Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/? (616)
Ambrose2007: Well, I'm glad you agree that facts, rather than a priori intuitions, are a necessary element of an evidential argument.
Occam's razor doesn't consist of merely offering the simplest explanation, of course, but rather the simplest explanation which best accounts for the facts of an event or thing. It is quite possible, in other words, for a simple explanation to be wrong.
The debate over what brought the buildings down has been raging for a long time, and after having participated in many debates of that nature (I've seen engineers take turns in essence calling each other idiots, both claiming the other's position is "pseudo-scientic babble" [incidentally, wouldn't that be a superb example of ad hominem, which you have criticized yourself here?]), at this point I don't see much profit in a detailed debate on the demolition vs. plane-only hypotheses.
Instead, I'll content myself with a general remarks about "facts." First, if you believe that "conspiracy theorists everywhere" have ignored your points, then that is factually incorrect. These points have been acknowledged and debated ad infinitum, and in vastly greater and more sophisticated detail than your summary above (which you would of course know if you had performed even a semi-thorough investigation of the debate). Second, it is not a fact that the central argument for alternatives to the mainstream conspiracy theory (which is a "conspiracy theory," by the way) is "planes couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings." It's certainly a popular point of disagreement, but there are many theories about what happened that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars, and thus are alternatives to it.......
Occam's razor doesn't consist of merely offering the simplest explanation, of course, but rather the simplest explanation which best accounts for the facts of an event or thing. It is quite possible, in other words, for a simple explanation to be wrong.
The debate over what brought the buildings down has been raging for a long time, and after having participated in many debates of that nature (I've seen engineers take turns in essence calling each other idiots, both claiming the other's position is "pseudo-scientic babble" [incidentally, wouldn't that be a superb example of ad hominem, which you have criticized yourself here?]), at this point I don't see much profit in a detailed debate on the demolition vs. plane-only hypotheses.
Instead, I'll content myself with a general remarks about "facts." First, if you believe that "conspiracy theorists everywhere" have ignored your points, then that is factually incorrect. These points have been acknowledged and debated ad infinitum, and in vastly greater and more sophisticated detail than your summary above (which you would of course know if you had performed even a semi-thorough investigation of the debate). Second, it is not a fact that the central argument for alternatives to the mainstream conspiracy theory (which is a "conspiracy theory," by the way) is "planes couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings." It's certainly a popular point of disagreement, but there are many theories about what happened that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars, and thus are alternatives to it.......
Very well thought out remarks and greatly appreciated. I had to truncate your previous post in order to assure we didn't hit the 4000 word limitation here. It wasn't because I wanted to cut you off, just so you know.
Yes, I've seen otherwise sensible people launch into full ad hominem implosions on this topic. Assuming there are "many theories that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars and thus are alternatives to it", I would have to say I'm not familiar with and probably couldn't be familiar with all the various and sundry alternatives that are arranged to present some sort of case of the "inside job".
And while it is admittedly just my personal opinion that the conspiracy theories represent predetermined positions trying to gather support, I can also admit that I've yet to hear one that is compelling.
One of the most telling logical tests of the theory that George Bush was behind this is based on the law of non-contradiction. A conspiracy theorist cannot argue simultaneously that George Bush is an evil genius capable of orchestrating such a plot and a blithering idiot, incapable of doing anything right. And anectdotal evidence seems to reflect that this is the position taken by most, if not all, of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, by nature, anecdotal evidence isn't irrefutable proof of anything. It just is what it is.
Of course, for those theories that have nothing to do with George Bush, I digress because they're something else entirely. I think it will be quite some time before a compliation of all the conspiracy theories and fallback positions for them can be made. It's interesting discussion fodder, though, isn't it?
Thanks!
gardenhackle: Very well thought out remarks and greatly appreciated. I had to truncate your previous post in order to assure we didn't hit the 4000 word limitation here. It wasn't because I wanted to cut you off, just so you know.
Yes, I've seen otherwise sensible people launch into full ad hominem implosions on this topic. Assuming there are "many theories that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars and thus are alternatives to it", I would have to say I'm not familiar with and probably couldn't be familiar with all the various and sundry alternatives that are arranged to present some sort of case of the "inside job".
And while it is admittedly just my personal opinion that the conspiracy theories represent predetermined positions trying to gather support, I can also admit that I've yet to hear one that is compelling.
One of the most telling logical tests of the theory that George Bush was behind this is based on the law of non-contradiction. A conspiracy theorist cannot argue simultaneously that George Bush is an evil genius capable of orchestrating such a plot and a blithering idiot, incapable of doing anything right. And anectdotal evidence seems to reflect that this is the position taken by most, if not all, of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, by nature, anecdotal evidence isn't irrefutable proof of anything. It just is what it is.
Of course, for those theories that have nothing to do with George Bush, I digress because they're something else entirely. I think it will be quite some time before a compliation of all the conspiracy theories and fallback positions for them can be made. It's interesting discussion fodder, though, isn't it?
Thanks!
Yes, I've seen otherwise sensible people launch into full ad hominem implosions on this topic. Assuming there are "many theories that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars and thus are alternatives to it", I would have to say I'm not familiar with and probably couldn't be familiar with all the various and sundry alternatives that are arranged to present some sort of case of the "inside job".
And while it is admittedly just my personal opinion that the conspiracy theories represent predetermined positions trying to gather support, I can also admit that I've yet to hear one that is compelling.
One of the most telling logical tests of the theory that George Bush was behind this is based on the law of non-contradiction. A conspiracy theorist cannot argue simultaneously that George Bush is an evil genius capable of orchestrating such a plot and a blithering idiot, incapable of doing anything right. And anectdotal evidence seems to reflect that this is the position taken by most, if not all, of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, by nature, anecdotal evidence isn't irrefutable proof of anything. It just is what it is.
Of course, for those theories that have nothing to do with George Bush, I digress because they're something else entirely. I think it will be quite some time before a compliation of all the conspiracy theories and fallback positions for them can be made. It's interesting discussion fodder, though, isn't it?
Thanks!
I agree. I have read, viewed and heard much on this subject. However, every posited motivation for this apart from what is considered 'mainstream' is deficient in logic. It would appear that the populist theories have become 'mainstream' anyway. Alternative views have certainly created quite an industry.
Out of curisodity....why not take bin Laden own a statement of admission to planning the executing 911? And take it at face value.....or fact.
ttom500: Out of curisodity....why not take bin Laden own a statement of admission to planning the executing 911? And take it at face value.....or fact.
Especially in light of his previous attempt on the WTC. He obviously saw the symbolism in the destruction of this complex.
aspen12: WHAT PEOPLE BELEIVE
Of course it was anything to get into iraq and start a war, but most of all to control the oil fields, If im not right why aren't we in Uganda protecting people, simple no oil fields.
No, do not believe to be an inside job. But the gov certainly
exploited the situation.
exploited the situation.
Blues63: Especially in light of his previous attempt on the WTC. He obviously saw the symbolism in the destruction of this complex.
The previous attempt was by a US radical cleric, the blind Khaled Shaikh Muhammed.
But bin Laden's admission to 911, came about 30 days after the event. By now the death toll was known. And maybe more importantly, CIA was operating in Afghanistan. They were there 15 days after 911. They were on the bin Laden hunt. They had two field teams in the country when the admission was made.
So he make a admission to the attack. Why?
Maybe to get the CIA teams to be more aggressive. To smoke them out from the Northern Alliance that was hosting them. He knew Washington would with a admission, would place pressure on those teams to get him.
Being aggressive in this case, blows covers and exposes covert operations and operators. That is my take.
But unless he did it, why make the admission? Far safer is to become a 911 truther....and not have every major intelligence agency in the world with a wanted poster with your name on it. Blame it on GWB and his government.
agman: No, do not believe to be an inside job. But the gov certainly
exploited the situation.
exploited the situation.
Governments are all about what they can get out of a situation and oils the biggest item, they get it cheap then screw us for every penny they can get out of us.....
UpYourViva: Of course it was anything to get into iraq and start a war, but most of all to control the oil fields, If im not right why aren't we in Uganda protecting people, simple no oil fields.
