babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » US Dept of State - September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US Dept of State - September 11 Conspiracy Theories
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 09 July 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The mighty US government relies on Popular Mechanics as their primary source of information to refute doubters of the official story

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

This is the US government, the biggest economy, the biggest bureacracy in the world, and they rely on Popular Mechanics to make their arguments? Astounding!

Where is all the "official" evidence? Why doesn't the US Govt cite the 911 Commission or the official FEMA reports? Maybe they aren't as conclusive as Popular Mechanics was?

quote:
The New York magazine article - The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll also has this to say about WTC 7,

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html


Why rely on a low-brow nerd kid science fiction type of magazine to support their story? The US State Department attributes far too much credibility to this magazine. It would be awfully disingenous to compare it to a real science magazine.

Could it be that the Popular Mechanics arguments are actually better than the official arguments? Or more to the point, could it be that the Popular Mechanics article was created to be something that the US Govt could use?

quote:
"But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events. "

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989


Does Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's young 25 year old cousin Benjamin Chertoff, who was the "senior researcher", have the right stuff to make the case? If so, I'd love to see Prof Steven Jones (Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and the creator of its home page and its forum) debate the young "senior researcher" Benjamin Chertoff about the WTC towers' collapses.

Wow, Popular Mechanics, the magazine of robots, DIY homekits, flying cars, whizzy technology and a place for young 25 year old cousin Benjamin to play "senior 911 researcher" - is a primary official defender of the official 911 narrative ...

C'mon, Condi, show us the goods.

[ 09 July 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 10 July 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll post this here in case people haven't come across this video. Foodies for the conspiracy theorists:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6302880871177953720&q=loose+change

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 10 July 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Couple of points on the Loose Change video.

1.) With the exception of some classified documents, everything is based on newspaper and TV reports -- despite the fact that, according to the conspiracy theorists, the MSM is supposed to be working hand-in-hand with the CIA in covering up "what really happened".

2.) The video clearly shows both towers collapsing from the top down -- unlike 100% of all controlled demolitions.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 July 2006 01:41 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok the same song from macbain. If I said yes to the colapse from the top down(regardless of demolitions) will you also agree that it had explosions several floors below the colapsing floors? So what came first the chicken or the egg. And this is your only arguement against the "conspiracy". You have not addressed any of the issues I or others have raised. So tell me wonderdog, how did #7 come down? Or why, it couldn't have been from intense fires, because no plane crashed into them with jet fuel. There is no reasonable thing to suggest why it went doen. Why didn't the other 4 towers also go down otherwise, they where closer to the two towers!
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 July 2006 01:52 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
Couple of points on the Loose Change video.

1.) With the exception of some classified documents, everything is based on newspaper and TV reports -- despite the fact that, according to the conspiracy theorists, the MSM is supposed to be working hand-in-hand with the CIA in covering up "what really happened".


Because all the footage from that day went right down the memory hole and they changed their story over a few hours. Those are the INITIAL reports, they morphed over night to what we are now led to believe. Have you EVER read chomsky? He talks about all kinds of things that have been steted but forgotten.

The mantra is simple(and well known):

"Say something often enough, people begin to believe it" This is very true when no one even questions it.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 11 July 2006 09:02 AM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
These threads are like eating chocolate; you know they're bad for you but they're addictive.

Thorin_bane states

quote:
Because all the footage from that day went right down the memory hole and they changed their story over a few hours. Those are the INITIAL reports, they morphed over night to what we are now led to believe.

So, you're saying that the most reliable information on enormously complicated events is the information that's reported first?

I guess Dewey really did beat Truman; who knew...

Having been involved with people investigating airplane crashes a consistent problem is (a) completely uninformed eyewitnesses and (b) instant experts happy to fill dead air with inaccurate stories based on insufficient information.

To resurrect a question from the previous thread on 9/11; it will be interesting to see a peer-reviewed article cited, supporting the conspiracists point of view. Days went by and the thread was closed without a response to that question.

No theologians writing about metallurgy in Marxist journals, please, but people who know their stuff writing in the peer-reviewed journals. Anyone?


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 11 July 2006 09:09 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is a very interesting article about demolishing large buildings - http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm - (that was referenced in the Jones paper at
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html as being first published in 2000) - there are some very interesting pics of building being demolished, with very large dust and debris clouds being ejected "eerily" similar to other pics we're all familiar with, and some words in a couple of places about how the demolishers often blow some upper stories as well, to facilitate the process. I wonder how the plane-fire-makes-big-building-go-boom-fall-down conspiracy people would explain these things?

From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 11 July 2006 09:13 AM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thorin_bane misses the point. I was not referring to the INITIAL reports.

What I was saying was that most of what Loose Change has to say about Ashcroft flying in commercial jets, early warnings of possible attacks on the WTC towers etc. was published in mainstream newspapers and broadcast by the major TV networks.

And, according to the conspiracy theorists, the MSM is working hand in hand with the CIA to cover up "the truth".

