Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once more, because the NIST report is pretty believable in spite of its failings (six years concocting an explanation for building 7 without thorough examination of physical evidence strikes me as a major failure... if they weren't spending those 6 years examining building 7 steel, what the hell where they doing with them?), is composed in language that appeals to you as scientifically literate skeptic, and is backed by authorities you believe to be on your side. Also, coming to the conclusion the NIST reports aren't accurate/adequate would mean coming to the conclusion you might have been wrong all this time, which you, or other scientifically literate skeptics/ members of the scientific community who espoused the official account from the start, may have difficulty coming to terms with. It's also a considerable, even frightening shift in perspective, to come to view such a horrible event as a brilliant, financially/politically motivated global Mind-Fuck as opposed to an entirely senseless act of terrorism that served no grander purpose than to kill thousands of people and get the perpetrators themselves hunted down and killed.

From the standpoint of motive alone:
Osama's: Step 1: kill thousands in the name of Jihad. Step 2: spread fear, imperil freedom. Step 3: ??? Step 4: profit.
M.I.C: Step 1: destroy one of the largest repositories of financial records/data on internal investigations of military spending in America, while traumatizing the nation in such a way to allay all suspicion from that destruction with the deaths of thousands. Step 2: Blame for this attack the dominant opposing cultural force on the planet, I.E Muslims/Islam, now calling it 'terrorism'. Step 3: espouse, promote, and eagerly engage in a long-running series of wars against 'terrorist' countries, to the colossal financial benefit of the M.I.C., in spite of the blatant illegality of these conflicts, an aspect of them which the traumatized populace is willing to ignore for a sense of security. Step 4: Profit. Immensely.
 
And then how do you explain the scientifically literate skeptics and debunkers like myself. Why am I siding with the official story?

As you said in another thread :

"The primary driving force in conspiracy theories is an inversion of the official story,
the automatic assumption that the official story is a lie, and the acceptance of anything that is not the official story
."

You seem to be on the side that believes most official stories are the truth with some exceptions being false.

I am on the side that believes most official stories are what they want people to believe with some exceptions being true.


Let's see what one of the experts says about this... after all these individuals managed to deceive an entire nation...

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the
State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie,
and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State
.”

-Joseph Goebbels
 
Maybe it's all just symbolic and artistic expressions of "bunk" that might as well carry the same epistemic weight as a Rorschach test... except when it isn't.
"Symbolic and artistic expressions of 'bunk'" carry the same weight as bunk itself.

It's the "Aerogel" of the intellectual world. Weightless.
 
Once more, because the NIST report is pretty believable in spite of its failings (six years concocting an explanation for building 7 without thorough examination of physical evidence strikes me as a major failure... if they weren't spending those 6 years examining building 7 steel, what the hell where they doing with them?), is composed in language that appeals to you as scientifically literate skeptic, and is backed by authorities you believe to be on your side. Also, coming to the conclusion the NIST reports aren't accurate/adequate would mean coming to the conclusion you might have been wrong all this time, which you, or other scientifically literate skeptics/ members of the scientific community who espoused the official account from the start, may have difficulty coming to terms with.

Well, I'm glad you at least don't think I'm a government shill. :)

I look at the NIST report as series of claims of evidence, not as some kind of rhetorical argument. I judge each individual claim of evidence alone.

I think you misjudge the skeptical mindset. We like nothing better than to find errors in things. My background is in computer programming, one of my specialties is debugging - finding and eliminating errors. That's what I do. I've been basically looking for highly technical errors for 30 years, for hours every day.

Here's an article I wrote on debugging:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132212/debugging_memory_corruption_in_.php?print=1
Which was from this bug I was writing that never got published:
http://www.amazon.ca/Game-Debugging-Testing-Mick-West/dp/1584504897

I would LOVE to find an error in the NIST report. I love to find errors in anything, because finding an error removes another bit of bunk from the world, and makes the world run a tiny bit better. The broader implication of my bug/bunk hunting do not enter into the picture.

So your suggestion that I subconsciously shy away from considering errors seem to me to be a very alien concept. I yearn for errors. I desire honest clear debunking. I go where the evidence leads. If I saw evidence of explosives, I would not avoid it, I would examine it, and reveal it.

I'm not a promoter of the official story. I'm a debunker.
 
As you said in another thread :

"The primary driving force in conspiracy theories is an inversion of the official story,
the automatic assumption that the official story is a lie, and the acceptance of anything that is not the official story
."

You seem to be on the side that believes most official stories are the truth with some exceptions being false.

Nope. See above.
 
they first told the incredibly believable lie that it were terrorists who attacked on 9/11
It was fortunate that OBL turned up to confirm that, then. After having tried once before, I recall.

Didn't you hear about that?
 
I would LOVE to find an error in the NIST report.

I yearn for errors.

I go where the evidence leads.

I'm a debunker.

This is what I mean with your consistency lacking... There is clear evidence NIST did not investigate the physical evidence of WTC 7.

NIST's omissions are errors Mick. Your claims that this is not important is bunk and I now seem to be the one debunking.
 
