9/11 (and other) mysteries

[bwv 1080]

Here is a telling image on Rense.com - one of the main purveyors of 911 conspiracy theories:

[MishaK]

Many of the things I’ve mentioned (and so much more I didn’t bring up) are highly questionable and suspect. There needs to be another investigation. Would you at least agree with that? Or are you guys 100% certain & satisified with govts investigation/theories on this and their subsequent actions.

No, I am not happy with the government's explanations as to who f#*cked up and how in oder to let this happen. I have *many* questions about that indeed. I do not, however, have any questions about how and why the buildings came down and what happened to the four aircraft involved. That is all unambiguously clear to anyone with an understanding of physics.

[Scarpia]

Ok so we're on the same page to a certain extent, but the buildings. Are you content with their subsequent actions in the middle east as a result of 9-11 (the catalyst)?

If it weren't for the catastrophic loss of life the collapse of the WTC towers would be the most spectacular classical physic experiment ever carried out, and the most dramatic demonstration of the laws of statics and dynamics ever made.  There is absolutely no doubt that the collapse of the towers is consistent with the damage done to the building by the two aircraft impacts and subsequent fire.  There is no doubt that the structural collapse is consistent with the damage and weakening of structural steel due to the heat of the fires.  It is also true that it is not possible to explain every detail of such a complex failure with absolute certainty.  It is not possible to explain every spot on every blurry picture or video or  everything every TV reporter thought he or she saw and blurted out on camera.  If we were at a baseball game we would have trouble getting the fans to agree on what they saw in any given play.

I can assure you the collapses will continue to be analyzed exhaustively by anyone who plans to build a large building in the future.  These studies will continue to be of no interest to conspiracy theorists, who will continue to convince themselves that by watching a grainy video on youtube they are more qualified to analyze the collapse than trained metalurgists, structural engineers, and scientists who have access the the complete information, including the steel recovered from the collapse site.  There is no reason to repeat the public investigation by the National Bureau of Standards and Technology because no amount of evidence will change the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

Now you have to explain, if this was done by Rumsfeld and his cronies, or whoever, why they planted people from Saudi Arabia and Yemen as hijackers on the plane when they wanted to use it as justification for attacking Iraq?    Why didn't they plant Iraqis on the planes?  And why doesn't that blatant inconsistency invalidate the conspiracy theory if the "standard" story is invalidated by the smallest, vaguest supposed inconsistency in the government's evidence?

[MishaK]

Ok so we're on the same page to a certain extent, but the buildings. Are you content with their subsequent actions in the middle east as a result of 9-11 (the catalyst)?

No, absolutely not. Both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a total disaster. That's why I have consistently volunteered for candidates who opposed it. But that is not the issue here.

All of it is not so cut and dry I'm afraid - many can attest to that. There needs to be another investigation.

Sadly, this is nonsense. The physics of the event are completely cut and dry. What is not cut and dry at all is the preposterous conspiracy scheme that is offered as an alternative.

I challenge you once more:

1. Provide a positive step-by-step theory of the crime. Who did what how and when. (Read the Cracked.com and the Taibbi articles linked above, you'll see why that doesn't work.)

2. Starting with one issue at a time: please look at the videos and tell me: did the WTC collapse in 9 seconds or no?  That should be a simple question.

[Scarpia]

All of it is not so cut and dry I'm afraid - many can attest to that. There needs to be another investigation.

I'm not aware of a single aspect of the physical events that has not been explained by multiple independent investigations.

I notice you ignored my request to explain why the conspirator framed Saudis when they wanted to attack Iraq.  Why don't we have to investigate that before we can believe the conspiracy theory?

There is no point in continuing, quite frankly you are exhibiting signs of a significant mental illness, a dissociative disorder characterized by detachment from reality and paranoid delusions.  There is no conceivable investigation that could convince you of anything.

