9/11

[Panthera tigris FC]

That at least has plausability.Horrendous if true, but at least it doesn't require entire skyscrapers wired for detonationation without anyone nopticing,missiles fired at the pentagon and dissapearing passengers to be explained.

But such a notion lacks any positive evidence and is indistinguishable from the situation where the terrorists did it of their own accord. The whole 9/11 conspiracy theory revolves around supposed inconsistencies in the evidence. This is a completely different conspiracy theory that lacks any evidence and is completely based on the idea that the US government is devious enough to undertake such a thing. Fiction.

 

[Freezer]

Well, the verdict is in!

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AhKbxNvgt54

"You sneaky butthole." :hihi

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

;D

Pantera, you're a big fan of peer review. What do you make of all the peer-reviewed architects, engineers, etc (like these guys) calling for the US government to re-open investigations into 9/11?

The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" was established as the mainstream scientific literature did not find the work published in this journal scientifically rigorous enough. This is similar to so-called peer-reviewed creationist journals. This online journal has a section entitled "Beginners' Guide to 9/11 Truth" which does not seem a very unbiased view when you read what follows.

I also urge you to read up on the founders of this journal and their credentials. Steven E Jones is a good start. A mormon scientist at BYU who was relieved of teaching duties and put on paid leave for pushing this barrow and who has also done research to support the historicity of the Mormon faith (ie. generating archaeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, that is that Christ visited the US after he died and prior to resurrection). What about James H. Fetzer? A philosopher who is known for his views on numerous conspiracy theories.

I would certainly be a bit sceptical about the claims and question why there work is not published in the mainstream scientific literature? As this research is not in my area I am happy to rely on the peer-review by experts in that field. Their view is clear (unless you believe that the conspiracy extends to the scientific establishment as well? Now where have I heard that before? )

 

[evo]

Not necessarily directed at anyone.I just like the picture. :hihi

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This page also has information on the 'peer-reviewed' research and researchers supporting the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Well worth a read.

 

[Disco08]

Fair enough, that page seems to have information on Jones, who does seem like quite a strange one on further inspection.

How about the statements from these people? Or these ones? What do you make of them?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I find the absence of any peer-reviewed research showing the flaws in the official explanation damning for the conspiracy theorists. There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate how the towers collapsed

Why an absence of peer-reviewed criticisms of these papers by the sceptics? If they have legitimate doubts over the evidence presented, why hasn't this contradictory evidence been publised in the mainstream scientific literature?

 

[Disco08]

I'm not sure why. Are there definitely no peer reviewed papers that demonstrate why the twin towers or WTC7 were destroyed by controlled demolition or is that just the impression that debunking911.com gives?

There's certainly a lot of well credentialed people on that petition, no?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm not sure why. Are there definitely no peer reviewed papers that demonstrate why the twin towers or WTC7 were destroyed by controlled demolition or is that just the impression that debunking911.com gives?

There's certainly a lot of well credentialed people on that petition, no?

You are the one making the claim. Are there any peer-reviewed papers that support your position? I haven't come across any (outside of the questionable one we have already discussed).

I am not sure how credentials lend support in the absence of evidence. Sounds like an ld :bs (appeal to authority). If you look at the papers published in the mainstream scientific literature the authors are also very well credentialled (and unlike most of the experts on those petitions, they are also experts in the area that qualifies to speak with authority on the matter). I know which position I am more likely to believe.

 

[Tiger74]

Fair enough.

My theory is that the attacks happened as reported but that the terrorists were on the American payroll to do it. This is just a personal belief. It didn't come from any website or other media even if it has been raised.

This would enable a few individuals at the top of government to hire the terrorists to do the job. It is then simply a case of keeping quiet and let the terrorists do their job. No one else has to know. The CIA and FBI and all others could have been kept in the dark. In fact, it would have been in the best interests of those behind this (no matter who they are) for this to be the case. If a government was going to do this to it's own people, it wouldn't be a bad way of arranging things.

Even that though still has two main weakenesses (not saying impossible - just make it bloody hard to execute):

1) The money/arms trail that the US Govt provided Bin Ladin for services rendered. This is what brought Reagan/North down, as its harder and harder these days to hide such transactions. Large amounts of US weapons turning up in Bin Ladin/Taliban hands or on the black market would start raising a lot of questions, and the same with funds transfers (there have been massive improvements in global agencies monitoring of currency movements - just ask Nauru).

2) Why wouldn't Bin Ladin spill the beans? He has been cut off by the US now and made a scape goat, why not come out and say "the great infidel actually paid me to do the job"?

 

[1eyedtiger]

Even that though still has two main weakenesses (not saying impossible - just make it bloody hard to execute):

1) The money/arms trail that the US Govt provided Bin Ladin for services rendered. This is what brought Reagan/North down, as its harder and harder these days to hide such transactions. Large amounts of US weapons turning up in Bin Ladin/Taliban hands or on the black market would start raising a lot of questions, and the same with funds transfers (there have been massive improvements in global agencies monitoring of currency movements - just ask Nauru).

2) Why wouldn't Bin Ladin spill the beans? He has been cut off by the US now and made a scape goat, why not come out and say "the great infidel actually paid me to do the job"?

I don't have the answer for the first one. Money disappearing into thin air seems to be the speciality for most governments.

Second one, I thought about this before posting my initial beliefs. The answer could be that Bin Ladin's own supporters don't know the entire truth.

How would he have convinced his followers to commit suicide by flying planes into buildings? He sure as hell wouldn't have told them to do it because the US was paying him. If he came out and told the truth now, it might come as a bit a shock to his supporters the real reason why some of them gave their lives for Bin Ladin's cause.

 

[Tigers of Old]

2) Why wouldn't Bin Ladin spill the beans? He has been cut off by the US now and made a scape goat, why not come out and say "the great infidel actually paid me to do the job"?

Maybe Bin Laden is dead or at least captured.
Been a long time since any new material has come to light..

 

[Tiger74]

Maybe Bin Laden is dead or at least captured.
Been a long time since any new material has come to light..

He still has his followers, and remember this is a culture where being a martyr is revered (so him being dead would only make his legend bigger).

 

[Disco08]

You are the one making the claim. Are there any peer-reviewed papers that support your position? I haven't come across any (outside of the questionable one we have already discussed).

There's only a handful on the entire subject. Jones may have some bizarre religious beliefs but that doesn't deter from his expertise in physics does it? If he's putting his work up for peer review why should it be considered any less legitimate than the work of others?

The other thing that seems apparent is even the studies conducted which conclude the towers collapsed due to fire highlight the need for more research, eg.:

The complete story may never be known. Indeed a theme throughout the report is a call for additional research.

I assume part of this reflects upon the lack of evidence to support the theory that the fires inside the twin towers reached heats capable of sufficiently weakening the core structure to the point that the entire buildings would collapse.

In the case of WTC7 there are no articles at all that I could find. Some pretty damning evidence exists that certain parties had prior warning that this building was coming down too. Unless that building was deliberately demolished, how could anyone have predicted it was going to collapse given not a single steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire previously?

I am not sure how credentials lend support in the absence of evidence. Sounds like an old bs (appeal to authority). If you look at the papers published in the mainstream scientific literature the authors are also very well credentialled (and unlike most of the experts on those petitions, they are also experts in the area that qualifies to speak with authority on the matter). I know which position I am more likely to believe.

If you have a large group of people with qualifications in relevant fields calling for more research and questioning the official report then I think it's fair enough to take notice.

This is also only looking at one line of evidence. What of all high ranking officials that question the commission report?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There's only a handful on the entire subject. Jones may have some bizarre religious beliefs but that doesn't deter from his expertise in physics does it? If he's putting his work up for peer review why should it be considered any less legitimate than the work of others?

Jones' area of expertise is in 'cold' fusion and area that has led to blushes in the past. How does this field of physics make him an expert in collapsing buildings? It doesn't.

As for his work that his has submitted for peer review, where does it state anywhere that it is considered less legitimate? Clearly it hasn't passed this stage, ie. his peers, the experts in the field see problems with his arguments, analysis of the evidence or conclusions. This is what the peer-review system is for, to filter out the scientifically unsound work. Although not foolproof (I have read some papers that I was surprised survived review) it certainly acts as an important process. To start up your own journal where, as editor, you have a say in the level of review raises questions on the quality of the research.

Jones' own university, BYU, considered the lack of acceptance of his research by mainstream science suitably worrisome to make comment.

The other thing that seems apparent is even the studies conducted which conclude the towers collapsed due to fire highlight the need for more research, eg.:

The complete story may never be known. Indeed a theme throughout the report is a call for additional research.

I assume part of this reflects upon the lack of evidence to support the theory that the fires inside the twin towers reached heats capable of sufficiently weakening the core structure to the point that the entire buildings would collapse.

In the case of WTC7 there are no articles at all that I could find. Some pretty damning evidence exists that certain parties had prior warning that this building was coming down too. Unless that building was deliberately demolished, how could anyone have predicted it was going to collapse given not a single steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire previously?

You and others might have questions, but the absence of peer-reviewed data does not lead credence to those alternative theories. Have you read the peer-reviewed papers on the topic, or has your reading been limited to the alternative theories that have decided to engage in debate outside of the proper scientific channels? That is a classic woo trick.

If you have a large group of people with qualifications in relevant fields calling for more research and questioning the official report then I think it's fair enough to take notice.

This is also only looking at one line of evidence. What of all high ranking officials that question the commission report?

Many of the group do not have relevant qualifications, I would argue. Why aren't they questioning in official channels? Whenever you start down this path you always imply a grand conspiracy to prevent such official questioning. This, again, is classic woo. Do you really want to act like the Ben Stein of the 9/11 conspiracy movement?

 

[Redford]

I’ve had enough of all this “who dunnit” arguing over 9/11.

I’m heading over to Washington in April where I hope to get a tour of the White House. While I’m there I will undertake to find out the real story of 9/11 and put all this bickering to rest.

Who do I need to speak to ? Defence Secretary ? Chief of Staff ? Or should I just ask to speak to “Big B” himself ?

 

[TigerForce]

I’ve had enough of all this “who dunnit” arguing over 9/11.

I’m heading over to Washington in April where I hope to get a tour of the White House. While I’m there I will undertake to find out the real story of 9/11 and put all this bickering to rest.

Who do I need to speak to ? Defence Secretary ? Chief of Staff ? Or should I just ask to speak to “Big B” himself ?

Just find the 'now-defunct' Bush somewhere and say you're actually the son of the great John Winston Howard.

He'll believe you.

 

[Redford]

Just find the 'now-defunct' Bush somewhere and say you're actually the son of the great John Winston Howard.

He'll believe you.

"Big B" will be in power by then and Dubya will be back in the "bush."

Any specific 9/11 questions you want me to put to "Big B" ?

 

[Disco08]

Can you maybe try and pin the whole thing on Arod?

 

[TigerForce]

"Big B" will be in power by then and Dubya will be back in the "bush."

Any specific 9/11 questions you want me to put to "Big B" ?

Forget Bazza.

Just hunt down Bush and when you find him just yell out:

"Hey dude, ya gonna tell us the truth now, you air-sole"

"Watcha doon at a kids school dat morning you low down *smile* a *smile*"

;D