to believe some if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories

[mrsunreasonable]

NOTE: This is not meant to be offensive and if you suffered as a result of 9/11 you have my deepest sympathies it was a terrible event however it was caused.

Having watched a few documentaries on the conspiracy theories I am partially if not completely convinced all was not as it seemed. The fact that many witnesses that saw/heard things that didn't tie in with the official version have since died in suspicious circumstances doesn't help!

This one didn't. Aside from anything else, one's ability to complain about badly produced dossiers is weakened by suggesting that there are lizard conspiracies.

Anyway, I've given you the current best paper on the collapse. You can smell bullshit: tell me where the bullshit is.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Some researchers amy have had grants at the back of their minds.

It's years since I listened to the conspiracy theories, so I can't remember all the details. But they say that the 23rd floor of WTC7 was a control center for Giuliani, which is one reason that the building was pulled.

Sometimes when the police arrest the hole in the wall gang, under interrogation, the gang make slip ups and their story becomes inconsistent. As Robert Burns said, "the best plans of men and mice often go awry". A spokesman for FEMA told Dan Rather that they arrived in New York the night before the attack

Larry Silverstein mentioned on film that WTC7 was "pulled". The conspiracy theorists take that to mean that it was pulled in a controlled demolition, which means that it must have been pre-wired.

I think the old 'lizards' chestnut is classic straw man tactics. If the 'lizard' story didn't exist, the anti-troofers would have to deal with the real issues.

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Some researchers amy have had grants at the back of their minds. "

Ah, everyone is corrupt. But the paper's in front of you. They're not just giving you the conclusion, they're showing their working. Tell us where it's wrong.

I posted on this thread on Sunday, whilst it's clearly moved on since then I just want to comment some of the WTC7 stuff.

Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Chief Nigro of FDNY said:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

Does it make sense that Larry is talking about pulling the fire fighters out, to minimise further loss of life, or does it really make more sense that they've had so much loss of life, hey, let's blow up explosives and destroy a building?

WTC7 was hit by part of the North Tower, and there were uncontrollable fires on several floors. FDNY didn't have the water or equipment to contain them. Now suppose that WTC7 hadn't been hit, and the fires were containable. What then - all of a sudden, boom? Or, if that would look too obvious, you now have an entire building wired with explosives, that all the hundreds of people in on this mass conspiracy would then somehow have to, what - de-wire without anyone noticing, bearing in mind the entire world had their cameras focused on Ground Zero for months after? Or blow up at a later date, killing rescue teams in the vicinity, oops? Out of all the conspiracy theories, those surrounding WTC7 really, really don't make sense to me.

I'll pop off back to lurking again now, just wanted to share

the conspiracy theorists say that WTC7 had to be pulled because of the evidence that it had been used as a control center.

After Larry's statment that the best thing would be to 'pull' the building, I expect that all the stops were pulled out to come up with an explanation of what he meant. After much deliberation, a consensus was probably arrived at that he meant that the firefighters should be pulled out of the building. Some would say pull the other one.

There's no point me reading the structural engineers' paper, because I am not an expert on structural engineering. I also think that it is missing the wood for the trees. It is best for you to watch the architects, structural engineers and professors who think that the building was pulled. They know more about it than me. In fact, does anyone know if there has ever been a debate between the two camps? I wonder if an offer of a debate has been made and one side turned it down?

claig - what lizard story? I mentioned lizards, but in a side discussion about racism and cognitive dissonance. I'm not aware of any non-mammals being brought up by either side discussing 911.

People resort to infantile tactics like shouting 'lizards!' and 'conspiracy theorists' and 'tinfoil hats' when they have run out of sound arguments. Retreat to facile mudslinging when you have nothing left to say.

Why 'conspiracy theorists'? The people questioning the government versions of what took place (versions, by the way, which contradict each other) are skeptics. Let's call them the skeptics from now on. Mostly they are not propounding any theory, in any case, simply rejecting the government versions.

Blind faith in your government is unhealthy, is it not?

Agreed, Kurkum.

If soi-disant skeptics showed any signs of being skeptical it would be different. But instead, they parrot the assumption that everything the government says is a lie, whilst swallowing hook, line and sinker everything that appears on sketchy videos. It's easy to be a skeptic in your world: you just assume all governments lie, and everyone on YouTube is an honest genius.

"Mostly they are not propounding any theory, in any case, simply rejecting the government versions. "

Precisely. Their skepticism is entirely one-sided. For example, they impute bad motives of academic engineers, whilst assuming that people on YouTube who believe that the US is a puppet of Jewish interests and Obama is controlled by Israel (to take one of the recent sages we have been referred to) are as pure as driven snow.

