Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

9/11 conspiracy Theories

Rate this topic


miz astrid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, as this is my first time posting on the forum let me first say that while full time school and work have left me with little time to get involved in discussions, I have been reading the forum for quite some time and find it to be a fantastic resource, as well as just truly enjoyable reading. I have great amount of respect for many of the regular posters here, and definitely have found a higher signal to noise ratio than on any other forum I've ever visited. Thank you for that!

I watched this film today, and found it disturbing enough to want to investigate other peoples opinions of it. If you google Loose Change you will find several places to stream or download the film; it's about an hour and twenty minutes long. I would prefer that you didn't post a reply here unless you've watched the film. In any case I highly recommend taking the time to view it, although I must warn you there is some pretty disturbing footage - watching some of it was pretty difficult, as I don't think I'd seen much of it since shortly after the event occurred.

So basically it is my opinion that they provide indisputable evidence in this film that the official story propogated by our government as to what happened on 9/11 is false. I felt that even if you ruled out all of the eyewitness testimony, that the video footage, as well as scientific facts [ex: what tempurature titanium melts at] and historical precedent [skyscrapers don't collapse even after burning for 24 hours over many floors] gave their argument merit. I wanted to know if other intelligent people, like the ones that frequent this forum, had come to the same conclusion as me, and if not, I would appreciate hearing why. I felt quite ill after watching this film, as it's ramifications are pretty serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Professor Steven E. Jones (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) lead an investigation into the collapse of the towers. He analyzed metal samples that he was able to acquire from the site and did several experiments to explain the (in the FEMA 911 report, Appendix C) unsolved question about the oxidation and sulfidation of the WTC steel and the molten metal found at the WTC site.

You can read his paper (currently under peer-review) here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

A rather humorous take on the hacks who created Loose Change can be found on Maddox's website.

Simply paraphrased, if the far-fetched allegations against the U.S. Military and the Federal Government were indeed true, that they orchestrated the death of over 3,000 U.S. citizens to advance their shadowy and unscrupulous powermongering, then the people who were responsible for the conception, production and dissemination of an incriminating video such as Loose Change would not be alive today to continue their vituperations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I avoid people who support the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. I find you cannot argue with them. If you argue against the conspiracy, even if you provide rock solid evidence refuting the conspiracy, it means you're part of the conspiracy. Most people I've met who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy do so because they want to, not because it's rational. The motivations of such a desire worry me far more than do the allegations of a conspiracy.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I avoid people who support the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. I find you cannot argue with them. If you argue against the conspiracy, even if you provide rock solid evidence refuting the conspiracy, it means you're part of the conspiracy. Most people I've met who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy do so because they want to, not because it's rational. The motivations of such a desire worry me far more than do the allegations of a conspiracy.

-Q

I agree. Sometimes by arguing with such loons you give the illusion that their position is even debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Not only is Popular Mechanics part of the conspiracy, Isaac Newton is too! :P

The author of the piece is Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of the FEMA chef Chertoff, that fact made the conspiracy theorists jump ;)

Well, just by writing "Debunking 9/11 lies" in the headline doesn't debunk anything. PM does refute some of the theories, but that's easy if you just pick some of them (-> strawman argument).

I'm still waiting for an explanation of the sulfur residue on and oxidation of the WTC metal. In the FEMA report they, too, say that this is still something to look at. According to Steven Jones (he did analyze some of the steel) this points to thermate which would also explain the molten metal that was found and / or seen on the videos. But that's still under peer review.

I also would be interested why there were such high temperatures in the rubble for weeks, the report (or PM) gives no answers to that.

Why do you think Newton is part of the conspiracy?

For example the towers fell in about 10 seconds to the ground (according to the official report), that's about the free fall speed, i.e. no internal resistance. Newton would therefore rather prove than disprove the conspiracy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I apologize for not coming back to this earlier. Apparently my email notification wasn't working, and I have been super swamped lately with summer school and finals. Yay to a break from that! Thank you guys for directing me to some helpful information. I almost feel silly to have been swayed by those folks, but they did a pretty good job lying convincingly about a lot of things in that movie. Glad I had the sense to ask folks who have better BS meters than myself. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I was just wondering what everyone thinks about the validity of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Personally, I believe the US government is capable of such a thing, but I don't think they did it. I haven't done that much research on it, though, so it'd be nice to hear from someone who has.

