Activists and Alternative Media vs. the 9/11 Truth Movement?

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas

Good analogy, Fidel. I too am frustrated with Sineed's blatant (and convenient) self-contradictions in these two threads. And I say that as a testament to her otherwise intelligence.

Fidel

Sineed wrote:

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:

If a single reputable engineer or architect stands up and says, hey; this isn't right, I'd get on-side.  But that hasn't happened.

Right, because all these people aren't reputable.

They aren't.  From an article in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007, under "Review of Causes of WTC Collapse:"

Quote:
As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a a conspiracy with planted explosives...

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

It goes through a detailed explanation for how the building collapsed, involving math that most people don't understand (including me).

So reputable engineers and architects don't buy it.

And Sineed wrote in the thread, British MP's: Stop funding homeoquackery...

Sineed wrote:
Unfortunately, there's all sorts of bad science published in good scientific journals.

I offered an adequate rebuttal of the article - don't have time to get into more detail.

It seems to me as though Sineed herself is capable of having reasonable doubt concerning other professionals publishing bad science. Meanwhile the truther group Architects and Engineers for truth are gaining new members and supporters all the time. This all reminds me of an old Hollywood movie entitled Twelve Angry Men, where Henry Fonda is the only one of twelve jurors who thinks that enough reasonable doubt exists not to convict a young man of murder. Lee J. Cobb gave a brilliant performance as the angriest juror who thought it was a slam dunk case. And by the end of the story,  the other eleven are doubtful enough that they reverse their guilty verdicts. And they were angry no more.

 

Fidel

If this was Twelve Angry Men/Women, then I think someone would have to play Lee J. Cobb's character, the angriest of jurors who might believe 9/11 to be a slam dunk case for foreign based terrorism. I can't really say that there is any one babbler who could play Cobb's character, which was considered a fine performance for an actor way back when. I'm sensing some doubtful vibes among our worthy jurors in this mini-debate however slight. I think a few of us habour reasonable doubt concerning 9/11 guilt. I think if they were to admit it, they don't know who is solely responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet America and Canada are warring today with what I think is a highly doubtful enemy. I think the world has been hoodwinked by another false pretext for war in a similar way that Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie.

Sineed

jas wrote:
Edited my above post so as not to imply that I'm making light of your profession of pharmacist, which I'm not.

No worries - I make light of it sometimes.

Quote:
Just that your areas of expertise are not those of architects and engineers.

True.  

However, I feel that the 9/11 truth movement directs its energies in the wrong direction.  The fact that those events happened which were highly convenient for the agenda of the Bush administration doesn't mean the Bush administration engineered it.  There were coverups, but these, I feel, were directed towards the ass-covering of the people who should have seen this coming, and didn't act.

jas wrote:
I too am frustrated with Sineed's blatant (and convenient) self-contradictions in these two threads. And I say that as a testament to her otherwise intelligence.

I think I'm just too damn busy to give these arguments the attention they deserve.

Those "Architects and Engineers for 911 truth" have been discredited, but I can't find where that is (apparently, you don't have to prove your credentials in order to sign up for them - have you tried it?)

Anyway I really have to do other stuff....

Fidel

It's a hung jury. And yes, the people who wage war on desperately poor, resource-rich countries using false pretexts as justification don't have to worry about transparent or accountable investigations either. And it's a good thing for the war criminals.

http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Quote:
Why Lawyers for 9/11 Truth?

Lawyers are trained to value the Constitution and the rule of law.

We are trained to examine evidence and to spot cover-ups or inconsistencies in the evidence and bias in witnesses or decision-makers.

Attorneys are also experts in weighing conflicting evidence.

For all of the above reasons, many lawyers have concluded that the 9/11 Commission and other government examinations were wholly inadequate, and did not follow proper rules of evidence or procedure.

We are demanding an end to the 9/11 cover-up, and a full investigation by unbiased people with subpoena power . . . and the courage to demand that the Constitution and rule of law are followed, and all guilty persons held accountable for their actions.

