oh, Jonas... didn't you see the small disclaimer that presented this as *theory*? It may also be discovered in the dictionary under *sarcasm* (which is the well known gap that lies between what you hear or read, and what you understand)
So the folks behind the inside job had the desire, means, and personnel to murder thousands of people and distract millions more with a war or two and cover things up while making a huge power grab but didn't have the desire, means, and personnel to "discover" (i.e. plant) WMD? It would have taken a couple drums of nerve gas (we have plenty) and a blown up "facility" and the opposition would have been silenced and the folks behind the inside job would have even more power. What they decided they had enough power that they didn't need to discover the WMD? Since when do those with power want less power?
The cover-ups and incompetence are due to covering up incompetence very few politicians or bureaucrats are ever going to admit... "yeah we could have done better,we were likely even negligent, please blame us for incompetence and negligence that killed thousands".
Don't ascribe malice of forethought to what is best explained by incompetence.
The video does not only reveal incompetence (on a grand level), it also attests to a variety of rather extensive cover ups. I don't pretend to know how much of 9/11 was sheer arrogance, subterfuge and incompetence- and what (if any) was an inside job. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the investigations covering these events were compromised, sabotaged, and fabricated- as were the major political assassinations of the '60s. And you don't have major governmental organizations going to those lengths to cover up mere incompetence...
@Stan, "you don't have major governmental organizations going to those lengths to cover up mere incompetence" Sure we do, all the time, careers and fortunes are at stake. It's part of the nature of bureaucracy.
Point taken- provided that investigation into 'incompetence' is one that can result in major political/economic concessions. If serious investigations were conducted solely to investigate the effect of incompetence on... worker and/or public safety, every: nuclear, coal, fossil fuel, and fracking facility in operation today would be closed overnight. The latter never need be covered up because: a) they hardly ever occur b) when they do, they are never taken seriously and are totally without consequence.
I actually agree with some of the earlier gentlemen's complaints about the commission. It should have forced the president and the vice president to testify under oath and collected lots more material from the administration.
In my opinion executive privilege is a seriously flawed, and possibly unconstitutional, legal concept. And congress has allowed the executive branch to claim far too much power for itself.
As the list goes on the people go from making claims about how the commission was hindered to simply asserting that the report was wrong (usually without providing a justification for why) or simply airing political grievances about the Arab / Israeli conflict. So that isn't helpful to getting at the truth.
So now that we have this uncertainty about what happened because the commission wasn't as powerful as we would have liked and didn't investigate in the way we feel would have shed the most light what do we do with that uncertainty?
Sadly, our government now has quite the track record on how to deal with political cover ups of this magnitude. Harass, isolate and discredit witnesses that do not follow their proposed storyline, downplay and (quickly) lose or destroy evidence that does not fit their plot, and conduct a fast, cosmetic and essentially ineffective 'investigation' that will cement the official story with the press and public.
JFK, RFK, MLK... I think we all know the multitude of problems in the JFK 'investigation,' and I'm even willing to believe the "magic bullet theory." RFK's assassination is riddled with inconsistencies: from the number of shooters, to the number of shots fired, to the origin of their location- check out the link below to hear how an actual interview (ie- interrogation) of a witness was forcefully perverted. There is more than good reason to believe that Sirhan Sirhan was a Manchurian Candidate (see- MKULTRA). And even MLK's family doesn't believe that James Earl Ray was the killer. And those are just the upper echelon of cover ups...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRG5cMrfIk
Yes, all of these major incidents attract major nut jobs; but many of the names on that previous 9/11 link however are heavy hitters in military, intelligence, and government positions- not so easily dismissed as the inane rantings of the the insane. Again, I'm not saying that I believe all, or even most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but only a fool would take this government's word at face value on issues that concern "national security."
"What do we do with that uncertainty?" Unless we're privy to info like Edward Snowden or Gary Webb (see link below), not much we can do- and we know what price they paid! But we can open our eyes and learn to see...
I'm with Jonas. The video promotes the view that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and at no point dismisses this conclusion. The only sarcasm in it is directed at the majority who accept that 9/11 really WAS the work of terrorists, and not some government plot.
If only the monumental and cartoonishly evil conspiracy that masterminded the killing of thousands of innocents and the covering up of the troof had somehow been able to silence a couple of college kids with their snappy little you tube videos, we would never know the truth! Thank God they lacked the wherewithal and the stomach for such a thing.
Silencing is often not even necessary in a society where so many people (eg- people like you, and the press) automatically treat anything not coming from "official" sources as a joke. Which is to say why so often, the joke is on us...
Oh, please. I have a healthy sense of skepticism, in the true sense of the word. I don't accept what I read and hear without applying my own filters against it, logic (as objective as I can manage) and if warranted, research. But a reasonable skeptical approach is a parsec away from leaping to conclude that factual anomalies, coincidences, prevarication, missing and in some cases perhaps (I haven't looked into these allegations myself) deliberate destruction of material which could be evidenciary, mean the people elected to run the country are so evil, so malevolent, that they would deliberately construct a false attack with the intent of killing thousands of US citizens, plunge the country into war(s), invite additional terrible independent attacks on the US and its citizens, drain the country's financial and human resources... and so much more. I'd as easily accept they are aliens in human form. And that doesn't even touch the issue raised here and so many other places: creating and maintaining a conspiracy of this magnitude is an almost impossible job.
I don't insist sources are official. Only credible.
And I didn't insist that I believed in all, or any, of the 9/11conspiracy theories- merely that they are worth investigating in earnest, and that the so called official investigations covering 9/11 were compromised, sabotaged, and fabricated (which some of the investigators themselves have alluded to).
As to your statement dismissing that "...the people elected to run the country are so evil, so malevolent, that they would deliberately construct a false attack with the intent of killing thousands of US citizens, plunge the country into war(s), invite additional terrible independent attacks on the US and its citizens, drain the country's financial and human resources..." I suggest you familiarize yourself with Operation Northwoods; true, it was JFK that axed the plan--- but it was approved by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Of course a few years ago if I had claimed that the NSA was monitoring every electronic communication in America, I'd have been called a nut...Not that I necessarily believe the conspiracy, other than a complete cover-up of incompetence and a mis-direction to the targets Bush, et al wanted to attack, I just think there is so much nefarious stuff being none to us by our leaders that this one hardly matters.
While I agree with your assessment (shared by others above too it seems) that any cover-up was strictly to mask incompetence, I beg to differ about the idea that believing in widespread surveillance was "nutter" territory not long ago. Just look at the general response that Snowden's revelations have generated. It ranges for the most part from "tell me something I didn't know" to "so what". Depressing, yes. But also a pretty strong sign that this ain't a shock, ain't unexpected, and was never a fringe belief.
Now when Obama and the entirety of congress and the senate all unzip their lifelike human suits to reveal the lizard alien overlords underneath, THEN we'll see some tinfoil hat told-ya-so, no doubt.
One thing that makes me believe that it was NOT a conspiracy theory by Americans, and it really was a plot by terrorists is the fact that it takes INTELLIGENCE to pull something off, and to keep it under wraps, and that administration didn't have the smarts, at least IMHO.
That's such a common trope, such an easy chuckle-and-high-five toss-off; you see it all over. It is of course demonstrably untrue. As a general statement, people rise to positions of power and authority because they're competent, and if anything smarter than average. Of course there are exceptions, but in the end decisions and actions we'd tag as dumb, against common sense, just plain wrong, etc are mostly evidence of power corrupting, people losing touch, prevarication and cover-up in an attempt to hide stupid mistakes, and so on. In other words, human nature.
You may be right about that administration, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have encouraged or paid others off- or simply agreed to look the other way...
@Dabris, Not so difficult when considering how when anyone so much as questioned the account, they were labled 'unpatriotic, unMurcan'. Have some Freedom Fries to go with your burger & by all means, fly that little flag out of your back window.
The problem with this crap is that to believe that 9/11 report is a cover up is even more unbelievable than the story the report tells. It would require coordination and the participation of so many people and departments, none of whom have broke their alibi, to pull it off.
As JDJarvis wrote above, but in my preferred version of Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to conspiracy that which can easily be explained by incompetence". Keeping that in mind, many of the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 narrative are simply incompetence and coincidences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Halon's Razor explains so much about our government over the last 20 years.
Yes, he would have. Cheney was at the helm, literally on that morning. Having the Stooge out of way reading books upside down ( which by the way, was nothing but a pathetic attempt at a photo op) was added cover of guilt. We know for a fact that invading Iraq ( and robbing the world blind) was squarely on the table from the second those criminals enacted the coup of America. Colin Powell was absolutely against it, but had no other choice but to keep his mouth shut & hold that little vial up at the UN, for added drama. He sold his soul for a lie & he knew it. All you have to do is look at who benefitted from it all, monetarily & politically. In their minds, it also ensured a second term to continue the theft at any cost. Contrary to what some think, I don't think all that many at all would have needed to be involved. A plane did NOT hit the Pentagon. Instead of demanding an investigation into the killing of thousands of Americans, they fought it tooth & nail. This isn't rocket science.
Anon, great opportunity to apply some skeptical methodology.
The moment I heard that tripe about Bush holding the book upside down *and* heard people triumphantly hold it up as proof he (a) is an idiot and (b) was clearly not actually engaged in the school visit that morning,distracted (and excited?) about the upcoming attack he and his minions (overlords?) had planned, I disbelieved it. And indeed, it was quickly shown to be photo-manipulation. Check Snopes for a good explanation.
That's very telling that you point that out as if it negates everything. If that had been an unknown attack, they would have tackled Bush to the ground & got him to a safe place PRONTO. Everyone knew exactly where he was, was published in all the local newspapers. Instead, he sat there while one of his goons stood in the back of the class holding a sign that read 'Don't say Anything'. Hardly the actions of officials when America 'was under attack'. Completely mind boggling that so many don't have a clue, even with the advantage of hindsight. It truly is. That's why our country is gone.
I'm not sure what's telling about rebutting a specific urban legend you put up as evidence that Bush had been sent "out of the way". The photo was faked and certainly no evidence in support of anything, which you'd argued it was.
The bulk of your post was rhetoric, supposition and unsupported opinion. I can't attempt to disprove a statement like "We know for a fact that [...] enacted the coup of America." There's nothing presented as support or fact to disprove.
As to "A plane did NOT hit the Pentagon [...]", that can and has been ably rebutted, at length, by numerous field experts, in numerous sources. A person who still believes this as fact in the face of the strongly reasoned and supported logical deconstruction of the arguments will certainly be immune to anything I could attempt to present here.
In regards to the sign his Press Secretary (not sure a PS really qualifies as a goon?) was holding up, which actually said "Don't say anything yet" - note the difference - what's your point? It's easily argued that his advisers are recommending that a measured and calm first response from the President is better, that they want to gather more information first and develop a plan for his next steps.
There's a valid argument to be made that the time Bush continued on with his school visit was, in retrospect, a bad decision. But things always look clear in retrospect, and judgements always so much easier to make after the heat and confusion of a major event have died down. This decision, bad or good, is no evidence of anything.
"If it had been an unknown attack, they would have tackled Bush to the ground [...]" Not at all a forgone conclusion; he wasn't under attack, so his security advisors would reasonably have been attempting to assess any risk before taking action. At that time, the events unfolding were in New York and not yet seen as something which might be in other locations, affecting other targets - or, to be fair it's more accurate to say that it's entirely reasonable that the President's political and security advisors came to that conclusion on the basis of known facts at that time. He was in Florida, a long way away. So letting him sit for another 7 minutes while his advisors built up a plan, having him address the New York attack at the already-planned press conference immediately following, could easily have been considered the best option.
The point is, neither you nor I know what really happened there, what was going through people's heads, what discussions took place, what plans were considered, and so on. But as you're the one making the extraordinary claim - the government planned and executed an attack on its own soil, killing thousands of its own citizens - you're the one who is on the hook to provide extraordinarily strong evidence to support the claim. Weaving together a zillion circumstantial points and suppositions into a pattern doesn't constitute evidence.
You can accuse me of not having a clue till the cows come home, but that doesn't strengthen your arguments one iota.
OK. I am going to regret this, but here we go... Actually before we begin let me explain that comment. 9/11 was absolutely a conspiracy by the strictest definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." There should be no one who disagrees with that. Real conspiracies do sometimes occur. (e.g. Gunpowder Plot, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and any number of CIA actions to prop up anti-communist dictators or overthrow legitimate leaders with some communist leanings).
The reason so many people, myself included, find it so frustrating arguing with Conspiracy Theorists (in capitals) is that their arguments are so slippery:
* They never actually make any claims themselves. They only insinuate them. They are questioning the "official story". I would love for them to actually make detailed claims about how the attacks took place. Because them they would be falsifiable. Questions cannot be wrong, only misguided. They use that to their full advantage. * They will reject evidence out of hand because "it came from the mainstream media" as if they wouldn't want the Pulitzer prize for breaking a story about government complicity in the attack. * They argue that the conspirators are all powerful one minute capable of carrying out any operation perfectly leaving no physical evidence but then they are also capable of blundering laughably when there is some circumstantial evidence that might seem to support the theorists fears. * Almost no amount of evidence will satisfy them. Much like creationists there is always a "missing link" in the "official story". * If by some miracle you do manage to convince them that some critical piece of their nonsense is wrong they don't accept it. They are immediately off again with "Well that doesn't explain this other thing that will take you pages of text to explain." <sigh>
I can sympathize. When Dr. Allen Hyneck, then head investigator of Project Bluebook (and inventor of the term "swamp gas," a term somehow meant to explain away UFO's), did a complete 180 and declared that the UFO phenomena was indeed real because of the overwhelming scientific evidence he could no longer excuse, reject or ignore- he was belittled and shunned pretty much for all the reasons you mention above...
Stan, the Hyneck story is considerably more nuanced than that he flipped 180 degrees from a staunch "anti" to a full-bore UFO advocate. It seems well accepted he was an early believer in psychic and similar phenomena, he linked the so-called psychic world with UFOs. His long-time friend maintained that Hyneck's personal views were a good bit different from the public ones he maintained for years (maybe decades?) in his roles with the Air Force.
Perhaps it's more accurate to consider he "came out" if I can appropriate that term.
And as to the reaction from his peers and co-workers? Perhaps stronger because they were shocked and maybe bitter, but he could have been belittled and shunned simply because they saw him as a respected figure in the scientific community who was now espousing a position based on purported evidence they considered to be clearly poor or entirely inaccurate.
I've noticed on the skeptic blogs how he is portrayed as originally having "paranormal" or "occult" belief systems- their rather imaginative insertion to discredit both his credentials and his gradual transformation on the face of the scientific evidence (that they were not privy to). This is the guy specifically hired by the Air Force to head their PR against the reality of UFO's, and he was damn good at it! He was the guy who invented the term "swamp gas" for chrisssakes- the magic cure all to explain away UFO's (if anything was 'paranormal,' that certainly was).
You will note that the video moves at a very rapid clip. The intent is to throw claim after uncontested claim at you as quickly as possible so you don't have time to evaluate them. Here is a transcript. Let's start with paragraph one:
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis ... claims that Bin Laden was on dialysis are unclear at best. I wonder how the theorists know so much more about his health than the rest of us. ... in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop ... What is the relevance of this? (1) You could plan a very sophisticated attack by carrier pigeon. (2) I am unsure of the electricity situation in Afghanistan, but as a close friend of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the effective head of State of Afghanistan during that time one would imagine he could get a power line run. (3) Even if no power line was run generators and gasoline can charge electronics. Hell they can be charged from a vehicle's alternator. ... Bin Laden directed the most sophisticated penetration ... there was no need to *penetrate* anything. They started out in US airspace. of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, ... (1) We didn't have jets prepared to take off whenever a plane veered off course. (2) The planes that were eventually scrambled were sent up in such a rush that they didn't even have *weapons* for god's sake. ... overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft ... They didn't overpower many, if any, passengers in the successful planes. Everyone believed that it was a standard hijacking, that they would return to the airport as a mater of fact that is what they wanted the passengers to believe which is why they broadcast it to the passenger cabin. ... before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor. Again playing fast and loose with the truth. AA Flight 11 was hijacked at 08:14 and struck the Tower One at 08:46 -- 32 minutes total. UA Flight 175 was hijacked not earlier than 08:42 and struck Tower Two at 9:03 -- 21 minutes total. AA Flight 77 was hijacked not earlier than 08:51 and struck the Pentagon at 09:37 -- 46 minutes total. UA Flight 93 was hijacked at 09:28 and crashed in a field at 10:03 -- 32 minutes total. Those were the times available to mount a response (not more than an hour as claimed) assuming you knew immediately that they were a threat, which of course no one did at the time.
Well those are the falsehoods I spotted in paragraph one. It is late and I am tired. If I have some time I will move on to the later paragraphs.
I suppose little boxcutters would have terrified you so much that you would have let them take over a plane that was going to send you plummeting to your, & everyone else on the plane, to your deaths. Two words .. no way.
You clearly didn't read nolandda's post: "They didn't overpower many, if any, passengers in the successful planes. Everyone believed that it was a standard hijacking, that they would return to the airport as a mater of fact that is what they wanted the passengers to believe which is why they broadcast it to the passenger cabin.")
Plus, you're saying a box cutter is not a credible weapon? Ridiculous.
Once again, it matters NOT what they were told. And yes, I'm saying boxcutters (if there were even any) would not have been sufficient to keep a planeful of people from tackling them. That's your problem; you have everything they've told you ingrained in your brain. Yes, it's a waste. Pay no mind what has been done to our country & its citizens. They counted on that.
Re: Anonymous1 and embeetee - Yes. I would have stayed in my seat given the information available to me at the time and it would have cost me my life. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Try to use a little empathy to put yourselves in their place. There hadn't been a hijacking of a US passenger flight since New York Air Flight 681 on January 11, 1987.
Here is a list of aircraft hijackings. Use the search button on your browser. Search for "demand" and "negotia" and see how many of those had been traditional hijackings where the attacker demands something and there is a negotiation. Suicide hijackings were not a major tactic.
More over the hijackers told the passengers that this was a traditional hijacking. That they would be safe if the terrorist demands were met:
Click here to hear the voice of mass murderer Mohamed Atta as he lies to the passengers guaranteeing them safety to keep them passive. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll injure yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
Maybe you have the courage to seize a plane from five men in the stress and terror of the moment or maybe you are just projecting back your knowledge of what was to happen and assuming they knew it too which they manifestly did not, but as for me, I would have been terrified.
It is also important to note that in the one plane where the passengers did actually learn what was to come they did fight back. That single piece of knowledge where you learn you are fighting for your lives and the lives of others instantly changes the equation. You are no longer foolishly risking your life because you don't want to sit on a tarmac while negotiations take place you are bravely risking your life because you know the lives of others are at stake.
So, yes. It matters a great deal what they were told.
Also I resent the implication that I do not care what has happened to our country as a result. I am an active member of the ACLU and a number of other civil rights organizations that oppose the godawful national security state that has been constructed on people's fear of terrorism.
Also, I do believe that the flight crew should have been better trained to deal with suicide hijackings. That was a major failure of the FAA since the tactic had been known for some time.
nolandda, great responses all around; I'm 100% with you, and slightly in awe of your lengthy, referenced and rational responses here. I feel like a piker.
@nolandda Once again, regarding your posting of the supposed 'messages' to the passengers from Atta, you have absolutely no proof that he spoke anything at all to them. Preconceived notions put into your head by the administration that did absolutely nothing but lie about everything. No, I don't have proof either, but I know a liar when I see one, thereby discrediting anything one says. Not going to address @embee, as they're clearly wrapped up in their own little world. But I do thank you for your lengthy & respectful back & forth, however misguided.
My view of the conspiracy - fwiw - doesn't require extensive planning by incompetent Americans. I think the planning and execution were done by the "bad guys", but that the plot was discovered ahead of time by Israel's Mossad intelligence. They informed some American officials (NOT including GWB), who then decided it would be in their best interest to "let it happen" so that war could be justified thereafter.
... managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York,
The third building they are talking about is, of course, WTC building seven. And, oh man, building seven is a big deal to them because they don't believe that buildings can collapse from fire. Which is, of course, false. Really most sincerely false.
... while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, ...
While it is true that Hani Hanjour took almost a decade to get his his FAA commercial pilot certificate he did earn it in April 1999. He was no good when he started like everyone learning a new skill, but I have no idea where the claim that he "couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna" comes from. Here are the requirements for the certificate.
... hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
A quote from that very September 10th, 2001 speech:
"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."
Of course you will all want to read the full 3982 words of the short speech for yourselves here because you are seekers of the truth and not just looking for information that confirms your theories.
*********************
Well that does it for paragraph two. I am kind of getting into the rhythm now. Maybe I will find time later tonight to analyze another paragraph.
Simply google the thousands of crimes of that entire criminal family. All of these answers directly lead to the coup de grace Here's something I hadn't even heard before, even though I of course knew about the fact that Marvin Bush was head of security at the trade center. It had intermittently been closed for two weeks leading up to the 11th. Any thinking person knows what happened. http://apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html
As I was posting it, I thought it seemed familiar. And I only have about 50 posts in my "conspiracy theory" category, so I could have searched and found it in a couple minutes. I hate it when I repeat things because there's so much good unposted stuff to post. *sigh*
Dan, if you find time to do another debunking comment, would you focus on the spike in trading of out-of-the-money put options in airline stocks in the days before 9/11. That has always fascinated me, and it's hard to believe those transactions can't be traced to their initiators.
I hadn't heard of that one before. I didn't see any reference to it in the video except possibly at 2:47 where a claim is made that the SEC destroyed some records about an insider trading investigation. I will see what I can find on it.
Here's a place to start - an academic study from the University of Chicago Urbana:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645
" A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks."
Thanks for the attempt at slowing the "argument" down and addressing individual points. It's SUCH HARD WORK!
I live with a devoted conspiracy theorist who automatically accepts whatever the conspiracy-of-the-day is. He was an elementary school teacher at one point, so he is a somewhat educated man who can be thoughtful. But he believes that the Sandy Hook school shooting is a fake, and the moon landing, and, of course, the one that started it all -- 9/11.
I don't understand why he wants to think this way, and yes, I've seen the recent articles explaining this kind of thinking. Yes, this way of reacting to events has been around a LONG time. But slow down! Assess! What are you arguing FOR? Events are infinitely messy and strange and much that is inexplicable happens moment-by-moment in our world! We understand so little of the basic simple stuff that can be stuffed in test tube and "controlled"!
I guess I need to hang on to this wonderful attitude expressed by Benjamin Franklin:
..." But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." From "Report of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and Other Commissioners, Charged by the King of France, with the Examination of the Animal Magnetism, as Now Practiced in Paris (1784)" as quoted by Kathryn Schulz in her book Being Wrong.
So much creative effort and thinking! So many YouTube videos!
But I watch a woman behind a podium "explain" how no REAL children died at Sandy Hook and my visceral reaction is that this, too, is a kind of EVIL. What do you think?
Kate- Yes, it's easy to get overwhelmed. Who do you believe (particularly when both sides claim to have "science" on their side)? I wish there was some basic scientific formula we could all follow to simplify things- there isn't. And adding words like "EVIL" to the mix can only add to the muddle- even if part of the original incentive. So who do you believe... who do you trust?
The government, of course, wants you to believe everything they say- or (second best) at least be so confused that you don't know what to believe. And even science (the ultimate arbiter) can sometimes be effectively used and perverted (to various extents) by either side. And... the best experts anywhere can occasionally be fooled, misled and... bought. Who do you believe?
At first, I was open to believe that the WTC did go down by controlled demolition and that a plane did not penetrate the Pentagon- that was explained away to my satisfaction by pretty credible scientific analysis. But (despite my interest in science) I'm no scientist, and more importantly- reasonable, credible people can disagree... That said, I still maintain an open mind about how WTC7 came down (very suspicious) and how absolute beginners were able to make such a large commercial airliner perform such a highly complex aerial maneuver which experienced commercial pilots who fly the same plane for a living say is not only Extremely Unlikely- but also physically impossible (Very, Very Suspicious)! Absolute luck and coincidence? They play highly in all these controversies- again, to what extent...
All we can do is to try and keep an open mind (opinions can evolve), examine each case on its own merits, and look at the scientific and factual evidence at hand. Not necessarily a formula for truth, but an imperfectly "balanced" approach to defining our own positions- lacking all the details, it is not surprising that we will fill them in with our own highly personalized background info. Reasonable people can reach highly diverse conclusions, others will remain blind to their own convictions or delusions. Part of the fun- and frustration... Who do you trust?
BTW- One of my favorite films on the issue of 'trust' was a movie called Training Day that earned Denzel Washington an Oscar.
I saw the conspiracy theory part, but where was the dismissal of it?
ReplyDeleteoh, Jonas... didn't you see the small disclaimer that presented this as *theory*? It may also be discovered in the dictionary under *sarcasm* (which is the well known gap that lies between what you hear or read, and what you understand)
ReplyDeleteSo the folks behind the inside job had the desire, means, and personnel to murder thousands of people and distract millions more with a war or two and cover things up while making a huge power grab but didn't have the desire, means, and personnel to "discover" (i.e. plant) WMD? It would have taken a couple drums of nerve gas (we have plenty) and a blown up "facility" and the opposition would have been silenced and the folks behind the inside job would have even more power. What they decided they had enough power that they didn't need to discover the WMD? Since when do those with power want less power?
ReplyDeleteThe cover-ups and incompetence are due to covering up incompetence very few politicians or bureaucrats are ever going to admit... "yeah we could have done better,we were likely even negligent, please blame us for incompetence and negligence that killed thousands".
Don't ascribe malice of forethought to what is best explained by incompetence.
The video does not only reveal incompetence (on a grand level), it also attests to a variety of rather extensive cover ups. I don't pretend to know how much of 9/11 was sheer arrogance, subterfuge and incompetence- and what (if any) was an inside job. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the investigations covering these events were compromised, sabotaged, and fabricated- as were the major political assassinations of the '60s. And you don't have major governmental organizations going to those lengths to cover up mere incompetence...
DeleteThat should read: "as were the investigations of major political assassinations of the '60s."
Delete@Stan, "you don't have major governmental organizations going to those lengths to cover up mere incompetence"
DeleteSure we do, all the time, careers and fortunes are at stake. It's part of the nature of bureaucracy.
Point taken- provided that investigation into 'incompetence' is one that can result in major political/economic concessions. If serious investigations were conducted solely to investigate the effect of incompetence on... worker and/or public safety, every: nuclear, coal, fossil fuel, and fracking facility in operation today would be closed overnight. The latter never need be covered up because: a) they hardly ever occur b) when they do, they are never taken seriously and are totally without consequence.
DeleteThis is just one reason that I thoroughly enjoy your blog - you are extremely intelligent.
DeleteStan: In what way or ways do you think that the investigation was "compromised, sabotaged, and fabricated"?
Deletenolandda: Good question!
DeleteOne could start with the concerns expressed by these notable 'whackos:'
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
I actually agree with some of the earlier gentlemen's complaints about the commission. It should have forced the president and the vice president to testify under oath and collected lots more material from the administration.
DeleteIn my opinion executive privilege is a seriously flawed, and possibly unconstitutional, legal concept. And congress has allowed the executive branch to claim far too much power for itself.
As the list goes on the people go from making claims about how the commission was hindered to simply asserting that the report was wrong (usually without providing a justification for why) or simply airing political grievances about the Arab / Israeli conflict. So that isn't helpful to getting at the truth.
So now that we have this uncertainty about what happened because the commission wasn't as powerful as we would have liked and didn't investigate in the way we feel would have shed the most light what do we do with that uncertainty?
What do we do?
DeleteSadly, our government now has quite the track record on how to deal with political cover ups of this magnitude. Harass, isolate and discredit witnesses that do not follow their proposed storyline, downplay and (quickly) lose or destroy evidence that does not fit their plot, and conduct a fast, cosmetic and essentially ineffective 'investigation' that will cement the official story with the press and public.
JFK, RFK, MLK... I think we all know the multitude of problems in the JFK 'investigation,' and I'm even willing to believe the "magic bullet theory." RFK's assassination is riddled with inconsistencies: from the number of shooters, to the number of shots fired, to the origin of their location- check out the link below to hear how an actual interview (ie- interrogation) of a witness was forcefully perverted. There is more than good reason to believe that Sirhan Sirhan was a Manchurian Candidate (see- MKULTRA). And even MLK's family doesn't believe that James Earl Ray was the killer. And those are just the upper echelon of cover ups...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRG5cMrfIk
Yes, all of these major incidents attract major nut jobs; but many of the names on that previous 9/11 link however are heavy hitters in military, intelligence, and government positions- not so easily dismissed as the inane rantings of the the insane. Again, I'm not saying that I believe all, or even most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but only a fool would take this government's word at face value on issues that concern "national security."
"What do we do with that uncertainty?" Unless we're privy to info like Edward Snowden or Gary Webb (see link below), not much we can do- and we know what price they paid! But we can open our eyes and learn to see...
http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com/2008/07/gary-webb-american.html
I'm with Jonas. The video promotes the view that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and at no point dismisses this conclusion. The only sarcasm in it is directed at the majority who accept that 9/11 really WAS the work of terrorists, and not some government plot.
ReplyDeleteThe dismissal was pure sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteIf only the monumental and cartoonishly evil conspiracy that masterminded the killing of thousands of innocents and the covering up of the troof had somehow been able to silence a couple of college kids with their snappy little you tube videos, we would never know the truth! Thank God they lacked the wherewithal and the stomach for such a thing.
ReplyDeleteNicely put, Anon.
DeleteSilencing is often not even necessary in a society where so many people (eg- people like you, and the press) automatically treat anything not coming from "official" sources as a joke. Which is to say why so often, the joke is on us...
DeleteOh, please. I have a healthy sense of skepticism, in the true sense of the word. I don't accept what I read and hear without applying my own filters against it, logic (as objective as I can manage) and if warranted, research. But a reasonable skeptical approach is a parsec away from leaping to conclude that factual anomalies, coincidences, prevarication, missing and in some cases perhaps (I haven't looked into these allegations myself) deliberate destruction of material which could be evidenciary, mean the people elected to run the country are so evil, so malevolent, that they would deliberately construct a false attack with the intent of killing thousands of US citizens, plunge the country into war(s), invite additional terrible independent attacks on the US and its citizens, drain the country's financial and human resources... and so much more. I'd as easily accept they are aliens in human form. And that doesn't even touch the issue raised here and so many other places: creating and maintaining a conspiracy of this magnitude is an almost impossible job.
DeleteI don't insist sources are official. Only credible.
And I didn't insist that I believed in all, or any, of the 9/11conspiracy theories- merely that they are worth investigating in earnest, and that the so called official investigations covering 9/11 were compromised, sabotaged, and fabricated (which some of the investigators themselves have alluded to).
DeleteAs to your statement dismissing that "...the people elected to run the country are so evil, so malevolent, that they would deliberately construct a false attack with the intent of killing thousands of US citizens, plunge the country into war(s), invite additional terrible independent attacks on the US and its citizens, drain the country's financial and human resources..." I suggest you familiarize yourself with Operation Northwoods; true, it was JFK that axed the plan--- but it was approved by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Of course a few years ago if I had claimed that the NSA was monitoring every electronic communication in America, I'd have been called a nut...Not that I necessarily believe the conspiracy, other than a complete cover-up of incompetence and a mis-direction to the targets Bush, et al wanted to attack, I just think there is so much nefarious stuff being none to us by our leaders that this one hardly matters.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your assessment (shared by others above too it seems) that any cover-up was strictly to mask incompetence, I beg to differ about the idea that believing in widespread surveillance was "nutter" territory not long ago. Just look at the general response that Snowden's revelations have generated. It ranges for the most part from "tell me something I didn't know" to "so what". Depressing, yes. But also a pretty strong sign that this ain't a shock, ain't unexpected, and was never a fringe belief.
DeleteNow when Obama and the entirety of congress and the senate all unzip their lifelike human suits to reveal the lizard alien overlords underneath, THEN we'll see some tinfoil hat told-ya-so, no doubt.
One thing that makes me believe that it was NOT a conspiracy theory by Americans, and it really was a plot by terrorists is the fact that it takes INTELLIGENCE to pull something off, and to keep it under wraps, and that administration didn't have the smarts, at least IMHO.
ReplyDeleteThat's such a common trope, such an easy chuckle-and-high-five toss-off; you see it all over. It is of course demonstrably untrue. As a general statement, people rise to positions of power and authority because they're competent, and if anything smarter than average. Of course there are exceptions, but in the end decisions and actions we'd tag as dumb, against common sense, just plain wrong, etc are mostly evidence of power corrupting, people losing touch, prevarication and cover-up in an attempt to hide stupid mistakes, and so on. In other words, human nature.
DeleteYou may be right about that administration, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have encouraged or paid others off- or simply agreed to look the other way...
DeleteSOP as far as any admin is concerned.
@Dabris, Not so difficult when considering how when anyone so much as questioned the account, they were labled 'unpatriotic, unMurcan'. Have some Freedom Fries to go with your burger & by all means, fly that little flag out of your back window.
DeleteAnd what can we do about it? Absolutely nothing... it's so frustrating and depressing.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this crap is that to believe that 9/11 report is a cover up is even more unbelievable than the story the report tells. It would require coordination and the participation of so many people and departments, none of whom have broke their alibi, to pull it off.
ReplyDeleteAs JDJarvis wrote above, but in my preferred version of Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to conspiracy that which can easily be explained by incompetence". Keeping that in mind, many of the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 narrative are simply incompetence and coincidences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Halon's Razor explains so much about our government over the last 20 years.
Damn... made a typo. It is Hanlon's Razor.
DeleteActually, I think Grey's Law is more appropriate here.
DeleteGrey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".
If Bush had known in advance, he wouldn't have been reading The Pet Goat to kindergarteners when it went down.
ReplyDeleteYes, he would have. Cheney was at the helm, literally on that morning. Having the Stooge out of way reading books upside down ( which by the way, was nothing but a pathetic attempt at a photo op) was added cover of guilt. We know for a fact that invading Iraq ( and robbing the world blind) was squarely on the table from the second those criminals enacted the coup of America. Colin Powell was absolutely against it, but had no other choice but to keep his mouth shut & hold that little vial up at the UN, for added drama. He sold his soul for a lie & he knew it. All you have to do is look at who benefitted from it all, monetarily & politically. In their minds, it also ensured a second term to continue the theft at any cost. Contrary to what some think, I don't think all that many at all would have needed to be involved. A plane did NOT hit the Pentagon. Instead of demanding an investigation into the killing of thousands of Americans, they fought it tooth & nail. This isn't rocket science.
DeleteAnon, great opportunity to apply some skeptical methodology.
DeleteThe moment I heard that tripe about Bush holding the book upside down *and* heard people triumphantly hold it up as proof he (a) is an idiot and (b) was clearly not actually engaged in the school visit that morning,distracted (and excited?) about the upcoming attack he and his minions (overlords?) had planned, I disbelieved it. And indeed, it was quickly shown to be photo-manipulation. Check Snopes for a good explanation.
That's very telling that you point that out as if it negates everything. If that had been an unknown attack, they would have tackled Bush to the ground & got him to a safe place PRONTO. Everyone knew exactly where he was, was published in all the local newspapers. Instead, he sat there while one of his goons stood in the back of the class holding a sign that read 'Don't say Anything'. Hardly the actions of officials when America 'was under attack'. Completely mind boggling that so many don't have a clue, even with the advantage of hindsight. It truly is. That's why our country is gone.
DeleteI'm not sure what's telling about rebutting a specific urban legend you put up as evidence that Bush had been sent "out of the way". The photo was faked and certainly no evidence in support of anything, which you'd argued it was.
DeleteThe bulk of your post was rhetoric, supposition and unsupported opinion. I can't attempt to disprove a statement like "We know for a fact that [...] enacted the coup of America." There's nothing presented as support or fact to disprove.
As to "A plane did NOT hit the Pentagon [...]", that can and has been ably rebutted, at length, by numerous field experts, in numerous sources. A person who still believes this as fact in the face of the strongly reasoned and supported logical deconstruction of the arguments will certainly be immune to anything I could attempt to present here.
In regards to the sign his Press Secretary (not sure a PS really qualifies as a goon?) was holding up, which actually said "Don't say anything yet" - note the difference - what's your point? It's easily argued that his advisers are recommending that a measured and calm first response from the President is better, that they want to gather more information first and develop a plan for his next steps.
There's a valid argument to be made that the time Bush continued on with his school visit was, in retrospect, a bad decision. But things always look clear in retrospect, and judgements always so much easier to make after the heat and confusion of a major event have died down. This decision, bad or good, is no evidence of anything.
"If it had been an unknown attack, they would have tackled Bush to the ground [...]" Not at all a forgone conclusion; he wasn't under attack, so his security advisors would reasonably have been attempting to assess any risk before taking action. At that time, the events unfolding were in New York and not yet seen as something which might be in other locations, affecting other targets - or, to be fair it's more accurate to say that it's entirely reasonable that the President's political and security advisors came to that conclusion on the basis of known facts at that time. He was in Florida, a long way away. So letting him sit for another 7 minutes while his advisors built up a plan, having him address the New York attack at the already-planned press conference immediately following, could easily have been considered the best option.
The point is, neither you nor I know what really happened there, what was going through people's heads, what discussions took place, what plans were considered, and so on. But as you're the one making the extraordinary claim - the government planned and executed an attack on its own soil, killing thousands of its own citizens - you're the one who is on the hook to provide extraordinarily strong evidence to support the claim. Weaving together a zillion circumstantial points and suppositions into a pattern doesn't constitute evidence.
You can accuse me of not having a clue till the cows come home, but that doesn't strengthen your arguments one iota.
You must be joking. When America 'is under attack', the president is the the number one potential target. Wow.
DeleteOK. I am going to regret this, but here we go... Actually before we begin let me explain that comment. 9/11 was absolutely a conspiracy by the strictest definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." There should be no one who disagrees with that. Real conspiracies do sometimes occur. (e.g. Gunpowder Plot, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and any number of CIA actions to prop up anti-communist dictators or overthrow legitimate leaders with some communist leanings).
ReplyDeleteThe reason so many people, myself included, find it so frustrating arguing with Conspiracy Theorists (in capitals) is that their arguments are so slippery:
* They never actually make any claims themselves. They only insinuate them. They are questioning the "official story". I would love for them to actually make detailed claims about how the attacks took place. Because them they would be falsifiable. Questions cannot be wrong, only misguided. They use that to their full advantage.
* They will reject evidence out of hand because "it came from the mainstream media" as if they wouldn't want the Pulitzer prize for breaking a story about government complicity in the attack.
* They argue that the conspirators are all powerful one minute capable of carrying out any operation perfectly leaving no physical evidence but then they are also capable of blundering laughably when there is some circumstantial evidence that might seem to support the theorists fears.
* Almost no amount of evidence will satisfy them. Much like creationists there is always a "missing link" in the "official story".
* If by some miracle you do manage to convince them that some critical piece of their nonsense is wrong they don't accept it. They are immediately off again with "Well that doesn't explain this other thing that will take you pages of text to explain." <sigh>
Scientific American's Skeptic column has a nice piece on recognizing conspiracy theories that are likely to be false.
Let's begin...
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on.
I can sympathize. When Dr. Allen Hyneck, then head investigator of Project Bluebook (and inventor of the term "swamp gas," a term somehow meant to explain away UFO's), did a complete 180 and declared that the UFO phenomena was indeed real because of the overwhelming scientific evidence he could no longer excuse, reject or ignore- he was belittled and shunned pretty much for all the reasons you mention above...
DeleteYou're correct; the 'official' story defies all logic.