Simple question: Why was 80% of what Loose Change puts forward to support its arguments originally published in the MSM?

Makes for a rather sloppy "cover-up", wouldn't you agree?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 11 July 2006 09:43 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Couple of points for Cardy:

We're not talking about the supposed Pentagon situation here, but one of the most frequent points the "official story conspiracists" like to raise is that "Golly! There are hundreds of eyewitnesses to the fact that a passenger liner hit the Pentagon!!! How could they all be wrong?!?!" - I hope you recall your reaction to instant eyewitnesses should we ever get around to this subject (others will - you're in the records now!)

- you say you'd like to see a peer-reviewed article of the "conspiracists POV" - my first reaction is, which conspiracy would that be? The US Gov "arabs in caves did this terrible thing and jet crashes brought down WTC 1&2 but we have no idea what brought down WTC7" conspiracy, or the "I'm not sure what happened, but this Arabs in caves and jet crashes etc stuff" has a lot of holes in it" response (I'm not sure you can call questions a "conspiracy" actually...)

- but I would like to see a few references to peer-reviewed articles concerning how jetliners crashing into the WTC caused fires that weakened enough steel in those 100+ story buildings to cause "catastrophic failure" in only a few minutes, relatively speaking (Popular Mechanics doesn't count, sorry, nor does the highly political document called the "911 Commission Report") - and an article or two in a peer-reviewed journal discussing how they have no idea what caused WTC7 to fall, but by god it wasn't controlled demolition!!!

- this whole thing about peer-reviewed journals is a red herring, and I expect you well know it. As I also pointed out on the last thread at some length, which you chose not to respond to.


From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 11 July 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
siamdave, I am happy to accept eyewitness reports of obvious things - such as seeing planes crash. That's a hard thing to miss. But eyewitnesses are often quoted offering specific details of accidents and most of what they say is not very useful - beyond establishing that a plane crashed.

On your other point; if you think asking for peer-reviewed articles from experts in relevant fields is a 'red herring' that's fine, you've already stated that you won't address the question asked. Maybe someone else will.


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 11 July 2006 10:55 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
??? Sorry, you have me confused -
Is it
A: Having been involved with people investigating airplane crashes a consistent problem is (a) completely uninformed eyewitnesses ...
or
B: I am happy to accept eyewitness reports of obvious things - such as seeing planes crash
???
- re peer-reviewed journals, I get the message, you don't plan to provide any refs. C'est la vie.

From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 11 July 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
siamdave
For peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific publications try Googling: "journal articles" WTC engineering. I'm at work, so I haven't read any of the results, but with about 22,300 results, I expect you'll find something of substance.

Edited to add this link to an excellent PBS/Nova documentary on the WTC collapse: Why the Towers Fell

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: Sombrero Jack ]


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 11 July 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seeing things and understanding them are different things.

Re peer reviewed articles; I believe my question was asked first.

A deal: you answer my question to my criteria and I'll find someone to back up the official story.

Given all you've said this won't be hard, given the octopus-like reach of the conspiracy you and others have uncovered.

Looking forward to seeing your citation.


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 11 July 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Loose Change, imho, has lots of dubious claims about what happened on 9/11 contrary to the "official" narrative. For instance, I have no problems accepting that a commercial passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon, though there are many questions about that event which the "offcial" narrative doesn't satisfy: how did jet penetrate what is reportedly one of the most highly controlled airspaces, how did relatively unskilled pilots make complicated manuever so that the jet crashed into a relatively unoccupied and hardened section of the Pentagon, why was video of event confiscated very soon after event and not released since except in dubious fashion, what was the large thing taken from crash site under blue tarp, etc?

A cursory browsing of the Cooperative Research 911 Timeline will net you many questions on nearly every aspect of 9/11 before, during and after.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

A much better film, one that presents a lot of video evidence of reports of explosions and bombs on the day of 9/11 by first responders that has simply dissappeared is Dustin Mugford's "9/11 Revisited" http://www.911revisited.com.

Those demands for peer reviewed material contrary to the "official" narrative are exactly what David Ray Griffin, James Fetzer, Stephen Jones, and many others are asking for! Don't ask them for it, because they want to see it too!

You don't even have to doubt the "official" story to ask for more information to fill in the large and apparently purposeful gaps in the public record about nearly every aspect of 9/11. Why the hell should it be so difficult to get these answers?

And back to the the post topic: why does the US State Dept rely on such a dubious source of information which seems to have been created for just that purpose?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 11 July 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's the reports on 9/11 of bombs and explosions that illustrate the problem of eyewitness reports.

For example, reporters with a line of sight that allowed them to see the smoke rising from the Pentagon mistook the fire to be the White House. This was reported for some time

Humans get caught up in dramatic moments and want to present their unique perspective on what they know are momentous events. They often make things up. While this is less exciting than the conspiracies being peddled here and elsewhere, Occam's razor is sharp.


