Concerning the WTC attacks

davros

Turley wrote:

I would add to my previous post that GPS guidance systems are now commonplace in automobiles. One would think this technology would be on passenger jets and GPS could have guided the planes to their targets.

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

There was discussion after 9/11 that perhaps there should be a mechanism for controlling planes from the ground in the event of a hijacking, locking out the pilot completely. Implying, of course, that such a system does not currently exist.

My own take on believing what is "generally accepted" is that this is usually a good strategy. We don't have time to evaluate everything for ourselves. As a skeptic, I'm willing to alter my belief on the presentation of compelling evidence but my default position is not to dismiss absolutely every claim as unproven and unreliable.

So for 9/11, I believe the consensus view. If someone wants me to believe otherwise, let them set out the evidence for a competing theory. It's not enough to pick small holes in the current story.

I happened to be in Iran on 9/11. The local (government controlled) newspapers were anxious to absolve Muslims of guilt in the attack. I have a copy of the Tehran Times somewhere here from the days after 9/11 which explains why Osama Bin Laden could not possibly have directed events on that day and how far more likely suspects were American blacks or Native Americans in revenge for past injustices. Such theories don't continue to fly, however, as evidence accumulates. If we opened the book again on the Sioux Nation as culprits, I'm pretty sure we would have to dismiss the theory all over again for lack of evidence.

If it looks like a duck, etc. We don't gain much by asking ourselves every fortnight "Is it still a duck?" At this point, it will take a duck expert with thorough research to get us to reconsider. In the fields of alternative medicine and the paranormal, the ISS tries to be the duck expert.

I feel my metaphor is getting a bit ridiculous now so I'll finish :-)

KCF

davros wrote:

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

Development in airline navigation is moving towards embedding much of the intelligence in the individual planes. Ground-based air traffic control will feed high level information about routes and targets to the planes, but modern planes are already being kitted out with sophisticated autonomic management capabilities such as collision avoidance, ground detection and so on. European Airbuses already use much of these capabilities as standard. Of course, this isn't going to be too useful to terrorism by remote control.

The only planes that I know of that can be flown by remote control at the moment are spy drones and this is only possible as they don't have to carry out any complex maneouvres - just fly at a steady height over a particular coordinate. With Current technology it is essentially impossible to carry out something like 9-11 (high precision targetting with commercial airplanes) by remote control.

Turley

davros wrote:

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

If you seach "global hawk" on google can see that the technology has been around for some time.

davros wrote:

There was discussion after 9/11 that perhaps there should be a mechanism for controlling planes from the ground in the event of a hijacking, locking out the pilot completely. Implying, of course, that such a system does not currently exist.

Could it be possibe that this implication was incorrect?

davros wrote:

My own take on believing what is "generally accepted" is that this is usually a good strategy. We don't have time to evaluate everything for ourselves.

I agree with you that we do not have time to evaluate everything. But the murder of 3000 people, in such a horrific manner, deserves more scrutiny than the a concensus view that the first impression was correct, especially when no investigation was done and no proof presented.

davors wrote:

So for 9/11, I believe the consensus view.

Most people believe whatever is "generally accepted" and popular because it is, well, "generally accepted" and popular.

davros wrote:

I happened to be in Iran on 9/11. The local (government controlled) newspapers...

Government controlled newspapers? Really? Did it say "government controlled" in the paper or can you know this just by looking at them? I am curious. Is there proof of government control or is this the "generally accepted" and popular opinion?

davros wrote:

If it looks like a duck, etc. We don't gain much by asking ourselves every fortnight "Is it still a duck?"

Call them "19 ducks" or "19 terrorist hijackers" what is the best evidence that convinced you Hani Hanjour was at the controls of a plane flying into the Pentagon? Were you convinced because it is "generally accepted" and the popular view that he did it?

If so, how something becomes "generally accepted" is a good question?

robindch

> the FBI first said they "believed". They always do!
> How can a skeptic not know this?

FFS, will you PLEASE take a quiet moment to read what I write, instead of quoting back to me what I wrote, as though I had never written it?

> Don't you know how the U.S. Dept. of Justice and FBI do
> investitgations? They know what result they want BEFORE
> they begin an investigation

> [...] no investigation was done and no proof presented.

IMHO, this discussion is now firmly in the area of wild + random + unsubstantiated allegations and I don't think it's likely to go anywhere useful.

If anybody feels like returning to the thread topic I'll be back. In the meantime, do have a good weekend folks

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

IMHO, this discussion is now firmly in the area of wild + random + unsubstantiated allegations and I don't think it's likely to go anywhere useful.

When you lack an effective, fact-based argument, other techniques must be employed, for example characterize your opponent of "wild + random + unsubtanstiated allegations." Then make a hasty retreat from the discussion.

My allegation that FBI and U.S. Department of Justice officials know the results of investigations before they begin is not "wild." It is supported by fact. The transcript of a taped telephone conversation of assistant U.S. attorney and deputy independent counsel Miquel Rodriguez is available online. He is currently an asst. U.S. attorney in Sacramento, California and people can ring him up verify the facts. Here is Rodriguez in his own words:

It's ah, the result is being dictated by a lot higher, um, authority than I think people really understand or appreciate and certainly more than I ever appreciated. What with this whole notion ah, you know, of, of doing an honest investigation, um, you know, you know, it's, it's laughable.

