Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 08:55am PT
|
Where am I? The evidence posted in support is far from persuasive, as has been stated clearly by several posters. It is implausible and relies on way too-many unsubstantiated what-ifs. It's crap. If considering the "evidence" and rejecting it entirely makes me a sheepish close-minded fool, then so be it: hearing that label coming from people buying into some elaborate, ridiculous idea doesn't bother me a bit. Some of the ideas suggested as being perpetrated by the government in connection with this are, to put it charitably, loony.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 09:08am PT
|
considering the "evidence" and rejecting it entirely makes me a sheepish close-minded fool, then so be it
No, that would make you someone who had come to their own decision after weiging the evidence.
It's the name-calling and abuse in place of thinking and deciding that makes you a sheepish close-minded fool.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 09:28am PT
|
No irony intended there, obviously.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 09:34am PT
|
"It's the name-calling and abuse in place of thinking and deciding that makes you a sheepish close-minded fool."
Abuse? Ha. That's funny.
Cintune: sure, no irony there, huh? I guess we are just to sheepish to understand the REAL TRUTH about what happened. LOL.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 10:01am PT
|
Heh!
No, no irony intended.
The fact remains though that calling names and dimissing ideas as "ridiculous" isn't thinking or analysis, in fact it's just a way of avoiding it.
I haven't decided yet myself. Neither account seems very robust in view of the criticisms levelled at them. Until one set of arguments fails, I'll hold off on making a decision. That's called "thinking" by the way.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 10:33am PT
|
No, there is nothing wrong with calling an idea ridiculous if it is, in fact, ridiculous. I don't see any reason to sugar coat things. It is thinking things through and coming to the conclusion that something is beyond what is possible or logical.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 11:02am PT
|
When I first heard about questioning 9-11, at the time I had no reason to suspect the OCT wasn't true. I heard about it from a another teacher over lunch a few years ago, and they said some students in their class said "No 757 flew into the Pentagon." And I had the immediate knee-jerk reaction and said "Bullsh#t." And then said something about students not having well developed critical thinking skills . . .
Then later, thinking to myself "Ok, I'm going to check-out what the heck they are talking about, and let the evidence and facts speak for themselves." Wow, did I eat crow. Students are smarter than we think, and surprise us all the time.
There is overwhelming evidence that completely invalidates the OCT. In science then, you must reject that hypothesis/theory and come up with a new one that is supported by the facts, that is not invalidated. The 9-11 truth movement is doing just that. Do we have everything figured-out precisely and do we know the key players who were immediately involved? No not exactly. It's like looking through a fogged, cloudy pane of glass. We have a very good outline, but we can't make out the exact image.
You will never come to this frame of mind unless you can come to the point of saying, no matter what I want to know the truth. I want to see all the evidence, and using the scientific method through thought experiments allow the falsified hypotheses to fall away and hang onto the supported hypotheses.
There are some very erronious hypotheses out-there that are floating around in the 9-11 truth movement, but many are very valid, supported, and not "invalidated." You have to know how to work your way through those land-mines and obvious attempts to paint the movement as nuts. A critical thinking mind can do so.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 12:08pm PT
|
There are certainly parts of 9-11 conspiracy theory that are unlikely or even "out-there."
and there are many shades of government involvement in 9-11 that could be possible (but unknown because we don't have the facts)
For example, only top government people might have discovered that an attack was likely and knew some names of who might be involved (we already know they suspected Atta) but let it slide because they figured some kind of attack on American soil would let them have their war. Thus, it wouldn't involved hundreds of people, just a handful.
Even the many people involved in staging the war games the reduced the 9-11 response capability didn't need to know that such games might facilitate the attacks being pulled off. Just one guy needed to know that (if it was a factor, why didn't the 9-11 commission discuss this more?)
The fact that reasonable and unreasonable people still argue about this speaks to the fact that we need more disclosure and more info. Why let a Kennedy-assination-like atmosphere prevade for the next 100 years?
Funny, just today on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/16/germany.911/index.html
"In his first trial in 2003, el-Motassadeq was convicted of belonging the a terrorist group and accessory to murder. He was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison.
