Donte Stallworth's reflections on 9/11 CTs...

[Allen773]

...and his own flirtation with them, in a Salon article from last December.

snip:

Conspiracy theories are not a recent phenomenon in America, said history professor Robert Goldberg, director of the Tanner Humanities Center and co-director of the Middle East Center at the University of Utah, but they have changed in one fundamental way: Before the second half of the 20th century, conspiracy theories focused on people who were seen as outsiders -- Jews, Catholics, Communists. Today's conspiracies focus on insiders -- the government, Wall Street and the military. (Given the intertwined history of anti-Semitism and conspiracism, one constant appears to be Jews.)

According to Goldberg, the fascination with conspiracies is "so normal" in part because "you can find a variety of conspiracies, real conspiracies that have occurred in world and American history." Those, he said, give sustenance to the belief that history is conspiracy.

snip:

Because I felt I had reached my own conclusions, based on my own research, my position was that much more unshakable. Contrast the respect with which many conspiracy theorists treat their audience with the government's posture, which is to offer as little information as possible. Whatever I read in the media afterward, I viewed through the prism of "Loose Change." (Indeed, surveys consistently show that people who believe in conspiracy theories are paradoxically far more informed about an issue than those who don't. If you've ever debated a climate-change denier, you've seen this phenomenon firsthand.)

snip:

Taking a step back, I came to understand how much bureaucratic infighting, turf protection and ass covering came before and after 9/11. As I learned more about how the government worked (and didn't work) through reading books and multiple news sites, both right and left, I came to agree with what Philip Shenon, a veteran investigative journalist who covered 9/11 and its aftermath closely, said when asked about 9/11 conspiracies. He explained that he had "trouble accepting some of the big conspiracy theories about 9/11 if only because, after 20 years in and out of Washington, I just can't imagine the federal government being nearly competent enough to carry out what would have been such a vast, complicated operation in total secrecy."

Full article:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/donte-stallworth-911-conspiracy_n_6178556.html

He's not wrong.

 

[GlennB]

He's not wrong.

You're right. He isn't

 

[pgimeno]

snip:
[...]
Whatever I read in the media afterward, I viewed through the prism of "Loose Change."
[...]
after 20 years in and out of Washington, I just can't imagine the federal government being nearly competent enough to carry out what would have been such a vast, complicated operation in total secrecy.
[...]

Funny. That's about what the creator of Loose Change himself says now:

“In my truly angry times, in 2005 or 2006, if you asked if the Bush administration planned the attacks, I would have said, ‘**** yeah’.”

But now?

“I don’t think Bush could plan a bowl of cereal,” he says.

http://www.vocativ.com/usa/us-politics/rapid-rise-fall-dylan-avery/ (profanity warning)
​

 

[JohnG]

Indeed, surveys consistently show that people who believe in conspiracy theories are paradoxically far more informed about an issue than those who don't. If you've ever debated a climate-change denier, you've seen this phenomenon firsthand.

If the writer is saying that for example 9/11 Truthers tend to know more than non-Truthers about Islamic extremism, skyscraper construction, airport security, demolitions, etc., then I say that's clearly, laughably untrue.

If on the other hand the writer is saying that 9/11 Truthers tend to know more than non-Truthers about the 31 flavors of "MIHOP", then I'd agree, but then that's like saying that comic book fans tend to know more than non-comic book fans about The Incredible Hulk. It's true...it's uninteresting, but it's true. I'm not however going to defer to the expertise of comic book fans if the debate centers around the real-world damaging effects of gamma radiation on scientists with anger management issues. I'm just stubborn that way.

 

[Whip]

he's just trying to avoid addressing the deflategate debacle.

 

[LSSBB]

If the writer is saying that for example 9/11 Truthers tend to know more than non-Truthers about Islamic extremism, skyscraper construction, airport security, demolitions, etc., then I say that's clearly, laughably untrue.

If on the other hand the writer is saying that 9/11 Truthers tend to know more than non-Truthers about the 31 flavors of "MIHOP", then I'd agree, but then that's like saying that comic book fans tend to know more than non-comic book fans about The Incredible Hulk. It's true...it's uninteresting, but it's true. I'm not however going to defer to the expertise of comic book fans if the debate centers around the real-world damaging effects of gamma radiation on scientists with anger management issues. I'm just stubborn that way.

That's a good point, there is a difference between knowing a subject in depth, and knowing a wealth of trivia about a subject.

 

[BazBear]

he's just trying to avoid addressing the deflategate debacle.

Off topic. Reported. (just kidding)

 

[Jango]

Why would President Bush have to be 'the lead architect' of 9/11 for there to be U.S. involvement? He does not personally gather information himself; he is briefed. He was obviously informed about the umbrella threat of Islamic terrorism and was particularly briefed about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. However, we do not know the extent of those briefs, nor, for that matter, what the IC collected themselves or had shared by their foreign counterparts. We were told that the 08/06/2001 PDB was a "historical document" which was in response to questions the President had asked. We don't know what he said after that briefing other than, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

 

[beachnut]

Why would President Bush have to be 'the lead architect' of 9/11 for there to be U.S. involvement? He does not personally gather information himself; he is briefed. He was obviously informed about the umbrella threat of Islamic terrorism and was particularly briefed about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. However, we do not know the extent of those briefs, nor, for that matter, what the IC collected themselves or had shared by their foreign counterparts. We were told that the 08/06/2001 PDB was a "historical document" which was in response to questions the President had asked. We don't know what he said after that briefing other than, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

Bush is the reason a lot of 911 truth nuts go full blown fantasy on 911. They hate Bush, and don't care if the fantasy of 911 truth is false, they hate Bush.

You can't name who did 911 in your version of 911. You say the government was involved, and you have no evidence to support that lie.

We have all known about UBL since the 90s, so the threat was not new for Bush, you, or I. Why did you fail to stop UBL on 911?

How do you stop something when you don't know what the plot was. Why do you say 911 was done by the government?

 

[Jango]

Bush is the reason a lot of 911 truth nuts go full blown fantasy on 911. They hate Bush, and don't care if the fantasy of 911 truth is false, they hate Bush.

You can't name who did 911 in your version of 911. You say the government was involved, and you have no evidence to support that lie.

We have all known about UBL since the 90s, so the threat was not new for Bush, you, or I. Why did you fail to stop UBL on 911?

How do you stop something when you don't know what the plot was. Why do you say 911 was done by the government?

I was 16 when 9/11 happened, and I had never heard of OBL or al Qaeda, let alone Afghanistan.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I was 16 when 9/11 happened, and I had never heard of OBL or al Qaeda, let alone Afghanistan.

Explains a lot.

 

[Jango]

Explains a lot.

Such as?

 

[Nick Terry]

Such as?

Such as you're squarely in the demographic that was most susceptible to Trutherism in the mid-2000s. Your political experiences were formed by the Bush years. 9/11 matters to you in a way that it doesn't to a younger generation, who have barely any memory of the events and can thus view it as history.

Those of us who were older than you in 2001 lived through the events in ways that you couldn't have done - you were objectively immature in your intellectual development, and by your own admission hadn't heard of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or even Afghanistan at the time. You were more or less old enough to live through the Iraq War as a more conscious adult, and above all to witness the ghastly aftermath.

I saw how important yeargroup is when teaching students in the 2000s; up to 2007, students who might have been 14-16 when the Iraq War broke out instantly understood comparisons between the coalition occupation of Iraq and the Allied occupation of Germany in 1945 - this was a contemporary analogy. From 2008 onwards, even though the events were barely five years in the past, classes started going completely blank on me when I made the comparison, as while they'd heard of the Iraq war, they were too young to have absorbed the details in a meaningful way.

 

[Oystein]

If the writer is saying that for example 9/11 Truthers tend to know more than non-Truthers about Islamic extremism, skyscraper construction, airport security, demolitions, etc., then I say that's clearly, laughably untrue.
...

I disagree. Unless "non-Truthers" is supposed to be synonymous with "Debunker".

The common person on the street who has not looked into CTs from either side and is a mere average consumer of the usual news, documentary and entertainment media, tends to know practically nothing about skyscraper construction, airport security, demolitions, and their views on Islamic extremism are almost certainly tinted with their own political biases. The moment you become a Truther and start watching videos and reading the crazy stuff, you start learning tids and bits about these things, and as a result you end up knowing more facts, and perhaps even understanding better. So in that sense, the writer is correct and you are wrong.

