9/11 Thread Closed to Keep us from the Truth

I don't know where to begin.

I think the conspiracy theorists have substituted critical thinking with pure denunciation. In fact, as I've argued before, I think they demostrate the power of Will over Reason, Belief over Fact.

What does one make of this mess? The physical details of 9/11 are questioned, and in their place the most absurd possible claims are substituted as the "real" truth "hidden" from the masses. So Popular Mechanics puts out a whole issue dedicated to the science of 9/11, essentially confirming the broad paramaters of the official version which we all saw play out before our eyes coming on six years ago; this is dismissed as propaganda from the corporate media. So Counterpunch - just about the antithesis of corporate media - does its own investigation, which pretty much confirms the Popular Mechanics issue. And? Counterpunch are now "gatekeepers" conspiring to keep the world in the dark.

But it's not just the physical evidence, now. No, we are told with fervent belief that the Mossad, M16, the CIA, the oil cartels, etc. ad nauseum are really to blame. Hell, everyone is to blame except for the people who have threatened and now rejoice in the attacks. And who actually piloted the damn planes.

Where does this nonsense come from? That's what I want to know. Because that's what "Loose Change" and the "9/11 Truth Movement" are. Nonsense. Bile and innuendo put forth as truth, following no standards of evidence.

I am no longer much of a lefty, I acknowledge. I'm a pretty damn main-stream New Dem, and that puts me far to the Right of a lot of babble. But I do care about the Left, and its contribution to the public discourse. And I think the willingness of much of the Left to indulge in this utter fantasy has damaged it more than most realize. And I think that will continue, until we accept the fact that bad things don't only happen because George Bush wants them to. Or Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b] I don't know if there was a conspiracy or not. But I am damn certain the official version is a pack of lies.[/b]

---

This is what I'm talking about. What does this even mean?

Wow, I'm a student of postmodernism and that sounds like bunk to me.

Ah, yes. Arabs in caves. Thought that might come out.

Millionaire Arabs in Caves mind you, but whos counting anyways.

The 9/11 commision is a book with a lot of false information. Im not going to go into who did it, although i do believe that said "Cavemen in Caves" did the deed, but they were helped in some way in doing so.

Coyote, I understand that you think this is garbage, but America itself is split on the fact that questions are not answered. see [url=http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Less_than_half_of_Americans_satisfied_...

But I mean, if one was really fed up with this conversation 6 years later - one would stay of of threads named 9/11 Thread Closed to Keep us from the Truth

We get it, Coyote, you believe the 9/11 commisions findings. Point well made, well taken.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]Ah, yes. Arabs in caves. Thought that might come out.[/b]

---

Actually I don't see anyone talking about "Arabs in caves" here. And this whole "racism" argument is stupid, invalid and disingenuous, and you know it. It also insults real and true anti-racism analysis. So stop dragging it out of your little toolbox, and start arguing with your own wits. Yes, there are right-wing wingnuts who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. Just as there are the same who believe in the official story. It proves nothing. It's a silly argument.

Coyote, for what it's worth, I'm with you pretty much the whole way. I can kind of understand when people believe in these conspiracy theories. Frankly, they've been lied to so much that they'll believe the worst, even when the truth is pretty plainly obvious.

Read the Popular Mechanics information. Read the CounterPunch articles. Take some direction from the overwhelming majority of physical scientists worldwide who have spoken volumes on this issue by their silence.

As I said in the previous thread: I don't believe the whole story has come out. But for a bunch of lay people to be saying that because there are questions, the whole story is a pack of lies (your phrase, I believe), while the bulk of the scientific community shrugs its shoulders is bordering on lunacy.

It's funny, because I equate the 9-11 sceptics to the climate change sceptics (with the obvious discrepancy that they're less likely to be promoting an issue for their corporate backers). They want to believe so badly in what their ideology leads them to believe that they ignore the wealth of evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Anyway, I'm done with this issue. It's folly to argue reason with zealots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Did I say that? I don't think I did.[/b]

---

I think you did. You suggested that people who don't buy your conspiracy theory are buying into the whole official rationale for the war in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

[b]It is interesting that when your world view is questioned you respond with a personal attack.[/b]

---

You weren't questioning my world view. You were trying to set up a binary scenario in which everyone must choose between accepting the Bush case for war in Afghanistan or accepting your bizarre conspiracy theories.

quote:

---

Isn't that why we went to war in Afghanistan? To capture the James Bond villain who plotted, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attacks all under the nose of the largest and most sophisticated national security systems in the history of human kind? You accept that don't you?

---

FM, have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Before you take offense, you have committed the logical fallacy of asking a loaded question.

quote:

---

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

---

[url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html]http://www.fallacyfiles.org/lo...

A friend of mine likes to say that conspiracy theorists would lose at least 90% of their audience if we made the teaching of Logic a mandatory subject in our schools and universities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Isn't that why we went to war in Afghanistan? To capture the James Bond villain who plotted, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attacks all under the nose of the largest and most sophisticated national security systems in the history of human kind? You accept that don't you?[/b]

---

That's something I have a hard time with. It's been said that over 600 Taliban fighters, including some al Qaeda leaders, were airlifted from the Taliban stronghold of Kunduz in November 2001. This was supposed to have been an arrangement made between Pakistani General Musharraf and Donald "the Don" Rumsfeld as U.S. troops and the "Northen Alliance" were battling Taliban in the North. That sounds really flaky to me. And this operation snatch Taliban from the claws of humiliating defeat took place the month after Ahmed Shah Massoud, later declared a national hero by Hamid Karzai, was assassinated by unknowns. Massoud, who was encouraged previously by the then U.S. ambassador to simply surrender to the Taliban, accused Taliban leaders of recruiting foreign fighters from Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia at the time.

quote:

---

FM, have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Before you take offense, you have committed the logical fallacy of asking a loaded question.

---

That is absolute nonsense. Asking if the US went to war in Afghanistan is not even remotely similar to asking someone "ave you stopped beating your wife?" To suggest it is is preposterous.

Come back and bother me when you have something to contribute.

I rather enjoy conspiracy theory.

In fact, I find conspiracy theory quite interesting an valuable. Not so much because of the conclusions that the proponents adhere to most often, but the information that gets picked up along the way.

Right, but even if we can't say that the New American Century document, is a 9/11 smoking gun, it most certainly is a smoking gun in terms of being clear documentary proof that the present gang were at least looking for an opportunity to manipulate public opinion, and that is damning enough.

More emphasis should be placed on that simple fact, than its relevance as proof of complicity in 9/11.

Yes, because maybe one of the reasons the US military went into Afghanistan was to prevent several thousand Taliban from being wiped out by Northern Alliance with a clandestine airlift back to Pakistan and saving few al Qaeda leaders and possibly their families in the process.

quote:

---

So Popular Mechanics puts out a whole issue dedicated to the science of 9/11, essentially confirming the broad paramaters of the official version which we all saw play out before our eyes coming on six years ago;

---

The Popular Mechanics magazine that publishes such in-depth critical articles such as[url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html]Hyp... Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon[/url].

quote:

---

a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.

---

I'm sure they looked at the evidence real close-like.

Good fucking grief, those people are insane, addled by the toxic effects of the technology worship, militarism and Amerosupremecy. I'm supposed to consider them a solid source?

quote:

---

Remember, we, as activists and free thinkers, don’t need to rely on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to justify our opposition to these tyrannies and their various creeps and economic agendas and policies. There are more than enough easily identifiable factual reasons to do so, and these creeps keep giving us more, openly at no charge every day. Steppenwolf Allende

---

Your input is very thoughful and reasonably balanced.

I am sure you agree that transparency in governmment's administration of public affairs is a cornerstone of democracy and when governments draw the curtain to prevent public gaze into their actions and inactions, that only triggers suspicions and fuels speculations. But then there is this notion of "conspiracy theorists" that someone has coined and was found to be very useful as a tool to deride those who exercice their free thinking (again, in the absence of government transparence which is already a transgression on the part of government). And why not slap a few epithets such as "nuts" and "lunatics" and what have you for good measure. The agressed (the public) becomes the "loony" agressor of a 'squeaky clean' government.

Thus, what pains me is when progressive people join the fray in the put-down of people who advance their own thoughts. Lack of "evidence" is often pointed out to them while unconvincing and sometimes outright fabricated evidence as well as past history of fabricating evidence by governments are overlooked.

My view is that in the circumstances of lack of transparencey on the part of governments, it is totally legitimate for citizenry to speculate without being ridiculed. (I use the word citizenry as in world citizenry).

I myself have advanced the possiblity of Mossad involvment. Motive is there, opportunity is there and as valid as motive and opportunity ascribed to "Al Qaeda". Or even more so, considering that the Mosssad is much more "experienced", equipped, fluid and much further and easier reaching around the world. Furthermore, Mossad is and has been proven much more capable of recruiting operatives of various ethnic features, than Al Qaeda. Mind you, Osama Bin Laden first denied any involvment but later we were shown parts of tape where he talked about involvment. Couldn't he been riding and further promoting the surge of his 'popularity' in some sick-minded ranks (T-Shirts with his picture selling hot in Pakistan) One wonders what is exactly outlandish in this speculation.

Anyway, what I lament is the fact that progressives allow themselves to engage in ridiculing free thinkers, speculators and wonderers, thus not only unwittingly repressing free thinking but also promoting the 'official' version.

You are just bleeding compassion for the massacred.

Raise your hand if you have read all the evidence presented by "9/11 Truth Movement" and found that none of it had any merit whatsoever.

While I don't believe in any of the conclusions the movement has reached, as many are based on conjecture and others in my opinion totally absurd, I still found plenty of evidence that requires at minimum further investigation.

Take for example the issue of [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html]insider trading[/url]. They in my opinion correctly argue that this is a red flag for foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. You will find a lot to be suspicious about when you look at the trading figures.

A footnote on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report note that "some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation." and that "the trading had no connection with 9/11."

Some will tell you that the trading was a normal reaction to speculation that further deteriorations in airline financials were probable.

The truth movement will argue that the put options was placed (in the suspicious manners they were placed) only on companies affected by the 9/11 events, and in amounts many times the normal trading levels to be a coincidence. They took that as a definitive proof for foreknowledge, and started to draw conclusions based on that belief.

In my opinion taking any side currently would be presumptuous, but with the main stream media largely ignoring such trading, and the government refusing to investigate further, you are only adding fuel to the fire. A full fledged investigation (not just a foot note on the commission report) is required and has the potential to either end the feud on that point or may even find criminals with ties to terrorism.

There are dozens of issues in the same standing like the insider trading example, each of them IMO needs to be tackled separately to weed out the ones worthy of investigation form the ones that are complete fabrications. Meanwhile using epithets like “conspiracy nuts” to describe all the people in the “9/11 truth movement” is unfair.

That's too plausible, Cueball. I'll go a little further and add to that and suggest the hijackers were aided by covert funding from the CIA, Saudi's etc, the same sources of funding and arms which gave rise to a special type of militant Islam in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980's.

I think it's likely the hijackers didn't realize exactly where the means and ideas came from. It was mentioned by relatives of the hijackers after the fact that they believed the zealots had been brainwashed. I'm sure the CIA, and the allied countries militaries which participated in MK Ultra way back when, know all about religious zealotry and what a powerful catalyst that would be in controlling small armies of people, if only for short periods of time to achieve goal objectives as circumstances changed from month to month as if their requirements were tied to so many corporate quarterly business projections. I think western intelligence created this Islamic "Treadstone" black operation maybe a few months in advance and perhaps even a few years in the making. al Qaeda leaders were wheeling and dealing with western intelligence agencies for sophisticated arms, money and who knows what else in exchange for a special "job" doing.

This black op was dismantled in record time after 9-11, like Treadstone was in a Robert Ludlum novel. Except for top level al Qaeda leaders enjoying super-duper top secret security clearance, the jobbers never knew that Allah was working through them by way of a contract job. In their pliable young minds, conditioned to carry out an especially violent brand of jihad, they willingly gave their lives for Allah and Islam.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

In their pliable young minds, conditioned to carry out an especially violent brand of jihad, they willingly gave their lives for Allah and Islam.

---

Unless they were also conditioned into believing a new "injected" version of Islam that allowed them to frequently get drunk, visit Las Vegas, pick up female escorts here and there, enjoy a few lap-dances especially in the few days and for some hours before uttering their last Allahu Akbar. Good deeds with which to face the Creator they are "serving".

Their "religiosity" is extremely doubtful. If any link to Al Qaeda, they can only be unwitting sub-contractors hired by some intelligence entity. Or they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda whatsoever.

Fidel is back!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]It's the suicide pact thing that made me wonder. Death is so final. Why, fervent nationalism?. Or was it simply a death wish for American empire?. I think their culture doesn't fear death like we do. For Eastern cultures, life and death are cyclical. For us it's grab what you can while you can.[/b]

---