If it was to control the oil fields the US screwed up from day one by providing the opportunity for the Iraqi people to have democracy as the Iraqi people cut the US out of most of the oil contracts. As for why not Uganda,easy when one looks at the reasons why the US went into Iraq (none of them being humanitarian)
In response to: to get Iraq to comply with ceasefire terms
- to stop Iraq’s Inadvertence to UNSC resolutions
- to force Iraq to cease it’s violation of human rights
- to stop Iraq’s material breaches of UNSC resolutions
- to end Iraq’s WMD capability and aspirations
- to end repression of Iraq’s civilian population
- to force Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals
- to force Iraq to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
- to end Iraqi Support for terrorism
- to show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes
- to depose a regional threat take in Saddam that would have to be dealt with sooner or later
- to force action from SA to take care of it's radicals
- to pressure other regimes in the area not to provide passive or active support to Jihadists
- to position US troops in the region in force to enable that pressure
- to aid their global and NATO mission by placing a Strategic Air Support base
- to support and help create an Arab democracy as an example to others
- to stop Iraq’s Inadvertence to UNSC resolutions
- to force Iraq to cease it’s violation of human rights
- to stop Iraq’s material breaches of UNSC resolutions
- to end Iraq’s WMD capability and aspirations
- to end repression of Iraq’s civilian population
- to force Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals
- to force Iraq to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
- to end Iraqi Support for terrorism
- to show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes
- to depose a regional threat take in Saddam that would have to be dealt with sooner or later
- to force action from SA to take care of it's radicals
- to pressure other regimes in the area not to provide passive or active support to Jihadists
- to position US troops in the region in force to enable that pressure
- to aid their global and NATO mission by placing a Strategic Air Support base
- to support and help create an Arab democracy as an example to others
I know what you mean. The 5% of Trinidadians that are idiots make the whole population look bad. Grrr.
Albertaghost: If it was to control the oil fields the US screwed up from day one by providing the opportunity for the Iraqi people to have democracy as the Iraqi people cut the US out of most of the oil contracts. As for why not Uganda,easy when one looks at the reasons why the US went into Iraq (none of them being humanitarian)
IT WAS A GREAT PART NATIONALIZE THE OIL WELLS LIKE THAT DUMMMY IN VENEZULA
gardenhackle: Very well thought out remarks and greatly appreciated. I had to truncate your previous post in order to assure we didn't hit the 4000 word limitation here. It wasn't because I wanted to cut you off, just so you know.
Yes, I've seen otherwise sensible people launch into full ad hominem implosions on this topic. Assuming there are "many theories that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars and thus are alternatives to it", I would have to say I'm not familiar with and probably couldn't be familiar with all the various and sundry alternatives that are arranged to present some sort of case of the "inside job".
And while it is admittedly just my personal opinion that the conspiracy theories represent predetermined positions trying to gather support, I can also admit that I've yet to hear one that is compelling.
One of the most telling logical tests of the theory that George Bush was behind this is based on the law of non-contradiction. A conspiracy theorist cannot argue simultaneously that George Bush is an evil genius capable of orchestrating such a plot and a blithering idiot, incapable of doing anything right. And anectdotal evidence seems to reflect that this is the position taken by most, if not all, of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, by nature, anecdotal evidence isn't irrefutable proof of anything. It just is what it is.
Of course, for those theories that have nothing to do with George Bush, I digress because they're something else entirely. I think it will be quite some time before a compliation of all the conspiracy theories and fallback positions for them can be made. It's interesting discussion fodder, though, isn't it?
Thanks!
Yes, I've seen otherwise sensible people launch into full ad hominem implosions on this topic. Assuming there are "many theories that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars and thus are alternatives to it", I would have to say I'm not familiar with and probably couldn't be familiar with all the various and sundry alternatives that are arranged to present some sort of case of the "inside job".
And while it is admittedly just my personal opinion that the conspiracy theories represent predetermined positions trying to gather support, I can also admit that I've yet to hear one that is compelling.
One of the most telling logical tests of the theory that George Bush was behind this is based on the law of non-contradiction. A conspiracy theorist cannot argue simultaneously that George Bush is an evil genius capable of orchestrating such a plot and a blithering idiot, incapable of doing anything right. And anectdotal evidence seems to reflect that this is the position taken by most, if not all, of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, by nature, anecdotal evidence isn't irrefutable proof of anything. It just is what it is.
Of course, for those theories that have nothing to do with George Bush, I digress because they're something else entirely. I think it will be quite some time before a compliation of all the conspiracy theories and fallback positions for them can be made. It's interesting discussion fodder, though, isn't it?
Thanks!
Thanks, Gard. I had to truncate your quote for the same reason.
I appreciate your comments and tone. You're one of the few people keeping this site interesting for me, so I wouldn't particularly relish getting into a donnybrook with you over this.
I don't know of any "leading" non-mainstream conspiracy theorists who believe Bush masterminded 9/11. The usual speculation is that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others of that ilk were more likely candidates. But if these conspiracy hypotheses are true, Bush, at a minimum, had knowledge of what was going on. His administration was heavily influenced by policy suggestions from the Project for the New American Century, which spoke longingly of the good that might come from a "new Pearl Harbor" (which 9/11 was), and advocated military interventionist strategies which the Bush Admin. adopted.
Ambrose2007: Thanks, Gard. I had to truncate your quote for the same reason.
I appreciate your comments and tone. You're one of the few people keeping this site interesting for me, so I wouldn't particularly relish getting into a donnybrook with you over this.
I don't know of any "leading" non-mainstream conspiracy theorists who believe Bush masterminded 9/11. The usual speculation is that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others of that ilk were more likely candidates. But if these conspiracy hypotheses are true, Bush, at a minimum, had knowledge of what was going on. His administration was heavily influenced by policy suggestions from the Project for the New American Century, which spoke longingly of the good that might come from a "new Pearl Harbor" (which 9/11 was), and advocated military interventionist strategies which the Bush Admin. adopted.
I appreciate your comments and tone. You're one of the few people keeping this site interesting for me, so I wouldn't particularly relish getting into a donnybrook with you over this.
I don't know of any "leading" non-mainstream conspiracy theorists who believe Bush masterminded 9/11. The usual speculation is that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others of that ilk were more likely candidates. But if these conspiracy hypotheses are true, Bush, at a minimum, had knowledge of what was going on. His administration was heavily influenced by policy suggestions from the Project for the New American Century, which spoke longingly of the good that might come from a "new Pearl Harbor" (which 9/11 was), and advocated military interventionist strategies which the Bush Admin. adopted.
The trouble with most of the CTs is that they are up against a better CT in that historical intent, personal tracking complete with time lines of the perpetrator's meetings as well as the thousands of people who were victims, observers and such all converge in a fairly neat package whereas the CTs have an oddity here and there.
I tend to believe the official CT with the occasional oddity rather than any CT with the large gaping holes and ends that lead and meet nowhere.
ttom500: Out of curisodity....why not take bin Laden own a statement of admission to planning the executing 911? And take it at face value.....or fact.
Well, bin Laden initially denied involvement. His first response, on 9/17/01, was:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
In a further statement on 10/16/01:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
Then followed the infamous "confession video" in December, to which I think you're referring. That video has been controversial from the get-go. Most, if not all, alternative conspiracy theorists decry it as an obvious fraud. But does the USG think it's genuine? If so, it seems rather problematic that bin Laden is not named by the FBI as a suspect for the events of 9/11. As a result, I'm going to guess our intelligence services believe the tape is fraudulent (along with subsequent messages).
While I'm addressing your concerns, Tom, I'd like to say that I appreciate your having taken the time to actually read up on the subject; that's obvious from your posts. Your question about the cell phones is obviously well-warranted. Perhaps the most damaging counterargument one could make would be the (alleged) cell phone calls, as well as the final disposition of the passengers. Were they all whisked off to one of those alternate dimensions on LOST?
These and other questions provide solids grounds for questioning alternative conspiracy theories. I don't claim to have all the answers - only a well-founded skepticism of many of the mainstream theory's chief contentions. The problems with the official theory are legion. All it requires to destroy the mainstream theory is to convincingly demonstrate some of its claims are false, and I believe that has been done.
aspen12: WHAT PEOPLE BELEIVE
cannot the same argue that got Bush off the hook here. Be used for Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfwitz? Cheney and Rumsefield are not the sharpest cards in the deck.
While Wolfwitz is a solid neo con thinker....he wrote a lot of white paper in DoD.
Rumsfield is so smart that he gets his a pic taken shaking Sadam Hussien hand.
Cheney is so smart his hunting buddies duck when he says "got one now".
Dod White Paper is not about how to bring down the twin trade center...it all get reviewed many times prior to approval. Unless Wolfwitz had a cadlestine white paper organization....I don't see how he could get a 911 put together from DoD.
Albertaghost: The trouble with most of the CTs is that they are up against a better CT in that historical intent, personal tracking complete with time lines of the perpetrator's meetings as well as the thousands of people who were victims, observers and such all converge in a fairly neat package whereas the CTs have an oddity here and there.
I tend to believe the official CT with the occasional oddity rather than any CT with the large gaping holes and ends that lead and meet nowhere.
I tend to believe the official CT with the occasional oddity rather than any CT with the large gaping holes and ends that lead and meet nowhere.
Ah, no. The official theory has enough holes to support another classic Beatles' song. If you believe the "CT" is a "neat package," then there's no way you could've done much reading about it. I don't believe even staunch supporters would call the official theory "neat." They argue, rather, that it's more believable than the alternatives.
Ambrose2007: Ah, no. The official theory has enough holes to support another classic Beatles' song. If you believe the "CT" is a "neat package," then there's no way you could've done much reading about it. I don't believe even staunch supporters would call the official theory "neat." They argue, rather, that it's more believable than the alternatives.
Considering the amount of actvity going on during that particular day I feel pretty confident that it is about as neat as possible. Shoot, the unofficial theories can't even name who did it, how they did it without being noticed, or even a time line of who planted what and how it was done with what and how and why nobody has yet to come forward to confess they did it or, knew somebody who did. Considering the amount of activity that day and, all the bases that would have had to have been covered, not much in the way of finger pointing with names and deeds has come to light.
Ambrose2007: Ah, no. The official theory has enough holes to support another classic Beatles' song. If you believe the "CT" is a "neat package," then there's no way you could've done much reading about it. I don't believe even staunch supporters would call the official theory "neat." They argue, rather, that it's more believable than the alternatives.
The unofficial conspiracy theories have enough holes to support an army of golfers. If you believe that the "CT" could be credible without a clear and neat central pillar of unquestionable fact, there's no way you could have done much reasonable thinking on it. I don't believe even staunch supporters would argue their conspiracy theory is more believable than the alternatives. They just believe that their desire for it to be true makes it more legitimate than their version of the "official theory".
(yes, my mirror image of your explanation is equally specious - and it's just the speciousness that it is supposed to illustrate. It's not an argument of fact any more than the paragraph that inspired it is).
ttom500: The previous attempt was by a US radical cleric, the blind Khaled Shaikh Muhammed.
But bin Laden's admission to 911, came about 30 days after the event. By now the death toll was known. And maybe more importantly, CIA was operating in Afghanistan. They were there 15 days after 911. They were on the bin Laden hunt. They had two field teams in the country when the admission was made.
So he make a admission to the attack. Why?
Maybe to get the CIA teams to be more aggressive. To smoke them out from the Northern Alliance that was hosting them. He knew Washington would with a admission, would place pressure on those teams to get him.
Being aggressive in this case, blows covers and exposes covert operations and operators. That is my take.
But unless he did it, why make the admission? Far safer is to become a 911 truther....and not have every major intelligence agency in the world with a wanted poster with your name on it. Blame it on GWB and his government.
But bin Laden's admission to 911, came about 30 days after the event. By now the death toll was known. And maybe more importantly, CIA was operating in Afghanistan. They were there 15 days after 911. They were on the bin Laden hunt. They had two field teams in the country when the admission was made.
So he make a admission to the attack. Why?
Maybe to get the CIA teams to be more aggressive. To smoke them out from the Northern Alliance that was hosting them. He knew Washington would with a admission, would place pressure on those teams to get him.
Being aggressive in this case, blows covers and exposes covert operations and operators. That is my take.
But unless he did it, why make the admission? Far safer is to become a 911 truther....and not have every major intelligence agency in the world with a wanted poster with your name on it. Blame it on GWB and his government.
Excuse me on that point. I should have said Al-Quaeda.
Ambrose2007: Well, bin Laden initially denied involvement. His first response, on 9/17/01, was:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
In a further statement on 10/16/01:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
Then followed the infamous "confession video" in December, to which I think you're referring. That video has been controversial from the get-go. Most, if not all, alternative conspiracy theorists decry it as an obvious fraud. But does the USG think it's genuine? If so, it seems rather problematic that bin Laden is not named by the FBI as a suspect for the events of 9/11. As a result, I'm going to guess our intelligence services believe the tape is fraudulent (along with subsequent messages).
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
In a further statement on 10/16/01:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
Then followed the infamous "confession video" in December, to which I think you're referring. That video has been controversial from the get-go. Most, if not all, alternative conspiracy theorists decry it as an obvious fraud. But does the USG think it's genuine? If so, it seems rather problematic that bin Laden is not named by the FBI as a suspect for the events of 9/11. As a result, I'm going to guess our intelligence services believe the tape is fraudulent (along with subsequent messages).