I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go. And then there's all so much fluff, and a look-good job, it's just, this is all, all so much nonsense and I knew the result before the investigation began.

That's why I left. I don't do investigations like that – do investigations to justify results. There's a – again, I don't think they can go back to the fact that, and it's just a fact for me because it was told to me, the result here has already been determined. It was determined long ago. Fiske himself indicated that he had determined the result before he had ever released a report. And that's the way all the investigations have resulted – its end oriented. Again, you know, I left for a very good reason. The results, you know, were dictated and I don't do that kind of work.

(break)

There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It’s very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme.

This is central to the fact that what is "generally accepted" and poularly true is not always based on investigative evidence, especially if the source of what is "generally accepted" is the FBI. Robin introduced the FBI as a source of the "19 hijackers" conspiracy theory.

I doubt that anyone cares but in case anyone is wondering why Miquel Rodriguez did not go to the press and expose criminal activity in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, he did.

I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and this – this matter is so sealed tight um, and, the reporters are all genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, – reporters are genuinely interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they've got a story and they're ready to go, the editors – and they – I've gotten calls back, I've gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what the hell's wrong, why can't, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn't think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.
They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again, I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with Labaton, or six hours with Labaton, and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there's a lot more, um, ah – I know, I know the New York Times has it – knows, and just won't ah, ah, I know that they won't do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me back. Reporters that I've spent a lot of time with called me back and said the editors won't allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had, ah, a certain take on all of this. And there's been story lines from the get-go.

Turley

I do not have a theory on what happened on 9/11 (other than the pubic was bamboozled). But I do have a theory on how something like the "19 terrorist hijackers" and other ideas become "generally accepted."

Things become "generally accepted" in the same way that the invention of the bathtub became "generally accepted." If anyone googles "invention of the bathtub" or just go to this link
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4422
they will learn my theory of how something becomes "generally accepted." (Robin should like this one)
-Turley

Obni

Turley,

My choice of title for the thread that spawned this thread was facetious, but was intended as a light-hearted title. The objective was to start a discussion about the development of ISS, not as a serious attempt to supplant Britney Spears in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Obni

Generally Accepted (GA).
Something is GA if the information provided by regular news sources or authorities is accepted by people not directly concerned with the issue or event.

GA: On Sept 11 four commercial flights were hijacked. One crashed into each of the two WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed en route to a target.
Nothing in your posts to date suggest you would disagree with this GA view of the events of Sept 11.

GA: The attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists of middle-eastern origin, some of whom had basic flying skills.
This is where you would oppose the GA view of the events of Sept 11.

There is a huge reservoir of resentment against the US across the globe, as a result of US foreign policy. An attack on the US by a group of middle-eastern anti-US terrorists is credible.

Did the FBI and the media rush to supply an increasingly demanding public/electorate with answers? Probably.
I'm sure the crippling economic implications of Us citizens refusing to return to work prompted the government to supply whatever answers they had as quickly as possible, seeking to give the appearance of an open-and-shut case.

Who the hijackers were, and who was behind them in terms of influence and finance has never been established as an undisputable fact.
The immediate 'hijacking' of the response to Sept 11th by the Bush administration to further its own agenda has only served to muddy the waters.

Were those answers clearly chosen to justify the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Hardly, with a majority of the people identified as hijackers being of Saudi origin. The last people the Bush administration would want to implicate are their friends in S.A.. Why not 50% from Iraq and 50% from Afghanistan (or 33% from each plus 33% from Iran)? Why fake evidence in a patchy manner when a full video of the terrorists talking about their intentions would have been simple to create and would have saturated the media coverage for weeks? If the CIA/Mossad planned an attack to influence world events why not something foolproof - a bomb at the superbowl - why risk a remote controlled drone/airliner crashing just off Manhattan Island and being recovered largely intact with 'Property of the CIA' or 'Made in Tel Aviv' stamped all over it.

Turley

Obni wrote:

My choice of itle for the thread that spawned this thread was facetious, but was intended as a light-hearted title. The objective was to start a discussion about the development of ISS, not as a serious attempt to supplant Britney Spears in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Obni-
I understand. I knew you did not intend to supplant Britney. In discussing the development of the ISS it may be useful to take a critical view of ourselves and of what we do.

Are there limits to our critical thinking and skepticism?

Skepticism and critical thinking are tolerated as long as they are directed at those things that are "generally accepted" popular targets for evreyone to doubt like, the paranormal, psychics, religion, and alternative medicine. By not accepting these beliefs we think like the bulk of our neighbors.

It is modern heresy to question, authoritatively affirmed, secular dogmas, asserted apriori, without proof. The name "skeptics" attracted me to this group because I imagined some individuals here might apply critical thinking to popular secular dogmas. But instead skepticsim of "generally accepted" pubilc opinion is not tolerated. Such skepticism is rebuked, and discussion is closed.

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

Turley

Obni wrote:

Generally Accepted (GA).
Something is GA if the information provided by regular news sources or authorities is accepted by people not directly concerned with the issue or event.

I agree completely.

But given the fact that "regular news sources" and "authorities" have provided false information in the past shouldn't there be skepticism?

Obni wrote:

GA: On Sept 11 four commercial flights were hijacked. One crashed into each of the two WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed en route to a target.
Nothing in your posts to date suggest you would disagree with this GA view of the events of Sept 11.

I agree.

Obni wrote:

GA: The attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists of middle-eastern origin, some of whom had basic flying skills.
This is where you would oppose the GA view of the events of Sept 11.

Yes. I am skeptical.

Obni wrote:

There is a huge reservoir of resentment against the US across the globe, as a result of US foreign policy. An attack on the US by a group of middle-eastern anti-US terrorists is credible.

A lot of things are credible and possible so why is only one explanation "generally acceptable?"

Obni wrote:

Did the FBI and the media rush to supply an increasingly demanding public/electorate with answers? Probably.
I'm sure the crippling economic implications of Us citizens refusing to return to work prompted the government to supply whatever answers they had as quickly as possible, seeking to give the appearance of an open-and-shut case.

What about the truth? Isn't it important to know what happened and who is responsible for mass murder?

Obni wrote:

Who the hijackers were, and who was behind them in terms of influence and finance has never been established as an undisputable fact.

If we do know know who hijacked the planes either by remote control or onboard we do not know the truth about what happened. How can we allow 3000 people to be murdered and blame 19 people that may be innocent? Where is our skepticism?

Obni wrote:

The immediate 'hijacking' of the response to Sept 11th by the Bush administration to further its own agenda has only served to muddy the waters.

Why is their no suspicion of those who have used the event to their benefit?

Obni wrote:

If the CIA/Mossad planned an attack to influence world events why not something foolproof -

If you control what is "generally accepted" you already have something foolproof. Have you ever seen Thomas Wintour's signed confession for the Gunpowder Plot, signed Thomas W-i-n-t-e-r. If you are going to forge a signature why not spell it correctly? If you are going to write James Forrestal's "suicide note" why not attempt to forge handwritting to look like Forrestal's? The answer is you don't have to.

It is already foolproof when even the ISS is not skeptical.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Skepticism and critical thinking are tolerated as long as they are directed at those things that are "generally accepted" popular targets for evreyone to doubt like, the paranormal, psychics, religion, and alternative medicine. By not accepting these beliefs we think like the bulk of our neighbors.

It is modern heresy to question, authoritatively affirmed, secular dogmas, asserted apriori, without proof. The name "skeptics" attracted me to this group because I imagined some individuals here might apply critical thinking to popular secular dogmas. But instead skepticsim of "generally accepted" pubilc opinion is not tolerated. Such skepticism is rebuked, and discussion is closed.

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

I feel that you are inaccurately and unfairly denigrating ISS here. Far from being 'not tolerated', this bulletin board is completely dominated by discussion of what you refer to as 'popular secular dogmas'. Indeed people here have spent a considerable amount of time and mental energy applying critical thinking to the various issues that you have raised, evidenced by the large volume of posts addressing 9-11 and the holocaust.

I think that you would be advised to consider the possibility that others have applied critical thinking to these issues, but arrived at different conclusions to yourself. It is not a very endearing trait to equate critical thinking with your own opinions.

Myksyk

Turley, I submit to you that 'generally accepted' within science means that there has been the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in favour of a particular idea or theory. Such a theory does not constitute 'public opinion' or 'popular secular dogma' with the implicit assertion that such theories are merely the mystical musings of modern-day equivalents of Aristotelian schools. Furthermore, the theory so accepted is not 'absolute' but should and will only be supplanted or modified in accordance with new evidence, not opinion (skeptical or otherwise).

It seems to me to be a reasonable and practical thing to have trust (well-earned) in the scientific framework and the social and intellectual structure which constitutes the scientific community (warts and all). It has proved itself time and again to be able to bend with the evidence, to be self-correcting and to attempt to control for its own biases; more than any other social institution. Perhaps it achieves this because there is no one person at the helm, no directing dogmatic personalities, just committment to particular methods and means of seeking truths about the way the world works.

Given that you must (correct me if I'm wrong) accept some 'generally accepted' ideas in science without having read all the original convincing material yourself, how do you decide to do so? What are the criteria by which you work? I can't accept that you only believe things which you have worked out for yourself. Science has worked out too much for any individual to become personally acquainted with in detail. You must place some faith and trust in science in some way, regarding some things; or are you backed into the bleak corner of know-nothing skepticism?

Obni

Turley wrote:

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

You certainly seem prone to romanticising your position. However, I reckon you can hold off on constructing your priest-hole for the moment; ISS won't have an organised persecution squad until after the next meeting.

Turley wrote:

What about the truth? Isn't it important to know what happened and who is responsible for mass murder?

Yes, of course it's important.
(GA) Someone organised an attack on US economic and government/military targets, with no regard to loss of civilian life.

Unless there is some vested interest in covering-up the real perpetrators identities, why would the official investigation come to the conclusion that it did?

Turley

Obni wrote:

Yes, of course it's important.
(GA) Someone organised an attack on US economic and government/military targets, with no regard to loss of civilian life.

Unless there is some vested interest in covering-up the real perpetrators identities, why would the official investigation come to the conclusion that it did?

Thank you for delaying the hanging, drawing, and quartering.;)

Before we ask "why it is" Aristotle tells us we must first know "that it is."

Aristotle's example being, first we must know that there is an eclipse, then we seek to know why it is.

The present situation is the opposite. The U.S. authorites and media have told us "why it is" the 19 terrorists committed the mass murders, because we were told "they hated the U.S." The authorities somehow already know the "why" before they know the "who it is" or "what it is." The FBI director Mueller admitted some of the official "hijackers" are ALIVE and the true identities may never be known.

Something is clearly wrong and worthy of our skepticism. Clearly the U.S. media and authorites have not offered proof to support their conclusion of what happened and who was responsible. This is a fact. Perhaps we might want to ask "why this is so?"

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I submit to you that 'generally accepted' within science means that there has been the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in favour of a particular idea or theory.

You make a good point. I agree.

But other matters also become "generally accepted" without the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in their favor. The theory of the "19 terrorist hijackers" has become a matter of public opinion or popular secular dogma without evidence or proof and deserves skepticism.

Myksyk wrote:

It seems to me to be a reasonable and practical thing to have trust (well-earned) in the scientific framework and the social and intellectual structure which constitutes the scientific community (warts and all). It has proved itself time and again to be able to bend with the evidence, to be self-correcting and to attempt to control for its own biases; more than any other social institution. Perhaps it achieves this because there is no one person at the helm, no directing dogmatic personalities, just committment to particular methods and means of seeking truths about the way the world works.

I agree completely. There are times when it is reasonable and practical to trust. And some things may not be true but they work so we use them and trust that they will work.

Myksyk wrote:

Given that you must (correct me if I'm wrong) accept some 'generally accepted' ideas in science without having read all the original convincing material yourself, how do you decide to do so? What are the criteria by which you work? I can't accept that you only believe things which you have worked out for yourself. Science has worked out too much for any individual to become personally acquainted with in detail. You must place some faith and trust in science in some way, regarding some things; or are you backed into the bleak corner of know-nothing skepticism?

Again I agree with you. You are reasonable to ask what is the criteria by which I work as it is impractical to doubt everything.

The criteria are simple really:
I do not place my complete trust in my fellow man as men can deceive and are subject to error.
If something works, it may be true or false, but as long as it works it is okay with me. I do not doubt that the 8:15 train will not be on time, if it is usually on time. Probability is practical. Measuring curves with straignt lines will work for me.

It is also probable that officials that have murdered and lied to us in the past will murder and lie to us again. Therefore knowledge of murders and lies that are officially concealed is practical.

When the unexpected happens and something does not work, such events invite doubt, critical thinking, and skepticism. 3000 homicides in one day is not normal. Invading countries, killing children and torturing people does not work. It is wise to be skeptical of those that justify killing our fellow human beings.

We need not be skeptical of every unusual event. Unusual events can happen. Government officials can jump out of windows or shoot themselves, presidents can be assassinated, and 19 men can commit suicide in one day using four airplanes. But when unusual events involve homicides that are solved prior to any investigation we should demand evidence and proof.

Science does not apply secret experiments as proof, a secret investigation is not proof. If the "19 terrorist hijackers" conspiracy theory is true there should be an accumulation of convincing if not, overwhelming, evidence in favour of the theory.

Turley

KCF wrote:

I feel that you are inaccurately and unfairly denigrating ISS here. Far from being 'not tolerated', this bulletin board is completely dominated by discussion of what you refer to as 'popular secular dogmas'. Indeed people here have spent a considerable amount of time and mental energy applying critical thinking to the various issues that you have raised, evidenced by the large volume of posts addressing 9-11 and the holocaust.

I think that you would be advised to consider the possibility that others have applied critical thinking to these issues, but arrived at different conclusions to yourself. It is not a very endearing trait to equate critical thinking with your own opinions.

Please specify don't characterize.

Obni

Turley wrote:

The U.S. authorites and media have told us "why it is" the 19 terrorists committed the mass murders, because we were told "they hated the U.S." The authorities somehow already know the "why" before they know the "who it is" or "what it is."

To the best of my knowledge, no law enforcement agency works on Aristotlean principles.
The old formula of motive, means, and opportunity are supplied in full by the GA explanation.
The motive: hatred of the US, due to US foreign policy in the region of origin of the hijackers and its support for Israel, and a resultant desire to damage the economy and government of the US.
The means: 4 standard commercial airliners flown using auto-pilot & manual controls into the selected targets.
The opportunity: the rather lightweight security on domestic flights within the US at the time.

Turley wrote:

The FBI director Mueller admitted some of the official "hijackers" are ALIVE and the true identities may never be known.

All that really means is that some of the hijackers shared names with other people by coincidence or identity theft. The photos provided by the FBI came from their files in an attempt to match the names, they were not presented as actual photos of the hijackers as they boarded the planes. I don't regard that as sufficient evidence to doubt the presence of 19 hijackers, some of whom may never be identified.

Turley wrote:

Something is clearly wrong and worthy of our skepticism. Clearly the U.S. media and authorites have not offered proof to support their conclusion of what happened and who was responsible.

What kind of proof would you require?
If an arrest in the next few days resulted in the discovery of a hoard of documents including hand-written plans, building blueprints, flight-paths, timetables, lists of identities real and adopted, PC's with numerous saved MS Flight Simulator replays of attempts to crash in the WTC, last letters to family members from 19 hijackers, records of from where the finances came, and an official command to start the operation by the mastermind behind the attacks, I get the feeling you would just dismiss it as FBI fakery.

Turley

Obni wrote:

The old formula of motive, means, and opportunity are supplied in full by the GA explanation.
The motive: hatred of the US, due to US foreign policy in the region of origin of the hijackers and its support for Israel, and a resultant desire to damage the economy and government of the US.
The means: 4 standard commercial airliners flown using auto-pilot & manual controls into the selected targets.
The opportunity: the rather lightweight security on domestic flights within the US at the time.

I think you are beginning with the premise that there were 19 terrorist hijacers.

Critical thinking should begin with the premise anyone could have committed these crimes and not with trying to justify the official result.
Many people may hate the U.S. policies but that does not mean that these 19 people, who we admittedly do not even know their names, hate the U.S. The argument seems to be:
They are guilty because they hated the U.S.
and the proof they hate the U.S. is
they committed the crime.

Everyone in Saudi Arabia does not hate U.S. policies, some do and some don't and some don't care. How do we know 19 people did?

I am not an expert on 9/11 facts but someone I knew from school died at the Pentagon and one thing that bothers me about that incident is that the jet was described as being flown with extraoridnary skill, like a fighter pilot, at full throttle, turning 270 degrees. Yet the "pilot" Hani Hanjour, who took flying lessons, was unable to fly a Cessna 175 propeller plane and his instructors said he was not capable of flying. This is incongruous and goes against concluding these men had the means. And would men described by the authorities as extreme "religious" fanatics go to bars to drink and watch naked women dance? Again this is incongruous with their motivation.

Obni wrote:

All that really means is that some of the hijackers shared names with other people by coincidence or identity theft. The photos provided by the FBI came from their files in an attempt to match the names, they were not presented as actual photos of the hijackers as they boarded the planes. I don't regard that as sufficient evidence to doubt the presence of 19 hijackers, some of whom may never be identified.

If we admit we do not know the identities of who these 19 people were how can we know their motives? I would think identifying the guilty would be important when 3000 people are murder in such a wicked manner. The official 9/11 Report is online and from the very beginning on the first two pages the 19 hijackers are named and there is no equivocation, they are identified and the Report does not claim their names may never be known. Again this is incongruous that hijackers are officially named and at the same time ALIVE. Something is wrong. By the way, the living "hijacker's" photos, ages, and backgrounds matched those of the dead hijackers exactly. One of them, became a pilot for Saudi Airlines and DID, in fact, take those flying lessons, in the U.S. He was the same man in every way, except that he is ALIVE. Something is wrong that he is still named in the official 9/11 Report.

Obni wrote:

What kind of proof would you require?
If an arrest in the next few days resulted in the discovery of a hoard of documents including hand-written plans, building blueprints, flight-paths, timetables, lists of identities real and adopted, PC's with numerous saved MS Flight Simulator replays of attempts to crash in the WTC, last letters to family members from 19 hijackers, records of from where the finances came, and an official command to start the operation by the mastermind behind the attacks, I get the feeling you would just dismiss it as FBI fakery.

They have not discovered any hoard of documents yet:

The hijackers "left no paper trail," FBI Director Robert Mueller said in the text of a speech the FBI released Monday. "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." ... Investigators have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards.
---From the L.A. Times, 4/30/2002

Since you mention FBI fakery, they have a history of doing just that. Just ask Geronimo Pratt (google his name) why he spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. When the lead investigators of the 9/11 incident have a history of concealing crimes of murder, why shouldn't we be skeptical?

KCF

Turley wrote:

Please specify don't characterize.

Specifically, pithy one liners such as the above are substitutes for thought. They're not funny, they're not meaningful and their regurgitation doesn't impress.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Since you mention FBI fakery, they have a history of doing just that. Just ask Geronimo Pratt (google his name) why he spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. When the lead investigators of the 9/11 incident have a history of concealing crimes of murder, why shouldn't we be skeptical?

COINTELPRO and the panthers are even more glaring examples of FBI criminality than that directed at the AIM. However, they don't help much in the search for a 9-11 conspiracy. They were examples of clandestine operations within the FBI against utterly vilified oppositional movements. They did not remain secret for very long. In these cases there were also clear and plausible counter-theories to the mainstream view of events, not just a collection of apparent anomalies in the evidence. Most importantly, they understood well that, in the event of the criminality being exposed, the FBI could defend themselves by claiming 'exceptional' circumstances, grave threats to national security, communist plots and so on. The victims of the criminality were also 'subversives' and the media could be expected to justify their treatment on the grounds of security.

On the other hand, the victims of 9-11 were regular citizens, and many of them were also members of the ruling elite (the upper floors of the WTC hosted an awful lot of very rich folks). This makes the situation remarkably different. If any really solid evidence of government connivance in the events did emerge, I don't think that it is exaggerating to say that the ideological underpinnings of the US state would dissolve quickly and we would see some sort of radical restructuring of the major state institutions. Considering the number of people who would have to have been 'in' on the plot, the chances of the truth emerging would be close to 100%. Even if you can swear FBI people to secrecy with some degree of success, it is much more difficult to get civilians to do the same and thousands of civilian experts would have to have been bought off. People have consciences. They write memoirs. They have religious turns of faith in the run-up to death and 'confess'. The US state conspiracy theory, although the most plausible alternative, is vastly less plausible than the generally accepted theory. We would have to believe that US state planners were so desperate for 9-11 to happen that they were willing to take a 99% risk of revolution in the near future. They're not that stupid.

Once again, there is little point in dwelling too much upon the details of the 9-11 events unless there is a plausible alternative theory to the generally accepted one. As I pointed out before, it is well known that any historical investigation will throw up many unexplained facts and seemingly weird coincidences. That's just a factor of the chaotic complexity of human society.

Turley

KCF wrote:

COINTELPRO and the panthers are even more glaring examples of FBI criminality than that directed at the AIM. However, they don't help much in the search for a 9-11 conspiracy. They were examples of clandestine operations within the FBI against utterly vilified oppositional movements. They did not remain secret for very long.

Try spending 25 years in prison for a crime you did not commit and tell me it is not "for very long."

KCF wrote:

The victims of the criminality were also 'subversives' and the media could be expected to justify their treatment on the grounds of security.

And this would not be true for the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

KCF wrote:

Considering the number of people who would have to have been 'in' on the plot, the chances of the truth emerging would be close to 100%. Even if you can swear FBI people to secrecy with some degree of success, it is much more difficult to get civilians to do the same and thousands of civilian experts would have to have been bought off. People have consciences.

This is a very old error. It is best refuted by the words of an Assistant U.S. attorney, Miquel Rodriguez, who was tasked to cover up the murder of a White House official:

There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It’s very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme.

And if someone had a conscience Mr. Pratt would not have been in prison for 25 years and the ongoing cover-up of Vincent Foster's murder would be exposed already! It remains secret.

[/QUOTE]They write memoirs. They have religious turns of faith in the run-up to death and 'confess'. [/QUOTE]
And who would publish & distribute these memoirs? The same people Geronimo Pratt should have given his memiors to get out of prison early?

We would have to believe that US state planners were so desperate for 9-11 to happen that they were willing to take a 99% risk of revolution in the near future.

I agree that the mass murder plot of 9/11 was a desperate act indeed, whoever is responsible.

Once again, there is little point in dwelling too much upon the details of the 9-11 events unless there is a plausible alternative theory to the generally accepted one. As I pointed out before, it is well known that any historical investigation will throw up many unexplained facts and seemingly weird coincidences. That's just a factor of the chaotic complexity of human society.

Dwelling on the details of the 9-11 conspiracy theory is precisely what makes it clearly false. How can we know what happened if we do not examine the facts. We do not need another plausible alternative. When 3000 people are murdered why not know who is truly responsible?

Turley

KCF wrote:

Specifically, pithy one liners such as the above are substitutes for thought. They're not funny, they're not meaningful and their regurgitation doesn't impress.

And this is what you call substance.

Obni

Turley wrote:

Dwelling on the details of the 9-11 conspiracy theory is precisely what makes it clearly false. How can we know what happened if we do not examine the facts. We do not need another plausible alternative. When 3000 people are murdered why not know who is truly responsible?

Let's try to agree on some facts.
1. Four planes were hijacked
2. They were flown by human beings
3. Two planes crashed into the WTC, where the force of impact and aviation fuel caused massive damage and the eventual collapse of the buildings
4. A single plane crashed into the Pentagon, where the force of impact and aviation fuel caused significant damage
5. The final plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, following the intervention of the passengers who by then were aware of the fate of the other aircraft
6. Ground crew testimony, aviation radio transcriptions, and passenger phone calls point toward small groups appearing to be of middle-eastern terrorists of arab extraction using knives to overpower the crew and take control of the aircraft

I haven't tried to identify the hijackers.
I haven't proposed any motivation for the attacks.
I haven't proposed a mastermind behind the attacks.
I am aware that governments and government agencies are capable of lying (including propaganda), falsifying evidence, and (in extreme cases) of killing people.
I have some understanding of the relationship of mass media and government.
I am not discussing any other event in US history.

So, do you have a problem with 'facts' 1 to 6 as presented to you?

Turley

Obni wrote:

Let's try to agree on some facts.
1. Four planes were hijacked
2. They were flown by human beings

It is reasonable to examine the facts we know. I agree we know 1 & 2.

Obni wrote:

3. Two planes crashed into the WTC, where the force of impact and aviation fuel caused massive damage and the eventual collapse of the buildings
4. A single plane crashed into the Pentagon, where the force of impact and aviation fuel caused significant damage
5. The final plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, following the intervention of the passengers who by then were aware of the fate of the other aircraft
6. Ground crew testimony, aviation radio transcriptions, and passenger phone calls point toward small groups appearing to be of middle-eastern terrorists of arab extraction using knives to overpower the crew and take control of the aircraft

Facts 3-6 are "generally accepted" and have been repeated endlessly to the public. However as with any magician's trick we can be misled to accept things that are not true when information is left out and we do no have all the facts.

Although some of the anomalies I raise are not "generally accepted" or even known to men, that per se does not preclude them from being true.

I have found reports of evidence that runs counter to the official version, with the major difference being this information is not widely reported and therefore not "generally accepted." The federal authorities that investigated 9/11 have historically used their investigative powers to conceal crimes and they have succeeded because what was false became, "generally accepted as true." Therefore, with federeal investigations it is wise to be cautious.

I am skeptical of #3 because I have read a number of critical articles about the uniform collapse of the buildings and that jet fuel does not burn hot enought to melt the steel structure. I am not an expert but and to save time and not post the arguments here, a google search online will provide the arguments (0nly open-minded people please). Take a look and let me know what you think of this.

A number web sites have posted photos and argued that perhaps a missile hit the Pentagon or a bomb exploded. I'm not sure about #4 and I a puzzled why there is no plane wreckage at the Pentagon site. I am puzzled that there is nothing resembling a tail section or part of a wing, some part, even a small one. I am also bothered by the fact that the official pilot Hani Hanjour was unable to fly an airplane.

For several reasons, none of them "generally accepted" of course, I have considered the possibility that the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by the U.S. Air force, A. Initial reports said it was shot down. B. A published story in the University of St. Thomas Alumni Magazine (not genereally accepted) revealed that a graduate of this school and air force pilot at the time, was ordered to shoot down the plane. Although he did not personally intertcept the plane before it crashed he described the order to shoot it down as "surrealistic." C. The debris field spanned 8 miles and the largest pieces of wreckage were the size of a piece of burnt toast and consistent with a plane blown out of the sky. D. Of all the crash sites this site has the fewest photos available a most are of people at a distance looking for wreckage. There are no photos of the wreckage. E. Early published eyewitness accounts said the plane was seen flying low and weaving from side to side, as if to evade radar and/or a missile before it went down. This observation would also support a struggle for the controls, but I don't know why one theory is ruled out and the other has become "generally accepted." If the plane had been flown by remote control and the pilots had taken back the controls somehow, it may have caused the need to destroy the plane. I really do not know what happened. It is a mystery what caused this plane to crash. I want more evidence than just the voice of authority and what is "generally accepted."

#6 contains most of the most popular stories we have been told repeatedly that are "generally accepted." The pubic has been told these things so many times, without any evidence provided, that they have become "fact." Where is this ground crew testimony, where are aviation voice recordings and transcripts, where are cell phone records of calls? This evidence needs to be presented and shown to the public. It has not been. We only have the news reports that men with box cutters defeated the American air force, an air force that mysterious did not immediately respond to hijacked planes. It is an airline emergency when radio contact is lost and planes are flying off their assigned routes.

All of the records of the U.S. air force communications and flight information should be made public to explain why they did nothing, which is the exact opposite of their response when Payne Stewart's plane missed a turn and veered off course in 1999. Air force jets were alongside that plane in 10 minutes.

How could the hijackers elaborate conspiracy have planned for the air force not to respond? If someone flew a passenger jet into Russian air space on an unassigned route how far do you think they could fly before being intercepted? Do you think they could they fly without being intercepted for 45 minutes? That is how long it took the off course plane to reach the Pentagon, and that was AFTER two planes crashed in NYC.

Skeptical thinking requires that we look for the information we have not been told and the evidence we have not been shown. If the official conspiracy theory is true there should be plenty of supporting evidence and proof.

obni wrote:

I am aware that governments and government agencies are capable of lying (including propaganda), falsifying evidence, and (in extreme cases) of killing people.
I have some understanding of the relationship of mass media and government.

Given what you have said, and if one starts from the point that anyone could have commited the crime: It seems reasonable to ask how were those with the unlimited resources, the technology, the control of the Air force response, the media, and gain in public support for invading two countries ruled out as suspects? The answer is they ruled themselves out and most vocally established what is now "generally accepted."

Turley

A college course for skeptics?
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/POL%20495a/495a%20syllabus.htm

robindch

> I am skeptical of #3 because I have read a number of critical
> articles about the uniform collapse of the buildings and that
> jet fuel does not burn hot enought to melt the steel structure.
> I am not an expert [...] let me know what you think of this.

First off, all of the text that I could find related to these claims comes from paranoid conspiracy theorist sites, which, in itself, is quite enough for me to bin them as they are sources of information considerably more biassed than anything likely to arrive out of a government, or competent independent agency.

At a skeptic level, the arguments presented are almost invariably facile, though some of them are filled with endless calculations, not at all unlike JC's ludicrous creationist calculation, repeated ad nauseam, that life couldn't have evolved.

Specifically, and speaking here as a qualified mechanical engineer, off the top of my head and at a minimum, you'll have to bear in mind when attempting to determine what happened, the effects of:

1. the momentum of the jet hitting the building,
2. the jetfuel flames on the building concrete,
3. non-jetfuel flames on the building concrete,
4. jetfuel flames on the building steel,
5. non-jetfuel flames on the building steel,
6. loss of strength from the hole in the side of the building,
7. the structural steel's expansion within the concrete,
8. the structural steel's softening (not melting!!).

There are plenty more things to bear in mind, but you get the idea.

Without a fully-specified engineering design, analyzing each of these effects precisely is impossible, and even with one present, each one represents a significant research project in itself.

Suffice it to say, and the results of paranoid multipliers-of-numbers not withstanding, it is entirely reasonable to believe that 150 tons (or whatever, figures not to hand) of jet travelling at 400 kts or so, with thousands of gallons of highly flammable jetfuel on board, impacting a building will cause that building to collapse. In fact, personally, I think it's a credit to the structural engineers who designed the buildings, that they lasted as long as they did. Good on 'em, I say, they did their job well.

> If someone flew a passenger jet into Russian air space on
> an unassigned route how far do you think they could fly
> before being intercepted?

They could get as far as Red Square, and land there (amazing!), as you'll remember form Mathias Rust's marvellous stunt 18 years ago.

- robin.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Try spending 25 years in prison for a crime you did not commit and tell me it is not "for very long."
...snip....
And who would publish & distribute these memoirs? The same people Geronimo Pratt should have given his memiors to get out of prison early?

Actually, I think that the majority of people who know anything about Geronimo Pratt and AIM accept that there was a state cover up. The big difference is that the mainstream media and establishment doesn't care. He is an extremist of ethnic minority and I think that there is a tacit acceptance in the US that such people can be treated with impunity if they are considered dangerous. On the other hand the same cannot be said for the 1,500 or so financiers that died in 9-11. They have power, influence, bitter relatives and most importantly lawyers - lots of them.

Turley

KCF wrote:

Actually, I think that the majority of people who know anything about Geronimo Pratt and AIM accept that there was a state cover up.

Pardon me for asking but you have introduced the term AIM, I am thinking you mean the American Indian Movement? Is that right?

Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt was a heavily decorated Vietnam War veteran, he was not an American Indian. Leonard Peltier was also wrongly convicted and he was head of the American Indian Movement. Perhaps you have them confused. The U.S. government has a history of convicting innocent people of murder for political purposes. Innocence is no obstacle. 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, was a desperate act to kill so many innocent people.

It would be prudent to suspect those who have had a disregard for innocent lives in the past. To my knowledge none of the "generally accepted" 19 hijackers (both dead and ALIVE) have a record of taking innocent lives.

Turley

robindch wrote:

First off, all of the text that I could find related to these claims comes from paranoid conspiracy theorist sites, which, in itself, is quite enough for me to bin them as they are sources of information considerably more biassed than anything likely to arrive out of a government, or competent independent agency.

Anything that does not agree with what is "generally excepted" is always called the "paranoid conpiracy theory" as if the official version is not the ultimate paranoid conspiracy theory, whereby a bearded man in a robe has an army of terrorists in no less than 60 countries and he is the arch-enemy of the USA not unlike Lex Luther(Superman), The Riddler(BatMan), or the master criminal Goldfinger (007). The story is comic book-like and right out of Hollywood. We might wonder who is Osama's ISP and cell phone provider and where do they send the bills for service. Langley, Virginia, perhaps?

The paranoia whipped up by the American press created public support for invading two countries that were "a threat."

robindch wrote:

Without a fully-specified engineering design, analyzing each of these effects precisely is impossible, and even with one present, each one represents a significant research project in itself.

When doing serious critical thinking, who needs to be bothered with evidence when it is easier to simply believe whatever we are told, as long as it is "generally accepted" and popular.

robindch wrote:

> If someone flew a passenger jet into Russian air space on
> an unassigned route how far do you think they could fly
> before being intercepted?

They could get as far as Red Square, and land there (amazing!), as you'll remember form Mathias Rust's marvellous stunt 18 years ago.

You have offered a poor example in your attempt to defend the government's wild conspiracy theory. A small plane was also crashed into the White House several years ago. I specifically asked about a "passenger jet." Have you seen any airliners landing at Red Square?

It is remarkable how reluctant we are to question what is "generally accepted." Clearly intelligent people find it difficult to entertain the slightest doubt about things that are "generally accepted" and we will reach for explanations to justify the desired conclusion.

Obni

OK, let's draw a line under 1 & 2.

Turley wrote:

Although some of the anomalies I raise are not "generally accepted" or even known to men, that per se does not preclude them from being true.

True, their level of acceptance does not subtract from, nor add to, their veracity.

Turley wrote:

Therefore, with federeal investigations it is wise to be cautious.

Every suspected FBI cover-up you have listed whether it is the framing of subversives, dubious suicides, or assasinations have one common component; it would be in the governments interests to implement a cover-up as government agencies were involved. Am I to infer that you are suggesting such a thing?

Turley wrote:

I am skeptical of #3 ...

I am not. I have read a number of articles, and although I'm not a structural engineering expert either I am convinced that the plane's impact, fuel,and subsequent structural fire was the cause of the collapse. The only other explanations offered were related to bomb's, missiles, and even explosives built into the original structure. None of the explanations are rational let alone credible, except perhaps a bomb on-board the plane. That I feel is unlikely, and also unnecessary.

Turley wrote:

I'm not sure about #4 ...

The relative small scale of damage compared to the WTC is striking, but not inconsistent with what experts would have expected. The size of the wreckage is also consistent with impact at high speeds. If it was staged, surely a nice big piece of tail section would have been the first prop prepared.

#5 - For me, this is the only plane crash worth discussing, but on moral ground only. I believe it crashed after a struggle in the cockpit. I do however believe that the US government would have been willing to shoot it down, and as horrendous an act as that would be to execute, they would have been right to do so. It would have been an act of self-defence with regrettable consequences for the innocent passengers on-board. The erratic flight and scattered wreckage do not cause me to doubt the 9/11 report.

Turley wrote:

#6 contains most of the most popular stories we have been told repeatedly that are "generally accepted."

I'm going to have to get back to you on your lengthy answer to this point, to do it justice.