10 years after 9/11 - where has the debate brought us?

edanto

There are about 28 million google hits for '9/11 conspiracy', and if we conservatively assume that each of those web hits took someone 10 minutes to create... we're still talking about roughly 600 years of effort to create all that web content.

Where has it left us, ten years later?

Personally, I find that the more I listen to people on both sides of the debate, the more confused I get (because, they both have a lot of official-sounding evidence and claims) and frankly after 10 years I just don't know. And normally I don't have any problem making my mind up about something after some reading.

But there are just two main camps; those that believe it happened exactly as the truth commission said and those that believe it happened differently. Of those two camps, I'm in the latter, because of things like Building 7.

But what are the implications of that belief? What should I do differently in my life because of it?

What have we learnt in the past 10 years of debating 9/11?

King Mob

edanto wrote: »

There are about 28 million google hits for '9/11 conspiracy', and if we conservatively assume that each of those web hits took someone 10 minutes to create... we're still talking about roughly 600 years of effort to create all that web content.

Where has it left us, ten years later?

Personally, I find that the more I listen to people on both sides of the debate, the more confused I get (because, they both have a lot of official-sounding evidence and claims) and frankly after 10 years I just don't know. And normally I don't have any problem making my mind up about something after some reading.

But there are just two main camps; those that believe it happened exactly as the truth commission said and those that believe it happened differently. Of those two camps, I'm in the latter, because of things like Building 7.

But what are the implications of that belief? What should I do differently in my life because of it?

What have we learnt in the past 10 years of debating 9/11?

Well where has debating the Kennedy assassination or the Moon landing hoax left us 48 and 42 years down the line.
I think the 9/11 conspiracies are going to be sticking around for a while, regardless of evidence for or against them.

What I've learned from the conspiracies is how to dig for actual facts on the internet, see how the facts are changed, misinterpreted and altered to make them seem to point to a conspiracy.

I once believed in the conspiracy, like yourself because of building 7.
But after learning basic critical thinking I saw through the lies the so called truth movement were telling.

Now, instead of just poopooing away conspiratorial ideas, I understand enough of the facts to actually examine such claims, and more often than not tackle them when they have no merit.

Di0genes

What have we learnt in the past 10 years of debating 9/11?

That no one has put together a coherent alternative theory as to how the attack was carried out, supported by anything supported by evidence...

meglome

There was a BBC documentary made in the last few years about 911, can't remember the name - Conspiracy Files maybe. They had Richard Gage from 'Architects for truth' talking about building 7. He started by saying that WTC7 fell at free-fall speeds. Of course he says this to anyone who will listen. However five minutes on the internet will show the building doesn't fall at free-fall speeds. Now you'll have to filter out a lot of very selective footage on CT sites but the proof is there. This tells me the man is either a liar or deluded and most certainly wrong in what he's saying.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

There was a BBC documentary made in the last few years about 911, can't remember the name - Conspiracy Files maybe. They had Richard Gage from 'Architects for truth' talking about building 7. He started by saying that WTC7 fell at free-fall speeds. Of course he says this to anyone who will listen. However five minutes on the internet will show the building doesn't fall at free-fall speeds. Now you'll have to filter out a lot of very selective footage on CT sites but the proof is there. This tells me the man is either a liar or deluded and most certainly wrong in what he's saying.

Even according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

How would you explain that?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Even according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall.



How would you explain that?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

And you answered yourself.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Even according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall.

How would you explain that?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

The common CTer claim oft repeated here and by folks like Dylan Avery is that WTC7 fell in 6 seconds.
This is about the same amount of time it would take for an object to hit the ground when dropped from the height of Building 7.
So therefore the conclusion is that the building fell at a free fall speed. And the only way this could happen is if that the structure encountered no resistance. And the only way this could happen is if the entire structure collapsed at the same time. And the only way this could happen is if it was a controlled demolition.

Now this argument has one very important, very easily researched flaw.
WTC7 didn't fall in six seconds.

Now as for the quote you've taken out of context from the NIST report we first have to point out the bits you left out.
In that section they are referring specifically to a visible portion of collapse of the north face of the facade of the building, not the entire collapse of the building as a whole.
So saying that the link you posted says

Brown Bomber wrote: »

according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall.

is not an accurate representation of what it did say.
A classic example of how the "truth" movement twists and distorts things.

