911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

He must have been somewhat trusted given they had him in there helping to find some of the most sensitive equipment to have ever existed.

Aside from the moon landing I haven't read about any of those conspiraxcy theories. I do think it's very strange they haven't been back to the moon though given the advancement in the equipment they have at their disposal to test things out there these days.

Is it that hard to accept that reasonable people with some intelligence can have a differing opinion? Do you think all of us that don't accept the 9/11 OR must be idiots that get sucked in by every conspiracy theory?

Yet not long ago you said it was crackpot websites vs the OR and eyewitnesses.

Can you point out a single error I've made and not admitted to. Can you name me a website I keep mentioning that is full of unsubstantiated speculation?

I'm not at all agitated BTW. I think what I've said is entirely true of the way you've gone about debating this topic.

Yeah, yeah. I get got the point. I was only trying to justify the comment from my frame of mind at the time. Using a tanker such as the one I posted a pic of could make sense if you wanted to get a lot more fuel into the building.

Anyway, I admit the gray plane theory is unlikely at best. The reason I read so much about it and wanted to discuss it is because the implications if true are obvious and profound.

Why would I disbelieve a local newpaper? What motivation do they have to distort the truth? Did you notice the second report from another paper with similar content?

The use of the word "appears" isn't important IMO. Papers often say that in preliminary reporting. The greater fact, as I said, is that the search area was widened. Again, Why?

Black boxes all look the same. It'd be pretty hard to imagine anything else with their appearance sitting in an ATV which was being used for the specific purpose of searching for the black boxes.

What motivation does DeMasi have to make this up? Doesn't the fact that every other black box from every other major accident has been found and the fact that they are designed to withstand the impact and temperatures they would have endured during the crash and collapse also support the notion someone would have found them?

Jennings' testimony, if taken as fact, is absolute proof of explosions inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed. That's surely quite meaningful.

Also the fact that multiple lines of evidence was destroyed and the investigative process severely restricted is very suggestive of a cover up.

It took 50 years for the Northwoods operation to be discovered. No doubt plenty of people knew of it though. Surely there would have been a paper trail and the odd whistle blower there too? I think you underestimate the capabilities and resources of the US government and armed forces.

Just as you can insist there needs to be concrete evidence I can insist there should be no facts that contradict the OR. That's plainly not true. Still, I'd rather discuss things we have evidence of.

For someone who says he,s not sure if there was a cover up you sure put up an argument that there was. Rather than just throwing at questions as to why was this done, why wasn't that done why don't you try being objective and research and find out why. As I pointed out yesterday we have already dispelled several "truths".

I asked about other conspiracy theories to gauge your mindset. So you think the moon landing AND 911 were cover ups. Interesting.

And again, the joy of the theorist is that you just throw any old theory out there. "There were no planes", "the planes were fighter jets","the planes were real passenger planes but allowed by US government to conduct there terrorist attack"

In footy speak we call this moving the goal posts.

 

[poppa x]

There were always warnings "beware Reds under the beds" everyone knows they're to blame for just about anything that happens.
We've even got one in the Lodge now. Beware!!!

Holy Cow. You're telling me Julia's under my bed?
Don't scare me man.
She'll find my secret photos, and hand them over to ASIO who'll give them to the FBI or CIA.
Then I'm really screwed.
There's a photo of me in New York on 9/11 with the UnaBomber (who was out of jail on day release) with the North Tower in the background as it was falling down.
I'm in big trouble Willo. Thanks heaps mate!

 

[Scoop]

Great website that has footage of the day as it happened on the major networks.

http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

 

[KnightersRevenge]

He must have been somewhat trusted given they had him in there helping to find some of the most sensitive equipment to have ever existed.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/pr/2005/092705_9105.shtml "Mr. Bellone is being charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property.

Mr. Bellone was brought to the attention of the Fire Department last year after several complaints were made from across the country regarding the activities of the TRAC Team, a non-profit organization of which he is the CEO. Mr. Bellone travels around the country selling his book and displaying artifacts that he maintains to be from the World Trade Center site.

“The department commends the outstanding investigative efforts of the Fire Marshals for their diligence in apprehending Mr. Bellone,” said Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta."
There is no evidence other than his own word that he was involved in the way he describes. His word seems not be his bond. If he is the only corroborator of DiMasi's story, then that too is on shaky ground wouldn't you say?

Yet not long ago you said it was crackpot websites vs the OR and eyewitnesses.

You have failed to produce one reference from a well respected source of concrete evidence to the contrary, the only place I can find any of the information you seem to put stock in is the conspiracy web, if there are trusted sources for this info, produce them.