Doubt is everywhere concerning the official crazy George government conspiracy.

remind remind's picture

Can't find where that is????????

 

One would think it would be easy.....

Fidel
Rocker Rocker's picture

If it's mainstream credentials you're looking for then try this:

The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11

Quote:
The story that John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, tells is one of monumental bureaucratic failure encompassing our entire government. Farmer exposes "the story behind the story", as the false congressional testimony given by an array of agencies and individuals, as well as misleading reports in the media culminated in the Commission staff's dawning recognition that the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks. What emerges with painful, stunning clarity is that "at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."

Farmer was the former attorney general of New Jersey in addittion to being senior counsel to the 9/11 commission. He's currently Dean of Rutger's law school.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that by writing, "... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened," the good Dean is accusing members of the US government of a... oh, what's the word I'm looking for?

Fidel

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR201003... advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters[/url]

Obama: Let's give 9/11 masterminds a fair trial in civil court.

American inquisition to Obama: Are you mad?  Khalid Sheik Mohammed is our designated patsy. It took us FIVE YEARS to torture the truth out of him.

Snert Snert's picture

Here's the problem.  Any investigation, no matter how unbiased, no matter how transparent, no matter how thorough, will have two possible outcomes:

1)  find that the "truthers" were right

2) "More COVERUPS!!!!11!"

There simply will never, ever be an option 3 of "find that the official story is correct"

And that's what makes this unsufferably dishonest.  The "truthers" don't just want a new investigation, they want a new investigation that proves them right.  There's no room in truther-land for the possiblity that they aren't.  If the truthers could promise to accept the results of an independent investigation, regardless of whether it proves them right or wrong, there could be some merit, but if there's just no way they'd do that. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Why Snert do only people who don't agree with the Empire's view of the world have to prove their worth to you. 

When you dismiss something by putting a wide and diverse group of people involved in an issue into brackets like  "the Truthers" and then attribute negative characteristics you are not arguing you are actually just smearing. Your constant use of the straw man argument against anything you don't like is really not very sophisticated. 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Uh, I didn't group them into "the truthers", just FYI.  And I'm sorry, but 9/11 is nearly ten years old now, and in those ten years I have yet to see even ONE example of the truthers saying "Oh, OK, I guess we got the wrong end of that".

But I'll open it up.  Has ANYONE ever seen an example of the truthers accepting any argument, evidence or other proof that didn't fit their agenda?  ANYONE??

Please post it here and help kropotkin prove that I'm just "smearing" them. 

jas

Snert wrote:

There simply will never, ever be an option 3 of "find that the official story is correct"

And that's what makes this unsufferably dishonest.  The "truthers" don't just want a new investigation, they want a new investigation that proves them right.  There's no room in truther-land for the possiblity that they aren't.  If the truthers could promise to accept the results of an independent investigation, regardless of whether it proves them right or wrong, there could be some merit, but if there's just no way they'd do that. 

I'll own up to this. Yeah, you're right. There's simply no way the official story is 100% right. Even people who accept it acknowledge the omissions and the weird, ill-fitting details. We know already that it's not 100% true. I think the push for an investigation into widening the cracks of those untruths is to try to gain some momentum, within the American public, of recognition that a blatant falsehood has been put over on them, by their own, not by some bogus cardboard terrorists or some other enemy-of-the-day. The recognition of that would make efforts of peace groups much easier because then the majority, rather than a fringe minority, would understand and accept that their own government has deceived them in a criminal and murderous way. Something like that would not be able to happen again - not very soon, anyway. Currently, another 9/11 could happen with the same bullshit, fairy-tale storyline and silly details and it would be bought, again. Exposing who actually orchestrated it makes it much harder for them to do again. Proving the story's falsehood will at least bring everyone onto the same page.

I suspect the drive for truth is as you say: to be proven correct. Speaking for myself, it is deeply alienating to have to interact on a daily basis with people everywhere who accept such ludicrous notions that modern concrete and steel towers would collapse, completely into themselves, after a few upper floor fires burning for less than an hour. I'm really sorry that you can't or won't see that this is utterly ludicrous. And that you can't or won't acknowledge that there's no precedent in modern skyscraper engineering that can explain this. It's ludicrous, and I for one cannot have this ludicrous story existing as some kind of historical "fact".

