I read the back and forth posts. It sure smells to me like their objection is really what you exposed, not the science. I can't say I blame you for your generalizations about experts. It seems to me some so-called experts shut down their brains when the science challenges their world view. Cowards! But certainly not all experts are like that.
At first I had concerns that the government may have had information of the impending attacks but let them happen. These were strengthened with the 911 commission with the secret meetings and the omission of key figures during the inquiry. I felt the truthers were blowing things way out of proportion. Sites like Alex Jones, In Plain Sight and The Loose Change Boys were being disrespectful to the victims of the families. Do I believe the Bush administration was hiding something? Yes I do but it just might be something to cover their asses from a major lawsuit. There are still unanswered questions but I don't think the Government was behind the attacks.
Thank you Tuatara. So just to clarify. You said you believed the US government knew about the impending attacks and that the 9/11 Commission strengthened your belief. Do you still believe that or did you change your mind? You also said "truthers" were being disrespectful to the victims of the families. I think you meant to the families of the victims. Just so you know, the Jersey Girls are families of the victims and they don't believe the 9/11 Commission at all. In fact one of them (Patty Cassazza) believes the US government knew the exact date and targets. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-family-member-patty-casazza.html So who would the 9/11 families be disrespecting? You also said that the Bush administration are hiding information just because they're worried about lawsuits. Did you know the Bush administration was sued by Ellen Mariani who lost her husband on 9/11? https://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/21/9_11_widow_sues_the_bush The lawsuit was dismissed on grounds of absolute immunity, not on the facts behind the lawsuit. And finally you believe there are still unanswered questions. The question is where will those unanswered questions lead? No one really knows the answer to that but if there are many unanswered questions, IMO one's mind should not be closed to anything. Anyway just some observations from your post.
A few months ago I asked a high school teacher in her twenties how old she was on 9/11. She said she was in 6th grade. Children that were in kindergarten at the time are now in college. This 9/11 meme is now in the psychological DNA of the culture. How do you correct the thinking of someone who accepted the OCT since they were 5 years old? And even if they can change their minds, then how can they trust scientists and engineers? But then how do you run a technological society without "trusting" them. psik
I always found it fishy, but I thought the 'official' story was plausible enough to accept until better evidence is presented. It hasnt been. It seems most likely to me that a plane was crashed into each building. Its less plausible (but still quite plausible) that fire damage collapsed the buildings nearly perfectly into their footprint. Its even more less plausible (but still barely plausible) that collateral damage and fire effected WTC7 to the extent that a controlled demolition was necessary, and an emergency team of engineers precisely planted precision explosives in a burning building and collapsed it perfectly into its footprint, a process that usually takes days or weeks in buildings that arent on fire. Yes, it could happen. Its *also* entirely plausible that the whole thing was planned. Explosives and/or WP devices could have been installed prior to the plane impacts. The planes could have been gassed and/or remotely flown into the buildings. None of that really matters. What we do know is that multiple intelligence agencies suspected that precisely this sort of attack was likely. They were tracking and watching the radicalized hijackers taking pilot lessons. Norad was conducting a very 'coincidentally' timed drill during the attacks. Foreign nationals related to Saudi's and even Bin Laden were allowed to flee the country via plane while everything else 'airborn' in the nation was grounded, and some of our own political leaders have publicly stated that they got 'miraculous' forwarning from friends to not fly anywhere that day. We know that the owner of the WTC complex substantially beefed up their insurance coverage a very short time before the attacks and made out like a bandit from their destruction. We know that in both the towers as well as the destroyed section of the Pentagon were housed documents involved in some high profile 'banking elite' investigations into fraud as well as an investigation of TRILLIONS of dollars of missing federal budget money, and all these cases flopped sans the destroyed documents. We know the federal government has bloated the security state, military spending, foreign conflicts and generally raped our BoR/Const in half as a direct result of the public outcry for revenge and increased security because of the attacks. The motive for a 'conspiracy' directing (or at least allowing) these attacks to happen is collossal, the opportunity is a no brainer, and its not like our govt isnt crawling with socio/psychopathic manipulators who could do this and sleep like a baby afterwards. Our governments treatment of whistleblowers recently coupled with the reach of its ability to eliminate enemies in obscurity makes a very plausible situation for a conspiracy even this large to remain hidden. I think it was most likely an inside job by corrupt elements within our government. They simply benefitted TOO MUCH for it to be coincidental.
Agreed, that was the objective. The same way my thinking was corrected. By education and maturity. I was educated in a religious school and bought the whole thing. When I grew up I became an agnostic and soon thereafter and atheist. People can and do shed their indoctrination. That depends on which scientists and engineers. Credibility counts for quite a bit. Apples and oranges. You generally trust that your car runs but in the back of your mind there is always the possibility that a defect exists.
I'm somewhat confused by your post. If I understand you correctly, on the one hand you claim you haven't come across enough compelling evidence to make the official story implausible and on the other hand you claim the logic makes it quite plausible that there is a (government) conspiracy. It seems to me you're straddling the fence for the most part. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missing something.
I think the official story: that terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the towers causing the towers to collapse is plausible. I think the evidence of explosives and incendiaries is interesting and warrants concern and investigation, but is mostly immaterial to the theory. Everything could've happened exactly the way they said, and it still doesnt discount a conspiracy to let it happen or help it happen and use the event to accomplish a cornucopia of evil- which is what I believe they did. Its like if i knew someone was coming to kill my neighbor and I took a life insurance policy out on him, called the cops to a fake bank robbery across town, unlocked his door and then set his house on fire after he was murdered. I didnt actually kill him, but I am responsible for and intentionally benefitting from his death.
