September 11th: The History of 9/11

[ted_bloody_maul]

The thing is, with enough lucre or some other promise, you can get an 'expert' to vouch for just about anything as cases of Bad Science have proved.

And while we do lack expertise in the unique area of multiple structural collapse due to terrorist actions, it seems a bit unfair when testimony like, the Reporters, Fire and Police Officers who reported explosions, for example, is discounted because certain members of this forum think they're not qualified enough. That is more armchair theorising and I think, a deliberate distraction like this whole 'peer review' thing that has got us precisely nowhere.

On the contrary the reasons why the testimony of the various people you've mentioned might not be considered relevant have been amply discussed on this forum. However, that still does little to alter the point that many more people drawn from the same groups did not report anything that would lead one to question events. The problem here seems to be not that those supposedly doing the distracting aren't considering these claims adequately (they are, in fact, considering them adequately using the relevant context) but that those backing claims of conspiracy are perhaps too willing to accept a given version of events without probing the plausibility of those claims or offering anything new other than to cite the (assumed) qualification of the individuals. In any case, as you point out, those individuals of professional expertise are not beyond corruption either.

 

[Jerry_B]

And while we do lack expertise in the unique area of multiple structural collapse due to terrorist actions, it seems a bit unfair when testimony like, the Reporters, Fire and Police Officers who reported explosions, for example, is discounted because certain members of this forum think they're not qualified enough. That is more armchair theorising and I think, a deliberate distraction like this whole 'peer review' thing that has got us precisely nowhere.

The question of their being 'qulaified enough' hasn't really been an issue - the issue in the case of the reports of 'explosions' is whether what was heard was actually an explosion, and (if it was) whether that implies explosives (i.e. for demolition).

The question of peer review is not at all a distraction - the whole issue of the legitimacy of the qualified professionals who are pro-conspiracy revolves around it. It seems to me it's being labelled as a disctraction simply because it's something the conspiracists can't dodge when they wheel out what they consider experts who they hope will legitimise their ideas. If those experts have any data, theory, findings etc. then I'd very much welcome them publishing it - but publishing via peer-reviewing, not just bunging it on the net and hoping that will suffice.

 

[Analogue Boy]

On the contrary the reasons why the testimony of the various people you've mentioned might not be considered relevant have been amply discussed on this forum. However, that still does little to alter the point that many more people drawn from the same groups did not report anything that would lead one to question events. The problem here seems to be not that those supposedly doing the distracting aren't considering these claims adequately (they are, in fact, considering them adequately using the relevant context) but that those backing claims of conspiracy are perhaps too willing to accept a given version of events without probing the plausibility of those claims or offering anything new other than to cite the (assumed) qualification of the individuals. In any case, as you point out, those individuals of professional expertise are not beyond corruption either.

A lot of things have been discussed on this forum but that doesn't mean they've been resolved.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I'm getting a bit bored with arguing about the arguments about the arguments.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well please feel free to post something else then.

 

[crunchy5]

Well please feel free to post something else then.

Why bother, the only good that could come of such a change is that you might do your back in as you shifted the goal posts

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well please feel free to post something else then.

Why bother, the only good that could come of such a change is that you might do your back in as you shifted the goal posts

Not really. As I've pointed out, and you can check if you like, my position has been consistent regarding 'experts'. On the contrary the point I've made regarding just how representative these experts are seems to have gone unnoticed and/or unanswered. Thanks for the injury you wish upon me all the same.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Is this the right room for an argument?.....

The story so far. I have posted a link to ....

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And these are professional architects and engineers who have questioned the building collapses of 9/11. Just that. Leaving aside all the spooky meetings, coincidental military test exercises, insurance claims on various buildings, reports of explosions, the failure to monitor 'known terrorists', failure in basic air-hijack protocol etcetera etectera, this is just the gubbins on builders and architects who question the received opinion.

As much as some on this site may wonder why they haven't put the evidence in a publication for 'peer review' (and seen as it is a unique event we're looking at 'What Terrorist' here) we are left to wonder do we chase our own tails wondering what is a fact?
If we see something on the national news, is that not edited or manipulated in some way? If it not edited, do we accept Jane Standley's report of a collapse before it happened? Are the tabloids serious? Who does not have an agenda?

It is not enough for some posters here to have it both ways. They have the luxury of basking in the official argument and they only have to pick off the contrary evidence put in front of them and then make aspersions that 'this has already been covered' or state that the experts in the field are not qualified in the specific area of 'What Terrorist's' latest new atrocity.

This is not thinking. This is not argument.

 

[crunchy5]

Thanks for the injury you wish upon me all the same.

Not so :shock: Having heard my warning next time you shift those pesky posts you'll look about and ask for help, if there's none to be found remember lift from the legs not the back.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Is this the right room for an argument?.....

The story so far. I have posted a link to ....

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And these are professional architects and engineers who have questioned the building collapses of 9/11. Just that. Leaving aside all the spooky meetings, coincidental military test exercises, insurance claims on various buildings, reports of explosions, the failure to monitor 'known terrorists', failure in basic air-hijack protocol etcetera etectera, this is just the gubbins on builders and architects who question the received opinion.

As much as some on this site may wonder why they haven't put the evidence in a publication for 'peer review' (and seen as it is a unique event we're looking at 'What Terrorist' here) we are left to wonder do we chase our own tails wondering what is a fact?
If we see something on the national news, is that not edited or manipulated in some way? If it not edited, do we accept Jane Standley's report of a collapse before it happened? Are the tabloids serious? Who does not have an agenda?

It is not enough for some posters here to have it both ways. They have the luxury of basking in the official argument and they only have to pick off the contrary evidence put in front of them and then make aspersions that 'this has already been covered' or state that the experts in the field are not qualified in the specific area of 'What Terrorist's' latest new atrocity.

This is not thinking. This is not argument.

But that's really a misrepresentation of the posters that you're presumably referring to's point of view. It's been pointed out several times now but no-one has disupted that there are some qualified people who may hold a certain point of view. Again what's being disputed is to what extent they're representative of the community that they're drawn from.

You say that some are trying to have it both ways but that's presumably what those citing the experts are doing. For a start the fact that some but not most experts make a claim ignores or doubts the expertise of those who don't share their suspicions. Also, the claim that there is no reasonable peer review process available because this is not a specialised field and no such publication as 'What Terrorist' exists would rather contradict the notion that they're actually 'experts' qualified to comment in the first place (though I wouldn't share that view).

Furthermore I'd say that it's the conspiracy theorists who seem satisfied to pick at the evidence presented to them and build a theory out of the apparent contradictions irrespective of whatever could be reasonably extrapolated from their conclusions. Likewise it's those advocating the theories who seem to suggest the casual corruptability and unreliability of the press or the scientific community to explain away the evidence that doesn't fit.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Thanks for the injury you wish upon me all the same.

Not so :shock: Having heard my warning next time you shift those pesky posts you'll look about and ask for help, if there's none to be found remember lift from the legs not the back.

Or maybe I'll just wonder why some people have difficulty in finding the target. Perhaps it's a problem with the eyes although I wouldn't like to speculate on what activity could cause such degeneration of vision.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Is this the right room for an argument?.....

The story so far. I have posted a link to ....

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And these are professional architects and engineers who have questioned the building collapses of 9/11. Just that. Leaving aside all the spooky meetings, coincidental military test exercises, insurance claims on various buildings, reports of explosions, the failure to monitor 'known terrorists', failure in basic air-hijack protocol etcetera etectera, this is just the gubbins on builders and architects who question the received opinion.

As much as some on this site may wonder why they haven't put the evidence in a publication for 'peer review' (and seen as it is a unique event we're looking at 'What Terrorist' here) we are left to wonder do we chase our own tails wondering what is a fact?
If we see something on the national news, is that not edited or manipulated in some way? If it not edited, do we accept Jane Standley's report of a collapse before it happened? Are the tabloids serious? Who does not have an agenda?

It is not enough for some posters here to have it both ways. They have the luxury of basking in the official argument and they only have to pick off the contrary evidence put in front of them and then make aspersions that 'this has already been covered' or state that the experts in the field are not qualified in the specific area of 'What Terrorist's' latest new atrocity.

This is not thinking. This is not argument.

