9/11

[theCryptofishist]

Also, as I look at the list of roughly 200 or so contributors to the report, I don't think that there's any way that you could get this many scientists and engineers to (a) agree to participate in a cover-up, and (b) have all of them keep their mouths shut about it.

I think that a lot of the current conspiracy theories about scientific cover-ups, not only exist for the same reason we invented gods (a need to explain and feel power over events that leave us horribly aware of how vulnerable we are in a big, scary world) but also a general ignorance about how science works and cultural narratives that separate scientists and their work from normal human activity going back to at least Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.
Why is it easier to believe that a cable of Americans was so wretchedly determined to have a war that they somehow did this, than to believe that there are people elsewhere in the world who hate us and exploited our vulnerabilities so expertly so as to have flown airplanes into buildings.

Oh, and the Maine was sunk by an explosion in its (her?) own boilers.

[JStep]

Well that sounds like a definite maybe if I ever heard one.

We've all seen the planes hit the buildings. We've all learned the buildings were designed to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 which was the largest airliner at the time. And yeah, I've seen the pictures of the supposed shearing of support beams by explosives. Personally, I'm just glad those buildings fell relatively straight down instead of tipping over!

They did withstand being hit. They just didn't withstand being containers for massive quantities of burning jet fuel. Every credible (read, peer reviewed) study has concluded that the "inside job" conspiracy BS is just that. The whole thing pivoted on: Jet fuel burns at X degrees, and steel doesn't melt at that temperature. Any welder or metallurgist will tell you that at X degrees steel doesn't melt, but it does lose it's tensile strength and becomes soft and pliable. IE, won't hold up a building.

How do you explain Tower 7 then? No jet fuel involved there.

Read the reports, it's not up to me to explain it. This is like religion vs science. The burden of proof is on you, provide some evidence, have it peer reviewed in an open journal by the scientific community.

Read about Russel's teapot to get my meaning here. One can posit anything, my inability to *disprove* any arbitrary story is not evidence for that stories merit.

[theCryptofishist]

If Mr. Bush, or any of his handlers had known, that ridiculous scene with the Pet Goat wouldn't have happened. And Giuliani wouldn't have had the chance to steal the thunder.
People in the administration might have thought something was going to happen. There is no way that they knew that, or anything on that scale, was going to happen.
And now, of course, we get CBA out here and go through that garbage again.

Sometimes I wish I was endowed with the mysterious power to lock threads.

*sigh*

Which is what I said.

I doubt a reasonable discussion on this is possible. Too many people's emotions/pet politics get in the way.

Okay, I did open that post right after I posted it and couldn't think how to edit it to accurately express what I thought.
Here's what I wish I'd said: We know that there was some actual intelligence "noise" that was going on (and I'm pretty damn sure was ignored out of idiocy rather than something else) and people in the agencies might have inferred that something was going to happen. What actually happened was a couple of orders of magnitude larger than these people might have guessed--ah fuck it. I think that if anyone thought something was going to happen they were thinking dozens--not thousands--of victims. And this idea of planting detonator charges is ... leaves me fucking speechless.
and these super-patriots in the administration at the time...it's hard to see them accepting the image of America as humiliated and stupid as that attack made us look.
So, this is not what I read in your post, BAS, although it wasn't in mine either.

[JStep]

I think that a lot of the current conspiracy theories about scientific cover-ups, not only exist for the same reason we invented gods (a need to explain and feel power over events that leave us horribly aware of how vulnerable we are in a big, scary world) but also a general ignorance about how science works and cultural narratives that separate scientists and their work from normal human activity going back to at least Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Occams Razor. A huge network of undercover (supposedly satanic) secret society members from the Bilderbergers to the Council on Foreign Relations to the Bohemian Grove has operatives in all facets of society, the government and the military, pulling the strings of the media and popular culture in an evil plot to enslave the entire world so that they themselves can live in mansions in a tiny percentage of the inhabitable world, insulated from the worker bees they've enslaved...

OR...

The story that all evidence points to, seems plausible, makes sense and doesn't require an elaborate, unsupported theory of shadow puppets and satanic criminal masterminds.

[neon tetra]

Personally, I think the "tin foil hat" wearers are the ones who believe the official story.

