quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 07:03:14 am
The official story is clearly a lie, but other than that, I see no compelling evidence for any of the competing theories. What I do find extraordinary, though, is that so many people reject the false flag hypothesis out of hand. Again, I do not know who did what, but I would like to hear why those of you who dismiss the theory, feel justified in doing so. Any takers?
It is certainly true that if the deaths on September 11, 2001 were due to forces within the U.S. government, this would be a very shocking thing, and it would be urgent, and commendable, to bring this to light. And, furthermore, that this is not a priori impossible.

I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however. The World Trade Center had an unusual construction, so that it pancaked when the aviation fuel from the fully-fueled jets weakened the metal supports. This has been explained in credible and reputable sources. Arguing from "common sense" that it couldn't be this way, since I'm not an architect myself, would seem like trying to use "common sense" to argue against relativity, or evolution, or the Apollo moon landings.

Of course, anyone who would murder thousands of his own countrymen would be willing to use dishonest tactics to marginalize dissent. Is someone going around intimidating architects, or are architects more likely to suspect the 9/11 official story? How about architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden?

Of course - and, admittedly, this serves the people who commit false flag operations - if the official story is true (and Osama bin Laden did eventually get around to accepting responsibility for 9/11... unless those tapes are fake) then given that the September 11, 2001 attacks claimed many innocent lives, advancing an untenable conspiracy theory seems like an act of disrespect towards these victims, who are perceived as martyrs.

Here in Edmonton, Alberta, at least, from such things as the typefaces used in their posters, and the names of their organizations and supporters, at least one of the "9/11 truth" groups here seems to be made up of people who used to go around telling us that the U.S. was committing genocide in Vietnam, and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a peaceful and free country that was showing the world the way to a society with justice and equality for the working man. So it seems obvious, at least in their case, that they just can't handle the thought of the U.S. being on the side of sweetness and light, and they're willing to believe, or at least say, anything that would be consistent with their political preconceptions.

Since I'm not an architect myself, I do have to judge technical issues in that field by relying on the apparent credibility of people advancing competing theories. And, so far, I have not had reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment" so as to accept or discount credibility in an unconventional way.

GlennWatson on February 12, 2011, 07:41:03 am
Quote
Nobody has ever given a convincing reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers... and neither does anyone else, who wasn't involved.

I know I should let this go but its simply not in my nature.  I have ot at least say something.

The reason for going into Iraq was they were not complying with the terms of the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.  Iraq's leadership was a threat.  Iraq's army was firing at US warplanes.  Iraq planned an assassination of Bush during the Clinton years.  Iraq was killing Kurds with gas.  We all saw the dead babies on the street.  We had more seasons for the invasion that we needed.  9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

While Mr. Sanderfort might have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers, a statement I find astounding)  I have a very good idea, Agents of Al Qaeda. 

mellyrn on February 12, 2011, 08:27:46 am
quadibloc, thank you.  That was well-presented and a simple answer to Sandy's question.

I have two critiques, and I'll put the trivial one first: 

Quote
from such things as the typefaces used in their posters

I'm going to credit you with not actually hanging someone (more literally, identifying someone) on the basis of their preferred font.  Even if it's locally relevant, outside Edmonton it looks, well, odd even to mention the typeface, and weakens the force of what you want to say.  "the names of their organizations and supporters" is powerful on its own; I'd leave the typeface out, next time.

More seriously, here's the message I receive from you:

"I saw what I saw [I'm assuming you watched the broadcasts that day; I didn't get to], and I know what I've been told about it and I have no reason to mistrust the tellers, so I haven't actually gone looking into what the 'truthers' claim because at least locally they seem to be the same people who thought the USSR was a great society."

If you can't see why I think that counts as a 'criticism', I would be polite and genuine if you wanted to discuss it privately.  (Also, if you think I've gotten it wrong entirely.)

sams on February 12, 2011, 08:33:22 am
The reason for going into Iraq was they were not complying with the terms of the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.

I remember Bush and Co said that it was because of violation to UN law

Iraq's leadership was a threat

In what sense were their a threat ? Was Irak seriously able to attack the US ? They could barely handle Iran and wouldn't survive an Israeli strike.

Iraq's army was firing at US warplanes

They were flying over Iraqi airspace.

Iraq planned an assassination of Bush during the Clinton years

Just for planning  ::)

Iraq was killing Kurds with gas

This is classical WW2-Jew argument : We started the war for different reasons, but since it has the unindented effect of saving the Jews, we retroactively make it about saving them.

9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

Saudi living in Afghanistan inspire a bunch of morons who planned attacks in Germany and you invade Iraq ?

By this logic the US should have invade Thailand in WWII because the rubber of the japanese Zero's came from there.

While Mr. Sanderfort might have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers( a statement I find astounding)  I have a very good idea, Agents of Al Qaeda.

The same terrorists, if the US would have not invaded iraq and Afpak would have ... invaded the US on camel back with rusty AK-47 ?

How smart the Americans are ... I wish they had told Spain to invade Morocco after the terrorist attack there .
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 08:35:27 am by sams »

happycrow on February 12, 2011, 10:50:08 am
Gents, it's called a "tripwire."

Look at US troops in South Korea.

The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.  And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.

Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:00:29 pm
It is certainly true that if the deaths on September 11, 2001 were due to forces within the U.S. government, this would be a very shocking thing,
It would be shocking in what way?  It was spectacular, but that's not enough to consider it shocking.  Would it be shocking if government officials had enough competence to bring it off?  All of us admit that there are some competent people in government jobs.  Would it be shocking to think that government officials are willing to have thousands of innocent people killed?  They are obviously willing to have hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed to advance their goals.

By the way, "the official story" being a lie doesn't mean that US government officials were entirely responsible for everything.  It just means that some US government officials don't want the truth to be known.  As Sandy said, most of us don't know what the truth is.

I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however.
And this is supposed to be evidence that there aren't problems with the official story?

I am not (and never have been) particularly interested in this.  I wasn't surprised at the attacks--I had been expecting something like that for years (although I guessed that it would involve biological weapons), in response to atrocities committed by US government agents (and by agents of governments supported by the US government), so I was prepared to accept the idea that it was done by a bunch of legitimately angry people lashing out (and illegitimately harming many innocents in the process).  If I had to guess, I'd say that that is a significant part of the truth.  But that doesn't change the fact that the official story (whatever version you choose to believe--there are variants) is an obvious lie.

I've never investigated "the official story", but I have picked up bits when researching other things.

* The most obvious problem to me (immediately after the attacks) was why the hijacked planes weren't intercepted.  It is standard procedure to scramble interceptor jets immediately (they are in the air within minutes) after contact is lost with a commercial plane which deviates more than a small amount from its course.  This is done fairly often.  Yet 4 planes were allowed to wander around the airspace over the NE US for a long time, without any response until it was too late to intercept (for at least 3 of the planes).  Why?  The question was almost always evaded, and the various conflicting and vague answers that were offered had gaping holes.  (For example, some officials lied that approval from superiors had to be received before certain steps could be taken, contradicting clearly written and often-followed standard procedures.)

* In connection with the above, one vague "official" answer for the lack of interception involved failures all along the line, both civilian and military.  Quite a while later, a new vague "official" answer for the lack of interception made it seem (when analyzed) that the failures were all in the military.  The new vague story, which seemed to blame everything on the military, was told to the press by military officials (contradicting the story that they had told the press for quite a while).  That is not how military officials typically behave.  Neither story appeared to be true--both had gaping holes--although it is certainly possible that each story contains a small part of the truth.

* In one of the air traffic control centers, an official took the tapes of the recordings made on that day and cut them up (destroying them) in front of several witnesses.  No explanation was given.  Is there any doubt that this was a warning to everyone there that if they told the truth about what happened then there would be no evidence to support them?  Was the official prosecuted?  Was any plausible explanation given for his actions?  (I don't know the answers to those 2 questions, but I have my suspicions.)

* Several of the 9/11 Commissioners stated that government officials, both civilian and military, lied to them repeatedly.  They stated that the report was the best that they could do but that they were frustrated at being prevented from getting closer to the truth.

That's about all that I can recall clearly.  (There was more, but I didn't try to remember it.)  I have no references--investigate yourself if you are interested.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 01:27:01 pm by Brugle »

Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:25:39 pm

9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

Saudi living in Afghanistan inspire a bunch of morons who planned attacks in Germany and you invade Iraq ?

I agree with GlennWatson here.  The cause of the Iraq War was that some politically powerful people wanted it (for their own reasons, whatever they may be).  The trigger event was the 9/11 attacks, since it provided the excuse to sell the war to the American people.  You're right that it isn't logical, but logic doesn't enter into it.

I remember reading a few years ago about a poll which reported that about a third of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.  Prussian-style government schools have succeeded in America beyond the wildest dreams of the people who introduced them here.

Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:39:30 pm
The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.
Except that the Earth government doesn't need justification--they already have it (in the eyes of most Earthlings).  They had enough to justify the previous attempt to conquer Ceres, and have even more now.