(Mod's note: Merged with related thread. -sN)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I initially mentioned this in another thread, but I will repeat it here because it is pertinent to this topic.

Dr. Bob Bowman from 9/11truth.org won the Florida District 15 U.S. House of Representatives Democratic nomination. You can read about his skepticism concerning the current explanation for what really happened almost five years ago proudly displayed on his campaign website here. Fortunately, I do not expect him to have a lot of support in the general election this November.

The thing that really makes me uneasy about this guy is that he is just not some raving hermit who emerged from a reclusive hideaway in the woods to run for a United States legislative office. This guy has a doctorate from the California Institute of Technology in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering and evidently has a storied career as a highly regarded security expert for the United States government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if logic and reason don't serve you all that well, I recommend an interesting article from Time Magazine entitled Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away:

From page 2 of the article ...

Korey Rowe, 23, who produced the movie ... and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming.

(Emphasis mine)

These guys became convinced of their own b.s. (or smoked way too much pot) and made a film without double-checking their research or putting particular facts into context. It is a hoax, clean and simple.

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so thanks for redirecting me to this thread and for the links.

i've spent much of the past two days researching this whole conspiracy. And i can't decide either way. Most of the proof supporting both sides is just plain bad, similar to a "he said, she said" argument. Both sides are guilty of quoting some random person for proof, for showing photos without context, etc.

For example, with regards to flight 77, the skeptics say, "there's no way the plane could have melted." The rebuttal goes something like, "no, the plane would have melted." There's just so much information, that it seems as though a person can just select certain statistics and use it to back up theirr view, no matter what it is. It seems i would need to take more engineering classes to fully come to a conclusion.

And if the theorists were right, they wouldn't necessarily be dead. Wouldn't it be fishy if some guys released a video on the internet, or published some ebook, and then mysteriously disappeared? Moreover, with this line of reasoning, i could say that all conspiracy theories are wrong by dint of us hearing of them.

Government conspiracies have indeed occurred. What about Hitler? Or Stalin? And how many objectivists think that the environmentalist movement is an attempt at more government intrusion? That's indeed a conspiracy theory. Is it wrong because you guys are still alive?

I guess, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not the conspiracy theories are true (This is coming from somebody with dead relatives from 9/11). What is important is that we need to accept that, over the past 200 years, we have helped create a government that is capable of such atrocities. In a society, when some men are allowed to control the lives of others, it creates a society of legalized criminals and a strong incentive for power. And when it comes to lusting after power, history has shown that the lives of 3000 people doesn't mean that much.

Edited by Febod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering what everyone thinks about the validity of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Personally, I believe the US government is capable of such a thing, but I don't think they did it. I haven't done that much research on it, though, so it'd be nice to hear from someone who has.

I don't think they are anywhere near capable of such a thing. No president in history has ever committed mass murder on American soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 conspiracy nuts are idiots, plain and simple. Sure, it would be great to be able to "pin" the people/gov't/organization that they already hate (Bush, Rove, Big Oil, etc), because that fits in very nicely with their worldview.

There is simply no way that something of this magnitude and import could have been planned, executed, or covered up by Americans in any capacity. It would have been (a) prevented or (:) exposed completely by fellow Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 conspiracy nuts are idiots, plain and simple. Sure, it would be great to be able to "pin" the people/gov't/organization that they already hate (Bush, Rove, Big Oil, etc), because that fits in very nicely with their worldview.

There is simply no way that something of this magnitude and import could have been planned, executed, or covered up by Americans in any capacity. It would have been (a) prevented or (:) exposed completely by fellow Americans.

It wouldn't be good to pin it on our government. It would kind of suck to learn that our government did kill its own citizens. Besides, blaming muslims fits nicely with my, and everyone elses', worldview too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government conspiracies have indeed occurred. What about Hitler? Or Stalin? And how many objectivists think that the environmentalist movement is an attempt at more government intrusion?
I've never thought of German concentration camps and communist purges as being conspiracies. From what I can tell, those governments built up their cases to the public, even if they weren't always explicit about the means they were using. Also, many in the public knew what was happening. As for U.S. government intrusion via environmental laws: here again, I've never thought of that as a government conspiracy either; everything seems quite clearly out in the open. So, if you want to draw those parallels you should offer some kind of rough definition of "conspiracy".

