911 Truth Coda

Julian, thanks for your passion in taking this head on. all i can say is that, i agree with Chomsky, and with your analysis. conspiracy theories are so tempting to believe. my thinking is, the more tempting they are, the more critical thinking and common sense we need to apply.

~C

Yeah, I'll have a go…

What happened on 9/11?

The CIA had been planning September 11, 2001 for a number of years. They assisted the training of the hijackers with a simple manipulation of some radical Arabs who wanted to shake the United States to its foundations.

The CIA was more than happy about this, the CIA's has only one purpose and that's National Security. National security from internal threats, external threats, financial threats, in fact any threat that will compromise the American way of life of excess and greed.

When the CIA discovered that a number of radicals were planning to fly some airliners into some well known American landmarks,they must have thought that all their Christmas's had come at once. Under the guise of surveillance they were able to assist with money and training.

The CIA realized that they had two major issues…NORAD (Air defense for such terrorist attacks) and consent from the mayor of New York city.

Mayor Giuliani was briefed by the CIA, beyond the knowledge of the President, that his city was about to be used in an operation that would ensure the continuation of the American way of life. Being a true patriot Mayor Giuliani agreed and in turn received his life long dreamt gift from the CIA - the American Presidency.

The CIA had insiders in NORAD but there was no way they would be able to stand down NORAD during the terrorist attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on the operation and undertook steps to be able to stand down NORAD on September 11. Dick Cheney asked for one thing in return…immunity.

The reason for the attack has been clearly outlined in the PNAC article which conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt that the United States was going down the toilet unless they were able to get a stranglehold on Middle East oil. What was required was something which resembled the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In addition to this, the United States in September 2001 was six months into a recession. After September 11, the Federal Reserve was justifiably entitled to cut the lending rates in a series of market actions which brought the economy out of the ‘recession they had to have'. Of course all this has really done is delay the inevitable crash of the American economy, including the dollar, the banking system, infrastructure and international trade.

In the months leading up to September 11, the CIA ‘special operation' units went to work. This work included the installation of demolition material in WTC1, 2 and Building 7. The headquarters of this operation was ironically in Building 7 itself. The CIA special operation team worked closely with Mayor Giuliani's New York City emergency team who were situated in the same building.

The one key element to the operation was to keep the monkey in the cage…George Bush Jnr. George Bush had no knowledge of the operation whatsoever. George Bush Jnr is a mere puppet of a man for his father's continued work in the Whitehouse; work that was taken from him with a single disappointing term in office. George Bush Snr knows more than you and I, how stupid Junior is and how important it was to keep him out of the loop and being an ex-director of the CIA he knew what the operation meant to American national security.

The only thing that went wrong on the day was that one group of terrorist panicked in the cockpit and decided to simply crash the plane into a field instead of a United States Landmark.

The CIA was on the ground in every location, some totally oblivious of the operation, but most with important team leaders that knew exactly what was needed to pull off the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

The crime scene was cordoned off, evidenced was destroyed by bull dozers and WTC metal was hastily shipped off to be sold as second hand metal. Remains of the airlinners and their occupants were sent straight into top secret storage facilities away from the prying eyes of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

What occurred then was a bumbling tumble into an investigation headed by a neo-conservative heavy weight who personally knew which buttons needed to be pushed to start the next stage of the event…the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and ultimately Iran. Al Queda was blamed, building 7 was simply left out of the report and the scope of the investigation was so limited and cheap that there was no way on earth a believable report would be furnished.

Notwithstanding the small scope of the investigation, for some reason the President and the Vice-President were to be investigated in relation to 9/11. Dick Cheney being the criminal that he is, started to shit himself and made all types of requests including that the questions be off oath, that nobody could attend, that the transcript could be vetted by the CIA and that they were able to hold each others hands while they were questioned.

Nobody will ever know why the President of the United States was investigated in relation to Saudi terrorist attack against the United States.

The festering conservative media started to happily play their role, if you think they needed to be ‘in on it' to run their war campaigns against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, you're wrong; it was and is their pleasure.

There is absolutely no way that the United States could have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without September 11. The international community up until that point thought terrorism was something that happened occasionally to US embassies around the world. The fact that this operation worked so well is supported by the fact that over 50% of American's believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

hey Julian,

like i said, i agree with your analysis. but just to spice things up a bit, here are some interesting links i found via a Youtube video promoting the Zeitgeist movie. ah well….

via: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhs64JnfC8c

———-

But surely this could not have happened, I mean, governments would not actually resort to terror attacks to advance their interests. Would they?

Unfortunately, yes they would.
Actually, they have a history of doing so.

Operation Ajax:
From the archives of the New York Times, the British and US involvement in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/…

Operation Northwoods:
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to enact acts of terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operatio…

Operation Gladio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operatio…

Other false flag operations:
http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/10-false-…

US Marines Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in US history, figured out what war is all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_…
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/w…

——–

i guess the moral of conspiracy theories is, nothing is what they seem. but who really knows what, eh? we can apply the same thinking (er, paranoia) on our day to day perception of reality anyway :)

but still, i'd go with Noam Chomsky's logic on this one.

~C

Yeah, they’re reasonable questions. However my response was “more blurt, than assert”.

That's a nice contribution, Julian, I enjoyed it.

GW, I admire your Down Under, have-a-go spirit (always admire the Down Unders in that way).

