R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 9092 times)

rollmottle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1246
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2007, 05:07:16 pm »

mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 11:33

So then, what we can come to is: the simplest solution is the likeliest. But it seems to me the problem is there are a number of ways to perceive what the simplest solution might be.

For one thing - let's assume for a second that there was PNAC complicity in these acts - that doesn't necessarily lead us to controlled demolition.


precisely. and this is the heart of the frustration on this and other 9/11 conspiracy theory threads -- whether there was a conspiracy or not, does not prove nor even suggest a controlled demolition occurred on 9/11. i don't believe any of us are arguing whether there was or was not a conspiracy. Jon said it well...it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some government foreknowledge or complicity in the event. however, when it comes to Max's ill-conceived claims about the physical mechanics and science of how the towers fell as his PROOF of a conspiracy, his claims are so easily and scientifically dismissed as to be totally laughable. this alleged conspiracy (at least as far as explosives in the tower go) is then quite easily dismissed. to date, there hasn't been one shred of evidence pointing to a controlled demolition on any of the WTC buildings.

it is absolutely mind boggling to me that somebody (who seems to be a reasonably intelligent being in regards to other matters) would still make these absurd claims after piles upon piles of scientific evidence has incontrovertibly disproven and explained every "truth point" that they say points to evidence of a controlled demolition. this forum falls pretty Left and threads critical of this government and its leadership are always at hand -- suspecting our government of corruption is nothing new here. but when it comes to irrational and wildly unbased claims, i would expect any intelligent thinker to be outraged.

PS - FWIW, i'd still have lunch with you. you might be surprised.
Logged
SENTRALL Sound East
My SoundCloud | Twitter | www.sentrall.com

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2007, 06:55:38 pm »

The beat goes on:

   http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/9 11_the_big_coverup.html

Below is the article - the page itself is a little glitchy right now but the article there has many links to further info (Bill Maher and JJ notwithstanding).

9/11 - the big cover-up?
Peter Tatchell

September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

CCC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2007, 07:56:37 pm »

You guys all really need to get lives.

The only thing more pointless than these conspiracy theories is trying to talk sense to a bunch of crackpots.

Carry on, as you were.
Logged
 

Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2007, 10:53:58 pm »

Actually Dan, I didn't find your answers tiresome at all this time. You've posted some good points, and I wanted to thank you for being so honest about yourself and your philosophies. I feel like now we're really having a productive debate, and all respect to you for it. Maybe someday I'll take you up on that lunch thing, or better yet, a few beers. Very Happy

I just want to point out before I really get into it that I didn't mean to imply that you really doubted Jim's credentials. I hope you didn't take it that way. I don't think that you're paranoid either, I was just saying that some of your posts had come across as paranoid to me and my gut told me that they didn't really represent who you are. I just wanted to see if I was right. Also, I find that even though we don't seem to agree on a few points, I've come to respect you a little more with each post, so kudos, man.

Okay, you're right about this: The administration did have both the power and in certain cases the motivation to be complicit in the attacks. Whether or not they were remains to be seen.

Personally, I think that what really happened was somewhere in the middle ground; I don't think that the administration planned the attacks, and I also don't think that they did everything they could to stop them. I think that they probably did, quite callously, figure out the best way to capitalize on the tragedy afterwards, but I really can't back this up with anything more than "It just seems to be what's most likely."

If everything you said a few posts back is true (and I don't know that it is, but I have no reason to doubt you), that certainly does imply a certain degree of complacency. I think that the part about getting the Saudi's out of the country was simply protecting business partners from popular backlash and/or physical attacks though. Seems to me that if it was planned out from the start they wouldn't have been in the country in the first place.

You're right about us not knowing the real story behind what happened, and yes, you are right to be suspicious, but general suspicions about what happened that day isn't what this thread was initially about. It was about a reputable report in which Max's claims were refuted. I'm not here to demonize Max or anything, but if you've followed the other threads that deal with this topic as well as this one, certain patterns emerge.

For instance, Max has said several times that there is no explanation for the 45 degree "cuts" in the steel beams, and Jon has provided an explanation for those cuts. Max has said that the building couldn't have naturally collapsed the way it did, but numerous reputable sources have explained, using repeatable and empirical maths that in some cases have been peer reviewed by an entire profession, that it was a natural collapse. Max has also said that there are squibs visibly detonating, but an explanation has been provided for that as well (although this particular explanation seems less concrete than the others), but he also ignores the fact that using squibs would have required miles upon miles of detonation cord running throughout the entire building which would have certainly been noticed by someone. I and many others could go on and on. The point here is that each time he has been offered an explanation for his "inexplicable" phenomena, he has figuratively put his fingers in his ears and chanted "la la li la la, I'm not listening," or pointed to a youtube video or some such nonsense to "prove" his points, or worse, has haphazardly made statements that are just plain wrong. See the "steel doesn't weaken" fiasco above. I am willing to keep an open mind and consider the notion that the US government demolished the buildings, but Max doesn't seem to be open to the notion that they didn't. I'm sure he's a smart guy, (Max, you have an EE degree IIRC, don't you?) but the key difference that I've noted is his  inability to consider another POV.

If you are going to make claims that go against the popular opinion or current scientific data, that's fine with me; Hell, I'd even encourage it! But if you are going to say, "Hey everybody, you're all wrong!" then the burden of proof falls on YOU to prove to ME and everybody else that you're arguing against why WE'RE wrong, and Max simply hasn't done it. When Max writes a paper that can disprove, using proper calculations and empirical data, the calculations in the report that this thread was initially about, then I'll read it and consider it on the same level as the "official" report.

Until then, in my eyes, Max is the online equivalent of the man on the street wearing a "The End is Near" sign, preaching to the masses with nothing to back it up. I'm sorry, but as things stand right now, I feel that it would be folly to hold Max's opinion in the same regard as the numerous reports that have actually done the necessary work to prove something. And might I add that it is proof, because even though we lack the firsthand experience in the subject, if you or I were so inclined we could repeat the calculations provided within and come to the same conclusions that the author(s) have. It doesn't get much more solid than that.

I'm looking forward to your take on this, man!


All the Best,


Fox


Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #79 on: September 16, 2007, 01:12:34 am »

I guess my thought is that eventually one of those guys wearing those signs will be right - the end will be near. I'm always grateful for the voice howling in the wilderness. As one of my musical partners once pointed out to me, too much consensus spooks me. Somebody has to be the Gomer who can't march in lock step. We need them - if only to force us to double check our thinking.

Max has done a very good job of that.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Andy Peters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1124
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #80 on: September 16, 2007, 01:23:40 am »

ssltech wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 08:41

In the case of most mechanical or structural engineers, "failure is not an option".


A professor of mechanical engineering at my alma mater once gave the following response to a student who was pleading for extra credit on an exam:

"You build bridge, bridge fall down: no partial credit."

-a
Logged
"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band."

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #81 on: September 16, 2007, 07:00:10 am »

maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24

what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.




Total nonsense.
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

Barkley McKay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1000
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #82 on: September 16, 2007, 07:11:36 am »

err...

index.php/fa/6196/0/
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #83 on: September 16, 2007, 09:39:07 am »

"These Romans are crazy..."
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #84 on: September 16, 2007, 11:46:12 am »

Fox wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 19:53

I think that the part about getting the Saudi's out of the country was simply protecting business partners from popular backlash and/or physical attacks though. Seems to me that if it was planned out from the start they wouldn't have been in the country in the first place.

I'm thinking about this. Given that there was a national order to keep all vehicles out of the skies, doesn't it strike you as unusual to make an exception here? There are plenty of ways to protect people within the borders and on the ground. Your supposition about them being out of the country in the first place does make sense, unless things didn't go according to plan. When I heard about it, my assumption was that it was an adaptive move.

I see it as an executive order, handed down by the unitary executive from the executive he takes orders from, the matriarch of the Bush crime family. In the normal context of a national emergency, this exception/violation would be a major issue, but under these people, who finally have what they've always felt they deserved, i.e. complete control, its simply a day in the life.

You have to remember that is the same family who had to be stopped by governmental order from being Hitler's bag-men even after war was declared between their own country and Germany. Prescott Bush continued to work for the "enemy" well into WWII.

DS  
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #85 on: September 16, 2007, 12:14:37 pm »

Regarding the link where a new religion will be used for a new world order..

..I'm not sure I want to get into this argument as well, because it hasn't happened materially so it is just speculation at this point, not something to be observed and analyzed through factual evidence.

but it does have to do with the public's perception of reality, and how masses react to information which is presented to them by the media etc.. so in that sense it is related

my girlfriend introduced me to medjugorje which is a place in the middle of nowhere in eastern europe where the Virgin Mary has been giving out weekly messages to believers for years.

she has been there and there is a constant flow of people who go since the 80's

one of the things which is 'rumored' is that there are strange shapes which appear in the sky and that the sun becomes double or something to that effect.

It is hard for me to believe any of that, because of the way I approach truth, but for some people it is easy enough to believe.

I was showing her how christianity has taken many of its traditions, images and icons directly from the previous religious traditions, and she continued to say that it was all planned by the christian god in some way anyway..

harmless enough, she has the right to believe how she wants to believe.

But if the Great Leaders of the future ever figure out a way of making a 'remote-control God' that would certainly be a great source of unifying power for them..

of course to get this to really happen they would have to reduce popular culture to the dark ages..

it seems strange that the internet as we know it is still standing if this is the real objective.

back to the towers.. Surprised

Logged

Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #86 on: September 16, 2007, 12:41:16 pm »

I agree, Dan, that they didn't have to get the Saudis out of the country, but they did. I don't think that it was justifiable or fair for them to make that exception, but I do see that exception as something less sinister than an involvement in the attacks. More like, "Shit, this is bad! That crazy bastard's family is here, and we're doing business with them! This won't look good, boys... Okay I've got it! Let's get them out of here and keep it real quiet, hopefully no one'll notice."

Still underhanded and wrong, but nothing all that surprising, really. It was unusual, sure, but this exception served to benefit the administration's image in the days and weeks following the attacks, so it's not hard to see how they came to that conclusion. I'm just saying that suspicious happenings aren't proof of involvement, and most of these suspicious events can be accounted for by either self-preservation, common sense or good old fashioned science. Some things can't be proven though, and so again we're left weighing which scenario is more likely, and the simplest will usually win out.

I don't think that the administration's hands are sparkling clean in this, but I don't think that they were the ones to pull the trigger either. This seems to be the most likely scenario to me, but we might just have to agree to disagree.



Fox
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #87 on: September 16, 2007, 12:48:55 pm »

I think we agree - I'm not suggesting that any of this can be considered proof. But I am saying that when something stinks, there is usually something rotting away. And historically, when the Bush family is involved, you can pretty much count on it. Even the Mafia have been more patriotic than them.

If image was the concern, the Bin Laden escape escapade backfired.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #88 on: September 16, 2007, 12:50:28 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Sun, 16 September 2007 09:14

it seems strange that the internet as we know it is still standing if this is the real objective.

Good venue for the dissemination of disinformation.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #89 on: September 18, 2007, 10:07:57 pm »

"Do not accept anything simply because it has been said by your teacher, or because it has been written in your sacred book, or because it has been believed by many, or because it has been handed down by your ancestors. Accept and live only according to what will enable you to see truth face to face."

- Buddha, as quoted in "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life" by Thich Nhat Hanh

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up