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 July 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One simple question:

If you honestly believe that the Bush administration and various arms of the US government were competent enough, diabolical enough and shrewd enough to actually fool the whole world into believing some ostensible cover-up of 9/11.

Surely it would have been like taking candy from a baby to have simply planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and thereby have justification for going to war. yet, they didn't do that? Why not?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 11 July 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you honestly believe that the Bush administration and various arms of the US government were competent enough, diabolical enough and shrewd enough to actually fool the whole world into believing some ostensible cover-up of 9/11.

Surely it would have been like taking candy from a baby to have simply planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and thereby have justification for going to war. yet, they didn't do that? Why not?


Because they didn't have to. With the pliant American news media they knew they would only need to change spin cycles and it would all be forgotten that they lied, lied, lied, and continue to lie.

How many Americans now believe the US invaded Iraq to bring "democracy"?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 11 July 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chronicle

An entertaining article on the 'Truthers', includes the following quote - and notes that some members of the conspiracy brigade have banded together and peer reviewed an article, but sadly it's not been published anywhere credible.

"There's nothing to debunk," says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University and the author of the first peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center collapses.

"It's a non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the collapses.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.

So Mr. Eagar has become reluctantly familiar with Mr. Jones's hypothesis, and he is not impressed. For example, he says, the cascade of yellow-hot particles coming out of the south tower could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction — or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction."

The left used to be concerned about real things. The WTC collapse would have spawned campaigns over building standards, air pollution, security and public safety, in addition to rational debates over international relations.

Too many progressives are wasting their breath and brains on fantasies that contribute to their sense of powerlessness, taking some comfort in railing against enormous shadowy forces and theories that they know will never be proved or even accepted.

What's the point? To prove some sort of superiority over all those not sophisiticated enough to understand the superiority of your point of view?

My wife, more practical than I am, at first didn't even believe this discussion was real. Then she asked why people would waste time debating someone so foolish. Good question! I'm off to bed.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 11 July 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cardy hit the nail on the head.

You can argue until America turns Communist, but nothing will convince the conspiracy theorists that the collapse of the WTC towers was not planned in advance by Bush-Cheney operatives.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 July 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because they didn't have to. With the pliant American news media they knew they would only need to change spin cycles and it would all be forgotten that they lied, lied, lied, and continue to lie.

How many Americans now believe the US invaded Iraq to bring "democracy"?


Yes, they did have to. The failure to uncover any WMD in Iraq has been an incalculable fiasco for the Bush administration and for the whole neo-con agenda. It has caused them to lose allies in Europe, it has caused domestic support for the war to plummet and it was a major reason why Bush came within 2% of losing the 2004 presidential election.

The idea that there were WMD in Iraq was the singular justification given for the war and the fact that none were found has caused heads to roll in the CIA and has caused Bush to have some of the lowest approval ratings for any president since Nixon at the height of Watergate.

Surely, a government that was capable of secretely "staging" Sept. 11 would have had no scruples at all about planting some convenient caches of WMD all over Iraq to provide justification for the war in the court of world opinion.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 11 July 2006 07:01 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, according to the conspiracy theorists, the MSM is working hand in hand with the CIA to cover up "the truth".

Simple question: Why was 80% of what Loose Change puts forward to support its arguments originally published in the MSM?

Makes for a rather sloppy "cover-up", wouldn't you agree?


Who has ever said that 100% of the MSM or the CIA or the government, or the Bush administration is behind 9/11 and/or actively, purposefully covering up? All you have to do is watch Stephen Colbert's WHite House Press Correspondent roast, and more specifically the audience's reactions or lack of reaction to understand the dynamics at play.

quote:
If you honestly believe that the Bush administration and various arms of the US government were competent enough, diabolical enough and shrewd enough to actually fool the whole world into believing some ostensible cover-up of 9/11.

Surely it would have been like taking candy from a baby to have simply planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and thereby have justification for going to war. yet, they didn't do that? Why not?


Why assume that just because a bank robber can rob a bank once, that he will be successful each and every time? So, no WMD's were found in Iraq, what does that have to do with 9/11? Nothing at all. They are two entirely different complex events.

quote:
Too many progressives are wasting their breath and brains on fantasies that contribute to their sense of powerlessness, taking some comfort in railing against enormous shadowy forces and theories that they know will never be proved or even accepted.

There are lots of unanswered questions. There is clearly a motive force that has conspired to make this so. That this is compounded by a host of others who have complementary but innocent motives does not make asking for questions to be answered moot.

If any of the smallest aspects or individually innocuous events of 9/11 which are contrary to the "official" story are true, then it should be unbelievably important to a well run and democratic society to investigate them.

