RoR: Forum

I think some of the hoopla surrounding some conspiracies is manufactered hoopla. I think the birth certificate issue actually helped the socialist, because it afforded a measure of pity for the accused and loathing of the accusers as black-hearted racists, willing to conjure up all manner of lies in order to decry our socialist president -- all the while keeping public attention off of things that really do matter, such as voting records and policy choices and ulterior agendas. In other words, it's a sting operation utilizing double-psychology. This would explain the probability of collectivists masquerading as tea party activists holding up signs that say:

I want the government out of my MediCare and Social Security!

It is something planted in order to caricaturize and marginalize a group of people, following in lock-step with the 'rules for radicals' outlined by Saul Alinsky.

Ed

p.s. That being said, it is difficult to watch the 7 minutes of video Michael Moore showed in Fahrenheit 911, wherein GW was supposedly told that the towers had been hit, especially the cliche of where he was and what he was doing at the time. Shakespeare could not have written a more diabolical string of events. I, myself, would have had GW helping an old lady across the street at the time he was told about the towers -- showing how he was this loving, caring person who would never do anything dastardly -- but that wouldn't have been as sensational as what I saw GW doing in Moore's "documentary."

Post 41

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 2:57pm

OK, so things aren't all cut and dried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden#December_13.2C_2001

Post 42

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 4:54pm

There are three things that haven't satisfied me. I have read about half of the 9/11 10 Years After book and the biggest case the conspiracy theorists make is that the towers seemed to fall in free fall on their own footprints. They would have you believe that the mode of failure, if caused by the fires alone, would be that the upper storeys would fall in a "whump, whump, whump, manner pancaking on each successive floor. This would necessitate a view that only the portion of a column at the floor level would collapse with all the lower portions intact. Thus the collapse wouldn't be instantaneous and in free fall.

Buildings are generally designed with a safety factor of 2 over and above the designed loads from earthquake, wind and dead load but there would have been no need to design for any other compressive forces. So when the upper floors collapsed and generated a huge impact the shock would have caused the collapse of the columns in their entire length. It is moot whether the failure would be buckling or straight compression but the effect would be "free fall."

The second point that concerns me is that, if there was a conspiracy, why the conspirators would cause the towers to fall on their own footprints. If they wanted to kill more people and damage more structures they would have caused the explosives to be placed asymmetrically so that the towers would fall to one side. If they make the argument that they only needed to kill enough people, i.e. those in the two towers, then why would they need to demolish the third tower?

And thirdly, as everyone asks, how could it be covered up for so long as there must have been thousands of people involved?

They make many, many other claims but one isn't motivated to investigate them all when the most basic ones are so much suspect.

Sam

Post 43

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 5:07pm

If I were going to cause the deaths from the collapse of the World Towers, not only would I have them fall to the side (as Sam points out), thereby increasing the damage, but I wouldn't bother with using airplanes. If I could smuggle the explosives into the buildings ahead of time, which is what the conspiracy buffs allege, I'd just lay a simple, false evidence trail to whoever I wanted to blame for blowing up the buildings. Forget the airplanes - far too many points for potential failure in that plan, and too much added time, expense and coordination - all with no extra reward.

Post 44

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 7:01pm

Steve,

Forget the airplanes - far too many points for potential failure in that plan, and too much added time, expense and coordination - all with no extra reward.

Well, as a conspiracy hypothesizer (conspiracy theorists are loons!), I have to take issue with that, Steve. Like the issue of the lie that is made more complex in order to come off as being more believable -- e.g., "I would have called you when I promised I would ... but my cell-phone fell onto a conveyor belt and, as I was chasing after it I tripped and knocked over an old lady, and I had to help her up and apologize, and she was crying and hurt, and then a child had inadvertantly picked up my cell phone while I had my back turned and ..." -- I would've went-in for the use of planes (if I were evil). The only thing is, I would have already imprisoned the plane passengers in Gitmo (or some other place offshore), and then utilized the advancements in drone technology to fly the planes back in, unmanned. Of course, it would be important that the black boxes on all of these planes aren't ever recovered, because otherwise that would show that the planes had just come from an unscheduled/undisclosed trip to Guantanamo Bay (to drop off the passengers).