Fidel

I think that there are obvious problems with allowing a fair trial for Lee Harvey Oswald, I mean, Khalid Sheik Mohammed(See Conspiracy Theory movie where Mel Gibson explains to Julia Roberts that infamous assassins always have three names)

1. A civil trial in NYC would present myriad security problems and a chance for Jack Ruby's grandson to get at and shoot KSM to death before the trial.

2. The Pentagon could release the evidence against the 9/11 patsies - that evidence which is kept secret for national security reasons, but then they'd have to kill everyone. And they mean everyone.

3. There is never an option three for treaturous twixta truthsters (see Snert's comments above) because they always conspire to make the pie higher as the craziest of Georges once said.

jas

Snert wrote:

There simply will never, ever be an option 3 of "find that the official story is correct"

And that's what makes this unsufferably dishonest.  The "truthers" don't just want a new investigation, they want a new investigation that proves them right.  There's no room in truther-land for the possiblity that they aren't.  If the truthers could promise to accept the results of an independent investigation, regardless of whether it proves them right or wrong, there could be some merit, but if there's just no way they'd do that. 

What I also find interesting about this is it describes just as perfectly the anti-homeopathy crowd here. Whereas some, in those threads, can acknowledge that homeopathy may or may not work, but may choose to play devil's advocate on the issue, others won't even read, or at least acknowledge scientific articles posted if it threatens their viewpoint, but instead just continue their taunting.

In the 9/11 WTC issue, some of you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are professionals in relevant fields, more and more now, willing to believe that there are some serious untruths being propagated about it. You won't even look at the links. How can this kind of avoidance be taken as credible?

Fidel

jas wrote:
In the 9/11 WTC issue, some of you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are professionals in relevant fields, more and more now, willing to believe that there are some serious untruths being propagated about it. You won't even look at the links. How can this kind of avoidance be taken as credible?

1.Their professional licences are forged and resumes padded? Everybody does it nowadays.

2. Truthsters are really KAOS agents working for doctor evol and mini-me?

3. Truthsters are big fibbers?

4. See random excuse generator at http://www.La-La-La-WeCantHEARUTruthsters.com

HeywoodFloyd

Snert wrote:

Uh, I didn't group them into "the truthers", just FYI.  And I'm sorry, but 9/11 is nearly ten years old now, and in those ten years I have yet to see even ONE example of the truthers saying "Oh, OK, I guess we got the wrong end of that".

But I'll open it up.  Has ANYONE ever seen an example of the truthers accepting any argument, evidence or other proof that didn't fit their agenda?  ANYONE??

Please post it here and help kropotkin prove that I'm just "smearing" them. 

No. I haven't seen a "Truther" admit that.

 

They think they're getting clever though. They no longer dispute facts in public. They just call for a new investigation. Into what? Depends on which site you visit.

 

Fidel

It's all randomy like. And besides, ten years hath passed, and the statute of limitations on mass murder in Amerikkka is only 9.99 years. The American inquisition called it and stamped it already.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Please name all the "truthers' that you refer too so I can check the accuracy of your blanket statement about this group.  Your tar brush is just too wide try a more narrow brush.  

Fidel

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
No. I haven't seen a "Truther" admit that.

They take some waterboarding before they'll admit to anything except name, rank, and lucky 6-49 numbers. Truther Cong, the unseen enemy. Trust no one, and may your powder always be dry.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961]A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers[/url] Courageous insiders, gagged, hounded and ignored

Quote:
When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.

So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks.

Non-truthers tell us they believe the official US Government conspiracy theory concerning 9/11. All other government worker's and private contractor's depositions should be ignored though, because they are obviously lying and part of some obscure diabolical plot to fool the world about 9/11. And they say governments can't keep secrets. That's not true either.

NDPP

Iran's Ahmadinejad: September 11 Attacks 'A Big Lie'

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100306/ahmadinejad...

"September 11 was a big lie and a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan.' He called the attacks a 'complicated intelligence scenario and act.."

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture

jas wrote:

it is deeply alienating to have to interact on a daily basis with people everywhere who accept such ludicrous notions that modern concrete and steel towers would collapse, completely into themselves, after a few upper floor fires burning for less than an hour. I'm really sorry that you can't or won't see that this is utterly ludicrous. And that you can't or won't acknowledge that there's no precedent in modern skyscraper engineering that can explain this. It's ludicrous, and I for one cannot have this ludicrous story existing as some kind of historical "fact".

For myself, I find it very difficult when "Truthers" talk to skeptics or non-Truthers with this tone or this assumption about us in their heads.

I  mean, if "Truthers" don't want to be judged then what gives them the right to judge others?

Fidel

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls#National_opinion_polls]41% of NY State and 49% of NYC residents believe:[/url] that "individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act"

"Consciously failed to act" 

I think that there were a number of things wrong with the investigation that made it appear slip-shod for so many Americans. The fact that the official investigation failed to report anything on why WTC-7 collapsed is astounding. But there are so many other questions that were just not answered. And then there are the many whistleblowers themselves. Could the crazy George regime simply plead insanity? Opinion polls suggest as well that those favouring the official US Government conspiracy theory for 9/11 are more likely to view U.S. Government in a positive light.

 

jas

statica wrote:

For myself, I find it very difficult when "Truthers" talk to skeptics or non-Truthers with this tone or this assumption about us in their heads.

I  mean, if "Truthers" don't want to be judged then what gives them the right to judge others?

??

I don't see this as an issue about "judgments" or "assumptions". If I'm arguing with someone who wants to deny that there exist any reputable professionals expressing doubts about the official story, then I'm not making an "assumption", I'm attacking their argument. Nor am I making statements about "non-Truthers" beyond how bizarre it is to live in a world where these kinds of counter-to-common-sense beliefs are accepted and propagated.

As for the tone, it merely mirrors the tone "truthers" receive constantly, in these threads, and in outside areas of discourse. As far as tone goes, it's a two-way street. You give as good as you get.

NDPP

Perpetual Fraud

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Perpetual-Fraud-by-Jim-Miles-100304-673...

"For historians who like dates and bookends for their events, the 'global war on terror' started with the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon (9/11). The idea of perpetual war provided large benefits to a few and pain and terror to much of the world, and to the rest of the world an increasing disbelief in the intents, means and rationales for the war..

The 9/11 attacks were by any real accounting only another incident in the fraud that the imperial powers have 'perpetuated' on the citizens of the world..."

Fidel

 

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5112]Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.[/url]

Quote:
KSM's claim that he ran the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is also highly suspect because it also conveniently sweeps under the carpet the fact that it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant and ordered the bombing to go ahead.

In addition, KSM was a known CIA asset in the eighties and was used as a go between during the CIA-funded Afghan "jihad" against the occupying Soviets.

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&... Bunel: "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this" [/url]

West Coast Greeny

Why no whistleblowers? Anybody?

Fidel
Snert Snert's picture

Am I missing something about those "whistleblowers"?  It seems like NONE of them was an "insider" in the great conspiracy.  Where are the insiders?  Where's the guy who can plausibly say "Donald Rumsfeld ordered me to rig detonators on each floor"?  Where's the woman who can plausibly say "I was told to falsify flight records and destroy passenger manifests"??

These aren't whistleblowers, they're just more people with an opinion after the fact.  If the author thinks this is what a whistleblower is, they need to go look it up.

SparkyOne

statica wrote:

 

For myself, I find it very difficult when "Truthers" talk to skeptics or non-Truthers with this tone or this assumption about us in their heads.

I  mean, if "Truthers" don't want to be judged then what gives them the right to judge others?

 

I do too.  Their is a big difference between searching for a truth and looking for evidence that you opinion is fact and discounting everything else.

Fidel

Snert wrote:
Am I missing something about those "whistleblowers"?

What about [url=http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7332]Sibel Edmonds?[/url] She worked for the FBI as a translator and had this to say:

Quote:
"I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." ...

That doesn't fit too well with Zbigniew Brzezinski's or Charlie Wilson's Hollywood versions of recent cold war and post-cold war era history, does it?

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/15149.jpg[/IMG]

Is US Government capable of lying to Americans and the rest of the world?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
What about Sibel Edmonds? She worked for the FBI as a translator and had this to say

None of these "whistleblowers" was an "insider" to the great conspiracy. None of them is actually a whistleblower, in the proper sense of the word, and you're being dishonest when you pretend any are. 

Again, where are the actual insiders who've decided to come clean about their own involvement on that day, and blow the whistle? Have you even ONE?

The "gotcha" tone of the article, and your own "gotcha" tone in post #79 suggest that you do, in fact, know of some actual whistleblowers.  Ar you going to produce them?  Yes or no?

Snert Snert's picture

Can I assume you mean all of that to say "sorry, but I don't have any actual whistleblowers"?

You, and the author, seem to believe that, contrary to critics' claims, the "truth" movement is aware of actual whistleblowers who chose to speak up.

Where are they?  If there are no such whistleblowers, why not just say so plainly and save me and others from having to ask over and over.

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Quote:
What about Sibel Edmonds? She worked for the FBI as a translator and had this to say

None of these "whistleblowers" was an "insider" to the great conspiracy. None of them is actually a whistleblower, in the proper sense of the word, and you're being dishonest when you pretend any are.

But non-truthsters in this thread have implied they accept the US government version of things. Here we have one single government worker whose under-oath testimony conflicts with the overall context what happened leading up to 9/11. If you accept some government versions of the truth, why would we discriminate against Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony as to deep state government involvement with those accused of perpetrating 9/11? Why is the bogus 9/11 Commission report more credible than what other US government workers have to say about things which were totally ignored by the slip-shod investigation?

Fidel

Snert wrote:
Can I assume you mean all of that to say "sorry, but I don't have any actual whistleblowers"?

For example, there is a murder trial. A man's wife is murdered, and in court the man leads everyone in court to believe he knows nothing of the person(s) accused of murdering his wife. The accused are strangers to the man. Later it's revealed that the man was not just familiar with the accused, he was doing business for several years with those accused  of murdering his wife! Why would the man not mention any of this during the trial? And you as an unbiased juror are saying that these sordid details are irrelevant?

Snert Snert's picture

Sorry, but none of that has anything to do with whistleblowing.  You made a claim in post #71 which appears to be false.  Can you provide any ACTUAL whistleblowers?  It kind of looks like you can't, yes?

Fidel

Snert you're blowing it. I'm recommending new counsel for the defence.

Snert Snert's picture

On the grounds that I'm badgering the witness?

You made a claim that's yours to back up.  I'm happy to bring attention to the fact that you evidently can't.  Your "whistleblowers" aren't whistleblowers at all, and in true "truther" fashion your response is to ignore that and move on.

We can burn up the rest of this thread with me asking you to back up your claim, and you evading that, if you'd like.  But sorry, we're not just going to sweep it under the carpet and move on to your next claim.  So... any actual whistleblowers to share with us?  Where are they, Fidel? 

Is it possible that, just as critics of the "truthers" claim, there simply (and unbelievably) are no such whistleblowers?

And is it also possible that, rather than a communal display of incredible willpower and discretion, there are no whistleblowers because there was no conspiracy for them to participate in (and later tell to a buddy over beers)?

That's the way it's looking, Fidel, unless you can point to an actual whistleblower.

Fidel

Thanks Snert. Good show. I think we should let someone else comment at this point.

HeywoodFloyd

Snert wrote:

We can burn up the rest of this thread with me asking you to back up your claim, and you evading that, if you'd like. 

Careful, that's what led to Sven's 'vacation'. My advice is to accept that these Fidelesque answers and usual assortment of thread diversions are all you are going to get. 