Actually, the main reason that people discount conspiracy theorists is much more simple than specific photos and doubts. Things usually are what they appear to be; and, since western-style governments leak like sieve (since they are made up of employees with a variety of political views).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i suggest before anyone goes off and gets sucked in by theories like those presented in "loose change" they do the required amount of research into other evidence provided. i have yet to find a convincing 9/11 argument that hasnt been thoroughly debunked by neutral observers and scientists.

Professor Steven E. Jones (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) lead an investigation into the collapse of the towers. He analyzed metal samples that he was able to acquire from the site and did several experiments to explain the (in the FEMA 911 report, Appendix C) unsolved question about the oxidation and sulfidation of the WTC steel and the molten metal found at the WTC site.

You can read his paper (currently under peer-review) here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

i would like to firstly point out that jones is NOT an engineer and nothing in his experience suggests he is even remotely qualified to investigate the collapse of the WTCs. his experience is in cold fusion, almost considered alchemy by reputable physicists. he also wrote a paper on jesus appearing to native americans based on paintings. haha.

he has also recently been put on paid leave by his university. his paper has not received "peer" review, the one review it has received was in a marxist journal of political economy. haha.

anyone that is interested in some strong science that shows how ridiculous the theory generated by jones et al should visit debunking911.com which really does provide ample evidence against the conspiracy nuts. i have yet to see info presented here undermined by anyone. it really does provide some fascinating reading.

it shows how much thermite would be required to produce the molten metal theorists say is evidence of demolition (approximately 18,000 pounds of thermite). haha.

it shows how conspiracy sites pick their eye witness testimony and present one-sided photographs that support their positions. it reads like a bad highschool assignment at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

it shows how jones' physics background means nothing in the examination of the collapse.

it shows how badly WTC7 was gutted by fire, despite CT cries to the contrary.

and much much more...

honestly, if you read all this site has to present and still have meaningful doubts then i worry for your sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, for those of you too lazy, ill paste a snippet here, regarding mr jones (who is one of the very few "experts" the 9/11 conspiracy movement has.)

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fell due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/AR...9/443801bdadd6e

More critiques of his paper can be seen here.

His other paper is called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.

Below is a piece from James B. from the Screw Loose Change Blog.

Who Are the Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

As Pat and I get further into this subject, we will inevitably get into people not directly involved in the movie, but those that feed the frenzy of conspiratorial theory. One such organization is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who pop up with increasing frequency as some type of "expert" authority for the 9/11 "truth" movement. Sort of a Jedi Council for conspiracy nutbars. So I decided to look into them further, and see just how authoritative they are.

A look at their website reveals they are certainly full of themselves. Boldfaced headlines scream out the word, "experts" at every turn:

EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB)

January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here as:

Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;

I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist, expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.

Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.

Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one.

James B. - Screw Loose Change Blog

Update...

The Schisms Continue

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Take On Professor Jones

The 9-11 Denial Movement continues to fragment into factions. Reynolds and Jones have had some skirmishes before over the "no-planers" (Reynolds is one, Jones is not), but it's broken out into full scale war now. Reynolds and Wood go after Jones with both barrels. We learn a little more about the "peer review process" at the Journal of 9-11 Studies:

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

Say it ain't so, Judy!

James will be pleased to hear that the Keebler Elves return:

Figure 3©: If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.

Brilliant! They proceed on with a debunking of the Thermite/Thermate claims (which I'm not as confident will be substantive), and accuse Jones of propping up the Official Government Conspiracy Theory:

This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government's unproven story without independent proof.

I also love this part of Reynold's paper:

Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.

Oh, yeah, that Spooked has done some terrific research!

Pat

- Screw Loose Change Blog

Scholar Scorecard

Well the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" seem to be the big story of the day. Exactly 3 months ago today I did my first major post on the "Scholars", where I counted and categorized the 76 Full Members of the organization. They have been receiving a lot of press lately, CSPAN, the AP, the NY Times, FoxNews etc., and they have been bragging about their growing momentum, since according to them, 70 million Americans support them.