So even taking your out of context passage it at face value, you realise that it says it encountered accelerations less than free fall. this doesn't make sense with the CT explanation that requires the entire building to have fallen at free fall speeds for the entire collapse.

Now the actual explanations for these periods of lower acceleration and the answer to your question you asked meglome actually is in the link you provided, leading me to believe you didn't actually read it though.

But then even ignoring the myriad of points against you, it still begs the question: why does the NIST say it fell at free fall speeds when it's apparently a dead give away?

Brown Bomber

blah--blah--blah.

I said that NIST said that the building fell for a time at free fall speeds. Did they or didn't they?

You can save all the "CTer's" say this and "Cters" say that bollox, not interested.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And you answered yourself.

???

Eh nope. I never said that there wasn't an explanation I said that according to NIST the building fell at free fall speeds for a period.

Me saying the building fell for a time and then you bolding the word time is hardly an answer.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

blah--blah--blah.

A detailed, mature rebuttal as always...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I said that NIST said that the building fell for a time at free fall speeds. Did they or didn't they?

No they didn't.
They say, quite clearly that they are referring to a portion of the façade as it falls for 18 floors.
Not the entire building.
Saying otherwise is misrepresenting what the link actually states.

Now why do you think they did say this when it's such a give away?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can save all the "CTer's" say this and "Cters" say that bollox, not interested.

Well some people might be interested BB.
Though I do find it amusing that you do realise how debunked those CT claims are.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

A detailed, mature rebuttal as always...


No they didn't.
They say, quite clearly that they are referring to a portion of the façade as it falls for 18 floors.
Not the entire building.
Saying otherwise is misrepresenting what the link actually states.

Now why do you think they did say this when it's such a give away?


Well some people might be interested BB.
Though I do find it amusing that you do realise how debunked those CT claims are.

Why are you surprised? Much I don't know. (you can ignore the red bit just realised you said "do" and not "don't" )

In fairness last time you talked about "debunked" re Dr Sabrosky it turned out you couldn't even debunk the first claim he made on inspection. So I'll take what you claim to be debunked with a pinch of salt.

Anyway you seem to be quite fanatical about this real or imaginary scurrilous group you call "CTers". I'm not one of them so I repeat I am not interested in you attacking strawmen.

Again I repeat I said that NIST said that the building fell at free fall speed EDIT...for a time. As far as I can tell they did. Perhaps I am missing something. Please explain in that case.

ed2hands

Sorry to interrupt guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOn32pZ__Mw&NR=1:eek:

Brown Bomber

ed2hands wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOn32pZ__Mw&NR=1:eek:

Get back in yer box CTer!

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you surprised? Much I don't know.
In fairness last time you talked about "debunked" re Dr Sabrosky it turned out you couldn't even debunk the first claim he made on inspection. So I'll take what you claim to be debunked with a pinch of salt.

Well, not really how I remember it...
But I assure you that the claim that WTC7 fell in six seconds is soundly debunked. And I'm pretty sure you think as much as well.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyway you seem to be quite fanatical about this real or imaginary scurrilous group you call "CTers". I'm not one of them so I repeat I am not interested in you attacking strawmen.

Well I can point to numerous examples of conspiracy theorists here and else were who repeat the claim that WTC7 fell in 6 seconds, including it being contained in one of the most popular conspiracy theorist film.
Now this is the point both I and meglome were refering to.

If you don't believe it you should say so and why you don't believe it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again I repeat I said that NIST said that the building fell at free fall speed. As far as I can tell they did. Perhaps I am missing something. Please explain in that case.

Apparently you're missing the entire article you posted.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Now I'm not sure how much clearer they could have been that they are referring to the collapse of a portion of the building and not the building as a whole.

The NIST did not say the building fell at free fall speed.
The NIST did not say the building fell at free fall speed for a time.

The NIST did say that a portion of the north face of the facade of the building fell at free fall speed for a few seconds in the time it took to fall 18 stories, all after the internal structure of the building was collapsing.


