"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm surprised you would quote that article at all, given the beliefs of the interviewee.

I'm so glad you could find an unbiased, honest source.

I know, I could have search some more. I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I know, I could have search some more. I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.

I'm not really so concerned about his feelings in that area. Many people have believed that over the years, and while I don't buy into it at all it's perfectly alright for them to believe what they want to. It just indicates to me that he wants to believe certain things, so anything he says is going to be biased in ways that make him untrustworthy, to me anyway.

I'm surprised you would quote that article at all, given the beliefs of the interviewee.

I am surprised given that the very same thing was already done in the opening post of the topic. Then again given that the topic is a conspiracy theory I am not really surprised that it links to other conspiracy theories.

I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.

I am glad you did, it isn't often you get a Holocaust denier put next to a KZ

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, the answer is 'N-E-V-E-R' (just a little melodramatic there) because the NTSB's job is to determine the exact cause of the crash. In this case the cause was obvious, and the film is there for all to see exactly why the planes crashed.

Well if you read carefully you would see that I was using the NTSB as an example. I was talking about the speculation over building collapes, rather than the plane crashes.
I appreciate that NTSBs job would have been near impossible in the case of the WTC crashes as the subsequent collapes reduced all (but the buildings stuctural steel) in to peices small enough to hold in the palm of your hand or smaller.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There was no wreckage to examine because the aluminum planes plowed head-on into buildings made of steel, and were vaporized by the impact and subsequent fireballs. Any possible surviving wreckage fell hundreds of feet to the ground, pulverized inside thousands of tons of falling steel.
That is the reason there was no investigation into the crashes, because there was nothing left to investigate.

Well, metal doesnt 'vapourise' but that doesnt really matter - in the case of WTC I was talking about the stuctural failure buildings, all the stuctural steal was still sitting there.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You really are reaching here, in an effort to prove that there has to have been a conspiracy.

Sorry? Where did i say 9/11 has to have be a conspiricy? Is there a rule some where that says we must conform to one of two sides in every argument?
There are conspiricy theories for everything, most of which are just misinterpretations by ecentric people. But for 9/11 there is a bit more than that, You also have fire fighters from the scene, Architects and even Pentagon officials disputing some aspect or another of official story, while thats is not proof or disproof of anything, it suggests (to me at least) that the offical conclusion might not exacly be as water tight as one would hope for something like 9/11.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You've shown nothing so far, try as you might to convince everyone.

I never really expected to convince anyone of anything, its quite hard to do when im not overly convinced of anything in particular myself
I am saying what I think and why, but I am not insisting that you or anyone else must agree with it.
So that sounds rather more like you are trying to pin conspiricy bage to my shirt, possibly because you assume that if have doubts on the offical story -that conspiricy is only other conceivable place that I must be coming from. Wrong, If the question is 'what exactly happened on 9/11, then my answer is: 'I dont know and I wouldnt like to guess. Because If said I did know I might have to be jumping the gun.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well if you read carefully you would see that I was using the NTSB as an example. I was talking about the speculation over building collapes, rather than the plane crashes.
I appreciate that NTSBs job would have been near impossible in the case of the WTC crashes as the subsequent collapes reduced all (but the buildings stuctural steel) in to peices small enough to hold in the palm of your hand or smaller.

Yet in that paragraph you talk extensively about the crashes, and not the building collapse. You say that the FAA and NSTB specifically (not as an example) have a duty to the families to find out the cause of the crashes, and you specifically mention "aviation disasters". Also, the National Transportation Safety Board has nothing to do with buildings, only with transportation safety.

Well, metal doesnt 'vapourise' but that doesnt really matter - in the case of WTC I was talking about the stuctural failure buildings, all the stuctural steal was still sitting there.

If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?

Sorry? Where did i say 9/11 has to have be a conspiricy? Is there a rule some where that says we must conform to one of two sides in every argument?

You seem to be very adamant about arguing for one side, despite your protests to the contrary. If all your doing is trying to keep both sides open, I apologize. It just doesn't look that way to me. I've been wrong before.

There are conspiricy theories for everything, most of which are just misinterpretations by ecentric people. But for 9/11 there is a bit more than that, You also have fire fighters from the scene, Architects and even Pentagon officials disputing some aspect or another of official story, while thats is not proof or disproof of anything, it suggests (to me at least) that the offical conclusion might not exacly be as water tight as one would hope for something like 9/11.