Tokyonambu, your stereotypes are crude. No improvement on namecalling, I'm afraid. Is that all you have left?

Are we discussing America's policy on Palestine here? And what of the many, many Jews who are skeptical of the government's versions?

I repeat: character assassination is the refuge of the desperate.

TheCoalition, I was referring to tokyo's post of 14-Sep-10 20:29:06

"Aside from anything else, one's ability to complain about badly produced dossiers is weakened by suggesting that there are lizard conspiracies."

tokyonambu Tue 14-Sep-10 23:53:17
If soi-disant skeptics showed any signs of being skeptical it would be different. But instead, they parrot the assumption that everything the government says is a lie, whilst swallowing hook, line and sinker everything that appears on sketchy videos. It's easy to be a skeptic in your world: you just assume all governments lie, and everyone on YouTube is an honest genius.

"Mostly they are not propounding any theory, in any case, simply rejecting the government versions. "

Precisely. Their skepticism is entirely one-sided.
----

No, that's wrong. It's not true. You are assuming that because one theory is questioned and perhaps doubted all other potential theorems are automatically believed.

Do you really think that I believe all the crap that's shared on Youtube? Really? Do you presume I don't question that stuff also?

Why?

I question ALL of it. That's what wanting to know the truth about something revolves around...questioning everything on either side, and there are plenty of sides in this debate.

I have discounted huge swathes of Youtube on this topic. What remains are the aspects I am not clear on. On either side. And I am willing to believe the government version if it becomes clear that it is without flaw.

However at this juncture it remains to me as unconvincing as that of any other theory I've read about (or yes, watched)

I don't believe anything at the moment apart from that there are questionable things contained within the version which the government fed its citizens.

Anyway I guess that's as far as we will get on here unless someone is willing to interpret that thing Tokyo linked to, which none of us is likely to understand in full.

I'm not going to stick around arguing with someone who just flings insults.

Thankyou for the debate, guys.

tokyo - your patronising tone is ridiculous. Actually, it is your posts that seem to imply a black-and-white perspective. The point is that those who question things usually see all the gray areas and wish to know more.

"The point is that those who question things usually see all the gray areas and wish to know more."

But they're not "questioning things". They're saying "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong, everyone knows government lies, have you seen this video on youtube".

Outline to me what the "grey areas" are in "two planes were crashed into the WTC which collapsed, and the debris hit a third building which later collapsed". Do you, or do you not, believe that the buildings were pre-wired with explosives? Do you, or do you not, believe that the aircraft that took off were the aircraft that crashed? Where are the grey areas?

That's the problem with troofers. They realise that claiming that the US government placed demolition charges and then used remote control drones, holograms or whatever is ludicrous (aside from anything else, why not just crash aircraft?) So they embark upon endless "grey areas" that don't exist, hoping that somehow no-one will notice the elephant in the room: that they are asserting the existence of a massive conspiracy, involving thousands of people in every branch of government, followed by thousands of investigators, academics, analysts and the like, to commit mass murder in down town New York.

Did the FBI and the CIA take their eye off the ball over reports of people learning to fly but not land? Yes, they did. Beyond that, what have you got?

Nothing; I have nothing.

You appear to fail to see the difference between expressing doubt in the official line and asserting that there was indeed some massive cover up.

Yes, those who are involved in a hardcore fashion in the 'truth movement' as it is sometimes known may assert these things. But we (I, at least) do not.

Ihave doubts. I don't assert anything concrete as I have no proof.

You on the other hand are assuring us that the government version IS CORRECT. You have seen engineering documents that seem to credit this belief. I/we don't understand them.

So are we meant to put utter faith in you, or in the government? I suppose that's what you want.

I can't do that. Especially as you have shown yourself to have little in the way of tolerance or geniality. I am more inclined to believe a kind or sympathetic person than one who seeks to belittle in such a hostile manner.

'But they're not "questioning things". They're saying "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong, everyone knows government lies, have you seen this video on youtube".'

I'm not saying that at all. I've already explained this. I'm saying 'I don't understand it, so it appears it may be wrong, or it may be right, but can someone please explain it properly using language I can understand that will convince me it is right'.

And yes, of course, that governments lie is a given. We all know that.

'Did the FBI and the CIA take their eye off the ball over reports of people learning to fly but not land? Yes, they did.'

So tell me more about this. It's something I had not come across before.

"I am more inclined to believe a kind or sympathetic person"

Which is how all sorts of cranks operate. Doctors can be brusque, homeopaths have all the time to be nice. People confuse being nice with being right.

"the government version IS CORRECT"

It isn't the "government version". It's the version scientists, engineers, emergency workers, the vast majority of news organisations (are the Guardian and the London Times and all the US Newspapers part of the conspiracy too). You've set up this false dichotomy in which there's the government and everyone else: do you believe that every mainstream newspaper in the UK and the US that publishes the facts about 9/11 is misguided, or part of the conspiracy?

"You have seen engineering documents that seem to credit this belief. I/we don't understand them."

So an empasse. You can't understand the science, and you don't believe the scientists (and we've already had the "they all lie because of wanting grants"). What can you do? There's a detailed analysis of why the towers collapsed as they did. You don't understand it, you have no direct knowledge of building engineering, but you assert that it looks funny. From what? Your extensive exposure to collapsing buildings?

So are you saying the government version is incorrect?

and what I meant was that had you approached the subject in a more pleasant manner I would be more likely to believe the things you are saying...that was all. It helps to add a little humanity to your posts now and again.

Flightattendant - what do you think then? That the government have spun the story in order to show them inthe best light/advance their aims? Of course, they are not stupid.

That the attacks were carried out by the government? There is literally no credible evidence of this. By credible, I mean presented by someone with a reputation to lose, in a form that allows criticism and analysis.

What there is is a lot of speculation presented in seemingly credible ways, which rely on the dunning-kruger effect.

The problem is giving equal weight to all sources.

"So tell me more about this. It's something I had not come across before."

Surely you've read the 9/11 Commission Report? How on earth can you claim that the government version makes you uneasy when you don't even know what the government version is?

This FBI's failures run from page 254 to 277 in the final report. It's a whole chapter, whose title ("The System Was Blinking Red") gives a sense of the general tone.

You can read it here.

"The Phoenix memo was investigated thoroughly by the Joint Inquiry and the Department of Justice Inspector General. We will recap it briefly here. In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the NewYork Field Office, advising of the ?possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin? to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools. The agent based his theory on the ?inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest? attending such schools in Arizona."

I haven't read the middle part of this thread so apologies if I repeat anyone else.
I am not an engineer but I know some engineers who have given me a basic summary of the collapse. I haven't read anything strong enough to lead me to doubt the face value explanation.
In terms of WTC7, I read the pulled comments as extremely straightforward - pull our people out and write that building off.
I am fairly sure there will have been cover ups and mistakes in the aftermath, but back covering lies don't add up to mean that the whole thing was a big conspiracy. Any apparent lies and discrepancies need to be looked at individually and thought given to the reasons for and effect of that particular lie, not just lumped in as a general conspiracy.
I am a court lawyer and I defended in a multiple-witness trial recently. The victim was demonstrably lying about one particular issue (whether he kicked one of the defendants) but the reason for that lie was obvious. The rest of his evidence was credible. While the lie went to his credibility it did not, no matter how much the defence suggested it, prevent the bulk of his account from being credible.
Similarly, one of the witnesses was substantially at odds with other witnesses for the majority of her account but she gave one key piece of evidence which she alone saw but which, in context, was clearly completely correct. The discrepancies and confusion in her overall account did not prevent that key point being accepted. There were clear reasons for her errors.
Any multiple-witness event will throw up evidential discrepancies, some of which will seem inexplicable. It doesn't mean the overall event was not what it seemed.
I saw a documentary where condaleeza rice admitted that they had agreed to shoot down flight 93 and that when it came down she believed that they had done so. I find her account credible, more credible than believing that they would openly accept responsibility and then think ooh may we we can get away with lying about it after all, and then manufacturing a story about the passengers storming the cockpit.

"So are you saying the government version is incorrect?"

There is no "government version". There is the narrative accepted by government, historians, journalists, newspapers of record, scientists, engineers and any number of large-scale investigations. They all agree: four planes were hi-jacked, two were crashed into WTC1 and WTC2, one was crashed into the Pentagon and one was brought down by its passengers. WTC7 collapsed owing to massive damage and a lack of firefighting resources. Saying that's the "government version" implies that it is in opposition to anyone other than fringe cranks.

As TCNY says (and I was resisting the temptation to involve the D-K effect), "The problem is giving equal weight to all sources." It's like the creationist nutcases: they think that some crank on youtube is a source of equal weight to a paper in Nature. Better, probably, because they can't understand Nature. They then line the two up alongside each other, giving each one the same a priori weight.