I respect your views, though I dont agree with them.
But what other nations than the ones you and I call home could we carry on this conversation with out the threat of death? No, the United States isnt perfect, but it sure beats a lot of other places where one isnt free to choose.

Hahahaha....roflmao, thats hilarious. Israel controlling the U.S. OmFg, thats so funny and the most absurd thing i've ever heard. Do you write comedy or something?

What is the West supposed to do about the Third World? The West gives billions in aid to the Third World, and it just ends up lining the pockets of dictators or going unused thanks to their inefficient administrations.

Happeh, I'm curious. What's the story with you and the Jews? Were you bullied by a Jewish kid at school? An evil Jewish stepfather? Did a Jewish kid once kick your butt in a chess competition or something?

Seriously, when did you come to this realisation about the Israelis' plans for world domination?

(Afterthought: I bet Happeh asks me about Islam before answering my question.)

Ladysmokeeater, sorry to change the subject, but I would have thought firefighting would be a difficult job for someone with AS. How do you find it?

You are incorrect. How many sociopaths are in Iraq killing Iraqis right now? Lots. How many Sociopaths did the USA send to South and Central America to do death squad work. Lots. Or are you old enough to know about that? Maybe you were in kindergarten then?



Why? Your assurance that it would is not convincing. Plastic explosive is light. Carry it in a book bag or a backpack.



Typical response. No response. Just the "superior" laugh of "someone who knows better".

Come back to me when you have a position for discussion. I don't engage in "point at and giggle" contests.

Like who? Can you name any?
The people that come up with these conspiracy theories are usually internet cranks. If they've got PhD after their name, it's a fair bet that they bought it from a diploma mill and that at any minute they're going to start asking you for money to help fund their "research".

I'm sure, however, that there are many top-level physicists and academics with a soft spot for Islamic terrorists. Now, I'd love to have been an academic/scientist. But, more often than not, academics have nutty political views.
I guess this figures. Academia is kind of removed from the real world after all.
Just because someone is good at physics, why should they know anything about politics?

There are some academics who speak sense though. Here's one, the Oxford physicist, David Deutsch.

I would like to call the readers attention to the style of rebuttal of the other side.

Both this man and Jeremy reply by laughing. What kind of a reply is that? It is not a reply. It is the refuge of people hiding things, or people who do not know how to express themselves, or people who have nothing to say.

Watch them. You will say something reasonable and thought out. Plenty of places for factual rebuttal. They will ignore them all and point and laugh. That is how they win. They ignore the argument because they are wrong.

They play "follow the leader". They point and laugh, then look around to get the rest of the crowd pointing and laughing with them.