100 Professors Question The 9/11 Commission Report

jessop1

wrote:

Many respected and distinguished university professors have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. A number even allege government complicity in the terrorist acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing public statements on this vital topic of over 100 university professors with links for verification and further investigation."

read more here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

So Glad

Oh-oh. Here we go! Another crazy conspiracy theorist! EVERYONE knows governments work for the best of the average people, and 9/11 was a big unforeseen accident that politicians just HAPPENED to take advantage of (Rudy Guliani) and that anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy and psychotic!

*tut*tut*

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Oh-oh. Here we go! Another crazy conspiracy theorist! EVERYONE knows governments work for the best of the average people, and 9/11 was a big unforeseen accident that politicians just HAPPENED to take advantage of (Rudy Guliani) and that anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy and psychotic!

*tut*tut*

If you say so.

I'm just wondering why anyone is supposed to be impressed by a list which has been padded out to the extreme with people who's qualifications have absolutely no bearing on the issue.

Imagine this scene...

"Doctor...I don't have cancer. You must be mistaken"

"No, I'm sorry sir, there is no doubt. We did the biopsy, the tumor is malignant, all the indicators are positive. You have cancer. Indeed, your case is unusual, so we've published our findings in a peer-reviewed medical journal".

"But look...here's a long list the most of whom are professors of music, philosophy and the like. They say you're wrong. Surely that is worth more than the resounding lack of criticism from your medical peers based on your publication."

Now, before someone gets all indignant, I'm not saying that no-one on that list is without merit. I'm saying the list is without merit because its been padded out with so much fluff.

But hey...what would I know. I'm just a member of the NWO Disinformation Directorate.

jessop1

wrote:

Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus, former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology:

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "In my opinion ... building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

/

bonkey

Allow me to repeat :

I'm not saying that no-one on that list is without merit. I'm saying the list is without merit because its been padded out with so much fluff.

If your aim was to hide one or two notable people within a vast amount of pointless misdirection which diminishes the usefulness of exactly those people, you've succeeded.

ETA: If, on the other hand, the point you're trying to make is not about 100 professors, but rather about some small number (1? 5?) then what's with the other 95?

jessop1

wrote:

Robert M. Korol, BA Sc, MA Sc, PhD, PE, FCSCE – Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University. Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Well known for research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies. Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year."

* Video of Hamilton, Ontario, 9/11 Truth Symposium 3/23/07 Clip 2 Duration 28:47: (See http://www.911podcasts.com/dis...)

[At minute 12:40, regarding the collapse of WTC Towers 1 and 2] "The whole idea of the pancake theory ... that NIST talks about means that you have no resistance on the way down at that particular floor level that was supposedly weakened significantly. And by significantly I mean all around the perimeter, all at the same time. What an amazing thing that all of the bolts would have failed at the same time. All of the welds would have failed at the same time. And the whole thing comes down very nicely.

There isn't even an explanation for how the core of the structure [collapsed]. It contained the elevators and the stairwells. It is an extremely highly structurally resisting part of the structure. So it is a very strong part of the structure. And it ... was virtually ignored [in the NIST report]. They just talk about the trusses that go across from column to column. And all of them fail at the same time. They start coming down. Even if you were to accept that, you've got resistance as the floors come down.

[At minute 26:05] I think Building number 7 is the big, big question mark and I don't know that there is an engineering explanation for that other than controlled demolition."
/

/

jessop1

The list of contributing professors is categorised as follows:

MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ECONOMICS AND FINANCE
MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
HISTORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT
ANTHROPOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK
ARTS AND HUMANITIES
EDUCATION, LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

The list is certainly not "without merit"

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

The list of contributing professors is categorised as follows:

Yes, I know. I've read through it.

The way I look at it is as follows...

Its possible that some people in the first category have relevant qualifications when it comes to commenting on the events of the day and whether or not they stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Its possible that people from the third category have qualificiations relevant to commenting on whether or not the procedure followed in the 911 investigations was somehow contrary to law.

Beyond that...

There are people who could offer tangential insight, such as those in political science, but that's still not much more relevant than them being able to comment on how a diagnosis of cancer is typically handled by poltiicians (referring back to my first post).

Then there's the rest, who's position on this list frankly baffles me. Professors of geography, of anthropology, of philosophy, and so on are as qualified to comment on these issues as they are to offer a second opinion as to whether or not a medical diagnosis of cancer is correct. But they're on the list.

There are only three possible reasons for these people to be on the list :

1) To impress the uncritical reader, who will see "100 professor" and think "well, they must know what they're talking about being professors and all...and look....there's a hundred of them and not just a handful".

2) To diminish the usefulness of those who are qualified, by making the list open to the criticism that I have offered.

3) Because they have relevant qualifications that I'm not seeing.

Given that I'm pretty sure you'll reject the second option out of hand, and that you'd never condone such "dirty tricks" as the first option, that leaves us with option 3.

So perhaps you can explain it to me?