But that's really a misrepresentation of the posters that you're presumably referring to's point of view. It's been pointed out several times now but no-one has disupted that there are some qualified people who may hold a certain point of view. Again what's being disputed is to what extent they're representative of the community that they're drawn from.

You say that some are trying to have it both ways but that's presumably what those citing the experts are doing. For a start the fact that some but not most experts make a claim ignores or doubts the expertise of those who don't share their suspicions. Also, the claim that there is no reasonable peer review process available because this is not a specialised field and no such publication as 'What Terrorist' exists would rather contradict the notion that they're actually 'experts' qualified to comment in the first place (though I wouldn't share that view).

Furthermore I'd say that it's the conspiracy theorists who seem satisfied to pick at the evidence presented to them and build a theory out of the apparent contradictions irrespective of whatever could be reasonably extrapolated from their conclusions. Likewise it's those advocating the theories who seem to suggest the casual corruptability and unreliability of the press or the scientific community to explain away the evidence that doesn't fit.

Now you're arguing about the argument about the argument about the argument which now apparently refers to a previous argument about an argument about an argument. If you have any evidence to back up your point of view ( apart from being argumentative for argument's sake, let's hear it.) I posted a whole website of stuff there...all validated by professional and time-served Architects and Engineers against the whole received opinion and you can't argue against one factoid.


Smoke and mirrors...again.

 

[Analogue Boy]

and no such publication as 'What Terrorist' exists....

Shitteth me not!?!?! I have ordered a subscription to 'What Terrorist' in fevered anticipation of the free gift on the cover that builds up week by week to form a full body belt and waistcoat of explosives with a matching smoking jacket and pipe. And a small model of the Victory.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Now you're arguing about the argument about the argument about the argument which now apparently refers to a previous argument about an argument about an argument. If you have any evidence to back up your point of view ( apart from being argumentative for argument's sake, let's hear it.) I posted a whole website of stuff there...all validated by professional and time-served Architects and Engineers against the whole received opinion and you can't argue against one factoid.


Smoke and mirrors...again.

I'm not being argumentative for it's own sake I'm simply restating the same point because you seem to be consistently ignoring or misunderstanding it. If you can't see that's what it is then I'd suggest it's yourself who's pursuing a circular argument.

With regard not being able to argue against a single fact - I've already pointed out why this is a waste of time and I suspect if you were honest enough with yourself you'd admit that what you know of the science involved in this you've learned through studying the objections thus making you no better qualified. Given that's the case then, frankly, your opinion and mine are either irrelevant regards the mechanics or you're wasting everybody's time by asking us to give additional consideration to the experts who our knowledge is apparently equal to. In saying that I am coming round to the view that the Bush administration was behind the attacks if for no other reason than to demonstrate the lay population of the west's phenomenal expertise in the fields of architecture, smelting, aviation fuel and the demolition industry.


As for the smoke and mirrors comments - well at least you consider my arguments to be the product of dishonesty.

edit:

and no such publication as 'What Terrorist' exists....

Shitteth me not!?!?! I have ordered a subscription to 'What Terrorist' in fevered anticipation of the free gift on the cover that builds up week by week to form a full body belt and waistcoat of explosives with a matching smoking jacket and pipe. And a small model of the Victory.

Now I know you're taking the piss. :lol:

 

[Analis]

ted-bloody-maul:"Furthermore I'd say that it's the conspiracy theorists who seem satisfied topick at the evidence presented to them and build a theory out of the apparent contradictions irrespective of whatever could be reasonnably extrapolated from their conclusions."
I agree! I read a distinction between theorists about conspiracies, like the historians who are all students of conspiracies; and conpiracy theorists, who try to shoehorn the facts into a grander, predestablished scheme. Clearly, the proponents of the official version, including members of the official Commission, are conspiracy theorists. The official conspiracy theory is full of contradictions (and not only apparent, but true discrepancies), they fail (or rather refuse) to adress them. They use fallacious logic. They use rather tenuous and dubious evidence to link the events to a worldwide network of shadowy plotters. Yes, true conspiracists!

