Thursday, February 11, 2010
Am I a "Truther"?
The Glenn Beck ambush of Debra Medina raises an obvious question: Am I a "truther"? Since I have been and will continue to be really busy with "real work," let me throw Free Advice readers some red meat with this post.
First, I absolutely love conspiracy theories, especially when they rely on incontrovertible evidence and when their results are outrageous. For example, you can read about how NASA "obviously" faked the Moon landing, which relies on a lot of things you have seen your whole life. (Not least of which, don't most of you deep down think the government is too incompetent to send guys to the moon and bring them back--alive?) But then there are websites that go through and debunk all of the Moon-landing-a-hoax points, and it looks pretty good.
Second, I have indeed dabbled in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. (As Stewie says when someone points out that his breath smells like kitty litter: "I was curious!") If you've never checked it out yourself, let me report that there are plenty of presentations you can see in which the people aren't obvious nutjobs, playing short of a full deck, out to lunch, etc. etc. (Try this if you want a good start. I haven't watched that particular video, but the BYU professor is one of the leading "truthers.")
Third, a few weeks (maybe months, I can't remember) into my hobbyish investigations, I just gave up. The problem is that I'd hit a point where apparently reputable building engineers would look at the 9/11 footage and say, "See that right there? Only a controlled demolition would look like that." But then other apparently reputable building engineers would look at the same thing and say, "That could definitely be the result of burning jet fuel."
On the margin, there was no point in me pushing the analysis deeper. I am already a philosophical anarchist. I am a pacifist and do not believe in violence to achieve ends, so I try to educate people that our present form of government is illegitimate and that there is a better way to organize social relations. But I'm never going to take up arms or do anything else violent, because that would violate my whole philosophy.
My point is, it doesn't really affect my behavior vis-a-vis the U.S. government whether it planted charges in the World Trade Center buildings, or whether it had advance knowledge of 19 hijackers and let it happen, or whether the official story is basically correct, and the government covered up the evidence to hide its incompetence. In any of those scenarios, my opposition to the activities of the U.S. government would remain the same. I would still write the same articles, give the same lectures, etc.
Here's why: Even if I had ironclad proof that "9/11 was an inside job," I wouldn't go around trumpeting the fact. People who heard me wouldn't trust me--an economist--with such a claim. And rightly or wrongly, there is a huge negative reaction, even among many other critics of the government, to the "Truthers." So I would be inviting a lot of negative backlash for no purpose.
What I will do is personally refrain from mocking people who think the U.S. government had something to do with 9/11. If you look into the documentaries etc., I think you too can understand why people who hate the government in the first place, could be convinced. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, like firemen reporting hearing loud explosions from the base of the buildings etc. well after the initial impact of the planes.
First, I absolutely love conspiracy theories, especially when they rely on incontrovertible evidence and when their results are outrageous. For example, you can read about how NASA "obviously" faked the Moon landing, which relies on a lot of things you have seen your whole life. (Not least of which, don't most of you deep down think the government is too incompetent to send guys to the moon and bring them back--alive?) But then there are websites that go through and debunk all of the Moon-landing-a-hoax points, and it looks pretty good.
Second, I have indeed dabbled in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. (As Stewie says when someone points out that his breath smells like kitty litter: "I was curious!") If you've never checked it out yourself, let me report that there are plenty of presentations you can see in which the people aren't obvious nutjobs, playing short of a full deck, out to lunch, etc. etc. (Try this if you want a good start. I haven't watched that particular video, but the BYU professor is one of the leading "truthers.")
Third, a few weeks (maybe months, I can't remember) into my hobbyish investigations, I just gave up. The problem is that I'd hit a point where apparently reputable building engineers would look at the 9/11 footage and say, "See that right there? Only a controlled demolition would look like that." But then other apparently reputable building engineers would look at the same thing and say, "That could definitely be the result of burning jet fuel."
On the margin, there was no point in me pushing the analysis deeper. I am already a philosophical anarchist. I am a pacifist and do not believe in violence to achieve ends, so I try to educate people that our present form of government is illegitimate and that there is a better way to organize social relations. But I'm never going to take up arms or do anything else violent, because that would violate my whole philosophy.
My point is, it doesn't really affect my behavior vis-a-vis the U.S. government whether it planted charges in the World Trade Center buildings, or whether it had advance knowledge of 19 hijackers and let it happen, or whether the official story is basically correct, and the government covered up the evidence to hide its incompetence. In any of those scenarios, my opposition to the activities of the U.S. government would remain the same. I would still write the same articles, give the same lectures, etc.
