FAQ
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:12 pm


Author Message
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:42 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?


Personally, I see this as a bit of a fallacy. Of course, with the situation mentioned above, a relationship can be drawn between the person and the information quality- however, I find it unequivocally wrong to suggest that just because someone may have made numerous false claims that every single future claim they make is going to be wrong; sure, it could mean that the probability of their claim being false is higher, but it doesn't mean that they're definitely not going to be correct.

Of course not, but they also give up their "credibility card" when that stuff happens. Sure, they might be correct sometimes, but so too is a broken clock. Likewise, sometimes Fox News says things which are true, but taken as a whole I don't really trust anything they share whatsoever.

Why should it be any different with known cranks and crackpots?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:49 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4848
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
Another problem is that, and I will name names because it is necessary, those on here such as DrRocket and even MarnixR (to an extent) seem to think that I completely agree with 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and thus I must be "a conspiracy nut" and they also seem to imply that I disagree with every official story.


did i come across that way ? sorry if i did because i try not to make personal comments if i can help it
however, it is true that it's one of my convictions (one of those that you can't prove) that people who believe one type of conspiracy theory are inclined to look favourably at conspiracy theories in general - i.e. i'm convinced that in general it takes a certain mindset to be predisposed to accept conspiracy theories

this does obviously not prove that adherence to one conspiracy theory includes someone in the nutcase population, and in your case i'm not of that opinion - so if this came across that way in any of my ramblings then that was unintended and i'm sorry for the implied slight you perceived in them

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:25 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
Why should it be any different with known cranks and crackpots?


In this particular case it's because they submitted actual lab work. There's evidence here that can be judged on its own merits, completely ignoring "who" gathered it.

I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. It's not like conspiracy theorists are settling for this out of a "desire to believe". There aren't any better options right now.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:45 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Personally, I find the idea of Al Qaeda did it, a lot less scary than, inside job false flag. Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.
Inside job means entrenched threat still roaming, no justice. Completely unsatisfactory.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:09 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.


Whilst I, obviously, despise Al Qaeda as they are just another mindless terrorist group which actually kills a lot of Muslims (that's how stupid they are) in the ME, I do not agree with the also mindless killings of Bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki. It disturbs me to think that in our efforts to punish and prevent the murderings of innocent civilians and to try to create a democratic world of law-abiding citizens, the very governments which allegedly stand for these goals do not think of it as double standards and quite blatant hypocrisy when they just murder others without any form of fair trials (as international law states that there should be); but they label this justice and freedom and the rest of the population just nods, shouts a bit of "USA!" and then continues without a care in the world.

Even if a terrorist set off a nuclear bomb (remote detonated) in a city somewhere murdering millions, I still would not agree with murdering the murderer- such a thing is just quite obviously stupid and hypocritical that is hurts my brains just to think about it; even besides the fact that it's a direct contravention of international laws and the judicial process (which the Western politicians tell us to follow and them violate themselves!), it lets the terrorist(s) off lightly (just killing them does not give them enough punishment, per se).

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:27 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The quest to be "better" than our enemies is a special kind of vanity. If they defeat you and take everything you have, that feeling of false superiority isn't going to help you feed your children.


GiantEvil wrote:
Personally, I find the idea of Al Qaeda did it, a lot less scary than, inside job false flag. Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.
Inside job means entrenched threat still roaming, no justice. Completely unsatisfactory.


Al Qaeda or not, a lot of evil people went free that day with the destruction of the data kept in Building 7. It's kind of striking that, with several hours of time to work with, and knowing the importance of those files to national security, nobody thought to go in and grab those hard drives before the building fell?

I guess chain of custody might get kind of complicated if the drives are being recovered by agents from a burning building, but still... Am I to understand that such a risk would not be considered justified, even for federal agents fighting to keep criminals behind bars?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:17 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. <...> There aren't any better options right now.

And why do you think that is? Are those other folks with lots of training and lab equipment part of a conspiracy, too, or is it possible that the majority of these experts who have reviewed the evidence available each agree with the standard explanation of events?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:05 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. <...> There aren't any better options right now.