What makes a professor of music, or a professor of religion qualified to comment meaningfully on the day in question that makes their being on this list worthwhile?

Of the 100, how many can you actually identify why they have relevant expertise which makes their being a professor somehow relevant to the point at hand?

PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
ECONOMICS AND FINANCE
MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
HISTORY,
ANTHROPOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK
ARTS AND HUMANITIES
EDUCATION, LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

The list is certainly not "without merit"

I've removed the headings (or parts thereof) that I would accept are potentially relevant to some aspect of whatever it is they are lending their weight to.

As you can see, the list hasn't changed much in size, so its surely still not "without merit".

I can't see the merit, though. I'm not trying to be smart...I genuinely cannot see the relevance of any of these fields.

I'm not trying to set you up here. I'm trying to understand what it is you believe the relevance of these fields is.

jessop1

there are a myriad of backdrops (political, social, geographical, legal, scientific etc) to understand in analysing 911 in its entirety. There are 100 reputable scholars on that list who have analysed a report that has been made available for public consumption and highlighted their strong criticisms at the glaring ommissions and inconsistencies.

In your attempt to discredit these opinions, you can glibly write them off as merely of "tangential insight", I disagree strongly with that and I think anyone reading these forums with an open mind will agree that their opinions should not simply be written off.

I wont be drawn into a dead end agrument with you here, which is your intention.

jessop1

wrote:

James Petras, PhD – Bartle Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, SUNY, New York, and Adjunct Professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Author and co-author of numerous books on society, economic systems, and social justice....

It is now a well known fact that there was no connection between Iraq and Bin Laden/Al Queda, despite forceful efforts by Colin Powell to present the UN with bogus evidence. But what is equally important, the US, the UN, Tony Blair, the Afghan narco-warlords and other US allies have never found a single piece of evidence linking Bin Laden/Al Queda with the terrorist incidents of 9/11. ... The logical conclusion is that Bin Laden/Al Queda had at best a marginal role, if any. What we do know is that several of the terrorists easily obtained multiple entry visas in Saudi Arabia from the US embassy. That at least two of the hijackers were trained at US military bases. That the FBI and CIA had prior notice of a hijacking and let the operatives proceed. That Condaleeza Rice admitted to prior knowledge of a "traditional hijacking" a short time before it occurred. That US airforce planes were not commanded to action until after the hijackers succeeded. ... At the least we can say that those who fabricated stories of weapons of mass destruction, of Iraqis welcoming US invaders, of all powerful international terrorist organizations are at the least capable of fabricating the story of 9/11." http://www.rebelion.org

/

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

there are a myriad of backdrops (political, social, geographical, legal, scientific etc) to understand in analysing 911 in its entirety.

And theology, music, anthropology and so forth are amongst them?

Actually...I'd love to hear how you think geography is an important issue in the events of the day....seeing as you explicitly mention it here and all.

If you read through the comments offered on that very page its clear that the professors are not commenting exclusively within their areas of expertise, but rather signing statements saying the usual things like there is no way the towers could have fallen...stuff which has nothing to do with their expertise.

There are 100 reputable scholars on that list who have analysed a report that has been made available for public consumption and highlighted their strong criticisms at the glaring ommissions and inconsistencies.

Thats not what the actual statements that the various professors have put their name to actually say. Some of them do, yes. Plenty more say things like "WTC7 could not have collapsed", which is not what you're saying and not something that the people in question are qualified to comment on.

In your attempt to discredit these opinions,

I'm not trying to discredit them. I'm asking you to explain why they are credible in the first place. Credibility is earned, and as I said in my last post, I assumed you wouldn't be supporting a dirty-tricks approach of "but they're professors, so they must be credible".

Wasn't it you who posted up that list of dirty tactics which included appeals to false authority?

you can glibly write them off as merely of "tangential insight",

I'm not writing them off. I'm asking you to explain why they are worth listening to.

I disagree strongly with that

And all I'm asknig you to do is to explain why. Is that so unreasonable?

and I think anyone reading these forums with an open mind will agree that their opinions should not simply be written off.

I haven't written them off, jessop1. I've asked why they should be given weight. I'm remaining open to both the possibility that they may be relevant, and to the possibility that they may not be.

You clearly have chosen which of those two possibilities you support, and I am asking you to help me make my choice as you clearly support the option I see as less favourable. I'm asking for an explanation of your point of view in case there's somethign I've overlooked.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you are so unwilling to offer it. I'm utterly at a loss as to why you're attacking me for asking for it in the first place.

I wont be drawn into a dead end agrument with you here, which is your intention.

My intention is to see if you can offer an explanation that I haven't considered, to help me form an opinion.

My further intention is to make sure that anyone who reads this thread and reads the list considers for themselves whether or not the list is worth anything, and why.

I have not once suggested there are no voices of note on it. I have asked questions about it that I think need answering and I think anyone who reasd the list should bear those questions in mind.