That's a good point, there is a difference between knowing a subject in depth, and knowing a wealth of trivia about a subject.

This however is a valid point. Also, the wealth of trivia about these subjects that Truthers learn are not even random, they are often picked specifically to mislead (and some are outright false) - they overemphasize irrelevant bits and intentionally leave out certain highly relevant facts. So the Truther may know "more", but they know it the wrong way.

 

[Jango]

Such as you're squarely in the demographic that was most susceptible to Trutherism in the mid-2000s. Your political experiences were formed by the Bush years. 9/11 matters to you in a way that it doesn't to a younger generation, who have barely any memory of the events and can thus view it as history.

Those of us who were older than you in 2001 lived through the events in ways that you couldn't have done - you were objectively immature in your intellectual development, and by your own admission hadn't heard of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or even Afghanistan at the time. You were more or less old enough to live through the Iraq War as a more conscious adult, and above all to witness the ghastly aftermath.

I saw how important yeargroup is when teaching students in the 2000s; up to 2007, students who might have been 14-16 when the Iraq War broke out instantly understood comparisons between the coalition occupation of Iraq and the Allied occupation of Germany in 1945 - this was a contemporary analogy. From 2008 onwards, even though the events were barely five years in the past, classes started going completely blank on me when I made the comparison, as while they'd heard of the Iraq war, they were too young to have absorbed the details in a meaningful way.

1. More like September 11th, 2011.

2. Therefore President Obama. "THANKS Obama!"

 

[Nick Terry]

1. More like September 11th, 2011.

Absolute rubbish. 9/11 was the start of the 'war on terror', and you weren't even able to vote until several years later. The significance of 9/11 was still unfolding as you were entering your twenties, and had demonstrably changed by 2005-2006 compared to 2002; it had led to the Iraq War, which had not turned out well at all. Unless you're claiming you woke up politically on 9/11/2001 and promptly stuck your head in the sand again for the rest of the 2000s, then sorry, but your formative experiences = the Bush years.

There's no shame in admitting this, but you need to start being honest with yourself so that you can recognise potential biases. I have no problem admitting that my own political experiences are biased by growing up under Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and by watching the John Major government's antics in the early 1990s as a young adult.

2. Therefore President Obama. "THANKS Obama!"

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Dismissing the rest of my post with strikethrus is yet another confirmation of your inability to respond objectively to discussion.

 

[Jango]

Absolute rubbish. 9/11 was the start of the 'war on terror', and you weren't even able to vote until several years later. The significance of 9/11 was still unfolding as you were entering your twenties, and had demonstrably changed by 2005-2006 compared to 2002; it had led to the Iraq War, which had not turned out well at all. Unless you're claiming you woke up politically on 9/11/2001 and promptly stuck your head in the sand again for the rest of the 2000s, then sorry, but your formative experiences = the Bush years.

There's no shame in admitting this, but you need to start being honest with yourself so that you can recognise potential biases. I have no problem admitting that my own political experiences are biased by growing up under Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and by watching the John Major government's antics in the early 1990s as a young adult.



This makes no sense whatsoever.

Dismissing the rest of my post with strikethrus is yet another confirmation of your inability to respond objectively to discussion.

If you had read what I actually said, you would notice that I did not say September 11, 2001, I said September 11, 2011. My political awakening happened after the Bush years and after I was in the Marines, hence, why I said President Obama. So yes, if you would have read what I had actually said, it would totally make sense. Yet, here you are, saying that I am the one not responding "objectively to discussion." You say that of me after you just fouled up what I said by an entire decade.

 

[BazBear]

I was 16 when 9/11 happened, and I had never heard of OBL or al Qaeda, let alone Afghanistan.

But many of us are older (I was 36 on 9/11) and were well aware of OBL's declaration of war on the US, as well as several actual attacks carried out by his people, such as the two US embassy bombings in Africa in '98 and the attack on the USS Cole in '00. There were also several foiled plots in the 1999/2000 time frame.

Once I saw that second airliner hit the WTC, OBL and AQ was the first thing that popped into my mind as possible perpetrators.