However, I do see some problems with the scenario. For one thing, the idea that the CIA is an autonomous agency or takes a leading role in policy making is really a Hollywood idea . There may have been times when the CIA has acted on its own volition, but I don't know when that would be (I would like to know if anyone knows of any instances). I don't believe, for example, that Iran/Contra unfolded without orders from at least Vice President Bush, though it's not hard to believe that they kept it from Reagan (also not hard to believe that he either forgot about it or didn't tell the truth when asked).

I know I've linked to this documentary before, but I'm going to link to it again because it shows how much infighting there can be between the executive branch (the White House), the Pentagon, and the CIA, among other agencies. Those Frontline documentaries are really an excellent resourse for learning about the U.S. governement, U.S. poltiics, and the U.S. in general. It just simply doesn't begin to be plausible that all these governemental agencies, and all the people in them plus Gulliani and “Gulliani's emergency team” (and according to some theories Silverstein, the BBC, etc.), could all agree that such a plan is a good idea, with no leaks or defectors. This is one reason no serious commentators and reporters believe there is anything to these theories.

Another funny thing is the idea that everyone who knows is too afraid to speak out–everyone but they, the 911 truth movement activists. All the brave fireman in the NYC fire department ran up the WTC towers and were killed on 911–all those who survived are too afraid of the Bush administration even to write an anonymous letter. And the same with everyone in NIST, and all the reporters who were there that day, and everyone else too–all too afraid to step forward, even to write an anonymous letter. But they, the activists in the 911 truth movement, have so much more courage than all these people that they can face the dangers of speaking their minds at campaign fundraisers, live talk shows, campaign events, etc.

GW said: “Mayor Giuliani was briefed by the CIA, beyond the knowledge of the President, that his city was about to be used in an operation that would ensure the continuation of the American way of life. Being a true patriot Mayor Giuliani agreed and in turn received his life long dreamt gift from the CIA - the American Presidency.”
 
See, the CIA doesn't run the country. It doesn't run the elections, nor does it run the Republican party or their nomination process. It doesn't have the power to deliver on Gulliani's “life long dream … the American Presidency.” In fact, many in the CIA could well be Democrats and disagree strongly with the neocon agenda. Those interviewed in the Frontline documentary I linked seem to be of this type.

The reason many Americans believe that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 911 is because so many of them are so uninformed and because people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice were saying things that could leave such an impression in an uninformed person. It doesn't have anything to do with the CIA. I doubt you could find an American newspaper article or telivision broadcast that made that assertion. I'm not even sure you could find a conservative commentator on Fox News who said that.

How dare you! 

Just kidding.  :)

David

lol.

Yeah, well articulated.

I’ve only recently considered that the CIA is a secret parallel government which is asserting the real power in America, especially re: National Security/Foreign Policy, i’m sticking with it for a while to see if it has any merit.

I recently watched Pilger’s first motion picture War on Democracy, I’ve also read his book “New Rulers of the World”, no doubt inspiring my current feelings on the CIA. The CIA are animals.

I have thought that the 9/11 Truth movement and other conspiracies surround it depend quite heavily on physics to support their claims. “People are too stupid to manage that level of co-ordination.” although possibly true, is not enough to 'prove' anything. Some people are also amazing at what they do or invent, whether for good or ill to society at large.

However, I don't think that anyone having passed grade 11 physics could fall for some of the selective facts and theories presented about the collapse of the buildings. It can only be a testament to the lowering quality of education in north america that 'fire would not have burned in a vacuum' or that 'the steel framework would have held up as the buildings pancaked'.

The pressure and force of a cumulative amount of megatonnage compressed the air below it as it fell and literally obliterated whatever and whoever lay beneath. Just as deep in the ocean, where pressure per square inch would crush anything but the hardiest of vehicles.

For each selective 'fact' that is shown, a swath of knowledge is left out about the physics of the full picture, and the extensive knowledge we have in other areas.

A live debate between Loose Change filmmakers and Popular Mechanics editors.

Never underestimate the exuberance and effectiveness of unaffected youth.

The issue that is raised in the clip (the David one) for me is that the American government refuses to release essential evidence which would totally destroy every conspiracy theory that is out there. Why would they do that?

Thanks Julian, I have not been convinced by most of the “evidence” of the CTs but had no ideas about Building7, so seeing the references you present was good. I just haven't felt it was worth the time to slog through the material. I am glad you did. I just saw the Chomsky video clip recently and he expresses how I have felt about it for a long time. I am no friend of this group of criminals we have running the US now but I don't believe that this is the one thing they have done that is leak-proof or done with almost supernatural efficiency and secrecy… it just doesn't wash…

Thank you again, Julian. I just read some more and particularly I watched the Penn & Teller video… Brilliant!

GW, come on man, use your excellent intelligence and break free of this claptrap… These guys (GWB, Cheney, et al) just aren't that good (in the sense of imagination and competence), and the rest of the apparatus just isn't that bad. And the Richard Clarke summation of the problem with the CTs: They assume the government is competent, and they assume the government can keep a secret, but apparently only in this case.

I like the mode of argument: “So whacky not even Noam Chomsky can support it.”

The piece was also published at Salon, but I guess attacks on Chomsky are more likely to come from the right if he tends to be adulated by so many on the left. However, dismissing the article on the basis of its origins is a fallacious approach.

I find Horowitz shrill at times, but the substance of his critique is damning. I’d be more interested in your take on the particulars of the article, or better yet, its more specific follow-up in response to critics of the critique. If what Horowitz quotes Chomsky as writing is accurate, and if the context supplied by Horowitz and suppressed by Chomsky is even plausible, then Chomsky has written in a highly disreputable fashion.

As another author said in a different connection recently, “one can write the history of anything as a chronicle of crime and folly.” For whatever reasons, Chomsky chooses to follow that procedure starting from an initial position of bias.