And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.
One problem with this scenario is that it would destroy the wealth-generating capacity that the Earth government wants.  Or does the Earth government think that Ceres has huge piles of precious metals just waiting to be seized?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 12:45:16 pm by Brugle »

Apollo-Soyuz on February 12, 2011, 02:06:47 pm
With this scenario you lay out, you have to ask yourself, is the goal to kill or enslave the Ceres people and destroy their wealth-building infrastructure? Or do they, like the Chinese and the little rock of relative freedom called Hong Kong, wish to merely insert a teat at the spaceport, and siphon off "their share" of the wealth?

While I don't think the UW can live with itself if it didn't force its culture on the Ceres people, I'm pretty sure the mission is closer to the latter than the former. 

The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.  And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.

SandySandfort on February 12, 2011, 02:27:59 pm
I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however. The World Trade Center had an unusual construction, so that it pancaked when the aviation fuel from the fully-fueled jets weakened the metal supports.

Yes, that's the story. Friends of mine who are engineers and architects assure me that is not possible. Never in the history of the world has any building--much less three--collapsed in its own footprint other than ones brought down by controlled implosions. And of course, jet fuel played no part in Building 7.

This has been explained in credible and reputable sources. Arguing from "common sense" that it couldn't be this way, since I'm not an architect myself, would seem like trying to use "common sense" to argue against relativity, or evolution, or the Apollo moon landings.

Actually credible and reputable sources have come down on both sides of the argument.

Of course, anyone who would murder thousands of his own countrymen would be willing to use dishonest tactics to marginalize dissent. Is someone going around intimidating architects, or are architects more likely to suspect the 9/11 official story? How about architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden?

First, two different issues. You are conflating the official explanation of the cause of the building collapses with a false-flag explanation. In the logic of things, one can be true and the other false, both could be true or neither. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest, but automatically connecting one to the other is sloppy thinking at best.

As to "architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden," well, a quick Google came up with a list of over 1400 world-wide architects and engineers who question the official story:

     http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Even engineers and architects can be loons, but I doubt all 1400+ are. Tell the truth. When you first saw the videos of the buildings collapsing, didn't you say to yourself, "Wow, it looks just like buildings brought down demolition companies!" I know I did.

The rest of your discussion, only discusses your belief in the official story with out any reasons. You make attempts to link 911 conspiracy buffs to the moon landing doubters, USSR apologists, those who claim genocide in Vietnam (geez, 1-2 million Vietnamese killed, what would you call that?), etc. Anyway, that sort of argument by sign is fallacious as it is a type of ad hominem argument. Finally, the "respect" argument*. That is a total non sequitur. First, you claim without any evidence that the various theories are "untenable." Second, out of respect for 3000 innocent lives, I would think you would want the real culprits brought to justice--irrespective of who they were. I know I certainly would.

Since I'm not an architect myself, I do have to judge technical issues in that field by relying on the apparent credibility of people advancing competing theories. And, so far, I have not had reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment" so as to accept or discount credibility in an unconventional way.

Tuskegee Experiment
Military LSD
Tonkin Bay
Deadly epidemiological studies on public transportation
WMDs in Iraq
Yellow cake sales in Africa
Current unemployment and inflation figures
...
I could go on all day about how governments lie. This is just a sample list of some US government lies. The US government isn't any different than any other government. They all lie in their war against freedom. So the real question is, given history, how can you not have "reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment"...? Tell you what, since you are in Canada, ask a First Nations person about how far they trust the government.

* I once got that silly response from a US Air Force Colonel when I opined that no US military person has fought and died for his country other than in the Revolutionary War. Amazingly, he did not dispute my claim. He just said it did not "respect" those who fought and died in US wars. (In case this is too subtle, in virtually every case after the Revolutionary War, military people were duped into fighting and dying for the government and its cronies. They only believed they were doing it for their country.)



terry_freeman on February 12, 2011, 04:42:58 pm
I
Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?


Perhaps that is the wrong question; it discounts the passage of more than two centuries of change in both America and Great Britain.

Is it better to be an American or a Brit? For all that we Americans object to today's taxes, gun control laws, and other aspects of American socialism run rampant, the Brits seem to have it even worse than we do.


GlennWatson on February 12, 2011, 04:51:39 pm
I wonder if there is a correlation between AnCap believers and anti American conspiracy theorists. 

sams on February 12, 2011, 05:10:33 pm
I wonder if there is a correlation between AnCap believers and anti American conspiracy theorists. 