- allegations of missing precious metals after collapse of WTC towers
- allegations of futures trading on WTC tower occupants
- allegations of large scale credit fraud in towers before collapses
- apparent official prior knowledge of buildings collapses (even if not explosive demolitions)
- the failure of the FAA, NORAD and other agencies to fully ascertain what was happening on 9/11
- the accounts of those contrary to official story including Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, Randy Glass, David Schippers, Robert Wright
- on and on
- see also Jeff Wells Coincidence theorists guide to 911 [URL=http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html]http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html[/UR L]

To simply take the "official" narrative, which means essentially the story you get in the MSM, at face value is naive. To dismiss outright, with no or cursory investigation, anything to the contrary is utterly irresponsible if you truly believe in safegaurding a democratic society.

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Evil_Pancake_Man
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12883

posted 11 July 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for Evil_Pancake_Man        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you EVER read chomsky? He talks about all kinds of things that have been steted but forgotten.

Wow there's a credible author.Should we put on the tinfoil hats now or later?


From: the woods | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 July 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Message has gone to moderator.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 12 July 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Yes, they did have to. The failure to uncover any WMD in Iraq has been an incalculable fiasco for the Bush administration and for the whole neo-con agenda. It has caused them to lose allies in Europe, it has caused domestic support for the war to plummet and it was a major reason why Bush came within 2% of losing the 2004 presidential election.

The idea that there were WMD in Iraq was the singular justification given for the war and the fact that none were found has caused heads to roll in the CIA and has caused Bush to have some of the lowest approval ratings for any president since Nixon at the height of Watergate.

Surely, a government that was capable of secretely "staging" Sept. 11 would have had no scruples at all about planting some convenient caches of WMD all over Iraq to provide justification for the war in the court of world opinion.



It's simple, No one was watching the WTC pre 9/11 for all the goings on. The whole world had truned a very interested eye to Iraq to see if indeed the reason for war(as stated and opposed) was real. To this day fully 40% of americans think Saddam was behind 9/11 can you explain that one? That also doesn't make sense but that is how the memory hole works.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 July 2006 12:55 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The whole world had truned a very interested eye to Iraq to see if indeed the reason for war(as stated and opposed) was real.

Like I said, if the Americans were smart enough to "stage" Sept. 11 and have every single person involved in the conspiracy keep the secret to this - imagine how dead easy it would be to conveniently plant WMD all over Iraq and then have the world believe that the US was justified in invading Iraq.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 12 July 2006 05:09 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cardy - you say:
"...For example, reporters with a line of sight that allowed them to see the smoke rising from the Pentagon mistook the fire to be the White House. This was reported for some time ...

Humans get caught up in dramatic moments and want to present their unique perspective on what they know are momentous events. They often make things up. While this is less exciting than the conspiracies being peddled here and elsewhere, Occam's razor is sharp...."

I kind of agree with that - in YOUR opinion, would that line of thought apply to those who say with great certainty they saw that plane flying over their heads about to crash into the pentagon, making their stories a bit iffy? - or can we perhaps confer a bit more credibility to those witnesses, since they confirm the official story and not some whacko conspiracy theory about no plane being there at all? That is to say, it seems that for a lot of people the credibility of witnesses also has a fairly serious subjective content, in that if they agree with the desired story, they are credible - if they disagree with the desired story, they are probably crazy or something, and we can discount what they say, etc? Whadya say Cardy??

Your words are being recorded - keep going, guy. The hole gets deeper and deeper haha.


From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 12 July 2006 06:50 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, since Cardy declined my invitation to provide some references of solid scientists confirming the Official Conspiracy Theory in Peer Reviewed Journals (all praise PRJ as the One Authority ON YOUR KNEES INFIDEL!!!!!), I decided to have a boo around and see what they were actually offering. It turns out there aren't all that many, and most repeat, with minor variations and some very misleading "modelling" to smooth out the rough eyebrow-raising parts, the offerings of the very first one, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis, By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou ( http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ ). They repeat the offerings therein, one can only surmise, because it was the very first one and nobody could come up with anything better (Cardy can correct me if I'm wrong about this) - it was, as the author himself notes, "..submitted to ASCE on September 13...".

That is September 13, 2001. Lemme see - 911 - 911 - Sept 11, 2001. Wow. These guys are good. Two days for a detailed analysis of something that had never happened before in history, in the middle of massive confusion onsite and hysteria and lockdown throughout the nation, and peer-reviewed!!!!!