Snert Snert's picture

In that case I think that what Sven was doing was interpreted as trolling.  In this case, Fidel has made a claim of a sort.  If we can't ask for support for claims made, and must stop expecting that support after "X" requests, then we'd be making it frightfully easy to make a dishonest claim and then just "wait it out".  I trust we won't do that.

And while I can't really force Fidel to back up his own claims, I would hope I'm well within my rights to put the spotlight on the fact that he cannot.  I can't change his mind on any of this, but the casual readers who come along may as well know. 

Fidel

Snert wrote:

In that case I think that what Sven was doing was interpreted as trolling.  In this case, Fidel has made a claim of a sort.

No not me. Sibel Edmonds made a number of claims under oath. I'm not on the stand. And I think, but don't quote me, that you are waving the government's version of events in front of our faces. But now you're blowing off at least one whistleblower's testimony - a whistleblower who worked for the US Government at the time just after 9/11. Sibel Edmonds went to work for the US feds because she thought she could help them identify the evil-doers. And what she's saying now the feds don't appreciate very much at all but haven't refuted her claims either. Can you refute Sibel Edmonds' claims, Snert? Because if not,  you can bang the gong and give yourself the hook in the best interests of the people you're trying to defend.

Snert Snert's picture

I'm not referring to Sibel Edmonds.  I'm referring to post #71 in which you posted "A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers Courageous insiders, gagged, hounded and ignored"... except I'm not seeing any "insiders" in that list.

 

I think that the critics of the "truthers" have asked, for ten years, how it is that nobody who was directly involved in 9/11 , as the "truthers" believe it happened ever told a loved one, a co-worker, a drinking buddy, or their deathbed witness, that they helped plant the explosives or they helped fly the planes by remote control, or what have you.

 

Bringing up a list of people who were not actually involved is dishonest. I'm asking you at least one genuine whistleblower, who had some nefarious task on that day, and who now wants to tell his or her story. Sorry, but Sibel Edmonds was not one of the footsoldiers of the great conspiracy. I'm not here to discuss her, refute her or engage with her. I'm asking for the whistleblowers that you seem to believe do exist. If you can't provide any then we're back to the critics being right. Somehow everyone involved has magically maintained a second conspiracy of silence. I guess that's kind of like when suddenly, in a Broadway musical, a whole train station full of strangers can just suddenly burst into the same song.

Fidel

Snert wrote:
I guess that's kind of like when suddenly, in a Broadway musical, a whole train station full of strangers can just suddenly burst into the same song.

Do you sometimes have sudden urges to tap dance across the room?

I think you can't answer a lot of questions that need to be answered in a real and transparent investigation into 9/11. And I think very many people have difficulty with accepting that there are some things that are just bigger than themselves, like truth and justice. That's what I think,

Get it on, bang a gong, get it on. - T. Rex

Sineed

For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the Popular Mechanics article of March 2005.  Five years on, it's still a salient read:

Quote:
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18006]9/11 Commissioners:[/url]

Quote:
The Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Of course Snert will want to tell us that even these people had nothing to do with 9/11.

Sineed
Rocker Rocker's picture

This thread has me all riled up! :)

Why? Because it's a good example of the lack of intellectual rigour that pervades all kinds of fora, news media in particular, as well as exemplifying the sort of smear tactics that, I thought, had no place here.

Snert wrote:

That's my very favourite part of this story. Why won't the anti-war community support the "truthers"? Given a choice between:

a) most of them simply don't buy the "truthers" explanation of events
b) "agents and gatekeepers" are actively working to prevent this support

... buddy picks b. Occam's razor picks a.

And how'd Occam's razor work out on the whole the-earth-is-flat thing?
Or the Earth is the centre of the universe?
Or Newtonian mechanics is all that physics has to offer?

Snert, yours is a terrible misinterpretation/misapplication of the principle. Slicing up the world with Occam's razor is only used to decide between competing theories that are equally well-supported by evidence. You've provided nothing like a theory and absolutely no evidence - just your personal conjecture.