However, a year later the federal court overturned the verdict due to lack of evidence from U.S. authorities who would not provide information linking el-Motassadeq with 9/11 suspects for national security reasons. He was freed a month later.
The case was sent back to a Hamburg court. During that trial the statements were released and helped link him to a terrorist organized, which led to his conviction.
He was accused of providing logistical help to the Hamburg al Qaeda cell that included 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah. The judge painstakingly recounted the relationship of el-Motassadeq with the Hamburg cell."
So the US is letting actual 9-11 conspirators go because they don't want to provide evidence? What are they saving that evidence for? Doesn't national security mean putting those guys away?
Peace
Karl
Edit: Opps, one point I wanted to make was that one of the smartest ways to cover-up any wrongdoing is to put easily discredited disinformation out there, which, once put-down, would discredit other attempts to get at the truth.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 02:00pm PT
|
Chuckcar: "Now why would the neocons need to involve Silverstein in order to fly jets into his buildings?"
According to the "CTers" it wasn't just Silverstein but rather Silverstein AND the entire New York Fire Department, AND Silverstein told everyone about it on national television.
Karl: "So the US is letting actual 9-11 conspirators go because they don't want to provide evidence?"
The U.S did not let Mottassadeq go, the German courts did (but not for long.) Also the dispute was not over evidence to prove him guilty (as stated in the cnn) but over Mottassadeq's access to evidence that he claimed was exculpatory. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448921,00.html
Mottassadeq wanted access to other U.S. government investigations, claiming there was exculpatory evidence. Obviously, there are very good reasons why the U.S. governemnt would not want to turn over this information to a suspected terrorist. However they did not want Mottassadeq to get away so they turned over enough to satisfy the court and Mottassadeq is back in the news because he was convicted.
Karl: "Edit: Opps, one point I wanted to make was that one of the smartest ways to cover-up any wrongdoing is to put easily discredited disinformation out there, which, once put-down, would discredit other attempts to get at the truth."
Karl, that is a very interesting observation and worthy of inclusion as a plot twist in a John Le Carre novel. I don't believe for a second that there was a government conspiracy to stage the 9/11 attacks, but if there was, having a lot of loony theories and allegations out there would go to there benefit and if so, many of the "CTers" would be unwittingly aiding in the cover-up. Wouldn't that be ironic!
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 02:24pm PT
|
Here is some motive, means, and opportunity evidence. So how do you debunk this OCTers?
There are people who know the truth of 9-11 on the inside, and when truly independent re-investigations of 9-11 are opened again, and when it is safe to do so people will come forward and talk. Some people are extraordinarily very brave and patriotic and are doing so at this time. They obviously risk their lives, jobs, and family in doing so.
People erroneously say our government couldn’t keep anything like this secret for so long with so many people involved. Someone would talk. How many thousands of people kept their mouth shut about the Manhattan Project for many, many years? It has only been 5 years since the big wedding. And it doesn’t have to take so many people on the true inside and directly involved to make 9-11 happen. Some have written speculative essays and suggest about 50 people in the know could pull-off 9-11, and everyone else was just doing their job and used as unknowing pawns and unknowingly aided in the success of the big event. All those directly involved, know they risk their lives or at least life-time prison sentences. But there are those who witnessed much, who were unknowingly used and were not in on 9-11. They will come forward to say what they know when it is safe to do so in a court of law and under real meaningful re-investigations.
Here are some articles and links concerning a great American and a very brave patriot, Sgt. Lauro “LJ” Chavez. Here is his story working at CENTCOM on 9-11-01. CENTCOM gets the stand-down orders from NORAD, and Sgt. “LJ” sees a top-secret document describing the events to occur the very day of 9-11-01:
Original breaking story at v911t:
http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php
The 1st article about LJ at Prison Planet:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/250906blowswhistle.htm
Sgt LJ's DD Form 214:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/LChavez_214.pdf
The interview at Prison Planet with Sgt. Chavez:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/260906chavez.mp3
The follow-up article after the interview at Prison Planet:
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm
LJ clarifies questions for skeptics:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/260906_b_Clarifies.htm
I have no reason to doubt him. What would he gain but ridicule and scorn from OCTists and the world? Who would want to put themselves through that for a lie? Verifying where he served and with whom is easily done so through service records. His DD 214 form looks legit to me. My DD 214 form was hand typed in front of me when I ETSed from the US Army. Mine looks very similiar and uses the same kind of government speak. He is a very brave American Patriot. I salute him.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 03:17pm PT
|
I don't know what happened but I do thinks it's unfair to call the folks asking questions or doing their own investigating "Looney"
There are British Government documents that show that Bush proposed flying a US spy plane dressed up in UN colors ove Iraq with the hope that it would be shot down, providing a pretext for war.
For those who really think a government conspiracy is so far fetched. Look at the official documents behind Operation Northwoods.
Reposted from an old 9-11 thread at
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=135824&msg=136309#msg136309
+++++++++
I just want to put this in the face of those who say no conspiracy is possible. Answer my damn question at the End
THE US GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST THE US. It wasn't during a GOP administration either. Sh#t happens. check out
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
Let say that Kennedy didn't 86 the plan which was signed off on by the whole Joint Chiefs, and a round of violent terrorist attacks were pulled off by the Kennedy Government on Americans.
This very nearly happened . Ask yourself this question
"Would I have questioned the evidence that it was Kennedy and not Castro killing Americans or just assumed that such a thing was unthinkable?"
We believe what we want to believe. If something is too far out of our worldview and experience, our mind glances right over it.
If you can at least answer my question
"Would I have questioned the evidence that it was Kennedy and not Castro killing Americans or just assumed that such a thing was unthinkable?"
You will at least prove your mind can go there
peace
karl
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 03:31pm PT
|
Blight:
"Klimmer's posted evidence. Large amounts of it, actually.
Normally, the next step would be for you to analyse and dispute that evidence. If you can't, then you should be asking yourself why you don't accept it.
Of course, the evidence may suggest that you are wrong. If that's the case, an open minded person will change their position, and adopt the one the evidence supports. A closed-minded person cannot accept that they are wrong and either pretends the evidence doesn't exist, or resorts to personal attacks.
So where are you at in this process?"
Klimmer posted items which he believed supported his position. "Evidence" is too strong a word. Rather there is much speculation and many unsupported allegations.
It is almost impossible to prove things in the negative most of the time, meaning it really is not feasible to prove that the 9/11 attacks were NOT a "inside job" whatever that means.
I believe that many people gravitate to one side or another on this issue based largely on their world view. Look at the first video that Klimmer posted. It alleges that "international bankers" took over the entire U.S. government in 1913 and that the entire U.S. government is essentially a conspiracy now working against the people. "They" also control the press. If you believe this, it easily follows how "they" could stage the 9/11 attacks.
On the other hand, some of us work in the media or government or have a lot of connections with people who do. The CT'ers theories involve many thousands of people across many federal, state and local agencies. For those of us with some familiarity of how government works on a nuts and bolts level, it is just is not credible.
I am reading Woodward's book State of Denial right now. He notes that the CIA had what appeared to be a massive amount of evidence of WMD in Iraq, all indexed in a big database. Because of the amount of data, it looked superficially persuasive. But if you started scrutinizing individual items, they were flimsy. It was like a multi-point anchor that initially LOOKS bomber because of the redundancy, but if you look at the individual pieces you see that they are garbage.
Having looked through a lot of CT'ers evidence, it is my opinion that they are engaging in the same fallacy. If you start looking at the nitty-gritty, it doesn't hold up. For example, see my comments on the "thermite/thermate" theory above.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 03:36pm PT
|
Karl Baba,
Yep. Good call. These are all known as "false-flag" operations. Anyone who doesn't know what this is all about, and you don't know how much our government has been involved in false-flag ops then you need to watch the Alex Jones DVD "TerrorStorm."
I posted the link to view it free up-stream somewhere when I first jumped into this particular Supertaco thread.
We've done it and we do it. Many countries have done it and do it as well. How to get someone to play war when they don't want to get involved?
9-11 was the grand-daddy of all false-flag ops.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 03:49pm PT
|
I really would like folks to try to answer my question.
I don't know what happened on 9-11 but I think it's important for each of us to ask ourselves what our means of knowledge are and what and how we believe.