True, but again you seem to be arguing specifically for the "Truther" side, and I still have yet to see anything there other than speculation.

I never really expected to convince anyone of anything, its quite hard to do when im not overly convinced of anything in particular myself
I am saying what I think and why, but I am not insisting that you or anyone else must agree with it.
So that sounds rather more like you are trying to pin conspiricy bage to my shirt, possibly because you assume that if have doubts on the offical story -that conspiricy is only other conceivable place that I must be coming from. Wrong, If the question is 'what exactly happened on 9/11, then my answer is: 'I dont know and I wouldnt like to guess. Because If said I did know I might have to be jumping the gun.

No, I and several others see it that way because you argue so vehemently for it. As I've pointed out to so many others, the old saying is true: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And you keep saying it in the strongest terms possible. To me it looks like the old saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case it looks like "I'm not a Truther, but..."

As I say, if I'm wrong I apologize, but that's how it looks from where I sit.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yet in that paragraph you talk extensively about the crashes, and not the building collapse. You say that the FAA and NSTB specifically (not as an example) have a duty to the families to find out the cause of the crashes, and you specifically mention "aviation disasters". Also, the National Transportation Safety Board has nothing to do with buildings, only with transportation safety.

Ok, well I can only insist that I know what I said and the context I intended by it, I thought I used 2 examples 1) Aviation distasters, 2) The Sinking of the Titanic. Now if I didnt make that clear enough - then I apologise.
You and I have come to blows over a 'context disagreement' once before as I recall, it got rather heated and nobody won. So I'd like to nip this in bud and agree to disagree if thats ok with you.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?.

Because you brought it up? Anyway, does 90% of anything that gets said on any internet forum really matter in the end?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You seem to be very adamant about arguing for one side, despite your protests to the contrary. If all your doing is trying to keep both sides open, I apologize. It just doesn't look that way to me. I've been wrong before.

True, but again you seem to be arguing specifically for the "Truther" side, and I still have yet to see anything there other than speculation.


No, I and several others see it that way because you argue so vehemently for it. As I've pointed out to so many others, the old saying is true: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And you keep saying it in the strongest terms possible. To me it looks like the old saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case it looks like "I'm not a Truther, but..."

As I say, if I'm wrong I apologize, but that's how it looks from where I sit.

All fair comments Steve and I can understand that's how it looks, but please keep in mind that I can only try to defend an opinion against those who rise to challenge it. Simply put, within this thread, I don't have a 9/11 Truther on my back personally challenging what I believe (or there lack of)
Although if I did, i might well have might work cut out by the likes of yourself and August, Aka -The majority of subsimmers tend to fully support the official version of 9/11 100%. Nothing wrong with that, but I dont quite share the same view, that is all.
For this reason also I did not publicly challenge the views of the OP, I knew he was toast from the moment I laid eyes on the topic title,
and I wasn't wrong. In hindsight i should have kept my own mouth shut.

P.S: For what its worth, on Youtube 'Truthers' have called me, a moron, a sheep, a coward and many things I cannot repeat here. It would seem that over there Im one of you, and over here Im one of them, So I'm quite used to getting beaten with sticks from all sides when it comes to 9/11.

"Its not what you say, its how you say it" yes, and also who you say it to.

[Sailor Steve]

Good and fair points. I will only add that on YouTube some people call others the most vile names, usually over nothing. We can't help being who we are, but I'm proud that on Subsim we can have these heated disagreements and still work them out; most of the time, anyway.

[JU_88]

here are some of my anti-truther opinions on the collapes of Towers 1 and 2'.

1) The collapes of towers 1 & 2, indisputably started at the point of impact. Inward 'Bowing' or buckling is visible from certain camera angles prior to collapes.

2) The alledged 'bomb damage' to the lobby could well have been caused by the shocks of the impact as they travelled down the building and reached the ground floor, although you cant see it, the impacts caused the flexible buildings to lurch int he direction of the impact and then swing back in to place violently. hence broken glass on the perimeter and broken marble on the central core.

3) When Truthers talk aout collapes from fire, they rather do seem to 'forget' that nobody has fully been able to determine the extent of impact damage to central core columns. They also tend to foget that these building were 'light weight & flexible' compared to most steel skycrapers, there was no vertical floor support between the core and the perimeter.