This is what I mean with your consistency lacking... There is clear evidence NIST did not investigate the physical evidence of WTC 7.

NIST's omissions are errors Mick. Your claims that this is not important is bunk and I now seem to be the one debunking.

We've been over that.
 
...an entirely senseless act of terrorism that served no grander purpose than to kill thousands of people and get the perpetrators themselves hunted down and killed

Is that really an accurate statement?

According the narratives from OBL and his ilk- there was indeed a much grander purpose.

This summarizes it quite well- one only need read the fatwas and speeches from OBL and Zwahiri et al to understand this.

The purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not simply to kill Americans. Rather, the attacks formed part of bin Laden's strategy to launch a global Islamist revolution aimed at ending U.S. influence in Muslim countries, overthrowing regimes there allied with Washington and putting al-Qaeda at the head of a global Islamist insurgency whose objective was to restore the caliphate that had once ruled territory stretching from Moorish Spain through much of Asia.
Content from External Source
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1921758,00.html


Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.

Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[23] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[24]

Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
 
Interesting. What gives you the sense that some might have been in the "let it happen" frame of mind?

The "small scoop" is that there were warnings that something might happen - i.e. some kind of terrorist attack.



Now what I can entertain as a possible conspiracy (or some tacit agreement, or maybe even just one person alone) is that there were some people who thought a terrorist attack might be a useful aid to pushing their foreign policy ideas. So perhaps they pushed a little less hard than they should have when it came to following up these warnings.
 
Last edited:
Noam's core point is that despite the US government using 9/11 as an excuse for intrusions of privacy and war, it doesn't mean they planned the attack themselves - precisely because every other country in the world did too. Futhermore, there are many nations that would be chomping at the bit to reveal damning evidence of a conspiracy. So far, I haven't seen anyone offer a logically sound refutation of that core point. I'm not sure it can be argued with, personally. Proof of a conspiracy, should it exist, would have to be much more extravagant than "look how obviously they benefited."

Now, just like Noam's point, it seems noone has sufficiently addressed these points either:


  • No verifiable whistleblowers in an age when whistleblowing is next to impossible to stop(Bradley Manning, an emotionally unstable, low-level soldier with TS/SCI clearance, managed to leak more confidential information than ever before in US history, including higher-ups in various intelligence agencies working in direct collusion with the USSR).
  • No logically sound hypothesis as to motive. Money? Really? You must realize politicians can make fortunes doing absolutely nothing illegal, must less orchestrating the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl harbor. Doing so, of course, would likely require not shutting down the financial capital of the world for weeks and months on end.
 
Proof of a conspiracy, should it exist, would have to be much more extravagant than "look how obviously they benefited."

Extraordinary evidence should also consist of more than "look how they never tested the dust for nanothermite residue".
 
Is that really an accurate statement?

According the narratives from OBL and his ilk- there was indeed a much grander purpose.

This summarizes it quite well- one only need read the fatwas and speeches from OBL and Zwahiri et al to understand this.

The purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not simply to kill Americans. Rather, the attacks formed part of bin Laden's strategy to launch a global Islamist revolution aimed at ending U.S. influence in Muslim countries, overthrowing regimes there allied with Washington and putting al-Qaeda at the head of a global Islamist insurgency whose objective was to restore the caliphate that had once ruled territory stretching from Moorish Spain through much of Asia.
Content from External Source
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1921758,00.html


Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.

Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[23] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[24]

Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

Bin Laden taking over the world and imposing a Caliphate! Pan Islamic revolution! All from a cave in Afghanistan! Now that is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?
 
A percentage of them believes the official lie..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but doesn't really care..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but for whatever reason fears speaking out..
A percentage of them knows what's going on and have joined a truth movement..

all of which begs the question that "the official story" is a "lie" - which is both perjorative language and unsupported by the balance of evidence.

Essentially you are calling every person on here who has examined "the official story" and finds no problem with it a liar.

How would you like it is I applied your reasoning to the "alternative story" and called you the appropriate term?
 
Noam's core point is that despite the US government using 9/11 as an excuse for intrusions of privacy and war, it doesn't mean they planned the attack themselves - precisely because every other country in the world did too.

I disagree. Apart from Britain, most of the other nations were dragged kicking and screaming under all sorts of pressure from America to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Many would have none of it even despite the pressure. No, this was an American Dream and a World Nightmare.

Futhermore, there are many nations that would be chomping at the bit to reveal damning evidence of a conspiracy.
Like who?

So far, I haven't seen anyone offer a logically sound refutation of that core point. I'm not sure it can be argued with, personally. Proof of a conspiracy, should it exist, would have to be much more extravagant than "look how obviously they benefited."

There is no proof, that's why it remains a theory but a theory with a lot of circumstancial evidence and motive.
Now, just like Noam's point, it seems noone has sufficiently addressed these points either:


  • No verifiable whistleblowers in an age when whistleblowing is next to impossible to stop(Bradley Manning, an emotionally unstable, low-level soldier with TS/SCI clearance, managed to leak more confidential information than ever before in US history, including higher-ups in various intelligence agencies working in direct collusion with the USSR).
  • How do you know that? Are you privy to all the leaked information and by whom?

    I didn't notice Bradley Manning leaking evidence of an inside job on 9/11. There have been plenty of others who have though. A bit like the notion there are no scientists, engineers or demolition experts in the world who dispute the collapses were anything other than portrayed by NIST.
    [*] No logically sound hypothesis as to motive. Money? Really? You must realize politicians can make fortunes doing absolutely nothing illegal, must less orchestrating the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl harbor. Doing so, of course, would likely require not shutting down the financial capital of the world for weeks and months on end.
    What about the myriad of other reasons?
 
Bin Laden taking over the world and imposing a Caliphate! Pan Islamic revolution! All from a cave in Afghanistan! Now that is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?

Do you have evidence that OBL lived in a cave prior to 9/11?

What does his supposed dwelling have to do with his ability to express a purpose "grander" than simply killing people?
 
Bin Laden taking over the world and imposing a Caliphate! Pan Islamic revolution! All from a cave in Afghanistan! Now that is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

The Wikipedia article provides a series of motives with sourced material including the fatwa from August 1996. Bin Laden probably didn't go into a cave until after 9/11. The fact that he thought he could establish a Muslim caliphate from anywhere speaks more to his inability accurately to predict what the reaction to 9/11 would be.
 

  • I didn't notice Bradley Manning leaking evidence of an inside job on 9/11. There have been plenty of others who have though. A bit like the notion there are no scientists, engineers or demolition experts in the world who dispute the collapses were anything other than portrayed by NIST.

Could you provide evidence of the "plenty of others who have though" leakers?
 
Someone that says that they looked at the videos and decided that the official version is wrong is not a leaker, even if they have some expertise. A 'leaker' would need to be someone that set charges or redid the drywall, ie, someone that has concrete inside information.

This long and NO ONE has come forward or left a message in a suicide note? (how could any sane person survive knowing that that set charges that killed thousands of innocents? ) I don't know any one that could.
 
Bin Laden taking over the world and imposing a Caliphate! Pan Islamic revolution! All from a cave in Afghanistan! Now that is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?

At the slightest hint that OBL might have some responsibility of 9/11...Oxy kneekjerks to revealing hyperbole.

One only read the man's own words for "evidence":


Today, every member of the Muslim world agrees that all the Muslim countries of the world having geographical boundaries on the basis of nationality, geography, religious discord, color and race, should be merged into one Muslim state, where men do not rule men. There should be one caliph for the whole state whose capital should be Mecca. There should be one currency and defense for this state and the Holy Koran should be its constitution. The name that has been proposed for this vast state is Global Muslim State.
Content from External Source
There was an attack on the countries of Islam, especially on the holy shrines and on al-Aqsa Mosque, the prophet's first Kiblah. And then the aggression continued with the Crusader-Jewish alliance being led by the United States and Israel. Now they have taken the country of the two holy mosques. The only source of strength is Allah. We seek to instigate the nation to get up and liberate its land, to fight for the sake of God, and to make the Islamic law the highest law, and the word of God the highest word of all.
Content from External Source
Allah has blessed Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan, after the crusaders have split it up into five sections to turn them against each other. They were able to unify the country under the Taliban and under the leadership of Amir Mu'mineen Mulanna Omar. So today, Afghanistan is the only country in the world today that has the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is compulsory upon on all the Muslims all over the world to help Afghanistan. And to make hijra to this land, because it is from this land that we will dispatch our armies all over the world to smash the kuffar all over the world (and spread Al-Islam)
Content from External Source


http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf
 
At the slightest hint that OBL might have some responsibility of 9/11...Oxy kneekjerks to revealing hyperbole.

One only read the man's own words for "evidence":

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

Do you think the Federation of American Scientists is a good source?

It sounds good, it contains words such as American... mmmm must be reliable... not like Russia or Iran or some other really evil Country that spews forth propaganda.

'Scientists'... well that's another good one. We all know science is amazing and proven and reliable, look at all the things it has brought us.

But what about the 'whacky' or 'evil' scientists, they exist don't they. Ah but hang on... this is a 'Federation' of scientists so that proves they have all got together to show their solidarity and it is all official so we know full well, this source can be trusted.

But let's be ultra cautious here, let's see who runs this organisation of scientists.

Here they are, all smiley, above board, normal, well presented people you can trust.

http://www.fas.org/about/board.html

This will be reassuring, let's have a look at them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilman_Louie#Video_games

Vice Chairman of the standing committee on Technology, Insight-Gauge, Evaluate and Review for the United States National Academies.