And why do you think that is? Are those other folks with lots of training and lab equipment part of a conspiracy, too, or is it possible that the majority of these experts who have reviewed the evidence available each agree with the standard explanation of events?


I think they get a lot of their funding from the DOD and don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics is a very real part of the funding game. Controversial research helps you when it's the good kind of controversy, like stuff that can get you picked up in a popular magazine (like re-designating Pluto), but not when it's 911 controversy. That puts you on the outside looking in.

For someone like Jones, that doesn't matter. He's already on the outside looking in. He doesn't have any further down to go. I don't know what motivated Harrit, though.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:07 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Cell phone calls:

Flight 77: Hijacked between 08:51 and 08:54 and crashed at 09:37

1) 09:12, lasted 2 minutes
Flight Attendant Renee May, 2 minute call to her mother
2) Between 09:16 and 09:26, then 5 minutes later
Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, called his assistant and then him

May misreported the number of hijackers as being 6 instead of 5.

Flight 175: Hijacked between 08:42 and 08:46, crashed at 9:03

1) 08:52
Flight Attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office and spoke to Marc Policastro, for a minute and 15 seconds before being disconnected.
2) 08:58 and 9:00
Brian David Sweeny called and left a message for his wife, then called his mother and spoke with her
3) 08:52, and 9:00
Peter Hanson called his father twice and spoke with him. His wife and daughter were on the flight with him.

Flight 11: Hijacked at 08:14, and crashed at 08:46

1) 8:21
Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeny called American Airlines and reached a friend named Michael Woodward, and talked for 25 minutes
2) 8:21
Flight Attendant Betty Ong called American Airlines. It was a long call and was recorded.

You can hear a few minutes of Betty Ong's call here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfkIH3j-nk

Flight 93: Hijacked at 09:28, and crashed at 10:03

1) 09:30, and several calls after
Tom Burnett is the one who famously talked with his wife and learned of the other planes.
2) 09:35
Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called a maintenance facility and reported the hijacking.
3) 09:37
Mark Bingham called his mother.
4) 09:37
Jeremy Glick called his wife and remained connected until the end. He told her about the vote to resist.
5) 09:43
Joseph DeLuca called his father
6) 09:43
Todd Beamer attempted to call his wife, but instead reached a GTE operator.
7) 09:46
Linda Gronlund called her sister, Elsa Strong and left a message
8) 09:47
Flight attendant CeeCee Lyles called her husband and left a message on his answering machine
9) 09:49
Marion Britton called her friend, Fred Fiumano.
10) 09:50
Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called her husband and told him she was preparing hot water to use
11) (not sure when)
Lauren Grandcolas attempted to call her husband twice
12) 09:53
Honor Elizabeth Wainio called her stepmother and talked for 4 and 1/2 minutes
13) (shortly before the passenger revolt)
Edward Felt dialed 911 to get instructions

Several calls misreported the number of hijackers as being 3 instead of 4.

You can see there's a really big difference between flight 93 and the others (which is explainable given that it's the only flight where the passengers knew they were likely going to die). Flight 93 is also the one that didn't hit a building. We have 12 calls from flight 93, but a total of 7 from all the others combined, mostly flight attendants. I like putting this all in perspective. On the one hand, the cell evidence on the first three flights boxes in the timelines for flight 11 and 175, as the timing of calls puts them too close to the end for any hijackers to have parachuted unnoticed. On the other hand, there aren't many of them.

edit: small self correction.

The last 4 minutes of Betty Ong's call are here. It's not her being recorded directly. It's the person she's talking to calling someone else and relaying. However, all the passengers had been removed to coach and she mentions that she believes some kind of mace or chemical agent is being used which prevents her from being able to enter first class. She would not have known if the hijackers had jumped out of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Tr0u35Tek

It's likely that, if this tactic was used on one plane, then it was probably used on all three crash planes, and so the cell phone calls tell us nothing about whether the attack was perpetrated by conspirators or terrorists.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:44 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
I think they get a lot of their funding from the DOD and don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics is a very real part of the funding game.