 

[Jerry_B]

Now you're arguing about the argument about the argument about the argument which now apparently refers to a previous argument about an argument about an argument. If you have any evidence to back up your point of view ( apart from being argumentative for argument's sake, let's hear it.) I posted a whole website of stuff there...all validated by professional and time-served Architects and Engineers against the whole received opinion and you can't argue against one factoid.


Smoke and mirrors...again.

That's nonsense. We can only debate any alleged 'factoids' to a certain extent. If those experts have distinct data and theories that they can back up conspiracy theorists' case, then they should get it formally published for peer review. Professionally, that's the least they can do - in fact, as professionals who may have genuine concerns about aspects of 9/11, I'd say it's their duty to publish it for peer review. That's when we'll know that any alleged factoids are actually validated. If not, it's just more opinion, and we will have no way of telling if their professional opinion is valid at all. They could, after all, be wrong despite their qualifications, but it's only their peers who can really say if this is the case.

To call it smoke and mirrors is simply an attempt to dodge the issue. If the conspiracy camp finally has professional people who can back up the theory, they should be encouraging them to get it peer reviewed.

 

[crunchy5]

Perhaps it's a problem with the eyes although I wouldn't like to speculate on what activity could cause such degeneration of vision.

I've got a couple of maxims related to the subject you coyly skirt around, sperm better out than in and sex better in than out, I tend to follow both with as much gusto as time and body allow, luckily for me my girlfriend is of a similar mind and often helps with both.

 

[Analogue Boy]

To call it smoke and mirrors is simply an attempt to dodge the issue. If the conspiracy camp finally has professional people who can back up the theory, they should be encouraging them to get it peer reviewed.

Look. Will you stop going on about this peer review thing? I get the idea.
If you'd looked at the site, you'd see they do visiting tours around the states and have the presentation as a resource you can look at yourself.

They already have a 'peer review' as more professional architects and engineers join. That is support you can actually count.
And their real aim is to petition Congress for a truly independent investigation into the collapses.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I've got a couple of maxims related to the subject you coyly skirt around, sperm better out than in and sex better in than out, I tend to follow both with as much gusto as time and body allow, luckily for me my girlfriend is of a similar mind and often helps with both.

What a lovely little story. Something there for everyone, I think.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I've got a couple of maxims related to the subject you coyly skirt around, sperm better out than in and sex better in than out, I tend to follow both with as much gusto as time and body allow, luckily for me my girlfriend is of a similar mind and often helps with both.

What a lovely little story. Something there for everyone, I think.

This seems to be quite the point. If you can't beat the facts, kill the messenger.


If I can be candid, it seems to me that the Ted'n'Jerry show distracts from the relevant points that are raised for consideration not just for the members of the forum who wish to make a contribution but also for those who may stumble on the site. Which is why I mention the smoke and mirrors thing and keep pointing to the same site again and again. It is not because I fail to understand your points...it's the fact that your meaningless non-arguments push the relevant links further back.
If you have a comment to make which can be summarised as 'let's wait and see some peer arguments against this' - fine.
But it's not right to hog the thread by making post after post with the same retort.

I have gathered by now that you guys like a good argument but you have both admitted that you don't have the expertise to debate the points raised by the professional architects and engineers on a site I have previously mentioned.
But neither do I. The difference is that I am open...like a fortean...to new ideas and evidence on this subject. It seems you're just arguing for arguing's sake and this is in spite of the fact that you have no facts or details to argue against - just a general concept of something called 'peer review'.
Which seems to me to be a moving of goalposts from the cries of 'proof' that JerryB demanded pages ago into a new area of denial.

 

[crunchy5]

What a lovely little story. Something there for everyone, I think.

I'd think you would think that with your proclivities.

It's that suggestion of her being a 'bad' girl that does it. I fell for Louise Woodward and Maxine Carr in the same way.

Sad really, when you think about it. :cry:

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This seems to be quite the point. If you can't beat the facts, kill the messenger.

What - by not addressing Crunchy's sexual 'issues'? This is after all a thread about September 11. :?

If I can be candid, it seems to me that the Ted'n'Jerry show distracts from the relevant points that are raised for consideration not just for the members of the forum who wish to make a contribution but also for those who may stumble on the site. Which is why I mention the smoke and mirrors thing and keep pointing to the same site again and again. It is not because I fail to understand your points...it's the fact that your meaningless non-arguments push the relevant links further back.
If you have a comment to make which can be summarised as 'let's wait and see some peer arguments against this' - fine.
But it's not right to hog the thread by making post after post with the same retort.

Well, I'm sorry but quite frankly it's you who's doing this. I'm more than capable of discussing your opinions and others without deriding them in slurs like 'smoke and mirrors' or 'shifting the goalposts'. If you didn't keep saying 'ah but you've not got a point' and then completely ignoring the ones I have made or misrepresenting them (and which I notice you've completely failed to correct or even acknowledge) so you can construct a straw man to debate with then I'd have no need to retort at all.

Frankly, this thread has taken a turn for the tedious and been hogged although I can only take a small part of the credit for that - in the one instance where someone has dealt with the points raised on the website you've copied the concerns of you seem to have no response. That's not a discussion, that's not an argument - that's selective viewing as well as distraction and downright hypocrisy when you mount the high horse to accuse others of doing the smae.

I have gathered by now that you guys like a good argument but you have both admitted that you don't have the expertise to debate the points raised by the professional architects and engineers on a site I have previously mentioned.
But neither do I. The difference is that I am open...like a fortean...to new ideas and evidence on this subject.

But not a peer review, it seems. Or even the concept that because I don't know and even if I did you wouldn't be capable of understanding any answer I would give that it's a pretty pointless discussion. In any case I'm not entirely sure how misrepresentating the views of others or demanding answers to questions you don't understand, not to mention ignoring them when they're given to you, is fortean but I keep an open mind nonetheless.

It seems you're just arguing for arguing's sake and this is in spite of the fact that you have no facts or details to argue against - just a general concept of something called 'peer review'.

Yes - and in post after post you bemoan this fact whilst failing to understand the entire point: I'm not an expert, you're not an expert, there are people who are, why aren't they being presented with the information so we can gauge from a wider opinion the validity of the claims? It's a simple enough point and I really don't think it should have needed making this many times but apparently it does.

Which seems to me to be a moving of goalposts from the cries of 'proof' that JerryB demanded pages ago into a new area of denial.

Well unless you're claiming that these questions are proof then it's difficult to fathom what your point is here. Speaking for myself I cry only for consistency with the theorising and greater accuracy from those involved who seem bent on inventing my opinion.

I'd think you would think that with your proclivities.

.......

Sad really, when you think about it.

Not that either point really has anything to do with this topic but I forgive you, Crunchers. I know deep down really you f***ing love it.

 

[WhistlingJack]

OK everyone, if we could agree to differ and get back on-topic while keeping it civil please...

 

[Jerry_B]

They already have a 'peer review' as more professional architects and engineers join. That is support you can actually count.

It's support that's largely down to a meeting of personal opinions though, isn't it? If they were convinced of their own professional opinions, they'd get it published. I know that this is something which has to be repeated, but the truth of the matter is that mention of the professionals who back the conspiracy is pretty much meaningless in any real sense unless they put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. It doesn't legitimise or actually give the theory any credence at all unless they do so. Until they do, we can only ever roll back to the start point again in terms of discussion - but as nothing new has cropped up recently from the conspiracy camp and we've gone over the salient points again and again, we don't have much to discuss.

In fact the only new thing about the 9/11 conspiracy theory was an article I posted earlier this week, that attempted to show that the demolition theory was a false premise. I've not heard anything much here from the pro-conspiracy side about it. Mike_Pratt33 reposted it in this thread, a few pages back too.

 

[lupinwick]

Yet another point of view on the whole mythology of 9-11. This time from Douglas Rushkoff, he comes across as being more strident than Monbiot (who I think did a similar piece some time ago).

I have to admit that I do this with some trepidation. I can already feel the assault on my inbox. But after a good long think about potential time and energy being lost by our entire community to senseless and ultimately inconsequential musings, I have to come out and say it: the alternative theories about 9-11 are wrong. Worse, the endless theorizing and speculation about trajectories, explosives, military tests, fake airplane parts and remote control navigation actually distracts some of our best potential activists from addressing the more substantive matters at hand.

