9/11

[Riverwind]

Most of the time when I did not time it right at the same time. I fell over.

1) The sagging floors pulled the outer columns from all sides of the building at once.

2) You were not attached and were much taller and wider - this made it difficult to keep your balance.

[stignasty]

THE LOW POST: I, Left Gatekeeper

Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare

MATT TAIBBI

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...11_conspiracies

[PolyNewbie]

I'd like to know one of the errors in the "comedy of errors" in the 9/11 truth movement. I guess the writer of this piece thinks its silly to suggest governments would lie.

[stignasty]

I'd like to know one of the errors in the "comedy of errors" in the 9/11 truth movement. I guess the writer of this piece thinks its silly to suggest governments would lie.

I understand that reading the article was too much to ask.

From the same:

None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence supports the widely accepted explanation for the collapses. This strongly suggests that symmetric collapses of towers are not improbable events and that we should try to understand why

I see. So the government said it happened that way so we must try and find physical reasoning for it happening that way even if it seems impossible - instead of applying known reasoning and examining evidence to see if thats possible.

This is a dangerous way of thinking.

[Riverwind]

This is a dangerous way of thinking.

No. It is called common sense and good science. The Rolling Stone article makes the point very well: your theories are rubbish unless you can come up with a coherent story arc that explains why these buildings were demolished in the way they were. It is not enough to point to inconclusive bits of data and claim that they 'prove' that a ridiculously improbable plot took place.

Which is more probable:

1) 3 out 7 buildings collapsed symmetrically as a result of asymmetric damage.

2) The US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens and was able to ensure that no one leaked any evidence exposing the plot.

You can rant as much as you want about how improbable 1) is but you can't escape the fact that 2) is infinitely less probable. A rational person would conclude that 1) is likely what happened even if they think it is improbable.

[Figleaf]

This is a dangerous way of thinking.

No. It is called common sense and good science. The Rolling Stone article makes the point very well: your theories are rubbish unless you can come up with a coherent story arc that explains why these buildings were demolished in the way they were. It is not enough to point to inconclusive bits of data and claim that they 'prove' that a ridiculously improbable plot took place.

Which is more probable:

1) 3 out 7 buildings collapsed symmetrically as a result of asymmetric damage.

2) The US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens and was able to ensure that no one leaked any evidence exposing the plot.

You can rant as much as you want about how improbable 1) is but you can't escape the fact that 2) is infinitely less probable. A rational person would conclude that 1) is likely what happened even if they think it is improbable.

I'm thinking through your last structural comments, but meanwhile, what exactly makes (2) so improbable?

[PolyNewbie]

As far as point (2) is concerned, consider that the director of the plot to assasinate Kennedy confessed on his deathbed to his son. Link

Attorneys in Texas refuse to investigate or prosecute cases where juvenile halls are used as brothels and the prisoners are used as prostitutes provided no one gets hurt. I have posted links to this that show the PDF form scanned letters written by Texas establishment lawyers.

3000 kids have disspeared from the custody of Child Protection Services in Florida. They have been found in graves and in foreign brothels. Alex Jones has often said this directly falsifiable statement of which he could be sued if it is not correct. He is still on the air so it is correct or CPS services wants that kind of reputation amoung millions of listeners of Jones.

The Iraq war was illegal. The WMD's were never there. Haiti is experiencing a direct IMF takeover with its most popular ever president kidnapped in the middle of the night by IMF forces (Canadian & American).

Riverwind:1) 3 out 7 buildings collapsed symmetrically as a result of asymmetric damage.

This is impossible, not improbable.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:No. It is called common sense and good science.

These doctors would say you are crazy. I think you are an egomaniac.

I think its about time you told us what qualifications you have that can be used to determine what is good science and bad science. You have claimed that you are an engineer and that you understand structural engineering, but every single statement you have ever made on this topic has been shown to be wrong through a straightforward application of common sense that does not require the qualifications of a structural engineer.

So, what kind of engineer are you and why should people continue listening to you explain how science works to them ?

[buffycat]

Riverwind:No. It is called common sense and good science.

These doctors would say you are crazy. I think you are an egomaniac.

I think its about time you told us what qualifications you have that can be used to determine what is good science and bad science. You have claimed that you are an engineer and that you understand structural engineering, but every single statement you have ever made on this topic has been shown to be wrong through a straightforward application of common sense that does not require the qualifications of a structural engineer.

So, what kind of engineer are you and why should people continue listening to you explain how science works to them ?

C'mon Poly don't you know that 2+2=5???

Just admit and give in...it's nice in the realm of never never land! Physical laws don't apply!

[Riverwind]

I'm thinking through your last structural comments, but meanwhile, what exactly makes (2) so improbable?

It has been 6 years and no whistle blower has come forward to become instantly famous or at least assuage their guilty conscious. George Tenet - one of the highest ranking officials in the US government on 9/11 - has published a tell all book that makes no mention of an inside job yet he is clearly willing to burn all of his bridges with his former friends in the whitehouse.

The total absence of whistle blowers does not prove that the plot did not happen but it is pretty compelling evidence that such a plot is extremely improbable.

[PolyNewbie]

There are some things you cannot do, as demonstrated by Kennedy.

Lots of people have come forward about 9/11, air traffic controllers in particular.

Non one has intelligently argued that this operation would require more than a handful of people. Intelligence experts have said that would be all that would be required.

[PolyNewbie]

Buffy:C'mon Poly don't you know that 2+2=5???

I'm interested in the psychology of all this. I have never studied psychology formally but am learning about the nature of evil and how things like this come to be. Riverwind explained it a few posts ago. So its out in the open now but I think there is more to it.

[Riverwind]

Non one has intelligently argued that this operation would require more than a handful of people.

ROTFL. Many, many people have made compelling arguements that it would require hundreds - if not thousands - of people would know today that they participated in a mass murder. You simply choose to ignore these arguments because they undermine your claims.

Intelligence experts have said that would be all that would be required.

You are a bundle of contradictions - one minute you say that experts cannot be trusted and common sense should be the guide. The next minute you say we must ignore common sense an trust a few 'intelligence experts'. Which is it?

There were hundreds of people who were one the planes disappeared. These people all have family that believes they are dead. It is simply insane to suggest that these people could be kept silent unless they actually died when those planes went down.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Many, many people have made compelling arguements that it would require hundreds - if not thousands - of people would know today that they participated in a mass murder. You simply choose to ignore these arguments because they undermine your claims.

Where ? They have stated it but not argued it. Intelligence experts say operations like this run on a principle of compartmentalisation where most people involved are unaware. Besides presstitutes who has stated this ?

Riverwind:You are a bundle of contradictions - one minute you say that experts cannot be trusted and common sense should be the guide. The next minute you say we must ignore common sense an trust a few 'intelligence experts'. Which is it?

When the experts contradict common sense and the experts are members of groups that have an alternative agenda then common sense should win out.

I am not a "bundle of contradictions" you just say crap with no justification, knowledge or understanding all the time in hopes people will believe it. You have been completely discredited in your "scientific" arguements and your "logical" thinking so ease it up.

[Riverwind]

Where ? They have stated it but not argued it. Intelligence experts say operations like this run on a principle of compartmentalisation where most people involved are unaware. Besides presstitutes who has stated this ?

Experts do not often agree. Thruthies may have dug up a couple 'intelligence experts' that support this view but that does not mean that every expert would support their claim. I look for consensus among experts - I never take the word of one or two - especially if they contradict the consensus. The overwhelming consensus among structural engineers is that the collapse of the buildings was not unusual.

I already pointed out that hundreds of people were on those planes and would have been willing collaborators - these people would also have relatives that would know that they were still alive and paid off. It is ridiculous to suggest that all these people could be kept silent after 6 years. The only rational conclusion is they are dead and that the phone calls from the planes were real (i.e. the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters).

When the experts contradict common sense and the experts are members of groups that have an alternative agenda then common sense should win out.

Translation: if an expert disagrees with you then they must have an 'agenda' and can't be trusted. If they agree with you then they must be unbiased. You are so transparent its is amusing.

[PolyNewbie]

Experts do not often agree. Thruthies may have dug up a couple 'intelligence experts' that support this view but that does not mean that every expert would support their claim. I look for consensus among experts - I never take the word of one or two - especially if they contradict the consensus. The overwhelming consensus among structural engineers is that the collapse of the buildings was not unusual.

There are lots of ex CIA heads and FBI heads on the list of 911Patriots here. Do you expect anyone to take our opinion on intelligence matters more seriously than the people with military and intelligence backgrounds on this list ?

Riverwind: I already pointed out that hundreds of people were on those planes and would have been willing collaborators - these people would also have relatives that would know that they were still alive and paid off. It is ridiculous to suggest that all these people could be kept silent after 6 years. The only rational conclusion is they are dead and that the phone calls from the planes were real (i.e. the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters).

And I have already pointed out that you are a fool, for the above reasons as well as many others.

Riverwind:Translation: if an expert disagrees with you then they must have an 'agenda' and can't be trusted. If they agree with you then they must be unbiased. You are so transparent its is amusing.

There is a secret government as Kennedy pointed out and he was likely assasinated by them if deathbed confessions and piles of evidence mean anything wrt the Kennedy assasination.

People that speak out seem to lose their jobs. It takes courage to speak out but nothing to remain silent. You haven't yet figured out the the US has been under the rule of a corrupt government for years. The missing trillions of dollars should be enough for that.

Riverwind:The only rational conclusion is they are dead and that the phone calls from the planes were real (i.e. the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters).

It doesn't matter if the planes were hijacked or not. The nature of the building collapses proves that explosives had to be pre planted in the buildings before they collapsed.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: I already pointed out that hundreds of people were on those planes and would have been willing collaborators - these people would also have relatives that would know that they were still alive and paid off. It is ridiculous to suggest that all these people could be kept silent after 6 years. The only rational conclusion is they are dead and that the phone calls from the planes were real (i.e. the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters).

And I have already pointed out that you are a fool, for the above reasons as well as many others.

Ah yes - more ad hominum attacks instead of a rational counter argument. Do you really think you advance your cause by posting such tripe?

Truthies claim that the planes were not really hijacked. This means the people making calls from the planes must have been in on the plot. There were hundreds of people on those planes with friends and family that they would confide in. That single fact disproves any claim made by your so-called intelligence experts regarding the number of people involved.

It doesn't matter if the planes were hijacked or not.

Great. Does that mean that you disagree with anyone who claims that the planes were not hijacked? If not then please explain why you are contradicting yourself about the number of people that must have been involved in the plot.

The nature of the building collapses proves that explosives had to be pre planted in the buildings before they collapsed.

You don't really understand what the word 'proof' means. You have a hypothesis - nothing more. A hypothesis that is extremely improbable given the other evidence that is available (such as 4 planes hijacked by Arabs).

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Ah yes - more ad hominum attacks instead of a rational counter argument. Do you really think you advance your cause by posting such tripe?

First of all I was commenting with regard to your uninformed opinion on intelligence matters and your expectation that people take you seriously, not because of your links but because of your self declared superiourity in reasoning.

The many other reasons are:

Riverwind Scientific Quotes (again)

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

"Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter"

[Riverwind]

Riverwind Scientific Quotes (again).

Another ad hominem attack - you are getting quite predictable - you start lashing out with ad hominem attacks whenever you find yourself unable to produce a rational counter argument.

Why don't you try explaining why you are contradicting yourself:

You started out by claiming that only a small number of people could have organized the plot.

I pointed out that the 100s of people on the planes would have had to be involved.

You responded by admitting the planes could have been hijacked (despite the fact that you have claimed that the planes were not hijacked numerous times in the past).

I asked you to confirm that you now believe that the story about the planes being hijacked to be true.

You respond with personal attacks.

I would really like to know which of your claims you will disavow. Will you disavow your claim that only a small number of people were involved? Or will you disavow your claim that the planes were not hijacked? Both claims cannot be true because they contradict each other.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Another ad hominem attack - you are getting quite predictable - you start lashing out with ad hominem attacks whenever you find yourself unable to produce a rational counter argument.

No. You wanted proff that you are a fool. I provided it with those quotes on scientific matters. They prove it.

Riverwind:You started out by claiming that only a small number of people could have organized the plot.

I pointed out that the 100s of people on the planes would have had to be involved.

No. I showed the experts in intelligence believe this was an inside job and I have linked interviews with them in the past. Some of them even state this on this Patriots for 911 truth website. I don't go around making statements about intelligence matters because I am not an intelligence expert and it would make me look and sound like a fool if I did.

You point things out, I use references. You are in fact a fool and this has been proven. So I don't care what you "point out".

Riverwind:I asked you to confirm that you now believe that the story about the planes being hijacked to be true.

You respond with personal attacks.

I do not know if the planes were hijacked. I do not care if the planes were hijacked because I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not respond with personal attacks. I respond with proof that you are an arrogant fool and therefore when you go around "pointing things out" and making "statements" it really doesn't mean anything at all.

[Riverwind]

I do not know if the planes were hijacked. I do not care if the planes were hijacked because I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Huh? It is impossible to have any discussion about what happened on 9/11 without looking at all of the facts. Those planes were hijacked and the numerous phone calls from the plane provide evidence that the hijackers were Arabs. This evidence strongly suggests that the widely accepted explaination for what happened on 9/11 is true.

Truthies know this which is why they claim that hijackings were staged. Unfortunately, claiming that the hijackings were staged means that the people on the plane were involved in the plot. The fact that none of them have come forward after 6 years is also strong evidence that there was no government plot.

This particular contradiction is why it is impossible to take truthie claims seriously. You can repeat your pseudo-science a million times but you cannot escape the reality that:

1) Your claim that the buildings were demolished is a hypothesis - not a proof;

2) The other evidence surrounding the event suggests that your hypothesis is extremely implausible.

That is why most people who look at those 3 collapsing towers assume that there must be a valid scientific explaination for the apparently improbable events - even if they do not know what it is.

I do not respond with personal attacks. I respond with proof that you are an arrogant fool

ROTFL. You _are_ a bundle of contradictions - that last statement is priceless. The scary thing is you cannot see how absurd it is.

[Figleaf]

I'm thinking through your last structural comments, but meanwhile, what exactly makes (2) so improbable?

It has been 6 years and no whistle blower has come forward to become instantly famous or at least assuage their guilty conscious. George Tenet - one of the highest ranking officials in the US government on 9/11 - has published a tell all book that makes no mention of an inside job yet he is clearly willing to burn all of his bridges with his former friends in the whitehouse.

The total absence of whistle blowers does not prove that the plot did not happen but it is pretty compelling evidence that such a plot is extremely improbable.

If that's the only basis you draw upon, I don't find it thoroughy convincing. People implicated in the worst terrorist attack in US history would have a pretty strong self-interest in not exposing themselves.

[Figleaf]

I already pointed out that hundreds of people were on those planes and would have been willing collaborators -

What? Why would the victims need to be willling collaborators? They're dead and can't blow any whistles.

...these people would also have relatives that would know that they were still alive and paid off. It is ridiculous to suggest that all these people could be kept silent after 6 years. The only rational conclusion is they are dead and that the phone calls from the planes were real (i.e. the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters).

Oh, I certainly believe planes went down. I just think they were part of a larger inside job. (Remember, Rummy arranged to be the only person with authority to scramble fighters that day and then he went MIA for the key couple of hours that fighters might have made a difference.)

In fact, flight 93 was probably supposed to hit WTC7 to 'explain' how it collapsed too but the passengers intervened. The conspirators decided to 'pull it' even though the plane never made it.

This much we know for certain:

-PNAC wanted 'another pearl harbor' to advance their cause;

-PNAC leaders became Bush regime leaders with responsibilty for preventing 'pearl harbor' type events;

-a 'pearl harbor' type event happened

-the PNAC leaders used the event exactly as they had earlier prescribed.

Coincidence? Maybe.

[Riverwind]

If that's the only basis you draw upon, I don't find it thoroughly convincing. People implicated in the worst terrorist attack in US history would have a pretty strong self-interest in not exposing themselves.

We are talking about mass murder by the US government - most people do have a conscious and participating in a such a plot would haunt some of them enough to overcome concerns about incriminating themselves. We are talking about 100s - if not thousands of people who could potentially provide conclusive evidence of such a plot yet not one has come forward. I don't think you can credibly argue that self-interest is enough to keep everyone of them silent (look at George Tenet - that fact that he was complicit in the botched intelligence has not stopped him from coming forward).

There are many other things that make it improbable. For example, the Bush administration has failed miserably in Iraq because of sheer incompetence. It does not make sense to claim that this same group of people would be able to pull off a hoax of this magnitude.

The actual details of the plot are incoherent and inconsistent. For example, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 yet Iraq was never directly implicated with the attacks. It is irrational to claim that Bush would plan a elaborate hoax to justify the invasion of Iraq yet forget to forge evidence implicating Iraq.

None of these things are conclusive proof that a plot did not occur but they all strongly suggest that a plot is extremely improbable.