September 11th: The History of 9/11

[Anonymous]

I know most of the arguments against the official 9/11 story have been done to death and tails chased etc; but I love this article, particularly these quotes;

former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'

In an online article entitled "Physics 911," 34-year U.S. Air Force veteran Col. George Nelson notes, "It seems . . . that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I know most of the arguments against the official 9/11 story have been done to death and tails chased etc; but I love this article, particularly these quotes;

former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'

The article describes former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine as "impressive company". Indeed he is impressive. He's also an expert in this field. He clearly knows what can and can not pass though a wall and what sort of impression it would make. And he proves that Americans can do irony ito the bargain.

 

[Anonymous]

The article describes former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine as "impressive company". Indeed he is impressive. He's also an expert in this field. He clearly knows what can and can not pass though a wall and what sort of impression it would make. And he proves that Americans can do irony ito the bargain.

So Simon says - a worthy source of satire indeed.

 

[Analis]

ted_bloody_maul :

In what way would it not have been possible? All it seems to indicate is that a marginal and generally disregarded community has got organised and convince an MP who was probably already pre-disposed towards their view to present it.

Maybe she was pre-disposed, but she would not have dared to present it. The dissidents are more and more visible and influent, they give more and more conferences and are more numerous. Are they disregarded? In the 'great mainstream' media, yes. But from my personnal experience, they're not so disregarded. Are they marginal? No, views held by at least 38 % in the USA alone (some polls say more) are not marginal. For years, it has been prophesied that they would quickly die, because of the lack of genuine material. That 'serious' people would never lay an eye on them. The contrary happened: they have more supporters than before, more substantial people, from scientists to intelligence agents, and now elected officials. This would not happen if there was not a substantial body of evidence, that no official explanation could defeat.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Maybe she was pre-disposed, but she would not have dared to present it.

That's rather speculative, I'm afraid. I'm not sure we're in a position to say that an MP - who I doubt very few 9/11 Truthers would have heard of before now - would 'never have dared' present such a petition. Look at the example of Michael Meacher - how long ago was it that he was spouting his theories between maintaining his many, many properties?

The dissidents are more and more visible and influent, they give more and more conferences and are more numerous. Are they disregarded? In the 'great mainstream' media, yes. But from my personnal experience, they're not so disregarded. Are they marginal? No, views held by at least 38 % in the USA alone (some polls say more) are not marginal.

What is the nature of such polls, though? Do they ask if people believe that the government's versions of events is the truth? Not accepting that the government's version is 100% truth doesn't automatically mean those people believe there was a government approved conspiracy.

The dissidents may be more and more influential but not on people of influence by and large - a couple of MP's here and there but no major inroads, I'm afraid - and I'd say that as many as find the claims credible find those believers incredible. The fact that they have more and more conferences is indicative only that there's a market ripe for exploitation. Ufology has, I'm sure, seen it all before but its more colourful claims are no more accepted in the mainstream now than they were 10, 20 or 40 years ago. Also, if somebody could define for us what 'the great mainstream media' is I'd be grateful since I'm not entirely sure such a thing exists.

For years, it has been prophesied that they would quickly die, because of the lack of genuine material. That 'serious' people would never lay an eye on them. The contrary happened: they have more supporters than before, more substantial people, from scientists to intelligence agents, and now elected officials. This would not happen if there was not a substantial body of evidence, that no official explanation could defeat.

The claim that the movement would wither and die due to a lack of credible evidence - I've heard very few people argue that since most critics don't consider credible evidence to be neccessary for the beliefs in the first place and often note that where a piece of 'evidence' is debunked it makes no difference to belief. Again, I'd argue that there's simply better market exploitation now, that the level of organisation by a few obsessives makes such views seem somehow significant.

The fact that there are 'serious' people backing the theory is still of little consequence since they are still a very small minority. After many years of hot air on the subject one might expect the numbers to have swollen further were the evidence so compelling but so far they haven't. Most people who have qualifications to match the kind of people you describe seem either uninterested or - and I speak from personal experience - generally opposed to the theories. Indeed, it seems that the less qualified someone appears to be speak on the compliacted technical issues the more likely they are to believe the claims, in my mainstream opinion.

 

[Analis]

ted_bloody_maul:

What is the nature of such polls, though? Do they ask if people believe that the government's events is the truth? Not accepting that the government's version is 100% truth doesn't automatically mean those people believe there was a government approved conspiracy.

This Scripps-Ohio poll (August 2006) asked if there was a state approval of the attacks (they were involved or they let it happen on purpose). With polls asking if people believe the official version is not 100% accurate, negative answers are often much above 50% of those who express an opinion.

Also if somebody could define for us what 'the great mainstream media' is I'd be grateful since I'm not entirely sure such a thing exists.

In the USA, I mean media like the great national resorts (their local subsidiaries are sometimes more open to 'fringe' subjects), great newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc...

Ufology has, I'm sure, seen it all before but its more colourful claims are no more accepted in the mainstream now than they were 10, 20, or 40 years ago.

This comparison is a two-edge sword. Many ufological documentaries and articles were produced or written in the last two decades. Some were poor and commercial. But a significant proportion were rigorous and compelling. It doesn't concern the 'big mainstream media' I mentionned, of course - but with notable exceptions. If ufology (I mean serious ufology, please no Icke and co) did not gain acceptance from them, this is not by lack of evidence. The right question is: what in their mental structures makes them impervious to evidence? Unless it is a matter of political will.

since most critics don't consider credible evidence to be neccessary for the beliefs in the first place and often note that when a piece of 'evidence' is debunked it makes no difference to belief.

Another two-edge sword. Much (in fact, all) 'evidence' supporting the official version was debunked, it didn't change the views of many of its supporters. It is a matter of will to believe, not of checking facts. Worse, a significant portion of people in the USA still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved.

Most people who have qualifications to match the kind of people you describe seem either uninterested or - and I speak from personal experience - generally opposed to the theories.

Is the opinion of those people fair or biased? An example of intellectual contempt for the 'mass'? An interesting example, from my personnal experience. As I was intrigued by the claims that cell phone calls are impossibe at very high altitudes, I asked a telecom engineer of my friends. I thought wiser not to say him why I asked this question. He is certainly an expert, he worked for France Telecom on reports on new telecommunication technologies. His answer was straight: they are impossible. So the whole offficial story of Flight 93 is bogus. I revealed him why I had asked that. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem that he changed his views - difficult to ascertain, as he evades the matter. Worse, I suspect he is resentful towards me that he was proven wrong. So, his scientific knowledge tells him, unequivocally, that the official version is a lie. But he refuses to follow what it learns us. An example of lack of rigour, and of denying the evidence. People with qualifications who refuse to adress the evidence seem to be in such a psychological denial.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This Scripps-Ohio poll (August 2006) asked if there was a state approval of the attacks (they were involved or they let it happen on purpose). With polls asking if people believe the official version is not 100% accurate, negative answers are often much above 50% of those who express an opinion.

Again, giving a negative answer to that question does not imply a belief in conspiracy let alone one that is held trenchantly enough to actually merit the term 'belief'. Many people accept flaws in the account but still find it compelling enough to accept in general.

The Scripps-Ohio poll you refer to shows 36% of people take the view that the government was either directly involved or deliberately negligent in the 9/11 attacks. However, that the same poll uncovered even greater belief (38%) that "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets" suggests the greater part of society is more than willing to disregard the claims of a minority incapable of offering definitive proof despite its years of efforts. They're not being seduced by the ET conspiracies into taking action so it's unreasonable to believe that greater shrift will be given to the 9/11 ones.

In the USA, I mean media like the great national resorts (their local subsidiaries are sometimes more open to 'fringe' subjects), great newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc...

To label media as 'mainstream', particularly newspapers, is merely to suggest that they're popular. There are plenty of 'alternative' media outlers available and many of them are extremely popular whilst presenting left-field views and editorials. Also, by applying such a label there's an implication that there's a homogenous quality to the content when in reality it's mostly the form that they hold in common (the old media of newspapers, radio and television as compared with more recently established internet sites and blogs).

There's also a generally higher standard of journalism on the traditional news outlets, they're generally more professional and more thorough in their reporting than the alternatives. That doesn't mean that they're infallible but it does mean that, unless an agenda to the contrary dictates otherwise, they're less likely to run poorly substantiated stories of the kind which people tune into the alternative media for irrespective. You might ask why this mainstream media might ignore the claims (aside from the issue of their veracity) - I'd argue that the 36% of people expressing this particular view are less likely to be in the desired demographic of most respected national titles.

This comparison is a two-edge sword. Many ufological documentaries and articles were produced or written in the last two decades. Some were poor and commercial. But a significant proportion were rigorous and compelling. It doesn't concern the 'big mainstream media' I mentionned, of course - but with notable exceptions. If ufology (I mean serious ufology, please no Icke and co) did not gain acceptance from them, this is not by lack of evidence. The right question is: what in their mental structures makes them impervious to evidence? Unless it is a matter of political will.

If you'll look back you'll see that I'm referring to the more outlandish claims of Ufology, not the otherwise sober research or theories that emerges from the field. The point is that if 38% of people surveyed believe that the government is covering up knowledge of extra-terrestrial life then that's a lot of people who believe a fairly extraordinary and outlandish claim. The evidence which supports this belief is nowhere near compelling enough to suggest that those who don't exploit it in the mainstream media are somehow psychologically impaired. If they were publishing such stories with such little credible evidence in any other area - politics, economics, international affairs - then they wouldn't last very long unless they were prepared to slump to the level of the National Enquirer (save for carrying out an agenda ordered from elsewhere). Given that most people don't accept the premise that the government is suppressing such knowledge it would seem contrary to the example of a coherent and functioning society that it was they and not the smaller band of fervent beleievers (in truth only 16% as with the 9/11 question) who were erecting a psychological wall to prevent them facing reality.

Another two-edge sword. Much (in fact, all) 'evidence' supporting the official version was debunked, it didn't change the views of many of its supporters. It is a matter of will to believe, not of checking facts. Worse, a significant portion of people in the USA still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved.

I'd have to contest that much has been debunked let alone all of it. Some details put forward as facts may not be entirely accurate but the holes in this theory are insubstantial compared to the holes in the counter-theories which get recycled as fact. Also, from what I can make out the need to believe is far less pressing for those who accept the official view as the more accurate of available narratives than it is for those who believe the more sinister explanations since they seem to be obsessed over to a far greater degree in the 'truth' movement.

Is the opinion of those people fair or biased? An example of intellectual contempt for the 'mass'? An interesting example, from my personnal experience. As I was intrigued by the claims that cell phone calls are impossibe at very high altitudes, I asked a telecom engineer of my friends. I thought wiser not to say him why I asked this question. He is certainly an expert, he worked for France Telecom on reports on new telecommunication technologies. His answer was straight: they are impossible. So the whole offficial story of Flight 93 is bogus. I revealed him why I had asked that. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem that he changed his views - difficult to ascertain, as he evades the matter. Worse, I suspect he is resentful towards me that he was proven wrong. So, his scientific knowledge tells him, unequivocally, that the official version is a lie. But he refuses to follow what it learns us. An example of lack of rigour, and of denying the evidence. People with qualifications who refuse to adress the evidence seem to be in such a psychological denial.

No, quite clearly not since they are the masses (nearly two-thirds of the public if we're to believe the Scripps poll). One would have to wonder how this society functions at all with so many dysfunctional yet intelligent people actively limiting their minds.

I can't give a definitive explanation for your friend's behaviour, of course but I could suggest that your his assertion that the calls were impossible are meaningless - only two of the calls came from mobile phones (the rest from the in-flight phones which work at any altitude) and they were made shortly before the plane crashed and at an altitude that was not prohibitive. In fact the calls actually got cut as the plane briefly made an ascent before finally plummeting. Perhaps your friend has since found out the actual nature of the claims being made rather than the nature of those reported by the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Analis]

ted_bloody_maul

However, that the same poll uncovered even greater belief (38%) that "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets" suggests the greater part of society is more than willing to disregard the claims of a minority incapable of offering definitive proof despite its years of efforts. They're not being seduced by the ET conspiracies into taking action so it's unreasonnable to believe that greater shrif will be given to the 9/11 ones.

Well, in itself, that as many as 38% give credence to what you see as the most extreme and outlandish ufological claims is indeed striking. This is a significant proportion, not a marginal phenomenon. I suppose that you think they refer to crashed disk and little bodies in a refrigerator, or cities on the Moon. But they're not so irrationnal, as there is evidence. Now, it may be misdirection, that's another matter (that's my personnal opinion, but if solid evidence is provided, I may change my mind). But they're certainly only the tip of the iceberg. Less outlandish versions will have their proponents too. For example, that the state hides its knowledge of UFOs (whatever this knowledge is, it may be that it doesn't understand and doesn't want us to know), not an extraordinary assertion in itself. There is a documented body of evidence in its favour, that sceptics could never refute. Other polls show that a majority do believe that. There were polls who give more of 50% of no (expressed opinions) to the question "did the government say the truth about Roswell?" (not necessarily equated with an alien event). In fact, there are even polls showing that more people believe the state is hiding the truth on UFOs than there are who believe in UFOs... Beliefs in UFO 'conspiracies' are definitely not marginal.
So yes, such claims should be adressed, even the most outlandish. What you point is a dysfunctionnent of the society. Plus probably, those 38% are not the same 36%, at least not all the same.

There's also a generally higher standard of journalism on the traditional news outlets, they're generally more professional and more thorough than their alternatives. That doesn't mean that they're infallible but it does mean that, unless an agenda to the contrary dicates otherwise, they're less likely to run poorly substantiated stories of the kind which people tune into the alternative media for irrespective.

It has been conclusively shown that The New York Times , The Washington Post, or other 'great' newspapers, lacked of riguor when it came to UFOs, for example (with a few exceptions for The Washington Post). It did not come from a lack of substantation, but to a partial approach. When they come to other 'fringe' matters, it should be suspected that they are equally partial. Indeed, their articles on the September 2001 attacks displayed such flaws. Worse, articles in Black List showed that even on more ordinary matters, they were often biased. And I won't mention their 'covering' of the WMD assertions which led to the attack of Iraq. Seems that they're more and more dictated by an agenda to the contrary...

I'd have to contest that much has been debunked let alone all of it. Some details put forward as facts may not be entirely accurate but the holes in this theory are insubstantial compared to the holes in the counter-theories which get recycled as fact.