Now again, why do you believe that the NIST did say what you think they said when it's a dead give away?
Do you even believe that this "admission" is evidence of an inside job or were you just being contrary to meglome?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well, not really how I remember it...
But I assure you that the claim that WTC7 fell in six seconds is soundly debunked. And I'm pretty sure you think as much as well.


Well I can point to numerous examples of conspiracy theorists here and else were who repeat the claim that WTC7 fell in 6 seconds, including it being contained in one of the most popular conspiracy theorist film.
Now this is the point both I and meglome were refering to.

If you don't believe it you should say so and why you don't believe it.


Apparently you're missing the entire article you posted.



Now I'm not sure how much clearer they could have been that they are referring to the collapse of a portion of the building and not the building as a whole.

The NIST did not say the building fell at free fall speed.
The NIST did not say the building fell at free fall speed for a time.

The NIST did say that a portion of the north face of the facade of the building fell at free fall speed for a few seconds in the time it took to fall 18 stories, all after the internal structure of the building was collapsing.


Now again, why do you believe that the NIST did say what you think they said when it's a dead give away?
Do you even believe that this "admission" is evidence of an inside job or were you just being contrary to meglome?

Thank You. Now why were you ever arguing about this?

How is possible that a building can fall 18 stories without resistance?

(again I'm asking as a pupil to a teacher - I honestly don't know)

ed2hands

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Get back in yer box CTer!

:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

[/QUOTE]

Truck bombs

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank You. Now why were you ever arguing about this?

Because you are misrepresenting what the NIST and now I said.
And you are blatantly doing so now by ignore half of my statement.

Neither I nor the NIST said that the building collapsed at free fall speed for a time.

They said, which I repeated, that a portion of the facade of the building fell for a time in free fall, not the building as a whole.

"Even according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall." is not the same as "The NIST did say that a portion of the north face of the facade of the building fell at free fall speed for a few seconds in the time it took to fall 18 stories, all after the internal structure of the building was collapsing."

Now I've made the same point to you as clearly as possible 4 times and you've yet to address my question:
Why do you believe that the NIST did say what you think they said when it's a dead give away?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is possible that a building can fall 18 stories without resistance?

(again I'm asking as a pupil to a teacher - I honestly don't know)

This is again, not what the NIST report says.
You clearly have not read the link you posted.

NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds,

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Total time taken to fall 18 stories: 5.4 seconds.
Total time in free fall: 2.25 seconds.
5.4 > 2.25

The North face facade did not fall 18 stories without resistance.
The link specifically says the exact opposite.

his analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

"Even according to NIST Building 7 fell for a time at free fall." is not the same as "The NIST did say that a portion of the north face of the facade of the building fell at free fall speed for a few seconds in the time it took to fall 18 stories, all after the internal structure of the building was collapsing."

OK. To me,

"The NIST" = NIST
"did say" = said
" portion of the north face of the facade of the building" = Building 7
""fell at free fall speed" = fell at free fall speed
"for a few seconds" = for a period of time.

which gives us:

NIST...said...Building 7...fell at free fall speed...for a period of time.

Maybe I'm just not understanding you?

Anyway bedtime, goodnight.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. To me,

"The NIST" = NIST
"did say" = said
" portion of the north face of the facade of the building" = Building 7
""fell at free fall speed" = fell at free fall speed
"for a few seconds" = for a period of time.

which gives us:

NIST...said...Building 7...fell at free fall speed...for a period of time.

Maybe I'm just not understanding you?

Anyway bedtime, goodnight.

Clearly you are misunderstanding.

" portion of the north face of the façade of the building" = Building 7
This is not what I meant, you are clearly misrepresenting what both I and the NIST are saying.

The building was not one giant solid block that all fell as one giant solid block.
The portion of the facade they are referring to was only a portion of WTC7, not the whole.

At the time they are referring to the internal structure of the building was already collapsing, pulling this portion of the façade down.
Again this is all detailed in the link you provided but failed to read.

Now if the NIST wanted to say the building itself fell at free fall speed, they would have said so, because apparently in your narrative they don't care about give the game away.
But they not once referred to the building as a whole falling at free fall speeds, only referring to the façade and the North face.