I suppose that's possible, but I don't buy it myself. It's a lot like the argument that global warming is a conspiracy and nobody speaks up because that research is where all the best grant money goes and they're afraid to lose it. I say, maybe a small handful of researchers fall prey to such avarice, but there's no way in a frosty hell that this fear of "biting the feeding hand" extends across the entire population of experts. Too many people have a little something called integrity for this to be so vastly common as conspiracists claim.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:24 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The other problem is: what are they supposed to base their dissent on? Analysis of the rubble? No chance of that. The rubble was almost immediately shipped off to Asia to be melted down.

Even NIST commented on it. In their report of WTC 7 in the exutive summary. Page 37 of the PDF file, I believe, under the title "This Report".

NIST WTC 7 wrote:
Numerous facts and data were obtained, then combined with validated computer modeling to produce an account that captures the key features of what actually occurred. However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nonetheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publicat ... _id=861610

What's a scientist supposed to do without data? How do you write a paper about it? Within the limits of what they had, NIST did a very good job of modeling the outcomes. The problem is they had next to nothing to work with, and they had to reach a little bit in order to arrive at their conclusions. A scientist could (very legitimately) criticize that as being mere guesswork, but they couldn't prove it false.

So while it's unlikely that NIST's findings would ever meet the strict requirements of peer review, they also don't have to. A paper that wants to overturn them would have to,.... and that's the rub. The two sides are held to different burdens of evidence. Who's going to win? Well... the one with the easier burden of evidence is going to win, of course.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:15 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Here's an interesting radio broadcast. It was made by this guy who is a total conspiracy nut, aliens and everything, but..... it was made 3 months before the September 11 attack, and he nails almost all the topics people have been talking about since. He predicts the attack, the blaming on Osama Bin Laden, and then brings up the Reichtag building metaphor, everything .... all before it happened. And you know the timeline is authentic because he died on November 5th, 2001 in a police raid. Hopefully the link will stay up.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfko30 ... 28-01_news

The police raid is also kind of suspicious because it was alleged that Bill Cooper opened fire on them, but the only casualty suffered was when one of the arresting deputies got shot in the head... by his own gun.


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:13 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
There is no need for elaborate, improbable, fragile, high-risk, and unnecessarily complex schemes. The pros in this field do not get their tactics from Mission Impossible reruns.

The simplest complicity - and the smell of complicity clouds the entire event - is also the most reasonable: that the US administration simply drew back here and there, allowed the event or some event of its kind (no specification necessary) in small and easily obscured ways.

As with a skilled basketball player throwing a game, it would be almost impossible to extract the crime from the confusions of action and omission - and of course W's administration was already understood to be generally incompetent, an excellent cover as well as partial reality. So little risk, and excellent upside on the power and money grab side of the ledger.

Osama had a long career as a most convenient enemy, right up to and including his silent death. But such beings are not therefore organized or managed by some all-knowing manipulators - they really are enemies, acting on their own, just of a kind that can be steered a little bit or used for something, their actions leveraged to serve purposes not of their own.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:28 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iceaura wrote:

Osama had a long career as a most convenient enemy, right up to and including his silent death. But such beings are not therefore organized or managed by some all-knowing manipulators - they really are enemies, acting on their own, just of a kind that can be steered a little bit or used for something, their actions leveraged to serve purposes not of their own.


Perhaps it's hard to imagine if you haven't seen a lot of extreme hypocrisy up close, but people who claim to love something aren't the only ones that can be a hypocrites, also a person who claims to hate you can be a hypocrite in their hatred too. When a person's followers speak of them as a "great man, who will someday be well known", it's likely the leader is a megalomaniac.

I doubt Osama would have turned down the opportunity for fame and glory (or infamy and respect) even if he knew he were being played.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:36 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
I apologise for my ignorance people, after researching the 9/11 situation some more I realise that the official report by NIST for the collapses of the WTC towers 1 and 2 is probably accurate and consistent with material dynamics etc.

However, I am still sceptical about the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane- that one just doesn't seem to add up to me. But, I'll look out for any more evidence about that particular situation I can find.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy