The Truth About 9/11.

[Khale]

For all those who believe that the events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 were orchestrated by the government I suggest that you read some of the articles listed below. Especially the 'Popular Mechanics' article and the 'Loose Change' article.

To be perfectly honest I don't understand the appeal of these conspiracy theories. They are usually based largely on misinterpreted facts, outright lies, and a gross understanding of basic science. Despite this, however, people flock to these stories like flies to a particularly fetid compost heap. Once one theory is disproved they simply move on to the next.

The whole process eventually shows that what they are seeking is not the truth, but vindication.




Counter arguments to common conspiracies.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25385
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

Counter arguments to the conspiracy movie 'Loose Change':
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Simulations/Explanations of the planes that hit the pentagon:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm

9/11 and Al Qaeda:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.osama.exclusive/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/29/71547.shtml

9/11 Timeline:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

 

[SunMessenger]

For all those who believe that the events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 were orchestrated by the government I suggest that you read some of the articles listed below. Especially the 'Popular Mechanics' article and the 'Loose Change' article.

To be perfectly honest I don't understand the appeal of these conspiracy theories. They are usually based largely on misinterpreted facts, outright lies, and a gross understanding of basic science. Despite this, however, people flock to these stories like flies to a particularly fetid compost heap. Once one theory is disproved they simply move on to the next.

The whole process eventually shows that what they are seeking is not the truth, but vindication.




Counter arguments to common conspiracies.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25385
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

Counter arguments to the conspiracy movie 'Loose Change':
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Simulations/Explanations of the planes that hit the pentagon:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm

9/11 and Al Qaeda:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.osama.exclusive/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/29/71547.shtml

9/11 Timeline:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

The reason for conspiracy theories is the mistrust the people have in the government agencies that investigate these incidents. Sometimes the mistrust is founded and sometimes not.


If I have learned one important thing in my entire life, it is to believe only what I can see with my own two eyes. It is impossible to see the world through a single pair of eyes and it is a shame how much faith has been lost in the integrity of our government. I pray daily that it will change.


Be Well and God Bless...

 

[greatcalgarian]

For all those who believe that the events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 were orchestrated by the government I suggest that you read some of the articles listed below. Especially the 'Popular Mechanics' article and the 'Loose Change' article.

To be perfectly honest I don't understand the appeal of these conspiracy theories. They are usually based largely on misinterpreted facts, outright lies, and a gross understanding of basic science. Despite this, however, people flock to these stories like flies to a particularly fetid compost heap. Once one theory is disproved they simply move on to the next.

The whole process eventually shows that what they are seeking is not the truth, but vindication.




Counter arguments to common conspiracies.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25385
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

Counter arguments to the conspiracy movie 'Loose Change':
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Simulations/Explanations of the planes that hit the pentagon:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm

9/11 and Al Qaeda:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.osama.exclusive/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/29/71547.shtml

9/11 Timeline:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

Have you read the refute on the Popular Mechanics?

 

[cardero]

Have you read the refute on the Popular Mechanics?

The only theory the Popular Mechanics article didn’t explain was how a classroom of children reading a story about a goat could paralyze a president into inactivity. Maybe this is an article best explored in Psychology Today.

 

[SunMessenger]

The only theory the Popular Mechanics article didn’t explain was how a classroom of children reading a story about a goat could paralyze a president into inactivity. Maybe this is an article best explored in Psychology Today.

In order for one to be paralyzed it requires the person to have a functional nervous system to start with . Since the brain is the key element of the nervous system, I question whether George meets this requirement ...


Be Well and God Bless...

 

[greatcalgarian]

Nope, but I bet it is more laughs than a barrel full of sex-crazed, intoxicated, vertically challenged baboons.

That is what you hope those refutes will be , and inside your heart, you know they may be very valid, very logical, very fact base refutal of the Popular Mechanics. Okay, do yourself a justice, if you have read the entire Popular Mechanics already (if not link is provided by Jim on the entire online article), then go and study the Jim Hoffman rebutal:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.
More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

When you are done, then see whether you can still repeat saying what you have said.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The only theory the Popular Mechanics article didn’t explain was how a classroom of children reading a story about a goat could paralyze a president into inactivity. Maybe this is an article best explored in Psychology Today.

Really? That is the only one? WTC7 collapse was fully explained?

Read this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
and this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
and this:
http://www.911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
and this:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml
and this:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

See how US government was so thrilled by Popular Mechanics, and publicized it in their infoweb, but they never provide the link to the rebutal as provided by me in this thread. This is called selective brainwashing.

 

[nutshell]

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

See how US government was so thrilled by Popular Mechanics, and publicized it in their infoweb, but they never provide the link to the rebutal as provided by me in this thread. This is called selective brainwashing.

No...it's called stating the facts and not some wacked out nonsense.

 

[almifkhar]

right nutshell

that's because bush and his thugs have been so honest all these years.

there it is everyone, bush and thugs have been stating the facts and not wacked out nonesense, because they are soooooooo honest. weeeeew glad that is all cleared up

 

[greatcalgarian]

No...it's called stating the facts and not some wacked out nonsense.

Facts? Do you know how much 'facts' were stated in the 9/11 Commision, and how the Popular Mechanics has presented 'wrong' facts, or ignore 'right' facts etc? If you cannot spot those 'wacked out nonsense' from the article of Popular Mechanics, then there is no need for you to read any more anything discussing about 9/11 other than those supporting the government conspiracy theory stand. Your mind is already made up.

 

[cardero]

Really? That is the only one? WTC7 collapse was fully explained?

Read this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
and this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
and this:
http://www.911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
and this:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml
and this:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

No, not really but this is one aspect of the drama that nobody has been able to explain adequately (not even Bush himself) and it is a fine beginning to the inconsideration given to this situation. One need not look any further than watching the tape of Bush's expression in that Florida classroom to know that something is not adding up. I have read the information that everyone has posted (I have a lot of time and interest in this) but unfortunately I do not have the qualifications to come to any conclusions. I thought the "Hunt the Boeing” webpage was interesting. A huge jet plane crashes into the pentagon and the only picture they have is this little piece of an airplane in a clean area that looks like it was photographed for someone’s benefit. I have been reading the good with the bad and have been keeping an open mind about everything. Some conclusions that I have arrived at are:

1. The only problem about quoting leading governmental scientists and experts in the 911 investigation is that it is the same one as when religious people quote scriptures of the Bible to validate the book.

2. I have also discovered that the most outspoken members against a conspiracy are religious members. I find that interesting as well. I do not know if this is an example of extending faith over to the government or if they are more qualified than most to examine both sides of the evidence (this may deserve it’s own thread).

I thank you for the sites greatcalgarian (I will read them) but I do not want you to feel that I have taken sides on any these issues. The information on both sides has been compelling and I would wish that the people who have compiled all this evidence will be able to express it properly so that evidentially the real truth would come to light.

 

[greatcalgarian]

No, not really but this is one aspect of the drama that nobody has been able to explain adequately (not even Bush himself) and it is a fine beginning to the inconsideration given to this situation. One need not look any further than watching the tape of Bush's expression in that Florida classroom to know that something is not adding up. I have read the information that everyone has posted (I have a lot of time and interest in this) but unfortunately I do not have the qualifications to come to any conclusions. I thought the "Hunt the Boeing” webpage was interesting. A huge jet plane crashes into the pentagon and the only picture they have is this little piece of an airplane in a clean area that looks like it was photographed for someone’s benefit. I have been reading the good with the bad and have been keeping an open mind about everything. Some conclusions that I have arrived at are:

1. The only problem about quoting leading governmental scientists and experts in the 911 investigation is that it is the same one as when religious people quote scriptures of the Bible to validate the book.

2. I have also discovered that the most outspoken members against a conspiracy are religious members. I find that interesting as well. I do not know if this is an example of extending faith over to the government or if they are more qualified than most to examine both sides of the evidence (this may deserve it’s own thread).

I thank you for the sites greatcalgarian (I will read them) but I do not want you to feel that I have taken sides on any these issues. The information on both sides has been compelling and I would wish that the people who have compiled all this evidence will be able to express it properly so that evidentially the real truth would come to light.

First accept my sincere apology for misundestanding you regarding Bush behavior.

Second, frubals to you for making the observation to fundamental religious people supporting the government.

Regarding Bush behavior, my own conclusion is that he is not in the conspiracy camp, if there existed one. Sometimes I felt that Bush is just a puppet and there are invisible strings moving his lips and hands and feet. So his behaviour is perfectly normal for some one who has little knowledge of what is going on, not really a great leader, and in this case a simply 'at a lost' reaction to 9/11 which is a complete surprise to Bush, though not to the others. There may even be a more serious plan of knocking him off to make the 9/11 more shocking to the US people, hence he was floated around without knowing what to do and where to land, until they have written up all the script for him to deliver to the US citizen. This is then another very very wild conspiracy theory. Not very convincing, but if you are interested, I can find the web page where I read it.

 

[cardero]

greatcalgarian writes: Regarding Bush behavior, my own conclusion is that he is not in the conspiracy camp, if there existed one.

In the past in some of my conspiracy interest readings, the president is usually just a figurehead and one of the last people to know about such shadowy dealings.

greatcalgarian writes: Sometimes I felt that Bush is just a puppet and there are invisible strings moving his lips and hands and feet. So his behaviour is perfectly normal for some one who has little knowledge of what is going on, not really a great leader, and in this case a simply 'at a lost' reaction to 9/11 which is a complete surprise to Bush, though not to the others.

At one point I leaned towards that belief too. After the president was told that the first plane had crashed into the tower he explains in his own words:

Atta plunged the 767 jumbo jet into World Trade Center Tower One.

“I thought it was an accident,” says Mr. Bush. “I thought it was a pilot error. I thought that some foolish soul had gotten lost - and made a terrible mistake.”

Full story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/60II/main521718.shtml

Now as many people know, the World Trade Center has been a known terrorist target for many years. It has been discussed in the plot points of many movies and media as well as in real life. Many people have known that if there was ever a terrorist strike, the World trade Center would be considered as a prime target.
Mr. Bush explains that he thought “some foolish soul” had gotten lost or that the pilot was in error. NOBODY “loses” their way into the World Trade Center!! Pilots who target the World Trade Center know exactly where they are going!! This kind of reasoning may be acceptable by some citizens but is inexcusable for a President of the United States (who is supposed to be “in the KNOW”). Some people would loan favor towards Mr. Bush saying that he was expressing a hopeful emotion that it could not be true, that a plane must have been in trouble and had no other opportunity then to slam into the World Trade Center. I for one do not believe we choose and employ our presidents to display hopeful emotions, we elect and pay our presidents to lead our nation.

greatcalgarian writes: There may even be a more serious plan of knocking him off to make the 9/11 more shocking to the US people, hence he was floated around without knowing what to do and where to land, until they have written up all the script for him to deliver to the US citizen. This is then another very very wild conspiracy theory. Not very convincing, but if you are interested, I can find the web page where I read it.

If an honest, dedicated investigation is pursued and the guilty parties are ever discovered and brought to justice and are allowed to incriminate others in this reprehensible plot, I think you will find that there are many people who may have to be “knocked off”.

 

[michel]

The reason for conspiracy theories is the mistrust the people have in the government agencies that investigate these incidents. Sometimes the mistrust is founded and sometimes not.


If I have learned one important thing in my entire life, it is to believe only what I can see with my own two eyes. It is impossible to see the world through a single pair of eyes and it is a shame how much faith has been lost in the integrity of our government. I pray daily that it will change.


Be Well and God Bless...

Unfortunately, you are right. What you have said is a mirror image of my tenets. But conspiracy theories are those that line the wallets of Newspaper editors; They are the scavengers that will trawl the public dustbins for any easy pickings. Perhaps the fault lies at their feet.

 

[cardero]

SunMensenger writes: The reason for conspiracy theories is the mistrust the people have in the government agencies that investigate these incidents. Sometimes the mistrust is founded and sometimes not.

I agree, I do not think biased disregard for governmental authority accounts for all theories. Distrust only feeds another agenda and distracts from concluding the truth of any situation. It is the evidence that should always be examined before we examine or discredit the messenger (even if that message comes from a boy who cries wolf or a little chicken). Another observation I have noticed amongst conspiracies that deal with the government, is the motives of the people who present such evidence against authorities. Some people who promote conspiracy theories are not really boat rockers, finger pointers are blame mongers, they are not out for the big “see there, I told you so!” Most are usually looking (or thinking) out for the nation. The theories that pertain to America have a concern about the people and to try to bring a sense of integrity back to a country that’s values may have gone astray. I would never like to live in a country where we have to “lie back and accept it”, I would like to live in a nation where people are aware and are constantly alert, who question authority and in some cases “have my back” when I too have missed the obvious.