I mean... the hijackers brought their terror plans with them in their luggage?
Somehow one of the hijacker's passports made it safely through the impact/explosion, the collapse, and was found in the rubble?
The record number of put orders on American Airlines the day before. The new insurance taken out on the buildings. The new security company for the buildings. The missing gold. Building 7 falling in the same way, even though it wasn't even hit. The cutter-charge explosions seen & heard. The hijackers that were reported by the BBC as still being alive. The utter convenience of the timing of the whole thing for Bush's foreign policy.
Also, do a quick Google search for "Tim Osman".

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to believe the 'official story'. But my gut feeling (even as it was happening), and all of the evidence I've seen, leads me to believe otherwise.

[JStep]

Personally, I think the "tin foil hat" wearers are the ones who believe the official story.

I mean... the hijackers brought their terror plans with them in their luggage?
Somehow one of the hijacker's passports made it safely through the impact/explosion, the collapse, and was found in the rubble?
The record number of put orders on American Airlines the day before. The new insurance taken out on the buildings. The new security company for the buildings. The missing gold. Building 7 falling in the same way, even though it wasn't even hit. The cutter-charge explosions seen & heard. The hijackers that were reported by the BBC as still being alive. The utter convenience of the timing of the whole thing for Bush's foreign policy.
Also, do a quick Google search for "Tim Osman".

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to believe the 'official story'. But my gut feeling (even as it was happening), and all of the evidence I've seen, leads me to believe otherwise.

WHAT evidence? I see this story over and over and never see any evidence offered. Pointing to websites that just tell the same story isn't evidence. I don't even know that the "official story" is supposed to be, truly. If you think there's evidence that people within our government participated in the mass murder of 3000 US citizens on our own soil, I'm sure the justice dept would be eager to see it. Not to mention international criminal courts.

[neon tetra]

WHAT evidence?

Testimony of engineers, scientists, and people that were there. Video evidence of cutter charges and Larry Silverstein saying to pull building 7.
All of the evidence of put orders, insurance & security changes.
The fact that NORAD just happened to be doing drills that morning about planes flying into buildings, and was told to stand down. The fact that Israeli telecom companies knew in advance. The fact that never before in history have buildings fallen like that from fire.


Peer-reviewed evidence?
http://911scholars.org/index.php?option ... &Itemid=62

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

http://stj911.org/evidence/wtc.html


From all of the data that I have seen, my conclusion is that the 'official version' of events that day is bullshit.

What really happened?
That's what I'd like to know.

[theCryptofishist]

Personally, I think the "tin foil hat" wearers are the ones who believe the official story.

I mean... the hijackers brought their terror plans with them in their luggage?
Somehow one of the hijacker's passports made it safely through the impact/explosion, the collapse, and was found in the rubble?
The record number of put orders on American Airlines the day before. The new insurance taken out on the buildings. The new security company for the buildings. The missing gold. Building 7 falling in the same way, even though it wasn't even hit. The cutter-charge explosions seen & heard. The hijackers that were reported by the BBC as still being alive. The utter convenience of the timing of the whole thing for Bush's foreign policy.
Also, do a quick Google search for "Tim Osman".

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to believe the 'official story'. But my gut feeling (even as it was happening), and all of the evidence I've seen, leads me to believe otherwise.

WHAT evidence? I see this story over and over and never see any evidence offered. Pointing to websites that just tell the same story isn't evidence. I don't even know that the "official story" is supposed to be, truly. If you think there's evidence that people within our government participated in the mass murder of 3000 US citizens on our own soil, I'm sure the justice dept would be eager to see it. Not to mention international criminal courts.

*Hugs J-Step* Hey, you wanna come to DaBar? I'll buy you a drink.

[BAS]

If Mr. Bush, or any of his handlers had known, that ridiculous scene with the Pet Goat wouldn't have happened. And Giuliani wouldn't have had the chance to steal the thunder.
People in the administration might have thought something was going to happen. There is no way that they knew that, or anything on that scale, was going to happen.
And now, of course, we get CBA out here and go through that garbage again.

Sometimes I wish I was endowed with the mysterious power to lock threads.

*sigh*

Which is what I said.

I doubt a reasonable discussion on this is possible. Too many people's emotions/pet politics get in the way.