I expressed previously my views relating to the scientific assertions of the official version, and their many counter-truths. I saw no reason to change them, quite the contrary. The off. ver. discrepancies are not mere details, and its holes are not insubstantial at all. They are its core In fact, it is made of holes. From the surreal behaviour of the Air Force and NORAD with its three distinct accounts of it, to the severe innacuracies of the vice-president's whereabouts, the supposed extreme incompetence of the military, the FBI, the FAA, etc..., the not-discreet-at-all behaviour of the supposed hijackers, the president's 'response', the assertion that the hijackers became super-elite pilots via the use of simulators and flight manuals, the number of official assertions exposed as lies, etc..., nothing adds up. In fact, it is made of holes. To believe it requires the strongest will to believe. Many cunter-theories have their holes, but they are more credible.

No, quite clearly not since they are the masses (nearly two-thirds of the public if we're to believe the Scripps poll).

They are probably the masses: the groups who have the most outlandish beliefs are over-represented among them.

One would have to wonder how this society functions at all with so many dysfunctionnal yet intelligent people actively limiting their minds.

Perhaps as a society which re-elects psychotic, war criminal liers? (This rejoins my previous remarks about a dysfunctionnal society)

only two of the calls came from mobile phones (the rest from the in-flight phones which work at any altitude) and they were made shortly before the plane crashed and at an altitude that was not prohibitive.

I was expecting this one! No, that's not what the authorities said. This is only at the time of the Moussaoui trial that they reduced the number to two. Previous to it, they constantly said there were nine. When they understood the huge mistake they had done (and because they were in front of a court), they tried to "clean it off". An implicit admission that their story was bogus. Besides, cell phones do not work even at a 2000 m (7000ft) altitude on a big airliner, or a mid-sized Learjet.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well, in itself, that as many as 38% give credence to what you see as the most extreme and outlandish ufological claims is indeed striking. This is a significant proportion, not a marginal phenomenon.

Yes they are marginal (or perhaps more accurately, marginalised) since, as you point out, they’re ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians. Furthermore the more vigorously their views are expressed the more likely those in the majority are to find issue with them, in my experience.

I suppose that you think they refer to crashed disk and little bodies in a refrigerator, or cities on the Moon. But they're not so irrationnal, as there is evidence. Now, it may be misdirection, that's another matter (that's my personnal opinion, but if solid evidence is provided, I may change my mind).

I don’t suppose any such thing, I suppose only that they believe the claim put to them by the researchers. There is, or has been, disinformation, most likely.

But they're certainly only the tip of the iceberg. Less outlandish versions will have their proponents too. For example, that the state hides its knowledge of UFOs (whatever this knowledge is, it may be that it doesn't understand and doesn't want us to know), not an extraordinary assertion in itself. There is a documented body of evidence in its favour, that sceptics could never refute.

Well, I’m afraid I’d have to dispute that on behalf of the otherwise impotent sceptics. There may be nuggets of intriguing and anomalous information out there but I’m not sure too many objective people would claim that it’s indisputable.

Other polls show that a majority do believe that. There were polls who give more of 50% of no (expressed opinions) to the question "did the government say the truth about Roswell?" (not necessarily equated with an alien event). In fact, there are even polls showing that more people believe the state is hiding the truth on UFOs than there are who believe in UFOs... Beliefs in UFO 'conspiracies' are definitely not marginal.

You’re confusing the issue of UFO’s with extra-terrestrials. The survey asked specifically about the existence of extra-terrestrial life, not whether there was anything dark or sinister about the UFO phenomenon which may be known to the government and not to the public. Belief that the government hid the truth about Roswell doesn’t imply belief in ET’s, merely that they told a story that wasn’t the whole truth - a fact that most people would expect to be the case for a whole variety of non-ET related reasons.

So yes, such claims should be adressed, even the most outlandish. What you point is a dysfunctionnent of the society.

Those claims are addressed, though. It’s because most people find them outlandish that they occupy such little room in the public consciousness. This is not a dysfunction on the part of society since it quite clearly does function.

Plus probably, those 38% are not the same 36%, at least not all the same.

Well that’s not something either of us can know although I’d point out that people who believe in one generally unaccepted or unverifiable phenomenon are more likely to believe in others. By its nature any case made here is necessarily correlative but there are many examples of this trend. I’d say it’s a better than good chance that the same people would largely form these two figures.

It has been conclusively shown that The New York Times , The Washington Post, or other 'great' newspapers, lacked of riguor when it came to UFOs, for example (with a few exceptions for The Washington Post). It did not come from a lack of substantation, but to a partial approach. When they come to other 'fringe' matters, it should be suspected that they are equally partial.

Could you point me in the direction of this conclusive proof, please. I find it unlikely that it’s as conclusive as you say.

Indeed, their articles on the September 2001 attacks displayed such flaws. Worse, articles in Black List showed that even on more ordinary matters, they were often biased. And I won't mention their 'covering' of the WMD assertions which led to the attack of Iraq. Seems that they're more and more dictated by an agenda to the contrary...

I’d contend that what you label the mainstream press is less concerned with wilfully regurgitating the administration’s biased views for their good than it is for selling copy. The commercial market after 9/11 didn’t really allow for much criticism and when it came to propagating the lines spun about WMD, well, where is all the support for the administration now and where has it been for the last few years.

I expressed previously my views relating to the scientific assertions of the official version, and their many counter-truths. I saw no reason to change them, quite the contrary. The off. ver. discrepancies are not mere details, and its holes are not insubstantial at all. They are its core In fact, it is made of holes. From the surreal behaviour of the Air Force and NORAD with its three distinct accounts of it, to the severe innacuracies of the vice-president's whereabouts, the supposed extreme incompetence of the military, the FBI, the FAA, etc..., the not-discreet-at-all behaviour of the supposed hijackers, the president's 'response', the assertion that the hijackers became super-elite pilots via the use of simulators and flight manuals, the number of official assertions exposed as lies, etc..., nothing adds up. In fact, it is made of holes. To believe it requires the strongest will to believe. Many cunter-theories have their holes, but they are more credible.

I’m sorry but that’s just a list of things which can’t be substantiated (‘the FBI’, for example). Once the details are laid out they are invariably debunked by people who don’t require either version of events to be absolutely coherent in order to sustain their belief structure . Unfortunately for those espousing such views such holes as exist in any argument they might attack are reciprocated in their own arguments. They don’t accept incompetence or inconsistency in others’ arguments therefore they must deal with their own claims in this light but generally do not.

That aside the apparent unbelievable claims would suggest less conspiracy rather than more since it would be easier to create a coherent narrative before the ‘big lie’ goes live. It’s generally easier to repeat scripted and learned lines than it is to recall with accuracy all sorts of minor details from such a tumultuous day. Also, you’re listing claims that aren’t made by the people you claim to be lying. Where was it said that the hijackers were super-elite pilots? This is a claim made, accepted and repeated unquestioningly by those for whom the whole rotten lie is already a given.

It’s telling that so many on here who are clearly open to ‘alternative’ media and unusual phenomena seem to find the theories implausible. Why would that be so? Are there really so many people who come onto a site like this afflicted with prejudice to the point where they can’t see the truth? I’ll accept the compliment to the strength of my will, though, as I’m sure the majority of the population will do to. One wonders why we bother though when accepting the contrary is apparently so common-place nowadays and apparently allows those in receipt of such beliefs to live normal, happy, well-balanced lives.

That aside the apparent unbelievable claims would suggest less conspiracy rather than more since it would be easier to create a coherent narrative before the ‘big lie’ goes live. It’s generally easier to repeat scripted and learned lines than it is to recall with accuracy all sorts of minor details from such a tumultuous day. Also, you’re listing claims that aren’t made by the people you claim to be lying. Where was it said that the hijackers were super-elite pilots? This is a claim made, accepted and repeated unquestioningly by those for whom the whole rotten lie is already a given.

They are probably the masses: the groups who have the most outlandish beliefs are over-represented among them.

Again, they clearly are not the masses. They are little over a third of the population. They may exist within the masses generally but on this issue the masses clearly believe there to be no conspiracy of the type being proposed in this survey.

Perhaps as a society which re-elects psychotic, war criminal liers? (This rejoins my previous remarks about a dysfunctionnal society)

Touché. However, I think you underestimate the extent to which (a) some people understand the real-politik involved (b) don’t really care about what happens to those unfortunate enough not to be American and (c) considers a wide range of other issues to be equally if not more important.

I was expecting this one! No, that's not what the authorities said. This is only at the time of the Moussaoui trial that they reduced the number to two. Previous to it, they constantly said there were nine. When they understood the huge mistake they had done (and because they were in front of a court), they tried to "clean it off". An implicit admission that their story was bogus. Besides, cell phones do not work even at a 2000 m (7000ft) altitude on a big airliner, or a mid-sized Learjet.

The calls are reported as having been made at attitudes below that, however.

Are you sure you might not be confusing what the authorities said (which ones, by the way?) with what the press reported? Many of the early reports, certainly before the Moussaiou trial, seem to indicate that the passengers were using the onboard GTE phones. Given that it was widely reported you’d have to conclude that the authorities, if they did make this claim, were merely incompetent.

 

[Analis]

ted_bloody_maul:

You're confusing the issue of UFO's with extra-terrestrials.

I drew a distinction, although it was only implicit. This distinction probably explains why, for example, people don't believe in UFOs (which they see as alien craft) but nonetheless believe the government hides what it knows. The intent was to show that a majority of people are suspicious of official claims. Alas, their ability to contest them is impaired by their divisions.

There may be nuggets of intriguing and anomalous information out there but I'm not sure too many objective people would claim that's it's indisputable.

I can give you only a short answer, I would direct you to the topic "governmental knowledge of UFOs" (Ufology section).

Well that's not something either of us can know although I'd point out that people who believe in one generally unaccepted or unverifiable phenomenon are more likely to believe in others. By its nature any case made here is necessarily correlative but there are many examples of this trend. I'd say it's a better than good chance that the same people would largely form these two figures.

While I agree that there is probably an important overlapping of the two groups, they are different (sadly, I know of no study of that). People who are defiant of official explanations of a 'fringe' phenomenon will probably be more suspicious of the 'establishment' in other occasions as a result. But many ufologists do not want to be associated with the Truth movement, because they think it could damage their credibility. And vice versa.

Where was it said that the hijackers were super-elite pilots?

It's never told, but the official version implies that they flew like they were. But at the same time, they could not even follow a coherent flight path, or stabilize their plane...

They don't accept incompetence or inconsistency in other's arguments therefore they must deal with their own claims in this light but generally do not.

That aside the apparent unbelievable claims would suggest less conspiracy rather than more since it would be easier to create a coherent narrative before the 'big lie' goes live.

This is an another double-edge sword. You suppose that any large event would have its lot of inconsistencies. Yes, but on the other hand, it would be very difficult for such a huge manipulation, even if made with expertise, to be fully consistent. May be there were cock-ups, some things went wrong, or there were true bloopers (as with the cell phone calls).

When it is closely examined, the official version is the least rationnal. I explained previously why I thought that claims that the government was negligent were unsatisfactory, I met other motives to reject this assertion. I don't say that because I want to believe, I am usually delighted when official incompetence is exposed. But, the official version beggars belief. It supposes an incredible series of failures and cock-ups at every level. There were so many examples of such 'incompetence' that they draw a ridiculous picture of the US military, civil servants, federal investigators, intelligence agents, officials as incompetent beyond imagination. To a point it is not any more mere incompetence. No, this supposes they were incredibly stupid, that they were only a bunch of morons. That I do not believe. Now, that we believe them to be so incompetent, that's probably what they want. Ironically, they blame an organisation which made plenty the proof of its incompetence since.

It's telling that so many on here are clearly open to 'alternative' media and unusual phenomena seem to find the theories implausible. Why would that be so. Are there really so many people who come onto a site like this afflicted to prejudice to the point where they can't see the truth? I'll accept the compliment to the strenght of my will, though, as I'm sure the majority of the population will do to. One wonders why we bother though when accepting the contrary is apparently so common-place nowadays and apparently allows those in receipt of such beliefs to live normal, happy, well-balanced lives.

Yes, dissidents are usually normal, altough they have their lot of weirdos. Despite that to admit it was unsetting to many of them, it was like a lightning in a blue sky. But when it comes to the reluctance of a number of people usually open to 'fringe' phenomena, I am of the opinion that it is because such an admission would be too disruptive, even for them. Despite the fact there were a number of precursor signs, it looks too new. This time, it is not an hypothetical and remote phenomenon. It directly affects our lives and our environment. If this is proven as true, the consequences would be such, that any standard of usual knowledge would be broken. To the public, it would mean that any marginalised subject would look suddenly as plausible. Even in their most ludicrous claims. Not only UFOs would seem likely, but claims of an underground grey base at Dulce. How could we be sure that astronauts set afoot on the Moon? Because people on TV would tell us, the same people who deceived us on such a scale? Nobody could trust any form of 'establishment' anymore. It's too frightening... That's the reason many open-minded forteans are so reticent.

I explain why I mentionned the will to believe. Too often, forumers accused other forumers of following their will to believe, not evidence... This argument is often used to discredit all opposition. I intended to point that people on the official version side are subject to it too, so this is not an argument to discredite their opponents. In fact, in any debate, people on any side are subject to it. They don't oppose true believers to debunkers, but believers to believers. True sceptics are usually sandwiched between them.

Again, they are clearly not the masses. They are little over a third of the population.

Well, there was a misunderstanding. Bad phrasing from my part, I agreed that the masses are the 64% left. I meant that they included groups of people who made outlandish claims.

Given that it was widely reported you'd have to conclude that the authorities, if they did make this claim, were merely incompetent.

It was said from the beginning that there were calls from onboard phones as well as from cell phones. Some relatives claim that they could see the identification of their caller, impossible with an onboard phone. This argument was used by authorities. In its Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics took much time to (hopelessly) debunk claims of the impossibilty of such calls. They collaborated with official services like the NIST, the NTSB or the FBI. It seems they forgot to tell them there were no such calls... They would be so incompetent, while they had the data? Much more likely, this is an example of them caught red handed while faking their investigation.
But the funniest part is the call phone from 'Barbara Olson' aboard Flight AA77 to her husband. Was it via a cell phone or an onboard phone? Mr Olson jinggled his claims on at least five occasions, saying sometimes that it was a cell phone, sometimes it was an onboard. American Airlines stated on more than one occasion that its Boeing 757 were not equipped with onboard phones... His wife could never call him. [/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Good discussion between Analis and Ted here, interesting debate.