Occam wants his razor back.

Snert wrote:

I think there should be a word for people who imagine conspiracies against themselves, specifically for the self-importance bonus that brings. "Look at me, I'm so important that no expense is being spared to secretly persecute me!!!" Ya, whatever. Tongue out

There is: narcissist

Snert wrote:

Here's the problem. Any investigation, no matter how unbiased, no matter how transparent, no matter how thorough, will have two possible outcomes:

1) find that the "truthers" were right

2) "More COVERUPS!!!!11!"

There simply will never, ever be an option 3 of "find that the official story is correct"

And that's what makes this unsufferably dishonest. The "truthers" don't just want a new investigation, they want a new investigation that proves them right. There's no room in truther-land for the possiblity that they aren't. If the truthers could promise to accept the results of an independent investigation, regardless of whether it proves them right or wrong, there could be some merit, but if there's just no way they'd do that.

Insufferably dishonest is right! You've already decided all the possible outcomes that will be acceptable to truthers so there's no need for you to think about anything, is there? This sort of thinking is so shallow that I can't for the life of me understand why anyone bothered to reply to this.

Snert wrote:

Uh, I didn't group them into "the truthers", just FYI.

Again, that's just dishonest. No doubt the smear didn't originate with you but you use the term and the tactic to the exclusion of every single other possibility every chance you get.

Snert wrote:

And I'm sorry, but 9/11 is nearly ten years old now, and in those ten years I have yet to see even ONE example of the truthers saying "Oh, OK, I guess we got the wrong end of that".

But I'll open it up. Has ANYONE ever seen an example of the truthers accepting any argument, evidence or other proof that didn't fit their agenda? ANYONE??

Please post it here and help kropotkin prove that I'm just "smearing" them.

Chaff. Red herring. The logical fallacy of negative evidence, etc.

Prove that you're smearing them? Why, it'll be my pleasure.

Snert wrote:

I think there should be a word for people who imagine conspiracies against themselves, specifically for the self-importance bonus that brings. "Look at me, I'm so important that no expense is being spared to secretly persecute me!!!" Ya, whatever.

...

The "truthers" don't just want a new investigation, they want a new investigation that proves them right. There's no room in truther-land for the possiblity that they aren't. If the truthers could promise to accept the results of an independent investigation, regardless of whether it proves them right or wrong, there could be some merit, but if there's just no way they'd do that.

Are these not smears? Truthers are, according to you: paranoid, self-important narcissists. They're intolerant and dissociated from reality (they live in truther-land).

You haven't offered not even the tiniest shred of proof to back up your claims that you know what all these disparate groups are thinking, what they believe, what they will promise, what their agenda is or that, as a group, they are paranoid. I can't imagine what might be driving you to these levels of grandiose thinking.

Truthers don't believe the official story because they have seen evidence to the contrary. Truthers want the truth. Is that outrageous? Absolutely not. It's the duty of every citizen and they're just being good citizens.

The 9/11 Truth movement, like many movements before, has no central organizing group that sets the agenda. There are many groups in this movement, comprised of experts in their fields, who have presented evidence and are demanding a new investigation. These same groups are not positing alternate theories. They are intelligent enough to understand that until the have all the evidence no alternate theories can be offered.

It's not the NeoCons-did-it movement. It's not even the 9/11-was-an-inside-job movement. There are any number of people who use evidence provided by 9/11 truthers to support their pet political theories and you're all too eager to lump them all together with the 9/11 truth movement. This is simply wrong. Kropotkin made this point very well in post #61

But here's what really pisses me off: In my opinion, you've taken one of the most beautiful words in the human lexicon and turned it into a shit-stained cudgel and you're using it to bash good people. How long berfore we see this same term applied to those who want an investigation into involvement of Canadian forces in torture? If I know the National Post it won't be too long at all.

So, I'm taking this opportunity to wipe off the shit and declare that I am a truther. I've seen evidence the refutes the official story. I want a new investigation.

Fidel

Rocker you rock!

Pages

Topic locked