Here's why: Even if I had ironclad proof that "9/11 was an inside job," I wouldn't go around trumpeting the fact. People who heard me wouldn't trust me--an economist--with such a claim. And rightly or wrongly, there is a huge negative reaction, even among many other critics of the government, to the "Truthers." So I would be inviting a lot of negative backlash for no purpose.
What I will do is personally refrain from mocking people who think the U.S. government had something to do with 9/11. If you look into the documentaries etc., I think you too can understand why people who hate the government in the first place, could be convinced. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, like firemen reporting hearing loud explosions from the base of the buildings etc. well after the initial impact of the planes.
Comments:
Hey Bob, what do you think of the evidence that Israeli intelligence played a role in all of this (which Justin Raimondo has written about, perhaps in his less guarded moments).
BtM, sure I've read stuff on that, maybe even from Raimondo himself. I can't find Israel on a map though, so I really am not in a position to evaluate these things.
It seems like the US intelligence community which existed before 9/11 (N. Korea, India, Pakistan become nuclear powers) would have been less than capable of far simpler operations than 9/11.
As well, it seems that the US intelligence community which exists after 9/11 (WMDs in Iraq, Iran is, isn't, and now is again making nuclear weapons...) is, if anything, less capable than before 9/11, of pulling off 9/11.
I guess it is pure supposition on my part that for one 24 hour period in between, the US intelligence community did not by strange magic transmogrify into a devious and efficient entity capable of pulling off 9/11.
But it still seems probable.
Thanks for the red meat.
As well, it seems that the US intelligence community which exists after 9/11 (WMDs in Iraq, Iran is, isn't, and now is again making nuclear weapons...) is, if anything, less capable than before 9/11, of pulling off 9/11.
I guess it is pure supposition on my part that for one 24 hour period in between, the US intelligence community did not by strange magic transmogrify into a devious and efficient entity capable of pulling off 9/11.
But it still seems probable.
Thanks for the red meat.
# posted by 
: February 11, 2010 at 7:51 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Have you seen Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory Show? I watched the episode about 9/11 on youtube. It was very interesting. It seems like his biggest problem with the establishment is that you aren't allowed to ask questions. I watched an interview with him on Fox and one of the correspondents let him have it and then stormed off camera, furious that he had the gall to doubt the 9/11 commission.
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM
The Blackadder Says:
rightly or wrongly, there is a huge negative reaction, even among many other critics of the government, to the "Truthers." So I would be inviting a lot of negative backlash for no purpose.
Doesn't saying you don't know whether the government was behind 9/11 likewise invite a negative backlash? (As the Medina case shows)
rightly or wrongly, there is a huge negative reaction, even among many other critics of the government, to the "Truthers." So I would be inviting a lot of negative backlash for no purpose.
Doesn't saying you don't know whether the government was behind 9/11 likewise invite a negative backlash? (As the Medina case shows)
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 9:08 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Cody wrote:
I guess it is pure supposition on my part that for one 24 hour period in between, the US intelligence community did not by strange magic transmogrify into a devious and efficient entity capable of pulling off 9/11.
Cody, let me make sure I understand your argument: You are willing to entertain the notion that the US government purposely killed 3,000+ US civilians on US soil. But, government officials wouldn't be willing to say, "The intelligence tells us Iraq has WMD" if in fact that's not what the intelligence officials were actually reporting.
I guess it is pure supposition on my part that for one 24 hour period in between, the US intelligence community did not by strange magic transmogrify into a devious and efficient entity capable of pulling off 9/11.
Cody, let me make sure I understand your argument: You are willing to entertain the notion that the US government purposely killed 3,000+ US civilians on US soil. But, government officials wouldn't be willing to say, "The intelligence tells us Iraq has WMD" if in fact that's not what the intelligence officials were actually reporting.
You should check out the new pictures released from 9/11 just a day or so ago. It shows the huge dust clouds filling the whole surrounding area as the towers came down. I would love to know how all three buildings turned so much concrete into dust without explosives.
I agree that the focus shouldn't be on what the government did on 9/11 and should be focused on economic understanding, but I can promise you that when the government has questions like this being raised they have a lot less power to do harm.