 

[BazBear]

If you had read what I actually said, you would notice that I did not say September 11, 2001, I said September 11, 2011. My political awakening happened after the Bush years and after I was in the Marines, hence, why I said President Obama. So yes, if you would have read what I had actually said, it would totally make sense. Yet, here you are, saying that I am the one not responding "objectively to discussion." You say that of me after you just fouled up what I said by an entire decade.

The way you struckout and highlighted Nick's quote, it's not readily apparent what exactly you were driving at in your reply.

 

[Jango]

Absolute rubbish. 9/11 was the start of the 'war on terror', and you weren't even able to vote until several years later. The significance of 9/11 was still unfolding as you were entering your twenties, and had demonstrably changed by 2005-2006 compared to 2002; it had led to the Iraq War, which had not turned out well at all. Unless you're claiming you woke up politically on 9/11/2001 and promptly stuck your head in the sand again for the rest of the 2000s, then sorry, but your formative experiences = the Bush years.

There's no shame in admitting this, but you need to start being honest with yourself so that you can recognise potential biases. I have no problem admitting that my own political experiences are biased by growing up under Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and by watching the John Major government's antics in the early 1990s as a young adult.



This makes no sense whatsoever.

Dismissing the rest of my post with strikethrus is yet another confirmation of your inability to respond objectively to discussion.

Yes, this post deserved scrutiny at two different levels.

9/11 was the start of the war on terror, eh?


Maintaining that belief ignores a big chunk of contemporary U.S. History, such as:

[In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub./URL]

Here's a partial video of him talking about the raid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7HkVyJJ5s -- notice the themes he talks about.

President Reagan delivered a speech at the 41st Session of the United Nations General Assembly where he said this: [URL="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36458"]In addition to regional disputes, the grave threat of terrorism also jeopardizes the hopes for peace. No cause, no grievance, can justify it. Terrorism is heinous and intolerable. It is the crime of cowards—cowards who prey on the innocent, the defenseless, and the helpless. With its allies and other nations, the United States has taken steps to counter terrorism directly, particularly state-sponsored terrorism. Last April the United States demonstrated that it will defend its interests and act against terrorist aggression. And let me assure all of you today, especially let me assure any potential sponsors of terrorism, that the American people are of one mind on this issue. Like other civilized peoples of the world, we have reached our limit. Attacks against our citizens or our interests will not go unanswered. We will also do all in our power to help other law-abiding nations threatened by terrorist attacks. To that end, the United States believes that the understandings reached by the seven industrial democracies at the Tokyo summit last May made a good start toward international accord in the war on terrorism. We recommend to the General Assembly consideration of the Tokyo resolutions.

Tokyo Economic Summit Conference Statement on International Terrorism

Don't forget these either: Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation To Combat International Terrorism + Statement on Signing the 1984 Act To Combat International Terrorism
+ H.R.6311 - 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism


Enough from President Reagan, but if you're interested in how much further your wrongness extends, use this and just type in the word 'terror' or 'terrorism': http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/search/speeches/speech_srch.html


Let's move on to President Clinton:

Yesterday in Sharm al-Sheikh, nations from this region and around the world strengthened their resolve to defeat those who would destroy peace. Today Prime Minister Peres and I, along with our top security advisers, set a course to deepen our own cooperation and intensify our war on terror. We agreed to increase intelligence sharing, to develop new methods to combat terror, to enhance coordination between our nations and others who have agreed to join us to fight against terror. I committed $100 million to this effort, and last night I sent a message to the Congress asking them to take urgent action to fulfill our first installment in this endeavor.

America stands with you in the pursuit of peace and in the war on terror. And we will do more. In the days of the Bible, the foreign prophet Balaam looked upon the children of Israel and called them "a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned upon the nation." Today, looking at all this nation has achieved, the acceptance it has won in the Middle East and around the world, we know his words were and are and will be wrong.

Israel is not alone. America stands with you, and with every passing day so do more people here and abroad. But we will not rest until, in the words of the Psalm, "There is peace within Israel's walls and security in her towers." And we know that Israel will never give her enemies the victory they seek, never abandon the hope of peace, never lose hatikvah leshalom.

In the War Against Terrorism, Any Attack Has Pros and Cons

U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network

Here's President Clinton in 1993 talking about the 1993 U.S. bombing of Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mpWa7wNr5M



Sorry Nick, the war on terror started before 9/11.