Ed

Edit: I just noticed that there is a slight contradiction in my short story above: I'm not sure that we even had a 'Gitmo' (a convenient, off-shore prison) before 9/11.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/10, 7:05pm)

Post 45

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 7:47pm

Ed,

I think that the fact that you had to edit your hypothetical observations to cover a fatal flaw makes my point. I could name many, many things that could be torn apart with the hypothesis of using planes like you suggested - but it would be exponentially more pointless than arguing with real conspiracy theorists.

Post 46

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 8:45pm

Steve:

I can't follow your reasoning about the "no planes" strategy that you were recommending in retrospect for the conspiracy perpetrators. They would have to have constructed some elaborate explanation to make radical Islamists complicit. As it was with the actual scenario they had a whole litany of suspect activities by Arabs, for example, getting flight instruction for take offs but not landings, etc. One might argue that a super patriot, radical US military organization could plant the explosives by using their security passes and clearance but it would be a really far-fetched idea that the same secret placement of huge amounts of explosives in three buildings could be carried out without that kind of invisibility. The latter is just another reason why the conspiracy theorists aren't credible.

Best

Sam

Post 47

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 9:16pm

Sam,

Maybe you misunderstood what I tried to say.

The conspiracy theorists are the ones who are saying that planes flew into the towers, but the towers only came tumbling down because of explosives planted ahead of time and that the planes were not the cause of the total destruction. That's what THEY are saying - not me.

I'm saying that if the alleged bad guys, who ever they were, could plant explosives AND get Arabs to fly planes into the towers AND have the explosives go off right then... well, it would have been easier just to do the explosives and set it up so Arabs took the blame for that without all the planes being involved. The blind sheik and others had already made that attempt of a straight bombing.

I'm in agreement with you - NO WAY THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY. Al Quada planned and executed an airplane attack and there were no explosives involved. I'm saying that a conspiracy theory that involves explosives being planted ahead of time AND the planes is not reasonable. No one would do that.

If you are a conspirator it would be much easier to get some Arabs to plant explosives (leaving an evidence trail) than it would be to get some Arabs to take those flying lessons, take over the planes, fly them into the buildings AND plant explosives (with your people and no trail, or with Arabs and a trail).
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/10, 9:20pm)

Post 48

Monday, March 11, 2013 - 3:14am

Steve,

I agree it's pointless to argue, so please let me have the last word: A good retrospectively-arrived-at rationale for using planes is to trick bin Laden into thinking his cronies pulled it off (and were, therefore, dead). Tracking terrorists is hard. If you capture one of them, and he doesn't report-in on time, then the others think something is up and they alter all plans (making our interrogations fruitless). However, if terrorists think one of their own died in a suicide attack, then there is no perceived need for them to alter their plans. This kind of ruse could even lead to the actual capture/killing of terrorist leadership.

:-)

Ed

Post 49

Monday, March 11, 2013 - 1:22pm

Ed,

No way I could let your last post stand as the last word.

You are saying that a conspiracy might have existed where the conspirators caught Bin Laden's terrorists BEFORE they got the planes, and then somehow, crashed some planes into the towers, after filling the towers with explosives, to make it look like the original plan had worked. And, you say the "good rationale" for doing this was to trick Bin Laden into thinking he had succeeded, that the terrorist he sent were dead?

That's bizarre! Do you really give any credence at all to that? Do you think it is at all a reasonable possibility?

Post 50

Monday, March 11, 2013 - 6:56pm

Steve,

I don't give credence to such a conspiracy hypothesis on its merits -- i.e., on it's plausibility -- but rather because the official story is so weak. For one thing, we are being asked to believe that all this evidence was under the very noses of our protectors and defenders, yet they were roundly inept.

Previously-intercepted communications involving the use of airplanes for a terror attack? Fundamentalist Muslims learning to fly but not learning to land -- and our experts didn't know (or didn't care)? Taking 90 minutes to scramble fighter jets in a national emergency? C'mon, give me a break. The official story is weak. It is not a strong story. Officially, we are asked to believe that someone had the reflexes to catch video of a plane travelling hundreds of miles an hour into a stationary building (in order to get that over-played news reel which supposedly came from some local resident).

Do you know how hard that would be to do if you tried (if you didn't know where the plane was going)? Yet this "local resident" somehow kept his camera steady on the tower in order to catch the video. It's a thousand little "red flags" like that that make the official story so weak -- something which, by mere contrast alone, provides some rudimentary credence to alternate explanations. Each "red flag" on its own isn't a deal-breaker, but all of them together point the odds into the favor of at least some kind of a misrepresentation of the chain of events.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/11, 7:02pm)

Post 51

Monday, March 11, 2013 - 10:09pm

Ed,

...the official story is so weak. ...we are being asked to believe that all this evidence was under the very noses of our protectors and defenders, yet they were roundly inept.

So, you were stunned to discover inept behavior... from the government? What a shocking concept :-)
-------------------

Pearl Harbor was attacked even though there were some government employees who had information that such an attack might be imminent - an example of earlier government ineptitude. The information didn't go from one department to another or from one person in the chain of command to another fast enough. Conspiracy buffs claim that FDR knew about the attack before it happened and didn't do anything because he was eager to get the U.S. into the war.
-------------------

The business about the camera doesn't ever rise to the level of being a serious question. Are you saying that a plane did fly into the tower and that some agent of the conspirators was stationed to be there to record it? Why?

Let me ask you. At the hour of the attack what is estimated awake population that live withing visual distance of the towers? If you don't know, then how could you say it was unlikely that anyone might have a camera, be outside using it, and look up at the roar of a jet engine?

As it turns out there were three different videos capturing that American Airlines plane hitting the towers. Two filmmakers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet were making a documentary at the time, the camera was rolling, the roar of the approaching jet had the camera operator turn the lens up. And their footage was quite stable, as they are professionals with professional equipment. The other footage is from a Czech immigrant, Pavel Hlava, who captured it from a different location, and from yet another location Wolfgang Staehle captures the event in still frames.

These people all were interviewed and investigated by the FBI and by journalists.
---------------

Notice that we have already fallen into the conspiracy debate format: Whack a Mole. No matter what conspiracy argument pops up and gets solidly whacked, it doesn't change anything. Another mole pops up. It is endless and I don't see any advantage to playing. This conspiracy theory form of argument is necessitated by not having a single piece of evidence that, by itself, is substantial. And by the fact that each of their small 'red flags' by themselves haven't enough weight to do anything and can usually be shot down easily. They try to cast doubt with the shotgun approach that pretends that each of the tiny pellets should be taken seriously (then ignoring when they get batted out of the air.)
------------------

The statement "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a useful moral saw. But there is a way to apply it to the epistemological context of this discussion. The official story's alleged weak points don't make the conspiracy theorists 'facts' right. And remember, much of the so called 'weakness' is in itself allegations from the conspiracy theorists.

Post 52

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 3:42pm

One person could have planted the charges over time. Disguised as any kind of technician, they could have access to any point of the building. A small team could do it, also, quicker, and, again, over time, wearing any kind of livery. Here in Austin we have "squeegee guys" who wear hardhats and green safety vests. So, I am in the command room and see one of these guys come in the buidling when it is closed and get onto an elevator. I went up with him... to his office... he really is a contruction engineer with a project a block away. And in Texas, the law says that security guards must surrender their uniforms when separated from their employer. However, in Texas, the law also says that the employer cannot withhold pay for lack of that return of uniform. So, I have seen at least one questionable guy dressed like me downtown.

Why would a cameraman working on a film, ruin his setting by turning his camera to record a jet plane, no matter how "close" or "loud" it was. What else would distract him? A barking dog? Of course they were "interviewed" by the FBI. What does that prove?

Just sayin'...

As for Pearl Harbor, I repeat the obvious: Franklin D. Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy 1913-1920. It was impossible for him to not know the situation. Immediately after Pearl Harbor, Time magazine said that a counter-strike by our forces in the Philippines against the Japanese homeland was likely. Instead... well... Just sayin'...

On the TV show NUMB3RS, in one episode they got into conspiracy theories. One FBI guy thinks that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. The other FBI guy accepts the official view. "You could not cover up a conspiracy like that. The FBI? The CIA? Hundreds of people would have known." To which the conspiracy believer replies, "Right. That's why everyone knows about it."

Speaking of "Lone Gunmen" (The Lone Gunmen spin off of X-Files on IMDB here.)

While their newfound independence inspires them to investigate even the most shadowy of conspiracies, their social skills remain stagnant, which only makes their lives more difficult when they learn their chief competitor in the "information business" is the brilliant and beautiful Yves Adele Harlow. [Yves Adele Harlow is an anagram of Lee Harvey Oswald. -- MEM]

"The debut of the show in March 2001, began with Byers' father faking his death to uncover a conspiracy to hijack an airliner. The Lone Gunmen try to get to the truth of his supposed death and uncover the conspiracy.
One retrospectively interesting aspect of this pilot episode is that the airliner has been hijacked (via remote control of the plane's autopilot) and, by the end, both Byers and his father have boarded the plane to try to stop the hijacking. Through the aid of the other Gunmen, they are able to regain control of the plane and just miss crashing into the World Trade Center with the airliner. This, of course, was before the actual 9/11 attack against the World Trade Center later that year. Similar to theories posited about the events of 9/11, the episode's plot indicates that the hijacking was committed as an act of voracity by a greedy American arms manufacturer to ultimately increase its weapons sales by invoking U.S. retaliation against a scapegoated anti-American extremist dictator." -- Wikipedia here.

In my heart of hearts, I believe that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were exactly as they appeared to be. I also believe that the assassinations of Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln, were not at all what they seemed to be. The King family fought for years to get James Earl Ray released from prison. I believe that Warren G. Harding was killed by his wife. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Post 53

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 4:42pm

One person could have planted the charges over time.

Sure. And that one person could have been a transgender dwarf who was a former Disney movie extra that trained a pet weasel to help carry explosives into far corners of the heating ducts. Evidence? No, just saying...
--------------

Why would a cameraman working on a film, ruin his setting by turning his camera to record a jet plane, no matter how "close" or "loud" it was."

We don't know that it ruined his settings. Maybe he was shooting background filler for the editors at that time. What we do know is that he did shoot the film we see. And it is more believable that he did so for his own reasons, than to believe that he is part of an intricate, complex conspiracy.
-----------

Of course they were "interviewed" by the FBI. What does that prove?

It means that if they were part of a conspiracy, that it was so deep and so carefully constructed that it either was safe from the kind of investigation that the FBI would turn on it, or that the conspiracy included a segment of the FBI itself. Again, making it harder to believe in a conspiracy theory - especially when all it is offering is a bunch of "could have happened" and errors in logic or fact.
------------

As for Pearl Harbor, I repeat the obvious: Franklin D. Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy 1913-1920. It was impossible for him to not know the situation.

There is nothing there that is obvious. Why would you think that any person, no matter what their title in the Department of the Navy, would know of all memos, particularly those not written much less delivered? FDR had left that position with the Navy 21 years before Pearl Harbor was attacked. What in the world would be there 21 years earlier for him to see? It would take some kind of time travel to have a misplaced message from 1941 find a way back through time to FDR in 1921. And even if it had flow back in time, I'm not sure he would have been available often enough to learn of it. During that period he ran for the Senate (and lost) and ran for Vice President (and won).

Post 54

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 9:02pm

Steve,

You have demolished all of my conspiratorial notions and have thus converted me into someone who accepts the official story now.

Just kidding. If only it were that easy, huh?! Oh well. You win some, you lose some -- and sometimes you just play the game (Whack-a-Mole). I was going to ask you about how incredibly lucky it was for someone to have had a camera focused on GW Bush when he got the word that there was an attack on U.S. soil -- and to keep that camera focused on him, zooming in as he sat there for 7 minutes but, alas, I now feel just like you did at the start: There really isn't any point to it.

:-)

I'll let you have the last word here.

Ed

Post 55

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 10:11pm