Logical fallacy "appeal to popularity" / "appeal to authority".
If you are going to argue the FBI's authority on this, then you have to argue THEIR position and not suppose one for them. Do you have some sort of official statement from the FBI denying Bin Ladin's culpability or are we to believe your guess about what they believe is a reasonable and credible argument?
You can't logically argue that someone's "failure" to research all the conspiracy theories to the extent you have is evidence that you are more well informed than they are about the FACTS. It only means that you are more well-informed about the variety and diversity of the "theories". The facts themselves are the basis for logical arguments.
Your position, in order to be a logical one, would have to be supportable by reason even if you were discussing or debating this with someone that was born yesterday and never heard even the first whisper of a conspiracy theory.
Arguing that because someone hasn't examined as many cow pastures as you have means they are incapable of recognizing a cow pile when they see one isn't logically supportable.
As long as you keep the discussion about FACTS, it's all good. As soon as you divert into logical fallacies like "appeal to authority", you begin shooting holes in your own arguments.
Ambrose, let's try this. Instead of using a shotgun approach to arguing in favor of "conspiracy theories", in general, why don't you take this opportunity to argue your most compelling proof that the "official version" is a fabrication. What is your most solid, provable, fact-based proof of that? One single irrefutable position. Go ahead and lay it out for discussion and challenge. We can move onto additional "proofs" once you've established your primary and most compelling proof.
Why is a terrorist campaign against the US not considered more likely?
Is it so improbable in light of the activity prior to September 2001?
The bombings of US embassies in Africa, followed by the attempt on the USS Cole culminating in the destruction of the WTC. The attempt in '93 on the WTC was intended to bring it down. Why can't ths final attempt merely be a change of tactics? In this pattern the strategy appears evident.
Won't it sell books or 'documentaries'?
Is it so improbable in light of the activity prior to September 2001?
The bombings of US embassies in Africa, followed by the attempt on the USS Cole culminating in the destruction of the WTC. The attempt in '93 on the WTC was intended to bring it down. Why can't ths final attempt merely be a change of tactics? In this pattern the strategy appears evident.
Won't it sell books or 'documentaries'?
Blues63: Why is a terrorist campaign against the US not considered more likely?
Is it so improbable in light of the activity prior to September 2001?
The bombings of US embassies in Africa, followed by the attempt on the USS Cole culminating in the destruction of the WTC. The attempt in '93 on the WTC was intended to bring it down. Why can't ths final attempt merely be a change of tactics? In this pattern the strategy appears evident.
Won't it sell books or 'documentaries'?
Is it so improbable in light of the activity prior to September 2001?
The bombings of US embassies in Africa, followed by the attempt on the USS Cole culminating in the destruction of the WTC. The attempt in '93 on the WTC was intended to bring it down. Why can't ths final attempt merely be a change of tactics? In this pattern the strategy appears evident.
Won't it sell books or 'documentaries'?
Because some poeple believe that the goverment goes to great lenghts to conspire against us , and they spend countless nights in secret clandestine meetings to control the masses -
rather than doing noting at their desk and being resentful for having to serve the public that pays their wages .....
jvaski: Because some poeple believe that the goverment goes to great lenghts to conspire against us , and they spend countless nights in secret clandestine meetings to control the masses -
rather than doing noting at their desk and being resentful for having to serve the public that pays their wages .....
rather than doing noting at their desk and being resentful for having to serve the public that pays their wages .....
I appreciate that Ambros. You got SMK in the middle of this as a planner and coodinator....and his guilty plea at Gitmo. I know tossed into legal mumbo jumbo by the administration. Why does SMK take the guilty plea?
I admit they worked SMK over good with the water boarding. Not sure about you....someone did that to me....I would not plead quilty to crime I did not commit. I would want them to throw it all out on the table in a court. I am saying they could not break me....every man has a breaking point.
But later at court.....they would have to show evidence of the crimes to get a plea of guilty from me.
I know a fair amount about science and physics...things just don't get 'whisked away'. Things do get pulverized to were they don't exist anymore. That is what happened to the people in the planes. And a 1000 others on 911.
My first case was on a medical incenrator....a device would take medical waste and 'whisk them away'. It was scam for investor funds.