[Scarpia]

I can do without the immature personal attacks Scarpia. And on that note, I have to get going, I have a lot of stuff to do.

I do not mean it as a personal attack, I seriously think you are manifesting a diagnosable mental disorder.

[Dr. Dread]

I do not mean it as a personal attack, I seriously think you are manifesting a diagnosable mental disorder.

Do me now! 

[Scarpia]

Do me now! 

You checked out just fine.

[knight66]

Do me now! 

Perfect Dave. A real snorter.

Mike

[Elgarian]

Perfect Dave. A real snorter.

I'm just glad he checked out OK.

[Lilas Pastia]

Here is a quote/philosophy for you guys...tell me if it rings true at all since 9-11.

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

James, you have to understand that quality of witness is what makes a trial stand or fall. If you offer a "quote/philosophy", you should at least present some bibliography. Actually, what you present is a generalization everybody will agree on, esp. if one is aware of the more sinister events that happened in Russia, England, America or Germany, or wherever the 'national  interest' is threatened. Wherever a certain level of information control  is in place (direct control or through self-censorship of the media), that kind of manipulation will take place. So why don't you do yourself a favour and start by distancing yourself from such *I heard  it in the grapevine* bit of quote/philosophy"...? At least until you can identify the source and its credentials. That is no testimony. It's hearsay of the worst kind. Just taking this as an example. It works both ways of course.

[MishaK]

Just popping in quick...so you guys see no relations/validity between being in the middle east & 9-11. You feel that what's going on over there is completely justified. I think that war don't mean shit. Just like vietnam.

Now think...

9-11 was the catalyst to the supposed "war on terror" correct? That attack is the sole reason for going to the middle east, to capture and bring the terrorists responsible to justice. So where does illegally invading a sovereign nation when they have nothing to do with it fit into the equation. You don't find that questionable whatsoever? It doesnt at all raise doubts? Youre not open to the thought that perhaps there is little more to the operation over there than a "war on terror" considering this. Perhaps it's more about power, and controlling that area for other reasons? Also consider the fact that they haven't even officially charged the person who was initially blamed and had "a bounty" put on him for those attacks - one of the main/central culprits for going over there for in the first place. It almost seems like it doesn't matter who was in those planes, they just needed an excuse and reason to go over there to eventually do what they wanted and implement do to for years.

James, nobody is disagreeing that the Bushies abused 9-11 for sinister ends and for completely boneheaded wars. They at best were incompetent in allowing it to happen and at worst someone in the administration (Cheney, if anyone) may have known enough to ensure that nobody prevented it from happening. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ACTUALLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED THE 9-11 ATTACKS. For the simple reason that the logistics of it are impossible. You can't surreptitiously rig a building that size, that sees 100,000 people come and go *every day*, with explosives without somebody noticing. The number of people that would have had to have been 'in' on the scam and the amounts of money to keep them quiet would have been beyond staggering and the risk of leaks enormous. The latter in and of itself makes the conspiracy theory ridiculous given how leak-prone the Bush government has been on just about every other issue. Moreover, the conspiracy theory is patently ridiculous because the plot is too byzantine if the only objective are the various wars and constitutional abuses that resulted. You could have accomplished a far more straightforward 'Pearl-Harbor-style event' with less effort and complexity and therefore less risk and less cost.

[Scarpia]

Just popping in quick...so you guys see no relations/validity between being in the middle east & 9-11. You feel that what's going on over there is completely justified. I think that war don't mean shit. Just like vietnam.

Now think...

9-11 was the catalyst to the supposed "war on terror" correct? That attack is the sole reason for going to the middle east, to capture and bring the terrorists responsible to justice. So where does illegally invading a sovereign nation when they have nothing to do with it fit into the equation. You don't find that questionable whatsoever? It doesnt at all raise doubts? Youre not open to the thought that perhaps there is little more to the operation over there than a "war on terror" considering this. Perhaps it's more about power, and controlling that area for other reasons? Also consider the fact that they haven't even officially charged the person who was initially blamed and had "a bounty" put on him for those attacks - one of the main/central culprits for going over there for in the first place. It almost seems like it doesn't matter who was in those planes, they just needed an excuse and reason to go over there to eventually do what they wanted to do for years.