Ted - IMO mainstream media is exactly what you described it as; popular.

If it is popular it is read, watched or listened to by many regardless of the medium it is in, and another indication of a media product being mainstream apart from being popular is the effect it has (via it's wide consumer base) on the people using that product.

For example - on 7th July 2005 (7/7 bombings) on Tottenham Court Road in London on my way home I saw an ITV journalist excitedly telling the camera that it was chaos, everybody was panicing.

This could not have been further from the truth - because on Tottenham Court Road that day at that time (about 5.30pm) it was sunny, the road was pedestrianised, there was an ice cream van selling ice creams, people strolling by peacefully and a couple of people riding their bicycles.

It was, for want of better words, idyllic.

Now with ITV and the Daily Wail both being part of mainstream media in this country and very obviously and undeniably so - what kind of message are these people sending? They were making what the terrorists had done into a big thing to cause fear, achieving that for the terrorists by telling people how frightened they should be.

That power to market fear has been used but none of the power the mainstream media (which we rely upon for news, none of us read military reports or peer reviews or university reports really) has been used to ask questions such as;

1) There was a bomb training excerise taking place underground in London that day - coincidence?
2) If that is a coincidence, what are the odds of a power failure on the underground shortly before the bombs went off? That happened, and the odds of a bomb training exercise plus power failures on the underground happening together that same morning as the bombs went off must be high. So was it a coincidence or not?
3) Live 8 was happening that week, and Bob Geldoff was looking good for extracting promises that the politicians (Bush, Blair et al) would discuss anulling African debt and helping with food whilst they had a summit in Gleneagles. Then the bombs went off - fear, panic chaos were the words in the media that week, and on the lips of the politicians in Gleneagles. Coincidence?

Mainstream media has power which is used, it grabs our attention and it shapes our views and perceptions because it is the only source of news and informatin we have (apart from the internet which is just as biased and easily manipulated if you consider people will keep visiting the same news pages).

Nobody, as I've said, reads military reports or peer reviews etc - even those may be manipulated, biased or shaped in some way - but we just pick up the newspaper generally and read whatever is there, and base our views upon that.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I drew a distinction, although it was only implicit. This distinction probably explains why, for example, people don't believe in UFOs (which they see as alien craft) but nonetheless believe the government hides what it knows. The intent was to show that a majority of people are suspicious of official claims. Alas, their ability to contest them is impaired by their divisions.

That's speculative, though. I'd say most people assume that their government carries out covert operations and is neccessarily secretive about a number of activities. I'd also say most people approve of this since they understand the benefits of keeping hidden details which aid national security although they do so cautiously as they appreciate the potential abuses of that unaccountability. The fact that there's no great revolt and no violent oppression - as there is in Mugabe's increasingly bloody Zimbabwe, for example - suggests that the situation is acceptable to most. In any case the distinctions about belief in UFO's and ET's is ultimately irrelevant since the belief in question here is the government's suppression of its knowledge on this issue. The fact that many people believe they're lying (although more believe that they're not) has not yet lead to any great clamour in the social or political mainstream for the government to be held to account is equally true of the topic this thread is set up to discuss. No politician has fallen because of the claims of ufology. Likewise none will fall due to the 9/11 Truth movement (although I'd argue that this is a preferable outcome for them since it simply reinforces their theories).

It's never told, but the official version implies that they flew like they were. But at the same time, they could not even follow a coherent flight path, or stabilize their plane...

Are you referring to the 9/11 Commission report? It doesn't draw any conclusion about their competence and as far as I can make out it doesn't claim that there was anything unusually difficult about hitting their chosen targets. Where is the claim made that they couldn't follow a coherent flight path (and what is that anyway) or stabilise their plane?

This is an another double-edge sword. You suppose that any large event would have its lot of inconsistencies. Yes, but on the other hand, it would be very difficult for such a huge manipulation, even if made with expertise, to be fully consistent. May be there were cock-ups, some things went wrong, or there were true bloopers (as with the cell phone calls).

But where are the official claims that there were cell phone calls made? Even if there were and it's an error in their conspiracy would it not be more likely that they made an error outwith the conspiracy? Why are they apparently capable of only making mistakes during the operation of a sinister conspiracy - thus proving the conspiracy - yet they're not capable of making mistakes in the absence of one?

When it is closely examined, the official version is the least rationnal. I explained previously why I thought that claims that the government was negligent were unsatisfactory, I met other motives to reject this assertion. I don't say that because I want to believe, I am usually delighted when official incompetence is exposed. But, the official version beggars belief. It supposes an incredible series of failures and cock-ups at every level. There were so many examples of such 'incompetence' that they draw a ridiculous picture of the US military, civil servants, federal investigators, intelligence agents, officials as incompetent beyond imagination. To a point it is not any more mere incompetence. No, this supposes they were incredibly stupid, that they were only a bunch of morons. That I do not believe. Now, that we believe them to be so incompetent, that's probably what they want. Ironically, they blame an organisation which made plenty the proof of its incompetence since.

I think to say it represents these various people as incompetent beyond imagination is simply wrong. That might be your interpretation but I doubt that the report's authors would claim that to be the case. It's important to remember that they're concentrating on a failure here and it's not an overview of the work they do in a wider sense. Clearly if something goes wrong then blame has to be apportioned somewhere. On this occasion a plan came to fruition whilst on other occasions they did not but those examples are not what's being examined here.

Yes, dissidents are usually normal, altough they have their lot of weirdos. Despite that to admit it was unsetting to many of them, it was like a lightning in a blue sky.

I have to disagree - I think it's a comforting thought. It strikes me as being very similar to religious belief where people claim to go through a period of great trial when the truth is revealed although they neglect to mention the great trials their life was going through prior to such a point. After the conversion they have a neat world view in which there is purpose and meaning. For the non-believer we're at the constant mercy of chance, the most unknowable and ungovernable of all the fates. I think this applies here. I've little doubt that there is something deeply psychological about the need to believe in conspiracies (and religion is the ultimate conspiracy theory) and therefore the belief, rather than the causes of the belief, provide comfort. That aside it doesn't explain how someone could come to make the reverse journey.

But when it comes to the reluctance of a number of people usually open to 'fringe' phenomena, I am of the opinion that it is because such an admission would be too disruptive, even for them. Despite the fact there were a number of precursor signs, it looks too new. This time, it is not an hypothetical and remote phenomenon. It directly affects our lives and our environment. If this is proven as true, the consequences would be such, that any standard of usual knowledge would be broken. To the public, it would mean that any marginalised subject would look suddenly as plausible. Even in their most ludicrous claims. Not only UFOs would seem likely, but claims of an underground grey base at Dulce. How could we be sure that astronauts set afoot on the Moon? Because people on TV would tell us, the same people who deceived us on such a scale? Nobody could trust any form of 'establishment' anymore. It's too frightening... That's the reason many open-minded forteans are so reticent.

I'm sorry but that's maybe just a little bit offensive to those people. You're implying that they're incapable of accepting 'the truth' on grounds of emotional cowardice. One might see this claim in the same terms as the one I've just made regarding the comfort of accepting the conspiracy theory. However, in my experience those people who have been fully furnished with the facts and choose not to believe are less likely to be struggling with psychological complexes or functioning less rationally in other areas if their life as many conspiracy theorists are (and particularly those ones who hold those views most vigourously and proselytise on behalf of them). I'd also say they're more prone to believing any number of theories and ideas, whilst investing much emotional significance in them, even where they contradict each other which indicates not so much a greater credulity but a deeper need to believe.

It was said from the beginning that there were calls from onboard phones as well as from cell phones.

Yes but by whom? Where are the 'official' reports which substantiate this claim?

Some relatives claim that they could see the identification of their caller, impossible with an onboard phone. This argument was used by authorities. In its Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics took much time to (hopelessly) debunk claims of the impossibilty of such calls. They collaborated with official services like the NIST, the NTSB or the FBI. It seems they forgot to tell them there were no such calls... They would be so incompetent, while they had the data? Much more likely, this is an example of them caught red handed while faking their investigation.

To what extent did they collaborate with NIST, FBI etc? There is no sense in which Popular Mechanics produced an official report. It also seems odd to suggest that authorities knew how the calls were made but let PM go ahead and produce a report to support their view when the information is already out there in official form (if this is even the case that they did collaborate). I'd say this is much more likely an example of incompetence than sinister design.

But the funniest part is the call phone from 'Barbara Olson' aboard Flight AA77 to her husband. Was it via a cell phone or an onboard phone? Mr Olson jinggled his claims on at least five occasions, saying sometimes that it was a cell phone, sometimes it was an onboard. American Airlines stated on more than one occasion that its Boeing 757 were not equipped with onboard phones... His wife could never call him.

A private citizen lied but so what? That's his version of events, not the authorities.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Good discussion between Analis and Ted here, interesting debate.

Ted - IMO mainstream media is exactly what you described it as; popular.

If it is popular it is read, watched or listened to by many regardless of the medium it is in, and another indication of a media product being mainstream apart from being popular is the effect it has (via it's wide consumer base) on the people using that product.

For example - on 7th July 2005 (7/7 bombings) on Tottenham Court Road in London on my way home I saw an ITV journalist excitedly telling the camera that it was chaos, everybody was panicing.

This could not have been further from the truth - because on Tottenham Court Road that day at that time (about 5.30pm) it was sunny, the road was pedestrianised, there was an ice cream van selling ice creams, people strolling by peacefully and a couple of people riding their bicycles.

It was, for want of better words, idyllic.

Now with ITV and the Daily Wail both being part of mainstream media in this country and very obviously and undeniably so - what kind of message are these people sending? They were making what the terrorists had done into a big thing to cause fear, achieving that for the terrorists by telling people how frightened they should be.

That power to market fear has been used but none of the power the mainstream media (which we rely upon for news, none of us read military reports or peer reviews or university reports really) has been used to ask questions such as;

1) There was a bomb training excerise taking place underground in London that day - coincidence?
2) If that is a coincidence, what are the odds of a power failure on the underground shortly before the bombs went off? That happened, and the odds of a bomb training exercise plus power failures on the underground happening together that same morning as the bombs went off must be high. So was it a coincidence or not?
3) Live 8 was happening that week, and Bob Geldoff was looking good for extracting promises that the politicians (Bush, Blair et al) would discuss anulling African debt and helping with food whilst they had a summit in Gleneagles. Then the bombs went off - fear, panic chaos were the words in the media that week, and on the lips of the politicians in Gleneagles. Coincidence?

Mainstream media has power which is used, it grabs our attention and it shapes our views and perceptions because it is the only source of news and informatin we have (apart from the internet which is just as biased and easily manipulated if you consider people will keep visiting the same news pages).

Nobody, as I've said, reads military reports or peer reviews etc - even those may be manipulated, biased or shaped in some way - but we just pick up the newspaper generally and read whatever is there, and base our views upon that.

I doubt that's really the case. Yes the media shapes our opinions but I'd say there's quite a large disconnect between the media and the public in many cases. People also form their views as much from personal experience as they do from what they see on tv or in a newspaper. Also, the media often exaggerates claims such as the panic you referred to yet as you point out people were behaving in an orderly and calm fashion suggesting the power of the media to condition fear is not that impressive.

With regards to the 3 questions - these have all been dealt with in the mainstream media in as much as it needs to be (in the case of 1 we only know about it from interviews on ITV and the BBC, 2 - there was no power failure and 3 you could make all sorts of theories about this, some which would suggest the increased liklihood of it being terrorists).

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Yes, dissidents are usually normal, altough they have their lot of weirdos. Despite that to admit it was unsetting to many of them, it was like a lightning in a blue sky. But when it comes to the reluctance of a number of people usually open to 'fringe' phenomena, I am of the opinion that it is because such an admission would be too disruptive, even for them. Despite the fact there were a number of precursor signs, it looks too new. This time, it is not an hypothetical and remote phenomenon. It directly affects our lives and our environment. If this is proven as true, the consequences would be such, that any standard of usual knowledge would be broken. To the public, it would mean that any marginalised subject would look suddenly as plausible. Even in their most ludicrous claims. Not only UFOs would seem likely, but claims of an underground grey base at Dulce. How could we be sure that astronauts set afoot on the Moon? Because people on TV would tell us, the same people who deceived us on such a scale? Nobody could trust any form of 'establishment' anymore. It's too frightening... That's the reason many open-minded forteans are so reticent.

So can we presume that, as a believer in "the 9/11 conspiracy theory", any and all marginalised subjects and ludicrous claims are plausible to you? That would seem to bring into question your critical faculties. And what makes "truthers" an elite above the general public? Why are they so strong as to be able to cope with this world-shattering truth, whereas us poor, simple sheep are so cowardly and weak-minded that we refuse to face the facts?

 

[Analis]

Dr_Baltar:

...as a believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory...

Which one?

any and all marginalised subjetcs and ludicrous claims are plausible to you? That would seem to bring into question your critical faculties.

Excuse me? It seems you didn't read well my post. Or that you read what you wished to read...

"And what makes "truthers" an elite above the general public?"

"Elite" is your word, not mine. But their opponents are usually prone to see themselves above the dissidents (I prefer this word).
It may come as a surprise to you, but this argument that "marginal subjects and ludicrous claims" would look plausible is used by a number of supporters of the off. ver.. On other forums, I saw that some explicitly say that they will never accept the dissident theories, because it would add fuel to many wild claims, like Roswell or the Moon Hoax. I think that one can't dispute that if dissident theories were proven, many people would lose any trust they had in official institutions and the media. They would have no credibility left at all.

 

[Analis]

ted_bloody_maul:

I'd say most people assume that their government carries out covert operations and is necessarily secretive about a number of activities. I'd also say most people approve of this since they understand the benefits of keeping hidden details which aid national security although they do so cautiously as they appreciate the potential abuses of that unaccountability.

I agree with this general statement. Now, where to draw the line? The danger is that by being too receptive on the need for secrecy, one becomes lenient. At the time of the Cold War, it was easy to understand. Surprisingly, when it ended, it seems that people became more and more indulgent to state abuses. What's happening in Iraq is a good illustration.

Where is the claim made that they couldn't follow a coherent flight path (and what is that anyway) or stabilize their plane?