Also the fact that multiple lines of evidence was destroyed and the investigative process severely restricted is very suggestive of a cover up.

Source?

Just as you can insist there needs to be concrete evidence I can insist there should be no facts that contradict the OR. That's plainly not true. Still, I'd rather discuss things we have evidence of.

You can insist that, but it sets up a false dichotomy. I'm not defending the OR, I simply don't think the conspiracy story is credible, while this might seem tacit support for OR I am anything but dogmatic.

 

[tigertim]

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/pr/2005/092705_9105.shtml "Mr. Bellone is being charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property.

Mr. Bellone was brought to the attention of the Fire Department last year after several complaints were made from across the country regarding the activities of the TRAC Team, a non-profit organization of which he is the CEO. Mr. Bellone travels around the country selling his book and displaying artifacts that he maintains to be from the World Trade Center site.

“The department commends the outstanding investigative efforts of the Fire Marshals for their diligence in apprehending Mr. Bellone,” said Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta."
There is no evidence other than his own word that he was involved in the way he describes. His word seems not be his bond. If he is the only corroborator of DiMasi's story, then that too is on shaky ground wouldn't you say?

You have failed to produce one reference from a well respected source of concrete evidence to the contrary, the only place I can find any of the information you seem to put stock in is the conspiracy web, if there are trusted sources for this info, produce them.
Source?

You can insist that, but it sets up a false dichotomy. I'm not defending the OR, I simply don't think the conspiracy story is credible, while this might seem tacit support for OR I am anything but dogmatic.

der, clearly Bellone was framed!

 

[Streak]

Taking a simplistic view to a very considered debate, I just have one question to ask those who believe this is a cover-up.

Why would the Obama administration continue the cover-up. They could destroy the Republican party machine for ever by uncovering this if it was a charade.

There would simply be too many people involved in this consipracy for it to remain a secret. If this conspiracy is true, Obama must know about it.

 

[evo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY

Now that's a great documentary! I love Adam Curtis' work.

 

[evo]

Oh, by the way. London Tube bombing in 2005 was a hoax too!


http://www.takeourworldback.com/77suicidebombershoax/

theres quite a good BBC doco that debunks that one and looks into conspiracy theorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tga4hXy8qws

 

[evo]

Scholars for 9/11 truth. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Pilots for 9/11 truth. Firefighters for 9/11 truth. All crackpots?

Again "outliers". Do you know how many Engineers, Scholars and Archetects there are in the world? What about all the scholars who DONT believe it was a conspiracy?

Here's another large number of "scholars' for you. Do you find these 31,000 scholars persuasive?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

[evo]

Soft. Can't live off Goddard forever.

yeah, i thought it was a bit lame too.

 

[Disco08]

I didn't suggest the reporter had no faith. Whether he/she had faith or not doesn't make something factual though. I doubt reporters are any more qualified than people on the street to identify human flesh and bone that have been blasted several kilometres. How do they know it wasn't part of a carcass dragged out of a tip by a fox? We often find what could be easily described as appearing to be human remains in our paddocks.

If the human remains are amongst other crash debris I think it's a fair assumption to make that they came from the crash as well.

Here's a link to show how the use of "what appeared to be" is constantly applied to breaking news. It's an industry standard.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22what+appeared+to+be%22+herald+sun&oq=%22what+appeared+to+be%22+herald+sun&gs_l=hp.3...2111.12685.1.12931.36.33.2.0.0.0.811.8838.0j10j18j2j0j1j2.33.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.sTImSPWebxU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGY&fp=b987864691354c7e&biw=1429&bih=762

 

[evo]

And just as a gauge Disco what are your thoughts on other conspiracy theories for:

Moon landing
Katrina
London tube bombing
Challenger
Stolen generation
Holocaust
Kennedy assassination

The last one is a bit of the odd one out. I think most people suspect there is something fishy about the Kennedy Assasination. Or at least more to it than meets the eye.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If the human remains are amongst other crash debris I think it's a fair assumption to make that they came from the crash as well.

Here's a link to show how the use of "what appeared to be" is constantly applied to breaking news. It's an industry standard.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22what+appeared+to+be%22+herald+sun&oq=%22what+appeared+to+be%22+herald+sun&gs_l=hp.3...2111.12685.1.12931.36.33.2.0.0.0.811.8838.0j10j18j2j0j1j2.33.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.sTImSPWebxU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGY&fp=b987864691354c7e&biw=1429&bih=762

I don't think anyone is disputing that point. The problem is there is no confirmation, nor corroboration of the initial "appeared to be" report. You don't see why that might not be considered the most reliable of evidence?

As pointed out, there does appear to be quite a bit of goal-post shifting going on. What do you consider the most convincing evidence? Very little concrete from what I have seen. Plenty of circumstantial evidence and coincidences, as one might expect if you look for such things in such a complex event involving so many people and impacting on human emotions so profoundly.

 

[Disco08]

I posted the undisputed facts I think are most suspicious a couple of days ago. They all revolve around Bush and Cheney's actions.

I also think the fact that the US government had considered a plan very similar 50 years ago is more than a coincidence. They had the motive, the means and the opportunity. Their reported actions indicate (if not prove) complicity and cover up. As I've said numerous time, I stop short of trying to draw a definitive conclusion, but I fully support the call for further and proper independent investigation. The DoD deals in figures of trillions of dollars. Surely a couple of hundred million to end the conjecture once and for all would be money well spent.

Again "outliers". Do you know how many Engineers, Scholars and Archetects there are in the world? What about all the scholars who DONT believe it was a conspiracy?

Here's another large number of "scholars' for you. Do you find these 31,000 scholars persuasive?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Absolutely. When so many people expert in the relevant field all hold a similar view I don't see why it wouldn't be persuasive. Unless you're talking about theologists of course.

As far as I can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only group of experts officially sanctioning the OR are NIST, FEMA and Popular Mechanics. None of them truly independent although a case can be made for PM. It is also critisised for the seemingly biased nature and glaring ommissions in some of their studies. All this is easy to Google up so I won't post examples.

It also seems to me that that group of 31000 isn't all climate scientists. I think groups made up of only experts in the relevant carry far more weight. These groups have published their concerns openly. If other experts in the relevent fields find their objections offensive couldn't we expect perhaps a petition in support of the OR? At least I'd expect to be able to find a survey of experts and their opinions much like the ID vs TTOE debate.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I posted the undisputed facts I think are most suspicious a couple of days ago. They all revolve around Bush and Cheney's actions.

I also think the fact that the US government had considered a plan very similar 50 years ago is more than a coincidence. They had the motive, the means and the opportunity. Their reported actions indicate (if not prove) complicity and cover up. As I've said numerous time, I stop short of trying to draw a definitive conclusion, but I fully support the call for further and proper independent investigation. The DoD deals in figures of trillions of dollars. Surely a couple of hundred million to end the conjecture once and for all would be money well spent.

So, circumstantial. Look for it and you will find it.

I'm all for reducing the budget of the U.S. DoD, but not for wasting it to end conspiracy theorist conjecture. Should we spend money on the list that was posted recently. There IS conjecture about all of those 'conspiracies'.

Absolutely. When so many people expert in the relevant field all hold a similar view I don't see why it wouldn't be persuasive. Unless you're talking about theologists of course.

As far as I can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only group of experts officially sanctioning the OR are NIST, FEMA and Popular Mechanics. None of them truly independent although a case can be made for PM. It is also critisised for the seemingly biased nature and glaring ommissions in some of their studies. All this is easy to Google up so I won't post examples.

It also seems to me that that group of 31000 isn't all climate scientists. I think groups made up of only experts in the relevant carry far more weight. These groups have published their concerns openly. If other experts in the relevent fields find their objections offensive couldn't we expect perhaps a petition in support of the OR? At least I'd expect to be able to find a survey of experts and their opinions much like the ID vs TTOE debate.

Nor is your list of people expert in the specific fields relevant to the events of 9-11. Any expert worth their salt would have published their questions and the evidence underpinning them in a renowned peer-reviewed scientific or engineering journal. The professional prestige for such a thing would be enormous....that is if it could be substantiated. The fact that this doesn't exist (in a reputable journal) is pretty damning for the 'expert questioning' idea (another point the Chomsky made).

 

[tigertim]

Taking a simplistic view to a very considered debate, I just have one question to ask those who believe this is a cover-up.

Why would the Obama administration continue the cover-up. They could destroy the Republican party machine for ever by uncovering this if it was a charade.

There would simply be too many people involved in this consipracy for it to remain a secret. If this conspiracy is true, Obama must know about it.

yep, I was about to ask the same question. And whoever was the leader of the Democats, surely they would be all over Bush and the Republicans? Nah, they couldn't,t be bothered with such trivialities as their president orchestrating the murder of 3000 plus of its own citizens?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Nor is your list of people expert in the specific fields relevant to the events of 9-11. Any expert worth their salt would have published their questions and the evidence underpinning them in a renowned peer-reviewed scientific or engineering journal. The professional prestige for such a thing would be enormous....that is if it could be substantiated. The fact that this doesn't exist (in a reputable journal) is pretty damning for the 'expert questioning' idea (another point the Chomsky made).

An excellent doco on a rival of Chomsky's was on last night on ABC. He had a contrary opinion about the central tenet of Chomsky's "global grammar". What did he do, as a fellow linguist? He published. What has the community of fellows done? Tested his ideas. The debate continues but it is amongst members of the "specific" expert community centred around published works in the journals of that specific expert community. What he didn't do was publish his own website and discuss his ideas with teachers, or lawyers, or veterinarians or alpaca handlers.

 

[Rosy]

If the human remains are amongst other crash debris I think it's a fair assumption to make that they came from the crash as well.

"If" they are human remains that assumption would be reasonable and worthwhile checking for sure. Was that done?

Here's a link to show how the use of "what appeared to be" is constantly applied to breaking news. It's an industry standard.

I can't see much point in that link Disco. Not denying it's a comment used in "breaking news". This is several years later though, hardly breaking news.
Considering the time frame "appeared to be" doesn't cut it for me. Not very convincing at all.
Is there any evidence the remains, if they existed, were in fact human and tied in with the attack?

 

[Disco08]

Who would know if that was done? So much crucial evidene was removed before it could be examined it's not a huge leap to think evidence in this case could have suffered a similar fate. It certainly seems unlikely numerous people would all mistake human remains amongst other crash debris.

Those news reports are the only ones in existence relating to the secondary and tertiary debris fields of flight 93. No subsequent articles ever appeared to either correct or confirm the original reports. That fact alone is extremely strange. The reports were also the first to appear after the crash and were published two days later. They were therefore most likely written on the day of the crash and the day after. Sufficient time to check facts as any good reporter does and also completely consistent with regards to the use of the "what appeared to be" phrase when reporting breaking news.

So, circumstantial. Look for it and you will find it.

I'm all for reducing the budget of the U.S. DoD, but not for wasting it to end conspiracy theorist conjecture. Should we spend money on the list that was posted recently. There IS conjecture about all of those 'conspiracies'.

Nor is your list of people expert in the specific fields relevant to the events of 9-11. Any expert worth their salt would have published their questions and the evidence underpinning them in a renowned peer-reviewed scientific or engineering journal. The professional prestige for such a thing would be enormous....that is if it could be substantiated. The fact that this doesn't exist (in a reputable journal) is pretty damning for the 'expert questioning' idea (another point the Chomsky made).

If they simply disagree with the OR, why would they necessarily publish that disagreement in a peer reviewed journal?

If you want to think that nearly 2000 engineers, architects and demolishon experts are not relevant experts that's fine. I disagree though. How more relevant can you get?

The undisputed facts I posted are not conjecture. Ground zero evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be examined. ATC interviews were destroyed. Bush did refuse to fully cooperate with the commision, as did Cheney. Bush did severely limit the funding and subpoena power of the commision. Hijacked airliner laws were changed to require authorisation from Bush or Cheney for any shoot down order one month prior to the attacks. Laws were changed to stop pilots carrying handguns one month prior to the attacks. The Bin Laden Task Force was stood down two months before the attacks. Many other countries did warn the US about possible impending Al Qaeda attacks using hijacked aircraft. Much of the interior defense against these attacks were running exercises focusing on this type of attack on 9/11. Bush did sit on his hands for way too long when notified of the attacks. Operation Northwoods was a US government plan to fake terrorist attacks against its own citizens for the purpose of justifying war against Cuba. Barry Jennings' lawsuit was thrown out of court by Bush's relative on the grounds it was simply implausible without any evidence being heard. The black boxes from flights 11, 175 and 77 have all not been found. No footage outside the 5 frames showing the impact have been released of flight 77 despite the massive number of cameras operating around the Pentagon. No data from either black box has been released from flight 93 aside from a small snippet from the CVR.

Yes it's conjecture to say this proves conspiracy. I'm not doing that. I'm saying it is sufficient grounds to finally have the type of thorough independent investigation that should have been conducted straight after the attacks. Many people, including the exalted Noam Chomsky, say the government/armed forces reaction was bungled. Why haven't they ever had to face proper scrutiny over their actions?

 

[Rosy]

Who would know if that was done? So much crucial evidene was removed before it could be examined it's not a huge leap to think evidence in this case could have suffered a similar fate.

The conspiracy theories border on paranoia. A lot of faith being seems to be put in unsubstantiated and inaccurate reports and circumstantial evidence on this thread.

It certainly seems unlikely numerous people would all mistake human remains amongst other crash debris.

I'd find it more unlikely that someone amongst those numerous people wouldn't be quoted referring to head or foot or hand or state of dress or whatever rather than just a generic appearing to be human description if the remains were clearly identifiable.