When Glenn Beck goes after "truthers", I think it shows the fear they have of these kind of questions being raised regularly. The "truthers" are people who not only don't trust their government, they want them to pay for their crimes. If the whole country felt the same then Beck would have the small government that he purports to dream of.
I agree that the focus shouldn't be on what the government did on 9/11 and should be focused on economic understanding, but I can promise you that when the government has questions like this being raised they have a lot less power to do harm.
When Glenn Beck goes after "truthers", I think it shows the fear they have of these kind of questions being raised regularly. The "truthers" are people who not only don't trust their government, they want them to pay for their crimes. If the whole country felt the same then Beck would have the small government that he purports to dream of.
The easiest way to debunk moon landing conspiracies is to point out that the Soviets would have told us had the Americans faked it.
The easiest way to debunk 9/11 inside job conspiracies is to point out that the Chinese and Russians would have told us had the Americans faked it.
Because - why would they have played along?
The easiest way to debunk 9/11 inside job conspiracies is to point out that the Chinese and Russians would have told us had the Americans faked it.
Because - why would they have played along?
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 10:47 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 10:47 PM
The easiest way to debunk any grand conspiracy idea is to think about basic game theory. It just isn't tenable. The incentives just don't work.
The habit of conspiracy theories is my only negative against the Paulites.
The habit of conspiracy theories is my only negative against the Paulites.
@James Rothfeld
Why do the Chinese play along with our monetary scheme?
Why do the Chinese play along with our monetary scheme?
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 11:06 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 11:06 PM
We can certainly appreciation the frustration of the truthers. They point to empirical evidence for their position, whereas you naysayers are throwing out generic armchair refutations. Brian, what exactly do you mean? Wouldn't Dick Cheney et al. have an incentive to do this?
Did Hitler have an incentive to start the Reichstag fire?
If you want to say, "OK but we've heard about the fire, not about Cheney planting explosives," then your argument has changed.
Did Hitler have an incentive to start the Reichstag fire?
If you want to say, "OK but we've heard about the fire, not about Cheney planting explosives," then your argument has changed.
The Blackadder Say:
Brian, what exactly do you mean? Wouldn't Dick Cheney et al. have an incentive to do this?
Did Hitler have an incentive to start the Reichstag fire?
Do the oil companies have an incentive to fix prices?
Brian, what exactly do you mean? Wouldn't Dick Cheney et al. have an incentive to do this?
Did Hitler have an incentive to start the Reichstag fire?
Do the oil companies have an incentive to fix prices?
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 12:27 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 12:27 AM
The Blackadder Says:
Btw, Bob, isn't it possible that your sense of who comes across as a nutjob may not be entirely accurate? I mean, you didn't think David Icke came across as a nutjob either, right?
Btw, Bob, isn't it possible that your sense of who comes across as a nutjob may not be entirely accurate? I mean, you didn't think David Icke came across as a nutjob either, right?
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM
conspiracy theories are a bunch of unfalsifiable pseudo-science crap. no amount of evidence will convince these guys that they're wrong, they just keep postulating more crap until you get into lizardmen, mind control and 7th dimensions.
it doesn't fit the fact and it doesn't work in theory. the potential rewards just aren't big enough compared to the possible losses and no matter what some cranks (tom woods, dilorenzo and raimondo) will tell you, not everybody in the government has come straight out of hell.
it doesn't fit the fact and it doesn't work in theory. the potential rewards just aren't big enough compared to the possible losses and no matter what some cranks (tom woods, dilorenzo and raimondo) will tell you, not everybody in the government has come straight out of hell.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 12:54 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 12:54 AM
I for one believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't heard one plausible explanation for the collapse on wtc 7. NIST settling on that this happened from office fires, after changing their first several explanations, just doesn't sit right with me. The problems run much deeper than just that, but I'm not trying to convince anyone. I made my decision by looking into the myriad of questions being raised and the answers. When I started looking into it I thought for sure the "truthers" were being led astray by skewed reports on the internet.
All of you here that are critical of someone like me, base your criticism when you show no intellectual view on the issue at all. If I am wrong explain to me how an office fire can bring down a 47 story sky scrapper in about 6 seconds, into its own footprint. I don't think it is too much to ask a answer to something like this.
If you haven't ever really looked into this issue then maybe like the politician, with no understanding of economics, making decisions on economic matters, you might be out of place. It is ok to not have an opinion on something you know nothing of.