The flight path Commission report depicts is erratic. In contrast with the great ease they crashed into their targets (very difficult moves at best). Their great detours were uncanny too.

That might be your interpretation but I doubt that the report's authors would claim that to be the case.

We have different interpretations, and I doubt too that they would claim this was the case. But I didn't rely on the report conclusions. But the way they describe the failures from the FAA and the NORAD supposes they indeed made an astonishing number of mistakes.

It strikes me as being very similar to religious belief where people claim to go through a period of trial when the truth is revealed although they neglect to mention the great trials their life was going trough prior to such a point.

There is a danger that such a personnal evolution comes to play a religious role. But none of the people I know who came to change their mind was subject to great trials. In most cases, it came from the examination of evidence. None of them found any comfort, was led by a will to believe - or if they were, it was by the will to believe that Al Qaeda was the culprit. This belief was very comfortable to them. It seems the same can be said of many other dissidents.

I'm sorry but that's maybe just a little bit offensive to those people. You're implying that they're incapable of accepting 'the truth' on grounds of emotional cowardice. One might see this claim in the same terms as the one I've just made regarding the comfort of accepting the conspiracy theory.

Do you mean that your remark might be seen as a little offensive? But this was not my intent. I never told, nor implied, that they were guilty of cowardice. I spoke of reluctance, and of fear, they work at deeper and higher level. The acceptance of a dissident theory supposes the acceptance that our institutions reached a far greater degree of corruption than it is usually believed. It generates a great amount of resistance, a perfectly normal reaction. Many people simply have more personnal and more immediate issues to adress, and have no time to think of a reshaping of their weltanschauung.

However, in my experience those people who have been fully furnished with the facts and choose not to believe...

They choose not to believe what? I suppose you mean the dissident theories...

...are less likely to be struggling with psychological complexes or functionning less rationally in other areas of their life as many conspiracy theorists are (and particularly those ones who hold those views most vigourously and proselytise on behalf of them.

In your experience, probably. In my experience, I can't see any clear colleration between psychological or professional situation and propensity to believe what you label as "conspiracy theory". Some may have no stable job and be violently resentful towards the USA, and be opposed to dissident theories.
But supporters of the official version, in the USA, include large groups of people who are easily deluded, and hold a conspiratorial view of the world. It is not surprising that they support the off. ver., as it is itself a conspiracy theory. Modelled on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and not very clever. Many of them still believe that Saddam Hussein was the culprit (some polls say 25 to 40%). And among them, the bibical fundamentalists are over-represented. Their belief in literacist creationnism is the most ludicrous of all. They are very paranoid, the illustration of the veracity of your depiction of the religion as the ultimate conspiracy theory. The belief in the exceptionnality of "America" is not restricted their ranks. It is present, in a quasi-religious acceptation, in whole parts of US secular population. When you remove those three groups, how many of the 64% remain?

Look at the news: for many years, they draw an obsessionnaly conspiratorial view of the world. Al qaida conspiracies, Saddam Hussein conspiracies, Syrian conspiracies, Arafat conspiracies, Hamas conspiracies, Iranian conspiracies, Hezbollah conspiracies, Syria-Iran-Hezbollah conspiracies, Arab conspiracies etc... The whole world conspires constantly against the USA. This view of the world is shared by a large part of the US population, it is certainly irrational, far from the truth, and often led by religious beliefs. And the "all-powerful" Al Qaida is clearly a bunch of incompetents, whose sole achievement was to facilitate the US takeover of Iraq.

To what extent did they collaborate with NIST, FBI?

Well, when it was released, nobody contested their collaboration, including the authorities - who on the contrary, made their support of its content clear. Why should it be now? The PM book was widely cited as a good illustration of official views. The State Department, in his The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories (a treacherous title, as it doesn't speak of the official version) mentions it on several occasions as a top reference. Similarly, when United 93 and Flight 93 were produced, none of them came to deny their collaboration and their claims. I suppose they were all incompetent...

It also seems odd to suggest that authorities knew how the calls were made and let PM go ahead and produce a report to support their view when the information is already out there in official form.

It's not very surprising that they got confused. When they realized they were at a loss, they panicked, they didn't know how to manage it.
Off. ver. supporters usually reproach to dissidents that they suppose the conspirators to be perfect. When you have evidence that they are fallible, you say they shouldn't be. You can't have it both ways. (And if they're capable of making a mistake outside a conspiracy, they're capable of making one during the operation of one too)
And among the experiments cited by Griffin, none of them succeeded to produce a cell phone call aboard a big airliner at more than 900 m (2700 ft). So, that two cell phones were succesful at 1500 m (5000 ft), as the FBI claims, is at best very unlikely.

I'd say this is much more likely an example of incompetence than sinister design.

So, they are systematically incompetent...

A private citizen lied but so what? That's his version of events, not the authorities.

What?! You admit that he lied? :shock: But he was more than a mere "private citizen". He was a Bush insider. And his testimony is the only 'evidence' that Flight AA 77 was hijacked by islamist terrorists (except the Renee May's phone call, but it is as impossible as Olson's)... Interestingly, he produced a bill...

coldelephant:

Mainstream media has power which is used, it grabs our attention and it shapes our views and perceptions because it is the only source of news and information we have.

If they want to inform us at all... Private investigators of the Toulouse explosions reported that journalists told them they were forbidden to investigate by their redactions. One of those investigators confirmed it to me.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Excuse me? It seems you didn't read well my post. Or that you read what you wished to read...

"If this is proven as true, the consequences would be such, that any standard of usual knowledge would be broken. To the public, it would mean that any marginalised subject would look suddenly as plausible. Even in their most ludicrous claims. Not only UFOs would seem likely, but claims of an underground grey base at Dulce. How could we be sure that astronauts set afoot on the Moon? Because people on TV would tell us, the same people who deceived us on such a scale? Nobody could trust any form of 'establishment' anymore. It's too frightening..."

You quite clearly state that if it was proven as true that the official version was a pack of lies then "to the public, it would mean that any marginalised subject would look suddenly as plausible. Even in their most ludicrous claims." Given that you are a member of the public and believe the official version to be proven false, then surely the most ludicrous claims and marginalised subjects look plausible to you? You must be frightened? If not, what makes you so different from these people you refer to as "the public"?

 

[Analogue Boy]

You can see how these things start though....

McCain adviser says terrorist attack would boost campaign

A senior adviser to the US presidential hopeful John McCain has apologised after saying a terrorist attack on American soil would be a "big advantage" to the Republican candidate's election campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... ctions2008

 

[Anonymous]

I doubt that's really the case. Yes the media shapes our opinions but I'd say there's quite a large disconnect between the media and the public in many cases.

Not as much as you would think, because it is the only source of information about the country, organisations, government and world we have it is relied upon quite heavily, even though we take it with a pinch of salt we still rely upon the information a lot.

Also, the media often exaggerates claims such as the panic you referred to yet as you point out people were behaving in an orderly and calm fashion suggesting the power of the media to condition fear is not that impressive.

Oh it is, very impressive; take the Diana popularity phenomenon as a case in point.

With regards to the 3 questions - these have all been dealt with in the mainstream media in as much as it needs to be (in the case of 1 we only know about it from interviews on ITV and the BBC, 2 - there was no power failure and 3 you could make all sorts of theories about this, some which would suggest the increased liklihood of it being terrorists).

On the day;

1) Nobody asked about the training exercise or talked about it in relation to the bombings.
2) yes there was
3) What, the terrorists wanted to divert attention away from poverty and debt in Africa and divert pressure away from Bush and Blair and Brown to do something serious about it by bombing our London transport system to draw attention to their own jihad against Western culture and civilisation? I know terrorists are selfish, but this is a stretch; and it doesn't deflect the circumstances or the coincidence itself (or the other two for that matter).

 

[Anonymous]

coldelephant:

Mainstream media has power which is used, it grabs our attention and it shapes our views and perceptions because it is the only source of news and information we have.

If they want to inform us at all... Private investigators of the Toulouse explosions reported that journalists told them they were forbidden to investigate by their redactions. One of those investigators confirmed it to me.

That's true as well, the media can be forbidden to report on certain matters, 'agree' not to, or even 'agree' to release certain information at an appropriate time.

Freedom of the press - double edged sword that.

The press can influence and pressure the government, but the government can also do the same to the press.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

2) yes there was

No there wasn't. Even the stories you cite in that link make that clear.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Not as much as you would think, because it is the only source of information about the country, organisations, government and world we have it is relied upon quite heavily, even though we take it with a pinch of salt we still rely upon the information a lot.

It's not the only source. I draw much of my opinion about the NHS from my use of it, likewise the public transport in London and crime amongst other things. It might not be entirely accurate but where I see a demonstrable contradiction and where other people seem to share that experience then I often preference my own observations. Most people do and the idea that the majority of us are as easily manipulated by the media as you suggest is one that generally seems to be cited by those who believe themselves to be mostly beyond that influence. Other people experience things differently.

Oh it is, very impressive; take the Diana popularity phenomenon as a case in point.

Yes and one of the things you'll remember about the Diana phenomenon, if you look beyond the headlines, is the number of people who couldn't see what all the fuss was about and expressed their disapproval of the whole hysterical reaction. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because the media didn't report it it didn't happen. In fact today I find it difficult to come across anybody who actually admits to having gone in for all that nonsense.

On the day;

1) Nobody asked about the training exercise or talked about it in relation to the bombings.
2) yes there was
3) What, the terrorists wanted to divert attention away from poverty and debt in Africa and divert pressure away from Bush and Blair and Brown to do something serious about it by bombing our London transport system to draw attention to their own jihad against Western culture and civilisation? I know terrorists are selfish, but this is a stretch; and it doesn't deflect the circumstances or the coincidence itself (or the other two for that matter).

1)What is the implication here - that Power is part of the conspiracy? If so then why on earth would he flag up the fact. Is he unwittingly part of it? You'd have to wonder why the powers-that-bomb would let him anywhere near a camera. And does it really matter there was an exercise (not one that matches as neatly the incidents of the day as some would like to believe)? What possible influence could it have?

2)
There was no power surge that morning therefore there is no coincidence.

3)It is a stretch but it's one that you're making. Since we're in the realms of pure speculation as to motive one might very well argue that the Gleneagles summit was about to confer legitimacy on the powers who oppose radical Islam by agreeing to relieve poverty to millions of Africans, many of them Muslim and potential Islamist converts. Like I say, though, it's speculative but no more so than anything else which has no other corroborating evidence.

However, this is all rather off topic re 9/11. Perhaps this could be moved to the London Bombings thread (although it's probably mostly been discussed there already)?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

3) What, the terrorists wanted to divert attention away from poverty and debt in Africa and divert pressure away from Bush and Blair and Brown to do something serious about it by bombing our London transport system to draw attention to their own jihad against Western culture and civilisation? I know terrorists are selfish, but this is a stretch; and it doesn't deflect the circumstances or the coincidence itself (or the other two for that matter).

If you think it's a stretch that terrorists would be selfish enough to pursue their own agenda by bombing the city that had been awarded the Olympics 24 hours previously whilst a G8 summit was being hosted in the same country and not actually give a shit about Live8 or Bob Geldof then you need to study terrorists and their motives a bit more closely.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok.

For the record, I stand corrected on every single point I made regarding the three questions I posed.

1) The training exercise was discussed in a television interview and the transcript is available on the internet. Despite alleged and probably fake witness testimonies claiming the floors of the trains were raised during and after the explosions there were also no bombs put under trains before or during the training exercise and no bombs or charges placed along any power lines or on the tracks the trains would roll over before or during the exercise. The training exercise happening on the same day as the terrorist atrocities are a coincidence and nothing more.

2) There was no power surge or blackout that was not caused by the bombs going off at 0850 or 0852 that day. There was no power surge or blackout that day before the bombs went off - it was initially suspected and reported as such and then it was revealed as bombs and not a power surge or blackout of any kind. According to alleged and possibly fake sources from Metronet/London Underground, bombs and explosions on or near the tracks can cause power surges and power failures - this has allegedly happened before; this is of course entirely irrelevant however since this is clearly not what happened.

3) I apologise for having caused offence to Ted and Dr_Baltar - their implied points that I am incorrect to speculate that terrorists would not want to derail important events such as Live 8 and the apparent (although possibly shortlived and misguided) jubilation re the Olympic games being given to London for 2012 was well justified. Of course the terrorists would also not want to help Bush, Blair and Brown in any way they could to reawaken the fear of the new reds under the bed (Al Q) and focus even more efforts on security and anti terrorist measures, so that is out of the question too.

My arguments were not well thought out and the coincidences are just coincidences - of course you may take it as read that I do not believe that anybody other than Muslim extremist terrorists did this and do not belive that they were instructed, aided or abetted in any way by anybody other than a Muslim extremist terrorist organisation.

Ahem.

Just to alay any kind of worries you may have - no there is nobody watching me and no, Tommy Lee Jones has not just paid me a visit.

Oh - lastly, it was said that none of this is relevant to the 9/11 thread.

I would like to link the two threads with this statement;

On 7/7 there was a training exercise, this on the same day as the bombings took place; the very kind of bombings the exercise was training people to deal with.

On 9/11 there was a training exercise, this on the same day as the aircraft hijacking and attacks on the WTC took place; the very kind of situation the exercise was training people to deal with.

This is another of those strange coincidences - and nothing more than coincidence; which nevertheless links the two events.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ok.

For the record, I stand corrected on every single point I made regarding the three questions I posed.

Well it's nice to know one can still be heard above the clamour of hysterical gossip.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok.

For the record, I stand corrected on every single point I made regarding the three questions I posed.

Well it's nice to know one can still be heard above the clamour of hysterical gossip.

Ahem...now kindly read the rest and read between the lines...

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ok.

For the record, I stand corrected on every single point I made regarding the three questions I posed.

Well it's nice to know one can still be heard above the clamour of hysterical gossip.

Ahem...now kindly read the rest and read between the lines...

So are you still maintaining that there was a power surge?

 

[Anonymous]

*Sigh*
There was more to my post than that Ted.
I shall say no more.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

3) I apologise for having caused offence to Ted and Dr_Baltar...

You certainly don't have to apologise to me (even facetiously) just for holding an opposing view.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

*Sigh*
There was more to my post than that Ted.
I shall say no more.

Sorry, I just thought that because you were being tongue in cheek about the veracity of the claims you believed they shouldn't alter anything about the opinion you held. I apologise for having caused offence.