Selective emphasis of the bad, suppression of the positive, and diminution or distortion of context can make just about any thing or anyone look bad.

Just imagine a biography of you written by your worst enemy (who in your case would have to be insane, but let’s just imagine such a person). No doubt anyone could easily write either a laudatory or scathing autobiography. Depending on the audience, either version might get a better reception, but more discriminating readers could observe how the selective approaches distort the picture that emerges from the whole evidence, seen in context.

That Chomsky is so popular, says as much about his readers as the writer himself. It is a sophomoric taste, and one that requires both bias and credulity.

But you’re right that there are many points to refute the paranoid claims of the 9/11 “truthers.”

Aw Curmudgeon,

You know this subject along with the stock market are my 'for fun pet projects'.

CIA releases videotapes, pictures of crime scene and all other evidence that has been locked away in the interest of national security, And we're done here. Finished.

The stock market on the other hand KABOOM. Back to the heady days of August.

GW said: “The issue that is raised in the clip (the David one) for me is that the American government refuses to release essential evidence which would totally destroy every conspiracy theory that is out there. Why would they do that?”

For one thing, the conspiracy theorists tend not to be too interested in evidence anyway, so it's not likely that any new evidence would make them go away (You can see that in the Popular Mechanics/Loose Change debate; no matter what evidence the Popular Mechanics guys come up with the Loose Change guys just respond with “Lies! All lies!” As if the Popular Mechanics guys are in on the conspiracy too. I haven't seen the second one yet, but thanks Julian, I'm looking forward to it).

For another, sometimes conspiracy theorists will say that evidence hasn't been released when it has (for example, there are still those who say no footage has been released of the Pentagon attack when there has been). Anyway, there are at least a couple of reasons they still might hold onto evidence (if they had it, which is questionable–why wouldn't they have disclosed it to bolster the case for war?). 1) To conceal their incompetence before the attacks and after the attacks; 2) to protect sources for continuing operations.
 
But I think it's mostly number one. These guys are secretive, and they're obsessed with their public image, as all administrations are, but this one is willing to lie and conceal things to uphold a certain image like few others in the past. People pick up on their sneakiness, and it makes them uncomfortable, and then, in the case of conspiracy theorists, it makes their imaginations run wild.

Also, what evidence in particular would you like to see?

Still, I think there's something the conspiracy theorists don't want to feel, and upholding the conspiracy theories–in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them–keeps them from feeling it. That's my analysis.  :)

David

I haven't seen Loose Change, so i'm not sure what is in it or whether they're entitled to declare “Lies” etc to criticisms.

I saw the video released at the Pentagon and it was a grainy corner shot of an unidentifiable object colliding into the side of the Pentagon. This was all we got from undoubtedly one of the most surveilanced buildings in the world.

Flight 93 is safely tucked away in a building in a mountain. Well documented on CNN or NBC or something.

Your case 1 could be right. But it wasn't just the CIA and FBI that failed. It was NORAD as well, who apparently had a sterling reputation and 100% record prior to September 11.

I for one would love to put this stuff to bed. An ndependant investigation, even one thwarted by Executive Privilege would reveal enough information to put this thing to bed for everyone.

OK GW, that's fine, only I don't think they want their blundering out there for all to see, so I wouldn't hold my breath… on the other hand aren't there better projects, ones with more meaning… like the price of oil… I'll see ya over at Age o' Turbulence

GW said:  “I saw the video released at the Pentagon and it was a grainy corner shot of an unidentifiable object colliding into the side of the Pentagon.”
 
It looked like that to me as well; I couldn't tell that it was an American Airlines jet from that film, but I think there are probably film experts in the world who could examine it and find out one way or another, don't you think? And if that's so, would they have released it?

GW said: “Flight 93 is safely tucked away in a building in a mountain.”
 
Why wouldn't it be? Would they drag it out just so the Loose Change guys could look at it? Those guys obviously aren't operating in a reasonable way because anything anyone says is just immediately dismissed. The Popular Mechanics guys say that the cell-phone experts say that cell phones could operate up to 35,000 feet in 2001, and rather than coming back with some alternative explanation or presenting experts of their own, they simply call them liars. A lot of people have answered their questions, and noted that some things aren't completely explained, but they don't seem to absorb any of the answers or even really listen. Their position never changes no matter what anyone says, so why would it change if they were able to examine the remains of Flight 93? 


GW said:   “This was all we got from undoubtedly one of the most surveilanced buildings in the world.”

How do we know that it was one of the most surveilanced buldings in the world? One would think that it would be, and certainly it had protection, but maybe it just didn't have cameras or a camera with a tape pointing in that direction. How do we know that it did?

GW said: “It was NORAD as well, who apparently had a sterling reputation and 100% record prior to September 11.”

When had there been a previous attack like this that NORAD had thwarted? Isn't it true that there hadn't been any attacks like this in the past and that NORAD was just caught sleeping at the wheel?
 
~David

Yep, all good points there.

Julian,

I acknowledge that what I introduced here is tangential to the general point you are making with your post and subsequent comments.

I also agree, for the most part, with your evaluation of Horowitz as a right-winger on a mission to discredit Chomsky. I also agree that Chomsky is persuasive, though I’m not sure he couldn’t simultaneously be “Manichaean.”

But whether Horowitz is a right-winger or not has nothing to do with the accuracy of his critique, however florid his language, however shrill his tone. In this respect you have only repeated your exercise of the fallacy of “poisoning the well,” along with more ad hominem attacks. All you’ve done is to identify what side Horowitz is on (and maybe also that he’s shrill and disagreeable), not whether there’s any justice in what he says.

“I think we know where he stands” is not a refutation, it’s simply a statement of tribal alignment.

I’ll repeat: if what Horowitz claims Chomsky wrote is even slightly accurate, and if the context that Horowitz supplies and Chomsky suppresses is correct, then Chomsky has written in a seriously discreditable fashion. If that’s characteristic of the way the man operates (however subtle and reassuring his style), then he’s the opposite of a reliable guide on these matters.

Thank you, Julian, GW.

I'm not saying that we're through with this or anything, but I have a suggestion for the next one: Ron Paul. It's an interesting phenomenon worthy of a little deconstruction, perhaps.

Or we could go debunking the 911 conspiracy theories on the other pods …

:)

David

Julian, there's nothing illegitimate in making a kind of character witness, but it is irrelevant to the particular arguments adduced. That's all I'm saying. Ad hominem comments are entirely legitimate if the man is being argued, but not if the point in question is something else.

So, if Horowitz's assertion is that (I paraphrase) “Chomsky left out some of the most crucial facts for understanding the U.S.'s behavior post WWII,” responding by pointing out that Horowitz likes Ann Coulter is irrelevant in particular, even if interesting in general.

I have no beef with the point you make in general (about Chomsky likely to support it if he felt it was plausible).

I think it would be good to differentiate between ad hominen attacks and “ad worldviewen” attacks, or something like that. An ad hominen is a personal attack–Ross Perot is paranoid; John McCain is unstable; Bill Clinton is a profligate. An ad worldviewen is when an assertion is made about the person's school of thought: McCain is a conservative; Bill Clinton is a liberal; Denis Kucinich is an extreme liberal; Lyndon LaRouche is an extreme conservative. We have to be careful with both, but we shouldn't confuse one with the other.

In the case of the Loose Change guys, since they respond to evidence not with counter evidence but with unfounded charges of lying, we might decide to label them as irrational or prerational. It probably wouldn't be accurate to characterize them in this way in all aspects of their lives–they probably have the abilitity to be rational–but with regard to the 911 attacks it probably is accurate.

Similarly, when discussing someone like Bill Clinton or Noam Chomsky, it is very likely that, for example, a supporter of the Republican party will just give you a knee-jerk conservative reaction. The kid in medical school I mentioned earlier can give you some really clear integral thought on a number of issues, but when it comes to politics and Ron Paul he doesn't even sound rational.

We need to be careful with both kinds of labelling, but as a person becomes more and more steeped in a certain dogma or worldview–and I didn't read Horowitz's article; the website screamed far right wing so loudly it didn't seem to be worth the time and eye strain–it then becomes increasingly appropriate to label them as simply a spokesperson for that particular school of thought, just someone giving you the party line and not really engaged in fresh, open inquiry.

Okay, I figured I should read the article if I was going to comment. Horowitz levels two ad hominen attacks in the first sentence, labelling Chomsky “devious” and “dishonest”–never backing it up with evidence–later “venomous.” Then he asks in the second paragraph how it is that many priviledged and educated youth in the U.S. have come to despise their own nation. So clearly he's coming from a right-wing perspective. In other words, he's not critiquing Chomsky with a full appreciation or understanding of Chomsky's work but rather with a half-conscious hatred of it–natural enemies like the mongoose and the snake–which is when simply labelling his as a right-wing perspective can become appropriate.
 
Horowitz probably does have some points, though. Chomsky tends to be a little far left of center to be considered stably integral as far as I can see–he's at least sometimes integral–and probably deserves a little labeling himself. The whole clash needs an integral perspective to make any sense of it. I really don't know how much or little labelling is appropriate. People start to cry foul when you peg them in a certain school, objecting to the implication that they aren't expressing an unassailable universal truth, but when labelling provokes an emotional response or too much of an emotional response things close down, and positions become entrenched, and the conversation doesn't go anywhere. So I guess that's what we have to be mindful of.

David

I don't know about Horowitz, but Chomsky would be the first to tell you to not take his word for rote: he sources, he accesses the information at its most raw level, and has a network of such researchers as friends and colleagues.

I do not agree with Chomsky's ideas on linguistics, although they are fascinating – they cannot be the end of the science of linguistics, indeed, chaos theory can shed some fascinating ideas on memetics and semiotics that completely overthrow some of Chomsky's conclusions (and support others).

However, in terms of foreign policy and transnational corporate power, there's very little doubt the man knows what he is talking about. I suggest you listen to many of his talks which are available on the internet.  You can also find much of his stuff over usenet, various p2p and bittorrent. What you will find is that he lets the facts and evidence speak for himself, and downplays his own opinion much of the time.

Chomksy is, at heart, a scientist and professor. These types of people can have a certain bias, but it tends to be rather divorced from left / right politics. The whole IDEA of left / right politics is a fairly “right wing” idea, in truth, because it attempts to cast the whole spectrum of thought into black and white. Chomsky, after being exposed to him, is someone who values critical pedagogy (basically, critical thought, making up your own mind) who would rather you look at the data yourself, have multiple sources of authority and the access to the education you need in order to do these things.

To be 'against' Chomsky, to attack the character of this person in order to dismiss everything he's ever said (or the large part of it) is normally an attack made by a) ignorance or b) those who would rather most people remain ignorant. Inform a person all you want in this age: if you don't teach a person how to find evidence, establish truth, theorize freely… what use is it to shout another opinion at them in the age of information?

Well, there is an answer to that. It allows the more consise, easier to explain and most importantly, most persuasive emotional argument to dominate discourse. It is essential to teach people how to seek truth for themselves. Imagining that you can tell the truth without such an enablement of the Self, in this age, is a pipe dream.

Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish.

IN MY OPINION:

If everyone knew how to calculate pressure per square inch, there would be no doubt about how the towers fell, and these 'liar' screaming jerks' would soon fall silent: they're the court jesters, little else.

Stories are better with pictures…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzHS2WWWYk

I think it would be good to differentiate between ad hominen attacks and “ad worldviewen” attacks, or something like that.

It wouldn’t make any difference. There’s nothing wrong with identifying someone’s political viewpoint or even showing their character flaws, if that is the issue. If there’s some other point at issue, however, then that information is irrelevant.

If John Doe makes an assertion that can be evaluated, then saying “Well, John Doe is a conservative/liberal/Methodist/manic-depressive” is simply beside the point.

Well julian, your right that i have no credibility,apparently god has no credibility either when it comes to the liberal elite intelligentsia! So, you know, i guess i don't feel all that broken up about it! Oh, how comfortable my lame-liberal-dumb-ass would have  been if i just had of experienced the  nothingness of god rather than the somethingness Of christ!lol

But really, please reference what i said in context. We were on a zeitgeist blog talking about a movie that alludes to some sort of grand conspiracy over the millennia. It's in this context that i referenced all the billions of traditional religious believers who do indeed believe in some kind of grand satanic conspiracy. Apparently these people have been taught that satan was an angel at one time……shocking! and hence my reference.

Now as for the alien part of it. I've checked out most of the theories and i personally don't believe them, but, i did have the balls to come on to your blog and put my convictions on the table, when apparently, not one person on this site  that promotes new-age eschatologies of long term alien intervention, dna manipulation, atlantis, That judaism and christianity are really hinduism (a grand conspiracy if there ever was one)  were willing to step up to the plate and defend their convictions! I guess their just too intimitated by all you rational meanies!lol Well, you don't scare me Mister!

Jesus loves you!lol and so do i………………the limey-knuckle-head-canuck,andrew

i really really agree with everything your saying in that post! if there is one group of people that i'm sympathetic to other then the obvious poor and afflicted and oppressed, it would be the rational atheists. You have no idea how much of the stuff of theirs that i've read and their  arguments are so strong and concise. sadly for them though, i feel the atheism part will be proved wrong in the end……

you are aware that the christian church in the west has been very accepting of the new compassion generally speaking. it has accepted the division of church and state and has sought it's domain in the private heart of citizens. UNTIL VERY RECENTLY IN AMERICA!
Now what does the bush administration have in common with alq.  ahhh-the wish to have total control of the population again. is there an unholy alliance happening here?

now back to the controversy! a small plane just hit a small building in vancouver and guess what? the building won! The empire state building won! G.W. -where are the stats for planes hitting buildings? Awe, i don't need em! the buildings win! Now all you people get those 150 and higher i.q.'s out of your asses and wake up and smell the Sharia type laws that these fanatics are trying to impose! And believe me i'll be the first one they hang!
Imagine the blasphemy of asserting a truly good god…….

well,yeah,i can see why you would think that, but i was speaking in the context of medieval laws being re-enacted. But i agree with you that there is no one that wants to do that, right? Liberalism has been such a grand success……..

i hope you would add buddha and krishna to the list of mythical archetypes!

I've seem many many pictures of tall buildings that look as if they were hit by damn near nuclear explosions in times of war and all those buildings still had structural integrity…

and yes, i too have a great respect for all those that stay within the institution and fight for healthy reform…….

but i have a busy week-end and i'll watch that and get back to you……

This thread is rich in opportunities for digression. I’ll bite on one:

Julian, can a “stage of evolution” be considered “pathological”?

(You wrote: christianity, like all religion is for the most part an archaic relic of a psychological pathology that marks a certain stage of human evolution.)

FYI. there's a long thread on this topic on the Multiplex too. so i figured that i might as well connect these two threads so we can all digress into infinity…. :)

~C

Julian,

Great job and to the opposing side- great job in stating your case. But while I scroll through this lengthy snake I see a stock piling of ammunition. 

The truth is inside.
 
Perhaps both sides are right but we're prone to dualistic positions.
 
Perhaps both sides know the same truth but seem to oppose. 

Perhaps it was in Bush best interest to allow this group to build and fester, fester and build in his brother's backyard. 


This cabinet's legacy will be infamous for brutal ignorance.  This trait has worked well for Bush.  Letting his “enemies” trigger 9/11 played into his plans to get back into Iraq. But knowing what we know now- if someone farted and he could have analyzed an Iraqi's DNA- the Shrub cabinet would have seen it as a threat… and we'd be at war anyways. 

See, now I'm stockpiling ammunitions. It's contagious when you go down the road of looking for evidence in dead things.

Julian, the only video you needed to include was the live footage of Bush at the elementary school “that” morning.  His smirk says it all…

Julian: No, it's well past time we all grow up. I find your assessment to be a fairly empirical statement – a call of duty. There's a lot of (pardon my french) stupid semantic shit that gets in the way of pragmatic goal-oriented progress… a lot of the time, this can't be defended: it's narcissism, at best.

(Narcissism is the habit of always thinking about yourself and admiring yourself. (FORMAL)) + I'd say circle jerking self-improvement cults tend to substitute the functions of any given sinner-repentance-or-hell institution quite readily. Selflessness as selfishness… what a concept.

It's straightforward because you know it to be true. All the words that you use to describe your feelings on the subject are a waste of time. You should've worked that out by now; that there was nothing anyone could do for your delusions and in turn there is nothing you can do for anothers.

The signs are there, people will either pick up on them or not.

In regards to growing up, i'm afraid you'd only be taking away from their experience. Most people don't want to grow up and face the reality of their world, which is just them. Just them with no one to blame, no one to impress, no one but them.

Most people are 'happy' on the wheel of life and death, heaven forbid they start taking responsibility for their world…because once you do, very quickly you realise that there is no one else to blame. Growing up is not always fun, it's not about joy, it's about peace. Peace to be able to enjoy both joy and its opposite.

Bill Clinton: “How dare you!? How dare you!?” - emotional words from an emotional man.

Bill Maher skims off the topic by defaming all the “conspiracy theorists” as “Crazy People” and “Big Lunatics” who haven’t taken their medications. (Actually, while we’re on the topic, in Russia “conspiracy theorists” HAVE legally been considered insane and put in mental institutions against their will, although one of the critics was simply poisoned in London. You can read the theories of the deceased “conspiracy theorist” in this book http://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Up-Russia-Secret-Terror/dp/1594032017/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6210534-7793265?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194122975&sr=8-1) Then goes about generalizing the whole issue as a “Ridiculous Topic”.

A video of “911 truthers” infiltrating a Bill Maher’s show. Well, what’s the purpose? Is it being indicated that all people that don’t believe in the official research by Philip D Zelikow, the 911 Commission Report, can be generalized as “crazy”? Great! So when I want to argue with someone I just need to point out the fact that the opposite party is crazy or lunatic (or handicapped/retarded/stupid/idiotic/homosexual/evil/demonic whatever my personal choice of projection is I deem most efficient to defend my position and is in most alignment with my own personal prejudices - but ssshhh keep that between us). Bill Maher, obviously has cracked the case. Nothing more to see here so just move along.

Noam Chomsky’s summary is rational enough and it’s obvious that he’s not overly governed by his emotions and careful in his conclusions (unlike Bill and Bill). His main reasons against a non-official theory is that he finds them “highly unlikely” and a waste of energy which could be harnessed in more meaningful manner. However, his allegorical reference to empirical research was rather confused but his meaning was that people like to find patterns in everything but his question is well, maybe there isn’t any hidden meaning behind the “coincidences”.. classical philosophical issue but this reflection doesn’t really address the alternative theories but simply makes a point to rationalise not doing that at all. Overall fair points that Noam Chomsky makes but I disagree with his basic conclusion that these questions are fundamentally irrelevant.

The last Bill Maher video is interesting. Only point I would’ve liked to add to that is that the level of information being discussed by the general public is based on the amount they want to believe and their customs. It’s not simply only a matter of availability of information, i.e. whether government slips this or that out.

Concerning Pen & Teller’s “Bullshit” episodes. Well, I’ve watched that one before and many others. They always pick out the most ridiculous people they can find as opponents and then find much nicer advocates to support their perspective. Not the best source for information, unless you’re looking for a heavily biased one (despite their advertisement). So, to make an argument for alternative theories you should just pick up a religious cook to represent this administration point’s of view? Well, why not? That’s exactly what Pen & Teller do. I mean for crying out loud, just look at the people they dig up to represent the opposite viewpoint. They purposefully dig up the most ridiculous individuals they can possibly find. Pen & Teller is just entertainment, it’s not exactly what you can call objective or serious.

The Rolling Stone article doesn’t “debunk” anything at all. It’s just filled with speculation and witty language (of course it’s an entertainment magazine). In fact the title actually exposes the whole intent of the article, which isn’t to discuss the topic but to defame. Even before you read the actual text a suggestion has been planted with the catchy title, that it’s all “idiocy”. The classical age-old method; hit ‘em low and make ‘em look ridiculous and then straddle around authoritatively with a self-satisfied smile; knowing you’re right.

The article on building 7 is good. Actually it’s the first article I’ve read that fairly represents the theory of WTC7 falling due to debris. I haven’t read it thoroughly but I’ve bookmarked it so I can look at it in more depth later on. However the matter is still keenly interesting, besides the fact that it fell (while the much closer and more damaged WTC3, 4, 5 and 6 didn’t), because the event was never explained by the 911 Commission (neither were sulphur and iron traces and molten steel, nor witness accounts).

I think this article could’ve been cut down to just that article and the speech by Noam Chomsky. Rest of it was just suggestive instead of really enlightening one of anything.

But after all, it could’ve been just Osama bin Laden. Here’s the video evidence for Osama bin Laden’s involvement, The Video, cited as evidence against bin Laden (he never admitted, this is an alleged secret video found in Afghanistan). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVeqCX6z8 (Watch the comment at the end which would seem to support the view about the governement in the last Bill Maher video)

Julian, I appreciate your making such a thoughtful and thorough answer.

I’m with you much of the way but would offer a couple of thoughts:

It seems that there must be healthy states, however limited, that must represent evolutionary stages, if that concept is sufficient to describe what we’re talking about. Perhaps it’s not; I’m not sure. Are moral and psychological solutions to problems best explained in terms of successful and unsuccessful adaptation?

The question is complicated by the intersection of technical progress with social development. The first is an accumulation and refinement of capabilities; the second can be a mixture of refinements and simple changes of direction. In other words, society can change without necessarily progressing in every respect. Even if it progresses technologically and becomes more complex in terms of organization it need not progress morally, either as a whole, or in the aggregate virtue of its members.

The state of technology is not constant, and neither is the state of society. However, human nature is. Thus, perhaps we could talk in terms of the ever-shifting challenges of the maturity of an individual, whatever the state of the society.

Certain social realities, particularly prevailing ideas and mores, may be more propitious, but the challenge is perennial.

…

I agree with your emphasis on inquiry and reason but wonder whether you’re too harsh on “superstition.” I don’t use the scare quotes to imply that there’s no such thing as superstition but rather to suggest that perhaps religions tend to require leaps of faith as a kind of humility. I’m struggling for the right language but what I mean is something like an acknowledgement that there are unfathomable powers at work in the universe. It may be that such a view is actually more mature than many species of rationalism, whose disciples believe they have nature figured out like clockwork. Even irrefutable rational insights, such as Euclidean geometry or Cartesian mathematics, turn out to fall short of explaining the ultimate. There are species of rationalism less rigorous and dignified that might claim superiority over any view that could admit religious belief in the supernatural.

I use my language carefully, because I mean no assault at reason whatsoever, but only on rationalism in the strict philosophical sense and rationalistic dispositions of legalistic and literal-minded tendencies.

It may be that certain paradigms or specific truth claims become less plausible to people with an empiricist disposition, and yet that such people may give a nod to the possibility of the supernatural, or some notion of realities beyond our conception, may be a sign of greater rather than lesser maturity, or may at least open the way to greater maturity.

Philosophies and dispositions that bar the way to such possibilities may actually be less open to discoveries or to the kind of humility that results in a superior kind or reconciliation with the inscrutable dimensions of reality.

Hope that’s not too obscure.

For those interested in knowing what discredits large portions of the conspiracy theories I must recommend the BBC’s Conspiracy Files episode on 911 theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylwz3EqpgcU (better quality: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000942671)

That’s good debunking.

However while we’re on the subject I recommend that you watch a documentary about the CIA, also made by the BBC. Then you’ll understand why there are cynics who can believe in “evil killers on our side of the fence”. Now, this episode is also based on good quality research, no less than the 911 debunking moive. All the references are available for double checking (disclosed documents, for the most part).

Secrets of CIA:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2562011283313707032&q=secrets+of+cia&total=1436&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

What are they up to now?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18655.htm

Well, Sigurôur, I just watched the BBC show you linked and it is good. I will show it to the handful of people I know who are into the conspiracy theories, thanks… but I still get a kick from Penn & Teller.

No problem Curmudgeon. I personally don’t think the arguments of conspiracy theorists are “crazy” or even unreasonable, in light of some of the crazy things that have actually occured in history. I find it very unenlightened to call anyone crazy or an idiot for holding these perspectives. However, in light of the evidence the indication is simply stronger for a terrorist attack only involving airplanes and not involving explosives or elements within the government.

I remember when my understanding of the subject was such that I was certain of a controlled demolition involving some hidden characters. What I’ve realised is that it’s rather useless to argue with anyone who believes in conspiracy theories unless you have a more thorough understanding of the subject (or unless you can provide references to such knowledge). If you don’t, you will always lose the argument since the “conspiracy theorist” will have more knowledge on the subject even if his position is ultimately incorrect. You will only accomplish either insulting the person or feed his/her beliefs by “proving” (by the difference in actual knowledge of the subject) that those that don’t have knowledge of the subject generally don’t believe in a conspiracy, while others like him- or herself that have greater knowledge will generally believe in them. By not recognizing and ignoring conspiracy theorists or by defaming them you can only accomplish more polarity; the opposite of resolution. It’s not good for either the people that believe in conspiracy theories or those that don’t to ridicule them, because there’s ultimately nothing ridiculous about the ideas themselves (unless one hasn’t had sufficient experience of the wonders and weird coincidences that are part of history and nature). Only good option to “get to” conspiracy theorists is to be honourable and place information forward that’s useful and helpful for them instead of brushing them off or ridiculing them. Conspiracy theorists definitely aren’t less intelligent than the average man and they’ve used alot of sincere effort to dig up information, so at least they deserve recognition for that. It’s simply a question of whether they’ve got the full picture or not, nothing personal.

I just want to let everyone know that  i really appreciate all the perspectives that i'm hearing here……..
However, i do want to make a point about the use of objective logic as it might pertain to proving the non-existance of god. Even if humanity were able to evolve a million years into the future, i would think that the most objective of those beings would still concede the possibility of a creator spirit however unlikely. Whereas, and i'm being completely facetious here, if the mother-ship were to land in Jerusalem, and a light-being floated out with this being who emanated the arua of jesus wearing a t-shirt saying i love frank zappa, well, i would think all the rational athiests would have to rearrange their perspectives.

There is certainly nothing i'm going to say that is going to prove what happened on 911. However, the implication of the official story folks is that al qaeda managed to pull off the perfect crime! 100% success, no wait; 107% because they got to take out the cia and enron offices as an added bonus! Man these guys must be being coached by success gurus! Yet it seems that the largest military industrial complex in the history of the world cannot seem to find these gurus to mentor them! Hell, they can't even find the guy they said did this most perfect crime! And really, would there be any conspiracy theories if one of the buildings fell and the other one toppled side-ways? or if the column beams stood standing in one of them or if building 7 came down side-ways 2 days later? It's just all so bloody perfect! And what may you ask did the so called perps get out of it! 10's and thousands of their women and children slaughtered! yeah, these guys are brilliant!

anyway, i'll leave you with my equation for 911: 3b+2p=3b-2p!

Hey Andrew! I like what you said about JC with my man FZ on his shirt…

However, the ubl (as the authorities like to call him) was not a success in one sense: if they had hit the buildings at noon or one o’clock there might have been tens of thousands of humans in the buildings… what makes you think they want to find Bin Laden? [why don’t I have any formatting tools on my window? Consider the word “want” to be in italics] Watch the BBC video that Sigurôur mentioned you might calm down a it and be concerned about the things that are really a threat to your way of life… whatever they might be

Why is it so difficult to accept that people (the people supposed to defend us from this) confronted with a completely out of the box event would have acted in a confused manner? Or that bad people (the administration) would make the use that they could out of a truly twisted and evil act? And that this scenario does not require any suspension of belief (where are the passengers of flight 93?) or ignoring of facts on the ground… oh never mind it is all just too ridiculous… nothing will make any difference. It is about like trying to talkk to people who believe in aliens or… Oh, forget it… I have better uses of my time…

Goodness, all this talk…such a tiny scrollbox..all this text, all this..nothing.

Bunk.  All bunk, the lot of it.  Right, Chompsters has a point, as does the 'West'side, but really, CT's are off, a good majority of the amerikan ppl are off, and amerika's admin is off the map. 

What's real is driving into jersey city, looking at the manhattan skyline smoking, listening to a man on the radio saying, “There's tons of smoke and we can't see anything, but we're alright for now..”, knowing that those were going to be his last words.  The folly of my crew chief, at a loss for words (1st time ever, the prick) managing to muster up, “It's gotta be some mistake..”  Hmm, just like the rest of them, i thought to myself.

What's real is trying to get to our jobsite and being stopped by police saying, “Only medical and fbi allowed through this tunnel..”   Real is getting stuck in that gridlock, having to help police re-direct traffic.  Listening to a driver ask us a quicker way of getting into ny because, “…my husband is in the building..” and not knowing what to tell her as both the lincoln and hudson are blocked.  It's leaving, looking in your rearview at plumes of smoke where buildings once stood.  It's after a few days being able to go back to our jobsite, smelling, tasting death for months on end.  Didn't know death tasted like a 9 volt battery…

All maya, my friends.  You wanna know the real truth?

It happened.  That's it.  Screw conspiracies and opinions thereof, the admin and opinions thereof, because we all know they're inept, corrupt, and full of their own and other's shit.  And that's an opinionated fact. ;p

I didn't think my post would be this long, so i digress.  It seems we treat domestic terrorists like our own kid's gone astray, but we're more than willing to string up our global neighbors.  Justice is so fickle.

Bah, screw discourse…

Peace!!! 

I mean it, don't make me come up there…

You might watch this video to learn about the relationship between the CIA and the executive branch, also about the level of integrity in the CIA, which may not be perfect but is certainly higher than the hysterical Green (liberal) books written about it.

With regard to emotional responses to conspiracy theorists, how do you deal with people who aren't operating on a rational level (that doesn't write off their whole being as pre-rational, just who they are on a particular subject or in a particular area)?

David

I understand the relationship well, as it helped to secure Sr.'s presidency (also bunk) being a former employee, not to mention being vice pres during reagan's term (Mr. Bunkmeyer, come in, Mr. Bunkmeyer…)

Politics post civil war has become much the same as a monarchy, only representing a democracy.  The politicians 4got who they were working for a long, long time ago..

As for how to deal with CTs.  Just let them talk.  Some of the stories are fun, and i must admit, as a believer in myriad possibilities, anything's possible, albeit i'm more ready to take the stance that it was overzealous religious fanaticism that brought the attacks to amerikans' doorstep rather than an inside job by the government.  These bastards can't even shoot straight (cheney) to pull something off like that. 

It would also seem to me that most, but not all, CTs are more theory than action, like schizo philosophers, as it were (topically, of course ;p).  Let them have their stories, more entertainment for people like us…

Here’s an interesting radio interview with one of key debunkers who was in the BBC documentary (an author of a book debunking 911 unofficial theories and a writer for the magazine Popular Mechanics):

http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Things aren’t always as simple as they look. This debunker seemingly doesn’t know all that much after all, or for that matter he’s very subjective in his evaluations. As can be heard in that interview where he’s pressured with hard questions he uncarefully answers them out-of-hand, a clear sign of someone who makes conclusions from mere belief (as opposed to understanding or knowledge). With confidence it’s safe to assume that he’s basing at least part of his conclusions on personal speculations and not solely on available knowledge, due to at least one erroneous position he defends in spite of obvious rational inconsistencies (not wanting to spoil anything but I’m refering to the end part of the interview).

What the BBC documentary clearly accomplished was to expose inconsistencies from the loudest and most uncareful proponents of nonofficial theories such as Alex Jones and the young men who made Loose Change.

However, despite what Julian has said in terms of “intellectuals”, there are in fact objective and scrupulous intellectuals who do challenge the official theory, which most likely most people aren’t aware of. From the top of my head I can mention David Ray Griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin) and Steven E. Jones.

Currently Dr. David Ray Griffin is writing a book called “Debunking 911 Debunking”. For some of Dr. Steven’s work you can read these two articles:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

The concern is significant over the official report directed by Philip D. Zelikow to readdress the whole incident. This is not my personal opinion but from my understanding of prominent intellectuals like those previously mentioned, by some of the survivors (especially the “911 hero” William Rodriguez), even by CIA agents and by firefighters and fire engineers

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

I want to make absolutely clear that what I link to here isn’t sourced from “Alex Jones” or “Loose Change”. I look at both sides and evaluate objectively. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to make any definite conclusions but I believe people should make up their own mind independantly so what I’m doing is linking useful information for people that are sincerely concerned.