DeleteStan, the Hyneck story is considerably more nuanced than that he flipped 180 degrees from a staunch "anti" to a full-bore UFO advocate. It seems well accepted he was an early believer in psychic and similar phenomena, he linked the so-called psychic world with UFOs. His long-time friend maintained that Hyneck's personal views were a good bit different from the public ones he maintained for years (maybe decades?) in his roles with the Air Force.
DeletePerhaps it's more accurate to consider he "came out" if I can appropriate that term.
And as to the reaction from his peers and co-workers? Perhaps stronger because they were shocked and maybe bitter, but he could have been belittled and shunned simply because they saw him as a respected figure in the scientific community who was now espousing a position based on purported evidence they considered to be clearly poor or entirely inaccurate.
I've noticed on the skeptic blogs how he is portrayed as originally having "paranormal" or "occult" belief systems- their rather imaginative insertion to discredit both his credentials and his gradual transformation on the face of the scientific evidence (that they were not privy to). This is the guy specifically hired by the Air Force to head their PR against the reality of UFO's, and he was damn good at it! He was the guy who invented the term "swamp gas" for chrisssakes- the magic cure all to explain away UFO's (if anything was 'paranormal,' that certainly was).
DeleteYou will note that the video moves at a very rapid clip. The intent is to throw claim after uncontested claim at you as quickly as possible so you don't have time to evaluate them. Here is a transcript. Let's start with paragraph one:
ReplyDeleteOn the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis ...
claims that Bin Laden was on dialysis are unclear at best. I wonder how the theorists know so much more about his health than the rest of us.
... in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop ...
What is the relevance of this? (1) You could plan a very sophisticated attack by carrier pigeon. (2) I am unsure of the electricity situation in Afghanistan, but as a close friend of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the effective head of State of Afghanistan during that time one would imagine he could get a power line run. (3) Even if no power line was run generators and gasoline can charge electronics. Hell they can be charged from a vehicle's alternator.
... Bin Laden directed the most sophisticated penetration ...
there was no need to *penetrate* anything. They started out in US airspace.
of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, ...
(1) We didn't have jets prepared to take off whenever a plane veered off course. (2) The planes that were eventually scrambled were sent up in such a rush that they didn't even have *weapons* for god's sake.
... overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft ...
They didn't overpower many, if any, passengers in the successful planes. Everyone believed that it was a standard hijacking, that they would return to the airport as a mater of fact that is what they wanted the passengers to believe which is why they broadcast it to the passenger cabin.
... before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
Again playing fast and loose with the truth. AA Flight 11 was hijacked at 08:14 and struck the Tower One at 08:46 -- 32 minutes total. UA Flight 175 was hijacked not earlier than 08:42 and struck Tower Two at 9:03 -- 21 minutes total. AA Flight 77 was hijacked not earlier than 08:51 and struck the Pentagon at 09:37 -- 46 minutes total. UA Flight 93 was hijacked at 09:28 and crashed in a field at 10:03 -- 32 minutes total. Those were the times available to mount a response (not more than an hour as claimed) assuming you knew immediately that they were a threat, which of course no one did at the time.
Well those are the falsehoods I spotted in paragraph one. It is late and I am tired. If I have some time I will move on to the later paragraphs.
I suppose little boxcutters would have terrified you so much that you would have let them take over a plane that was going to send you plummeting to your, & everyone else on the plane, to your deaths. Two words .. no way.
DeleteYou clearly didn't read nolandda's post: "They didn't overpower many, if any, passengers in the successful planes. Everyone believed that it was a standard hijacking, that they would return to the airport as a mater of fact that is what they wanted the passengers to believe which is why they broadcast it to the passenger cabin.")
DeletePlus, you're saying a box cutter is not a credible weapon? Ridiculous.
This is a waste.
Once again, it matters NOT what they were told. And yes, I'm saying boxcutters (if there were even any) would not have been sufficient to keep a planeful of people from tackling them. That's your problem; you have everything they've told you ingrained in your brain. Yes, it's a waste. Pay no mind what has been done to our country & its citizens. They counted on that.
DeleteRe: Anonymous1 and embeetee - Yes. I would have stayed in my seat given the information available to me at the time and it would have cost me my life. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Try to use a little empathy to put yourselves in their place. There hadn't been a hijacking of a US passenger flight since New York Air Flight 681 on January 11, 1987.
DeleteHere is a list of aircraft hijackings. Use the search button on your browser. Search for "demand" and "negotia" and see how many of those had been traditional hijackings where the attacker demands something and there is a negotiation. Suicide hijackings were not a major tactic.
More over the hijackers told the passengers that this was a traditional hijacking. That they would be safe if the terrorist demands were met:
Click here to hear the voice of mass murderer Mohamed Atta as he lies to the passengers guaranteeing them safety to keep them passive.
Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll injure yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
Maybe you have the courage to seize a plane from five men in the stress and terror of the moment or maybe you are just projecting back your knowledge of what was to happen and assuming they knew it too which they manifestly did not, but as for me, I would have been terrified.
It is also important to note that in the one plane where the passengers did actually learn what was to come they did fight back. That single piece of knowledge where you learn you are fighting for your lives and the lives of others instantly changes the equation. You are no longer foolishly risking your life because you don't want to sit on a tarmac while negotiations take place you are bravely risking your life because you know the lives of others are at stake.
So, yes. It matters a great deal what they were told.
Also I resent the implication that I do not care what has happened to our country as a result. I am an active member of the ACLU and a number of other civil rights organizations that oppose the godawful national security state that has been constructed on people's fear of terrorism.
DeleteAlso, I do believe that the flight crew should have been better trained to deal with suicide hijackings. That was a major failure of the FAA since the tactic had been known for some time.
Deletenolandda, great responses all around; I'm 100% with you, and slightly in awe of your lengthy, referenced and rational responses here. I feel like a piker.
Delete@nolandda Once again, regarding your posting of the supposed 'messages' to the passengers from Atta, you have absolutely no proof that he spoke anything at all to them. Preconceived notions put into your head by the administration that did absolutely nothing but lie about everything. No, I don't have proof either, but I know a liar when I see one, thereby discrediting anything one says. Not going to address @embee, as they're clearly wrapped up in their own little world. But I do thank you for your lengthy & respectful back & forth, however misguided.
DeleteMy view of the conspiracy - fwiw - doesn't require extensive planning by incompetent Americans. I think the planning and execution were done by the "bad guys", but that the plot was discovered ahead of time by Israel's Mossad intelligence. They informed some American officials (NOT including GWB), who then decided it would be in their best interest to "let it happen" so that war could be justified thereafter.
ReplyDeleteSo, guilty on all counts, nonetheless. Scot free.
DeleteThese 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers,
ReplyDelete(1) Is the point here that they were human not a cartoon caricature of a fundamentalist? (2) They wouldn't be like Buddhist fundamentalists that engage in violence or American Christian fundamentalists who hire homosexual prostitutes and take crystal meth would they?
... managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York,
The third building they are talking about is, of course, WTC building seven. And, oh man, building seven is a big deal to them because they don't believe that buildings can collapse from fire. Which is, of course, false. Really most sincerely false.
... while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, ...
While it is true that Hani Hanjour took almost a decade to get his his FAA commercial pilot certificate he did earn it in April 1999. He was no good when he started like everyone learning a new skill, but I have no idea where the claim that he "couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna" comes from. Here are the requirements for the certificate.
... hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Man! That would be an epic conspiracy if Rumsfeld weren't talking about how the pentagon budget was not easily auditable due to all the ancient computer systems in use at the time. The money wasn't "missing" in the sense that it had been stolen, rather it was difficult to track and audit.
A quote from that very September 10th, 2001 speech:
"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."
Of course you will all want to read the full 3982 words of the short speech for yourselves here because you are seekers of the truth and not just looking for information that confirms your theories.
*********************
Well that does it for paragraph two. I am kind of getting into the rhythm now. Maybe I will find time later tonight to analyze another paragraph.
Simply google the thousands of crimes of that entire criminal family. All of these answers directly lead to the coup de grace Here's something I hadn't even heard before, even though I of course knew about the fact that Marvin Bush was head of security at the trade center. It had intermittently been closed for two weeks leading up to the 11th. Any thinking person knows what happened. http://apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html
DeleteAh, I thought I was feeling some déjà vu. Here is Stan's original tywkiwdbi post of this video in mind January 2012. Something in the long dark winter months must turn his mind to conspiracy around this time of year. : )
ReplyDeleteAs I was posting it, I thought it seemed familiar. And I only have about 50 posts in my "conspiracy theory" category, so I could have searched and found it in a couple minutes. I hate it when I repeat things because there's so much good unposted stuff to post. *sigh*
DeleteDan, if you find time to do another debunking comment, would you focus on the spike in trading of out-of-the-money put options in airline stocks in the days before 9/11. That has always fascinated me, and it's hard to believe those transactions can't be traced to their initiators.
ReplyDeleteThere were lot's of good reasons for American Airlines and others to have a trading spike the days before 9/11..
Delete12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR NOTES 'POOR' ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 'FALLING' DEMAND
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS DEFERRING JET PURCHASES BEYOND FIRM ORDERS
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR'S AMERICAN RETIRING 5 MORE 727 AIRCRAFT EARLY
12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR: AMERICAN TO RETIRE ENTIRE 727 FLEET BY END OF 2002
12:46pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SEES Q3 LOSS 'CONSIDERABLY LARGER' THAN Q2'S
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR ANTICIPATES 'SIGNIFICANT' LOSS IN Q4
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS CUTTING 2001-02 CAPEX BY NEARLY $1.2 BLN
12:50pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMERICAN AIR FEELS SQUEEZE OF FUEL PRICES, LABOR COSTS
1:07pm 09/07/01 AMR warns of wider losses - William Spain
2:44pm 09/07/01 Analyst: Airline Stocks Face At Least Another Bad Quarter
2:51pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR DOWN 3.4% AT $30.08 FOLLOWING Q3 WARNING
4:04pm 09/07/01 Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth - August Cole
have a look here: http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
I hadn't heard of that one before. I didn't see any reference to it in the video except possibly at 2:47 where a claim is made that the SEC destroyed some records about an insider trading investigation. I will see what I can find on it.
DeleteHere's a place to start - an academic study from the University of Chicago Urbana:
Deletehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645
" A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks."
And here's a summary of the arguments from the pro-conspiracy-theory wingnuts -
Deletehttp://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
Nolannda and Stan,
DeleteThanks for the attempt at slowing the "argument" down and addressing individual points. It's SUCH HARD WORK!
I live with a devoted conspiracy theorist who automatically accepts whatever the conspiracy-of-the-day is. He was an elementary school teacher at one point, so he is a somewhat educated man who can be thoughtful. But he believes that the Sandy Hook school shooting is a fake, and the moon landing, and, of course, the one that started it all -- 9/11.
I don't understand why he wants to think this way, and yes, I've seen the recent articles explaining this kind of thinking. Yes, this way of reacting to events has been around a LONG time. But slow down! Assess! What are you arguing FOR? Events are infinitely messy and strange and much that is inexplicable happens moment-by-moment in our world! We understand so little of the basic simple stuff that can be stuffed in test tube and "controlled"!
I guess I need to hang on to this wonderful attitude expressed by Benjamin Franklin:
..." But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." From "Report of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and Other Commissioners, Charged by the King of France, with the Examination of the Animal Magnetism, as Now Practiced in Paris (1784)" as quoted by Kathryn Schulz in her book Being Wrong.
So much creative effort and thinking! So many YouTube videos!
But I watch a woman behind a podium "explain" how no REAL children died at Sandy Hook and my visceral reaction is that this, too, is a kind of EVIL. What do you think?
Kate- Yes, it's easy to get overwhelmed. Who do you believe (particularly when both sides claim to have "science" on their side)? I wish there was some basic scientific formula we could all follow to simplify things- there isn't. And adding words like "EVIL" to the mix can only add to the muddle- even if part of the original incentive. So who do you believe... who do you trust?
ReplyDeleteThe government, of course, wants you to believe everything they say- or (second best) at least be so confused that you don't know what to believe. And even science (the ultimate arbiter) can sometimes be effectively used and perverted (to various extents) by either side. And... the best experts anywhere can occasionally be fooled, misled and... bought. Who do you believe?
At first, I was open to believe that the WTC did go down by controlled demolition and that a plane did not penetrate the Pentagon- that was explained away to my satisfaction by pretty credible scientific analysis. But (despite my interest in science) I'm no scientist, and more importantly- reasonable, credible people can disagree... That said, I still maintain an open mind about how WTC7 came down (very suspicious) and how absolute beginners were able to make such a large commercial airliner perform such a highly complex aerial maneuver which experienced commercial pilots who fly the same plane for a living say is not only Extremely Unlikely- but also physically impossible (Very, Very Suspicious)! Absolute luck and coincidence? They play highly in all these controversies- again, to what extent...
All we can do is to try and keep an open mind (opinions can evolve), examine each case on its own merits, and look at the scientific and factual evidence at hand. Not necessarily a formula for truth, but an imperfectly "balanced" approach to defining our own positions- lacking all the details, it is not surprising that we will fill them in with our own highly personalized background info. Reasonable people can reach highly diverse conclusions, others will remain blind to their own convictions or delusions. Part of the fun- and frustration... Who do you trust?
BTW- One of my favorite films on the issue of 'trust' was a movie called Training Day that earned Denzel Washington an Oscar.