And again you've avoided the question I've asked 5 times now:
Why do you believe that the NIST did say what you think they said when it's a dead give away?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But they not once referred to the building as a whole falling at free fall speeds, only referring to the façade and the North face.

Not once did I either.

If someone tells you they got burned from their stove do you assume that they mean every square mm of their body was burned?

The reason I didn't answer that question is that I don't have an answer. I can't speak for NIST.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not once did I either.

If someone tells you they got burned from their stove do you assume that they mean every square mm of their body was burned?

Yes you did. You have always referred to Building 7 even after I explained exceeding clearly that I and the NIST was referring to a portion, and did so several times.
You're back peddling now.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The reason I didn't answer that question is that I don't have an answer. I can't speak for NIST.

Great and I only had to ask you 6 times to acknowledge my question.
How many times will I have to ask the next one I wonder...
Do you even think that it supports any conspiracy theory explanation like a controlled demolition as put forward by folks like Gage?

meglome

King Mob wrote: »

Do you even think that it supports any conspiracy theory explanation like a controlled demolition as put forward by folks like Gage?

I find Gage to be an interesting character. I have no idea what the guy is like but he certainly has put a lot of time and effort into proving 911 was a big conspiracy. The problem is with a quick read of the NIST report and some internet research he can be shown to be wrong. He has to know his assertions about WTC7 are wrong, yet he continues to repeat them to anyone who will listen - ten years later.

I've never ruled out 911 being a conspiracy but people like Gage have no credibility. The fact that I have zero architecture or engineering skills and I can tell this only makes it worse.

buck65

I think Robert Fisk surmised it well when he said something to the effect of that although he doesn't believe the official story to be completely true and cannot rule out some "truth" theories , to blame the US Govt for carrying out such a massive operation when they can't even carry out smaller tasks in the Middle East without blundering their way through them is inconceivable.
Fisk sees all the US agencies as bumbling idiots and after reading the new book on the subject "The Eleventh Day" I would have to agree with him.

Of course the "truth" movements are divided into the MIHOPs (made it happen on purpose) and LIHOP (let it happen..).

edanto

For me, it's amazing how much of a distraction this conspiracy theory is from what I would consider other important things in the world.

Like hunger, like the scores of wars around the world, concentration of wealth, and all the other things that I think are more important don't get anything like the same level of analysis and campaigning that we see about 9/11.

There is just so much to argue over when it comes to what happened that it seems to consume people.

There will probably be a massive amount of coverage of this whole issue in the coming month - and during all of that I'll be wondering - why do they care so much about this?

King Mob

edanto wrote: »

Like hunger, like the scores of wars around the world,
...

There will probably be a massive amount of coverage of this whole issue in the coming month - and during all of that I'll be wondering - why do they care so much about this?

Well among other reasons 9/11 directly lead to a couple of those wars.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well among other reasons 9/11 directly lead to a couple of those wars.

So you accept that there is a motive for a false-flag operation?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you accept that there is a motive for a false-flag operation?

Yes, that wasn't the point I was making, but yes I believe there would be motive for faking 9/11.
But then there's people who've made a **** load of money from 9/11 conspiracies too, wouldn't they have motive as well?

It's almost like motive isn't enough to show guilt or something...

Now see how I answered your question directly, clearly and on the first try?
Think you can extend the same courtesy and address the last post I made instead of trying to wedge in a tangent to distract from my last point?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, that wasn't the point I was making, but yes I believe there would be motive for faking 9/11.
But then there's people who've made a **** load of money from 9/11 conspiracies too, wouldn't they have motive as well?

It's almost like motive isn't enough to show guilt or something...

Now see how I answered your question directly, clearly and on the first try?
Think you can extend the same courtesy and address the last post I made instead of trying to wedge in a tangent to distract from my last point?

Does it support it? Well that depends...Is there any other building on record at all falling at free-fall speed that wasn't a controlled demolition?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does it support it? Well that depends...Is there any other building on record at all falling at free-fall speed that wasn't a controlled demolition?

It appears sophistry is replacing facts in your argument.

The point is irrelevant. It's doubtful there's any building to compare to the WTC7, struck by massive piece of debris, and left to burn for hours on end.

To try and suggest there's a analogy between the fact that part of the WTC7 collapsed for a while at freefall speed with structures that were intentionally demolished, simply because of the way part of one the building collapsed is tenuous.

What is your argument Brown Bomber. That because it was partial collapse at freefall speed it had to have some help in the form of a controlled demolition?

Of are you incapable of offering a coherent rational alternative theory to the one presented by the NIST, and are reduced to simple point scoring and nit picking in lieu of a theory....

edanto

guys - do you mind if we leave the tit for tat about the specifics of the day to other threads about that, and try and keep this thread reasonably focussed on the long term effects of the day?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does it support it? Well that depends...Is there any other building on record at all falling at free-fall speed that wasn't a controlled demolition?

Well you see, there you go misrepresenting what the NIST report actually says because you can't actually answer the question.
I've repeated this point several times and have no interest in repeating it. Especially since you already conceded it in your own roundabout way.

The building did not fall at a free fall speed.
And as a matter of fact buildings undergoing controlled demolition usually don't either.

Now again, do you actually believe that the 2.25 seconds of free fall experienced by a section of the façade of the building indicates that it was a controlled demolition?
If your answer is no (or more likely) "I don't know" then what exactly was the point you were trying to make to meglome?

And this Edanto is one of the long term effects of the day.
Like with JFK and the moon landings, conspiracy theorists will repeat long debunked claims, misrepresent evidence and basically use silly arguments to keep the conspiracy alive.
I guarantee that even 10 years from now people will still be claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.
Just like how they claim to the day that the Apollo missions couldn't happen due to radiation, or that the government believes in a "magic bullet" among many other equally stupid, equally debunked nonsense.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

It appears sophistry is replacing facts in your argument.

The point is irrelevant. It's doubtful there's any building to compare to the WTC7, struck by massive piece of debris, and left to burn for hours on end.

To try and suggest there's a analogy between the fact that part of the WTC7 collapsed for a while at freefall speed with structures that were intentionally demolished, simply because of the way part of one the building collapsed is tenuous.

What is your argument Brown Bomber. That because it was partial collapse at freefall speed it had to have some help in the form of a controlled demolition?

Of are you incapable of offering a coherent rational alternative theory to the one presented by the NIST, and are reduced to simple point scoring and nit picking in lieu of a theory....

So that'll be a no then.

Brown Bomber

edanto wrote: »

guys - do you mind if we leave the tit for tat about the specifics of the day to other threads about that, and try and keep this thread reasonably focussed on the long term effects of the day?

Yeah, no worries. Sorry.

edanto

King Mob wrote: »

Well among other reasons 9/11 directly lead to a couple of those wars.

Exactly. No matter what the explanation for the cause of it, it has been used as an excuse to warmonger, and has fed the militaryindustrial complex.

We've lost freedoms through the Patriot act, and travel by air or long distance rail will never be the same.

Hundreds have been imprisoned in Guantanamo - torture has been redefined as anything over and above the pain of organ failure.... which leaves an awful lot of space for things like waterboarding to occur.

And these are things that both sides of the 9/11 debate actually agree on, yet hardly ever campaign on!

This confusion about what happened has led to a dilution of political will to push for more basic human rights.

King Mob

edanto wrote: »

Exactly. No matter what the explanation for the cause of it, it has been used as an excuse to warmonger, and has fed the militaryindustrial complex.

We've lost freedoms through the Patriot act, and travel by air or long distance rail will never be the same.

Hundreds have been imprisoned in Guantanamo - torture has been redefined as anything over and above the pain of organ failure.... which leaves an awful lot of space for things like waterboarding to occur.

And these are things that both sides of the 9/11 debate actually agree on, yet hardly ever campaign on!

This confusion about what happened has led to a dilution of political will to push for more basic human rights.

Well I wouldn't claim what I'm doing is "campaigning".
But want I would like to think is that by learning about and exposing the nonsense claims about 9/11 I'm, at least for myself, removing the confusion about what happened.

As for the truther side, there's very few of them that actually go out and make movies/ go to tasteless protests. So I very much doubt if these people switched focus it'd make much of a difference.