I find it ironic, though, that you see asking questions as a bad and pointless thing, and answering them as something worthless. Isn't this exactly the mindset that you've been railing against for who-knows-how-long?

jessop1

bonkey wrote:

I find it ironic, though, that you see asking questions as a bad and pointless thing, and answering them as something worthless....

Bonkey, knowing your modus operandi and obvious agenda - (which are as clear in your postings on this thread as any other - for eg your very disingenous attempt to correlate the valid questions of these professors with a ridiculous example of some crazy musician questioning a cancer dr on a tumour) - it is very obvious to me that discussing this matter with you or certain others here IS indeed pointless and worthless.

I'm not getting into another quote em up showdown with you as that is the usual tactic you use to destroy discussions and wear your opponent down.

My point from my earlier post stands - the criticism of these professors (all of them) of a report that was released for public consumption is valid and worthy of further investigation. For eg - you dont need to be a demolition expert or civil engineer or physicist to see the holes in the "19 inexperienced arabs did it" myth. Of course there are many other aspects of 9/11 that cant be explained by the official story. A great number of them dont have to do with the forensics and physics of the crashes/explosions/building collapes.

Bonkey, your tactics are again very clear. I chose not to waste my time or energy with your deliberate diversion.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

@jessop1: Alternatively, you could just answer the very pertinent and relevant questions bonkey has posed.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

Bonkey, your tactics are again very clear. I chose not to waste my time or energy with your deliberate diversion.

The only tactic I'm guilty of in this thread, jessop1, is setting out to demonstrate you would launch into an attack on my character rather than answer valid questions regarding the information you posted.

Needless to say, thats exactly what you've done.

You post threads about people engaging in dishonest tactics, and then when faced with reasonable questions about stuff you post, you launch into personal attacks and diversionary outrage.

Unlike you, as I've said on a previous thread, I'm not going to assume motive. I don't need to suggest motive. Your actions speak adequately for themselves.

jessop1

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If you dont know the answer to that, I cant help you dave.

The official story of 911 has been shown to be a lie.

The NIST thus far has not provided a detailed report on WTC7 or agreed to participate in a 911 national debate

The truth will out eventually.

jessop1

Hey Bonkey, best of luck to you, but I dont think we should speak anymore.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

Hey Bonkey, best of luck to you, but I dont think we should speak anymore.

I can see why you'd say that given that every time we do, you resort to attacking my character, which undermines your position.

That's alright though. You can stop attacking my character if you like. In fact, I'd appreciate it. I don't particularly enjoy being slandered, but I usually don't see it as being important enough to divert me from the topic at hand.

I'll continue to point out the questions that need to be asked about all the stuff you post, though, because I'm not actually asking them for your or my benefit. Well, I'd benefit if you'd answer them, but you've made it clear that you're not going to. So instead, I'll ask them for the other reason I've always asked them - that being so that anyone reading these threads is made clear that there are questions to be answered.

Hopefully they will see the irony in you refusing to answer questions about your position and take it into consideration.

Hopefully, as you rail about NIST not being willing to engage those asking questions of it, they will see you simultaneously refusing to engage those asking questions of you. And as you try to imply that there is something suspicious about refusing to engage...hopefully they will wonder what exactly are you up to.

Maybe they too will ask you questions.

So please. Ignore me. After all...I'm only asking questions.

jessop1

Dave, I'm not wound up, more exasperated at the tactics used by Bonkey. I dont think theres any point in bonkey and I conversing anymore. I see no reason why we cant just agree not to post on each others threads then everyone will get along better.

I posted the link for info, and to provoke discussion on the matter - (but not from Bonkey and co as theres no point).

The key point I'm making is that theres enough credible criticism to provoke further investigation and a proper national debate. so why havent the NIST agreed to participate in a natioanl debate? why have they still not delivered a report on WTC7?

Whats your own opinion on those two questions Dave?

jessop1

Fair enough bonkey, post your questions, I probably wont be bothered reading them to be honest.

To me, the the way you phrase your "questions", the language, inferences and false analogies you make are blindingly obvious. I'm confident enough that open minded objective readers of these threads will also see this and make their minds up for themselves about your motives and agenda.

And I have made no personal attack against you, like you have disingenously claimed. I am entitled to draw my conclusions about your motives, based on what you post here.

jessop1

jessop1 wrote:

To me,....the false analogies you make are blindingly obvious.

bonkey wrote:

Hopefully, as you rail about NIST not being willing to engage those asking questions of it, they will see you simultaneously refusing to engage those asking questions of you. And as you try to imply that there is something suspicious about refusing to engage...hopefully they will wonder what exactly are you up to.
questions[/i].

predictable.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

To me, the the way you phrase your "questions", the language, inferences and false analogies you make are blindingly obvious.

And yet you can't or won't actually explain why my politeness is a problem. You'll just state that it is.
You'll show an analagy (as you just did) and go "look, this is wrong", without explaining why.
You'll complain about the inferences I draw, claiming them to be invlalid, without explaining why.

I spot a trend here, and its entirely consistent with the fact that what I'm doing is asking for explanations that you don't want to or cannot offer.

I'm confident enough that open minded objective readers of these threads will also see this and make their minds up for themselves about your motives and agenda.

I'm pretty confident they will too.

And I have made no personal attack against you, like you have disingenously claimed. I am entitled to draw my conclusions about your motives, based on what you post here.

Its not personal because you say you're entitled the make the comment?

As with many of your posts, jessop1, thats an interesting and possibly unique interpretation.

jessop1

bonkey wrote:

You'll show an analagy (as you just did) and go "look, this is wrong", without explaining why.

comparing me refusing to be drawn into dead end arguments by you specifically, with the NIST refusing to answer to their peers on the inconsistencies of the report...

comparing the review of a public release report by reputable scholars with that utterly ridiculous cancer doctor scenario...

I'm confident there is no need for me to to explain anything further as to how utterly false your analogies are. Its plain for anyone to see.

As for your language, inferences, tone and use of debunker tactics, your modus operandi has been noticed by me and others on this and other threads here... as I said, I wont be drawn into dead end arguments to discuss the blatantly obvious.

jessop1

wrote:

Richard W. Behan, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Natural Resource Policy and Dean Emeritus of the School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University 1975 - 1993. Former Professor of Natural Resource Policy, University of Montana. Former Member of the Board of Directors of the Forest History Society, American Forestry Association, and Council of Forestry School Executives. Author of nearly 100 articles and papers on public land management, economics, and politics. Author of Plundered Promise (2001) and Ecology, Economics, Environment (1971).

* Essay 12/3/06: "The controversies rage on yet today about the events of 9/11. No steel building has ever collapsed from fire alone. Buildings falling precisely into their footprints are the marks of deliberate (and expert) demolition. The collapse of a third building that was not hit at all. The short-selling of airline stock in previous days. The Pentagon hit by a missile, not a civilian airliner.

The smokescreen includes the coverup of the 9/11 attacks on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Initially and fiercely resisting any inquiry at all, President Bush finally appoints a 10-person "9/11 Commission." Its report places the blame on "faulty intelligence." President Bush and Vice President Cheney ... are not required to testify under oath, and they need not even testify separately. At the insistence of the White House, they are "interviewed" together in the Oval Office, with no transcription permitted.

We need to know the truth and all the truth. The time has come, as well as the opportunity, for formal, Congressional investigations, based on subpoenas, sworn testimony, and direct evidence about 9/11 and about the created reality of the "war on terror." If such inquiries clearly exonerate the Bush Administration, the nation can breathe deeply and go on. If they do not, then but only then should impeachment be undertaken."

/

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Dave, I'm not wound up, more exasperated at the tactics used by Bonkey. I dont think theres any point in bonkey and I conversing anymore. I see no reason why we cant just agree not to post on each others threads then everyone will get along better.

I'm frankly boggled that you claim that someone arguing with you in a reasonable polite way is someone who you refuse to deal with, because they are being reasonable and polite.

The key point I'm making is that theres enough credible criticism to provoke further investigation and a proper national debate. so why havent the NIST agreed to participate in a natioanl debate? why have they still not delivered a report on WTC7?

Whats your own opinion on those two questions Dave?

As already said to you previously Jessop1, who in the NIST would you like to see debate this issue? And furthermore, those "challenging" the NIST to a debate, have yet to demonstrate, how, and to whom in the NIST this challenge was delivered to. As to the report. There is a preliminary report available, and a more detailed report coming. It has been delayed, why I don't know, but until you offer some evidence of a conspiracy theory, why should I not expect this to be an acceptable piece of bureacratic shuffling?

No building has ever collapsed from fire alone

Thats just flat out, wrong, and has been discussed to death here before.

Buildings falling precisely into their footprints are the marks of deliberate (and expert) demolition.

Why should I take the word of a professor of forestry, as gospel when he's talking about controlled demolition? Does his field of expertise include this.

jessop1

hello diogenes i was wondering when you would show up.

everything I said to bonkey - ditto to you.

you two chaps are two sides of the same coin.

Kernunos

ummm, i am actually a bit loath to post on this cuz of the obvious hostility going on. Can honestly say i have not looked at the Conspiracy Theory boards before so i dont know the history between the posters but i have to agree with Bonkers on his point, what authority does a professor of music, anthropology or theology have to say on the subject. They are perfectly entitled to their opinion but their area of expertise, the thing that makes them stand out as 'educated intelligent academics' lies in fields that have nothing to do the 9/11 attacks. Surely someone who has researched this event and read all the available literature and theories, as i presume that Jessop has done, would be more informed and a better source than these professors. The crux of what i am saying is that just because someone has an advanced degree does not make them a relevent commentator on something, unless their degree is in that particular field.

Like i said i dont know the history going on here but as a first time viewer Bonkers seems to be the one asking simple questions the answers to which i would be interested in hearing. Consider me a clean slate who has not made up my mind with regards the 9/11 attacks, but after reading this thread i have not seen anything that would make me believe it was a conspiracy.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

comparing me refusing to be drawn into dead end arguments by you specifically, with the NIST refusing to answer to their peers on the inconsistencies of the report...

Given that the people asking the questions ignore or refuse to accept any answer they don't like, I think its clear that its absolutely comparable.

Furthermore, you can insist its "their peers" all you like, but I've asked you to explain how a professor of anthropology or music is a peer of civil engineering experts when it comes to modelling building collapse and there's no sign of an answer.

comparing the review of a public release report by reputable scholars with that utterly ridiculous cancer doctor scenario...

You're alleging that the likes of a professor of music is a peer of civil engineering experts, entitled to suggest they are as qualified as the experts concerning the finer details of building mechanics.

I alleged that the likes of a professor of music is a peer to a doctor, specialised in cancer, entitling them to suggest they are as qualified concerning the finer details of cancer diagnosis.

You say one is a ridiculous scenario and in no way comparable with the other. Maybe you can explain why building mechanics is far simpler than cancer diagnosis, then?

I'm confident there is no need for me to to explain anything further as to how utterly false your analogies are. Its plain for anyone to see.

Or put differently "I don't have to explain it. Peopel don't need an explanation".

So far, I have only seen other posters here agreeing that it does need explanation. I woudl suggest your confidence is misplaced.

As for your language, inferences, tone and use of debunker tactics, your modus operandi has been noticed by me and others on this and other threads here...

I would urge anyone who's reading this thread to read the article in the thread you've linked to.

I'd urge them to focus on the bits which deal with tactic such as attacking the person rather than the point their making and ask themselves one question...

who's attacking whom here?

I'm asking questions. I'm willing to lsiten to answers. What I'm getting is tirades about my motivation and so forth.

Who's really using those tactics?

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

Why should I take the word of a professor of forestry, as gospel when he's talking about controlled demolition? Does his field of expertise include this.

Given that none of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 did fall cleanly into their own footprint*, I'd rather accept him at his word, show him to be wrong, and then have him or his supporters explain how "cleanly into its own footprint" really meant "not too far outside its footprint".

Of course, once you allow such sloppy definitions, it becomes trivial to show buildings which collapsed from fire which fell within a reasonable area around their footprint too.

Funnily...given that gravity is the major force at work, straight down is more-or-less where you'd expect the bulk of the stuff to go. It would take explosives, an earthquake or a very unusual collapse to produce anything else.

jc

* No, I'm not forgetting WTC7. It didn't. Look at the pictures again. Check where streets are. Do this with pictures which were taken before the cleanup cleared the streets for access. Look at the damage caused to neighbouring buildings by the collapse. Then ask yourself what "cleanly" and "footprint" mean, if they allow for large amounts of rubble to spill into the neighbouring area, and damage surrounding buildings.

So Glad

Well.....I'm just really surprised at how Bonkey, Jessop1 and Diogenes are still actually posting about this thing. Fair play. I wouldn't have the patience. I'm still 50/50 on this thing. As most things in my life, I can neither agree with conspiracy theories, nor disagree. Isn't it strange that a mind can deduct to itself the pros and cons of both sides and come up with nothing? I don't believe in schooling, yet I do. I don't believe in governments, yet I do. I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies, yet I do. It's so frustrating. Makes me think that yes, one can debunk just about anything.

If you try to hard to debunk something, chances are there's a bit of truth to it. And if you try too hard to prove a conspiracy, most likely there's none at all.

Y'see? The whole 50/50 thing again. So frustrating....

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

If you try to hard to debunk something, chances are there's a bit of truth to it.

So true.

For example, we know that government groups rarely come out with absolute findings, but rather engage in a balance of finding out what happened without laying culpability for ineptitude unless there is no choice.

What the 911 Comission did not want to admit, unquestionably, was that airport and airway security within the US was largely an exercise in what Schneier terms "security theatre". Its mostly there to give the impression of security.

When asked to find what went wrong, there wasn't a chance in hell that the comission was going to come out and find that security was a joke and that serious and proper security needed to be put in place.

They were never going to turn around and say "well, our security coverage of our own airspace is effectively non-existent, because its just too damned expensive".

As time has gone on, the massive lack of co-operation between US Intelligence agencies became indusputably evident, but again, rather than seriously try to fix the problem, a politically expedient solution was found.

As a result of 911, airport security was ramped up....except most (if not all) of it is more security theatre. Point out that the ports are effectively unsecured, or that trains and train-stations would make great targets, or that the massive increase in person-density at the security checkpoints in airports would make great targets and what do you get? The public will tell you that the threat is the skies. Planes are now symbolic. You can't knock buildings down with trains. That is the lie that the government has sold. The lie that there wasn't something wrong with security, and that today we're even more secure, because we've got all this theatre making us feel even safer when we fly and because Americans have sacrificed so many personal freedoms.

The terrorists scored a major victory because they identified and exploited a serious weakness. Rather than admit that weakness, the usual political game of no-blame, no-fix, capitalise-on-it took hold and because people want to feel safer and because people don't look at things critically they have accepted too much.

Its disgraceful. No question. But is there malice on the part of the government? I would argue that there is no evidence. Its easy to see the lack of regard the government has for its citizens as malice, but the reality is that its no different to the lack of regard they demonstrate day-in-day-out. The only difference is that the event in question was so much more extreme than their usual, daily, "background noise" level of disregard. Its not malice. They just don't care.

If there is a crime to be laid at the feet of the government, its not that they Made It Happen On Purpose. Its almost as certain that they did not Let It Happen On Purpose. However, its hard to argue that they did not Let It Happen Because They Don't Really Care. Its also easy to argue that They Aren't Trying To Stop It Happening Again Because Its Easier To Capitalise Instead.

And the evidence of this? The fact that they've not really taken any steps to make sure "it" doesn't happen again. "It", in this case, is not necessarily the hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but rather the exploitation of a vast weakness in security.

Post-911, the US government did not take steps to make the US people as safe as they could. They took steps to capitalise as much as they could.

That is the partial truth behind these conspiracy theories.

The other sad truth is that this partial truth will never be taken seriously, because some people have chosen to capitalise on the willingness of a small minority to believe "movie-plot explanations", grabbing money and fame, and pretty much ensuring as a result that no allegation against the government will ever be taken seriously because it will be indelibly associated with every other theory out there, right up to the beam-weapons-from-space.

If I wanted to find a conspiracy that could be perpetrated by a small number of people, that would be it right there. The small core of agitators at the heart of the so-called "Truth Movement" - the Naudet brothers, Avery, Jones, Fetzer and so forth....they have singlehandedly made as sure as can be that no argument of non-malicious culpability will ever be taken seriously.

If I was a high-ranking government official who wanted to hide something damning-but-not-malicious, that would be a very tempting way of doing it. Pay off about a dozen people to put together some absolutely outlandish, unsupportable theories, safe in the knowledge that memetics, viral marketing, the willingness of some to believe in Conspiracies and so forth would do the rest of the work and ensure that if there ever was something found, it would blend into the background noise from my "co-conspirator conspiracies" and never be given any serious attention.

But hey...what would I know.

jessop1

Kernunos wrote:

ummm, i am actually a bit loath to post on this cuz of the obvious hostility going on. Can honestly say i have not looked at the Conspiracy Theory boards before so i dont know the history between the posters but i have to agree with Bonkers on his point, what authority does a professor of music, anthropology or theology have to say on the subject. They are perfectly entitled to their opinion but their area of expertise, the thing that makes them stand out as 'educated intelligent academics' lies in fields that have nothing to do the 9/11 attacks. Surely someone who has researched this event and read all the available literature and theories, as i presume that Jessop has done, would be more informed and a better source than these professors. The crux of what i am saying is that just because someone has an advanced degree does not make them a relevent commentator on something, unless their degree is in that particular field.

Like i said i dont know the history going on here but as a first time viewer Bonkers seems to be the one asking simple questions the answers to which i would be interested in hearing. Consider me a clean slate who has not made up my mind with regards the 9/11 attacks, but after reading this thread i have not seen anything that would make me believe it was a conspiracy.

Kernudos most people are loathe to post on any thread because of the hostility you mention. Have a look at some of the other threads and you will see how they have cowed or exasperated most into not posting at all.

Stange isnt it though, that the 2 most ardent critics of all conspiracies posted here, who both use very similar tactics (quote em up, wear em down, leading discussion to a dead end) are by far and away the most frequent posters here, with the most lengthy posts.

For time and effort spent on this forum, they outstrip everyone else here by a massive margin. And you wont see them ever post new threads to openly discuss conspiracies. All they do is lie in wait to pounce on those who do. Does none of that strike you as strange? Is it possible these guys have an agenda?

My point with this thread is that there is credence to the argument that there should be new 911 inquiries and a national debate. There are big questions hanging over the inconsistencies and ommissions from the 911 commission report and why there still has not be a full report on WTC7 or agreement to a national debate.

These guys will try to brush this aside as merely administrative and of no relevance. 6 years after something so profound as 911, do you believe that the reason we have seen no detailed NIST report on what many believe to be the real smoking gun of 911 (ie WTC7) the reason for this delay is merely administrative?? Nothing strange about the NIST refusing to engage in debate with their peers over the inconsistencies in their report?

If you are totally new to 911, then I suggest reading the article I posted, read the conspiracy links on this forum and do some googling. You will find resources for both sides of the argument. You can make your own mind up from there.

Best of luck

jessop1

bonkey wrote:

If I was a high-ranking government official who wanted to hide something damning-but-not-malicious, that would be a very tempting way of doing it. Pay off about a dozen people to put together some absolutely outlandish, unsupportable theories, safe in the knowledge that memetics, viral marketing, the willingness of some to believe in Conspiracies and so forth would do the rest of the work and ensure that if there ever was something found, it would blend into the background noise from my "co-conspirator conspiracies" and never be given any serious attention.

I'd advise folks not to fall for this....although it is a tactic that has been very frequently used to muddy the waters around consiracies (including 911in a big way), the inconsistencies and obvious lies of the official story of 911 stretch to far, far beyond non malicious culpability.

In fact, bonkey is both describing and implementing this tactic simultaneously.

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

The small core of agitators at the heart of the so-called "Truth Movement" - the Naudet brothers...

Point of order, chairman - the Naudet brothers (accidentally, in a sense) made a superb documentary telling the story of the day from the firefighters' perspective, including footage from inside one of the towers while the other was collapsing. They don't belong in a list of "truthers".

bonkey

I stand (sit) corrected.

I was actually thinking of Thierry Meyssan.

Having said that, I'd quite happily allow for reputable sources to be part of my "coverup-by-conspiracy". Adds to its flavour, dontchya think. They do "honest" work, which then gets picked up by others in my team and turned to its real intention...

So Glad

Nice big long post there Bonkey, and one I can 100% percent agree on.

Conspiracies aside, why not just look at what we have, and know for once! Ok, fair enough, I believe that HIJACKERS engineered 9/11, not missiles or nazi UFOs. I, to SOME extent, believe that the warnings were ignored. I don't think politicians would openly show they let it or wanted it to happen, we can't dive into people brains yet, but what is the TRUE crime off 9/11 (which could be why people are looking back and hoping to tie political involvement with it) is the GROSS CAPITALIZATION by American presidential candidates and people in the White House. Would you agree Bonkey?

I mean, look at Rudy Guliani, that man is outrageously propagandizing on peoples FEAR, constantly using the key words "9/11", "September 11th" and other phrases to use people's fear to vote for him, when people simply won't look at why there is a terrorist "threat" towards America. Wasn't the reason the "terrorists" (I strongly reject that word as it's meaning is vague. It portrays a villainous person with intent to kill and hate, for no reason, when this is simply not the case) attacked America was because of the American occupation of Saudi Arabia, and it's constant grip of the middle east? Why start more wars and take more basic human rights to fix this "problem" if this is exactly what caused it?

Gross capitalization is the real "conspiracy theory", and it's true.

jessop1

So Glad wrote:

Gross capitalization is the real "conspiracy theory", and it's true.

If you can accept that so glad, you have to ask yourself how far unscrupulous politicians and the forces behind them, will go to achieve that agenda.

So Glad

jessop1 wrote:

If you can accept that so glad, you have to ask yourself how far unscrupulous politicians and the forces behind them, will go to achieve that agenda.

By the way, I'm am fully aware of the leviathans in power, their bloodlines and greedy motives. But I am just speaking on the level of what people will accept, if you know what I mean...

jessop1

I understand where you are coming from re what people accept, but the truth is the truth no matter how far removed it may be from what people believe or accept it to be.

Again, it comes back to how far you think these bloodlines will go to achieve their agenda. They have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and the middle east do you think 3000+ on 911 means anything to them?

So Glad

I wouldn't say so, considering that George and his buddies have sent tens of times that number that died on 9/11 to their deaths in Iraq without and inkle on remorse. But hey "That's the way the world is, nothing you can do to change that!" Woooohhooooo! I love that line!

jessop1

I'm a bit confused though as to what your view is about 911 so glad. What you understand about the distribuition of wealth, power and control in this world, knowing the bloodlines and their very nefariously agenda and methods... that doesnt square with you agreeing 100% with Bonkeys earlier post (which I 100% disagree with needless to say. I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of that with you btw).

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Again, it comes back to how far you think these bloodlines will go to achieve their agenda. They have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and the middle east do you think 3000+ on 911 means anything to them?

Thats a disengenious description of the war in Iraq. Did the original invasion lead to civilian casualties? Yes. But then so did the invasions of Italy and France by the allies in WW2, it's a regretable necessity when trying to overthrow a tyrannt. Did the US/UK forces kill Iraqs while suppressing the Uprising, yes. But the biggest cause of civilian death in Iraq, is the insurgency. An insurgency that was predicted by many people, but in an act of hubris, the US administration refused to believe this.

Suggesting that the Americans wanted this current situation in Iraq is absurd. As is suggesting that they murdered everyone in Iraq intentially.

And jessop1 before you start, on a cold March afternoon in 2003, I walked alongside a 100,000 people through the streets of dublin voicing my objection to the war.