See If you can at least answer my question from my last post above.
"Would I have questioned the evidence that it was Kennedy and not Castro killing Americans or just assumed that such a thing was unthinkable?"
You will at least prove your mind can go there
Really
Karl
|
|
cliffhanger
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 05:20pm PT
|
Right after the 1993 bombing of the WTC, causing severe structural damage, there was a fear that the buildings could collapse before they could be shored up and repaired. If they fell they would have fallen like redwood trees, taking out a whole block of buildings.
Possible scenario: To protect against this disastrous sort of failure the buildings were prepared for a controlled demolition in case they started their collapse before they could be shored up. So in 1993, for legitimate reasons the demolition explosives were set. And since there just might be another attack on the towers they left them in place. All set for Bush and Cheney.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 05:51pm PT
|
Graniteclimber,
You are wrong.
Thermite is an incendiary. Thermite + sulfur = Thermate, and because of the addition of Sulfur, burns so fast it is explosive in its reaction (sometimes called Superthermate). Dr. Jones gave a lecture on this in Hollywood, CA over the summer at the 9-11 Convention and I was there in attendance. He has also posted many articles on the topic explaining the difference between Thermite and Thermate.
No one is saying that thermite/thermate was used alone. It wasn't. It is used as a cutting charge, then more conventional explosives bring the building down. Just as they do in regular CD, you have to prep the building first. Cut many main support beams at an angle, so that when the charges go off the building falls into itself. If you haven't watched "9-11 Mysteries" then you should because they go into all of this. Themite/thermate was used to cut beams at critical points and done so at an angle to make the building mostly fall into itself when the conventional explosives went off. But think about it. No one could go in and start cutting beams prior to 9-11 as you would under normal CD conditions. That is why thermite/thermate cutting charges had to be inployed prior to the buildings coming down. And there is plenty of evidence that thermite/thermate was cutting beams before the buildings came down.
There is dramatic footage of a cascade of molten steel free-falling out of the towers before the towers came down, with all the signature signs of thermite/thermate in plain view. When I get the chance I will find the link to that footage, I will post it here.
Then our very own government has developed very explosive nanothermite that have been used for military applications. There was a link to an article that was in MSM that talked about the actual developement of nanothermite for this very use by the military posted at ( http://www.st911.org ) but I can’t find it at the moment.
But here is this article that eludes to the explosive nature of nanothermite and apparently it can be used as a propellant also (think rocket fuel). By the way, rocket fuel is very explosive!:
http://ci.confex.com/ci/2005/techprogram/P1663.HTM
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 06:11pm PT
|
Thanks Chuckcar
I've asked that question quite a few times and almost nobody can bring themselves to answer it.
Must be cause you're in Berkeley!
Peace
Karl
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2006 - 07:10pm PT
|
Again, you just aren't getting it. Getting at the columns would have required demo'ing out significant wall sections to place explosives and detonators. Those wall sections would then have had to have been repaired and painted. And these would have been around windows which means the detailing / trim would likely have been significant. You're talking about lots of columns on at least a few floors (if not most of the building as you couldn't anticipate the exact strike zone even with good pilots). I'm going take a wild guess that you have never done any of this type of work as you don't tear up walls, do significant work, and then repair them without people - lots of people - asking lots of questions. It would have been impossible.
And I didn't say there aren't wireless detonation systems. I said there were no such systems that would provide the safety and timing necessary to use them in lower Manhattan. These are mining and fireworks systems that would be highly inappropriate to such a task.
And again, where did the passengers of AAL77 go?
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 01:02am PT
|
The passengers went exactly where they planned for them to go. Read this link, it is a government memo, don't know which government, but it outlines to those with no imagination how a group could go about making passengers disappear. Remember, the airlines had 20% occupancy on that day due to a computer glitch the 9/11 report says.
This is George Washington University's NSArchives.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
page 13.
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 01:13am PT
|
Oh, and those of you who think you could't plant explosives?
Who ran security for the WTCs and the Airport?
How many floors/offices were vacant?
Answer this and you won't find it so hard to belive. But find it out for yourself so you can't call me an ass.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!