So I decided to do another count of their Full Members, and found out that after 3 months of unprecedented growth and momentum their ranks had swelled from the previously mentioned 76 to.... 77.

Wow, if they keep this up, at this rate they will be in triple digits by 2012.

They have actually picked up 7 new members.

Anicha Bay - Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea

Don Bustion - Attorney, Adjunct Professor, Southern Arkansas University

Joseph Diaferia - Political Science and History, State University and City University, New York

Kenneth Kuttler - Mathematics, Brigham Young University

Joseph M. Phelps - Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Karen Sugrue - Sociology, Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland

Doyle Winterton - Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

Most notable in this are the two "civil engineers". I cannot find any reference whatsoever for Doyle Winterton, despite the unusual name. I did find Joseph M. Phelps, and he does appear to be who they claim. They are leaving out the fact that he is also 82 years old, and running a 9 hole golf course in Florida. Probably a nice enough guy, but he might be a little past his prime.

To offset that they lost 6 members. Reynolds and Wood of course everyone knows. The only other notable loss was Jeffrey Farrer, who actually didn't leave the organization, but got demoted all the way from a Full Member to a Student Member. Could this have anything to do with me pointing out previously that he was not a professor, but a lab manager for the physics department at BYU?

Update: This is not verifiable proof, but Pat and others have found a Doyle Winterton in Provo, Utah. It looks like he might have sold a stereo to Steven Jones or something. As for why his entry just says "Civil Engineering Structural Engineering " instead of an actual title or position, well according to the Utah Department of Licensing he had a license as an "engineer in training" but it expired in 1999. Who is next, Steven Jones' pool boy?

Edited by pkc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main problem with "Loose Change" is that it is not solely based on facts. It does deal only with a small portion of the availible evidence. The so-called '911 truth movement' adresses various issues, Loose Change mainly deals with the 'visual' part (Pentagon, WTC, U93). That is probably the reason why it is so 'popular', it's far easier to "convince" someone to believe a government involvement by pictures than by explaining the underlying connections.

The problem is that the issue is very complex, it is far from easy to grasp all the information involved as it borders to many other issues. It is also difficult to discuss because of all the emotions involved.

I agree that anyone who just watches the video and is suddenly 'convinced' of an government involvement really has to be called crazy. I myself spend several weeks into making up my mind by own research collecting articles about 9/11 and putting them together, the only thing a simple video can only give a hint where to look.

I am also aware of the fact that '9/11' is used by many from the left to go against a whole range of points. As usual they are not very consistent. If I find out that my government did 9/11 I wouldn't want to be for more government, would I?

But I don't think this should be the issue. To make the right decision in reality we first have to learn what 'reality' is/was, no matter how this reality looks like or who might profit from it.

What is your take on 9/11 if I may ask?

What did the government do to prevent future attacks? Where was the investigation to make those people accountable who failed in preventing it?

The same people, the same structures are still in place, I can't see how 5 years after the attack the US is in any position better to prevent another attack than on 9/11.

We still don't know what happened on 9/11, we know for a fact that the government lied openly about their foreknowledge of attacks, we know that the investigation of the 9/11 comission was far from objective (the people were 'interviewed' and not taken into oath and most documents the comission asked for were not provided, the comission members even suspected deception by the Pentagon and thought about a criminal investigation, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html ) or complete.

For example there is a money trail leading to Pakistan, 100,000$ were transfered to Mohammed Atta, in the transfer the head of the ISI (pakistani intelligence service) was involved (see http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cm...160&sType=1 )

Even if you do not believe the whole story about explosives in the WTC, you should at least take a little of your time to do some own research, the issue is simply too important.

I think much better videos are the following two:

'9/11 press for truth', from the perspective of the 4 widow who were part in making the creation of the 911 comission possible, mainly about the foreknowledge about 9/11 and the 9/11 comission

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

'Everybody's Gotta Learn Something', background information about the alleged hijackers, the VISA program, whistleblowers (foreknowledge), connection to gambling / organized crime / flight schools / drug trade, wargames

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...