But do you believe that this "confusion" is being created on purpose by someone to deliberately dilute political will? If so who and which side are they controlling?

edanto

Well, I dunno. But since it is the CT forum :pac:

It's very well known that the CIA has a strong competency in black propaganda.

Some examples:

Ralph W. McGehee, CIA Officer for 25 years, retired with Medal of Commendation wrote:

Black propaganda was when the US Government spoke in the voice of the enemy, and there is a very famous example. In 1965 the CIA loaded up a junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons ... the Agency maintains communist arsenals in the United States and around the world. They floated this junk off the coast of Central Vietnam. Then they shot it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken place. Then they brought in the American press and the international press and said, 'Here's evidence that the North Vietnamese are invading South Vietnam. 'Based on this evidence two Marine battalion landing teams went into Danang and a week after that the American air force began regular bombing of North Vietnam.

Quote taken from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Vietnam_Heroes.html

Another would be the ironic occasion when the CIAs own black propaganda was collected by an independent author and turned into a book called The Terror Network which created the myth of a global co-ordinated terrorist groups. This myth - though it was created by the CIA - was seized upon by neocons and used as a pretext to rule by fear. This is detailed, and to my mind, proven, by the excellent BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares.

Is it beyond belief that Langley would use the same methods to captivate people with compelling and contradictory evidence about 9/11? Not beyond belief. To me, it's far more believable that they would do that, compared to the question would they bomb New York and murder thousands of Americans?

But, having indulged in all that, I still don't know if it seems plausible that the CIA would actively fabricate evidence for the 9/11 truthers. That would be some f0cked up sh1t.

To me, the simplest explanation is that the neocons just took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to carry out as much of the 'Project for the New American Century' plan as possible.

From this crisis, the group that already had the plan, the means and the opportunity sprang into action and started to secure the oil resources in the Middle East. And over the decade, they have learnt that if you simply sit back and allow people to twist themselves in knots over something, then you can get away with practically anything you want while they look the other way.

King Mob

edanto wrote: »

To me, the simplest explanation is that the neocons just took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to carry out as much of the 'Project for the New American Century' plan as possible.

But you see, this in itself is another piece of wrong information that is passed around in the conspiracy circles. Even your watered down version.

The usual line is that PNAC is the neocon admitting that they had planned 9/11, it being the "new Pearl Harbour" from that one line that forever taken out of context.

Now, have you yourself actually read the document in full?

edanto

Yip, read many of their papers over the years. I've never quoted the Pearl Harbour line though - it's just too unfortunate.

"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

This is the the type of thing I had in mind. That's what they were pushing towards over the past 10 years.

King Mob

edanto wrote: »

Yip, read many of their papers over the years. I've never quoted the Pearl Harbour line though - it's just too unfortunate.

This is the the type of thing I had in mind. That's what they were pushing towards over the past 10 years.

But the thing is, the actual document details their plans to update the armed forces in the absence of a "new Pearl Harbour".
9/11 pretty much made that entire document obsolete.

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

That no one has put together a coherent alternative theory as to how the attack was carried out, supported by anything supported by evidence...

well, what it most certainly has delivered, and only a fool would deny it, is that the wars launched as a result of this 9/11 thing are complete and utter fiascos.

Now I haven't been in combat (in Iraq or in Afghanistan) and I doubt that you have either, but this bloke has:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=951_1189989944

So....I will give him my ear. Were the attacks on New York and Washington allowed to happen? Maybe. Quite possibly. But the outcome and ramifications have made such money for so many as the rest of the imbeciles wrap themselves in "made in China" Stars and Stripes.

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

well, what it most certainly has delivered, and only a fool would deny it, is that the wars launched as a result of this 9/11 thing are complete and utter fiascos.

Now I haven't been in combat (in Iraq or in Afghanistan) and I doubt that you have either, but this bloke has:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=951_1189989944

So....I will give him my ear. Were the attacks on New York and Washington allowed to happen? Maybe. Quite possibly. But the outcome and ramifications have made such money for so many as the rest of the imbeciles wrap themselves in "made in China" Stars and Stripes.

Wonderful, completely irrelevant to whether 9/11 was a conspiracy theory.

edanto

Just as well, since this thread is about the ramifications of the event and not the whodunnit!