So Glad wrote:

but what is the TRUE crime off 9/11 (which could be why people are looking back and hoping to tie political involvement with it) is the GROSS CAPITALIZATION by American presidential candidates and people in the White House

Not just the whitehouse, it was Jo Moore, a labour spin doctor, who said on Sept 11th that "it was a good day to bury bad news". You cannot equate peoples actions after an event as proof positive that they were involved before the event.

jessop1

1 - suggesting that the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents was a necessary evil in order to overthrow saddam is not only disingenuous but disgusting and evil. I'm sure those hundreds of thousands of dead would agree that they'd be better off alive under saddam than murdered by the 'coalition'. Mass murder of innocents is wrong now and it was wrong during ww2 as well.

2 - I never suggested it was the "Americans" who wanted the situation. I said it was the "leviathans in power" (as so glad puts it) who want this situation. These people care as little about british and american people as they do about iraqis and anyone else in the middle east.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

So Glad

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'd hate to be all preachy, but to be honest, how could anyone say what people want/wouldn't want? Politicians (naturally) would have to be good actors. It's not as if they would put all their thoughts and emotions up for display, honestly, to the public....does anyone? All those public speeches....they'd have to have the ability to rouse people's emotions. You could take things from your perspective and just see a war and a country who started it just in a big accidental rigmarole......I'm trying to think a reason.........wmds/saddam/freedom/finishing the job (whatever new reason) and not think there's anything more to it than that, as if war was just what happens. Or you could look behind the scenes and see more sinister motives that aren't shown in the evening time on Sky News. Why would they show it? It's a threat to the government as it stands.

All secret societies, politically owed war business, bloodlines and NWO ASIDE. If all you want to hear is a reason you can associate to the version of the war you're accustomed to, the main and obvious reason for the war in Iraq is political strings in Iraq, oil and a stronghold smack bang in the middle east to warm up for bullying Iran (which is in the runnings, more people to set free I suppose!).

Maybe I'm wrong....maybe the White House is genuinely interested in human rights & freedom in Iraq - BWAHAHAHAHA - I'm sorry I don't know what I'm talking about!

Awww, that was good! I crack myself up..

So Glad

jessop1 wrote:

I'm a bit confused though as to what your view is about 911 so glad.

Me too.....me too. I don't know......I could run myself through all the bits of evidence for conspiracy & non-conspiracy and come up with nothing. It's a thing that's happening to me lately, I find myself unable to take sides anymore. With anything! I suppose I'm sick of polarity in society. I'm sick of thinking/saying I'm right, you're wrong.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

1 - suggesting that the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents was a necessary evil in order to overthrow saddam is not only disingenuous but disgusting and evil. I'm sure those hundreds of thousands of dead would agree that they'd be better off alive under saddam than murdered by the 'coalition'. Mass murder of innocents is wrong now and it was wrong during ww2 as well.

So we should have left Hitler in power to continue the slaughter and murder? We should have left Saddam's brutal tyrant in place. I recently worked with newly discovered footage of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the 80s released as part of the trial of one of his generals, it had to be heavily edited because most of the footage was too distressing to be broadcast. You posted links to multilated babies on another thread, do you think it was acceptable to leave a man in power capable and willing to kill innocents?

2 - I never suggested it was the "Americans" who wanted the situation. I said it was the "leviathans in power" (as so glad puts it) who want this situation. These people care as little about british and american people as they do about iraqis and anyone else in the middle east.

Don't suppose you want to name names about these "leviathans"?

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

Don't suppose you want to name names about these "leviathans"?

There's no need to play dumb here. Do you know the people who started/supported the war?

There's your answer.

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

So we should have left Hitler in power to continue the slaughter and murder? We should have left Saddam's brutal tyrant in place. I recently worked with newly discovered footage of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the 80s released as part of the trial of one of his generals, it had to be heavily edited because most of the footage was too distressing to be broadcast. You posted links to multilated babies on another thread, do you think it was acceptable to leave a man in power capable and willing to kill innocents?

Look, you're basically right. Saddam WAS a tyrant all the same, but why bother putting words in jessop1's mouth? He did not say leave Hitler in power, or leave Saddam where he was. All we are saying, is that ANY form of war is wrong and oximoronic and that politicians don't care who is killed, really. How can WAR bring PEACE?

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

There's no need to play dumb here. Do you know the people who started/supported the war?

There's your answer.

No sorry you refer quixotically to "bloodlines" and "levithans" constantly. I'm asking him to name the names of the people he thinks are in charge and responsible.

Look, you're basically right. Saddam WAS a tyrant all the same, but why bother putting words in jessop1's mouth? He did not say leave Hitler in power, or leave Saddam where he was. All we are saying, is that ANY form of war is wrong and oximoronic and that politicians don't care who is killed, really. How can WAR bring PEACE?

I'm not putting words into his mouth, I'm extrapolating his position. He starts by putting the entire death toil in Iraq squarely on the US. Which isn't fair, or accurate. He then claims that no innocents should ever be killed, a noble aim, but simple folly. For example, no innocents would have been killed if Saddam took the US offer to quit Iraq, before the war. Furthermore, while "War cannot bring peace" how do you negotiate with fundamentalists? Would peace campaigns have stopped the Rwandan or Sudanese genocides?