9/11 Truth Movement

[ballin4life]

Universities don't fail you if you use wikipedia because wikipedia is factually inaccurate (I've read that it is actually more accurate than other encyclopedias). The reason you aren't supposed to cite wikipedia is because it is a tertiary source (a collection of other sources). It's perfectly fine to go to the articles that wikipedia cites and cite them in a research paper.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah it is ok to do that, because they are academic sources, but the Wiki article itself is not.

 

[El Nino]

That's not true at all. Look at Joseph Stalin.

Stalin's aim was the quell internal dissent. This was completely different from the aims of the U.S. government with regards to 9/11. Furthermore, foreign citizens remain more expendable than your own citizens, but that is not always the answer to everything. For instance, when you fear that your regime will be toppled from within, that is when you go after your own people. In the case of 9/11, the U.S. government had no reason to fear an internal revolution. They were not intentionally targeting political dissents who wanted to overthrow the U.S. The conspiracy argument is that 9/11 was staged as a reason to go to war. There is no reason why a U.S. citizen would be necessary to act as the kill when a foreign citizen would suffice because the aim is to stage a crime that harmed civilians and blame it on someone else. The aim was not like Stalin's aim.

"scapegoating another country."

You shoud have just quoted me. I'm too tired to find it, but I think that was a typo.

The US had a lot of support at the start of the Iraq war and lost it for several reasons, like terrible foreign policy. Management of the war is what failed.

Considering that the U.S. went to war with Iraq citing evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime was developing weapons of mass destruction (a charge that has little to do with the activities of Al Qaeda), then it would make more sense for the U.S. government to fabricate evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify that invasion.

And on that note, it would make more sense for them to fabricate evidence that the Taliban were doing the same. This would achieve their aim of providing justification for entering Afghanistan (assuming that they ever wanted to be in Afghanistan in the first place).

No, I've proven that controlled demolition was involved in destroying the towers. And planes also hit the towers. It's all caught on film. Both, not one or the other, happened. There's no element of uncertainty.

I mis-typed that question. What probability would you put on the opposing theory that the towers were brought down by planes alone?

no one could disprove the controlled demolition theory science so people stopped talking about it. It's proven and I know what I'm talking about.

Question. Maybe I missed that part, but have there been any experients that replicate the controlled demolition theory in an environment similar to that of 9/11? That is, have there been tests in which structures constructed in the same way as the Towers were destroyed by demolition and compared to the same type of structure when it was destroyed by the collision of a large projectile carrying jet fuel?

Almost any theory can be justified. But not all theories have the evidence to back them up. By evidence, I mean actual samples taken from the scene of the crime, or a replication of the same scenario.

I don't agree with the government getting Al Qaeda to do what they want. Al Qaeda wants a holy war and Iraq was a good start. Iraq could have started many ways.

I believe he was speculating that IF 9/11 was an inside job, then those guys who flew the planes had to have been manipulated by the U.S. government to do what they did. And that opens up a new can of worms for the conspiracy theory. How did the U.S. government get to those guys?

To el nino: the evidence that I have which proves al qaeda could not have been involved is the thermite found in the wtc dust. It is literally impossible for the men in caves to plant thermite charges in all the buildings. Also I am using the common sense that 19 hijackers that the CIA immediately accused, of those, many are still alive, and the only evidence they have against them is a passport they found on the ground zero site, after the bodies disintegrated supposedly in the plane wreck, how is it that the passport survived.

Al Qaeda is more than "men in caves." But the assumption is still that charges were planted. If those charges were not planted, then would we be safe in saying that Al Qaeda might have been involved.

Also, objects can survive plane wrecks. Plane wrecks, like car crashes, are not disintegraters. It's not like falling in from outer space. But how well do objects survive controlled demolition?

Put yourself in the position of the perpetrator. How would you do it? You want to plant a passport at the scene, but you know that all sorts of medical specialists are going to be running around the scene immediately after the crime because of rescue operations. You can't hide anything; this is a massive disaster, and it's all under public scrutiny. You've got people running around everywhere; it is not a controlled scene by any means. You would have to plant the passport on the plane itself. That way the condition of the passport, when found, will pass the scrutiny of forensics specialists.

The problem is, after you fly the plane into the building, that piece of evidence (which you want to be found) is gong to be damaged, and when you detonate the charges (which you planted) you cause further damage to the evidence, increasing the likelihood that it will be damaged beyond recognition, rendering it useless for your purposes.

 

[Rizen]

Stalin's aim was the quell internal dissent. This was completely different from the aims of the U.S. government with regards to 9/11. Furthermore, foreign citizens remain more expendable than your own citizens, but that is not always the answer to everything. For instance, when you fear that your regime will be toppled from within, that is when you go after your own people. In the case of 9/11, the U.S. government had no reason to fear an internal revolution. They were not intentionally targeting political dissents who wanted to overthrow the U.S. The conspiracy argument is that 9/11 was staged as a reason to go to war. There is no reason why a U.S. citizen would be necessary to act as the kill when a foreign citizen would suffice because the aim is to stage a crime that harmed civilians and blame it on someone else. The aim was not like Stalin's aim.

You're treating the situation like people are rational and they're not. 9/11 was a factor in the US going to war and there have been large cover ups or at least gross incompetence in the investigation and media coverage of the national security issue/tragedy/"attack on America".
About citizens being expendable...

My main point of emphasis: People in other countries are expendable; people in your country are less expendable. It is better to sacrifice those people rather than your own.

That is the mindset of governments around the world. So why did the U.S. government sacrifice its own citizens when it could have sacrificed people elsewhere?

I was 'aiming' more at how the expandability of people including citizens and troops from that country, which could be any country, is not uncommon. Deserters in battle are traditionally shot, attacks are staged, anything that makes people feel they are under attack is standard war tactics/propaganda.

You shoud have just quoted me. I'm too tired to find it, but I think that was a typo.

"scapegoating another country." copied from the quote directly above where I pasted it, line one of the second quote down.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11857070&postcount=159

Considering that the U.S. went to war with Iraq citing evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime was developing weapons of mass destruction (a charge that has little to do with the activities of Al Qaeda), then it would make more sense for the U.S. government to fabricate evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify that invasion.

And on that note, it would make more sense for them to fabricate evidence that the Taliban were doing the same. This would achieve their aim of providing justification for entering Afghanistan (assuming that they ever wanted to be in Afghanistan in the first place).

They did fabricate evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

I believe he was speculating that IF 9/11 was an inside job, then those guys who flew the planes had to have been manipulated by the U.S. government to do what they did. And that opens up a new can of worms for the conspiracy theory. How did the U.S. government get to those guys?

They could have been hired to act like Al Qaeda but weren't really part of Al Qaeda.

Question. Maybe I missed that part, but have there been any experients that replicate the controlled demolition theory in an environment similar to that of 9/11? That is, have there been tests in which structures constructed in the same way as the Towers were destroyed by demolition and compared to the same type of structure when it was destroyed by the collision of a large projectile carrying jet fuel?

Almost any theory can be justified. But not all theories have the evidence to back them up. By evidence, I mean actual samples taken from the scene of the crime, or a replication of the same scenario.

Posts: 31, 49, 56, 73, 75, 79, 92, 95, 98, 105, 113, 114, 130, 136, and 143 have the least sidetracked presentation of evidence.

The problem is, after you fly the plane into the building, that piece of evidence (which you want to be found) is gong to be damaged, and when you detonate the charges (which you planted) you cause further damage to the evidence, increasing the likelihood that it will be damaged beyond recognition, rendering it useless for your purposes.

The news caught the planes hitting on camera. Maybe further evidence was meant to be destroyed.

 

[El Nino]

You're treating the situation like people are rational and they're not.

Assuming irrationality is a very convenient thing to do, mainly because irrationality can be used to explain anything. Fanaticism has been used to explain Japan's refusal to surrender during WWII, but given what unconditional surrender means, I doubt it was fanaticism. I think most countries would try to negotiate terms of surrender; no one wants to give their enemies free permission to **** and pillage. If the U.S. were in the same position, I don't see the U.S. surrendering unconditionalliy either.

Similarly, fanaticism has been used to explain away jihad. This approach is one of convenience. Your enemy is just "crazy," and thus anything they do lacks any practical explanation.

However, politics is not a game of crazy. In many ways, it is methodical and ruthless. People don't go to war over ideology; ideology is just the slogan sold to the rank and file. War is fought over land and resources. And more importantly, bombs are expensive. If you're going to throw money away on something that goes boom, you are expecting some tangible returns from that. Money doesn't grow on trees either. You're going to have to get it from someone who has it, most likely a practically minded person who knows business, and those type of people don't just throw money away on ideological causes without expecting tangible results; if they did, they wouldn't be rich in the first place.

My point is, political actors are rational. Assuming irrationality is what people do because it is convenient.

I was 'aiming' more at how the expandability of people including citizens and troops from that country, which could be any country, is not uncommon. Deserters in battle are traditionally shot, attacks are staged, anything that makes people feel they are under attack is standard war tactics/propaganda.

Deserters, political dissidents and those who commit treason are subject to arrest or worse. This is because their acts are considered a threat to the government. If one person deserts, everyone could desert, and then you have no army. A person who commits treason is a threat to national security. The governments deals with them out of necessity. If treason were allowed to go unchecked, the government could collapse, whether from internal or external threats. However, those who died on 9/11 did nothing that would suggest that they were any such threat to the government. They were not targeted because of anything they did.

Scaring people is easy; you don't need to kill several thousands of your own citizens to do it. When Clinton authorized military action in both Somalia and in the Balkans region during his administration, there had been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil at the time to give him justification. But he went ahead and did it anyway. If Clinton could do it, what would have stopped Bush from taking similar action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

My point is, if they wanted to intervene in Iraq or Afghanistan, they didn't need 9/11 to do it.

They did fabricate evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

If you believe that, then tell me why they didn't fabricate evidence of WMDs in Afghanistan to justify the invasion? Or why didn't they fabricate evidence of a planned terrorist attack? That would have given them justification without costing them any Americna civilian lives.

They could have been hired to act like Al Qaeda but weren't really part of Al Qaeda.

How do you go about hiring someone to die in a plane crash? It takes a great deal of determination to go through with that sort of thing.

Posts: 31, 49, 56, 73, 75, 79, 92, 95, 98, 105, 113, 114, 130, 136, and 143 have the least sidetracked presentation of evidence.

If I have time later, I'll go through them. I joined this discussion too late, so I'm out of synch with everyone else.

The news caught the planes hitting on camera. Maybe further evidence was meant to be destroyed.

You're talking about planted evidence, am I correct? They planted evidence so it could be destroyed? What's the point of planting it in the first place?

 

[Rizen]

Assuming irrationality is a very convenient thing to do, mainly because irrationality can be used to explain anything.

There were many ways to go into Iraq, but 'irrationality used to explain anything' is not true. And I never said crazy.

Simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact.
For example, does a tree fall strait down from burning? No. Does a tree fall strait down from a side impact? No. Fires or side impacts of any nature do not cause anything to fall strait down; the twin towers are no exception. A scientific experiment must be able to be duplicated.

No one in any 9/11 debate I've been in has ever answered this. It's irrational/inaccurate for an experiment to not be reproducible.

My point is, political actors are rational. Assuming irrationality is what people do because it is convenient.

Irrational does not mean without reason. Political actors are people too. What rational reason does the Department of Agriculture have for allowing high fructose corn syrup? There are many reasons why HFCS is unhealthy and so on, but this isn't the thread for the subject.
My point is the irrational nature of people is a large factor. I don't know the reasoning behind having planes and controlled demolition, maybe to destroy evedence in the building, maybe a plan 'B', etc; other methods do seem better. We don't have grounding to form solid conclusions about who or why but we know what happened and how and can work from there.

My point is, if they wanted to intervene in Iraq or Afghanistan, they didn't need 9/11 to do it.

I need to look up what happened with Clinton again.
There were many ways to get into Iraq. 9/11 was what happened.

How do you go about hiring someone to die in a plane crash? It takes a great deal of determination to go through with that sort of thing.

Kamikaze thinking? Any time someone goes to war they're prepared to give their life for a greater cause. Maybe the people thought providing motivation for the USA to act was a greater cause.

If you believe that, then tell me why they didn't fabricate evidence of WMDs in Afghanistan to justify the invasion? Or why didn't they fabricate evidence of a planned terrorist attack?

'They' are not identified yet and it's probably not the same 'they'.
We had real reasons to go into Afghanistan. It's not the same as Iraq. I need to research this again.

You're talking about planted evidence, am I correct? They planted evidence so it could be destroyed? What's the point of planting it in the first place?

No. I was referring to evidence in one or more of the following offices in WTC7:
CIA's NY station
Secret Service NYC Headquarters
IRS
Department of Defense
Mayor Giuliani's office of emergency management
Securities and Exchange commission

<><><><><>
This is merely theory crafting. I don't necessarily believe the current topics of this debate and can't prove them (except some specific references).