He already taken $4.5m. My client was considering a $100m investment.
I stopped it and saved the client the lost. We are not to the point of human evolution were it is 'Scotty beam up me' yet.))
I saw the bin Laden confession video. It was well shown here. I did not see it that much difference from his other videos of the time. But I sure heard his words. Don't you think that a Arabic lip reader, would look at a faked video and see the words spoken are not the same as were transcribed? Do you realize how hard it is to time words with the movement of a mouth? To place them into synch? Just ask Modonna who has been caught lip synching a few times.
You have the same technical problem on faking a confession video. And lip readers are so good at read lips, they can do at 50+ yards away. From a TV at 10 feet, they don't miss the interpretation. And you better believe that the CIA and FBI had Arabic lip readers checking the bin Laden videos for fakes. They are just as concerned about getting a fake bin Laden tape as you are.
I came close to being part of the 911 investigation. I know people that were part of it. They are top notch experts in the field of dNA. They used dNA to identify the remains. The people that the Government used in the 911 investigation were top notch experts. They listed so many PHds in the final commission report, they ran out PHd in the type sets.))
Omar Muhammed was the Taliban leader of the time of the 911 attack.
bin Laden say he 'forbid me conduct such a attack'. Later we have Musharreff of Pakistan saying that when Omar was asked to extradite bin Laden to the west. Omar laughed his representative and a Saudi prince out of the room. If Omar was convinced bin Laden was innocent, extradite him and embarress America and GWB in a trial. But that did not happen. There is little love between the Taliban and alQeada. With a extradiction, Omar would have saved his country from being bombed and would have kept power.
If bin Laden holds that killing innocent women and children to be a forbidden act of Islam....he sure seemed to forget it latter in Iraq with alQeada of Iraq operations. Even his number two apologizes for civilian deaths there that included women and children.
911 truther and conspriracy buffs...you have every right to hold to your positions. I am not going to say that you don't. But I also think that the gravity of this crime, weights it to be of the worst mass murders of modern time. You don't accuse a man or group with so hideous a crime unless you have solid evidence. Speculation does not cut it here.
Finally you got bin Laden saying he issued a 'fatwa' on America. Again from his confession tape. Fatwa are part of Sharia Law. There is a 'due process' that they are suppose to go thru. Today none in Qom or Mecca has ever said if the bin Laden fatwa was duly processed. My thinking is that he acted outside of Sharia Law's normal process and did 911 without approval from Omar or the sects courts.
I admit they worked SMK over good with the water boarding. Not sure about you....someone did that to me....I would not plead quilty to crime I did not commit. I would want them to throw it all out on the table in a court. I am saying they could not break me....every man has a breaking point.
But later at court.....they would have to show evidence of the crimes to get a plea of guilty from me.
I know a fair amount about science and physics...things just don't get 'whisked away'. Things do get pulverized to were they don't exist anymore. That is what happened to the people in the planes. And a 1000 others on 911.
My first case was on a medical incenrator....a device would take medical waste and 'whisk them away'. It was scam for investor funds.
He already taken $4.5m. My client was considering a $100m investment.
I stopped it and saved the client the lost. We are not to the point of human evolution were it is 'Scotty beam up me' yet.))
I saw the bin Laden confession video. It was well shown here. I did not see it that much difference from his other videos of the time. But I sure heard his words. Don't you think that a Arabic lip reader, would look at a faked video and see the words spoken are not the same as were transcribed? Do you realize how hard it is to time words with the movement of a mouth? To place them into synch? Just ask Modonna who has been caught lip synching a few times.
You have the same technical problem on faking a confession video. And lip readers are so good at read lips, they can do at 50+ yards away. From a TV at 10 feet, they don't miss the interpretation. And you better believe that the CIA and FBI had Arabic lip readers checking the bin Laden videos for fakes. They are just as concerned about getting a fake bin Laden tape as you are.
I came close to being part of the 911 investigation. I know people that were part of it. They are top notch experts in the field of dNA. They used dNA to identify the remains. The people that the Government used in the 911 investigation were top notch experts. They listed so many PHds in the final commission report, they ran out PHd in the type sets.))
Omar Muhammed was the Taliban leader of the time of the 911 attack.
bin Laden say he 'forbid me conduct such a attack'. Later we have Musharreff of Pakistan saying that when Omar was asked to extradite bin Laden to the west. Omar laughed his representative and a Saudi prince out of the room. If Omar was convinced bin Laden was innocent, extradite him and embarress America and GWB in a trial. But that did not happen. There is little love between the Taliban and alQeada. With a extradiction, Omar would have saved his country from being bombed and would have kept power.
If bin Laden holds that killing innocent women and children to be a forbidden act of Islam....he sure seemed to forget it latter in Iraq with alQeada of Iraq operations. Even his number two apologizes for civilian deaths there that included women and children.
911 truther and conspriracy buffs...you have every right to hold to your positions. I am not going to say that you don't. But I also think that the gravity of this crime, weights it to be of the worst mass murders of modern time. You don't accuse a man or group with so hideous a crime unless you have solid evidence. Speculation does not cut it here.
Finally you got bin Laden saying he issued a 'fatwa' on America. Again from his confession tape. Fatwa are part of Sharia Law. There is a 'due process' that they are suppose to go thru. Today none in Qom or Mecca has ever said if the bin Laden fatwa was duly processed. My thinking is that he acted outside of Sharia Law's normal process and did 911 without approval from Omar or the sects courts.
aspen12: WHAT PEOPLE BELEIVE
Yes
StressFree: http://www.911truth.org/
Interesting how the Stories change as they get debunked!
Boban1: Come mister tally man tally me banana
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Come mister tally man tally me banana
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Load six foot, seven foot, eight foot bunch
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Six foot, seven foot, eight foot bunch
Daylight come an' me wan' go home.....
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Come mister tally man tally me banana
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Load six foot, seven foot, eight foot bunch
Daylight come an' me wan' go home
Six foot, seven foot, eight foot bunch
Daylight come an' me wan' go home.....
beetle juice lolMore Threads
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
How far is too far?
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Reality Check
everything is changing
Nature
Salami, Salami, Baloney
1830's Music
rarotonga
Icebergs Still Around
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Well, I'm glad you agree that facts, rather than a priori intuitions, are a necessary element of an evidential argument.
Occam's razor doesn't consist of merely offering the simplest explanation, of course, but rather the simplest explanation which best accounts for the facts of an event or thing. It is quite possible, in other words, for a simple explanation to be wrong.
The debate over what brought the buildings down has been raging for a long time, and after having participated in many debates of that nature (I've seen engineers take turns in essence calling each other idiots, both claiming the other's position is "pseudo-scientic babble" [incidentally, wouldn't that be a superb example of ad hominem, which you have criticized yourself here?]), at this point I don't see much profit in a detailed debate on the demolition vs. plane-only hypotheses.
Instead, I'll content myself with a general remarks about "facts." First, if you believe that "conspiracy theorists everywhere" have ignored your points, then that is factually incorrect. These points have been acknowledged and debated ad infinitum, and in vastly greater and more sophisticated detail than your summary above (which you would of course know if you had performed even a semi-thorough investigation of the debate). Second, it is not a fact that the central argument for alternatives to the mainstream conspiracy theory (which is a "conspiracy theory," by the way) is "planes couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings." It's certainly a popular point of disagreement, but there are many theories about what happened that disagree with the mainstream theory in particulars, and thus are alternatives to it. For example, the aforementioned John Farmer, 9/11 Commission Senior Counsel, offers an alternative version of what happened that accepts planes bringing down the buildings.
While it may true that you've "evaluated every argument" you've **heard**, from reading your post I am forced to conclude that what you've heard is a tiny, perhaps even infinitesimal, portion of the arguments that have been leveled against the mainstream theory, and in particular, against the "planes-only" hypothesis - because if you had in fact performed anything even roughly approximating a thorough overview of the arguments on both sides, you would know the many (and in my view, very strong) arguments that have addressed your claims above.
And this is why I usually don't find debates about 9/11 very fruitful (indeed, I usually find them to be exercises in utter futility/frustration), for what is the point in arguing with someone about something when they haven't taken the time or made the effort to familiarize themselves with the salient claims/facts? It's like debating a religionist about evolution when they know little or nothing about evolutionary theory, and have no interest in remedying their ignorance, because they KNOW that claims countering their beliefs are wrong.
As a result, I will only debate 9/11 with people who've taken the time to perform a thorough and fair-minded overview of the various arguments - OR people who are open to learning new information (which those who make certain declarations absent such knowledge are clearly not open to).