You're becoming incoherent again.  If 9/11 was staged to justify military invasion, why didn't they stage it to implicate the people that they want to invade?   It has openly been acknowledged that there are other reasons for US engagement in the middle east, mainly the need maintain political stability in a region where a lot of the worlds energy is produced.  The obvious explanation is that the 9/11 attacks were used to gain popular support for military action they wanted to pursue for other reasons.  

[Scarpia]

"Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism"

There is a distinction between dissent and delusion.


This whole rhetorical style is becoming very reminiscent of Newman.  I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is a common pathology here.

[MishaK]

This whole rhetorical style is becoming very reminiscent of Newman.  I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is a common pathology here.

Yes, and not substantively engaging on any counterargument or counter-evidence offered is a key characteristic. 

[Scarpia]

I never said with 100% certainty that they planned or executed those attacks did i? But considering many of the difficult questions I've brought up which no one can provide an answer to and the overall pattern of behaviour exhibited by this administration which is very suspect I'm certainly open to these thoughts.

I ask you this, do you believe that it's possible that there are criminal elements in the govt?

The questions are not difficult, you have ignored detailed answers and simply restated the questions without comment.  

There are those within the government who are inclined to do things which are illegal, but you have to ask yourself if they could conceivably have the ability to commit these illegal acts, and if they have any motivation.  There were those who used the environment of fear created by 9/11 to to justify their plans in the middle east but no one in the government had the ability of the motivation to stage 9/11.

[MishaK]

I never said with 100% certainty that they planned or executed those attacks did i? But considering many of the difficult questions I've brought up which no one can provide an answer to and the overall pattern of behaviour exhibited by this administration which is very suspect I'm certainly open to these thoughts.

That is incorrect. All the questions having to do with the physics of the event, the collapse, the aircraft, etc. can and have been answered completely conclusively and unambiguously and the only people who disagree with that are people without any decent education in the sciences, people who willfully abstain from accessing the information available to them, and people out to make a buck selling poorly produced conspiracy DVDs like Loose Change.

I ask you this, do you believe that it's possible that there are criminal elements in the govt?

Personally, I found Guantanamo, torture, 'rendition', the invasion of Iraq, warrantless wiretapping etc. all illegal. So, yes, I think people like Yoo, Gonzales, Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfeld should all be tried, but not for anything having to do with the attack on the WTC.

[DavidW]

The questions are difficult,

I wouldn't flatter yourself!

and don't think the answers provided here on this forum were at all effective.

Well of course the answers are ineffective when ignored.  What else can be done?

[Scarpia]

The questions are difficult, and don't think the answers provided here on this forum were at all effective.
We need the govt to step forward and answer them. Something they're resisting.

If the answers not satisfactory, why don't you point out precisely what about the detailed answers you found incorrect?   I suspect the issue is that you don't can't find anything incorrect or inconsistent in the answers, you simply don't understand the answers, and since you don't understand them you decide that they are false.  This is one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorist's psychosis.  Normal people accept the concept that there are some things which may be true but which they don't understand in detail.

[MishaK]

If the answers not satisfactory, why don't you point out precisely what about the detailed answers you found incorrect?  

Seconded. I have offered to go point by point, James, you have not addressed any counterarguments offered here. I don't care if you've had the conversation elsewhere. I can't judge how intelligent and well-informed your interlocutors were. Please tell us what *in particular* you find unconvincing so that we can make some progress here instead of going in circles.

Let's start with the collapse. Simple question:

Freefall is 9.22 seconds. There is more footage than 9.22 second. Agree or disagree?

No science degree required for this one.