Yes, I believe that 9-11 theorizing debilitates the counterculture. It robs us of some potentially creative thinkers. It replaces truly important questions with trivial ones. It marginalizes more constructive investigation of American participation in the development of Al Qaeda as well as its subsequent aggravation. And perhaps worst of all, it is precisely the sort of activity that government disinformation specialists would want us to be involved with.

It seems that Rushkoff isn't pro-government but rather anti government and feels that the concentration of a lot of intellectuals on the minutiae of the 9-11 conspiracy is really getting in the way of other more important stuff.

Our government excels at doing its really bad stuff out in the open. They break laws in order to spy on citizens, and refuse to acknowledge objections from lawmakers or justice. They take taxpayers money and give it to the companies they run. They acknowledge the many billions of dollars that go missing, and offer not even a shrug. They put the people who formerly lobbied on behalf of industries in positions running the agencies that are supposed to be regulating them.

By looking under the rug for what isn’t even there, we neglect the horror show that is in plain view. In the process, we make it even easier for the criminals running our government to perpetuate their illegal, unethical and un-American activities.

In fact, the most logical conclusion I can draw from the existing evidence is that 9-11 theorists are themselves covert government operatives, dedicated to confusing the public, distracting activists from their tasks, equating all dissent with the lunatic fringe, and provoking the counterculture’s misplaced belief in the competency of its foes.
That’s the real conspiracy.

Arthur

 

[Analogue Boy]

Yet another point of view on the whole mythology of 9-11. This time from Douglas Rushkoff, he comes across as being more strident than Monbiot (who I think did a similar piece some time ago).

But after a good long think about potential time and energy being lost by our entire community to senseless and ultimately inconsequential musings, I have to come out and say it: the alternative theories about 9-11 are wrong.

So the reason the Official Version is correct is simply because he thinks so?

OK. Case closed. Let's waste no more time and move onto something else.

 

[lupinwick]

Errrm did he?. Isn't that putting words in his mouth? All he's saying (in his opinion) is that far too much time and effort is spent in scrutinising 9-11, time which could be spent on far more worthwhile anti US government investigations.

 

[Anonymous]

This deals with Dov Zakheim:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/pub ... 1047.shtml

 

[Zilch5]

I never gave the conspiracy theories about 9/11 much thought, until I saw the "official" Pentagon attack video.

Now, I work in airfreight, I drive past Sydney Airport every morning to go to work and I see all manners of Boeings departing, landing and parked.

Moreover, I have flown in my life in 737s, 747s, 757s and 777s and I have a pretty good idea of their size. And that video doesn't show anything of the sort. And to think a pilot could smash it into the ground floor without even sraping the grass. And, oh yeah, a jet strike brings down the WTC plus adjacent buildings but leaves most of the Pentagon intact...

Whatever it is in that Pentagon video, it is NOT a Boeing passenger aircraft slamming into a building. I have no idea what it is - missile perhaps - but a 757 it isn't. Now - what happened to that plane???

 

[Anonymous]

One other thing which I would add to the discussion for my tuppence worth;

Peer review is an essential part of getting the scientific and or engineering communities to accept research or reports or theories.

It should be noted however, that all of the scientists and engineers involved are humans.

Being humans they are subject to such needs and wants as homes, food, water, creature comforts, nice lives, and their own egos and reputations.

Whereby any of the above is at risk from funding cuts, redundancy, being ousted from the scientific/engineering community and ridiculed, banishment etc - then the humans involved may look to their homes, families, egos, friends and lives etc and may well decide that sticking their neck out for an unfavourable policy may not be a good idea.

A case in point is the current conspiracy theory that many scientists have been given funding priority by the UK government if they add something about global warming to any research or report they make public.

Bias - for good reason, ones that we can all understand and sympathise with I'm sure. I like having a job, home, food etc.

Of course, those scientists and engineers with less to lose appear to be speaking out re global warming, and there is a fair amount of protest against global warming now and research and reports (peer reviewed) to support the case that global warming is either a natural occurance or has stopped in the last ten years.

By that example, I would expect those scientists and engineers to speak out against the official theory re 9/11 if they felt there was a good case.

As far as I can make out, no scientists or engineers with the correct or relevant qualifications or experience have done so as yet.

That alone should put the case to bed.