Chaired the committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies for the United States National Academies that produced 2 reports.[3][4]
Member of the Technical Advisory Group of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Member of the National Commission for Review of Research and Development Programs of the United States Intelligence Community.
The Next Generation Project Fellow, The American Assembly, Columbia University
In 2009 Representing his company Alsop Louie Partners he sat as a member of the committee for The Symposium on Avoiding Technology Surprise for Tomorrrow's Warfighter working alongside Raytheon employees (Raytheon that year bought out BBN Technologies).[5]

Content from External Source
Spooky... oh well the next one will be fine...Rosina M. Bierbaum, Ph.D, who can argue with that?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rosina_M._Bierbaum

Rosina M. Bierbaum
"In October 2001 Dr. Rosina Bierbaum joined the University of Michigan as Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE)...
"In April 2009, President Obama named her to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)...
"In April 2008, Bierbaum was selected by the World Bank to co-author and co-direct its prestigious World Development Report 2010, which will focus on climate change and development...
"Bierbaum has been elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Science as well as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2000 she was awarded the Waldo E Smith medal of the American Geophysical Union for ‘extraordinary service to geophysics’, and in 1999 she was awarded the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Climate Protection Award”.
"Bierbaum currently serves as a trustee of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR); and as a board member for the Federation of American Scientists, The Energy Foundation, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation, and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. She is also a member of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Science Advisory Council, the International Advisory Board for the journal “Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment”, the National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, the Design Committee for The Heinz Center’s The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project, and the Executive Committee for the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. Dr. Bierbaum serves as the U.S. Scientific Expert, Permanent Court of Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment, in the Hague. On campus, she co-chaired the University of Michigan’s Sustainability Task Force and chaired the Deans’ Council of the Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm appointed her to serve on the Michigan Climate Action Council in 2007 and the Task Force on Chronic Wasting Disease in Cervids in 2003.
"Prior to joining the School of Natural Resources and Environment, Bierbaum was acting director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) from January 2001, and preceding that, she directed the first Environment Division at OSTP." [1]
Content from External Source
Bit disappointing, sounds like a political mouthpiece really, but who is next?

[SIZE=-1]Charles D. Ferguson

Well he seems to mix with a nice bunch.


[/SIZE]


2004


Content from External Source
[SIZE=-1]


[SIZE=-1]Charles D. Ferguson[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2] Capitol Hill. [/SIZE]
October 27, 2003
Content from External Source
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
Update:
On November 7, the House-Senate Conference Committee reached agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (H.R. 1588). With regard to the nuclear programs discussed in the following story, the conferees: 1) repealed the 1993 Spratt-Furse ban on research of low-yield nuclear weapons, but stipulated that the Department of Energy is not allowed to perform any development work until authorized by Congress; 2) granted the administration's request for $15 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP); and 3) authorized $6 million for low-yield nuclear weapons research (Advanced Weapons Concepts Initiative) as requested by the administration. The House-Senate Conference Committee on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (H.R. 2754) reached somewhat different decisions on these issues. It cut $7.5 million or half the funds from the Administration's request for the RNEP program. Also, this conference committee stipulated that $4 million of the $6 million dedicated to the Advanced Weapons Concept program would not be available until DOE submits a detailed report to Congress on future nuclear reductions. The appropriations conferees reduced the Modern Pit Facility funding from $22.8 million to $10.8 million. [/SIZE]



"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote," observed Benjamin Franklin over 200 years ago near the start of the American experiment with representational government. Often congressional politics and debates resemble Franklin's culinary contretemps. This year, for instance, the nuclear weapons policy menu included four items that boiled on Capitol Hill.

Content from External Source

But these anti Muslim guys, they don't seem to be able to come up with as good quotes for Bin Laden.... Best put them in touch with FAS, they can get it straight from the propagandists mouths then.

http://www.oocities.org/realtrueactuality/Caliphate.html

or these navy guys they should know.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/al-queda evolve.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Were all the physicists, demolitions experts and structural engineers on the planet polled for their opinion? Where are you getting this notion that 'pretty much every scientist in the world' agrees with the official account?

I don't know about scientists, physicists, and structural engineers, but to date, only ONE demolition expert agrees with the Conspiracy Theorists, and his investigation consisted of watching a Youtube video and looking at a diagram from his office in the Netherlands.

He was pretty much roasted by the rest of the explosives community for it too and sadly remains a figure of ridicule.
 
The possibility of an explosives scenario is very often dismissed from a position of moral outrage at the idea, before the scientific possibility has even been entertained, or before the lack of a scientific investigation into that possibility has been questioned.

The explosive scenario is dismissed by explosive experts, not people who simply own an internet connection and say meaningless stuff like "it MUST have been controlled demolition" because they once saw a Casino getting dropped in Vegas on TV.
 
.Rosina M. Bierbaum, Ph.D, who can argue with that?

Apparently you're trying to argue with it. Albeit in a rather poor sarcastic ad hominem-ish way.

Here's an article from Al Jezeera that mentions Bin Laden's aspirations for a caliphate. http://m.aljazeera.com/SE/201153165522935167

What millions of Arabs were saying as they stood united in peaceful protest was that their way of achieving Arab and Islamic dignity is far less costly in human terms. More importantly, their way will ultimately achieve the type of dignity that people really want, as opposed to the unending wars of terror to rebuild the caliphate that Bin Laden promised.
Content from External Source
 
A percentage of them believes the official lie..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but doesn't really care..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but for whatever reason fears speaking out..
A percentage of them knows what's going on and have joined a truth movement..

Don't forget all were obviously educated by and employed in the same system.. They have build a career, have kids a mortgage...
Going against government is still perceived (as mad as it sounds) as going against the majority consensus trance...
Don't dismiss the giant wall these people are in front of.. you are basically asking them to turn their lives upside down...

I just don't buy the "they have a livelihood' argument at all. There is nothing stopping retirees from speaking out, nothing at all to stop foreigners who are not beholden to the US in any way, nothing to stop ME from speaking out, if there was indeed anything to speak out against. I live in Cambridge and know a fair amount of Academics, and not a few of them are contrarians on all sorts of subjects, but Im expected to believe they fear this one subject to discuss openly. Somke have massive egos and would love nothing more than being the guy to expose a lie, any lie, with proven evidence.

Theory-FAIL.
 
I disagree. Apart from Britain, most of the other nations were dragged kicking and screaming under all sorts of pressure from America to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Many would have none of it even despite the pressure. No, this was an American Dream and a World Nightmare.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/structure/nations/

42 Nations on this list and its still not complete, all kicking and screaming? Bulgaria was dragged in kicking and screaming? Estonia? Finland? Ireland? Mongolia?
 
We've been over that.

I know you don't find NIST's ignorance of the physical evidence important but this just doesn't cut it Mick. You just can't bring yourself to admit NIST obviously was in error in this regard.
A real debunker calls every error and doesn't look the other way when he crosses one that's inconvenient.
But hey it's your site so you determine the rules.
 
Do you have evidence that OBL lived in a cave prior to 9/11?

What does his supposed dwelling have to do with his ability to express a purpose "grander" than simply killing people?

I plot and plan the deaths of people from a tent. Massive upgrade from cave...
 
Someone that says that they looked at the videos and decided that the official version is wrong is not a leaker, even if they have some expertise. A 'leaker' would need to be someone that set charges or redid the drywall, ie, someone that has concrete inside information.

This long and NO ONE has come forward or left a message in a suicide note? (how could any sane person survive knowing that that set charges that killed thousands of innocents? ) I don't know any one that could.

Remember the Maine? Here is the conspiracy theory, which would seem to have some explanatory power:

It has been suggested by some that the sinking was a false flag operation conducted by the U.S. This is the official view in Cuba. Cuban officials argue that the U.S. may have deliberately sunk the ship to create a pretext for military action against Spain. The wording on the Maine monument in Havana describes Maine's sailors as "victims sacrificed to the imperialist greed in its fervor to seize control of Cuba",[72] which "alludes to the theory that U.S. agents deliberately blew up their own ship to create a pretext for declaring war on Spain".[73] (The United States occupied Cuba between 1898 and 1902 and, as promised in the Teller Amendment, did not attempt to annex the island.) --Wikipedia
The irony of this is that Cubans would probably have been better off if it was a false flag and America actually followed through by annexing the island.

I guess one can't "prove" any false flag, even if there are whistle blowers like the Jewish pilot that refused to fire on the USS Liberty. But it would seem to me that you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (not necessarily to the satisfaction of people engaged in a bunk/debunking hobby directed against conspiracy theorists.. but that doesn't matter.). It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why conspirators seem to be careful never to have these events show up in a court of law in any way. (E.g. the low level Jewish patsies who wanted to sue the United States government for a violation of their civil rights after 911 and so forth. Sorry boys, your lawyer "forgot" to file your suit with... certified mail... or somethin'.)

At this point Team America, World Police has the factions sending it to wars of choice around the world openly calling for false flag operations:

While others are talking about meetings (Conspiracy!!! But who forgot to deliver the donuts to these nefarious, overweight conspirators?) they had about how best to cause more wars of choice, etc.

Notice how important public perceptions are with respect to these events. It's like a marketing campaign. And the bigger the bull that conspirators are able to bring to the market, the bigger the bull market for more bull...

I guess you'd have to have a public/private partnership with the corporations that produce the corporate media for the sheeple. There again, if the sheeple are busy with trampling each other to death at Walmart Inc. before they're herded along right out the back of the store into Corrections Corporation of America and so forth perhaps another corporate/fascist private/public partnership could be established. Because... couldn't the military industrial complex cut down on expenses with another sort of business deal or defense contract?

Anyway, I might vote for Katy Perry shooting fireworks out of her boobs and marketing war to Walmart shoppers. It'd be less expensive or dangerous than another "drill" or false flag attack. And it seems to me that everything in life is better with boobs. (Side note, I'm just glad that none of the "drills" near NK have gone live yet. Their reaction seems to indicate how powerless they are. In contrast, imagine if they were "drilling" off the coast of California. Provocation! Etc.)
 
Apparently you're trying to argue with it. Albeit in a rather poor sarcastic ad hominem-ish way.

Here's an article from Al Jezeera that mentions Bin Laden's aspirations for a caliphate. http://m.aljazeera.com/SE/201153165522935167

What millions of Arabs were saying as they stood united in peaceful protest was that their way of achieving Arab and Islamic dignity is far less costly in human terms. More importantly, their way will ultimately achieve the type of dignity that people really want, as opposed to the unending wars of terror to rebuild the caliphate that Bin Laden promised.
Content from External Source

Perhaps you would like to post a copy of the letter here with provenance.
 
I just don't buy the "they have a livelihood' argument at all. There is nothing stopping retirees from speaking out, nothing at all to stop foreigners who are not beholden to the US in any way, nothing to stop ME from speaking out, if there was indeed anything to speak out against. I live in Cambridge and know a fair amount of Academics, and not a few of them are contrarians on all sorts of subjects, but Im expected to believe they fear this one subject to discuss openly. Somke have massive egos and would love nothing more than being the guy to expose a lie, any lie, with proven evidence.

Theory-FAIL.

You vastly underestimate the human herd mentality on this planet.

"Why do German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? "
The white rose movement

You can count the members of that movement on 2 hands out of a population of 80 000 000.
 
Bin Laden probably didn't go into a cave until after 9/11.

Remember the cave complexes that they could drive vehicles into and so forth? (Or was it imaginary tanks that they were driving in and out?) Those were the days.



[Edit, well that stinks. Can't do time stamps on Youtube Videos? It's 2 hours and 24 minutes in. Good entertainment in the corporate media about a modern "Cave Man" and so forth... an icon which itself stems from another Masonic mythology and "order out of chaos" creation myths. We'll probably get to some of the more widespread Masonic myths given to "the base" sometime within our lifespans... before going the way of the Dodo. Depends on how long people are planning on living, I guess.]

"We've never made the case or argued the case that Osama Bin Laden was somehow directly involved in 911." --Dick Cheney

Interesting comment too... of course, he meant that "Al Qaeda"/"the base" did it in a world where perceptions are reality for "the base" in politics. If only someone could have hit a home run over "the base" men then they could have hit the ball out of the park (Itself defined by the compass and the square.) and been the hero of all the war games on 911, huh? But what if the game was that you didn't even have to be on the ball... and only had to make it look that way to enough people in the park?

After all, perceptions are reality for "the base" in politics and all that.

The fact that he thought he could establish a Muslim caliphate from anywhere speaks more to his inability accurately to predict what the reaction to 9/11 would be.

Did Osama ever get around to actually taking responsibility for 911 and explaining how he planned it all from his cave complex and so forth?

Because I might vote for a cartoonish representation of how Obama killed Osama later if the MIC had some cartoons drawn up about modern Cave Men and so forth. I might vote for shooting him in the right eye even if a doctor had to be sentenced to 33 years in jail later too. Or was that the left eye that Obama looked through Seal Team Six to shoot Osama through?

(On the topic of their cartoons and vivid imaginations... I'd imagine for myself that people in the pyramid $cheme of the MIC created by the bankster's paper ponzi have begun taking too many doughnut breaks to get things right. We might as well crowd source intelligence operations to the people and Anonymous in an inverted "V" type of pyramid at this point... too late! Interesting time to be alive, huh? At least we probably won't be alive when the "V" for the vendettas typical to conspiracy theorists comes down from the sky to be joined with traditional pyramid schemes, symbolically speaking. All symbols = bunk? I have my doubts. They often seem to have halfway decent explanatory power, sort of like the language of mathematics or a computer program. Maybe the symbolism of things is all in your mind, except when it isn't.)
 
You vastly underestimate the human herd mentality on this planet.

"Why do German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? "
The white rose movement

You can count the members of that movement on 2 hands out of a population of 80 000 000.


Your comparison is invalid. Germany was a dictatorship in which all information was controlled. I realise you would argue that is the same now, but it remains that you can write what you like without fear of being murdered by the State. Secondly, 80,000,000 were not involved or even aware of what was really happening in their name and thirdly, the people doing it did not actually consider it to be a crime.

If you are suggesting that all the people I have described, are in fear of their lives for speaking out, or losing their jobs or reputation and those things override any sense of decency and humanity they have, then I suggest you are incorrect. The reason they do not speak out is because there is no evidence of what you suggest, not that they belong to a herd.

I am a member of the Inistitute of Explosive Engineers:

http://www.iexpe.org/

If you can supply me with evidence that explosives were in ANY way involved in 911, I will write a paper for peer review in "Explosive Engineering".

Explosives Engineering is published four times a year by The Institute of Explosives Engineers, now a Professional Affiliate of the Engineering Council. We welcome academic papers, features and articles for consideration for publication. These may proceed through a professional peer review process or be included due to general interest at the discretion of the Editor and Information & Marketing Committee.

Explosives Engineering has a membership-based circulation of about 1200 highly qualified engineers ans specialists and, in addition, is circulated to academics, other professional Institutions and commercial organisations. The aim of the Journal is to support the Institute in its aim of promoting and supporting the professional standards of those involved in the global explosives industry.

But evidence must be based on fact, and not 'it kinda looks like controlled demolition.'
 
You vastly underestimate the human herd mentality on this planet.

"Why do German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? "
The white rose movement

You can count the members of that movement on 2 hands out of a population of 80 000 000.

Yes, and they were beheaded by the Gestapo. Why wouldn't anyone speak out back then? Because they would be openly shot in the street.

Today is much different. I think you vastly underestimate how easy it is to anonymously leak confidential information today. So, again, either everyone privy to the conspiracy is brainwashed and the whole thing is magically(and without historical precedent) completely airtight, or the story is a lot simpler than the conspiracy narrative.

oxymoron said:
jvnk08 said:
Noam's core point is that despite the US government using 9/11 as an excuse for intrusions of privacy and war, it doesn't mean they planned the attack themselves - precisely because every other country in the world did too.

I disagree. Apart from Britain, most of the other nations were dragged kicking and screaming under all sorts of pressure from America to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Many would have none of it even despite the pressure. No, this was an American Dream and a World Nightmare.

Did you even watch the video? He provides several examples of other countries using it as justification to continue their own questionable persecutions of minorities. Are you telling me the motive behind 9/11 was simply to get into a war?

oxymoron said:
jvnk08 said:
Futhermore, there are many nations that would be chomping at the bit to reveal damning evidence of a conspiracy.

Like who?

China? Russia? Iran? North Korea? Most OPEC members? I imagine many other European and Asian nations would too... not to mention the political opposition within the US itself.

oxymoron said:
jvnk08 said:
  • No verifiable whistleblowers in an age when whistleblowing is next to impossible to stop(Bradley Manning, an emotionally unstable, low-level soldier with TS/SCI clearance, managed to leak more confidential information than ever before in US history, including higher-ups in various intelligence agencies working in direct collusion with the USSR).

How do you know that? Are you privy to all the leaked information and by whom?

I didn't notice Bradley Manning leaking evidence of an inside job on 9/11. There have been plenty of others who have though. A bit like the notion there are no scientists, engineers or demolition experts in the world who dispute the collapses were anything other than portrayed by NIST.

The whole point is whistleblowing is that we are all aware of its existence and extent. Manning's leaks are by far the largest in US history. Most importantly he managed to remain anonymous about it for quite some time, before he got cocky at least.

oxymoron said:
jvnk08 said:
  • No logically sound hypothesis as to motive. Money? Really? You must realize politicians can make fortunes doing absolutely nothing illegal, must less orchestrating the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl harbor. Doing so, of course, would likely require not shutting down the financial capital of the world for weeks and months on end.
What about the myriad of other reasons?

Like what? Furthering the police state those in charge are so obviously thirsting after? Because they too want themselves and their family to occupy such a world?
 
I plot and plan the deaths of people from a tent. Massive upgrade from cave...

Planning, but that's like a conspiracy! Surely someone would leak and tell the people about the plan to blow them up? (Anyway... don't forget to bring the donuts to the meeting...)

There again, the cartoonish representation of the cave complex presented by Rumsfeld in the corporate/"mainstream" media actually looked pretty comfortable. (Not to mention the fact that many men in the military seem to be acting like proverbial Cave Men with respect to women anyway. You know it's true. Apparently there's no way to put the violence in a test tube without other base reactions of "the base" men on the Grand Chessboard getting in the way of the war games too. It would be interesting to have an experiment in which all the planners, the financiers, the plotters of false flags, the higher level conspirators and so forth were put on the front lines and see how quickly peace movements would emerge from the bowels of the body politic then.)
 
(how could any sane person survive knowing that that set charges that killed thousands of innocents? ) I don't know any one that could.

This seems to be a problem. Caring people like Cairenn projecting their caring onto other people that don't care.

I'm sure that you don't know any people that could because you care and would probably form a social network of caring people instead of people thinking like psychopaths and so forth. I like the way you're thinking and the reason you're thinking that way.

But it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power with respect to what often goes on in the world among the ruling classes that create wars and so forth.

Edite:
Like what? Furthering the police state those in charge are so obviously thirsting after?

Insane, isn't it?

Because they too want themselves and their family to occupy such a world?

Borrowing Rumsfeld's method of trickling down information into the "mainstream"/corporate media, here's a cartoon from the multiple stream media:

Is the multiple stream media full of bunk and the "mainstream" media (inc.) of the military industrial complex just full of truth? I have my doubts.
 
Planning, but that's like a conspiracy! Surely someone would leak and tell the people about the plan to blow them up? (Anyway... don't forget to bring the donuts to the meeting...)

There again, the cartoonish representation of the cave complex presented by Rumsfeld in the corporate/"mainstream" media actually looked pretty comfortable. (Not to mention the fact that many men in the military seem to be acting like proverbial Cave Men with respect to women anyway. You know it's true. Apparently there's no way to put the violence in a test tube without other base reactions of "the base" men on the Grand Chessboard getting in the way of the war games too. It would be interesting to have an experiment in which all the planners, the financiers, the plotters of false flags, the higher level conspirators and so forth were put on the front lines and see how quickly peace movements would emerge from the bowels of the body politic then.)