Okay, I did open that post right after I posted it and couldn't think how to edit it to accurately express what I thought.
Here's what I wish I'd said: We know that there was some actual intelligence "noise" that was going on (and I'm pretty damn sure was ignored out of idiocy rather than something else) and people in the agencies might have inferred that something was going to happen. What actually happened was a couple of orders of magnitude larger than these people might have guessed--ah fuck it. I think that if anyone thought something was going to happen they were thinking dozens--not thousands--of victims. And this idea of planting detonator charges is ... leaves me fucking speechless.
and these super-patriots in the administration at the time...it's hard to see them accepting the image of America as humiliated and stupid as that attack made us look.
So, this is not what I read in your post, BAS, although it wasn't in mine either.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Or at least something like: "I have the suspicious that elements of the Bush Administration thought something like another embassy bombing was going to take place and deliberately ignored it because they hoped Bush's approval rating would get a boost out of it."

Anyway, what really disturbs me was and still is not so much that I think a conspiracy took place, but that I that a conspiracy COULD have taken place. I.e. I have so little faith in the current crop of political professionals that I think that many of them won't mind killing off a bunch of their citizens just to forward their agenda.

Anyway, my allergies have really been bad this week, and I've been less than fully functional (er, not in the sense Data meant it on ST:TNG.)

[theCryptofishist]

Okay, we are at about the same place, BAS. I can never be too careful with this stuff.
I'd invite you into Da Bar for a drink but I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'd be happy to buy you ecoffee from Espresso Dude or ClarkCon.

[BAS]

I think that a lot of the current conspiracy theories about scientific cover-ups, not only exist for the same reason we invented gods (a need to explain and feel power over events that leave us horribly aware of how vulnerable we are in a big, scary world) but also a general ignorance about how science works and cultural narratives that separate scientists and their work from normal human activity going back to at least Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Occams Razor. A huge network of undercover (supposedly satanic) secret society members from the Bilderbergers to the Council on Foreign Relations to the Bohemian Grove has operatives in all facets of society, the government and the military, pulling the strings of the media and popular culture in an evil plot to enslave the entire world so that they themselves can live in mansions in a tiny percentage of the inhabitable world, insulated from the worker bees they've enslaved...

OR...

The story that all evidence points to, seems plausible, makes sense and doesn't require an elaborate, unsupported theory of shadow puppets and satanic criminal masterminds.

I still think that the Bilderberg people and the Bohemian Grove people should be watched, since they DO influence the political scene. (Jon Ronson never actually got into see what was going on in the Bilderberg meeting he covered and the lakeside sessions, where politics and policy is supposed to be discussed, was equally missing when he went to Bohemian Grove.) People with power need to be watched.

[theCryptofishist]

People with power need to be watched.

Absolutely. And I have no doubt that a whole lot of quasi-legal to unconstitutional stuff goes on at Bohemian Grove. Plus, the sheer amount of wealth represented there every year has got to be more than the GDP of several to many poor countries. But there's a difference between the ebb and flow of money and power and influence that goes on between them both there and the rest of the year, and the idea that they pull every string.
*shakes head sadly.*

[neon tetra]

I still think that the Bilderberg people and the Bohemian Grove people should be watched, since they DO influence the political scene.

They do more than influence it; they pretty much control it (for all intents & purposes). The elite in America pretty much directly control the opinion of the masses through the media. Dissent in the major media is largely just an illusion.


"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

~ Noam Chomsky

[BAS]

People with power need to be watched.

Absolutely. And I have no doubt that a whole lot of quasi-legal to unconstitutional stuff goes on at Bohemian Grove. Plus, the sheer amount of wealth represented there every year has got to be more than the GDP of several to many poor countries. But there's a difference between the ebb and flow of money and power and influence that goes on between them both there and the rest of the year, and the idea that they pull every string.
*shakes head sadly.*

To be honest, when I read Jon Ronson's "THEM," it occurred to me that it might actually be a better situation if they really DID control everything. I do believe that they are trying to increase their power (since that is what most people tend to do when they have power), and can easily excuse destructive practices with the thought "once we get what we want, we can fix the damage." (Of course, like with a drug, any amount of power isn't enough...)