4) Truthers claim "The towers collapased too rapidly and neatly in to their own foot print and concreate was pulverizes to dust".
My problem with this is that nobody has ever witnessed the destruction of building of that size and type before, so its impossible to say how it should or should not behave in a collapes. Im betting that if a slab on concrete was simply dropped to the ground from the same height as half the WTC, what do we suppose would happen to it?

5) why didnt the top section take the path of least resistance?
- what 'other' path was avliable? gravity makes things goes 'down' - not sideways.

As for the the OPs (Catfish's) video link, Is says little that hasnt already been said. If the offcial story covered all bases adaquetly, and didnt have oddities like the the Pentegon holding back CCTV footage of flight 77, or Bush and Cheney testifing behing closed doors etc, We would not have a truth movement, or at least a much smaller one
official reports from the likes of NIST certainly provides some answers that cannot really be disputed in a rational manner.

On the other hand, most of the Truth movment is only based on an alternative 'interpretation' of the events -and they would be wise to remember this when pushing their theories, when they stick to asking valid questions that is not a bad thing, that is what a free people are supposed to do, there is no harm in that.
But when they try to join the dots for themselves or pass off their beliefs as 'proof', they are going way off base.

[mapuc]

Just for your information

Whatever a plane crash in the wood, into the sea, on a cornfield, or downtown Los Angeles, it is NTSB obligation to investigate. It have nothing to do with if it's a single plane or a huge plane(e.g 747-400)


The next thing I wish to point to-is this- Was NTSB prevented to investigate these three crashes?? I can't find any verification on this issue. I have only read about it on different homepage and heard it on youtube.

Markus

[mapuc]

Here's an another video



Did she work for CIA??

Is she telling the truth??

If she is telling the truth, then the government knew.

Until It is official, I see her as a good fairyteller

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Whatever a plane crash in the wood, into the sea, on a cornfield, or downtown Los Angeles, it is NTSB obligation to investigate. It have nothing to do with if it's a single plane or a huge plane(e.g 747-400)

As I explained, their job is to investigate why the crash happened. We already know why the crash happened. Their job is not to investigate why the buildings fell down.

The next thing I wish to point to-is this- Was NTSB prevented to investigate these three crashes?? I can't find any verification on this issue. I have only read about it on different homepage and heard it on youtube.

They did investigate. The reports were held back for a long time, but are now public knowledge.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As I explained, their job is to investigate why the crash happened. We already know why the crash happened. Their job is not to investigate why the buildings fell down.


They did investigate. The reports were held back for a long time, but are now public knowledge.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Thank you very much.

Markus

[Catfish]

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote,

”The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”

They go on to propose that,

”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,
[19] where they suggest, among other tactics,

”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Oh, hi guys !

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote,

***8221;The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government***8217;s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.***8221;

They go on to propose that,

***8221;the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups***8221;,
[19] where they suggest, among other tactics,

***8221;Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.***8221;

Oh, hi guys !

The thought has crossed my mind. Ire there some members here that are doing just that?

I know that it is not sweet to think such a thing. But wherever I go in cyberspace and where there is a discussion about 9/11 those who believe in various conspiracy theories are being, completely belittled or mocked So when I read your answer it came to me that I had read something similar somewhere else. Personally I support the NIST report. However, I respect that others do not support this report and may have an alternative theory. These others do not have to be some some crazy people, it may be a construction engineer, with years of experience

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

The thought has crossed my mind. Ire there some members here that are doing just that?

Of course anything is possible. On the other hand most of the members here who even bother to enter these discussions have been around for a long time, and discuss many other things as well. Most of us are also not too subtle about our posting habits. You would think that a government agent would have better things to do. Also, given the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of chat rooms and web forums, who would be paying the agents required to cover all this territory? It's certainly possible that one dedicated agent would be able to deal with a dozen sites every day, but when would he have time for any other duties.

It's also possible that such accusations are just more paranoid delusions by people who want to believe that everything is a conspiracy by the government. The bottom line for me is that while many people have tried to compile evidence for the conspiracy theories, no one has yet come up with anything that can't be explained by more more conventional means. That, and the fact that after ten years not one of the thousands who would have to be involved has come forward and said "Yep. I planted the explosives and I can prove it."