9/11 conspiracy Theories

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).

Here’s a link to a Popular Mechanics article debunking the conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

I hesitated to post this on the grounds that it might give undeserved respect to exponents of the arbitrary.

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.

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?

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

Here’s another article; this one referces the popular mechanics one.

Still, for my money, the best statement on this subject is still Maddox’s title of his article, “There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.”

I just saw this video, and I thought it was pretty interesting. I don’t know much about engineering, so I can’t tell whether this stuff is on the money or not. It’s long, but they bring up some interesting points…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6…High+Quality%29

Hi folks. I just wanted to chime in.

I am the person with whom Alex ended his “amicable correspondance.” I wrote cap-mag asking them to allow me to write a rebuttal of the hit piece Alex wrote about me. I have not received a reply, and I anticipate I never will.

I would like to answer the question which seems to be prevalent on this site as to why people who question 9/11 are still alive. Especially Dylan Avery. If a hit were ever placed on someone in the public eye who questions the official story of 9/11 their work would go super-nova. This would work against the aim of whoever is calling the shots, because a massave wave of people would start to question the official story of 9/11, more so than already do now.

We don’t know all the details of what happened on 9/11 but I know when I can smell a big stinking rat. The official story is the most unbelieveable of all, and I plan to explain this another time in the near future in a different posting.

-InfoWarrior

I was involved with the 9/11 conspiracy. I got a call from Bush’s men about 6 months before the act was to occur. It was an INSIDE job. My job was to take gigantic magnets into the trade centre buildings and hide them. These magnets provided by the military (used to distort time fields on aircraft carriers) are so powerful that I simply needed to aim them at the planes taking off in Boston. The magnet drew the planes right in.

I don’t know what happened at the pentagon, I wasn’t involved there.

In telling you this my life is in grave danger. Hopefully Bush’s assassins won’t find me hiding in my home.

I can tell you, 9/11 was an easier job then trying to create a fake WMD in Iraq. That was way harder and we failed. We had a fake one in Kurdistan for years. The war started and we figured we could just drive the missile with it’s tiny amount of nuclear waste about 200 km south during the confusion of the invasion. But the roads were so bad, and it was kind of hot out, I was a bit grumpy. It just wouldn’t work. We tried for a year or two. We finally gave up, it was just too difficult to implement that conspiracy. 9/11 was a cake walk compared to that. Bush was so mad, he almost had me killed. Now I find out he’s listening to my personal phone calls! Luckily I don’t think he is watching my internet communications.

Spread the word!

Cox and Forkum have a cartoon (link) that illustrate the epistemological method of conspiracy theorists.

Cox and Forkum have a cartoon (link) that illustrate the epistemological method of conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately that works the other way round, too (for the official conspiracy theory). Replace some of the buzz-words with “al-qaeda”, “terrorism” and “sleeper-cell” and you have the same situation :slight_smile:

That’s why one should not hold beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven. The credibility of official story is to some extent only based on the fact that the government supports the official theory - and not based on the facts that are available in public. And that’s the basic problem - not much information has been put out into the public.

I’m still waiting for the explanation of why WTC7 has collapsed and the numerous open questions the official investigation mentions in their reports and evidence to the numerous claims that were made. The investigations of the collapse of WTC1 / WTC2 also lack of depth. Yes, NIST put out a huge pile of papers some months ago. I flipped through them and still had questions concerning the collapse. They analyze over 10k pages how the initial collapse could have been occured and spend one page on the issue of the total collapse. Well, I guess I have to believe them because it’s impossible for me (or anyone) to disprove them, not only because their computer models are not available for other researchers but because they offer no theory at all.

Keeping in mind the costs of the attack, the loss of life, the costs of the following wars, the still present danger and the growing scepticism I find it highly recommandable to find answers to the open questions even if nothing new is found.

A nice study that completely destroys the whole " structural damager " shit

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

“The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,” Sozen says. “Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact.”

A lot of the people who criticize the CT’s seem to me to have a very narrow point of view looking at the situation, and seem to be very prepared to discount their evidence based on their conclusions, instead of the other way around. I don’t think anyone should be overly willing to discredit their side of the argument simply because it “seems” inconceivable. All of the people who affiliate themselves with the Objectivist ideology necessarily believe our current government is grossly overpowered. Most of you by merit of being interested in at least one philosophy are familiar with the ideology behind the current government, i.e. neo-conservatism. You are also aware that this kind of “demonstration” (9/11) would work very well in creating an enemy figure to unite a nation, providing the social influence and control prescribed by that ideology.

The Loose Change movie does bring some interesting points to light, whether or not all of the unanswered questions can lead one to conclude foul play on the part of our own government (or those controlling it) should not curb our interest in asking them. There are still a lot of things about 9/11 that remain unanswered… and our governments willingness to give us a specific answer that is so unsatisfactory seems at the very least fishy.

The plane that hit the pentagon could not have, “vaporized.”

Why were security camera tapes confiscated that filmed the event at the pentagon, while news camera’s were glued to the WTC complex after the first hit?

The plane that supposedly crashed in Shanksville couldn’t have “vaporized.”

Why would WTC 7 “crimp” in the middle and completely collapse even though it was only damaged on one face?

200306wtc72.jpg

This is a partial pic of WTC 7’s damaged side.

This is a picture of the Banker’s Trust building’s damaged side.

engineeringimgb130libertyst.jpg

This is a proximity layout of distances between Banker’s Trust and the South Tower, and WTC 7 and the North Tower.

fig-1-7.jpg

Keep in mind WTC 7 had a building between itself and the North Tower, WTC6.

The Banker’s Trust building was closer to the South Tower, than WTC7 was to the North Tower.

So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker’s Trust standing tall? Why the crimp and eye witness accounts of explosions sounding like fully automatic “gunfire”?

Why the huge temperature difference in the pools of molten metal and the max temperature at which jet fuel burns?

I don’t pretend to be certain either way, but I am fairly certain that the 9/11 Commission report should have addressed these issues.

It didn’t mention WTC7 or the Molten Metal, but it does want us to believe titanium alloy can vaporize because of intense heat caused by burning jet fuel.

At the very least Dr. Steven Jones and the people at www.journalof911studies.com should be commended for conducting actual experiments and submitting their hypothesis for peer review to better understand these questions.

A movie that I think provides the broadness of scope needed to take the events of 9/11 into consideration is offered by a film called “Zeitgeist, The Movie” (google it, it’s free to watch). I’m not endorsing the film as being 100% accurate, but what inaccuracies exist are minuscule.

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.

It is like religion. Impervious to reason.

Why were security camera tapes confiscated that filmed the event at the pentagon,

How often are cameras allowed to film the inside of the Pentagon?

while news camera’s were glued to the WTC complex after the first hit?

Probably because a plane crashed into it.

How often are cameras allowed to film the inside of the Pentagon?

There are security cameras inside and outside the Pentagon.

The only question is: Should they be released into the public?

The fact is, conspiracy theorists have no respect for the reality of situations. Whilst I agree, a great deal of transparency of government dealings is needed, national security is another issue. There are private reasons for why certain information is not released; of course, one too many episodes of the X-Files and a Bourne movie help the conspiracy theorists see what they want to see - a hidden, evil agenda, beyond the usual process of protocol.

How many screw ups is it going to take, before they accept that governments are terrible at organising Health programs, let alone a gigantic conspiracy of flying planes into towers. Yes, there are things we don’t understand, but as the same argument applies to ‘Intelligent Design’ theorists: one does not fill in the gaps with a biased conclusion - we look at what we know and go from there.

What is more likely: the Middle East, a hot bed of irrational, theologically driven barbarism, attacks a symbol of everything they’re against - OR - the US government, the same US government that failed to even assassinate Castro, planned and co-ordinated an attack on its own country, covering unimaginable levels of security?

Richard Nixon couldn’t even cover up a hotel break-in, and Bush can cover up a massive terrorist attack?

Richard Nixon couldn’t even cover up a hotel break-in, and Bush can cover up a massive terrorist attack?

Consider these often are the same people who believe in massive cover-ups regarding the Kennedy assasination and the Apollo Lunar landings. Of the rest, there are many who belive in the evne more preposterous notion that a tiny cabal of Jews conspire to control the whole world. You’re going up against some seriously screwed up epistemologies.

The fact is, conspiracy theorists have no respect for the reality of situations. Whilst I agree, a great deal of transparency of government dealings is needed, national security is another issue. There are private reasons for why certain information is not released;

Yes, there are. But people have to be able to make informed decisions concerning the actions of their government. For example on the base of what has been released so far it is impossible to decide what hit the Pentagon. One has to trust the government on this issue.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, I agree that there are reasons to keep secrets. But this comes at a price and this power needs working checks in other areas of government (e.g. free press, FOIA, protection of ‘whistleblowers’ etc.). If you want the government to have secrets in the interest of national security then you need to have mechanisms to uncover abuses of this right.

Judging from what I have read these checks are not working.

When you’re working for a company and report an error you get a promotion, when you’re working for the government you get a demotion :lol:

Interesting reads on this subject: http://www.nswbc.org/press.htm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Secu…owers_Coalition , http://www.justacitizen.com/

How many screw ups is it going to take, before they accept that governments are terrible at organising Health programs, let alone a gigantic conspiracy of flying planes into towers.

Three points:

  1. Well, there are three things the government is good at: Doing nothing, blocking and destroying. That’s what we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.

There are some out there who claim ‘the government did it’. I fully agree that this is hard to imagine because ‘the government’ involves a lot of bureaucracy. But there are ways to do things aside the bureaucracy and there are ways to disguise criminal actions as ‘incompetence’.

The second worst thing (after initiating force) a government can do is having the monopoly of force but (knowingly?) not using it when it should. We know for a fact that informations about a possible attack has reached various positions within the chain of command and they were either ignored or blocked (there are a few stories out there who detail how the investigation prior to 9/11 was hampered).

Looking at the air defense on 9/11 similar questions arise. While the first plane could not have been stopped the fighters could have been in Manhattan well before the second plane struck the tower. Instead they flew half speed and in the wrong direction. Why?

Well, we know why, several drills were hold on that day and the commanders at NORAD were unable to distinguish between real world and exercise.

Even if all that is just incompetence, there should have been (or should be!) a thorough investigation and restructuring of the agencies.

  1. I also want to add to your comment about a “gigantic conspiracy”:

9/11 wasn’t a ‘gigantic conspiracy’ if you don’t believe the official version - except if you think that it was harder to do from the inside than it was from the outside.

You probably heard of Operation Northwoods: Switch the plane, remote control it, shoot it down, blame Cuba, start a war. The only people who needed to know about the plan were a handful at the top and a few loyal people at the ground preparing the plane. 9/11 was bigger but I don’t see how it would have needed significantly more people for its execution.

  1. 9/11 was a ‘screw up’ to a certain degree, 1 plane missed, and now over 51% don’t believe the official story. Of course the latter could just be incompetence in delievering the facts :wink:

Yes, there are things we don’t understand, but as the same argument applies to ‘Intelligent Design’ theorists: one does not fill in the gaps with a biased conclusion - we look at what we know and go from there.

Yes, but that works in both ways.

What parts of the official story can we verify without filling gaps with assumptions?

Not many.

The common denominator of people who don’t believe in the official account is that they want release of documents and another investigation - not to hang Bush.

What is more likely: the Middle East, a hot bed of irrational, theologically driven barbarism, attacks a symbol of everything they’re against - OR - the US government, the same US government that failed to even assassinate Castro, planned and co-ordinated an attack on its own country, covering unimaginable levels of security?

How about an ‘AND’? There are enemies within the US as there are enemies outside. For different reasons but with common goals.

The rattling of his saber at the doorstep is good for the dictator (to keep his position in his country) and for those who call for more power for the goverment/themselves inside the country.