They did, they are called Bradley Manning, the Rosenburgs, Kim Philby, the Walker family, Anthony Blunt etc.

You could call what I do as a conspiracy, but the context in which 'conspiracy' is used on here, is illegal conspiracy. The enemy know what I am doing and we generally don't try and make it look like someone else is doing it or by disguising the means. I also do not fear going to prison if I am found out.
 
This seems to be a problem. Caring people like Cairenn projecting their caring onto other people that don't care.

I'm sure that you don't know any people that could because you care and would probably form a social network of caring people instead of people thinking like psychopaths and so forth. I like the way you're thinking and the reason you're thinking that way.

But it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power with respect to what often goes on in the world among the ruling classes that create wars and so forth.

Edite:
jvnk08 said:
Like what? Furthering the police state those in charge are so obviously thirsting after?
Insane, isn't it?



Borrowing Rumsfeld's method of trickling down information into the "mainstream"/corporate media, here's a cartoon from the multiple stream media:

Is the multiple stream media full of bunk and the "mainstream" media (inc.) of the military industrial complex just full of truth? I have my doubts.



So, no refutation of the first point regarding lack of whistleblowers when it is absolutely certain they would exist and have come out by now if 9/11 was indeed conspiracy. There is zero doubt in that matter. The technology is readily available, the people privy to such insider knowledge would have the know-how to use such technology and ensure their own safety. There have been several whistleblowers throughout the 2000s in the intelligence agencies, exposing things from budgetary concerns to torture. Manning released more confidential documents than ever before in US history simply because he saw a video of an airstrike. Aside from those within the conspiracy that might have moral reservations, there are those who disagreed with the Bush administration and would love to expose something like this, because(as Noam mentioned) it would utterly destroy him and his political party.

As to the second point regarding a possible motive, the logic of your argument seems to have escaped you on some points:

I'd love to see your definition of the "multiple stream media", seeing as your definition of the "mainstream media" is probably limited to CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
 
So, no refutation of the first point regarding lack of whistleblowers when it is absolutely certain they would exist and come out by now if 9/11 was a conspiracy.

If your imaginary scenario is correct then why doesn't it apply to the official conspiracy theory also? In other words, wouldn't it be absolutely certain that Muslim factions would have exposed 911 given that it was a "Muslim" conspiracy? Important to remember that no matter what type of theory you go with, 9/11 was a conspiracy.

On a side note, I would also note that taking a lack of imaginary whistle blowers too far might begin to be a case of citing imaginary evidence. And ironically, that imaginary evidence about what simply must be given your way of imagining things could be countered with actual evidence about the "illuminati".... or perhaps just noting known patterns with less entertaining and nefarious connotations, i.e. the members of secret societies that tend to consider themselves more illuminated and superior to everyone else. Imagine it this way, what's the first thing that people do on a reality show in Honey Boo Boo America when the issue is survival. On Survivor, they form secret societies based on secret oaths and so forth. You don't need to engage in the theatrical productions typical to some secret societies to do that. When people get kicked off the island and they cry and so forth do they expose their secret alliance? Usually not, not if it's not in their interests to do so. You have to wait a few episodes for that. Point being, when you consistently have members of secret societies incorporated as members of the ruling class you may not necessarily know what's going on with "absolute certainty".

Especially if they've perfected ways of taking a leak on journalists, managing public relations, creating a world in which perceptions are reality and so forth. It's curious to me how "the base" of the Left imagine things. Apparently they can generally be led by gatekeepers like Chomsky to imagine that Bush lied about WMDs, lied about this, lied about that, his administration is utterly corrupt and so forth... but when it comes to 911... apparently his administration told the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Shrug. I'll have to think about it more but I'll probably never come to a conclusion of "absolute certainty" as you seem to be able to based mainly on imaginary evidence. (I.e. imagining that there would be whistle blowers. And that's mainly because I can imagine that there wouldn't be.)

There is zero doubt in that matter. The technology is readily available, the people privy to such knowledge would have the knowledge to use it.

There isn't zero doubt in the matter given that the entire internet is being spied on and it would seem that even CIA chiefs can be sifted out of the streams of information to be targeted or blackmailed based on that. It would seem to me that if one kept the conspiracy to a minimum like Osama did according to the official story and you also had access to that information and had links to those writing the code for the "threat disposition matrix" to assassinate your operatives without trial and so forth if necessary that it could be done. You're imagining that it couldn't be done and I'm imagining that it could be. That's all this seems to amount to. Interesting debate, though.

There have been several whistleblowers throughout the 2000s regarding in the intelligence agencies, exposing things from budgetary concerns to torture.

Fair enough. There are theories with different degrees of explanatory power. I haven't come to an "absolutely certain" conclusion and so forth.

Manning released more confidential documents than ever before in human history simply because he saw a video of an airstrike.

It's likely that most people in the military wouldn't have the same level of caring that Manning did. After all, they're being trained to be psychopaths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top