Nah. IMO, there's not a chance in hell that the building could have been rigged for controlled demolition in a few hours while some of the floors were on fire, not even "barely plausible". Who in his right mind would first plan the demolition (you have to get at the infrastructure), then get others to go into the building with explosives no less and rig them in the right places, all while some floors were on fire? IMO that makes zero sense, period. So that leaves only 2 possibilities, either the scattered fires caused the building to come down just like a perfectly planned controlled demolition or it was rigged weeks prior to 9/11. It's up to the individual to determine for him/herself which. It helps to understand the facts surrounding the so-called NIST investigation of WTC7: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
Afaik, much of the time spent demoing a building is ensuring success. I think an experienced team could in theory whip out a hasty demo with maybe just a 60% chance of success, which might be good enough in certain emergency circumstsnces- like when the building may be in danger of collapsing uncontrollably anyeay, or when theres a conspiratorial coverup going on. In any event, while its worth taking the days or weeks involved in coming up with the 99% success rate that most 'footprint' demos require, substantially less might be acheivable in a very short amount of time. Thats why I say its 'barely plausible.'
Some people can, others are religious fanatics. I don't trust engineers, mostly. Look up the specs of the SR-71 Blackbird. It started flying in 1964. So how is it that half-a-century later we keep redesigning cars and they don't talk about Planned Obsolescence. I have not been to an auto show in more than 30 years. They are making useless variations in junk for the money year after year. Ever wonder what happened to turbine cars? https://www.wired.com/2014/10/lotus-turbine-racecar/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car This is very strange with what the average person is not supposed to understand about science and technology. psik
There are way too many problems with that theory. First, they would have to assemble a team of CD experts in a very short space of time. Then they would have to make their way into the chaos of lower Manhattan (from somewhere in the US with all planes grounded) and into WTC7, which not only was on fire but according to Barry Jennings, had its staircase blown out, carrying explosive materials no less. The dangers of getting people into that building were enormous (they allegedly got the firefighters out because of the life threatening dangers). Then rig a 47 story building (it would be one of the tallest in the history of CDs) with very little planning time to achieve a CD that if it only partially destroys the building, could cause a worse scenario than letting it burn to the ground or allegedly collapse on its own. A failed control demolition of a 47 story building could cause an awful lot of collateral damage: IMO, none of that makes any sense. Whoever would even order something like that would need to have his head examined, never mind those who agree to try to carry it out. Methinks your imagination is a bit over the top.
True, that's why there are rabid OCT defenders and there are those who reject the OCT. That's why credibility plays a huge role in who to trust and who not to trust. For example, given the history, why would anyone trust government experts? OTOH, would you trust Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, etc.?
A reasonable post, for sure. The trouble arises when one examines the story closely, in detail. As they say, the Devil is in the details. Under close scrutiny, the official story fails. It is contradicted by all the known facts. Not the government and media talking points and their repetition, but the known facts. For example, the absence of airliners in Pennsylvania and the pentagon. For example, the 911 Commission report which is clearly a cover-up, admitted by the heads of the commission.
Thats why I said barely plausible. Stranger, more miraculous things have been done, just not often. I think its *more* likely that the building was either not damaged, or rigged to blow prior to 911, or both.
I understand what you're saying, I just think it's not even within sniffing distance of "barely plausible" for all the reasons given and I also omitted the fact that they "predicted" the building would collapse several hours before it was destroyed. I just think given the facts and the scenario, it was not possible at all (as in zero probability). But ok, this is approaching the irrelevant.
ROFL Thomas Edison!? Haven't you heard of the War of the Currents? I went to college for Electrical Engineering and they did not tell us about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents Einstein never had significant financial interests that I know of. He didn't like quantum mechanics though. psik
Those were just a couple of examples off the top of my head. Unfortunately no one is 100% trustworthy, especially when there's a financial interest involved. It's a matter of degree of trust, not 100% trust. For example, I don't 100% trust Richard Gage but in comparison to Shyam Sunder, there's no comparison.
It is a matter of the complexity of the problem. If the problem is simple then most people should understand it for themselves and no trust should be required. But then "experts" come along and make things unnecessarily complicated. Consider the economy. How many millions of cars have Americans thrown on the junk heap since the Moon landing? So didn't those cars DEPRECIATE? Didn't they get added to GDP every year when they were purchased? So why aren't they subtracted from somewhere? But our economists do not even talk about NET Domestic Product. http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html It is just like leaving out data on the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall. They must know how important it is but then say nothing. psik
I don't know who you're blaming for that. If it's NIST that's far from the only data they left out or deliberately modified. But then again their objective was to try to support the official narrative on a pseudo-scientific basis, not to actually investigate. If it's any other entity it's not as important as exposing NIST's fraud for which they had more than enough evidence even without that data. But I do have to agree it's an important factor that has to be part of the discussion.
While there is no doubt 9/11 was an "inside job" perpetrated by the government of the USA, CIA and Mossad, for the benefit of eternal wars, Netanyahu, Silvertstein, Bush, Cheney and their crowd...there is still a glaring question in my mind...how aluminum aircraft can penetrate steel and concrete building cleanly as these seem to have...seems to be impossible without a lot of debris on the outside of the building and on the street below...hmmmmm...
I've wondered about that too. It's one thing for the titanium engines to penetrate steel and concrete at those alleged velocities but the rest of the aircraft is mostly lightweight aluminum. Then there are the videos that show a white flash exactly in front of the nose of both aircraft just before impact. Doctored videos or real???