fuck. (sorry moderators - but in my mind at least an expletive is warranted here - that's pretty awesome shit when you think about it - the guy has learned of this tragedy, decided more or less immediately (I suppose) he could just drop his other work for a day or two (or do it in his spare time, I suppose) and write a detailed, precedent-setting scientific paper about the causes of this never-before-seen thing, based on newspaper and television reports and his own great knowledge of everything relevant (either that or he just happened to be on site, and had the credentials to get through the guards for a personal looksee and a couple of lab assistants following along to do any required more-or-less instant analysis of samples or whatever as he was later typing away, he does not explain this in the paper), either get access to all the plans of the building and other required information for detailed analysis of all relevant factors (or decide scientifically no other information was required since he was such a great scientist and knew everything anyway), sat down at his computer and typed out the first draft with all relevant scientific equations (knowing already all of the relevant variable input data), and done the normal rewriting things (I don't know this for sure - perhaps the whole thing was a work of inspiration and came out complete and perfect the first time through - I'm a writer, works of fiction happen like that sometimes, but I can't say for sure whether or not Great Scientific Works ever do or not, but maybe the events of that day, although they had never happened before, were just so obvious it only required the proper scribe to set them down), then got in touch with the journal editor who of course immediately agreed to publish this important paper even though journals are usually laid out months ahead of time, and who then got in touch with appropriate peer reviewers qualified to judge the material in the article about this never-before-seen event, who of course had nothing better to do at the time (this was pretty imporant stuff, of course), reviewed the paper and said "Yo boss that's all good stuff!!" and passed it, and then the journal published it!!! - in two freaking days!!!!! - of course, I am being facetious here - we all know that's the normal procedure for peer reviewed stuff. haha)

I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised - the Americans are pretty good at stuff that needs to be figured out once they put their minds to it - hell, at 08:00 on the morning of 911 the entire freaking American intelligence network had no idea at all their country was about to be devastatingly attacked - but within hours after the attack, while Fearless Leader was still flying around in places unknown in Air Force 1, they had all the perps identified, and the whole sequence of events worked out, and a plan of war devised, and a few days later a Patriot Act of several thousand pages written to establish procedures to ensure such things would never happen on American soil again BY GOD!!!!!! - and a few weeks later they had devised battle plans and passed budgets and commandeered materials and moved troops and ships and huge amounts of material to somewhere around Afghanistan on the other side of the world and were by god letting them scumbags know what happened to people who didn't give suspects over on demand, by god (oh, sorry, those aircraft carriers and supplies and stuff were already "just coincidentally" there in the general vicinity - that's right...)

Anyways, I get carried away and digress from the main point here. The Peer Reviewed Scientific Article Proving Jet Crashes and Terrible Conflagrations Brought Down the WTC 1 & 2 (and never mind that damned WTC7 - act of god or something - our Peer Reviewed Journals say We Don't Know, so what can you freaking peasants possibly know?!??!!).

Sorry. I suppose I don't need to go on much longer, those who understand what I say know already, and those who don't want to hear it will say "But your idea hasn't been published in a Peer Reviewed Journal so we don't have to listen to it haha so there!!!". But I want to point out one more thing that really struck me as I was wasting a bit of time doing this - this guy has some "scientific illustrations" to help his description - anyone who wants a good laugh (I guess we shouldn't laugh at the tragedy of the whole thing, but fuck (sorry again) - this is the kind of stuff these guys are using in supposedly the best of American 'scientific' journals to 'prove' the WTC came down due to fire and weakened steel - http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/images/figure4.gif - just have a look, and think for yourself of the credibility of the peer review process, and the type of people and 'journals' who are supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory.)

And - there is an annotated version of this article here - http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html - in which the more obvious flaws in this guy's 'scientific peer-reviewed paper' are commented on, and if you chase that back a number of the other "peer reviewed" papers are dissected as well.


Sorry, Cardy - you guys are the flat-earthers here. And if you can't come up with anything more credible than "Show me a peer-reviewed article supporting your position!!" in the future, you'll probably be happy to hear you'll hear no more from me. I have better things to do with my time than deal with flat-earthers. (The Pope says the Earth is flat and that Copernicus is a nut case who can't get anything published in a vatican-approved journal - bye Columbus you're dead!!! haha!!)


From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 12 July 2006 07:11 AM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The conspiracy theorists have demonstrated that they are incapable of DISCUSSING this issue.

Their minds are made up -- and closed. They are convinced that Bush-Cheney and their operatives planned 9/11 and nothing that is said on this discussion board or anywhere else will persuade them otherwise.

It's time to blow the bugle and retreat to saner ground.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 12 July 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
The conspiracy theorists have demonstrated that they are incapable of DISCUSSING this issue.

Their minds are made up -- and closed. They are convinced that Bush-Cheney and their operatives planned 9/11 and nothing that is said on this discussion board or anywhere else will persuade them otherwise.

It's time to blow the bugle and retreat to saner ground.


- aw c'mon Mr McB, we're gonna miss ya - you conspiracy nuts are always good for a laugh - they believe WHAT?!?!?! hahaha!!!! - right!! - yeh - and they believe that incredibly strong central matrix just poof!!! crumbled like a pile of matchsticks boogabooga!!! - no!! yea!!! no gimme a break!!! yea hahahahaha!!!!


From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 12 July 2006 08:33 AM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The conspiracy theorists have demonstrated that they are incapable of DISCUSSING this issue.

Not quite sure what "discussing" means to you, but looks like a lot of dialogue above to me. The fact that we are not agreeing doesn't negate the validity of the dialogue. Also, don't get caught up in the fallacy of labels; conspiracy theorists are we both, as we are both believing of the act being wrought by a conspiracy, though by different players.

For example, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years the FBI doesn't have, by its own admission, conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93? His FBI Most Wanted poster only states he is responsible for the following:

quote:
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

But back to the original post question. GIven the purported overwhelming evidence that supports the "official" story, why is the US Dept of State primarily relying on a Popular Mechanics article which had US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's young 25 year old cousin Benjamin Chertoff, as "senior researcher"?

Its like using Michael Crichton as an expert witness on global warming.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 12 July 2006 09:24 AM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
MY FINAL POST ON THIS TOPIC:

This “discussion” started with blogbart saying: “The mighty US government relies on Popular Mechanics as their primary source of information to refute doubters of the official story

“This is the US government, the biggest economy, the biggest bureacracy in the world, and they rely on Popular Mechanics to make their arguments? Astounding!

“Where is all the "official" evidence? Why doesn't the US Govt cite the 911 Commission or the official FEMA reports? Maybe they aren't as conclusive as Popular Mechanics was?”

And, in his latest post, blogbart says: “But back to the original post question. GIven the purported overwhelming evidence that supports the "official" story, why is the US Dept of State primarily relying on a Popular Mechanics article which had US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's young 25 year old cousin Benjamin Chertoff, as "senior researcher"?

In fact, the State Department website uses Popular Mechanics as a SECONDARY – not a “primary” source as blogbart claims.

For example, readers are asked to click on “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” – which is on the State Department site – AND Popular mechanics.

Readers are also asked to click on the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.

Bottom line, blogbart, the premise upon which you launched this “discussion” is false.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 July 2006 09:34 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The left used to be concerned about real things. The WTC collapse would have spawned campaigns over building standards, air pollution, security and public safety, in addition to rational debates over international relations.

Too many progressives are wasting their breath and brains on fantasies that contribute to their sense of powerlessness, taking some comfort in railing against enormous shadowy forces and theories that they know will never be proved or even accepted.


Many people on the left and on the right used to be concerned with those things. The conspiracy theories are not tied to any segment of the political spectrum.

But now, the more ludicrous elements want to propagate unprovable theories - which is the point of conspiracy theories. Lack of evidence, and the refusal to publosh the theories for lack of scientific grounding is evidence of the conspiracy to hide the "real story". No evidence is evidence of the plot to hide the evidence. Or something ridiculous like that.

Again, and pardon me if this gets repetitive, no conspiracy theories alleging controlled demolition, cruise missiles, remote-controlled dummy planes, nukes in the basement, space alien laser beams etc. have been accepted by any reputable peer-reviewed science, technical or enginnering journals.

The fact that fans of conspiracy stories have here and elsewhere come straight out and attacked the very concept of scientific expertise and knowledge and peer-review is an indication of how foolish, ignorant and desperate they are. They have basically said: we do not need serious scientific thinking, we do not need verification by other scientists with experience and knowledge, we can just make it up. The fact these groundless theories are not accepted for publication in journals run by the world's top fire investigators, structural and civil engineers architectural engineers, aviation accident investigators, reinforced concrete experts, etc. is simply proof that these fire investigators, architectural, civil and structural engineers, aviation accident investigators and concrete and building experts are themselves involved in the conspiracy.

That pretty much says it all and should, one hopes, settle the issue for rational people.

Facts vs. unprovable, unscientific conspiracy theories that make their fans feel superior to all the "stupid duped masses".

[ 12 July 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cardy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2437

posted 12 July 2006 10:04 AM      Profile for Cardy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Siamdave, you must have missed the peer-reviewed journal articles I referenced in the quote I posted earlier. And missed the repeated challenges to come up with an article supporting your point of view.

I was worried my points in re eyewitnesses and other issues were unclear so I ran this thread past my staff today, during a discussion on the internet and politics.

They had no problem grasping the points that eluded one babbler, but I was asked:

"Is Canada a perfect country, when this is all you have to talk about for your political life?"

Seemed like a good point so I'm going to go and play chess with my wife.

But siamdave, please don't circulate all these posts of mine you've been recording - what would someone think, when they see me suggesting that the WTC buildings fell down after being hit by airplanes? My career could be ruined!


From: Kathmandu, Nepal | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 12 July 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact, the State Department website uses Popular Mechanics as a SECONDARY – not a “primary” source as blogbart claims.

For example, readers are asked to click on “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” – which is on the State Department site – AND Popular mechanics.

Readers are also asked to click on the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.

Bottom line, blogbart, the premise upon which you launched this “discussion” is false.


Nothing false about it, MacBain. The Dept of State insinuates it is relying on much more than the two sources of information you found. However, they don't mention any except the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics. They don't list any of the other insinuated sources of information so the primary sources used are ... the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.

