# Official Story for 9/11...lies?



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2003)

Sorry, I posted this on another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.  Very controversial.

Now to stir the pot

Read any of these websites and tell me that you have no doubts about the official story. 

1. This one is so well researched that its leaves you breathless at the end. Its long.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

2. This is a true conspiracy theory. I think it is problematic and unbeleivable in its entirety, but it does raise some interesting questions which is why I would like to share it.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

3. This is an analysis of the events at the pentagon and it also raises of interesting questions.

http://physics911.org/net/modules/n...e.php?storyid=3

4. Did the President know anything before hand?

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

Is there anyone out there that does not believe the official story. I am not a proponant of any of the theories posted above, but I think that collectively, they take the official story and trash as much as what has been done in the analysis of the assassination of JFK. Each peice presented above is like the Dallas coroners report, the magic bullet, and the Zapruder film. Collectively they expose a lie. I want to know what actually happened. Does anyone else want to know?

What do you think now?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 6, 2003)

That the Pentagon plane crash is fishy I have no doubt. Though they have witnesses'; I'd say I saw a plane flying over head for a few hundred thousand dollars too.  The impact hole and lack of plane debris is plain enough that it was no large plane that hit the building.  It, unlike the WTC was made of concrete...akin to hitting a brick wall with your car at high speed... gonna do some damage but they're gonna find YOU and the car in bad shape. So would they find a large passenger jet loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. 

On the second tower crash I have doubts about it. WTC was made largely of steel and glass there was indeed a lot of fuel left on board (for cross country flight).  

This whole 9-11 conspiracy theory will go on and on and on like the Kennedy, Hoffa, Moon Landing and UFO consipiracies that we see crop up year after year. 

Main question is WHY is our government lying to us and for what purpose? Control? Domination? Changes in legsilation for further control of the general populace? 

I said it before (here on MT) and I'll say it again. I LOVE my country and I'll die for it... but I'm wary o' my government!


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 7, 2003)

I've been saying that the plane crashes were a diversion to drive emergency vehicles loaded with explosives into the parking garage again since day one. I still believe that. Why don't they own up to the truth. That the planes were highjacked is just as embarrasing so why the problem admitting they were faked out?
My concern is that because they are trying to cover up a major security lapse it may happen again if there is not public awareness. And why isn't bin ladens head on a stick somewhere?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2003)

If you want to see the information that many conspiracy theorists are using to support their "theories"  check out these sites.  It is plain to me that their is some connection between our current state of the world affairs, these plans, and 9/11.  The only thing that I can say for sure, with evidence to back it up, the official story is not true and the truth is being hidden.  

PEOPLE, LOOK AT THESE SITES!!!!!!!!!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2003)

Hey, did you know that we never REALLY landed on the moon?

Uh...guys? Too many spy movies. I'd also back off on the X-Files reruns.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *If you want to see the information that many conspiracy theorists are using to support their "theories"  check out these sites.  It is plain to me that their is some connection between our current state of the world affairs, these plans, and 9/11.  The only thing that I can say for sure, with evidence to back it up, the official story is not true and the truth is being hidden.
> 
> PEOPLE, LOOK AT THESE SITES!!!!!!!!!
> ...




The second link references the fact of the USA having a planned war against Saudi Arabia. This statment  alone makes me doubt the rest of the website. Why would the USA attack the KSA? (* Read Kingsom of Saudi Arabia *) Just because they are of the Islamic Belief? I think not. There government and ours are on good favors with each other. We sell them our best Technology and weapons for military and civilian uses.  The Caliph of Sa'ud or the King of Saudi and his family have been to the USA many times. They built and maintain the largest single desalinzation station in the world, free to their people. They also will release or hold back on Oil to maintian a controlled level of the price of oil in the general market.

I would like to know why we would attack the most influential country in the region that is our ally?

I see not tacticle or logical or even financial reason to do so.

Confused


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2003)

Rich,
  There has been a cooling of relations between USA & KSA.  I believe (may be mistaken) that we have mostly pulled out of SA militarilly recently as well.  Many Sauds feel very strongly against the US or a US military presence on Saudi soil.

Think about it.  There -is- a reason why a large number of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and why a fair amount of those now heading to Iraq are also Saudi.

Just because the people in power are our allies, doesn't mean the general population are.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Rich,
> There has been a cooling of relations between USA & KSA.  I believe (may be mistaken) that we have mostly pulled out of SA militarilly recently as well.  Many Sauds feel very strongly against the US or a US military presence on Saudi soil.
> 
> ...




Yes, I know the general people are not happy with the Heathen Dogs in war machines in their country. Just like many people here are not happy about USA citizens are in Iraq or Afghanastan.

Yet these do not define the financial nor the political reasons why the USA would atack the KSA. Many of the subjects of the KSA are not happy with the USA because we are attacking those of Islam faith. Once again people are drawing lines based completly upon religion and assuming allies and enemies from it. And yes the average person will do this. People who run countries do not have the luxury to do this. We may remove our troops to help support the KSA governmental decisions, and to avoid problems with the subjects of the KSA. Yet I do not think that the USA would attack or make war against them over these issues.

I have been wrong before though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2003)

Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz are the architects of PNAC.  The war with Iraq, according to this plan, was planned long before 9/11.  They are using the tragedy as a "convenient" excuse, that much is obvious.  The second website makes the Saudi Connection.  An established military presence in Iraq - not overseen by any foriegn government... Already steps are being taken in the directions of other countries named in the plan.  Could 9/11 be the Reichstag fire of the US?

Robert - you seem to have a skeptical opinion of ALL this.  Could you explain?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2003)

Yep, I'm cynical as all hell about this stuff.

Why? For exactly the same reasons that the stuff about subliminal ads is crap. The problem isn't what's hidden; it's what's right out in the open. 

See Marcuse on, "repressive desublimation." The Age of Secrecy is over; this is what Guy Debord called, "the society of the spectacle."

These grand conspiracy theories are ways for us to avoid simply considering economic reality and our own complicity. Further, they help increase that sense of, "Ah, screw it. What can ya do?" that's so common today.

And best of all, the conspiracies suggest solutions that would allow us to go on living in precisely the same greedy, irresponsible, unsustainable ways we presently are living. Uncover the conspiracy, throw these bastards out, put good guys in there, leave the system exactly the way it is, that's the ticket.

All these Big Secrets have been out pretty much in the open for anybody who cared to look for thirty years at least. Hell, my old man worked at Fort Detrick in the 60s--I knew damn well what they did by the time I was eleven. 

Not much of a conspiracy, I'd say.


----------



## Ender (Dec 7, 2003)

And Hillary was on the grassy knoll....*LOL...rme...

oh wait...Zapatas was a mexican bandit!!..B for bandit...B for BUSH!!!..it's all very clear now!!*LOL


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2003)

Just some stuff I dug up....some informational, some pro, some con, some well, 'specul'.  
=====

File 911: The Saudi Connection
http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id346.htm

Saudi Arabia, the GOLIATH
http://www.geocities.com/arabracismplusjihad/SaudiArabia

CIA - The World Factbook -- Saudi Arabia
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html

Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/07/2002 | Saudi Arabia is an enemy, US ... 
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/08/07/news/front/3815081.htm?template=

IranExpert:US urged to place Saudi Arabia on enemy list
http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/emergingenemyhouseofsaud12august.htm

Saudi Arabia: Friend, Foe, or Neither?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-13-02.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *And Hillary was on the grassy knoll....*LOL...rme...
> 
> oh wait...Zapatas was a mexican bandit!!..B for bandit...B for BUSH!!!..it's all very clear now!!*LOL *



No, actually, the 3 individuals on the knoll were all male.  Now, unless Shrillery has a sex change.....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 7, 2003)

Thanks Bob, A different Read.


This is from the third link.



> "The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," said the administration official, who is hawkish on Iraq. "Once you have a democratic regime in Iraq, like the ones we helped establish in Germany and Japan after World War II, there are a lot of possibilities."



To accomplish the Democracy as we did in Japan and in Germany we will have to have occupy the area and country for years and years. The problem is the population does not want to occupied, nor do they believe that USA should be there.

The long occupation will cost lives, are we the US population willing to pay this price over time?

From the Art of War:
Once a war drags on the troops become tired and morale suffers when it comes time to attack their strength is quickly exhausted

A protracted war will also delete the funds of the state.




> In Jidda, the Saudi minister of foreign affairs, Prince Saud al-Faisal, denounced the briefing as "pure fiction."
> 
> "It is unfortunate that there are people in some quarters who are trying to cast doubt and undermine the solid and historic ties between our two countries. I am confident that they will not succeed."


Not unepxected that the Government was denying any problems.



From the forth link:


> Both the official and neocon positions are simplistic and flawed. The Saudi government looked the other way for too long while organizations in Saudi Arabia funded and supported al Qaeda. In addition, the Saudi government openly supported the Taliban regime, which harbored al Qaeda, and fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan that churned out terrorists. The Bush administration, in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the oil market works, is making a mistake to look the other way on such questionable Saudi activities and to coddle the regime to secure Saudi oil.


I would like to see proof of the Saudi Government involvement with al Qaeda. I know that many of the people involved are from KSA and also are religous extremists, yet many are also denouced by their governement and their families.

It would be like saying that since a US Christian killed a person another country, that all US Christians are terrorists and willing to kill anyone at teh drop of a hat.

Yes, KSA is not as forward with womens' rights and other areas that the USA holds dear. Yet if we expect others to respect our culture and our beliefs would it not be good for us to also respect other people's beliefs and culture. For a country like teh USA to claim it has Freedom and rigths of the people, and we fought the Commie Hoard to Backruptcy, we still want every other country to just be like the USA. I find this to a be little hypocratic.

Just my opinion. Yet the great thing about this board, and the USA we have the right to epxress our opinions. I am always hoping for people to exress theirs. I learn the most from those that have a different opinion from mine.

With respect
:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 8, 2003)

> That the Pentagon plane crash is fishy I have no doubt. Though they have witnesses'; I'd say I saw a plane flying over head for a few hundred thousand dollars too. The impact hole and lack of plane debris is plain enough that it was no large plane that hit the building.



Lack of debris?  Who says?

If you want to believe, that, go for it.  Then account for the victims on the flight.  Maybe they flew the plane to another location and crashed it into the ocean?  Or maybe they made up the victims...

The smell of jet fuel...did they secretly bring tons of it and secret it in those offices they were renovating?  Maybe they drove it up in a truck and nobody noticed it.  Then they had "special investigators" secretly abscond with the pieces of the truck.

 

I think its bad enough that Arabs are creating Zionist conspiracy theories to cover this whole thing...we don't need to feed those conspiracies because our need for peudointellecutal explanations for the meaning of our world.

Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2003)

As I've said before, most of the theories make assumptions that far outstrip the questions their evidence supports.  The only thing that I could say for sure, is that we do NOT know what really happened and an effort is being made to make sure that we WON'T know.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 8, 2003)

We don't know what happened? Along what lines?

And what is so convincing that they ARE covering something up?

Must be the wrong president in office.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2003)

> 2. This is a true conspiracy theory. I think it is problematic and unbeleivable in its entirety, but it does raise some interesting questions which is why I would like to share it.
> 
> http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html



I just read through a bunch of the stuff here.... definately interesting...definately far fetched, yet possible.

The question is, how possible?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2003)

Its not the theories, forget them.  Look at the facts they present.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MACaver _
> *That the Pentagon plane crash is fishy I have no doubt. Though they have witnesses'; I'd say I saw a plane flying over head for a few hundred thousand dollars too.  The impact hole and lack of plane debris is plain enough that it was no large plane that hit the building.  It, unlike the WTC was made of concrete...akin to hitting a brick wall with your car at high speed... gonna do some damage but they're gonna find YOU and the car in bad shape. So would they find a large passenger jet loaded with fuel for a cross country flight.
> ]*


* 

There were people there. The Eskrima Digest has some members who were in the building at the time of the crash. They must have faked the plane parts along the building in some of the web shots and live feed TV shots. Yet, much of it was destroyed. The Flames were very hot, see below for more details.




Originally posted by MACaver 
On the second tower crash I have doubts about it. WTC was made largely of steel and glass there was indeed a lot of fuel left on board (for cross country flight).  
]

Click to expand...

 

You have doubts about the second tower? It was the fuel that burned very hot and caused a stress in the metal, the metal was not designed to take thsoe temperatures. The metal fatigued and failed due to the extreme heat. Did you see the second plane crash video? 




Originally posted by MACaver 
This whole 9-11 conspiracy theory will go on and on and on like the Kennedy, Hoffa, Moon Landing and UFO consipiracies that we see crop up year after year. 
]

Click to expand...

 

Kennedy - is a separate issue. Yet it is a conspiricy issue. Kennedy pissed off a lot of people and they wanted him gone.

Hoffa - Also pissed off alot of people and they wanted him gone.

Moon Landing - Yep this was a fake.  All the modern Technology first designed for space that could nto be used, that was released to the general public. Such as plastics designed for use inside the human body. Heart Valve Technology. Micro Chips, all 4 Bit processors. Short range communication devices that later became cordless phone and then wireless, and cell phone. The space race and the moon landing was just another cover up to take people off the true cover up of Kennedy.

Did you know that GM and Ford, both had Carburetors that got 50 to 75 MPG back in the seventies, yet it was the Government that prohibited them from releasing them. Pure Greed shows this as a falsehood, any company with this technology would and will jump all over it.






Originally posted by MACaver 
Main question is WHY is our government lying to us and for what purpose? Control? Domination? Changes in legsilation for further control of the general populace? 
]

Click to expand...

 




Originally posted by MACaver 
I said it before (here on MT) and I'll say it again. I LOVE my country and I'll die for it... but I'm wary o' my government! 

Click to expand...


I respect this statment. This is a very healthy way to approach life and Politics and Government.

:asian:*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

Really. Facts, eh? Rational consideration of historical events, eh? Really.

Here's a little number I picked up from some snothead (and believe me, "Snothead," is the nicest thing I'm thinking) named Cassidy, on the "Serendipidity," site whose link was just posted. Look on their home page, under the heading, "Zionism."

"The world is under siege by a European hierarchy of banking families, at the top largely Jewish, the money changers and money lenders of history. They are already the richest people on earth but it is not enough. They have a Faustian Grand Plan. They mean to own or control everything of value on earth. Their weapons: MONEY and DEBT  and Washington."

Just sort through the stuff on Zionism. Looks sorta reasonable, untill you sift through to this crap.

Here is a little something from another of Mr. Cassidys little missives, off-site:

for the rest of the century Zionism "steered" America...particularly Washington. A continuing series of Jewish bankers and financiers have "had the ear" of all American presidents since World War I. In the early 1930s, Zionism demanded "regime change" in Germany; Hitler had to go. He stood in the way of Zionist exploitation of Germany, its property, its economy, its finances, etc. (insert Rothschild) just like the Federal Reserve System installed in America exploits the American people who unknowingly pledged all of their property and wealth, public and private, to the Federal Reserve which is owned by European Jewish banking families (insert Rothschild). 

Today, in America, a tiny fraction of the populace, Zionists, own or control between one third and one half of the nation's total private wealth while millions of Americans are laid off and fifty million live in poverty. They dominate the finances of the nation. Remember Rothschild's motto, "Let me control the money of a country and I care not who is in power." 

How did Zionism do it? 

First, a national animosity for Germany had to be generated in America over decades by boycotts and propaganda (and corresponding sympathy for Zionism). Done! (The super-merchandisers super-promoted the slaughter of their own people into a Holocaust, ignoring the millions of murdered Gentiles as inconsequential.)

--Donald Cassidy


But I expected to find it, once I got on the site. The code's right there up front, as in Pat Buchanan's speeches...secret cabal...bankers...international banks...conspiracy...hidden elite...that's what these types always go back to.

Gee, why am I dubious about these wacked-out conspiracy theories? Read 'em, fer crissake.

Guys....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 8, 2003)

What "facts"?

A fact is something that we can hold a reasonable degree of confidence in.  It is knowledge or information based on real occurences.  It is something known to exist or known to have existed.

Which facts do you refer to?  And if they are indeed "facts", which facts does the article exclude if any?

The article mentions that the towers collapsed from the top, and that they fell as if explosives had been put in them.  (They didn't.  One fell to the side slightly...and you can clearly see it fall to the side on films.)  The article asserts they fell due to demolition.  Hogwash!  The Towers survived the intitial strikes of the planes, as they were designed to do.  They didn't survive the heat...which placed unforgivable stress on the metal interior of the buildings.  And no...the fire wasn't "out" as one of the posts said.  The rubble itself continued to burn for weeks.  The article itself suggests this.

As for the fire NOT being able to burn hot enough to melt the steel...you'd think that all of the engineers at Purdue, Georgia Tech, and MIT would have just JUMPED on that little tidbit.  Truth is, it didn't need to "melt" anything.  It merely needed to compromise the integrity of the steel.  Steel softens when you heat it...long before it melts.

Check this:  http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

How could anybody rig that place with the explosives necessary without ONE security guard or employee noticing in the days leading up to the attack?  Even with proper placement it would take hundreds of pounds of explosives....wiring...and all that good stuff would have to survive the fire from the airplane strikes.

This is all so silly...some people are so desperate to believe they've been lied to that they'll jump on anything to make it seem true.

Everybody repeat after me:  THERE IS NO ILLUMINATI.  Look at the home page for that site...its just another whacked out anti-semitic conspiracy page.  Look at their analysis of the OKC bombing...they even have a "picture" of the Ryder truck stored on an Army base.   <groan!>




Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2003)

1.  Did anyone read this or did you just move on to the crazy stuff?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

As I said before, this is so well researched its scary.

2.  Did anyone look at this?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Can you honestly tell me that this plan is not being implemented at this time?  Very convenient - this 9/11 stuff!

Some Questions

Who can explain the pictures of the pentagon?  Where is the wreckage?  Where did it scrape the grass on the lawn when it bounced?  Where did the video tapes of the plane go from the gas station survailance cameras it flew over?  Don't you think the media would have loved to smack that over our screens and scare us even more?

Who can explain why fighters weren't scrambled when the military knew the planes were hijacked and that people were crashing them into buildings?  

How did all of these people our intelligence agencies KNEW were terrorists get into the country with a plan that we KNEW they were thinking about and enroll in flight school under the survailence of said intelligence agencies?

Can there be any doubt that we should doubt the official story?  I'm not saying that we need to buy the conspiracy theories, in fact, I would say that it is perfect obfuscation.  Look at your responses to viable questions they bring!  You attach those questions to the wacky theories and forget about them.  Very convenient...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *1.  Did anyone read this or did you just move on to the crazy stuff?
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html
> ...



I have read them.

Have you read any other sources? Or at least my posts and opinions here?


Those articles use words that are leading and guiding, to the point that many a psychologist would look at see it for the hype and propaganda it is. There MAY be truth barried in there, yet there is so much half content and out of context quotes that I could make any thing sound creditable.

Question, Yes I agree.

Make just as crazy claims yourself, or support claims of others? Then I question you yourself with your questioning 


:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

For some reason, when I get on a website that gives the same weight to crackpot Nazis that it gives to everything else on the site, I tend to assume that everything on the site is nuts. Even when there's aren't articles arguing that the CIA/Mafia/Mossad alliance killed JFK, or the Trade Center was brought down by remote-controlled jetliners, in addition to the crackpot Nazis.

How in the hell can anybody take seriously authors who publish this kind of madness?

I'm still waiting to read a conspiracy-theorist response to the quotes about "the Jews," being responsible for all the world's ills. Beyond the sheer grotesqueness, absurdity and horror of such a claims, the author I cited from the Serendipidity website seems perfectly in harmony with the argument that the US staged all the bombings in order to justify invading Arab and Muslim countries...

I mean, this doesn't bother anybody but me? Really?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 9, 2003)

> As I said before, this is so well researched its scary.



No, it is not well researched.  It is crafted with premises that do not support cogent conclusions.  It is laced with disingenuous obsfucations, distractions, and little fictions that are hidden inside a larger framework.  It contains outright lies.

*FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENTAGON IMPACT:*

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

You will find there counters to the arguments regarding the "lack of debris", eyewitness accounts, and the like.  There are links to an analysis of the event, and pictures of debris from the flight.  Many urban myth sites take on this topic.

------

Check out this little piece of padding from the article you provided that is absolutely irrelevant to any issue regarding 9-11:



> In addition to AMI, MacDill Air Force base, and the Irishes, the state of Florida is host to a number of other eyewitnesses whose background - and testimonies - deserve far greater scrutiny than they have heretofore earned.  For instance, witness Bert Rodriguez had specifically trained hijacker Ziad Jarrah in martial arts and close quarter fighting with knives.  Perhaps Jarrah had a premonition that, on his designated flight - United Flight 93 - he would be facing off with a small coterie of rebellious passengers, in particular, martial arts champ Jeremy Glick.



_Premonition?_  Get real.  He had a premonition that he was going to face Jeremy Glick? So he takes a whopping EIGHT WEEKS of training?  I remember reading about this and the press making a big deal out of him being "highly trained".  I thought...eight weeks.  Wow.  He must have been a master after that intensive training.  He shelled out a thousand of Osama's bucks and trained in _countering[I/] knife and gun attacks...using rubber knives.  He hardly trained for taking on Glick, now, did he?  Or should we suspect he had a premontion that Glick would have a knife?  

And what does this have to do with ANYTHING in any case?

Reference:  
http://martialarts.jameshom.com/library/weekly/aa092401.htm

More irrelevant padding:




			Florida is also blessed with a profusion of flight schools.  Yet of this rich aeronautical menu from which to choose, most of the September 11 hijackers were drawn to two flight schools practically next door to one another, both owned by Dutch nationals who purchased their respective schools within months of one another in 1998.  The two owners, Rudi Dekkers and Arne Kruithof, also shared - according to independent journalist Daniel Hopsicker - a particularly troublesome post-9/11 fate, plagued by legal troubles and a pair of matching aviation accidents that nearly took both Dekkers and Kruithof out of the picture.
		
Click to expand...


We are left with nothing after that.  There is an implied conclusion that the aviation instructors' post 9-11 ills were somehow engineered by someone, somewhere...as if this is supposed to mean something.  We are also led to believe something is fishy by the fact that the schools were next to each other.  An unwritten question is posed "why not other flight schools?"

What's the point?  No point is made.  Unanswered and unarticulated questions are posed to raise suspicion in the reader's minds...needless and irrelevant unanswered questions, and irrational suspicions.




			Who can explain why fighters weren't scrambled when the military knew the planes were hijacked and that people were crashing them into buildings?
		
Click to expand...


They weren't?  Even some of the conspiracy theories state that two fighters shot down the one flight over Pennsylvania, and that there was a cover up of that alleged event.  

Okay...let's assume they were in fact NOT scrambled.  Please let me know what precedent would have led an Air Force commander to believe that this was a viable option?  How LONG would it take the information to go from flight victim's cell phones-to families-to incredulous police-to the disbelieving FAA-to the-never encountered this contingincey before- Air Force-and finally to a possibly reluctant Tactical Air Command?  When I heard the news I had a hard time believing it.   It was simply incomprehensable and horrific.  Think back to Pearl Harbor and all the glitches there...people were thinking that they were safe in Hawaii.  Surely the Japanese wouldn't attack the pride of the U.S. Fleet!  Inconceivable.  Surprise!!!  On both dates we were caught with our pants down.  Simply that, and nothing more.




			How did all of these people our intelligence agencies KNEW were terrorists get into the country with a plan that we KNEW they were thinking about and enroll in flight school under the survailence of said intelligence agencies?
		
Click to expand...


Were it established to my satisfaction that the higher ups in the intell community knew this stuff, I'd be quick to suggest INCOMPETENCY rather than CONSPIRACY.  

Were it a conspiracy, do you really think that people who could pull of such an outrageous event with such incredible complexity (as is suggested in the article) would *then let it all leak out?* 





Steve_


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

Yeah, it never fails to amaze me. On one hand, these guys are such geniuses that NOONE BUT AN ENLIGHTENED FEW EVER SUSPECT THE TRUTH, and on the other, they continually screw up.

Here's an ugly little joke I recently read: 

"How do you know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK assassination?"

"He's dead, isn't he?"

But my favorite fantasy is the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were some sort of criminal masterminds, and/or ninjas. They were a bunch of mean little creeps with a little knowledge and a fair amount of willingness.

Personally, I think the reason people jack up these bizarre theories lies in the fact that they don't want to face reality. It's hard to accept the fact that we live in an extraordinarily-complex, technologically-sophisticated but oddly delicate world--and in such a world, the fact is, anybody who's willing and has three brain cells to rub together can do a considerable amount of damage.

I also think that this particular set of conspiracy fantasies has some quite ugly roots in anti-Semitism and what Edward Said identified as Orientalism. You know--at home, it's the Insidious Trilateral Commission and the International Monetary Fund, and abroad it's whatever version of the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu we believe in at the moment.

On the other hand, at least it's entertaining. In the same vein as the last poster, I truly enjoyed the website explanations that argued that because the Us Air Force had been working on pilotless drones, the planes that flew into the Trade Center must have been remote controlled. Among their backup evidence was the repeated mention that this plane or that plane WAS ONLY 27% FILLED!!!

Fact is, the people from the future did it. See the movie, "Millenium."


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 9, 2003)

Punch in "conspiracy debunking" on Google and you'll come up with some interesting web sites.  

One explains conspiracy theories as being nothing more than simple scapegoating...and this makes sense, given the constant return to anti-Semitism.


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2003)

I think that is a good rule of thumb to be skeptical and sometimes you need to extend that rule to the skeptics themselves.  I'm not jumping to any conclusions and I don't really believe in any "theory" posted above.  I think the suppositions they make far outstrip the doubt they have shown.  Ask yourselves, could your reluctance to doubt the official story be borne of your wish to BELIEVE it?  Can you acknowledge that bias?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 9, 2003)

Even the one that was supposedly well researched is nonsense. It is filled with names, places, and 'evidence' that doesn't support the conclusions, clouded with distractive language. It's difficult to decifer what the conjecture or point even is.

I think that these theories, sites, and "facts" are silly. It's like the writers know that something is wrong with the forest, so to figure it out they bark up the wrong set of trees.

Something is wrong with our foriegn policy, the Bush administration, 9-11, and our wars. However, the facts are right in front of our faces. There is no conspiricy...it is just that the way we handle certian aspects of trade and foriegn policy lands us into perdicaments. We change our policy, we'll have less problems. The problems with our Foriegn Policy go back 30 or more years...there are structural problems that need to change if we expect to improve, and "win" this so-called mess of a "war on terror". What is also worth saying, because I know that there are a lot of Bush haters (and avid supporters) on this site, that the problems that we have been having with our foriegn policy is not all the Bush administrations fault; they have been set in motion over time and over many presidancies. The Bush administration is not fault-less, however, by any stretch of the means.

Well...to tell you the truth....I have been following politics for awhile, especially the Bush administration, election 2000, 9-11, and the "war on terror". I have been gathering info and keeing it for my own use. With an election coming up in 04', I think it is time now to put all my information together and present it to SOMEONE, even if it never leaves MartialTalk. So...I'll take a few days to write something up, and I'll post it as a new thread. 

Some of what I'll present you'll already know, and some of what you'll read you'll be suprised to find out. One thing that is true, is that the none of it will be an off the wall conspiricy theory. It will be the facts that we do have, and the conjectures that we can make based off these facts.

It'll take me a few days to write it up, so please be patient.

One thing is for sure though....these conspiricy theory's that have been presented are all barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

Skeptical about my skepticism? What's next--skeptical about my skepticism with regard to skepticism?

Sure, all observers are biased. But they're not all nuts--and frankly, if push really came to shove, I will sure as hell buy what, say, Colin Powell thinks WAY before I will buy the conspiracy theories of the sorts of nutbars who appeared in the references cited.

Can I be skeptical about skepticism. Sure; have been for years. Can you perhaps acknowledge that there might be a few things about a website with obvious anti-Semites and Trilateral Comimssion: Root of All Evil wackos on it that should send up a red flag, a red flare, a red firework and a big ol' red light?

I mean, MAYBE Bush et al are lying about 9/11...though in the particular case, I'm pretty sure it's one of the few things the man's telling the truth about. But I can say unequivocally that the stuff the wackos on, "Serendipidity," are claiming is absolute undiluted hogwash. 

Remotely possibly untrue...obviously and clearly untrue. Hm. Since all knowledge is a bet anyway, I think I know which horse I'm backing in this particular race.

Again, the truth is not all that far out there. In fact, it's right up against our noses. We just don't wanna look.


----------



## someguy (Dec 9, 2003)

For all i know there could really be no 9/11.  I have never seen the world trade towers in real life.  For that matter I have never seen China.  Maybe thats a lie.  same with england.  Oh I know I havent seen the past maybe it doesnt exist.  yeah I think I must be one of the first generations of humans living on the only place on the Earth.  there is no Canada for that matter.  there is only the area from Fl to Mi and nothing east of the mississippi.  

Now ehy did I say that.  Cuz I am crazy.  Not really I did so to prove the point that not every thing must be proven to be 100% true.  For those who want to see a conspiracy by the goverment you  can make it up.  You have  no proof its really real unles you were there right.  So maybe nothings real.  Its all a conspiracy.  errs something


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2003)

Why do people put out their particular conspiracy theories?  Because doubt of the official story exists.  

Do theories make conclusions that are far out and absolutely wacky?  Yes.  

Does that make the doubt any less?  No.

Why is there doubt?  Because some questions have not been answered and because people are looking at the evidence and realizing that part of the official story do not make sense.  

There are inconsistancies that these theories have in common that will not go away because they have not and will not be addressed.  I posted some of these theories because I think its important to see the points they have in common.  The theories and blind conclusions DO NOT MATTER.  They go too far.  

Some questions...Answer them if you can - provide evidence please.

1.  Where were the fighters?  They knew what was happening over an hour in advance.  Even when the first plane hit, nothing happened.  When the second plane hit, othing happened.  FORTY FIVE MINTUES LATER, the third "plane" hit the pentagon.  NO FIGHTERS.  NOTHING HAPPENED.  WHY?

2.  Why were SUSEPECTED terrorists allowed to enter the country with ties to a group who had KNOWN plans to use planes as weapons, and then ALLOWED to enter a flight school?  Are our intelligence agencies that incompetent or (begging the question) are they accomplices?

3.  Where is conclusive proof that a plane hit the pentagon?  (eye witness accounts and the little wreckage seen in photos are all suspect - in that it could have been something else)  A good example of conclusive proof would be the 5 gas station survailence cameras under the direct flight path of flight 77.  These were confiscated by the FBI.  Why?  

We have videos of the other planes hitting their targets.  No body in their right minds says that planes didn't hit the world trade center.  Why not put the doubt to rest and release the video.  

In 1998 PNAC was put together to lay out the foriegn policy that we are seeing today.  PNAC was shelved until after 9/11.  EVERYTHING that has been done in our foriegn policy since 9/11 has been a part of the PNAC.  Is the Bush administration using 9/11 to further this radical agenda?

Or, as the "wackos" put it, did it cause 9/11 to push a plan for American Neo-colonialism.  (I will not allow myself to believe that because I know that I have a strong bias against our president - and personally think the former has overwhelming circumstantial evidence and some physical evidence)

They are just questions - not answers.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

And it doesn't bother you in the least that on the very websites you've cited, there are repeated statements that are clearly anti-Semitic? Or that precisely these sorts of conspiracy theories pop up all the time among the same guys who rant about ZOG and the United Nations menace?

What are these, LaRouche sites? They have his same quality of apparently plausibility on first glance, with some real ugliness just barely beneath the skin...

Never keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.

I mean, another of the websites you refer to has articles on:

a) the takeover of neoconservative thinking by the, "obscure German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss"

b) Princess Di's prediction of her own assassination

c) the theory that the car-bombings in Turkey were carried out by the US to push Turkey into supporting us in the Gulf

d) Henry Kissinger's complicity in the upcoming plot to establish the New World Order and abolish civil rights by claiming, falsely, that we are being attacked by space aliens.

e) the evils of Freemasonry

Um...anybody detect a pattern here? I also don't know that ping-pong balls aren't Martian larvae, but I can't say I stay up late considering the possibility.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 9, 2003)

> the evils of Freemasonry



That one might not be that far fetched...:rofl:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 9, 2003)

> Where were the fighters? They knew what was happening over an hour in advance. Even when the first plane hit, nothing happened. When the second plane hit, othing happened. FORTY FIVE MINTUES LATER, the third "plane" hit the pentagon. NO FIGHTERS. NOTHING HAPPENED. WHY?



I answered this in my previous post.  You obviously ignored it.



> Why were SUSEPECTED terrorists allowed to enter the country with ties to a group who had KNOWN plans to use planes as weapons, and then ALLOWED to enter a flight school? Are our intelligence agencies that incompetent or (begging the question) are they accomplices?



I answered this in my previous post.  You obviously ignored it.



> Where is conclusive proof that a plane hit the pentagon? (eye witness accounts and the little wreckage seen in photos are all suspect - in that it could have been something else) A good example of conclusive proof would be the 5 gas station survailence cameras under the direct flight path of flight 77. These were confiscated by the FBI. Why?



I answered this in my previous post.  You obviously ignored it.

I even gave you a site to peruse...citing the evidence you ask for, but clearly choose to ignore.  Its pretty clear here you've made up your mind, and are going to ignore the facts.

But here it is again:


http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

*HERE ARE JUST SOME OF YOUR WITNESSES:*

USA Today.com Editor Joel Sucherman (suspect as a witness?)
Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today (suspect as a witness?)
Fred Gaskins, a national editor at USA Today (suspect as a witness?)
Allan Clevelend. Interviewed by the Washington Post.
Mike Walter 
Aydan Kizildrgli
Omar Campo
Afework Hagos
Tim Timmerman (a pilot who described the plane as adding power before impact...and the wings folding in.  Now we know what happened to the wings.)
Steve Eiden, a truck driver
Elaine McCusker
Father Stephen McGraw
Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia
John O'Keefe 
Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program

Okay, now...tell me how you would present this to the families of 63 people who died on flight 77?  Did they just disappear? 


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2003)

Steve

You haven't answered the questions.  You've just made more suppositions without any conclusivity.  I looked at your sites and each of them has very plausible explanations for the questions raised in the sites I posted, yet, I have to ask, what would put the debate to rest?  The sites you posted did a good job of explaining why they CAN'T get THAT data.  Surely that information has to be out there and I have not seen it.  Steve, ask yourself, what evidence would totally and without a doubt blast these questions out of the water?  If it existed, it would be put forth.  I respectfully choose to remain skeptical.  


Robert

You have done a good job tying my opinions to outrageous ideas.  Its a common logical fallacy called ad absurdum.  Look at what I've been saying, you're not discrediting what I'm saying because you are not addressing it.  Hardhead has addressed my questions, what do you think?

As far as the victims, I sincerely hope that no body takes my questioning as disrespectful to the victims's families.  I realize people died and are still in pain from this experience.  If I truly have offended anyone with my posts of these stupid theories, I apologize.  It is not my intent to paint over their pain with other people's stupid opinions.  

I do not think you can ignore the questions, though.

Also, did anyone compare what has happened since 9/11 and what is written in and about PNAC?  Does anyone else find the correllations suspicious?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 9, 2003)

_Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths._ 

--Bertrand Russel




> The sites you posted did a good job of explaining why they CAN'T get THAT data.



THEY being the creators of the web site you listed, I assume.  The reason they couldn't get the data is simple...it would have ruined their conspiracy theory.

Why ask questions that don't need to be asked?  

They recovered all of the remains of the victims of flight 77 from the Pentagon wreckage.  They recovered both black boxes.  There is testimony of debris being seen by witnesses, and published pictures of debris.  They have witness testimony from many people...some I listed.  Three worked for a reputable national newspaper.  These are not, as you state, "suppositions without any conclusivity".

Look at your questions concerning the Pentagon.  THEY'VE BEEN ANSWERED OR DISMISSED AS INVALID.  The witness testimony is NOT suspect.  There are dead people who boarded a plane that morning, and whose remains were recovered at the Pentagon.  The pictures of the wreckage site are not supsect.  There are pictures of debris.  The week of 9-11 I saw an aerial photo that clearly showed the swath of the impact point as the plane piled into the dirt in front of the building.  I haven't even bothered looking for that one, though.  What's the point?

What more do you need?  The plane was seen flying into the building.  The wreckage and the bodies were removed from the building.  As far as the FBI taking the video surveillance cameras..._if they in fact did_ ...it raises no questions, nor does it answer any.  It is not unreasonable to assume they did it as part of an investigation of a crime they are tasked with investigating.  An assumption here is far more reasonable than buying into an idea that there was a truck bomb...which this theory proposes.

You're essentially stating that without video, you aren't buying it.  

As far as jets not shooting down the planes, why even ask?  Did they in fact have the "warning" you describe?  Who says?  The flakes at this web site?   It seems pretty clear to me that there was no precedent for such an activity...and I'm not sure they knew which planes were actually hijacked.



> Ask yourselves, could your reluctance to doubt the official story be borne of your wish to BELIEVE it?



No, upnorthkyosa..._I have no reason to believe otherwise_.  The questions posed on that site aren't at all intriguing.  They're simply stupid.

*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.*  Give me the extraordinary evidence that clearly refutes the undeniable evidence of a plane hitting that building.  Give me hard, solid evidence that a truck bomb blew up the Pentagon.  Explain how the bodies of flight 77 got in the building.  Explain how the hundreds of witnesses in a traffic jam next the Pentagon that day imagined they saw a plane.  Show me clear evidence some of them were bought off by the government to make up a story.

And no, the onus of proof isn't on the government, or any of us disagreeing with you, to prove that a plane actually flew into the Pentagon.  There is no other plausible explanation.


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2003)

I am very moved by your argument, hardhead.  In fact, I would say that your reasoning is quite solid.  Consider this - how many witnesses say they saw something different?  How many witnesses say they saw a truck or a small plane, or even a cruise missile?  Has anyone ever bothered to count that?  Too many times negative data is ignored in favor of the positive - this is special pleading.  A great example of this is the specific decision by the FBI to choose witnesses who heard three shots, anyone else who heard anything else was ignored.  Also, consider all of the people who claim to have seen aliens or have been abducted by aliens.  There are a lot of fine and upstanding citizens who have made such claims.  Yet, are they to believed because they are many?  Here is an example of an interaction...

Confused bystander 1 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
Confused bystander 1 "No"
Official interviewer - "thank you for your help."

Confused bystander 2 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
Confused bystander 2 - "uh maybe.. it was really fast."
Official interviewer - "what did the plane look like?"
Confused bystander 2 - "it had wings, uhh blue markings with a red stripe?"
Official interviewer - "Was it large..."

See where this is going?  This is a common tactic used by people who are looking for specific information.  

You also made the claim that since three journalists from national newspapers had similar reports this gives them credibility.  Where did they get their information?  From the "Officials"  Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck?  How could they have known this?  Can you trust these sources when they make claims like this?  Only one thing can be said for sure, they certainly play their hands and show their marionette strings.

As far as the bodies of the victims go, I don't know what to say?  Who counted the bodies?  Was it average joe EMT rescue worker or was it military official?  I seem to remember reading somewhere that strictly military officials were allowed to perform the rescue operations and clean up.  I will see if I can find a source for that.  

I am still skeptical of this story, not as skeptical as before, I still don't think that doubt has totally been erased.  Your quote was great, but I am not asking to count teeth.  Where are the videos?  Don't you think the government owes it to us to convince us BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

As far as the other questions...I am not the only one asking these questions.  Members of Congress are looking into those matters.  In fact, Al Gore just said on CNN that the Bush administration has blatently used 9/11 for its own pursuit of radical foriegn policy.  These other questions have few answers and even more doubt.  

Can you deny this?  Perhaps the Official story becomes more and more extraordinary.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

Oh, for crying out loud. Reductio ad absurdum, my left....

Ahem. Here's an even older logical principle, usually attributed to Socrates: "Birds of a feather flock together."

Here's another one: "Do not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." You know...when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

I notice that we're still not quite willing to discuss the anti-Semitism that is not just incidental, BUT INTEGRAL, to these, "questions," eh? I also see that the obvious nut-cult sillinesses on the sites doesn't seem to cast the slightest doubt on their next-door neighbors...which is just plain bonkers.

It's the old, "I've discovered the sun is a great fiery dragon," theory. You know...the sun is a dragon...how do I know?...well, prove to me that it isn't. I mean, have you ever been there?

Next, we'll be reading the good old, "the lack of evidence proves that I'm right, because I know there's a guv'mint conspiracy, because who else but the guv'mint could have hid the evidence that I know is there?"

First time I heard this one was some guy explaining why there're no good pictures of UFOs, despite their astonishing propensity to fly over towns in daylight and haunt golf courses...you know, "the fuzzy, out of focus picture proves that it's aliens, because only an alien craft's stardrive could have fuzzed the film this way. They're magnetic, you know."

This would be funny, if it weren't connected to some truly ugly propositions--racist ones, among others. Look at my last post: why else would it be important that Leo Strauss was, "a German Jew?"

I also see that you're unwilling to deal with the proposition that there isn't any need for secrecy. The conspiracy is right out in front...conservatism, religious hatred, stupidity, globalizing capitalism...

Wait wait, I've figured it out. You...you are a CIA plant! As in the X-Files, you are presenting the absolute truth in a fashion so wacked-out that it cannot possibly be believed, thereby helping to conceal the malign influence of the Jews, The Trilateral Comission, the Freemasons, the CIA. 

Nope, nope, protest all you want. I've found you out. You are in league with the Cigarette Smoking Man---you are the real assassin! How else could you have known that there were exactly, to quote your last post, "three shots?" How else could you know so many details of the government conspiracy? Why else would you claim to be from, "SUPERIOR," Superior--get it? the arrogance of you Freemasons never fails to amaze me--Wisconsin? What else do we know about Wisconsin? Well...aha! radical politics and cheese! Princess Diana ate cheese! Got you now...NOW we know who the real assassin was! You were working for the Better Wisconsin Cheese ***'n (BWCA), which you foolishly listed on your Profile! ha! You were...working to protect Wisconsin dairy products!

It's...it's DISINFORMATION, that's what it is!!

Now prove to us that it's not true. We have a right to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 9, 2003)

> You also made the claim that since three journalists from national newspapers had similar reports this gives them credibility. Where did they get their information?



Good God, have you read a single thing I've posted?

The three journalists I mentioned from USA Today were FIRST HAND WITNESSES.  Go back to my post.  Read the goshdarned web site that I posted TWICE.



> Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck?



Anybody else remember this?  I don't.  I recall the Al Qaeda link being made that afternoon.  Easy to confirm...write the major networks.  



> Also, consider all of the people who claim to have seen aliens or have been abducted by aliens. There are a lot of fine and upstanding citizens who have made such claims. Yet, are they to believed because they are many?



Argumentum ad populum doesn't apply here.  The weight of evidence goes to the witnesses...they saw an airliner.  Your suggestion that a cruise missle, or a small plane, or a truck as a question doesn't apply.  People didn't see any of those.  They saw an airliner.  

There are "many" people claiming to have seen aliens?  All at once?  On one day...at one moment like what happened at the Pentagon?  Your analogy fails.  If we don't have video...it didn't happen?  Is this what you're suggesting?

Your conspiracy theorists will create some witnesses, given time, that saw something other than the plane.  The theorists will then "kill" them off.  Of course they'll die under mysterious circumstances.  They'll be people that never existed or liars vying for attention.



> As far as the bodies of the victims go, I don't know what to say? Who counted the bodies? Was it average joe EMT rescue worker or was it military official? I seem to remember reading somewhere that strictly military officials were allowed to perform the rescue operations and clean up. I will see if I can find a source for that.



A source?  Or someone's fiction?  You not only have to account for the bodies in the Pentagon...or lack thereof...you also have to account for the disappearance of a plane, a crew, and the passengers of the plane.  As far as "strictly military officials"....this is just silly.  ITS THE PENTAGON.  Army medics and Army engineers and FAA investigators did the clean up, don't you think?  You'll have Majestic 12 troops and Illuminati special agents crawling over the site before too long, if you try hard enough.  All contrived.  If you think I'm going to go busting my butt to try and find a firefighter or EMT that was there, forget it.  Nothing is going to change your mind.



> Where are the videos? Don't you think the government owes it to us to convince us BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?



No, they don't, because all evidence points to a plane crashing into the Pentagon.  The notion that it didn't is a fiction, dreamed up by scapegoating anti-semites, and bought into by gullible people whose education has failed them.  Why should they go out of their way "proving" something that doesn't need to be proven?  What are you going to task them with next?  Proving that it actually was a bomb that blew up the Arizona at Pearl Harbor...versus, say, some experimental death ray?  Maybe it was a small plane or a truck laden with explosives.  Why not?  After all, we don't have video...and witnesses by the hundreds could all be wrong.  I heard the clean up was done strictly by military people, you know. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is reserved for homicide trials.  The government isn't on trial here, even though you clearly wish them to be so.  "But they oughtta be" doesn't cut it.  There is no evidence they did anything to engineer this event.  They have no reason to defend themselves, and you have no reason to task them with it.

And where are the videos?  One is on the web.  Look it up.   Looks like the feds didn't snatch them all up, did they?  If they "seized" any at all.

Your fictional "example" interaction between an interviewer and a witness is simply absurd.  You accuse ME of speculation?  Have you EVER seen Washington/Virginia traffic?  Ever driven in it?  Do you have any idea how many people saw that plane go in?  Hundreds.  I listed but a few.  What do I have to do...go find that Catholic priest and bring him to you?  Would you then ask me to prove he is who he says he is?  Would you require I.D.?  Thumbprints?  DNA identification?  I mean, after all, we must be sure he isn't some government agent, musn't we?

Kyosa, let's be honest here.  You're not seeking truth.  You're seeking confirmation of this conspiracy theory.  You've made up your mind.  Occam's razor isn't something you'd dare shave with.

I'm done trying to get you to think cogently.  I leave you to obsess about this absolutely ridiculous non-issue...I'm on to other things.  



Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2003)

Steve,
  In regards to:



> quote: Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck?
> 
> 
> Anybody else remember this? I don't. I recall the Al Qaeda link being made that afternoon. Easy to confirm...write the major networks.



I have to say I do, possibly CNN, though at the time, I admit to being quite stunned....spent most of the day hitting refresh on a webbrowser looking for more information.  I can't say the same day though.  I think the Afgahnistan link was the immediate one that was presented.

-IF- it was posted on a website, unless someone grabbed a snapshot at the right moment, it is easy to have changed it mid stream.


As to the rest of the stuff thats been bounced around here, I've got no comment at this time.  Some of its possible, though highly improbable. Somes scary, and others just wacky.  


Peace.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2003)

Robert

I see your point about the anti-semitism.  Information is information and that is not inherently evil.  I have tried to make a connection for you numerous times.  I have stated that our current administration has a plan (PNAC) and it has used 9/11 to implement that plan.  Is that part of the zion conspiracy or have you actually looked at that stuff instead of just characterizing my words.

Steve

I don't have my mind made up and you have made some very convincing arguments.  I went to DC this summer, drove through the traffic, walked to the Pentagon, saw a few things, does this make me an expert, no.  I also talked to a few people.  Why is there doubt about the plane?  According to you, there shouldn't be.  In the other cases there isn't?  Steve, I'm going to be completely honest, if it is as cut and dry as you say, why are there so many people who say otherwise?  Compare it to the other incidents.  THOSE ARE CUT AND DRY.  In my opinion, this one is not.  In all probability, from Steve's arguments alone, I could say a plane hit the pentagon.  Yet that statement doesn't carry the same weight as when I say two planes flew into the world trade center.  There is doubt and I am not the only one to question.  Thanks for participating.  I enjoyed reading your comments.

Lets not get carried away.  I'm not saying that there is a huge conspiracy by the illuminati NWO folks.  These questions could have more answers then that and I'm surprised that you've narrowed down your fields until the point that you can only see those answers.  Well, actually not too surprised.  Perhaps that is the connection you are suppose to make   Our government could have screwed up royally for instance.  Perhaps the reluctance to release information to answer the above questions stems from that.  Steve has addressed this point and I tend to agree with that.  Anyone else think along these lines?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 10, 2003)

If that's the case, Bob, then I'll bite on that one.  I'm not willing to attribute it to a plot, however.

Here is the rub...and I'm addressing you and the other rational individuals on this thread who will actually _read_ my posts prior to responding to them...if there is some level of culpability on the part of the government in 9-11, it will be obscured by the shrill, fist-waving rants of anti-semites who are looking for a scapegoat for the ills of America.

Was there incompetence in the intelligence community?  Sure.  We've seen it multiple times on other occasions.  We do not need to distract ourselves from the truth of such incompetence.  We need to address it and fix it.

Plot theories like these play on the credulity of a significant proportion of  the population.  They are presented with various levels of complexity and outlandishness so that they appeal to a fairly wide range of people.  This range stretches from those who are paranoid schizophrenics (or borderline) to those who lack a B.S. detector from not having mastered the rudiments of logic.

I strongly suspect that a number of these people are trying to validate their lives with a veil of pseudo-intellectualism that gives them a sense of power.  They feel they "know" something--and knowledge is power.  It is a form of self-medication of the angst that afflicts all our lives.  It is a way for them to white knuckle their way through life _and_ blame other people for their troubles.

Note, as Robert did, the anti-semitic tones of these sites.  For two millenia the Jews have been the scapegoats for people of Europe and the Middle East.  600 years ago when the plague afflicted Europe rumors circulated that the disease was caused by the Jews poisioning the wells...they were burned alive as a result.  History repeats itself time and again with horror stories such as these...yet the Jews alledge no conspiracy on the part of their persecutors.  They don't counter with half-whacked therories of their own.  They recognize it, correctly, as simple stupidity and hatred.

The Holocaust (which these supposedly illumined observers say didn't really happen) showed us how deeply men and women can be enmeshed in these idiotic conspiracy theories.  A generation of Germans was brainwashed into believing that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and slavs were subhuman.  A generation of Europeans were murdered as a result.

Yes, Bob...there IS something frightening about this whole 9-11 thing.  I agree.  I think its terrifying that our species is capable of abandoning reason in favor of hastily constructed myths and unfounded suspicions that are laced with undertones of vitriol and malice.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2003)

If I say that there is negative evidence to the theory of Evolution, does that make me a Creationist?  If I say that there is negative evidence to the official story of 9/11 does this make me an anti-semite?  Does it mean that the negative evidence does not exist because wacky groups have chosen to use it for their disgusting theories?

Hardheadjarhead

I did not want to offend anyone by bringing this information.  The more I think about your arguments, the more and more I see your point.  I can change my tune about the pentagon and accept it.  There are just too many people involved for any other explanation to be viable.  Steve, I live far away from just about everything and when you are isolated, its difficult to be sure of things that happen far away because the information changes hands so many times.  Also, I did read your posts.  Nice job.

I think we agree, from your above post, that there is something to be said about what our intelligence did and did not know?  I think we agree that there was obviously some huge mistakes?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

In the first place, there is no, "negative evidence," that contradicts the theory of evolution in general. There's evidence that suggests Darwin's progressivist take on evolution is inadequate, but that's a very different proposition.

In the second, it isn't the contradiction of the official story that suggests--and in other cases, screams--anti-semitism. It's the fact that THE VERY WEBSITES USED AS "EVIDENCE," contain a number of patently anti-Semitic commentaries, as do the links on the site. It's the way that this set of conspiracy theorists, again and again,  need to bring up the "facts," and these facts just happen to include mentioning, again and again, that so-and-so is Jewish (an identification that just makes my skin crawl), while funnily enough, noone is ever identified as, say, a WASP or an Episcopalian. It's the repeated code, no different in kind and intent from one of Pat Buchanan's speeches: {paraphrase} "bankers...elite...a few who keep themselves apart...international conspiracy....the IMF....the Israel lobby...," and on and nauseatingly on.

And, it's the way that--and this is perfectly in keeping with a long tradition of American paranoia--it's the way that these sites revolve around money, race, religion.

I see that you've accepted the account of how the Trade Towers went down. Why? Were you an eyewitness? Didja just see it on TV? They're doing wonderful things with digitization these days, you know. That kerfuffle about putting the CBS eye everywhere earlier that year? That was a test run.

Sorry, man, but this stuff is pseudo-critique and fake leftism. Our problems are right out freakin' front--nobody who actually listens to Condoleeza Rice and the President, or who notes the shameful dismissal of Colin Powell, or reads legislative claptrap like the recent, "drug benefit," bill, needs the flying saucer material. Nobody who knows a little about what capitalism is and how it works needs the clandestine conspiracy/Lost Arkism of these websites. 

And nobody who's read a little Freud can fail to miss the narcissism and the self-inflation behind most of these theories. They're fun for the same reasons that I like TV shows like, "V," (an oldie) or "Battlestar Galactica:" there is a hidden conspiracy that explains everything, there is a secret cabal of enemies, but We are the Fighters. To continue in the oldies, I offer the wisdom of Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Sheesh, Pynchon's novel "V." is more fun than this. And better written.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2003)

I will concede that the question raised about the pentagon has a preponderance of evidence against it.  This is much like the theory of evolution.  Yeah, there are some inconsistancies, yet under the increasing weight of facts, they don't really make much of a difference.  

As to other questions about the official story...

I am a bit troubled by this characterization of information.  If a group interprets a photo to support their ugly opinions, does that somehow change what is in the photo?  This is much like social darwinism.  This ugly theory used evolution to support a blatently racist agenda.  Does this mean that evolution is racist?  No.  

In the same light, the fact that major new media sources reported that al-qaeda and Iraq were our likely culprits way before they could have investigated, is not suspect because some bigot used that nugget to support their theory.  

I agree with Robert.  There are problems that are right out in the open.  The PNAC is right out in the open.  The Administration using 9/11 to implement the PNAC is right out in the open.  Conspiracy?  Nope, its reality.  It's also too convenient to not have a some suspicion in the matter.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

"The media," also tied Arab terrorists to the Oklahoma City bombing immediately and without a shred of evidence, and if THAT doesn't suggest a racist strain in "the media," I'll be damned if I know what does.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *"The media," also tied Arab terrorists to the Oklahoma City bombing immediately and without a shred of evidence, and if THAT doesn't suggest a racist strain in "the media," I'll be damned if I know what does. *




Yes the Media did. I was even reported as a suspect just for my looks and the vague description the media presented.

 

Oh well


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2003)

"The Media" uses stereotypes and 'shock' to get our attention.

When Oklahoma was bombed, they screamed 'terrorists'...but it was a 'white boy from NY' that did it.

When the NE lost power they screamed about those 'evil, nasty hackers', even though it was human error that did it.

They sensationalize every single casulty...why they don't flash the lasted KIA's picture (taken as they lie bleeding on the street) on the 6 oclock news I just don't know.... even though 50-100 missions each day happen without injury.

W (who I don't like) visits the troops and gives them a much needed morale boost, and all the media can do is ***** cuz they weren't informed ahead of time.

The media sucks.  I can't say it any plainer than that.

Sensation and shock sells.....truth is boring.  Its just that simple.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 10, 2003)

> "The Media" uses stereotypes and 'shock' to get our attention.



Agreed.  "If it bleeds, it leads."  When people critique the press as being liberal or conservative, I point out the bottom line with story selection is...the bottom line.   Anymore it is a branch of the entertainment industry.

Granted, there are some journalists with integrity...but the pressure anymore, as I perceive it, is to report the sensational.

But I disagree with one point, Bob...McVeigh _was a domestic terrorist._  McVeigh was a dumb white boy....but he was indeed a terrorist.  Domestic terrorism is quite popular overseas.  We haven't had nearly as much as Europe...still, OKC wasn't the first domestic terrorism we've had, and it won't be the last.



> I think we agree, from your above post, that there is something to be said about what our intelligence did and did not know? I think we agree that there was obviously some huge mistakes?



Kyosa, there have been critques of the intel community in this country from both the right and the left,  each pointing the finger of blame at the other side for 9-11.  History is rife with intelligence failures...Yom Kippur...the Battle of the Bulge...Pearl Harbor...the list goes on.

I have no problem with you, or anyone, raising questions about 9-11.  We must make inquiry and challenge questionable events.

Yet I have a problem with referencing conspiracy sites.  Because of their treatment of Jews?  Sure...but also because of their blatant_fabrication_ of "facts", their distortion of reality, their "spin".  They have an agenda far more hateful than anything the press could generate, and potentially far more damaging.  If there is any truth at all on those sites one would have to sift through a mountain of B.S to find a thimbleful of valid information.  It isn't worth it.  


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2003)

I am in complete agreement with your point.  When I started this thread, I did a random search of information to see what came up.  There is a lot of it our there and some of it is even more outrageous.  Not everything is fabrication, though.

The pictures are an interesting case.  Anti-semite is going to take a picture of the pentagon and interpret this huge zion conspiracy from the fact that they have a hole in the building and no plane.  There is also the absence of wreckage in some photos - some could have been chosen for that particular view or they could be showing an absence of wreckage.  If they chose a particular photo to show a misleading view, shame on them, yet it is still a photo of something.  The point is that a photo is a photo and had no morality attached to it.  People attach the morality when they tell their stories.  It is still a photo and a photo is still evidence, isn't it?  

Otherwise your argument could be used both ways.  A detractor could say, those sites you posted were nothing but obvious obfuscation attempts by the government - they show burned people and babies and what not in attempt to play on your emotions and what not...better to let evidence be evidence and try to be objective.

Which brings me to Occum's Razor.  Personally, I believe that if the pentagon was not hit with a plane and the damage was caused by something else, there are too many contingencies to explain.  The first and formost is the sheer amount of people involved.  Yes, they were all military personal and defense folks but there HAD to have been plenty of normal folks involved.  I think jet liner explanation is the simplest and it fits most of the data.  There are a few questions still, but, as in the case of evolution, the preponderance of data overwhelms them.  I will list them anyway just as food for thought.

1.  Flight 77 struck 45 minutes after the second plane hit the world trade center.  The FAA knew it was hijacked and on its way to washington for over an hour?  What happened to the fighters?

2.  The White House has surface to air missiles installed on top of it to protect it from this sort of thing.  Wouldn't the pentagon also have a defensive perimeter?

3.  For a person who lives far away and needs to rely on secondary to quaternaray information, it would be nice if one clear video was released that shows the plane or something with a logo or something that DIRECTLY ties this up and ends this debate.  Here are a few examples of this kind of evidence

1.  A clear photo of the plane in the wreckage.
2.  A clear photo of the wreckage with some kind of identifable logo.
3.  A clear video that shows the approach and impact.
4.  A picture of the plane flying low.

If any of this appeared it would be death to any and all conspiracy theories regarding this subject.

John


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2003)

Considering what we can do with photo manipulation today, who would believe any photo or video evidence?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 10, 2003)

> 1. Flight 77 struck 45 minutes after the second plane hit the world trade center. The FAA knew it was hijacked and on its way to washington for over an hour? What happened to the fighters?



Well...let's see.  Either they didn't have a contingency plan for such an event which had never happened in the history of the world, and the resultant confusion striking the chain of command in all levels of the Defense Department had a paralytic effect...or it was a Zionist conspiracy effected by the Illuminati and the secret organizations moving us toward the New World Order.

I opt for the first explanation...or one more towards that end of the spectrum of reason.

*You know...I allready answered that.  Are you going to ask the same question over and over again?  Or would you like to respond to the answer?*



> The White House has surface to air missiles installed on top of it to protect it from this sort of thing. Wouldn't the pentagon also have a defensive perimeter?



No.  

Why would it?  Why should anyone think its going to be attacked?

The President doesn't live there.  Nor does the Vice President, Speaker of the House, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  As far as I know, none of the administrative buildings of those officers of the state have missles protecting them.  The President has bodyguards.  The Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs does not.

We just got done with the Cold War.  The greatest threat to the Pentagon in the last sixty years has been Russian Nukes...not hijacked airplanes.  



> it would be nice if one clear video was released that shows the plane or something with a logo or something that DIRECTLY ties this up and ends this debate. Here are a few examples of this kind of evidence
> 
> 1. A clear photo of the plane in the wreckage.
> 2. A clear photo of the wreckage with some kind of identifable logo.
> ...



There was no clear photo of the plane in the wreckage because it had been torn to bits after hitting a two foot thick concrete wall at a speed of several hundred miles an hour.  That plane was made of aluminum and plastic...not steel.  

The photos and video exist in journalism morgues across the country, and probably in some FAA and criminal investigation archives.  Likely none of the hundreds of journalists, cops, and FAA officials who have seen these photos...or examined the wreckage... feel it necessary to provide such "evidence" because they don't view it as proof as such.  They KNOW a plane flew into the building.  Why bother with trying to assuage the neurotic ruminations of a bunch of hand wringing conspiracy theorists?

Even then, there may not be any clear photos or video.  The video of the first plane hitting the WTC was taken by a tourist.  Of all the people in NYC who witnessed that event, he was the only person to get that shot.  The ONLY one.  The second plane hitting was one of the best covered news events in the history of journalism.  Everybody had their cameras out.

Had a second plane hit the Pentagon, it would have been well documented.  Would anyone have questioned the first?  Probably not...regardless of how little discernable plane debris lay outside on the lawn of the Pentagon.



> If any of this appeared it would be death to any and all conspiracy theories regarding this subject.



No, it wouldn't.  Conspiracy theorists are fiction writers...story tellers.  They could spin anything.

Look at your reluctance to accept facts here.  The same questions keep popping up...and no answer seems to fully placate you.  You come up with new questions (where were the missles on the Pentagon roof?) that also strain one's patience.  This is how the conspiracy theory works...it feeds a meme...a mind virus, that infects the brain with a paradigm that simply won't go away even in the face of irrefutable evidence...that foremost being, WITNESSES.   Personally...that's good enough for me and most people.  Film at eleven not necessary, thanks.

I'll ask you to look at it another way.  Even if it were some conspiracy...why use a truck bomb for one attack, and hijacked planes for two others?  And if you, as a conspirator, DID use a truck bomb...why not simply pass it off as a terrorist truck bomb?  They used them in Nigeria...why not the Pentagon?  It makes no sense that they would try and fabricate a plane strike on the Pentagon.

Bob brought up a point:  If they wanted to fake a plane strike...why not INSURE there was video and simply digitize a film of the plane hitting the Pentagon?  If Hollywood could do it, surely the CIA/FBI could.  Simple enough to do with a low quality security camera filming at 10 frames per second.  Blur it a little...you could even edit out the truck loaded with explosives.   Then you could create a fake passenger list, hire actors to be the hundreds of grieving families and friends, schoolteachers of victims, coworkers, etc....

Or you could just hijack a damned plane.  Seems easy enough to do, considering.

I know I said I was going to walk away from this...but I've been enjoying it too much.

Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

Steve;

Have you ever tried to argue from a point in which you don't really agree, but are trying to understand as far as a person's thought processes? 

Look, I could spin out different explanations of anything you brought up to support the truth of the matter.  Perhaps this conspiracy will be self propagating and will never end.  I agree with Bob.  So what if a video surfaced.  It was altered, THEY are obviously hiding the truth.  What I like about your argument is that you bring up the fact that any conspiracy theory raised more questions about what happen and the answers to those questions become so complicated that they become impossible.  There are just too many people.  Occum's razor applies here.

Any of these questions I have posed have been posed before.  They have answers in the form of theories.  Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon.  You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order.  And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing.  Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth.  (at least about the pentagon)  This argument is a black hole.  As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.

Anyone

I'm interested in whether or not people think our government has been completely forthcoming in the manner.  

I'm interested in whether or not people think that the Bush administration is using 9/11 implicitly for its own benifit.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks that it may have been "allowed" to happen.  (Personally, I think Occum's razor applies to this one again.  Too much to explain with convoluted theories.  Too many people)  Yet, do people think this?

John


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

It just struck me that these conspiracy theories are like a religion.  The argumentative style is the same.  Interesting...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 11, 2003)

> Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon. You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order. And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing. Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth. (at least about the pentagon) This argument is a black hole. As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.



Nope.  You're quite correct.  I DON'T really know any of those things.  Why should I care?  

It really isn't that big of an issue unless one makes it so.  

My arguments concerning the Pentagon are based on witness testimony.  WITNESS TESTIMONY.  Once again, are you reading the posts?  I listed three witnesses from USA Today that SAW the plane strike the Pentagon.  You apparently didn't read that carefully.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 11, 2003)

> Even your answers are theories, because, I am assuming, you don't REALLY know if there is a battery of SAMs on the pentagon. You don't REALLY know if the fighters weren't scrambled because of a mistake or because of an order. And you don't REALLY know just how much our intelligence community knew about the whole thing. Your arguments are based off the paradigm that you think the government is telling the truth. (at least about the pentagon) This argument is a black hole. As soon as you cross the event horizon, not even the light of truth can escape.



Nope.  You're quite correct.  I DON'T really know any of those things.  I'm basing my answers concerning the fighters are based on experience and my understanding of human nature and the frailty of systems we design. 

But why should I care?  It really isn't that big of an issue unless one makes it so.   

My arguments concerning the Pentagon aren't based on the government's official version.  They're based on witness testimony.  WITNESS TESTIMONY.  Once again, are you reading the posts?  I listed three witnesses from USA Today that SAW the plane strike the Pentagon.  You apparently didn't read that carefully.  You still want "evidence".  Witness testimony isn't good enough?  

Apply Occam's razor to my speculations, then to the conspiracy theorists speculations.  Whose survive?  Theirs?



> I'm interested in whether or not people think that the Bush administration is using 9/11 implicitly for its own benifit.



Probably ninety five percent of the Democrats in this country believe that.



Steve Scott


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

Correction, I have read your posts.  Haven't we discussed witness fallibility?  Carl Sagan, in "Demon Haunted World" discusses witness accounts of various phenomenon and that testimony is described as least desirable.  Why?  The testimony is easily influenced by what the person wants to see, what the person thought they saw, and the environment that the testimonial was witnessed.  Lets not even get into the subject of mass hallucination or psychological leading...bottom line.  Witness testimony is only credible in the absence evidence in other forms...

I'm just arguing this point for fun right now, because I do agree with the pentagon account.  I am finding the use of this conspiracy logic very interesting.  It never ends.  The theory never really ends.  A few weeks ago I was questioning the validity of Occum's Razor and I was wondering why science relied so heavily on this principle.  This discussion has demonstrated its usage.

We have three major universities near my home.  I took a philosophy of science class with a very intelligent professor on the campus.  He is very popular and very renown and out of all the universities in the area, he has published the most.  Most of these sites I've presented, have come off of this site and I will admit, these are not solely my arguments.  I haven't plagiarized anything, but I should give credit where credit is due eventually.  Check this stuff out and let me know what you think.  

http://www.assassinationscience.com/

My senior student is a Phd candidate in philosophy under the man and we argue about conspiracy theories all of the time.  He's a believe and I tend to be more skeptical.  It was very interesting to step into the other shoes for a while...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 11, 2003)

Yep, it's the sun-is-a-great-fiery-dragon-theory. 

I looked on the website you just posted. Among other things, the site has an article claiming that Seymour Hersh--Seymour Hersh, for crying out loud!--is one of these conspirators.

By the way, reason and science are not matters of belief.

Again: the fact that something MIGHT be true does not MAKE it true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

There is a lot more stuff on that site is rather fascinating and other stuff that is off the wall.  I really respect Dr. Fetzer, but I must say I have my disagreements.  

Reason and Science not matters of belief?  Nothing is science is ever proven.  It only is supported with varying degrees of evidence.  With that being the case acceptance of a theory REQUIRES belief.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 11, 2003)

I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally inaccurate. You might check Sagan--the very book you cited--and Michael Schirmer, "Why People Believe Weird Things."

Scientific theories are testable, and verifiable, or they ain't theories. Beliefs are neither...and miracles sure aren't repeatable; they are by definition one-offs.

The only level on which science depends on faith is the level on which all of our suppositions rest on the "belief," that the universe is actually there and that we ourselves actually exist.

As Schermer points out, it's a fundamental error to collapse scientific theory and belief together.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 11, 2003)

Kyosa,

What is Fetzer's degree in?  What is his field of expertise?


Robert, check Shermer's book "How We Believe".  That's a good one, too.  I heard he's coming out with another one.

James Randi has some good books out on the paranormal as well.  I've enjoyed everything of his I've ever read.

Checked out the site.  Its pretty much run of the mill conspiracy stuff.  

It strikes me that the process of creating a conspiracy goes like this:

1.  An event happens, often tragic, and usually notable.
2.  The CT (conspiracy theorist) decides that it is probably part of a conspiracy...this before he has any rational reason to believe so.
3.  The CT then constructs "evidence" to support his theory.  He does this by looking for hits (pictures of the Pentagon that show no debris), and ignoring misses (pictures with debris).  In other words, he will refer to  anything that can support his theory, and disregards or minimizes all that which counters it.  Even when the weight of evidence is well against him, he will not back down from his original stance.  He will, in argument, sometimes change the subject if he is losing ground.
4.  He pads his theory with fluff...stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.  Case in point:  One of the hijackers taking martial arts lessons.  It is intended as distraction.
5.  He will create ficticious material...people, places, names, events, objects, research, references, that will support his stance.  OR he will refer to material that other people have created, without checking his sources.
6.  And, most of all, he will make inappropriate or invalid connections between events and people and then force an illusion of the validity of such connections.

I could list more...but I'm tired.  Maybe Robert can add to this.

Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that.  Does this make him credible?

I have Shermer, Randi, and Sagan on my bookshelf right now.  I have read them and incorporated them into my own studies.  Currently, I am working on my Master's degree in Physics.  Interesting stuff.

As to Robert's comment...much of what Shermer says, I agree with.  The part about belief, no way.  The more I tread into theoretical physics, the more these theories require belief.  Take string theory for instance.  No one has seen these strings.  People can't even agree on their dimensions.  They are a mathmatical construction that is very much like a fudge factor to join the equations for gravity with those of electromagnetism and the strong and weak force.  Beleif in science certainly exists.

John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that.  Does this make him credible?
> 
> I have Shermer, Randi, and Sagan on my bookshelf right now.  I have read them and incorporated them into my own studies.  Currently, I am working on my Master's degree in Physics.  Interesting stuff.
> ...




Yes, this is very True, the Fudge Factor, and items that only Mathematics can describe.

Newtonian Physics fails and breaks down in certain conditions, Hence, Einsteinian Physics was finally described. 

Now, the law of conservation of Mass breaks down at the Nuclear level and Some Mass is converted into energy. Yet for most people's needs the law of conversation of mass works just fine for them. It is / are the person / people that need to describe a phenomenon that search for such a way to represent the data they have seen or the expected patterns thet have seen and would predict at the next order of magnitude.

Sorry for being off Topic :-offtopic 

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

I think a good way to wrap this discussion up is to discuss how best to judge conspiracy theories.  Are any of them right or all they all just bogus?  I would say the JFK assassination conspiracy has merit.  Could we compare that to the 9/11 conspiracy?

John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 12, 2003)

> Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that. Does this make him credible?



Not necessarily.  Even if a proper frame of authority is acquired, he has to stand on his own merits and research.  If he isn't using science and logic, then his degree and his position mean little.

Pons and Fleischmann are case examples:  Both were noted researchers who came up with "cold fusion".  On review their work was found to be deeply flawed.  They essentially disappeared from academia.

There are other examples as well.



Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

It will take a while to wade through alot of the material on that website.  I have it book marked because of the interesting stuff that pops up.  I like the essays and social commentaries and I like how he doesn't endorse any of the weird conspiracy theories, he just asks people if it is possible.  He was on Coast to Coast the other night talking about the Paul Wellstone plane crash.  I would say that is some of his most controversial material.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2003)

Yep, and string theory is always described as an interesting theory for which there is as yet no conclusive evidence and some troubling math. It is also described--as such ideas always are--as a metaphor for reality.

That's quite different from, say, angelology. Or has somebody run into a preacher who says, "Well, we have this untestable hypothesis that we call God, but he could be just a fig newton of our imagination. We need better evidence, and more work, beefore we go running around claiming that this God guy actually exists?"


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Jan 3, 2006)

Could have posted this here as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18578

More fun conspiracy theory stuff - check out the 'Loose Change' documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

(video is 1 hour long)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2006)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> Could have posted this here as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18578
> 
> More fun conspiracy theory stuff - check out the 'Loose Change' documentary:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change
> ...


 A yes, the classic world of conspiracy theory....where the nuttier your delusions, and more time and energy you invest in your own fantasy world, the more credibility you are given.  I guess everyone has to have a hobby.  If reality just isn't interesting enough, we can always choose to substitute a more interesting fantasy version. :erg:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

rmcrobertson said:


> Yep, I'm cynical as all hell about this stuff.
> 
> Why? For exactly the same reasons that the stuff about subliminal ads is crap. The problem isn't what's hidden; it's what's right out in the open.
> 
> ...


 
Bump


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

rmcrobertson said:


> I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally inaccurate. You might check Sagan--the very book you cited--and Michael Schirmer, "Why People Believe Weird Things."
> 
> Scientific theories are testable, and verifiable, or they ain't theories. Beliefs are neither...and miracles sure aren't repeatable; they are by definition one-offs.
> 
> ...


 
Bump


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

rmcrobertson said:


> Yeah, it never fails to amaze me. On one hand, these guys are such geniuses that NOONE BUT AN ENLIGHTENED FEW EVER SUSPECT THE TRUTH, and on the other, they continually screw up.
> 
> Here's an ugly little joke I recently read:
> 
> ...


 
Big Bump...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

I miss Robert.

This is from the forum rules 



> No senseless "Bumping": Please do not bump your request/help searching or other threads several times a day. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, making corrections or updates in a new post, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top of its forum. Moderators will use their discretion, depending on the nature of the post, as to whether to take action or not. Remember there are people who don't browse this board every hour. So do not bump a thread within 24h or too much even after 24 hours.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> This is from the forum rules



haha, you beat me to it.  

Oh hell, was that a bump?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

Technopunk said:


> Oh hell, was that a bump?


 
'sok ... I've already taken myself to the woodshed on that one. 

Fifty pushups for me.

Oops! I did it again.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

Ooops. I just thought this thread was apropos (like that 25 cent word?) to another discussion of the exact same topic going on. This robertson guy had a lot of good points on this conspiracy crap a lot of people are swallowing.


----------

