Loose Change

[DavidJames]

As we say in French: "Give the runner a chance"

It's a prediction, not a conclusion, but considering the course runner appears to be on....

 

[Gravy]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am making the following prediction.

Xraye will come to the conclusion that the OV of 9/11 is wrong, the evidence of the CTist is so strong he is forced to believe them.

He will do so without providing one shred of viable, verifiable independently produced evidence.

Xraye, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. It's up to you know, show us what you got.

That's funny because I was about to say, "Mark this page. I predict that in 20 pages Xraye will be making the same specious non-arguments."

Xraye, I hope you don't think that's a cheap shot. But we've seen plenty of people come here saying, "I'm just here to learn," and then show absolutely no interest in learning. So, my default position is that I'm skeptical about why you're here. If you haven't studied up on evidence supporting the OV, then please do so.

 

[CptColumbo]

Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution existed before Hitler came to power. Since the Reich was a proportional democracy, a party had to create a coalition to get any laws passed. Article 48 was a provision that enabled the chancellor to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag in an emergency. It was used repeatedly during the 1930's during the economic crisis in Germany (and the rest of the world).

 

[Pardalis]

I don't know much about the culture of Germany before WWII. I agree that it's deffinatly relevant information. I'm personally just intrigued by the striking similarity beetween the doctrines of each culture, as well as they catalyst that put them into place.

Similarities between the doctrines of each culture? Between American and German cultures?

 

[CptColumbo]

Here's a brief history of the Weimar Republic, which may explain what was happening and how unstable the situation there was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

There many other books on the subject available at your local library.

 

[Xraye]

That question carries exactly the same amount of weight among critical thinkers as "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It is a rhetorical trap based on a strawman argument.

I hope you will give some time and thought as to why that is.

I'm assuming his positioin is that he "thinks it can't happen again" I understand, point taken.

The proper response would be "what makes you think that's so astonishing", or to continue to substantiate my claim.

 

[CurtC]

The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show...

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?

Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

The first would have as the default position that the government was involved, and you would need hard evidence to show that it wasn't. The latter person would assume that the government was not involved, and you would need good evidence to show that it was.

Which is a fair thing to say. Now from there, Xraye, the evidence that we have, which is a whole mountain of information, all seems to point to the fact that 19 Muslim terrorists pulled this off, with support from The Foundation, Al Quaeda. This evidence includes:

* Previous attacks confirmed to be Al Quaeda, including the WTC in 1993, various embassy bombings, and the USS Cole.

* Histories from these 19 people of taking flying lessons aimed at guiding, but not neccessarily landing, commercial jets.

* Phone calls from victims on the planes during the hijackings stating that there were arab-looking men killing people and taking over the planes.

* Plane crash debris from all four planes that crashed.

So the data we have does tend to point to the official version. You have to agree that this becomes the default based on the evidence, and now showing a government conspiracy requires evidence to back it up. What evidence is there? I haven't seen any. Everything I've seen is based on misinformation and distortions.

 

[Hellbound]

I didn't miss that part of the document. However, I persoanlly believe that people who aren't americans have as much right to a fair trial as people who are.

Well, now you have to show how tribunals are unfair...especially in light of the fact that
1) Tribunals have been the standard for military personnel for quite some time.
2) The order provides for, and actually requires, fair and humane treatment of detainees.
3) A defense is required.
4) The order specifically states that it requires a fair trial.

And be honest. You didn't specify you were only talking to the non-U.S. members of th board when you told us "did you know you can be tried by a military tribunal". You gave a distinctly incorrect impression to many readers.

 

[Xraye]

Similarities between the doctrines of each culture? Between American and German cultures?

Sorry, I was reffering to similarities between article 48 and the patriot act.

 

[Manny]

In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other similar events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?

Here's something else which happened in history. A foreign power was upset at American attempts to restrict its expansion in a part of the world which the power thought of as "theirs" and at increasing American hegemony over petroleum resources. That power repeatedly threatened action against the United States and finally, despite the threats and other hints which in hindsight made the coming attack look predictable, executed a spectacularly successful sneak attack which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Americans and the destruction of some of America's best and highest-profile infrastructure. That attack triggered a war in which the US fought not only the country which directly attacked it but countries which were not directly responsible for the attack but allied with the attackers. The war resulted in a temporary reduction in the civil liberties of Americans and the imprisonment of thousands of foreign nationals without trial. In fact, this particular war, distinct from the current one, featured the imprisonment of thousands of Americans without trial. Additionally, the American president at the time was well known to be obsessed with these enemies and wanted a war well prior to the sneak attack which precipitated the American entry into it. His particular interest was more in the allies than in the direct attackers themselves, and indeed the vastly more American military resources during the first part of the war went into attacking the allies than the attackers.

Why is my analogy less instructive than yours?

 

[Xraye]

Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

The first would have as the default position that the government was involved, and you would need hard evidence to show that it wasn't. The latter person would assume that the government was not involved, and you would need good evidence to show that it was.

Which is a fair thing to say. Now from there, Xraye, the evidence that we have, which is a whole mountain of information, all seems to point to the fact that 19 Muslim terrorists pulled this off, with support from The Foundation, Al Quaeda. This evidence includes:

* Previous attacks confirmed to be Al Quaeda, including the WTC in 1993, various embassy bombings, and the USS Cole.

* Histories from these 19 people of taking flying lessons aimed at guiding, but not neccessarily landing, commercial jets.

* Phone calls from victims on the planes during the hijackings stating that there were arab-looking men killing people and taking over the planes.

* Plane crash debris from all four planes that crashed.

So the data we have does tend to point to the official version. You have to agree that this becomes the default based on the evidence, and now showing a government conspiracy requires evidence to back it up. What evidence is there? I haven't seen any. Everything I've seen is based on misinformation and distortions.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

And yes, I would agree that claiming there is a governmental conspiracy (which is different than claiming that governmental conspiracies are possible) necesitates producing evidence of such a conspiracy.

 

[Pardalis]

Here's something else which happened in [...]

Chapeau, Manny. (tip of the hat)

 

[Gravy]

Let me add my kudos to Gravy for his Bull-Dogged persistance on this.

Thanks. If you had told me two months ago that I'd be involved in this, I would have laughed like crazy. But you know what? I grew up with English Bulldogs as pets. Best critters ever, except that they fart and drool a lot.

Posting this link this late in the discussion might be a mistake, and If it starts destabilizing the thread, I'll retract it or the mods can put it somewhere else.

But found a pretty good WTC 7 explanation, from 2002:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020302nytimes

Apparently, Giuliani's Bunker and the Secret Service offices (among others) WERE the reason it collapsed, but only because they had Diesel Generators:

From the link: As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."

"Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks. "

NIST hasn't released its report on WTC 7 yet, so that should be interesting. We do know that not all of the fuel in those tanks fed the fires, because some was found in the wreckage. What I do think is impressive are the quotes from the people who were there to fight those fires, which agree that:
1) damage to the south side of WTC 7 was severe, not moderate
2) The building appeared to be bulging at several floors
3) there were uncontrolled fires on many floors
4) the building was making noises consistent with its weight shifting
5) for several HOURS the building appeared to be in danger of collapse

One note of interest (to me, at least) is the line in the article:

"But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." (Bolding mine...actually, the entire citation was bolded in the article, so non-bolding was mine).

Implying that there are Non-U.S. Steel-reinforced high-rise buildings that Had Collapsed before 9.11.01. can we find those?

I've always avoided this because I don't see its relevance. CTs are always saying that no other steel buildings were brought down by fire alone. Now, I don't know how they know for sure that some steel building in Russia or China didn't collapse from fire 40 years ago. And we do know of skyscrapers that would have collapsed from steel failure in fires if they hadn't had concrete cores. But so what if the CTs are right? What's that got to to with the situation at the World Trade Center? If there was a long history of steel-framed buildings not collapsing after suffering extreme structural damage first, followed by raging fires that firefighters didn't have access to, then their argument might make some sense.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).

What they should be asking themselves (what a skeptic would ask himorherself) is why would the Bush administration have to scramble after 9/11 to scrap together connections between 9/11 and Saddam? The simplest and most logical answer is: because they didn't see it coming.

The attitude you've characterized is one of fallacious thinking, not skepticism:
1. The U.S. is the most powerful nation.
2. THEREFORE, we cannot be duped by a small terrorist group.
3. We supposedly were duped by a small terrorist group.
4. GIVEN 2, 3 is impossible.
5. THEREFORE, powerful elites in the U.S. intentionally allowed 3 to happen.
Can you spot the fallacies?

 

[dubfan]

I'm assuming his positioin is that he "thinks it can't happen again" I understand, point taken.

The proper response would be "what makes you think that's so astonishing", or to continue to substantiate my claim.

Fair enough. You can never go wrong with substantiating the claim.

I also hope you can see that the people here aren't skeptical of the CT claims because they're astonishing (although they are that). The people here are skeptical because there has been no evidence presented and no facts uncovered implicating the US government in the attacks. None.

 

[Pardalis]

Xraye, I'm sure alot of parallels can be made between any historical events.

Take for example the Rwanda massacre and the St-Bartholomew Day massacre, a clumsy comparison to say the least. It's true both events are due to cultural rivalries and hatred that escalated into mass murder, but the similarities end there. When you look deep enough, there is absolutely no comparison, historically, culturally and politically. The only thing that links these two together is the fact that humankind can be monstruous.

The problem of your comparison between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 is that you can't prove 9/11 was a internal "coup d'état". Therefore, any comparison can't be made in the first place, it is only based on insinuations and interpretations.

edited to correct name

 

[Belz...]

It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar?

No. Thousands of germans did not die in the Reichstag.

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?

You conflate possibility, probability and fact. Just because something is possible, though historical precedent, does not mean that it happened.

 

[Belz...]

It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

I was wondering that myself. However, even if there wasn't the general principle remains the same that something similar has happened in the past.

In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other similar events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?

You're wrong, because here we're not discussing the "possibility" of it happening, but the REALITY of it. If you're content with accepting mere possibilities, then you're free to believe and kind of hogwash theory you want. However, when discussing if the even occured or not, its mere possibility is only the starting point. It cannot be used to draw a conclusion, other than the fact that, if it IS possible, you can continue investigating.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

But neither is a default assumption, since they are, really, both conclusions. The "default" assumption, now that I think about it, is always agnosticism.

 

[Belz...]

The problem of your comparison between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 is that you can't prove 9/11 was a internal "coup d'état". Therefore, any comparison can't be made in the first place, it is only based on insinuations and interpretations.

edited to correct name

Nice call, panther-man. It's circular reasoning, indeed.