That there are only two sources is reason to doubt their ability to fend off doubters. This is a well funded government agency making the case. Why do they need to rely on a magazine like Popular Mechanics, as a primary or secondary source? Incredible.

quote:
Facts vs. unprovable, unscientific conspiracy theories that make their fans feel superior to all the "stupid duped masses

quote:
They had no problem grasping the points that eluded one babbler, but I was asked:

"Is Canada a perfect country, when this is all you have to talk about for your political life?"

Seemed like a good point so I'm going to go and play chess with my wife.


Why, why, does it come down to this? The only reason I am posting on this topic is because I believe there are many unresolved questions about events leading up to, during and after 9/11. Also, why does it have to be said that this is the only thing I do?

Look, you others who take the official narrative without question are posting on this board too. You know very well your own abilities to do much more than posting on this one forum. Why resort to such cheap shots about wasting time talking about this? It is absolutely wrong to broadly paint people asking questions about 9/11 with some cartoonish, stereotypical brush.

I have a life (though no wife but a steady girl), travel to other countries, learn other languages, drink beer with my pals, work and solve problems for clients, pay bills, do the laundry, go to movies - I just also happen to have come to the belief that the "official" story about 9/11 is missing too many pieces.

Please try to answer my questions, but please don't denigrate me with trite suggestions about why I am asking questions, or dismiss all of my questions based on some amateur film Loose Change.

Something this big, this important, something whcih has launched an unending war on terror, that has already claimed 10's of thousands of Iraqi lives, 1000's of servicemen from US, Canada, Britain, Austrailia and elsewhere, something which is warping our democratic system, MUST be questioned. What could be more important?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 12 July 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blogbart, no one is questioning the sincerity of your motives in trying to develop a better understanding of what really happened on 9/11.

What is in question is your reluctance to accept anything that comes from official US government sources and the, perhaps inadvertent, manner in which you distort what they say.

In your latest post, for example, you say:
“Nothing false about it, MacBain. The Dept of State insinuates it is relying on much more than the two sources of information you found. However, they don't mention any except the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics. They don't list any of the other insinuated sources of information so the primary sources used are ... the 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.”

That is simply NOT true.

The State Department thread that you posted to get this discussion going lists FOUR reports prepared by the State Department in response to claims made in support of the conspiracy theory:
Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?; 9/11 Revealed; The 4,000 Jews myth; and Al Queda and September 11.

Again, blogbart, the premise upon which you based this particular discussion forum is false.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 13 July 2006 12:11 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok what about the plane that was taken down in pennsylvania? How did these people make those cell calls? I would ask again since no one has answered. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WATCHED THE FILM. How can you simply refute ALL the evidence they show. And once you unravel one thread then the whole tapestry falls apart.If you haven't watched the film you shouldn't question us "conspiracy nuts" since we are all looking at the evidence show to us.

Course I guess OJ simpson can get off. Remember he "wouldn't rest till he got the killer", or was that Gerorge W? I get those two quotes confused sometimes. So I guess in the land of the free and home of the brave the system never fails. Or in otherwords, you people that call us TINFOIL hatters must also believe OJ was completely free of guilt then because that is the "Official Story".

Questions should always be asked especially when looking at who stands to benefit from whatever deed is done. Not shut down the discussion because the reality is so harsh that it shatters the world as you know it.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 13 July 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OH Someone please fix the sidescroll on this thread PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 July 2006 04:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see any sidescroll, so I can't tell which post is doing it. There are a bunch of posts with medium-length links, and I don't have time to edit them all, at least not right now.

Just a reminder to everyone - not everyone has a wide monitor, and there are people who are visually-impaired who use large fonts to read babble. Even if a medium-length URL does not cause sidescroll for you, it might for someone else. PLEASE be considerate and use the built-in URL feature, or if you can't do that, use tinyurl.com to shorten your links, instead of posting long links by themselves in the threads.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
siamdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10299

posted 13 July 2006 05:28 AM      Profile for siamdave   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah - perhaps I am beginning to see the light here. Those who insist on having their beliefs based on "peer-reviewed journals" see themselves as grunts or rank-and-file soldiers of some sort, unwilling or unable to deal with original or creative or questioning thinking, and when Master speaks, they listen (as they have been trained to do). And when some damned civilian opposes Master, they attack - they do not need to assess the opposing arguments, if they disagree with Master they are wrong by definition because they have not appeared in Master's Peer Reviewed Journals, and must be shut up by any means possible. On the other hand, those of us who insist on thinking for ourselves prefer to think about what Master says and assess its credibility for ourselves, and if that makes sense we carry on with out lives, but if Master appears to be making a mistake (as Master does from time to time, either innocently or with more sinister motives), we call him on it (this is known as the scientific way). Grunt dislikes this. Grunt does what he's damn well told and expects the rest of us to behave the same. Cue violins. Grunt will brook no criticism of Peer Reviewed Journal, the Koran of the fundamentalist followers - it becomes a circular sort of argument, good for nothing. If the Peer Reviewed Journal does not criticize the Peer Reviewed Journal, the criticism is not valid.

By the way - progressives are supposed to be sort of lefty oriented, and Marxist journals are supposed to be sort of lefty oriented, as opposed to capitalist journals for the righty crowd - so where are the peer-reviewed articles in Marxist journals supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory? Are some of you guys on the wrong discussion board???? Or are you just trying to spread dissent, which is great for controlling the masses?


From: Thailand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 13 July 2006 08:18 AM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The State Department thread that you posted to get this discussion going lists FOUR reports prepared by the State Department in response to claims made in support of the conspiracy theory:
Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?; 9/11 Revealed; The 4,000 Jews myth; and Al Queda and September 11.

Those aren't reports - they are US Dept of State web pages topically addressing dissent of the official story - and they use two sources: 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.

I must assume that no one has a problem with the use of Popular Mechanics as a primary source. Guess we should let our kids use it for their school reports too.

PS No sidescroll here. I am using 8.6 inch monitor with at 1024x600 resolution. It might be your browswer that is rendering the page with sidescroll.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579

posted 13 July 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for Robert MacBain     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What’s with you, blogbart?

In your last posting, you falsely state that: “Those aren't reports - they are US Dept of State web pages topically addressing dissent of the official story - and they use two sources: 9/11 Commission Report AND Popular Mechanics.

“I must assume that no one has a problem with the use of Popular Mechanics as a primary source. Guess we should let our kids use it for their school reports too.”

There is not a SINGLE reference to Popular Mechanics in any of the four State Department postings to which I referred.

Yes, the postings make reference to the 9/11 Commission Report. But the “9/11 Revealed” posting also makes reference to the report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the collapse of the WTC towers which was based on a three-year investigation.

The State Department website says: “Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.

“Its conclusion is that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.”

The State Department website also said:

“NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.”

You weaken your own theories, blogbart, when you deliberately distort the “official story”.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
blogbart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12021

posted 13 July 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for blogbart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, there are references to other sources. However, this does not negate the fact that Popular Mechanics is used as a primary source. The page which I linked to called "A Guide to September 11 Myths and Conspiracy Theories" contains 9 links to Popular Mechanics to address 9 issues. This is an observation, not theory btw, and is combined with revelations that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's young 25 year old cousin Benjamin Chertoff was the "senior researcher" for the Popular Mechanic article in question.

Again, it is unbelievable to have the US Govt depend on such a dubious source as Popular Mechanics! Especially when a "senior researcher" is none other than a high administration official who has questions of his own to answer on the matter of 9/11.

quote:
The State Department website says: “Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.

“Its conclusion is that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.”

The State Department website also said:

“NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.”


As for the NIST reports; I wouldn't get to frothed up over them. Their scope was restricted to investigating how the planes crashing into the WTC 1 & 2 may have caused the buildings' collapses. All investigation was for the express purpose of this objective. All material which you noted was used only for the express purpose of meeting this objective. There was NO investigation into the hypothesis of how explosives may have caused the buildings' collapses.

The much repeated last paragraph (quoted above) is misleading because how can you find what you are expressly not looking for. The case for or against controlled demolition using explosives was NOT tested and is therefore not conclusive by NIST.

Finally, only select pieces of the investigative material (video, photographic, audio, etc), including models, used to support NIST report conclusions were released. The material which NIST has in its possession is presumably more persuasive than that of Popular Mechanics.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 17 July 2006 02:22 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not saying I believe in a conspiracy but unanswered questions lead many people to conclude just that. (Watch Oliver Stone's JFK for another "conspiracy") Besides if conspiracies had not existed in the past there wouldn't be laws making some of them a criminal offense.

To dismiss something just on the basis of it being a 'conspiracy theory' is a negative contribution to a debate as it contributes nothing but an insult. Nothing of substance that is and it proves/disproves absolutely nothing.

If you don't find Loose Change convincing watch this video and pay attention to the sound track of explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

Also check out the Fifth Estate's Conspiracy Theories:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

A non-conspirational treatment is Nova's Why The Towers Collpased but they don't deal with no 7 in that documentary


There is lots that has not been explained and we'll probably never know the truth.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 18 July 2006 02:04 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How did #7 get set on fire from debris yet the other buildings are fine.

Look at how far away #7 is. It is the only building outside of the complex. Food for thought


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 20 July 2006 10:13 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am getting tired (desensitized?) of watching buildings collapse.

I just watched 9-11 Controlled Demolitions and in spite of the lousy video quality is well worth watching. It also dismisses the theory espoused in the PBS/Nova documentary Why The Towers Fell

http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=9-11_Controlled_Demolitions&from=mainReviews

Why was the temperature at the deepest subbasement twice as high as the one on the floor where the plane impacted?

There are many troubling questions not the least being why the buildings came down at almost the speed of free fall and why it took four years for audio tapes of NYC firemen to be released to the public.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 February 2007 06:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
9/11 conspiracism is dragging activists away from the real issues

- George Monbiot

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.

- George Monbiot


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca