Merged Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

TruthersLie said:
you mean the same commission who stated that 9/11 was the result of massive failures by multiple government agencies?

The same commission who pointed out how simple bureacrats covered their asses and lied to them?

The same commission who really reamed the FBI and government agencies who dropped the ball?
Click to expand...


Lies, massive failures, and numerous reamings? So, in the end, who was held accountable? Who was fired, forced to resign, or otherwise punished for their incompetence?
 
Oh.. you want a scapegoat?

Is that it?

You want a single person, or a group of people to blame?

if you had read the 9/11 CR you would see they blamed the entire system. A system. Not one single individual, because it wasn't one single individual. What part of that is so hard to understand? The system failed ALL of us, and nearly 3,000 americans died because of it.

Why is it that truthers demand a scapegoat? Everyone screwed up, from airport security, airlines policies, government response to the hijackings, FBI/CIA/NSA infighting.

As for people who were fired or forced to resign I once saw a list of over 50 folks who were high level people who were forced out of their positions due to their actions on 9/11. No I don't have a link, maybe someone else does.

But people were fired, not promoted, and let go because of the **************** that happened on 9/11.

ETA: How do you hold anyone accountable for 9/11? How do you hold a specific person accountable for an unpredictable catastrophic event? The best analogy I can come up with is, if you live in Tornado Alley in the US, and a category 5 tornado comes through and destroys your home, kills your family, and devastates your community who do you hold accountable? Do you blame the weatherman? The government? The tornado? God? Who do you arrest, fire, hang for it?
 
Last edited:
BTW.

I was wrong.

According to Ebscohost the American Behavioral Scientist is peer reviewed. But for some reason the version I can access at home doesn't have anything of their after 2007.

http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/22-coverage.htm

I need to check up... maybe my school doesn't have the access to anything by them after 2007.

ETA: That is why... it is a HUMAN RESOURCES database.... we don't have that one in my school.

and this one is a public administration database http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/21-coverage.xls
(and we don't have that one either)

Just found the citations.. but not the articles on ebscohost.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Why is it that truthers demand a scapegoat? Everyone screwed up, from airport security, airlines policies, government response to the hijackings, FBI/CIA/NSA infighting.
Click to expand...

Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
 
deep said:
Lies, massive failures, and numerous reamings? So, in the end, who was held accountable? Who was fired, forced to resign, or otherwise punished for their incompetence?
Click to expand...

That is what happens in every walk of real life. People become complacent and screw up. The more individuals involved, the more likely a screw up will occur. Yes, the US agencies involved screwed up big time. They didnt expect it. They where not prepared for it and when it happened they where not organised enough to handle it. The confusion and panic set in. The suicide terrorists took full advantage of this. Determined, well trained, highly organised, extremely motivated and well funded. They think different to us. They took advantage of many weaknesses. They got it right. There is no common defence against a secret suicidal lunatic let alone 19 of them.

If it is accountability for failures between those agencies is what you are after then making stuff up to gain that is the last thing you should be doing.
 
RedIbis said:
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...


IMO, this is a valid discussion point.

One can sensibly argue that the heads of the CIA, the NSA & the FBI should have been fired. As a statement that their failure to put together the pieces of information that were available was unacceptable performance.

My suspicion is that the reason that this didn't happen was that the public response would have been "we were ringing the alarm bell". And that the people who needed to be fired were further up the chain of command. (Perhaps Condi.)

This may be an argument for Bush's having too much loyalty to the people who worked for him. Or an aversion for firing someone.

This argument says zero about it being an "inside job", of course.


Tom
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a person, It was a system/complacency that was developed over a number of years. You know this.

You read the reports, right?
 
RedIbis said:
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...

I've got an idea. Why don't you take all your evidence to a lawyer and start some kind of legal action against the people you think were responsible for 9/11? There are more than a few out-of-work lawyers looking for business since the recession hit and I am sure that one or more of them would be happy to review your evidence with you.
 
RedIbis said:
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...

Red.

As I stated, I don't have the list. I remember reading a list of folks, but I don't have a citation.

Again and again red, who should be removed, tried, prosecuted, dragged through the street for an unprecidented, catastrophe?

Category 5 tornado rips through a town, destroying everything in its path. Should the mayor be tried or held accountable for the damages? The post man? The weather man?
 
Originally Posted by RedIbis
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...

tfk said:
IMO, this is a valid discussion point.