All of you here that are critical of someone like me, base your criticism when you show no intellectual view on the issue at all. If I am wrong explain to me how an office fire can bring down a 47 story sky scrapper in about 6 seconds, into its own footprint. I don't think it is too much to ask a answer to something like this.
If you haven't ever really looked into this issue then maybe like the politician, with no understanding of economics, making decisions on economic matters, you might be out of place. It is ok to not have an opinion on something you know nothing of.
I'm pulling a pseudo-all-nighter so sure, why not, I'll debate you guys.
Blackadder said:
Do the oil companies have an incentive to fix prices?
OK let's review what happened. Brian said he didn't believe in conspiracy theories because the incentives aren't there. Case closed, no elaboration from Brian. So I asked him if Hitler had an incentive to start the Reichstag fire, which (per my incredibly spotty knowledge of European history) is a quite plausible conspiracy theory. I.e. I am defanging Brian's broad rejection of all conspiracy theories. Then Blackadder you come along and seem to be accusing me of saying, "The government benefited from 9/11, ergo the government must have plotted it." That is NOT the sum of the "truthers'" argument. That's the point of my post, that they have very specific, factual evidence. In contrast to the cynics in these comments. (Note that there are debunker sites which do more than you guys have done. E.g. try this site.)
Blackadder further asked, "Btw, Bob, isn't it possible that your sense of who comes across as a nutjob may not be entirely accurate? I mean, you didn't think David Icke came across as a nutjob either, right?" Right, and he didn't come across as a nutjob in the video I originally linked to. I defy you to watch it and show me the point at which I should have said, "Oh jeez, I bet this guy believes in lizard men." For all I know the BYU professor and other leaders of the Truther movement have said nutjob stuff in other venues, but I'm saying their presentations (or at least some of them) don't consist of Ouiji boards and tinfoil hats. It's stuff like pointing out that in the official theory, you would expect the steel columns to be standing, after the floors all pancaked down to the bottom. But now, the steel columns are all severed, consistent with a controlled demolition etc. You don't refute that type of observation by saying "game theory" or "David Ickes talks about lizard men."
Anon said:
it doesn't fit the fact and it doesn't work in theory. the potential rewards just aren't big enough compared to the possible losses...
What "possible losses" are you talking about? There are people like Glenn Beck, and most of the posters on this blog post, who will ridicule anyone for even pointing out some flaws in the official story. So what "possible losses" are you talking about?
Seriously, your view is quite typical. I might generalize it to, "I don't believe people saying the government did X, because they could never get away with doing X--people would have seen through it!" Do you see a problem with that? It's like the Efficient Markets Conspiracy Debunker.
Blackadder said:
Do the oil companies have an incentive to fix prices?
OK let's review what happened. Brian said he didn't believe in conspiracy theories because the incentives aren't there. Case closed, no elaboration from Brian. So I asked him if Hitler had an incentive to start the Reichstag fire, which (per my incredibly spotty knowledge of European history) is a quite plausible conspiracy theory. I.e. I am defanging Brian's broad rejection of all conspiracy theories. Then Blackadder you come along and seem to be accusing me of saying, "The government benefited from 9/11, ergo the government must have plotted it." That is NOT the sum of the "truthers'" argument. That's the point of my post, that they have very specific, factual evidence. In contrast to the cynics in these comments. (Note that there are debunker sites which do more than you guys have done. E.g. try this site.)
Blackadder further asked, "Btw, Bob, isn't it possible that your sense of who comes across as a nutjob may not be entirely accurate? I mean, you didn't think David Icke came across as a nutjob either, right?" Right, and he didn't come across as a nutjob in the video I originally linked to. I defy you to watch it and show me the point at which I should have said, "Oh jeez, I bet this guy believes in lizard men." For all I know the BYU professor and other leaders of the Truther movement have said nutjob stuff in other venues, but I'm saying their presentations (or at least some of them) don't consist of Ouiji boards and tinfoil hats. It's stuff like pointing out that in the official theory, you would expect the steel columns to be standing, after the floors all pancaked down to the bottom. But now, the steel columns are all severed, consistent with a controlled demolition etc. You don't refute that type of observation by saying "game theory" or "David Ickes talks about lizard men."
Anon said:
it doesn't fit the fact and it doesn't work in theory. the potential rewards just aren't big enough compared to the possible losses...
What "possible losses" are you talking about? There are people like Glenn Beck, and most of the posters on this blog post, who will ridicule anyone for even pointing out some flaws in the official story. So what "possible losses" are you talking about?
Seriously, your view is quite typical. I might generalize it to, "I don't believe people saying the government did X, because they could never get away with doing X--people would have seen through it!" Do you see a problem with that? It's like the Efficient Markets Conspiracy Debunker.
Bob,
Look at their theory on wtc 7, on the debunking site. It was just the first thing I picked out from the site, as I find it the most implausible official story. They talk about the superficial arguments made by entertainers like Alex Jones. They don't answer how the building could collapse in about 6 seconds. Why this is the one and only steel building to ever collapse from fires and structural damage? Why building codes haven't been drastically changed if this is true? Why there were traces of thermite? Why demolitions on other building are such intricate processes and so expensive when structural damage and fires can do the same exact thing?
They even point to the upcoming NIST explanation (which they apparently haven't come up with anything new since before this 2005 NIST report came out) that it was fires in the building heating all the columns at the same exact time. This is the explanation from their so called experts. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NIST. They were given an impossible job.
Plain and simple a controlled demolition would explain all the anomalies for wtc 7, and they haven't one theory that can address all of these on the other side.
It isn't as if they can scientifically refute that controlled demolitions were used. To me that should be step one if a controlled demolition would explain perfectly what happened to wtc 7.
Look at their theory on wtc 7, on the debunking site. It was just the first thing I picked out from the site, as I find it the most implausible official story. They talk about the superficial arguments made by entertainers like Alex Jones. They don't answer how the building could collapse in about 6 seconds. Why this is the one and only steel building to ever collapse from fires and structural damage? Why building codes haven't been drastically changed if this is true? Why there were traces of thermite? Why demolitions on other building are such intricate processes and so expensive when structural damage and fires can do the same exact thing?
They even point to the upcoming NIST explanation (which they apparently haven't come up with anything new since before this 2005 NIST report came out) that it was fires in the building heating all the columns at the same exact time. This is the explanation from their so called experts. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NIST. They were given an impossible job.
Plain and simple a controlled demolition would explain all the anomalies for wtc 7, and they haven't one theory that can address all of these on the other side.
It isn't as if they can scientifically refute that controlled demolitions were used. To me that should be step one if a controlled demolition would explain perfectly what happened to wtc 7.
Actually, all these conspiracy theories about 9/11 have been debunked... by many different highly qualified people who are not shills for the previous administration.
Besides, Occam's razor leads us to conclude that the official story is true.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that all the explosives required to bring about a planned demolition were moved into the building and nobody noticed ....or considered it significant enough to mention after the buildings actually fell.....
Besides, there would have to be so many people who are in on the conspiracy that it would never remain a secret especially given that most of the people who are supposed to keep it secret are incompetent bureaucrats.
Besides, Occam's razor leads us to conclude that the official story is true.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that all the explosives required to bring about a planned demolition were moved into the building and nobody noticed ....or considered it significant enough to mention after the buildings actually fell.....
Besides, there would have to be so many people who are in on the conspiracy that it would never remain a secret especially given that most of the people who are supposed to keep it secret are incompetent bureaucrats.
Bob,
Would Dick Cheney have an incentive? Sure. But he would have to involve a number of people to pull off something like that. Where do you find people to keep a secret on that scale? You would need extraordinary devotion to ignore the chance to make millions from a tell all book, spilling the beans out of guilt, or whatever.
Just watch a few real crime drama shows and you realize how difficult it is to cover up crimes. Walk through all the details of pulling off such a fete and it becomes extraordinarily unlikely that serious evidence hasn't been unearthed. Like a Lowe's receipt with Dick Cheney's signature on it for 50 lbs of C4.
I can believe conspiracies involving a handful of people, but the bigger it gets, the harder it is to believe.
It doesn't take conspiracies to explain gov't behavior, ideological bias is enough. We embarrass ourselves when we dabble in paranoia.
Would Dick Cheney have an incentive? Sure. But he would have to involve a number of people to pull off something like that. Where do you find people to keep a secret on that scale? You would need extraordinary devotion to ignore the chance to make millions from a tell all book, spilling the beans out of guilt, or whatever.
Just watch a few real crime drama shows and you realize how difficult it is to cover up crimes. Walk through all the details of pulling off such a fete and it becomes extraordinarily unlikely that serious evidence hasn't been unearthed. Like a Lowe's receipt with Dick Cheney's signature on it for 50 lbs of C4.
I can believe conspiracies involving a handful of people, but the bigger it gets, the harder it is to believe.
It doesn't take conspiracies to explain gov't behavior, ideological bias is enough. We embarrass ourselves when we dabble in paranoia.
The Blackadder Says:
That's the point of my post, that they have very specific, factual evidence. In contrast to the cynics in these comments. (Note that there are debunker sites which do more than you guys have done. E.g. try this site.)
If you're limiting things to this thread, then I don't see the pro-conspiracy people producing much evidence either (unless you want to count cotterdan's 'there's no way a building collapsing could cause a dust cloud that big' argument). But honestly, why limit the focus to one thread? This comments thread is taking place against the backdrop of years and years of argument, counter-argument, evidence and refutation, about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
That's the point of my post, that they have very specific, factual evidence. In contrast to the cynics in these comments. (Note that there are debunker sites which do more than you guys have done. E.g. try this site.)
If you're limiting things to this thread, then I don't see the pro-conspiracy people producing much evidence either (unless you want to count cotterdan's 'there's no way a building collapsing could cause a dust cloud that big' argument). But honestly, why limit the focus to one thread? This comments thread is taking place against the backdrop of years and years of argument, counter-argument, evidence and refutation, about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM
The Blackadder Says:
Right, and he didn't come across as a nutjob in the video I originally linked to. I defy you to watch it and show me the point at which I should have said, "Oh jeez, I bet this guy believes in lizard men."
From which we can deduce: a person can be a nutjob even if this isn't immediately apparent by looking at them or hearing them speak. So the fact you can find pro-conspiracy people who don't look like they live in their mother's basement doesn't mean much.
Right, and he didn't come across as a nutjob in the video I originally linked to. I defy you to watch it and show me the point at which I should have said, "Oh jeez, I bet this guy believes in lizard men."
From which we can deduce: a person can be a nutjob even if this isn't immediately apparent by looking at them or hearing them speak. So the fact you can find pro-conspiracy people who don't look like they live in their mother's basement doesn't mean much.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM
bob writes:
"What "possible losses" are you talking about? There are people like Glenn Beck, and most of the posters on this blog post, who will ridicule anyone for even pointing out some flaws in the official story. So what "possible losses" are you talking about?
Seriously, your view is quite typical. I might generalize it to, "I don't believe people saying the government did X, because they could never get away with doing X--people would have seen through it!" Do you see a problem with that? It's like the Efficient Markets Conspiracy Debunker"
but it has nothing to do with seeing through it. it's what would happen if it came out for whatever reason if it did come out. it's not worth it when there's, at most, only 7 more years of his presidency left.
and as I said, Bush, OBama and most other politicians aren't evil, they really believe the crap that they push.
as for Hitler, most historians have concluded that he had nothing to do with the fire.
"What "possible losses" are you talking about? There are people like Glenn Beck, and most of the posters on this blog post, who will ridicule anyone for even pointing out some flaws in the official story. So what "possible losses" are you talking about?
Seriously, your view is quite typical. I might generalize it to, "I don't believe people saying the government did X, because they could never get away with doing X--people would have seen through it!" Do you see a problem with that? It's like the Efficient Markets Conspiracy Debunker"
but it has nothing to do with seeing through it. it's what would happen if it came out for whatever reason if it did come out. it's not worth it when there's, at most, only 7 more years of his presidency left.
and as I said, Bush, OBama and most other politicians aren't evil, they really believe the crap that they push.
as for Hitler, most historians have concluded that he had nothing to do with the fire.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 8:55 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 8:55 AM
by the way, people like cotterdan have had their arguments answered, they chose not to see the facts. but people are determined to see conspiracy theories.
so yes, "the government" did change their story, that's what happens when your theory is lacking, you change it. perhaps the conspiracy nuts should change it too.
if you wish to support a conspiracy theory, "the government is evil" doesn't work, you have to prove it beyond doubt. and third rate science like the truther crap doesn't count.
so yes, "the government" did change their story, that's what happens when your theory is lacking, you change it. perhaps the conspiracy nuts should change it too.
if you wish to support a conspiracy theory, "the government is evil" doesn't work, you have to prove it beyond doubt. and third rate science like the truther crap doesn't count.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 8:58 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Dr. Murphy,
I was taking what I think is a realistic position. Let me clarify.
The idea that these "government" guys pulled off hijacking a series of airliners simultaneously and in the name of a real terrorist organization, which was in turn willing to claim the credit, as well as in real-time considering the cell phone calls from the planes, in addition to planting enough high explosives to pancake 7 buildings without any incontrovertible residual evidence, is one idea, though perhaps multifaceted.
Now, to say the /same guys/ announced that WMDs were in Iraq, and then proved incapable of /planting some evidence/ to support their claims?
My point was that to believe both of these is ...inconsistent. Do you disagree?
I was taking what I think is a realistic position. Let me clarify.
The idea that these "government" guys pulled off hijacking a series of airliners simultaneously and in the name of a real terrorist organization, which was in turn willing to claim the credit, as well as in real-time considering the cell phone calls from the planes, in addition to planting enough high explosives to pancake 7 buildings without any incontrovertible residual evidence, is one idea, though perhaps multifaceted.
Now, to say the /same guys/ announced that WMDs were in Iraq, and then proved incapable of /planting some evidence/ to support their claims?
My point was that to believe both of these is ...inconsistent. Do you disagree?
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Cotterdan,
Just as an aside, Thermite is a mix of powdered aluminum and iron oxide.
How many 40-year-old-plus steel buildings do you think you could drop into a rubble pile without /producing/ traces of powdered aluminum and rust?
Just as an aside, Thermite is a mix of powdered aluminum and iron oxide.
How many 40-year-old-plus steel buildings do you think you could drop into a rubble pile without /producing/ traces of powdered aluminum and rust?
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 2:14 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Bob
I think its useless to delve into completely airy speculations. Obviously as an antiwar libertarian I also distrust the government. But Bob, I also grew up in the Middle East, and I can tell you people were happy and proud of Bin laden over there. That of course does not prove that Bin laden was responsible.
Also, you should start with this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
This is the final word, in my opinion.
I think its useless to delve into completely airy speculations. Obviously as an antiwar libertarian I also distrust the government. But Bob, I also grew up in the Middle East, and I can tell you people were happy and proud of Bin laden over there. That of course does not prove that Bin laden was responsible.
Also, you should start with this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
This is the final word, in my opinion.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM
okay i dont know why Blogger is not posting the link for me.
I'll try once more
Popular mechanics - 9/11 Truth debunking
I'll try once more
Popular mechanics - 9/11 Truth debunking
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 2:18 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 2:18 PM
We are all Truthers otherwise we would believe 100% of what our government told us. If not believing the OFFICIAL STORY makes me a truther than so be it!
(I'm also a Wallstreet Bailout Truther, Universal Healthcare Truther, and a Foreign Intervention Truther fyi)
(I'm also a Wallstreet Bailout Truther, Universal Healthcare Truther, and a Foreign Intervention Truther fyi)
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM
OK kids I'm going to disengage. Really, my point wasn't to say, "9/11 was an inside job!" My point was to say, "I understand why a lot of people think it was, and I don't think they're crackpots."
And Cody I apologize, I misunderstood your point. You're right, when the WMD scandal broke, that was my biggest question too. Forget the 9/11 stuff--why would the Bush Administration leave itself open to such an apparent goof? Is it just a lot harder to plant WMD than an ounce of pot in someone's car?
And Cody I apologize, I misunderstood your point. You're right, when the WMD scandal broke, that was my biggest question too. Forget the 9/11 stuff--why would the Bush Administration leave itself open to such an apparent goof? Is it just a lot harder to plant WMD than an ounce of pot in someone's car?
If these tall buildings are designed to fall into their own footprint, for safety, that might relieve some of my doubts. Still wouldn't explain the smaller building.
I tinker with forging (blacksmith work), even been paid for a few jobs. Steel melts at two thousand, eight hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit. You have to blow a large volume of air through pure fuel to get steel to that temperature. Even with an unobstructed updraft, the volume of air is highly doubtful. But in that building, there were *floors* creating a wee bit of interference. Then too, did all this steel simultaneously melt at once? Amazing. First off, I doubt much at all actually melted, second it would be differing temperatures through the structure. Some bending a little, some bending more, and some melting. Doesn't a twist and careening fall seem more likely?
Think about how much wind this building was made to withstand. It suddenly just gives up the ghost and collapses? Hmmmm. In our highly technical world, we have computer simulation for all kinds of things, what would it take to adapt existing software to simulate/recreate this event?
Maybe truthers could all pitch in $10 and hire the research done, going so far as to tell how to make a scale model. What would the proportions be? 6 inches by 5 inches by 40 feet? Just guessing. We're going to try_how_many_times to make this model fall in it's own footprint? Get out the lawn chairs and sunscreen, I think this could take awhile. On the first try, smash a hole partway up, pour in jet fuel and carpet bits, I guess some manila folders too, then let the air waft up through the thing and see how much heat it retains. Don't do it in summer.
Ok, so it's still there. Allright, let's make a large hole up through the center, so the air can flow better. Bring the fuel, carpet, and folder crew back for another load, then light. Well, we're watching...hmmm we gotta make this thing fall, can't be here all day you know. Oh yeah, it has to go straight down, first try.
Another thing, why the either-or? Terrorists or government? Why were the carriers out of the harbor that day? Ah but what do I know, just a redneck from the boonies...a suspicious one.
I tinker with forging (blacksmith work), even been paid for a few jobs. Steel melts at two thousand, eight hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit. You have to blow a large volume of air through pure fuel to get steel to that temperature. Even with an unobstructed updraft, the volume of air is highly doubtful. But in that building, there were *floors* creating a wee bit of interference. Then too, did all this steel simultaneously melt at once? Amazing. First off, I doubt much at all actually melted, second it would be differing temperatures through the structure. Some bending a little, some bending more, and some melting. Doesn't a twist and careening fall seem more likely?
Think about how much wind this building was made to withstand. It suddenly just gives up the ghost and collapses? Hmmmm. In our highly technical world, we have computer simulation for all kinds of things, what would it take to adapt existing software to simulate/recreate this event?
Maybe truthers could all pitch in $10 and hire the research done, going so far as to tell how to make a scale model. What would the proportions be? 6 inches by 5 inches by 40 feet? Just guessing. We're going to try_how_many_times to make this model fall in it's own footprint? Get out the lawn chairs and sunscreen, I think this could take awhile. On the first try, smash a hole partway up, pour in jet fuel and carpet bits, I guess some manila folders too, then let the air waft up through the thing and see how much heat it retains. Don't do it in summer.
Ok, so it's still there. Allright, let's make a large hole up through the center, so the air can flow better. Bring the fuel, carpet, and folder crew back for another load, then light. Well, we're watching...hmmm we gotta make this thing fall, can't be here all day you know. Oh yeah, it has to go straight down, first try.
Another thing, why the either-or? Terrorists or government? Why were the carriers out of the harbor that day? Ah but what do I know, just a redneck from the boonies...a suspicious one.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 7:35 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Bob, where I personally fall on the 'truther' side of the fence is the near identical collapse of WTC building number 7 and the missing black boxes.
1. No rational explanation for the number 7 tower collapsing in the same manner as towers 1 & 2 has ever been given by the govt. Hint: it wasn't jet fuel.
2. No black box (4 total / 2 per plane) has ever been recovered by the govt. according to the 9/11 report. Looking at NTSB historical records, this is nothing short of a statistical impossibility. Notice it isn't that they were found damaged, or destroyed...they've never been recovered or located, yet witnesses claim to have seen FBI agents removing them from the scene. So we can identity bodies by DNA testing bone fragments at the scene, but they can't find a single fragment of one of 4 titanium, nearly indestructible, boxes?
Jesse Ventura's 'Conspiracy Theory' (episode 2) did a decent job covering this, if a bit overly dramatic in delivery.
1. No rational explanation for the number 7 tower collapsing in the same manner as towers 1 & 2 has ever been given by the govt. Hint: it wasn't jet fuel.
2. No black box (4 total / 2 per plane) has ever been recovered by the govt. according to the 9/11 report. Looking at NTSB historical records, this is nothing short of a statistical impossibility. Notice it isn't that they were found damaged, or destroyed...they've never been recovered or located, yet witnesses claim to have seen FBI agents removing them from the scene. So we can identity bodies by DNA testing bone fragments at the scene, but they can't find a single fragment of one of 4 titanium, nearly indestructible, boxes?
Jesse Ventura's 'Conspiracy Theory' (episode 2) did a decent job covering this, if a bit overly dramatic in delivery.
# posted by : February 13, 2010 at 12:26 AM
: February 13, 2010 at 12:26 AM
Cody, nano-thermite has been identified at these sites, not thermite. You understand there are only a handful of organizations that have access to nano-thermite, yes?
Post a Comment
# posted by : February 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM
: February 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]