911: The chain of evidence

[Dark Jaguar]

Such a cool name... too bad there's no logic behind it...

 

[senorpogo]

I've noticed that when a woo starts up a post here at JREF it follows a general trend. In a very nonchalant manner he or she will make a seemingly innocent statment and follow it up with a very general question that transfers the burden of proof onto the other party. And sometimes they throw a non-sequitar in there. And they do so in a way that tries to appear neutral and innocent.

I hear there are serious questions about the moon landing. Do you have any points that proved we landed on the moon?

Cultures in the Middle East seem less developed than ours. Do you have any proof that shows that Muslims aren't evil?

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.
Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Slowly throughout the thread, the woo reveals himself or herself to be a fundamentalist who has already made up his or her mind despite the complete lack of proof.

 

[Kent1]

The Commission Report is not a source. At least not an original one. There are these things in the back of the Report called "endnotes" that list many original sources--HUNDREDS of them, in fact. By referring to these, you can check for yourself whether or not the Report reported things accurately. It's a pretty clever device, I think, these "endnotes".
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

He doesn't even have to read the Commission report.

He can read the trial transcripts of USA v. Zacarias Moussaoui
http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/usa-v-zm-dt2.htm

Combine that with the documents page and you have lots of good reading
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc

 

[Childlike Empress]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me. If you want me to answer the question if i "deny Al-Qaeda's existence", you have to clarify what this term means for you. A monolithic worldwide terror network let by Bin Laden, a label for the ideology of loose connected militant islamistic groups or the name of a list of participants in afghan training camps (in advance: yes, no, no).

btw: I like wikipedia. I simply don't like it when people make statements like "that doesn't fit my definition of ..." and then, asked what that definition is, link to Wikipedia. That's rhetoric.

So what were they to gain if I guess as you're implying they were invloved in the conspiracy. Is that what you're saying?

One could speculate that they covered up irregularities with the planes or the security system of the companies. But i don't say it is so and i don't say that they were all involved. I think the list found in the Wikipedia article is interesting as a whole - that's why i posted it.

And yes there probably is ties with Saudi's. If you are an oil investor there's gonna be ties there more than likely. Have you looked to see what ties some of the critics have? Surely you've done that also right?

Sure i did. Look at my posts. Surprise: Some of them have ties to saudis billionaires. And so has Mr. Kean.

It's really quite simple. We take two theories. One is the the "official" story. The other is whatever alternative we're presented with -- note you still refuse to explain your theory, though we've been able to tease out bits and pieces, but you're not helping much.

The two theories don't agree. One of them is, therefore, in error. So we look for sources of the error.

Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?

This is not the way to go. A rational person changes her opinion when faced with verifiable evidence that doesn't agree with her theory. For example, you pointed out a minor error of fact that I made, and I thank you for it -- I learned something, and my own opinion is now stronger for it.

Same here. I learned i was wrong with the budget and other details - i have no problem with accepting facts. One fact is, you can't convince me that the Commission Report is true with "debunking" LC.

@Kent1: Thanks, i'll take a look at the transcripts.

 

[Belz...]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me.

You mean, he actually follows you around ??

btw: I like wikipedia.

It's a useful tool for personnal research, but since anyone can edit and modify it, I wouldn't bet any of my important opinions on it.

One could speculate that they covered up irregularities with the planes or the security system of the companies.

Key word highlighted.

The two theories don't agree. One of them is, therefore, in error.

Isn't it possible that both are wrong?

Your logic and grammar skills are abysmal. Since both theories don't agree, ONE of them HAS to be wrong, no matter if the other one is right or not.

 

[Drysdale]

OK, I have to say I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from and what you are wanting. Let me see if I can pin these down.

1. You believe Al Queda is a fabrication?
2. You believe there was a conspiracy?

I guess what I'd like to know is what is the motive? Please be clearer as to what would be gained IN YOUR VIEW not a handful of links everywhere.

 

[RandFan]

@btw: I like wikipedia. I simply don't like it when people make statements like "that doesn't fit my definition of ..." and then, asked what that definition is, link to Wikipedia. That's rhetoric.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. How is that rhetoric? A dictionary or encyclopedia can demonstrate the common and not so common usage of a word. I think debating definitions is silly and I really avoid it now. I also like Wikipedia but I think people should understand it's limitations and inherent problems. In other words you need to look at the context of the word and how it is used and you should also look at multiple sources. But if I say that a certain word can be understood to mean "A", then using Wikipedia to demonstrate that is by definition not rhetoric.

In the end we are simply talking about words and their usage. "A rose by anyother name..."

 

[dubfan]

Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?

You didn't address this to me, but I'll address it as a member of the skeptical community. I hope this doesn't seem like piling on, but you've asked a fair question and I think you deserve a broad answer.

The answer to that, in my case at least, is yes. I treated the "official story" with the same skepticism as the CTs. And yes, there are indeed gaps and anomalies in the official version of events. I've pointed them out here in previous posts.

The problem -- for CTs -- is that these gaps, in my view, don't point in the direction that the US government carried out the attacks. They point more in the direction that the US government may have acted irresponsibly with respect to its intelligence handling, and to a certain degree, in its immediate response to the attacks. They point in the direction that perhaps modern skyscrapers aren't as robust as we maybe thought prior to 9/11. The old maxim, "never assume malice before stupidity has been ruled out" applies in spades here.

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.

 

[kookbreaker]

You didn't address this to me, but I'll address it as a member of the skeptical community. I hope this doesn't seem like piling on, but you've asked a fair question and I think you deserve a broad answer.

The answer to that, in my case at least, is yes. I treated the "official story" with the same skepticism as the CTs. And yes, there are indeed gaps and anomalies in the official version of events. I've pointed them out here in previous posts.

The problem -- for CTs -- is that these gaps, in my view, don't point in the direction that the US government carried out the attacks. They point more in the direction that the US government may have acted irresponsibly with respect to its intelligence handling, and to a certain degree, in its immediate response to the attacks. They point in the direction that perhaps modern skyscrapers aren't as robust as we maybe thought prior to 9/11. The old maxim, "never assume malice before stupidity has been ruled out" applies in spades here.

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.

Nominated.

 

[RandFan]

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.

Good post. Thank you.

When I first heard about loose change I watched it with an open mind which is rather difficult to do with this program. It is very poorly done and the errors were stark and obvious. When I went to the loose change web site I found a lot of disparate theories and outrageous claims. Now, none of this proves that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It did however demonstrate that it was difficult to find any credible evidence to cause me to doubt that 9/11 was carried out by hijackers.

The thing that I feel is most compelling is that so many of the questions are easily answered with only a minimum amount of thought and research yet these questions are still out there and believed by CT'ers.

I'm willing to entertain anything that would cast serious doubt on the official version but so far the evidence just isn't there.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. How is that rhetoric?

Your statement was "I'm sorry but that doesn't really fit the definition of "Conspiracy Theory" as I understand the term.", not "as it is decribed by Wikipedia". But lets forget about that. Pardalis repeatedly came up with "Wikipedia, Empress?" and i only wanted to clarify my position on it (which is roughly the same as yours and Belz's).

@Drysdale: I believe the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control.

@dubfan: Thanks. I answer later.

 

[CptColumbo]

As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra.

What I've also noticed is that once the new idea has been debunked or called into question the old one returns, apparently the CT community thinks the skeptics have short memories. That is what I find disturbing, because then we have to cover the same ground again, and the cycle continues. If you get frustrated and give up, they claim victory. When all they've done is bore you into ceasing to care about their ideas.

 

[Yahzi]

@Drysdale: I believe the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control.

So you don't think any of the terrorist bombs were real? The ones in Spain - were those set by the CIA to cover our tracks, or were they set at the behest of the Spainish government which is in on the deal?

The London tube bombings - the Bali bombing - the daily list of horror from Iraq. Is the government setting the bombs that kill our soldiers?

How about the suicide bombings in Israel for the last twenty years? Did Bush Sr. use his time as head of the CIA to instigate those bombings as the pre-cursor to the grand 9/11 plan?

Your idea that the WoT is just a scheme cooked up by Bush Jr. to extend the power of the government requires one to be wholly ignorant of the last fifty years of global history. Which, I imagine, describes you pretty accurately.

There is only one question that anyone here actually wants to see you answer. There is only one question that any of us really find interesting, and it is this:

Why don't you apply the same level of skepticism to your own theories? You disregard the Commission's report, asserting that every sentence is a lie; why don't you find the Loose Change video equally unfounded and unreliable? If it is possible for the government to present a report that is patently false... why isn't it possible for Loose Change to do the same?

 

[Yahzi]

What I've also noticed is that once the new idea has been debunked or called into question the old one returns,

Like astrology?

Old woo ideas never die, they just... well, they never die. I defy anyone to find a single woo idea that has ceased to be believed by someone, somewhere.

 

[CptColumbo]

"People are always anxious to get things out into the open where they can put a name to them, even a meaningless name, so long as it has something of a scientific ring."

Shirley Jackson
The Haunting of Hill House

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"People are always anxious to get things out into the open where they can put a name to them, even a meaningless name, so long as it has something of a scientific ring."

Shirley Jackson
The Haunting of Hill House

Now that's just blatant scientifimystification and there is no call for it!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why don't you apply the same level of skepticism to your own theories? You disregard the Commission's report, asserting that every sentence is a lie; why don't you find the Loose Change video equally unfounded and unreliable? If it is possible for the government to present a report that is patently false... why isn't it possible for Loose Change to do the same?

Huh? Yahzi, hello? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not defending LC here. Please discuss this movie over at the monster-thread. I never said that every sentence in the report is a lie. And i never said that the Bush family or "the" CIA is behind 9/11. You seem to mistake me for someone.

I'll explain why i think that the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control in my answer to dubfan - please be patient. And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue.

 

[drfrank]

All this puts me in mind of a popular Creationist tactic - avoiding stating another hypothesis (that inevitably holds about as much water as a damp sponge) and just try and poke holes in the well-supported and accepted theory.

Sorry, no dice: point out specific errors in the report that you want to address and people will be ecstatically happy to help you, I have no doubt.

 

[RandFan]

I'll explain why i think that the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control in my answer to dubfan - please be patient. And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue.

I think that war serves many interests. I don't know what "mass control" is but there is no question that the powers that be can benefit from war. Certainly there is money to be made from it (*see Eisenhower's warning). And patriotism during times of war can be used to rally support for political leaders. I'm willing to acknowledge that these things play a part. But what is your hypothesis? That 9/11 was caused or allowed to precipitate the war? If so, select one please, what is your evidence? Please make a cogent argument that includes supporting evidence. Vacuous speculation will not be received very well I'm afraid.

Good luck and I look forward to your hypothesis.

*

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me. If you want me to answer the question if i "deny Al-Qaeda's existence", you have to clarify what this term means for you. A monolithic worldwide terror network let by Bin Laden, a label for the ideology of loose connected militant islamistic groups or the name of a list of participants in afghan training camps (in advance: yes, no, no).

So, to you there's no link between the 19 hijackers and this "monolithic worldwide terror network"?

BTW I didn't stalk you, I just stumbled upon your other post on the other thread and found it funny to see you refer to Wikipedia. Now you've answered, thanks.

ETA: Geez, you conspiracists are paranoid.