HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 9/11 "alternative&qu...

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:07 AM

9/11 "alternative" theories and "conspiracies"

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by MerryBlooms (a host of the General Discussion forum).

The various HOP levels are
--our government is behind 9-11, that is to say MIHOP=Made It Happen On Purpose.
--LIHOP= Let It Happen On Purpose.
--The third option is incompetent negligence due to having other priorities like the missile defense shield boondoggle, cutting taxes for the rich and planning the invasion of Iraq.


Personally, I’m somewhere between negligence and LIHOP, and highly skeptical about the theories presupposing controlled demolition. The reason for this is mainly living in Seattle, witnessing the controlled demolition of the Kingdome, and reading all of the related stories about it at the time. Most of the people reasoning about controlled demolition on 9-11 are working from strictly theoretical calculations—channeling Rene Descartes. Actual professionals who do controlled demolitions channel Francis Bacon; they can’t afford to rely solely on theoretical calculations because they don’t want to die in the process of doing their work. They know they need to do some empirical testing. Several weeks before the final implosion, the demolition crew did an extensive series of test blasts. There is no such thing as a demolition crew that would agree to skip this step, period. No amount of money is worth being killed or maimed.

As the articles widely available in the press at the time explained, the crew could not assume that the plans they were given on the structure of the Kingdome were completely correct. Just because a designer specifies a certain grade of rebar or concrete doesn’t mean that the actual building contains exactly what is specified. Do contractors never pull substitutions because they had a stash of something similar to what was specified on hand? Never make a guess that some less critical areas might get by with concrete to which extra sand was added to save a bit of money? That’s why demolition experts do test blasts—to check their assumptions about material strength in various areas of the building to be demolished.

MIHOP requires far too many things that would have had to go exactly right concurrently. LIHOP explains how foreknowledge doesn’t necessarily require complete information about operational details. This is in fact what the interrogation of Zubaydah (before the torture) indicated.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908-480226,00.html

Without charging any skullduggery (Posner told TIME they "may in fact be coincidences", the author notes that these deaths occurred after CIA officials passed along Zubaydah's accusations to Riyadh and Islamabad. Washington, reports Posner, was shocked when Zubaydah claimed that “9/11 changed nothing” about the clandestine marriage of terrorism and Saudi and Pakistani interests, “because both Prince Ahmed and Mir knew that an attack was scheduled for American soil on that day.” They couldn't stop it or warn the U.S. in advance, Zubaydah said, because they didn't know what or where the attack would be. And they couldn't turn on bin Laden afterward because he could expose their prior knowledge. Both capitals swiftly assured Washington that “they had thoroughly investigated the claims and they were false and malicious.” The Bush Administration, writes Posner, decided that “creating an international incident and straining relations with those regional allies when they were critical to the war in Afghanistan and the buildup for possible war with Iraq, was out of the question.”


The fact that I don’t necessarily agree with everyone in the 9-11 truth movement certainly doesn’t mean that I agree with the official stance, which is to deride anyone who suspects that our government hasn’t told us the truth about what they know. To criticize “conspiracy theorists” is to blame the victim instead of taking on the perpetrators. There is a reason why people come up with conspiracy theories—they happen to be a normal and healthy response to the experience of being forbidden access to relevant information and being constantly lied to by the people who do.

The radical therapist Claude Steiner once said that paranoia is actually a heightened state of awareness, in which the paranoid put together narratives that make sense of the only information they have available. He gave an example of a woman he treated who believed that her husband was engaged in several elaborate plots on her life. What Steiner did was to interview the husband, who was disturbed by his wife's narrative. The husband was in fact thinking of having her permanently committed to the funny farm, but he always responded to his wife's questions about what was wrong between them by saying “Nothing, honey.”

That was the crux of the problem. The wife was in a heightened state of awareness and knew only that “Nothing, honey” was a pile of steaming bullshit. Not having access to real information about what was going on in her husband's head, she invented it. Steiner's ultimately successful therapy was simply to convince the husband to stop lying and withholding information. In this case, the husband did not exactly lead the examined life, and was unaware of the harm that social “white lies” can sometimes cause. Being genuinely concerned about his wife, he agreed to try to be more introspective and commit to being honest about his feelings. The wife agreed to acknowledge this effort, and to be more persistent about asking for information instead of automatically assuming the worst. Of course members of our imperial government have no such commitment to making it all better for the rest of us—see the classic Ingrid Berman/Charles Boyer movie Gaslight for a psychological take on their game.

The bottom line here is that it is a basic requirement of sanity to be able to make sense of one's information environment, to be able to put it into a coherent and meaningful picture, and if those people who know what is going on behind closed doors constantly lie to the public and withhold information, the inevitable result is that people will naturally want to fill in the blanks by any means possible. This process is analogous to the effects of sensory deprivation—float in one of those tanks long enough to deprive your brain of sensory input, and it will quickly start inventing some.

Current official explanations of 9-11 are like a picture puzzle with half the pieces missing. Many people have been taking magic markers and extrapolating from what is visible to fill in the missing spaces in an attempt to put together the entire picture. They are constantly ridiculed for this, and opinion makers who wish to be taken seriously always bog the discussion down in disputes about whether or not the colored-in parts really look like the original pieces. Some will be closer approximations than others, of course; a few may well be wildly off. But the really important issue (which remains for the most part unaddressed) is “What in bleeding hell gives our government the right to hide the pieces in the first place?”

Attacking people who are trying to make sense of their information environments with limited data is highly unethical, no matter how nutty their theories may sometimes sound. It's exactly like putting a rape victim on trial for her previous sexual history instead of going after the rapist. Theories may fall anywhere on a continuum from plausible to seriously off-base, just as women's prior sexual histories may vary from none to very experienced. By any objective analysis, some unofficial theories of what happened on 9/11 are prim virgins in high-collared white lace blouses, and some are prancing around in tight red spandex streetwalker outfits. But either way, it just plain should not matter—critics should focus on calling rapists, liars and secret-keepers to account rather than slandering their victims.

“Conspiracy theorists” are commonly dismissed as irrational or unscientific. It's true that scientific training helps people to cope with not having certain and final answers, and that only a minority of the population has such training. However, one important part of scientific training is learning to avoid speculating beyond the data, but this requirement of the scientific process depends critically on the assumption (which is almost always valid) that scientists will present all relevant data and methodology to their research community as accurately and as completely as they can. Since this condition is not currently met by our government (and most certainly not by the 9/11 Commission), it is outrageous to attack as “unscientific” people who express concern about a government that insists on keeping secrets from them, especially when those secrets threaten the foundation of our democracy. The attacks should be directed instead toward those who are keeping what should be publicly available information from them.

How long will the official arbiters of “reality” continue to defend the rapists, the liars, the secret-keepers who conceal information that in a real democracy ought to be made available to the public? If we could spend $40 million investigating a blow job, surely we could spend more than $15 million on finding out what really happened on the day of the worst attack on our soil. I hope that more people will join with those who are demanding honesty and transparency in the public sphere. The urge to be accepted as a real member of the elite class of reality creators, those who claim the right to lie and withhold information on the grounds that they alone are entitled to decide what the public should know, can be very tempting. Any person who gives in to this temptation badly fails our democratic republic. What is tyranny but a system in which rulers assert the right to know everything about their subjects while keeping their own operations strictly undercover?

33 replies, 4874 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9/11 "alternative" theories and "conspiracies" (Original post)
eridani Sep 2013 OP
OffWithTheirHeads Sep 2013 #1
In_The_Wind Sep 2013 #22
dreamnightwind Sep 2013 #2
Norrin Radd Sep 2013 #8
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #28
longship Sep 2013 #3
greytdemocrat Sep 2013 #12
Jerry442 Sep 2013 #4
Norrin Radd Sep 2013 #9
GreenEyedLefty Sep 2013 #5
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #6
Hayabusa Sep 2013 #30
RandiFan1290 Sep 2013 #7
KG Sep 2013 #10
hack89 Sep 2013 #14
7962 Sep 2013 #17
leveymg Sep 2013 #24
snappyturtle Sep 2013 #18
TBF Sep 2013 #21
leveymg Sep 2013 #11
Javaman Sep 2013 #13
MoonRiver Sep 2013 #15
PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #33
7962 Sep 2013 #16
sufrommich Sep 2013 #19
blackspade Sep 2013 #31
Iggo Sep 2013 #20
X_Digger Sep 2013 #32
freedom fighter jh Sep 2013 #23
blackspade Sep 2013 #25
Larry Ogg Sep 2013 #26
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #27
snooper2 Sep 2013 #29

Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:25 AM

1. And off you go!

 

I don't know what happened on 9/11 but I sure as fuck do NOT believe the version we have been fed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OffWithTheirHeads (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:33 AM

22. I was watching the morning shows on television when the first plane hit.

I don't believe what we've been told about everything.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:11 AM

2. MIHOP need not be controlled demolition

Why not MIHOP with actual jihadis flying actual planes into the WTC? There is a large tangled web, including money, between the U.S. gov and the Saudis who carried out the attack. The pentagon attack could have been a plane or a missile, either way still could have been MIHOP.

I never got why controlled demolition was the cornerstone of MIHOP.

We don't have better air defenses than that in the beltway? Really? Bandar smoking cigars with Bush in D.C. on 9/12? Odd, that. The odd goes on and on, you'd have to believe in some crazy coincidence theory to believe the official story, much like the Kennedy assassination.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:28 AM

8. Agree. It's all about the money trail.

I always thought people got all obsessed with discussing controlled demolition because they were hoping that if there were evidence that would be the one thing that would quickly remove Bush and Cheney from office.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:51 AM

28. +1

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:13 AM

3. Well, here we go again.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:54 AM

12. Damn the BFEE!!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:28 AM

4. I think MIHOP is not so implausible.

Imagine that in 2000 a faction of the Saudi Royal Family gets word that there's a splinter group of al Qaeda (Atta's group) that wants to do an attack within the United States. A Saudi intermediary utterly trusted by the Bush family (Bandar?) broaches the subject of a terrorist attack with the Bush inner circle as a way of opening the door to military action in the Mideast. The Bush inner circle decides to go with it without specific plans in place.

The Saudi faction, working through Saudi Intelligence, guides Atta's group by making resources and intelligence available to him and smoothing the way for him, often in ways that don't dirty their hands.

After the 2000 (s)election, things heat up. Bush still wants to go to war, but his legitimacy is in doubt. A bigger bang will be needed. The Bush inner circle plays the same game Saudi Intelligence has been doing. Because they know what Atta is doing, they can cause obstacles in his path to magically melt away without getting their hands dirty. Atta is getting intel from the Bush administration via the the Saudi intermediary-Saudi Intelligence conduit, so he can tapdance around any attempts by American law enforcement and intelligence to recognize what he's up to and stop him. Who knows whether Atta came up the idea with flying airliners into the towers and buildings in D.C. or whether it was suggested to him. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

In the end, the instruments got a lot blunter. Intel was presented to Bush and he brushed it off. Money from Bandar ended up going to the hijackers. In the days after 9/11, the Saudis lost their nerve and a bunch of them fled this country.

I don't think there was ever more than a tiny handful of people who had the full picture. Atta may have never known that he was indirectly working for Bush. I'm almost positive the people with him had no clue.

And as for the big question, why does the conspiracy stay hidden to this day? My answer is this: it didn't. If we had the same kind of evidence against a kid accused of killing someone while robbing a liquor store as we have against Bush, the kid would have gone straight to the chair.

I call it the Big Truth. It's the mirror of the Big Lie. It's the truth that's so awful to contemplate that no one wants to believe it, no matter how much evidence appears.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry442 (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:31 AM

9. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:34 AM

5. PNAC and its manifestos on the Middle East before 9/11

make me wonder. I am a rational person, but references to a "new Pearl Harbor" as rationale for invading Iraq has to give even the most skeptical person pause. Given this, I tend to lean toward LIHOP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:54 AM

6. They LIHOP, at least.

So, when we allow the Bush Baddies to slide for lying us into a war with Iraq and torture, that isn't all we are letting them slide for. You can start with the conspiracy to put him in the White House in 2,000, that, in and of itself a complete breech of US democracy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:54 AM

30. I'm in the LIHOP camp as well,

with every know and then a hint of MIHOP sneaking into my brain.

Now, who wants pancakes?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:58 AM

7. 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166.

Thursday November 15 01:21 PM EST

U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors

By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service

PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:48 AM

10. i don't find it credible that an operation of that sophistication (official version) was planned

and controlled from a cave in one of the most backward countries on the planet. the was no reason to invade afghanistan over 9-11


i don't find it credible that neophyte pilots turned planes around, navigated hundreds of miles and unerringly hit targets at high speed on the first pass.

not sure what the fuck happened but i dam sure don't believe the official story. i do believe it was riechstag stunt to allow the neo-cons to set in motion the invasions of afghanistan and iraq.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:58 AM

14. The 911 plotters were college educated men using modern technology.

They never operated out of a cave - they had large compounds. The cave meme is simply an attempt to minimize Al Qaeda by painting them as backwards brown men.

Navigating a plane is easy with GPS and autopilot. It does not take a lot of skill to point the nose of a plane at a large building and fly in a straight line.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:15 AM

17. THANK YOU hack!

 

A voice of reason emerges!! Prepare to be slammed!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:24 AM

24. Those are all good points. The sole exception was the Flt. 77 pilot who exercised skill

in the diving, turning high-G maneuver that was required to line up the plane with the south side of the Pentagon.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:16 AM

18. Absolutely. Over the years I have gone from accepting the

'they hate us for our freedom' explanation of why we were
hit on 9/11 to the realm of the nefarious which, at first, was
extremely difficult for me to accept.....but now, after all the
lies to get us into wars etc., I have become a lot more
receptive. Whatever happened, the official version of 9/11
does not make sense. OTOH, there's so much that does
make sense to advance objectives of not only to aid in
fulfilling PNAC but monetary interests.

IMHO, until there is a genuine, unbiased investigation
the event that has forever changed our lives, we will
be held hostage to the deceit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:21 AM

21. With you -

your key words being "to allow the neo-cons to set in motion the invasions of afghanistan and iraq".

The thing that was absolutely bizarre was that they had photos of the so-called terrorists and they were mostly Saudi. So many things about that day make absolutely no sense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:50 AM

11. All that can really be proven is Bush and Tenet Let It Happen (LIH). But, that was enough to indict

them for 3,000 plus counts of manslaughter and gross criminal negligence with wanton disregard for human life and non-capital perjury.

At least it was before they ran out the federal and state statutes of limitations for those offenses.

Criminal negligence is conduct that is gross, wanton and culpable demonstrating a reckless disregard for human life. Criminal negligence is judged under an objective standard and may be found to exist where the offender either knew or should have known the probable consequences of his acts.


That leaves one capital federal statute not involving purposeful pre-meditated murder for which there is no statute of limitations that might still be applied:

49 USC § 46502 - Aircraft piracy (Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.)

Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) In Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.—
(1) In this subsection—
(A) “aircraft piracy” means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.
(B) an attempt to commit aircraft piracy is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States although the aircraft is not in flight at the time of the attempt if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.
(2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to commit aircraft piracy—
(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or
(B) notwithstanding section 3559 (b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:58 AM

13. IBL. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:10 AM

15. LIHOP theorist here.

Although I don't doubt that evil cabal would not hesitate to MIHOP, I doubt they had the smarts to pull it off. Sitting back doing nothing was a lot safer and easier.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:00 AM

33. I started out MIHOP, moved over to LIHOP

 

Maybe the propaganda worked on me. We will never get answers. The further away it moves in the past, the less likely the truth will ever get out. Witnesses pass on, truth dies on the vine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:13 AM

16. Here we go again. Devolve DU into a bunch of half-ass theorists. Welcome to DU-Infowars!

 

Dont forget a missile hitting the Pentagon. Ignore all the people on the road seeing the plane pass over them. And we shot down the flight over PA too. Never mind the flightpath on record and the recordings (oh, i guess theyre fake too). ATC was "in on it" too.

There's ONE thing the govt (and the rest of us) are guilty of. We all heard Bin LAden et. al. threaten to do attacks like this for years. It was tried in the Clinton yrs. We're guilty of not thinking they'd actually go through with it. "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
How many times have we heard "we'll push Israel into the sea"? We scoff at them too.

No, it couldnt be Bin Laden or Al Queda. They'd be sure to claim responsibility for such a "victory" wouldnt they? Oh wait, they did. But that was fake too, like Obama getting Bin Laden killed a couple years ago. That was all a setup too. Bush and Obama got together to decide when to pull out the dead body. Dick Cheney is still in charge, right?

Bush and his govt were too inept to pull off an operation like this. Not to mention ALL INVOLVED keeping their mouths shut. That goes for ANY administration.

Jeeze.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:20 AM

19. So much this. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:57 AM

31. Perhaps you should have read the whole OP

It makes none of the assertions that you are attributing to it.
It is a rather reasoned explanation as to why conspiracy theories exist and in particular about 9/11.
The official story is nonsense just like many of the CTs that you deride.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:20 AM

20. Trash thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:57 AM

32. +1 -- and this post means I don't have to serve on any juries on this thread. ;) n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:39 AM

23. Speculating and Testing

One important part of scientific training is learning to avoid speculating beyond the data


Couldn't disagree more. Speculation is essential to forming new theories. The problem comes in when speculation is treated like fact or established theory. In the case of 9/11, we have an official theory that does not hold up. Folks will put the facts together in various ways to try to figure out what really happened. As you say, not every conspiracy theory is correct. But speculation is probably a step in finding the one that is true.

They know they need to do some empirical testing. Several weeks before the final implosion [in preparation for a controlled demotion at a different site], the demolition crew did an extensive series of test blasts. There is no such thing as a demolition crew that would agree to skip this step, period. No amount of money is worth being killed or maimed.


If the towers' collapse was brought on by demolition, it was not an ordinary demolition. In ordinary demolition, the reasons to test are (1) to make sure you're using enough explosive to do the job and (2) to make sure your procedure is safe. Start with #2: Safety testing is not necessary if you're already planning to collapse a tower that is full of people. The folks doing the demolition didn't have to be there (these things can be done remotely), so no testing was necessary to make sure they didn't get killed or maimed.

Back to #1: There's a way around testing to make sure you've got enough: Use more. Just use several times as much as you think you need.

Couldn't agree more with your overall point: Something is being hidden from us, probably by government. They have no right to do that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:45 AM

25. Nicely written!

This is the money quote for me:

“Conspiracy theorists” are commonly dismissed as irrational or unscientific. It's true that scientific training helps people to cope with not having certain and final answers, and that only a minority of the population has such training. However, one important part of scientific training is learning to avoid speculating beyond the data, but this requirement of the scientific process depends critically on the assumption (which is almost always valid) that scientists will present all relevant data and methodology to their research community as accurately and as completely as they can. Since this condition is not currently met by our government (and most certainly not by the 9/11 Commission), it is outrageous to attack as “unscientific” people who express concern about a government that insists on keeping secrets from them, especially when those secrets threaten the foundation of our democracy. The attacks should be directed instead toward those who are keeping what should be publicly available information from them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:47 AM

26. I distinctly remember watching the news on the night of 911...

And I distinctly remember the "conversations on the news" about demolishing building 7 prior to its collapse.

They even gave a thirty minute warning!

And when it came down there was no big surprise, because they knew it was coming down.

So the question I have is this... Why did they Chang the story? Could it be that they changed the story because, and I'm guessing now, someone high up in the history rewriting department was asked a not so stupid questions.

1. Why do demolition companies take months and months of meticulous planning and prepping prior to the actual demolition date.

And 2. Where could you find a demolition crew on such a short notice, that was stupid enough to carry tons of high explosives into a burning building, and then properly place and wire the explosives in just a few hours time, even though that kind of job takes months and months to compleat evin when their not working in a burning building.

In other words, if building 7 was demolished buy a demolition crew, the explosives had to have been put in place, and wired to explode prior to 911. So I'm guessing that not even the best of the best history rewright conartist could convince anyone, other then the take your breath away stupid crowd, that 911 was not an inside job.

Oh but what luck for the guilty rulers, that the story changed so quickly, for the truth so unimaginably painful, when changed soon enough.., eyes and ears will soon forget what was really seen and heard.

Besides, a history rewritten is far more palatable then a truth that exposes an evil that could not otherwise be imagined, so go back to sleep if you must, and believe whatever the leaders and rewrights tell you. But do remember this old saying... "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:50 AM

27. Hanlon's Razor

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:53 AM

29. and 12 years later and still no evidence..no leaks, just tools with a puter-

 

sitting at home..pounding away truthy to power!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink