Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Hokulele]

Ah, now I understand the OP better. For me, the critical question is "Who benefited most from the attacks?" Benefit can be defined various ways, from financial profit to self-promotion, and this question has been batted back and forth many times on this forum. I do not have all the links at the moment, but I remember JonnyFive making a strong case against insurance fraud, pomeroo making a strong case against political benefit on behalf of the Republicans, and various others talking about war profiteering.

So, R. Mackey, if you have way too much time on your hands and feel up to a challenge, my critical question for you is "Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attacks?" Feel free to define benefit as you wish. If your answer is "David Ray Griffin" . . .

 

[R.Mackey]

Ah, now I understand the OP better.

It is subtle, and for many people, a new way of thinking. Sorry if my OP was insufficiently clear.

So, R. Mackey, if you have way too much time on your hands and feel up to a challenge, my critical question for you is "Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attacks?" Feel free to define benefit as you wish. If your answer is "David Ray Griffin" . . .

I would not answer with Dr. Griffin, but let me use him as an example. Immediately after September 11th, Dr. Griffin didn't profit at all. He may or may not have profited later, but this is indirect and reactionary. The real question is who profited directly. For Dr. Griffin to be a beneficiary, he has to assume that (a) the attack would succeed; (b) other, ordinary investigators would miss the "truth," leaving him (as a theology professor) a niche to publish; (c) his counter-culture ideas would be marketable... It's a heck of a long shot.

Directly, I think there's no argument that Osama bin Laden profited greatly from the attacks. With a total investment in the ~$1 M range, he inflicted a significant blow to the economy of the entire Western world valued in the trillions. He became the most notorious criminal since Adolf Hitler. He succeeded in embroiling his arch-enemy, the United States, in complicated international entanglements that drain us to this day...

I also add that there are always unintended consequences. The person or agency who benefits the most is not necessarily the original actor. One might argue that the United States benefited the most from World War I, but that hardly means we were responsible for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Also, many acts do not go as planned, and the actor often comes to grief. I don't think your formulation of the question is totally valid. It's perfectly appropriate to ask if there was some reasonable motive for the hypothetical actor, but in this case, I feel that is abundantly satisfied.

 

[RedIbis]

I'm going to withhold my reservations about the specific wording of your OP and recognize it for what it is. IMO, this is a very effective way to go about the discussion. I sense sincerity in your tone, and whereas I might not agree with your conclusions, at least you are making a very professional, reasoned effort to focus on specifics.

There is far too little of this here, and "debunkers" would do well to follow such a lead and resist bluster, bombast and personal attacks. When frustrated, simply reset the conversation, as Mackey has done.

That said, what is the explanation for the lack of Flight 93 debris in the ditch in Shanksville? Was the ground so soft that the plane drove itself deep into the soil? Or was the ground so hard that the impact disintegrated most of the plane, sending pieces hundreds of yards away? CNN reported that 95% of the plane was recovered, certainly the few Mossaui trial photos of 93 cannot possibly account for all of the material.

 

[1337m4n]

Mr. Mackey:

Is there air traffic control confirmation of where and when the four planes crashed?


If I were a Truther, this would put to rest any doubts about theories like no-plane, flyovers, etc. And it would prove that it was indeed Flight 77 (as opposed to some other aircraft) that hit the Pentagon.

 

[Hokulele]

I don't think your formulation of the question is totally valid. It's perfectly appropriate to ask if there was some reasonable motive for the hypothetical actor, but in this case, I feel that is abundantly satisfied.

I disagree, although I will grant you that the question should be clearer on the difference between short-term and long-term benefits, as well as direct and indirect. However, my formulation of the question was quite deliberate in that I did not want to specifically state the answer should be restricted to profit (hence the use of benefit instead), and to force this kind of clarification. When this type of question comes up in the real world, and I do not necessarily find this forum indicative of the real world, this is precisely the kind of argument that gets lost.

Back to your answer to the question itself, unintended consequences can be an issue, but the larger the operation and the more planning involved, the less chance of this happening. I would argue that the scale and scope of 9/11 would make it less likely to fail to reach expectations. To borrow your WWI analogy, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was much more likely to either fail or create unintended consequences than the invasion of Togoland. By looking at the immediate beneficiaries of 9/11, especially in the short-term, I feel it is possible to dismiss a great deal of the conspiracy theories out of hand.

The phrasing and use of the "who benefits" question really may be one of the best tools for helping people to look critically at 9/11 as it does open up this type of discussion, which is unlikely for questions regarding molten metal and the like.

 

[lapman]

Mr. Mackey:

Is there air traffic control confirmation of where and when the four planes crashed?


If I were a Truther, this would put to rest any doubts about theories like no-plane, flyovers, etc. And it would prove that it was indeed Flight 77 (as opposed to some other aircraft) that hit the Pentagon.

IIRC, CheapShot(?) did state that they tagged Flt 77 on primary radar and did not have the ability to pass off that tag to NORAD.

 

[beachnut]

That said, what is the explanation for the lack of Flight 93 debris in the ditch in Shanksville? Was the ground so soft that the plane drove itself deep into the soil? Or was the ground so hard that the impact disintegrated most of the plane, sending pieces hundreds of yards away? CNN reported that 95% of the plane was recovered, certainly the few Mossaui trial photos of 93 cannot possibly account for all of the material.

That is what planes do when the hit the ground, the drive into it consistent with the kinetic energy they have. Parts are also ejected and they can rip up trees. All the plane is there in the hole and scattered for hundreds of yards. Flight 93 impact is how it should look.

Two scenes, high speed impacts of aircraft, lack of plane parts, they are buried as is the pilot all in a very small space due to impact energy. It happens in high speed impacts.

Evidence and consultation for Mackey.

 

[tanabear]

As has been repeatedly shown over the past few years, there is no piece of evidence, expert testimony or mathematical equation that will convince the TM diehards that their religion is based on BS. There is nothing that cannot be waved away as fake/planted/hit piece/disinfo etc.

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

 

[CptColumbo]

Given their track record (pleading guilty to fraud in their training claims) how closely were Argenbright Holdings Ltd. being monitored during their probation as the security company at EWR and IAD?

 

[applecorped]

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

Are you saying that a skyscraper should be built and a plane flown into it just to prove you wrong?

 

[Swing Dangler]

R.Mackey;3630946]I don't believe there is hypocrisy, but let me ask you the same question: If I explain why the "debunker community," whatever that is, does not state the above, will you accept that there is no conspiracy?

I'm surprised at your response to be honest because frankly your response is quite illogical.
"Its not steel because there are no tests to prove it."

"No explosives because the Feds say so."

While the scientific process that could prove one way or another is ignored with regards to explosives but is called upon to prove the existence of steel.

It is hypocritical reasoning in the truest sense of the term.

The reasoning process surrounding this question does not pertain to a conspiracy because the evolution of the discussion has yet to progress to responsibility. The use of explosives could be considered as a part of the event even within the context of the official story or an alternative story.
----
Ok, so to clarify, the questions must meet your standard of what is critical and what is not.

Can you clarify in greater detail what is considered critical versus non-critical question?


Is this a critical question:

What parts of the official story created the belief in a Conspiracy Theory?

If you consider that a critical question, I can elaborate on my own analysis as per your request.

MarkyX
Quote:
The debunking community ( I use this term loosely) discount, ignore, or explain away eyewitnesses who describe molten steel with the excuse that no tests were done to prove that the metal in question was steel. The issue is labeled as dead or debunked.
Let's just say there was molten steel.

How does this prove it was a CD? No controlled demolition in history had molten steel or any sort of molten metal.

Again, your missing the point. The point is the logical thought process that debunkers go with regards to chemical testing.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm going to withhold my reservations about the specific wording of your OP and recognize it for what it is. IMO, this is a very effective way to go about the discussion. I sense sincerity in your tone, and whereas I might not agree with your conclusions, at least you are making a very professional, reasoned effort to focus on specifics.

Any problems with my wording are unintentional. I hope at least the intent is clear. This is a tricky subject.

That said, what is the explanation for the lack of Flight 93 debris in the ditch in Shanksville? Was the ground so soft that the plane drove itself deep into the soil? Or was the ground so hard that the impact disintegrated most of the plane, sending pieces hundreds of yards away? CNN reported that 95% of the plane was recovered, certainly the few Mossaui trial photos of 93 cannot possibly account for all of the material.

This to me is pretty straightforward. The aircraft, intact, is a hollow and rather light structure in terms of effective density and/or ballistic coefficient. It also impacted the ground at about 250 meters per second; as others here have remarked, comparable to the muzzle velocity of a .45 caliber pistol.

On contact with the ground, swampy or soft or not makes very little difference. The contact is so fast that impact is dominated by momentum and inertia, and the physical strength of materials -- both the soil and the airplane -- contributes little. The ground is approximately three times as dense as a wing section that is totally filled with fuel, and about twenty times as dense as the passenger cabin, on average. Most of the airplane is empty space. As a result, with such a violent impact, directed at a sharp angle to the ground, the aircraft will be almost totally destroyed in a matter of milliseconds.

Once the aircraft ceases to be a single object, the chunks that remain are different ballistically. The average piece of aluminum and plastics is now only about two or three times less dense than the soil, and its frontal area decreases dramatically. This means some penetration of the pieces is expected, to a depth of a few feet. Denser pieces such as engine cores and flight recorders that were initially comparable to the soil density may travel farther, perhaps 20 feet. This is exactly what we saw.

Regarding the amount of material recovered, 95% is pretty darn good. The impact mass of the aircraft is probably not known to better than 2-3% accuracy to begin with. At rupture points, there will be some release of material as very small pieces, perhaps too small to be screened without an extremely careful archeological effort. There are also going to be some minor mass losses due to fire and random ricochets into the distance. In general, the NTSB only gathers pieces big enough for there to be a hope of identification. As a result, this is exactly the kind of impact performance and recovery we anticipate.

There's similarly no reason for the Moussaoui trial to include every single fragment as an exhibit. The mere catalogue of pieces of UA 93 debris probably runs hundreds of pages. Only a few are needed for the trial, as exemplars of the incident.

I hope that answer helps you determine whether or not UA 93 indicates a conspiracy, although I don't imagine these questions are quite enough to settle the larger question of whether any conspiracy is real or even possible. But it's a step in the right direction.

Mr. Mackey:

Is there air traffic control confirmation of where and when the four planes crashed?

If I were a Truther, this would put to rest any doubts about theories like no-plane, flyovers, etc. And it would prove that it was indeed Flight 77 (as opposed to some other aircraft) that hit the Pentagon.

There is radar tracking data corresponding to all four aircraft. However, Flight 93 in specific did pass briefly through a radar "dead zone" (I think it's the only one, but I'd have to hunt to be sure; I haven't looked into this in depth), and theoretically it might have been possible to pull a "switch." However, the depth of coordination, planning, and dumb luck required for this to have a chance of success would be extraordinary, and I don't see how this would fit into any conspiracy's plans in the first place.

 

[DGM]

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

What's stopping you and the "truth" movement from doing this if it all that it would take? (Let me give you a hint. talking to structural engineers would be cheaper)

 

[R.Mackey]

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

Since I do not have the resources at my disposal to build a structure and crash an aircraft into it, I humbly submit that neither I, nor indeed anyone in the world, are likely to satisfy you. You may wish to relax your constraints accordingly.

I personally find such a hard opinion to be untenable. For instance, do you believe in black holes? The Moon Landings? Giant squids? Nobel laureates? Have you ever actually seen any of these things?

I'm surprised at your response to be honest because frankly your response is quite illogical.
"Its not steel because there are no tests to prove it."

"No explosives because the Feds say so."

Those are not and would not be my responses. What I'm asking from you is how important this question is to you. If I answer it to your satisfaction, will you discount September 11th conspiracy theories? If yes, I will give it my best try. If not, ask me a harder question. That's my request to you.

Is this a critical question:

What parts of the official story created the belief in a Conspiracy Theory?

If you consider that a critical question, I can elaborate on my own analysis as per your request.

I don't think so. It isn't at all clear to me that the "official story" created those beliefs at all. That's the kind of question I should be asking you, not vice versa.

 

[R.Mackey]

The phrasing and use of the "who benefits" question really may be one of the best tools for helping people to look critically at 9/11 as it does open up this type of discussion, which is unlikely for questions regarding molten metal and the like.

I may have been too obscure. Asking "who benefits" is reasonable. I merely think that asking who benefits the most will not necessarily give you the right answer.

To pick a stupid example, I would argue that bin Laden benefited more than Mohammed Atta, though Atta's involvement in the event was much more direct.

 

[Confuseling]

How many people would it have taken to pull off?

We can discount LIHOP, clearly, as any one person so inclined can let something happen.

But MIHOP, this is an interesting question, or perhaps an exercise in the futility of throwing error margins at each other. Can the question be sensibly answered?

If yes, I'd like to know how many people it would take to execute and then immediately cover up various MIHOP scenarios, such as no planes, switched planes, or explosive demolition.

I feel we can ignore how many people it would take to infect international society to such a degree that it has become almost impossible to discuss the conspiracy seriously - this seems too speculative to me. I'm more interested in the act, and the immediate cover up.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Since I do not have the resources at my disposal to build a structure and crash an aircraft into it, I humbly submit that neither I, nor indeed anyone in the world, are likely to satisfy you. You may wish to relax your constraints accordingly.

Would a computer model suffice?

Those are not and would not be my responses. What I'm asking from you is how important this question is to you. If I answer it to your satisfaction, will you discount September 11th conspiracy theories?

It is an important question to me or I would not have asked it, however, an answer won't necessarily prove or disprove one particular theory or another.


Since you won't answer the question directly as asked, I will rephrase:

"Do you think testing for chemical residue from explosives on steel debris from the twin towers will conclusively prove that explosives were used to destroy any of the towers or explosives were not used to destroy the any of the towers?"

So by your critical question can be defined as: "If I, R Mackey, provide a suitable answer to the question, you will stop believing in conspiracy theories that implicate members of the U.S. Federal Government."

 

[Par]

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

If a debunker were to say this…

This what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks: First, someone needs to demolish a building (i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must in no way mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by aircraft impact damage and subsequent fire. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count.

…then I would tell them that they were being utterly irrational.

 

[uk_dave]

And what are the chances for either a real world experiment or a computer simulation satisfying 'truthers' if the buildings still collapsed?

If it was a real world experiment, they'd be complaining about the speed of the plane, or the weight of it or the angle at which it hit, or why the loading on the floors was so high or maybe the fireproofing to the steel wasn't sufficiently thick or adequately applied.

If it was a computer model every parameter would be scrutinised to find an assumption they could disagree with and thus deny the validity of the simulation.

Let's face it, 'truthers' can't even admit that collapse through damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires could be possible so they're not exactly predisposed to believe a simulation or experiment which actually bloody proves it.

 

[Hokulele]

I may have been too obscure. Asking "who benefits" is reasonable. I merely think that asking who benefits the most will not necessarily give you the right answer.

Ah, agreed.

To pick a stupid example, I would argue that bin Laden benefited more than Mohammed Atta, though Atta's involvement in the event was much more direct.

Unless the Muslim version of the afterlife is correct.