Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

Actually I've read that Russia has a lot of 9/11 inside job believers. Which is not really surprising; for generations, maybe for centuries, Russia's political circumstances have encouraged that kind of conspiratorial view. And there have been plausible accusations that some bombings in Russia in recent years have been "inside jobs."

or...

the story just don't add up.

 

[SDC]

Red Ibis, please turn your grammar controls back on. "Story ... don't." I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but please.

ETA: since it seems to be my day to be offensive... Large parts of the Russian public believing something is true is, in my opinion, good reason for believing it is not.

This is, again, a product of the country's long tradition of repressive government and its inevitable product, conspiratorial thinking.

 

[JihadJane]

You mean the guy who confessed to planning 911 before he was captured, that guy?

And thanks for proving my point of hand-waving evidence away.

How does the "confession" before 911, which is also unsubstantiated, affect the quality and reliability of details extracted by torture after 911?

 

[RedIbis]

Red Ibis, please turn your grammar controls back on. "Story ... don't." I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but please.

I learned grammar so that I can abuse it when necessary.

 

[Myriad]

Ok, so debunking is the challenging of claims. Science is the investigation of these claims by evaluation of evidence. To debunk is to begin with a preconceived notion that what you are challenging is bunk.

Not necessarily.

Sure, a defense attorney begins with a preconceived notion that the defendant is innocent, and attempts to debunk the prosecution's case on that basis. But even then, it's the evidence that determines the outcome, not anyone's "notion" going in.

But debunking does not imply or require any preconceived notions. Any time scientists repeat another researcher's experiment (or their own) in an attempt to replicate their findings, there is the possibility that the result will debunk the original findings instead. If that were not the case, repeating an experiment would never be necessary or useful.

That debunking only results from preconceived notions is a common slander on science, scientists, and critical thinking, more usually expressed as "scientists only ever discover what they expect to find," "science is blinded by established paradigms," or simply, "scientists are closed-minded."

Pure opinion. The official explanations lack evidence and yet that doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

I'm waiting on the substantial evidence which supports the official story.

Then the truthers' debunking should be very easy, and very readily accepted by a majority among reporters, scientists, politicians, historians, executives in the affected businesses, and innocent participants in the event itself.

And yet, it is not.

Why do you think that is? I think it's because the official explanations do not lack an overwhelming preponderance of evidence and to conclude otherwise is wishful thinking. But perhaps you have a different explanation to offer.

On this there may be some agreement. Since the first responsibility is to prove the inital claim, Twoofie Truthers are challenging the official story, calling it bunk and attempting to debunk it. So perhaps the labels should be switched since you, TAM, and many others here feel they know the Twoof.

I'm perfectly okay with referring to people by the labels they've chosen for themselves. (And you'll note that I've rarely if ever used the words "twoof" or "twoofers." To me they're just misspellings.)

Those labels are "truthers" and "skeptics" respectively. For the most part skeptics get called "debunkers" primarily by those wishing to disparage them (though as with "twoofer" some have adapted the title out of prideful defiance of that disparagement), in the mistaken belief (which you yourself stated, as quoted above) that debunking is somehow fallacious reasoning.

But basically your point is valid. Skeptics don't actually get to do much debunking because truthers rarely state the claims that they're attempting to support with evidence, which makes the question of whether their evidence is sufficient to support the claims moot. But whenever a testable point is contested, such as whether demolition explosions make noire or whether a flight data recorder can lose data in a crash, the debunkers turn out to be right and the truthers wrong, so they do seem to have a firmer grasp on the truth. Meanwhile as I said, truthers (unwilling to make their own competing claims) want to debunk the official story but fail to do so.

Really? Like Column 79?

[...]

Maybe you don't get an answer to the question because it's somewhat ridiculous if you don't understand that if NIST cannot provide evidence for their hypothesis this changes our understanding of 9/11.

You mean that you do have an answer for the question, "if NIST is wrong about the behavior of Column 79 in the collapse of WTC7, how would that make any difference in our understanding of the events of 9/11?"

If so then by all means, please state it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TexasJack]

How does the "confession" before 911, which is also unsubstantiated, affect the quality and reliability of details extracted by torture after 911?

Of course it has been substantiated, it's whether you want to believe it or not. On it's face, it means nothing, it has to be corroborated with other evidence, which all points to KSM being the mastermind, with 19 Jihadists executing the plan. The 911 Commission Report successfully ties the evidence together, and for me, is strengthened by books such as "The Looming Tower."

You can try to muddy the waters by dismissing all the evidence and claim torture, but it doesn't point the evidence in any other direction. It's like the guy who doesn't use gloves to collect DNA evidence from a person; it may be contaminated, but it's still that persons DNA. The fact that KSM admitted to the planning of 911 prior to his capture, just strengthens the case.

 

[Myriad]

Considering what followed 911 how can you claim a "lack of plausible motive" and, considering the resources at the disposal of international intelligence agencies and the military, how can you seriously question the "means"?

What followed 9/11? You mean 9/12?

I think the sun was going to rise and set no matter what the government did, so that's not a plausible motive for anything.

Perhaps that's not what you meant by "what followed 911" so you might want to be more specific if you're attempting to make a case for motive.

As for means, I don't believe that any international intelligence agencies or military have the means to change human nature or the laws of physics.

I find the word "whining" interesting. It commonly appears on this subforum.

It has been applied to me when I've highlighted posters' bullying tactics. It has been immediately assumed that I am hurt by these tactics and must therefore be "whining". In fact I associate bullying with insecurity. It reassures me that the bullies' arguments are probably weak and fear-driven. Why, if 911 "debunkers" are so confident of their rectitude, do they so often need the support of school-yard bullying methods and infantile name-calling?

Perhaps I should have been more clear of the sense in which I used the word "whining." As I used it, it does not refer to complaining about being hurt, as you seem to have interpreted it. Instead it refers to complaining about actions that they themselves are more guilty of than the people to whom the complaint is directed, such as the case I was discussing in which a poster was complaining about debunking not being a productive activity while not recognizing that his own viewpoint is primarily expressed in attempts to debunk "the official story."

So, by calling certain truther assertions "whining" I did not mean to suggest that truthers are hurt by bullying tactics. I meant to assert that many of them, often, are eager to point out the mote in their neighbor's eye while failing to notice the beam in their own; that they are, in short, blatant and transparent hypocrites.

I apologize for being unclear.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[johnny karate]

Nope. 110-120 pages (depending on which copy you have) to explain arguably, the most complex day in American history hardly appears sufficient or conclusive.

I've seen you make this ridiculous claim before. Describing the narrative of events on 9/11 is not at all complex:

19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger jetliners, crashing two into the WTC towers, as a result, both buildings collapsed causing massive collateral damage and loss of life. A third jetliner crashing into the Pentagon, causing relatively minimal damage and casualties. The fourth, possibly bound for the Capitol, crashed in a field in Shanksville, PA due to passenger intervention.

The complexity comes in explaining the events leading up to 9/11, the reasons it happened, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. And this is exactly what the 9/11 Commission Report went into great detail about.

Again, where we disagree is in the standard of evidence.

Your disagreement is not just with us. It is also with every single investigative and law enforcement organization on the planet, none of which seem to find the glaring inconsistencies and omissions you claim exist in the 9/11 investigation all that problematic.

 

[johnny karate]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

You just keep telling yourself that.

And let us know when any of this "widespread skepticism" actually leads to constructive action.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nope. 110-120 pages (depending on which copy you have) to explain arguably, the most complex day in American history hardly appears sufficient or conclusive.

Again, where we disagree is in the standard of evidence. This is why so many jref debunkers get frustrated with me and anyone else who does not argue CD, remote controlled planes, NWO, space beams or any of that. I'm only interested in holding the official explanations up for scrutiny.

The report is a summary. As well, look at when it was completed, compared to when NIST finished their report on the WTCs. As well, there are other reports such as those from Arlington First Responders, FEMA, etc...

The idea was to explain to the average person, not to satsifaction of the obsessives such as debunkers and truthers.

Like any first take on history, it will likely have some, if not many errors in it. Errors of omission, I suppose being the biggest area. However, as far as a first account for the laymen (which is what this report is) goes, it was thorough and exhaustive in all areas, for what information it had at the time of its conclusion...IMO.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

To quote the article in Red's post:

The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.

In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.

Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda, the poll found.

Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.

In Mexico, 30 percent cited the U.S. government and 33 percent named al Qaeda.

The only countries with overwhelming majorities blaming al Qaeda were Kenya with 77 percent and Nigeria with 71 percent.

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.p...&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

The poll is here (warning, PDF in link):

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep08/WPO_911_Sep08_quaire.pdf

It seems fair handed, an open ended question, who do you think was responsible for the attacks of 9/11?

Interesting from the questionaire...

Average % of people who feel Al Qaeda/Bin Laden Responsible = 46%
Average % of people who feel USG Responsible = 15%

Take out the middle eastern countries, which would likely have a fair bit of bias, and this is how it changes.

Average % of people who feel Al Qaeda/Bin Laden Responsible = 52%
Average % of people who feel USG Responsible = 13%

There are a lot of "Don't Know / Unsure", which means they either are ignorant to the detail, the entire event itself, or they have doubts (any of these very plausible given some of the countries that were polled).

Interesting poll though.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

you mean failed skepticism?

19 terrorist took 4 planes. It takes a certain level of anti-intellectual effort to mess this up and fail to understand the evidence. You are not alone with failure to understand 9/11. There are a lot of people unable to connect the dots.

Funny that some are skeptical of evidence and think hearsay and lies are better.

What gets me is your anti-intellectual stand. No one here supports the "official" story except where the evidence supports it. You have had 7 years to figure out 9/11, something the passengers on Flight 93 figured out in minutes. What is your problem? Is it you weight your opinions over evidence? You are skeptical of reality based evidence due to your lack of knowledge and experience. You have made an error; you are wrong on 9/11 along with 9/11 truth. '

You could be right if only you had some evidence. You don't have any. So you are skeptical of real evidence, and not skeptical of your failed opinions. I have to be skeptical of your skepticism; you are using faulty skepticism.

Oh boy

 

[JihadJane]

Of course it has been substantiated, it's whether you want to believe it or not.

Please show how this confession has been substantiated. The recording of it is impossible to authenticate it, as far as I know. Perhaps you are the one is believing because you want to believe.

On it's face, it means nothing, it has to be corroborated with other evidence, which all points to KSM being the mastermind, with 19 Jihadists executing the plan. The 911 Commission Report successfully ties the evidence together, and for me, is strengthened by books such as "The Looming Tower."

You can try to muddy the waters by dismissing all the evidence and claim torture, but it doesn't point the evidence in any other direction. It's like the guy who doesn't use gloves to collect DNA evidence from a person; it may be contaminated, but it's still that persons DNA. The fact that KSM admitted to the planning of 911 prior to his capture, just strengthens the case.

You have drifted somewhat from your original claim that 911 Commission Report was "thoroughly researched".

If KSM's pre-911 "admission" is to mean anything then the recording of it has to be authenticated.


You say I am trying "to muddy the waters by dismissing all the evidence" whereas, in fact, I am simply asking, as a good skeptic or debunker does, that claimed evidence to be substantiated.

Whether or not KSM's admission can be authenticated has no bearing on the unreliability of anything that he might have been reported to have said or confessed to under torture or from fear of further torture.

I am not "claiming torture". The US government has admitted to torturing KSM.

That the 911 Commission was prepared to make such extensive use of KSM's evidence, despite saying themselves that they had not been allowed to substantiate it, suggests that the Report may not be as thoroughly researched as you believe, even with all its references.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What do you consider to be "authenticated"?

Using your same logic, it can't be authenticated that the CIA tortured KSM. Just because they said so? Can you authenticate that they really said so? As far as your logic is concerned it is unsubstantiated.


But let's face it, this is just your way of picking and choosing the evidence you want. But when faced with having to present evidence of what you want to believe happened, you aren't able to present a single bit of it. The hypocrisy being that your beliefs are based on 100% conjecture and hearsay, but in order to do so, you must hand wave evidence.

 

[TexasJack]

You have drifted somewhat from your original claim that 911 Commission Report was "thoroughly researched".

If KSM's pre-911 "admission" is to mean anything then the recording of it has to be authenticated.


You say I am trying "to muddy the waters by dismissing all the evidence" whereas, in fact, I am simply asking, as a good skeptic or debunker does, that claimed evidence to be substantiated.

Whether or not KSM's admission can be authenticated has no bearing on the unreliability of anything that he might have been reported to have said or confessed to under torture or from fear of further torture.

I am not "claiming torture". The US government has admitted to torturing KSM.

That the 911 Commission was prepared to make such extensive use of KSM's evidence, despite saying themselves that they had not been allowed to substantiate it, suggests that the Report may not be as thoroughly researched as you believe, even with all its references.

You do understand that the vast majority of evidence from the 911 Commission Report is testimony before KSM was captured? You have read the report, correct? His confession isn't necessary, all the evidence that was gathered points to his involvement. The fact that he has confessed, although unnecessary, just corroborates the evidence that was gathered. Anybody can make a confession, but without corroboration, it's meaningless. So, using torture as an excuse, is not a valid argument.

 

[twinstead]

It all boils down to a fundamental disagreement on the very nature of "evidence" itself. We 'debunkers' are using a pretty common standard of evidence, one used world wide.

 

[gumboot]

If KSM's pre-911 "admission" is to mean anything then the recording of it has to be authenticated.

How do you admit responsibility for something that hasn't happened? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interview was conducted after September 11, 2001. Not before it. If you cannot even get facts as simple as that correct, why on earth do you think anyone is going to care what you have to say?

Likewise, only a tiny fraction of the 9/11 Commission Report references back to CIA interviews which may have utilised torture. None of these interviews whatsoever have any bearing on the Commission's account of what happened on 9/11 itself.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

"[O]utside of North America" is quite a large area. One person from each country could be considered "widespread", but it's hardly significant.

 

[TexasJack]

Again, just so it's clear, I'm referring to KSM's confession before he was captured/tortured in an interview with Yosri Fouda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2244146.stm

 

[funk de fino]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

Seen as I actually live outside and travel a great deal outside NA, you are the one who is fooling yourself.

I've met 2 truthers from the UK (both thick as a bag of spanners)and a couple of young lads who say they were told america did it themselves in Saudi (they worked for an american company)

Not a mention in Libya, Oman, Dubai, Iraq, Kuwait, China, Russia, Brazil, never mind the european countries.

What countries have you visited that has given you this impression?