Is it more likely for Christians to believe in Angels ?

Sure people who espouse AnCan ideology are more susceptible of looking at government in a more critical way. But then I don't understand why you use ''Anti-american conspiracy'' theory.

First of all There is a big difference between being against American people and being against the American government. Secondly why is it kook to see government without all the pomp and understand that public official can work under very personal incentives

quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 05:27:19 pm
As to "architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden," well, a quick Google came up with a list of over 1400 world-wide architects and engineers who question the official story:

     http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Even engineers and architects can be loons, but I doubt all 1400+ are.
I followed that link.

I found a page which listed several engineers and architects who were quoted as criiticizing the official story, and a claim that over 1,400 such people signed a petition calling for a more thorough investigation of 9/11. (It said that 700 signatories were listed on the page; I didn't try counting them, but that seemed odd given the position of the slider when I was at the bottom of the statements and the top of the list - unless long text pages are loading faster than I expect thanks to my high-speed connection these days.)

There was a link to the site with the petition; it had a problem, but the site is

http://ae911truth.org/

which notes that 1,436 people in those categories have signed their petition. The petition was described as including a statement that there was sufficient reason for doubt concerning what has been officially stated so far as to justify an investigation by Congress with subpoena powers.

So far, I haven't found an obvious problem.

It took me some time to find some additional information.

This is a debate in the xkcd comic's forums:

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31574

My impression of it confirmed my views; YMMV.

This is a magazine article supporting the "official story" which was cited in the (locked) Wikipedia page on the issue:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This is a section of a site that debunks various forms of bad science, and which has lumped the 9/11 doubters in with them:

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

And here is a site specifically dedicated to questioning the site hosting the petition you referenced.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

I haven't reviewed all this material, but from what I have, I have gotten this picture:

The airplanes that hit the Twin Towers were travelling at about 500 MPH each. This means that the impacts themselves were very energetic.

Energy is proportional to velocity squared, but momentum only to velocity. A skyscraper is very large and heavy; there was not enough momentum in the airplanes to knock the towers over, by orders of magnitude.

The structural strength of steel decreases sharply when it is heated, even if it does not melt.

The building was designed to hold itself up under its own weight, and to resist wind loading. The individual floors of the building were designed to hold up the static load created by the occupants of the building, their furniture and office equipment. They weren't designed to resist the floor above crashing down on them.

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder and ferrous oxide - since aluminum and rusted iron (created by fire, or in magnetic recording media, if there were no actual previous rust present) would be common enough that it would not have a unique "chemical signature" that anyone could find in the wreckage of the Twin Towers.

First, two different issues. You are conflating the official explanation of the cause of the building collapses with a false-flag explanation. In the logic of things, one can be true and the other false, both could be true or neither. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest, but automatically connecting one to the other is sloppy thinking at best.
In general, I haven't heard the official explanation of the cause of the building collapse questioned except to support the alternate theory of a controlled demolition.

Absent a false-flag operation of some sort, the collapse of the buildings would have had to have come about by the only other thing that happened: the planes hitting them. Wouldn't it?

It is true that there was a previous attack on the WTC by a bomb in an underground parkade - also by al-Qaeda. Could they have done this again, so that both the bomb and the planes caused the buildings' collapse - leading to the controlled demolition theory? This would mean more terrorists at large, but unlike a false-flag operation, it would not have much in the way of larger implications.

However, I do see that this picture you've advanced is true in one respect. Originally, NIST had assumed that the building pancaked, but it seems they then waffled. However, the buildings' collapse was still due to its double-tube construction, just not quite in the precise way originally suggested.

According to debunkers, those who propose alternate theories of 9/11 have changed their story more often; however, I haven't yet used the Wayback Machine to verify this allegation.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 07:42:54 pm by quadibloc »

Xavin on February 12, 2011, 06:44:17 pm
I
Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?


Perhaps that is the wrong question; it discounts the passage of more than two centuries of change in both America and Great Britain.

Is it better to be an American or a Brit? For all that we Americans object to today's taxes, gun control laws, and other aspects of American socialism run rampant, the Brits seem to have it even worse than we do.

I think we'd need to agree a set of criteria on which "better" is determined in order to answer that question.

If "better" is definied as lower taxes and less gun control then I would have to concede that the US beats the UK - but I think it's a pretty narrow definition.
As a Brit with some (albeit limited) knowledge of life in the US I would currently rather still live in the UK - i.e. by my perosanl definition being a Brit is "better", but I would not expect your personal definition to match mine.

 

anything