One can sensibly argue that the heads of the CIA, the NSA & the FBI should have been fired. As a statement that their failure to put together the pieces of information that were available was unacceptable performance.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If the "Truth Movement" hadn't spend 9 years looking silly by fixating on man-made demolition, space beams, no-a-planes and molten steel at WTC, we might have had some legitimate investigation about ahat happened inside the NSA, CIA, and FBI that let the 19 hijackers capture 4 planes.
 
RedIbis said:
Even if this massive generalization were true, who was fired or prosecuted due to these enormous failures? Keeping such people in their current positions would have been very dangerous. Your incompetency theory defies logic.
Click to expand...

Not only were the biggest incompetents not fired, many were promoted. Condaleeza Rice for one.
 
Last edited:
Dandyone said:
Not only were the biggest incompetents nor fired, many were promoted. Condaleeza Rice for one.
Click to expand...

If the "Truth Movement" hadn't spend 9 years looking silly by fixating on man-made demolition, space beams, no-a-planes and molten steel at WTC, we might have had some legitimate investigation about what happened inside the NSA, CIA, and FBI that let the 19 hijackers capture 4 planes.
 
Dandyone said:
Very nice non hyperbolic news piece. Every day Americans questioning major events and official stories. Mainstream indeed. Thanks for this.
Click to expand...

Of course it is:jaw-dropp

Try reading the posts of those who viewed it from your perspective. Loony kids who think they have been implanted with tracking devices since birth and are being watched by hidden cameras inside laptops. Madness for the mad.
 
Dandyone said:
Not only were the biggest incompetents nor fired, many were promoted. Condaleeza Rice for one.
Click to expand...

But you will be glad to know that those actually responsible went to heaven to shag hundreds of imagined virgins. Now that is justice.
 
BigAl said:
If the "Truth Movement" hadn't spend 9 years looking silly by fixating on man-made demolition, space beams, no-a-planes and molten steel at WTC, we might have had some legitimate investigation about what happened inside the NSA, CIA, and FBI that let the 19 hijackers capture 4 planes.
Click to expand...

Point well taken.
 
I have received several responses to my emails to the authors of the papers in the American Behavioral Scientist.

Matthew T. Witt said:
Mr. XXXXXX-

I can see you send this as form letter to myself and colleagues.

I do not believe email is the proper forum to announce positions one way or the other on grave matter.

I hope you have occasion to engage the pieces that we whom you email have assembled. We did so as scholars, not politicians.

The pieces address material warranting authentic empiricism, not innuendo and insinuation or witch hunt tests of sham patriotism, of which there has been enough on the matter of 9/11.

As for the 9/11 movement you refer to...

My scholarly opinion is that scientists assembled there obviously take their empiricism very seriously, as with how hot aerobic fire can burn in the universe as we know it; as with what temperature is required to melt structural grade steel in the universe as we know it; as with the speed of free falling matter unobstructed by inertial material, in the universe, as we know it. It is my opinion that these scientists pose questions warranting judicious response, of which none has been forthcoming from the 9/11 Commission and ancillary agencies.

Human laws are conventions that can and will be broken. If there appears such law has been broken, then all of us are duty bound to bear appropriate witness. The 9/11 Truth scientists, from what I have gleaned, so far insist only that universal laws cannot be broken. And so there is a crisis of confidence arising in this matter over the breach between universal laws and human testaments (the 9/11 Commission).

Where we go from there, Mr. XXXXX, we all had better be very concerned.

MW


Matthew T. Witt, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Public & Health Administration
University of La Verne
<snip I have removed his contact information>
Click to expand...

From this reply, he does sound like a truther. Or at least someone who feels that the "questions" haven't been addressed.


My reply
TruthersLie said:
Dear Professor Witt.

Yes I did send it as a form letter in order to save time and effort. As I could not read the journal articles (at this time, as I am in Dubai working) I decided to make one mass mailing with very general basic questions for all of the authors. I did not intend to offend or insult you with the form letter.

I first want to thank you for taking the time to reply to my question with an indepth and honest assessment of your positon. Not many professors (that I know) take the time on a Friday to write back to someone who has written them a "form letter" asking about a publicaiton of theirs, well not during the school year anyways.

I concur with you that email may not be the best possible medium to announce or disucss matters as grave as the questions I posted, as anything can be cherry picked or taken out of context.

I greatly do want to read the Journal articles as written in the February 2010 American Behavioral Scientist journal. It is my weekend and I will be back at work (and able to go to our college's library) on sunday, and I intend to see if we have access to your journal. So far it appears we only have access to the citation. I will wait until to see if I can access it through work or if I need to pay for it.

Now on to your point about the 9/11 truth "scientsts" (I did put the "" around that word on purpose). You bring up several well known, and fully debunked points to which 9/11 truthers make claims which are false.

You state
"as with how hot aerobic fire can burn in the universe as we know it; as with what temperature is required to melt structural grade steel in the universe as we know it"
This is a truther lie. No agency (not NIST, not FEMA) which has undertaken any examination of the steel from the collapses concluded that structural grade steel melted. Not one. NIST and others agree that there was and should have been molten METAL (there are ten very common metals which melt at under 1000C which would be abundant in the twin towers)

You also state
"as with the speed of free falling matter unobstructed by inertial material, in the universe,"
This is also another known and debunked truther lie. None of the towers, nor wtc7 fell at freefall. The towers took 15 and 20 seconds respectively to collapse. Freefall for the towers was at 9.22 seconds. And wtc7 took almost 18 seconds to have a full and complete collaspe.

Now NiST anticipated a period of freefall when the inter sections of wtc7 had collapsed and the outer curtain wall was still standing. David Chandler did a good analysis showign that it was in fact 2.25 seconds of freefall. But he is a high school physics teacher, not a structural engineer.

I note that you have dozens of peer reviewd journal articles under your professional belt. Why is it that not a single 9/11 truther engineer can get a single engineering paper past peer review? It has been almost 9 years and they don't have a single one which is not a vanity journal. Doesn't that send off alarm bells to you?

Now I fully agree that human laws can and are broken. In fact, I agree with the premise that has been put forth in the abstracts for the journal articles as they have been written (again all I can comment on, until I can read the actual articles) that there are public policies which have been unethically and illegally put in place which have been fostered by a sense of fear caused by 9/11.

And to reply to your final comment. I would rather that truth is expressed backed by fact, than to buy into rhetoric which is inaccurate and defamatory. Swinging too far EITHER way would be a bad thing.

Unjust, immoral and unethical things have been done in the last 9 years in response to a horrible situation, and I am asking you to side where the science is.
Click to expand...

ETA:
Dr. Witt's reply
Mr XXXXX:

I appreciate and respect your concerns for science in this matter.

As pertains to the publication of what too often passes for scholarship...I have been in this business long enough to know that truth is not the arbiter of publication acceptances.

And again as for email, this place can scarcely more honor the truth than it can honor the vagaries of the 9/11 incident and its molten-like questions left still begging.

Where powerful agencies fail to take up grave matter, there suspicion will rush in. Public consciousness, not unlike nature herself, abhors a vacuum.

My best to you.


MW

Matthew T. Witt, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Public & Health Administration
University of La Verne
Click to expand...

So then we have it. I do not expect any more communications with him, and I will not contact him again until I have read his analysis.
 
Last edited:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/state-crimes-against-democracy/

State Crimes Against Democracy
by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff / March 3rd, 2010

New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve highlevel government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power. Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism (fabrication of evidence of a communist infiltration), Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (President Johnson and Robert McNamara falsely claimed North Vietnam attacked a US ship), burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on WMDs to justify the Iraq War.1

Other suspected SCADs include the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the shooting of George Wallace, the October Surprise near the end of the Carter presidency, military grade anthrax mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Martin Luther King’s assassination, and the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. The proven SCADs have a long trail of congressional hearings, public records, and academic research establishing the truth of the activities. The suspected SCADs listed above have substantial evidence of covert actions with countervailing deniability that tend to leave the facts in dispute.1

The term “conspiracy theory” is often used to denigrate and discredit inquiry into the veracity of suspected SCADs. Labeling SCAD research as “conspiracy theory” is an effective method of preventing ongoing investigations from being reported in the corporate media and keep them outside of broader public scrutiny. Psychologist Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph, addresses the psychological advantage that SCAD actors hold in the public sphere. Manwell, writing in American Behavioral Scientist (Sage 2010) states, “research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs … pre-existing beliefs can interfere with SCADs inquiry, especially in regards to September 11, 2001.”2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom