Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[SkepticGuy]

iInterest was preventing communism, not funding some Arabs on the off chance some may form into a radical cell.

There's an interesting piece on ATS looking into these "pre-9/11" issues:
The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

Introduction.

Let's forget all the silliness that has grown up around 9/11. Those wild eyed fairy tales of holograms and mini-nukes are not taken seriously by those of us with common sense. Some of us even wonder if these ridiculous ideas are being actively promoted as a smoke screen to keep everyone from taking a hard look at the reasons behind the attack. The powers that be love for the world to see these stories of ghost planes and Nostradamus and shapeshifting reptilians That way, anyone who speaks of 9/11 without piously standing shoulder to shoulder with this administration's policies and declarations on the matter can be wrote off as another nutcase.

It's downright unpopular to ask certain questions. Just to wonder if 9/11 was the result of US policies in the '80s and '90s can be a problem. Ron Paul said that it was "blow back", and he was immediately attacked as being unpatriotic. It is political suicide to ponder, out loud anyway, if the years of meddling in Islamic governments business resulted in them bring the fight home to American shores. But the question won't just go away, because a lot of people ask themselves if America played a role in the radicalization of the portion of Islam that became Al Qaeda. Did America play Russian roulette with Islamic fundamentalists?
(more at the link)

 

[Drudgewire]

I've not seen any "conspiracy speculation" that includes pre-planted material of any type from the "terrorists," but in this mess of "9/11 Truth," there's room for anything at this point.

Ah the conspiracy creed: "If I can imagine it, it's could have happened."

Man, I miss having that mindset sometimes.

 

[bje]

I've not seen any "conspiracy speculation" that includes pre-planted material of any type from the "terrorists," but in this mess of "9/11 Truth," there's room for anything at this point.

What you mean to say is that in the world of 9/11 "Truth" relativism reigns supreme, and every Truther's "truth" is as valid as any other Truther's "truth."

It's the nature of the beast.

 

[SkepticGuy]

What you mean to say is that in the world of 9/11 "Truth" relativism reigns supreme, and every Truther's "truth" is as valid as any other Truther's "truth."

By no means did I mean that... and perhaps you're extending your own opinions, or the collective opinions of this JREF forum onto my statement.

When I said "mess" of 9/11 Truth... I mean just that, it's a mess and even that is a gross understatement. Their mantra or desire is to see what they believe to be the "truth" of the 9/11 attacks revealed, but their tactic involves mostly lies or highly-speculative opinion presented as fact.

 

[8den]

SkepticGuy you've been going for 6 pages now. Why don't you tell us specifically what parts of the official story and conspiracy theories, you believe or don't believe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There's an interesting piece on ATS looking into these "pre-9/11" issues:

Ok. I've read it. Will you respond to my answers?

In this paragraph, we have not one link to the men from the Afghan resistance who later became Al Qeada, to the US. As I already explained, the money went through Pakistan's ISI. Once it reached the ISI, they judged how for it to be spent.

Bin Laden was a war hero in the Afghan war, which gave him credibility in the Arab world as the defender of Islam. It was like a modern day battle of Medina.

It is worth pointing out that this modern day battle of Medina, against the very epitome of kufr, given that communism is often affiliated with atheism and the material world. But this was not, as some often think, the birth of Islamism. Islamism had burst onto the scene in the 50's with Maududi and Qutb, with the latter being the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat, carrying placards saying 'khalifah or death'. One of the many men arrested for this, was.. surprise surprise, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. He was also taught by Qutb's brother, Mohammed Qutb. So if you want to blame anywhere for the providing the birth of Islamism, blame Egypt, not the US.

There seems to be a lot here saying that the US intentionally did all this to radicalise the Middle East. Ok, but I could just as easily say that they didn't fight on the Eastern front in WW2 to inspire Communism into that part of Europe. If you know the easiest way to inspire jihadism, it is from having a khalifah set up in the middle east that preaches jihad. That would be the powerbase of operations, just in the same way Afghanistan was the powerbase (not a khalifah, but a version of sharia was imposed) for the training camps of Al Qeada, supported by the ruling Taliban. If America had a vested interest in creating this radicalism, rather than supporting Sadat, they could have let him crumble, and installed a khalifah in the home of radicalism. They didn't. America has constantly supported leaders from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia (the royal family) who the Islamists see as corrupt.

In Turkey, which has Islamism coming back, such religous schools such as in Afghanistan would be easy if only they had a sharia state. They don't. They have a secular one, supported by the US and Europe.

You seem to have this view the US has its finger on all these parts of the world and can create all sorts of ideologies. I could perhaps humour that, if only they hadn't made such a staggering mess of it before with communism. It's a very romantic thought, and it gives a great deal of order and control for those who perhaps lack such a thing in their reality, but its nothing more than constructing a story around different world events. There is no evidential substance.

I could blame the vicar who turned on the record of 'baby it's cold outside' at the church party that Qutb attended in the US, which became his moment of revelation, as being part of the NWO. It makes a good controlled, ordered story, but it is a lazy way of investigation no?

 

[SkepticGuy]

Ok. I've read it. Will you respond to my answers?

I'm not the author of the article. I only provided an interesting link relevant to the topic in one of the posts here.

 

[MikeW]

Ok. I've read it. Will you respond to my answers?

In this paragraph, we have not one link to the men from the Afghan resistance who later became Al Qeada, to the US.

Just in case someone claims this is a link...

CIA officials steadfastly deny past knowledge of bin Ladin, or at least of a paper trail. But in the trial of the Kenya embassy bombings evidence was shown that in at least 1989 he was the one they shipped a load of high powered rifles to. According to the Boston Globe, this was confirmed by the manufacturer of the weapons, a firm out out of Tennessee.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread314984/pg1

...it might be worth looking at the source story:

In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi, identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor.
http://www.bartcop.com/117guns.htm

And bearing in mind that a) there's nothing here about the CIA shipping the rifles, and b) they were actually shipped to Essam al-Ridi in Pakistan, and c) there's nothing in the story to say anyone other than him decided where they were going, and d) he was sending them to Azzam, not bin Laden, then I don't think this forms the strongest of links.

If anyone wants to read al-Ridi's testimony then take a look here.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm not the author of the article. I only provided an interesting link relevant to the topic in one of the posts here.

Is that it? The article's wrong on so many points. I pointed out why. Aren't you going to defend it?

 

[tsig]

I had imagined the participants here had spent enough time playing this tit-for-tat game... apparently one never tires.


Certainly there's a plethora of material here on this point with properly self-righteous debunkery thereof. Why even ask the question? I've not seen any "conspiracy speculation" that includes pre-planted material of any type from the "terrorists," but in this mess of "9/11 Truth," there's room for anything at this point.



What makes you think I've made an "assertion" and that I'm running from it?



Because I admit I don't know what happened (as it relates to aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories), but you (and others) assume I think I do because I self-profess to be a "conspiracy theorist." And because of your assumption, you experience frustration when I do not say "what I think happened" until I myself am certain. I may lend credence to certain directions of speculation or research I've seen based on the broad spectrum of material I've been able to review... but that's far from an "assertion."



Was the above plain?


Perhaps what you're having trouble with is my "assertion" that it's possible to be an aficionado of "conspiracy theories," while being cautions about making definitive statements, and disliking most of what comes out of the "truth movement."

Can I get syrup with those waffles?

 

[SkepticGuy]

Can I get syrup with those waffles?

Well then I presume you must classify lots of researchers (science or otherwise) as "wafflers." I say so because it's the very nature of research and discovery to begin the process not knowing the outcome, and to classify certain suppositions as plausible or not along the way.

I'm sure we can find some nice sour grape syrup for your crusty waffles.

 

[Sporanox]

You know, I'm strongly reminded of my biology text as I read through this exchange. Specifically, one chapter about the nature of scientific explanation. The underpinning point it makes is that for a given natural event, there will be one explanation backed by reams of evidence and a host of other possible explanations backed by personal opinion or conjecture - which is to say, no evidence.

Thus:

Event: Flashlight will not turn on when its power switch is thrown.

Explanation 1: The flashlight's bulb is burnt.

Explanation 2: A discontinuity in the Force is interfering with the natural operation of the flashlight.

Explanation 1 is supported when the bulb is replaced and the light turns on. Explanation 2 remains unsupported, but its proponents will speculate that the Force was restored to its natural flow at the precise moment the bulb was changed, enabling the flashlight to turn on. Explanation 2 also has the convenient immunity of being entirely un-disprovable...or irrefutable. Nobody has equipment to analyze the Force, and if existing equipment can't detect the Force, then it might be just missing it.

Of course, regarding 9/11 and the "official" explanation vs. the generic demolition explanation, the former is supported by massive reams of evidence, and the latter is supported by none. So when the former goes up against the latter, and a CTer seems to be bent on offering even the most unlikely possibility that the latter will occur, you get speculation like this:

"The towers could have been assisted to collapse by 'charges' contained within them. These 'charges' or 'energy events,' or whatever, might have been planted during a power outage involving thousands of people and reported by two people. Of course, it might not have been even possible to plant that many explosives in the towers in the 26-hour time frame of this purported power outage, but it might have been accomplished by some other means that nobody, as usual, has any clue about. Thus, there is room to speculate that the towers were assisted in their collapse. And nobody's accusing anybody of mass murder because it's only SPECULATION and nobody's backing it."

So to put it another way, as long as the shadowy, undocumented workings of the government/terrorists/anybody/"they" are invoked, it is always possible for the World Trade Center complex to have been assisted in its collapse by charges.

The only thing that would DISPROVE this would be if somebody had a time machine like in Deja Vu that provided an unbroken, near-omnipotent window to the past through which somebody could see EVERYTHING that went on in WTC towers EVER prior to 9/11.

We don't have this? Too bad, I guess we'll have to believe in the official theory instead of the rest of the, uh, "stuff."

Of course, that still doesn't rule out the Death Star and its invisible laser cannon...

-Sporanox

 

[SkepticGuy]

You know, I'm strongly reminded of my biology text as I read through this exchange.

Excellent reply and contribution.

Event: Flashlight will not turn on when its power switch is thrown.

Explanation 3: Undisclosed manufacturer defect from a manufacturer with a history of defects
Explanation 4: Defective batteries about to blow & burn -- and there is existing class action lawsuits

So to put it another way, as long as the shadowy, undocumented workings of the government/terrorists/anybody/"they" are invoked, it is always possible for the World Trade Center complex to have been assisted in its collapse by charges.

First, to be clear, I've postulated that among all the improbable theories related to explosive devices in the WTC complex, the most plausible theories involve a very limited number of key high-energy charges... not that I think that's what happened, but that those sub-set of the demolition theories are interesting.


Your example is an excellent analogy in a perfect world of yes/no, on/off, back/white. Unfortunately, the world we actually live in is somewhere between that perfection of yours and the one controlled by the evil global elite of conspiracy mythology.

The unfortunate fact is that because we've experienced "conspiracy theories" becoming actual scandals, cover-ups, and crimes, those who would be predisposed to speculate about sinister goings-on behind current events are supplied with enough inspiration to do so. This certainly doesn't justify presenting conjecture as fact, but it perhaps provides an explanation of the root reason many such theories occur.

Of course, regarding 9/11 and the "official" explanation vs. the generic demolition explanation, the former is supported by massive reams of evidence, and the latter is supported by none.

And this is where I personally have had issue with "9/11 Truth." Despite the inordinate ineffectiveness of the past few years, they continue to bang their heads against this incredible concrete wall at the dead end of the alley. I certainly wish them luck in their pursuit, as it is their right to do so, but they're now more focused on proving their predefined points than discovering what is truth. I suppose this is the symptom "conspiracy theory" being infected the virus of activism.

 

[FramerDave]

Have you been able to find any examples of documented government meddling and COINTELPRO in regards to 9/11 yet? Pretty please?

(see post #212 if you need to refresh your memory)

mkthnx

 

[Sporanox]

Naturally, you did find your conspiracy-friendly parallels in my flashlight example, which is unsurprising, since analogies can be twisted endlessly. Of course, you do realize that the analogy was rather, uh, cut and dried.

Nobody believes in that 100% perfection, and certainly not scientists. The explanations taught in the biology textbook are based on stacks and stacks of observations and facts that are best interpreted by standard biology theory. NOWHERE is it stated in the book that they can unequivocally show everything they've said in real-time three-dimensional video feeds or the like. Yet they still prefer their 3D illustrations of the cell, to, say, an explanation that invisible nanomachines control our every move. Why? Because the other explanation has no evidence and is also implausible.

Likewise, we don't have a wormhole back in time where we can observe each and every square foot of the WTC towers in the years preceding 9/11. So we have to go with what's overwhelmingly plausible (+ tons of evidence), and what's not.

First, to be clear, I've postulated that among all the improbable theories related to explosive devices in the WTC complex, the most plausible theories involve a very limited number of key high-energy charges... not that I think that's what happened, but that those sub-set of the demolition theories are interesting.

I understand you don't believe in the CD theory. But you still apparently consider it plausible, although improbable. I want to be clear here: Any 9/11 CD theory is definitely not plausible. The amount of conspirators involved, the time frame required to set up the charges, the security of the complex, and the sheer coincidence required that nobody working in the towers would question people wiring up the building all speak to the implausibility of the CD notion. More informed people can elaborate on that, but it's clear from looking at the truthers' blathering that the most plausible CD theory is still implausible. It's like identifying which number is closest to a positive integer - 0, 0, or 0.

This is where the nebulous evil that you spoke of comes in. Every hole in the theory is "plugged" with the invocation of federal agents, bribery, or something of the like. Equally valid explanations would call into play alien moose.

The unfortunate fact is that because we've experienced "conspiracy theories" becoming actual scandals, cover-ups, and crimes, those who would be predisposed to speculate about sinister goings-on behind current events are supplied with enough inspiration to do so. This certainly doesn't justify presenting conjecture as fact, but it perhaps provides an explanation of the root reason many such theories occur.

Of course it doesn't allow the substitution of conjecture for fact. But the fact is, since the CD theories are so implausible, that's ALL 9/11 twuubers can do - spout off outlandish garbage. As I've said earlier, those types of explanations will always be around, and they will always be trash.

So please, come clean of the "interesting" and "plausible" attributes you've tagged the CD movement with. It might have been "interesting" a few years ago if Dylan Avery went with his original decision to make Loose Change a fictional movie (if not seen as exploitative), but now it's not even that.

-Sporanox

 

[GStan]

So please, come clean of the "interesting" and "plausible" attributes you've tagged the CD movement with. It might have been "interesting" a few years ago if Dylan Avery went with his original decision to make Loose Change a fictional movie (if not seen as exploitative), but now it's not even that.

-Sporanox

I've seen Loose Change and I saw no evidence that Dylan Avery abandoned his decision to make a work of fiction.

 

[Sporanox]

True...I should have said intention. A documentary preference didn't change the content.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I understand you don't believe in the CD theory. But you still apparently consider it plausible, although improbable. I want to be clear here: Any 9/11 CD theory is definitely not plausible.

No, not at all... I never indicated I thought "Controlled Demolition" had plausibility. To me, the idea of Controlled Demolition is the thorough planting of sufficient "devices" to fell the buildings regardless of the potential structural damage caused by the impact of the aircraft. To me, this is the classic definition of the CD theory, and I don't consider it.

There are precious few (Jim Marrs among them) who have postulated about something that is more of an "Assisted Collapse" wherein a few very-high-energy charges are well-placed so that collapse may be induced after the expected impact and structural damage of the aircraft. The idea being that such devices could have been positioned in mere hours by two people. To me, this is not "controlled demolition," and as far as overall circumstances of timing and personnel, holds some feasibility... at least more so that teams of people frantically placing hundreds of charges during some faux power-outage.

Of course it doesn't allow the substitution of conjecture for fact. But the fact is, since the CD theories are so implausible, that's ALL 9/11 twuubers can do - spout off outlandish garbage.

My comments were more generalized regarding the entire body of "conspiracy theory," and not just the controlled demolition theories of 9/11. You seem to be thinking all people who label themselves as "conspiracy theorists" believe in controlled demolition, and that's a rather misinformed assumption.

Have you been able to find any examples of documented government meddling and COINTELPRO in regards to 9/11 yet? Pretty please?

The material I was looking for is rather old (domain name details), and no longer able to be confirmed... I'm looking for other examples... but it may take some time. (sorry)

 

[Sporanox]

There are precious few (Jim Marrs among them) who have postulated about something that is more of an "Assisted Collapse" wherein a few very-high-energy charges are well-placed so that collapse may be induced after the expected impact and structural damage of the aircraft. The idea being that such devices could have been positioned in mere hours by two people. To me, this is not "controlled demolition," and as far as overall circumstances of timing and personnel, holds some feasibility... at least more so that teams of people frantically placing hundreds of charges during some faux power-outage.

Does this really hold any more merit? To place these "high energy charges" in locations critical enough to seriously help any collapse would also require that nobody saw them meddling in the "critical" areas - which brings us back to square one, which leads us back to the conjecture, etc. etc. (And also ignores quite a few other things I didn't mention, such as how come there were no massive "bangs" characteristic of explosions detected?)

Exactly why would this be necessary (two planes loaded with jet fuel seems enough)? How did they know where to put them so the planes wouldn't interefere?

BTW I'm referring to any kind of "explosive charge" theory as a CD theory.

My comments were more generalized regarding the entire body of "conspiracy theory," and not just the controlled demolition theories of 9/11. You seem to be thinking all people who label themselves as "conspiracy theorists" believe in controlled demolition, and that's a rather misinformed assumption.

Look, I can understand your mission to promote understanding in regards to a perhaps misunderstood community. I tried my hand at that once. But you're seeing something that isn't there. You said some theories involving charges were plausible, even though you didn't believe in them. I'm trying to tell you that these theories have no merit and by their very nature invoke baseless speculation. I'm not referring to conspiracy theorists in general, whom I have a very fuzzy picture of even now. I'm referring to your apparent belief in the plausibility of some of these "charge" scenarios.

Please just divorce yourself from all "charge" theories. It would set your position straight and give you some credit.

-Sporanox

 

[David Wong]

So...

When the world's experts look at the collapse and say, "We can account for this event using the evidence at hand: planes, fires, and the design of the building resulted in collapse."

What kind of person says, "No, I believe that those events are actually the result of a series of hypthetical devices, planted in secret, that release massive amounts of energy in complete silence and leave no physical evidence behind and were undetectable prior to detonation, devices the likes of which we are not aware of existing anywhere in the world, and that operate in such a way so that their effects would be utterly invisible to every expert observer qualified to speak on the subject, planted by unknown parties for unknown reasons at great risk to those giving the orders."

Seriously, just don't get it. Every single thing attributed to the mystery devices is easily explained by things we know about the event. Why do we need this added mysterious high energy device?