Eh, was I the only one who thought Bohemian Grove sounded like a less interesting version of Burning Man?

[BAS]

I still think that the Bilderberg people and the Bohemian Grove people should be watched, since they DO influence the political scene.

They do more than influence it; they pretty much control it (for all intents & purposes). The elite in America pretty much directly control the opinion of the masses through the media. Dissent in the major media is largely just an illusion.


"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

~ Noam Chomsky

Unfortunately, I'm not up to writing a decent reply to this right now. The short version is: if the media thinks it will increase their profits, they will abandoned the ultra-rich. The trick is to get them to believe it is in their interest to abandon the wealthy in favor of the masses.

I gotta get going now. Being out of commission three out of the last five days has put me behind in the stuff I need to get done.

[neon tetra]

It will always be more profitable to serve the rich.

[knowmad]

It will always be more profitable to serve the rich.

I like to serve them with a nice Sangiovese, and a bit of cheese.

[neon tetra]

I'd like to serve them with an eviction notice.

[Fire_Moose]

Personally, I think the "tin foil hat" wearers are the ones who believe the official story.

I mean... the hijackers brought their terror plans with them in their luggage?
Somehow one of the hijacker's passports made it safely through the impact/explosion, the collapse, and was found in the rubble?
The record number of put orders on American Airlines the day before. The new insurance taken out on the buildings. The new security company for the buildings. The missing gold. Building 7 falling in the same way, even though it wasn't even hit. The cutter-charge explosions seen & heard. The hijackers that were reported by the BBC as still being alive. The utter convenience of the timing of the whole thing for Bush's foreign policy.
Also, do a quick Google search for "Tim Osman".

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to believe the 'official story'. But my gut feeling (even as it was happening), and all of the evidence I've seen, leads me to believe otherwise.

WHAT evidence? I see this story over and over and never see any evidence offered. Pointing to websites that just tell the same story isn't evidence. I don't even know that the "official story" is supposed to be, truly. If you think there's evidence that people within our government participated in the mass murder of 3000 US citizens on our own soil, I'm sure the justice dept would be eager to see it. Not to mention international criminal courts.

\


What about the steel supports that looked like they were cut at an angle...with molten steel dripping down

[neon tetra]

What about the steel supports that looked like they were cut at an angle...with molten steel dripping down

Jesus put those there to test your faith.

[Fire_Moose]

No way, that little Mexican can barely lift the mower.

[Trishntek]

When was this photograph taken? Who took it and why?

I understand what we see here. What is not clear is whether there had been clearing ops involving a cutting torch or air arc cutter. But even if it is truly the damage as it lays after the collapse, steel can break like that when extremes in temperature are in play.

I'm not really taking sides here, but playing devils advocate. I've always figured the obvious is usually true unless valid and substantiated proof can be given to the contrary.

The gold was one of the first priorities of the recovery operations as I understand it. There were armed guards there until the gold was recovered.

One of the hijacker passports? Really? No, I mean,,,,, REALLY?

[JStep]

When was this photograph taken? Who took it and why?

I understand what we see here. What is not clear is whether there had been clearing ops involving a cutting torch or air arc cutter. But even if it is truly the damage as it lays after the collapse, steel can break like that when extremes in temperature are in play.

But one of a thousand possibilities, and why I don't bother responding to such posts as "well, what about this photo?" The human imagination seeks patterns and tries to make sense of things in such a fashion, but it deludes itself. My initial reaction to F_Ms post was "well, what *about* it?" It proves nothing, it offers nothing, it sheds light on nothing. If that is the standard for proof of a diabolical worldwide conspiracy, then can I interest you in purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge?

[neon tetra]

I don't see why it's so crazy to think that people within this country orchestrated it, but it's completely sensible to think that a guy living in a cave halfway around the world did.

Oftentimes if you want to figure out who was behind something, just look at who benefited from it.

I do wonder what kind of deal was made with Tim Osman to make him the fall guy. Who knows, he's probably living in an underground CIA palace somewhere.

[cowboyangel]

They did withstand being hit. They just didn't withstand being containers for massive quantities of burning jet fuel. Every credible (read, peer reviewed) study has concluded that the "inside job" conspiracy BS is just that. The whole thing pivoted on: Jet fuel burns at X degrees, and steel doesn't melt at that temperature. Any welder or metallurgist will tell you that at X degrees steel doesn't melt, but it does lose it's tensile strength and becomes soft and pliable. IE, won't hold up a building.

How do you explain Tower 7 then? No jet fuel involved there.

The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) issued their final report on the cause of WTC Building 7's collapse in 2008. I just read through most of it, and their explanation of the events leading up to and the causes of the collapse all sound very reasonable to me (a scientist and engineer with about 20 years experience, but admittedly no expert on fire, material strength, or structural engineering).

Also, as I look at the list of roughly 200 or so contributors to the report, I don't think that there's any way that you could get this many scientists and engineers to (a) agree to participate in a cover-up, and (b) have all of them keep their mouths shut about it. They clearly state in the beginning of the report that there are siginficant uncertainties, but they also appear to have gone to extraordinary lengths to document, deduce, and model the events & causes leading to the collapse of WTC 7.

"The Probable Collapse Sequence" starts on Page 19 of the report: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1 ... omment.pdf

[youtube][/youtube]

[cowboyangel]

WHAT evidence?

Testimony of engineers, scientists, and people that were there. Video evidence of cutter charges and Larry Silverstein saying to pull building 7.
All of the evidence of put orders, insurance & security changes.
The fact that NORAD just happened to be doing drills that morning about planes flying into buildings, and was told to stand down. The fact that Israeli telecom companies knew in advance. The fact that never before in history have buildings fallen like that from fire.


Peer-reviewed evidence?
http://911scholars.org/index.php?option ... &Itemid=62

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

http://stj911.org/evidence/wtc.html


From all of the data that I have seen, my conclusion is that the 'official version' of events that day is bullshit.

What really happened?
That's what I'd like to know.

[youtube][/youtube]

[BAS]

It will always be more profitable to serve the rich.

Not necessarily.

Not all media is owned by large corporations (just most of it). Here in Madison, WI WORT is a community owned radio station. There ARE independent magazines (as well as ones based on attacking the mainstream/those in power/etc.) Also, there are political parties other that the Republicans and the Democrats. All any of the bigger players need to see is these smaller ones suddenly thriving, and they will want in. They will crave that power for themselves.

Another strategy is the "Divide and Conquer" strategy. Another way to put it would be: When it comes down to individual survival, individuals will turn on one another. Or "power-blocs" could replace "individuals."

Of course, I never said it would be easy. If it were, I would have figured out what exactly needs doing to make it happen. (What DID prove easy was to take drugs, something which I am more than a little mad at myself for doing. )

[neon tetra]

Sure, we have WBAI/Pacifica here too (home of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now show), and a few other listener-supported stations.

But they probably account for < 1%, and those stations, while good at what they broadcast, are pretty much preaching to the choir.

[Elderberry]

Well that sounds like a definite maybe if I ever heard one.

We've all seen the planes hit the buildings. We've all learned the buildings were designed to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 which was the largest airliner at the time. And yeah, I've seen the pictures of the supposed shearing of support beams by explosives. Personally, I'm just glad those buildings fell relatively straight down instead of tipping over!

They did withstand being hit. They just didn't withstand being containers for massive quantities of burning jet fuel. Every credible (read, peer reviewed) study has concluded that the "inside job" conspiracy BS is just that. The whole thing pivoted on: Jet fuel burns at X degrees, and steel doesn't melt at that temperature. Any welder or metallurgist will tell you that at X degrees steel doesn't melt, but it does lose it's tensile strength and becomes soft and pliable. IE, won't hold up a building.

*and the crowd roars approval*

Additional crowd approval here.

JK

[cowboyangel]

They did withstand being hit. They just didn't withstand being containers for massive quantities of burning jet fuel. Every credible (read, peer reviewed) study has concluded that the "inside job" conspiracy BS is just that. The whole thing pivoted on: Jet fuel burns at X degrees, and steel doesn't melt at that temperature. Any welder or metallurgist will tell you that at X degrees steel doesn't melt, but it does lose it's tensile strength and becomes soft and pliable. IE, won't hold up a building.

*and the crowd roars approval*

Additional crowd approval here.

JK

Science is just way too tricky.....

[youtube][/youtube]