Labels are great! Labels guide our decision making from food to information consumption and tell us, in an instant, if we should engage with their particular contents or if it should be avoided completely. Labels are the ultimate summaries and for that they are very powerful and save us a ton of time. Labelling can be particularly useful in the realm of information, allowing us to quickly navigate through the vast sea of social media, news, ideas, opinions and ideologies out there and around us. For example, to hear that something or someone is right or left wing, is enough for the politically activated individual to know (without actually knowing the content) if their views are in line with that piece of information or person.
On a subtler level, however, in the less self-aware minds, labels may perform a more insidious function not very aligned with our personal and cultural growth. By consuming information through the filter of labelling, we are defining the boundaries of acceptable discussion, both on the personal and cultural contexts. These boundaries can become so rigid that as soon as a certain label is mentioned, we know immediately if it should be given any attention at all. We all like to think of ourselves as open-minded but when it comes to labels we all have immediate emotional, sometimes gut reactions leading to judgements of value as soon as we hear them. One of such labels (and the focus of this rambling) is conspiracy or conspiracy theory or tin foil conspiracy.
Somehow the label conspiracy has become associated with something born out of paranoia from possibly mentally unstable individuals. It is quite possible that some theories originate out of such mentality, whoever I strongly believe that this is an unwise and even dangerous assumption to make for all conspiracies. Without actually investigating the origins of each theory, we can not know for sure if it isn't in fact "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" worthy of our utmost attention.
Contrary to popular belief, conspiracies don't tend to generally form from out of thin air but out of facts that contradict the official narrative. One of the conspiracies with the strongest facts backing it is 9/11. To be fair, without investigation the 9/11 conspiracy theory label does sound very outlandish and surreal because if true the questions whom, why and how would have vast consequences on how we believe the world works. However if we don't jump to conclusions and simply try to look at some of the questions which make some people to stop and research, we'll be much better placed to honestly self-identify ourselves as truly open-minded.
If you're still reading, this is where I commit possible Hubksi social suicide by coming out and admitting that I have looked into the so called 9/11 conspiracy theories and I agree that there are some facts and troubling questions which until today have been unanswered. One of the facts is that besides the 2 towers, a 3rd building collapsed on that day known as building 7 of the WTC. There are currently 2200 (yes twenty two hundred) architects & engineers which believe building 7's uniform, free-fall collapse could not have happened due to office fires (as the official NIST report claims) since fires alone do not provide the high temperature necessary for steel beams to collapse simultaneously. This single fact alone has huge weight and a cascading river of implications if correct, considering how the foreign and domestic policies of most of the western world have been shaped since this enormous catastrophe.
So today, in the anniversary of 9/11 I have decided that the cost of social suicide was for once worth the potential of the truth being uncovered by associating myself with the 9/11 truth movement. If you read this far and feel like looking into this I encourage you to start with architect Richard Gage interview on C-SPAN below.
Thank you for reading and keeping an open-mind.
I would agree that there are some unanswered questions regarding the building collapse, and that it deserves much more scrutiny than it has been given. I don't think I buy the idea that it was controlled demolition though, or that there was a deliberate conspiracy outside of Al Qaeda to destroy the towers. There's issues with the controlled demolition hypothesis itself, but then there's also the larger, much more insane question of "why?" Gage gives a nice slippery non-answer to the question fairly early in the video, but there's too many obvious questions about why would you want to organize a controlled demolition. You already have planes hitting the towers, why do you need to demolish them too? To maximize destruction? If you're trying to maximize destruction, why make it a controlled demolition rather than uncontrolled? If it was part of a conspiracy, why involve the large number of people needed to orchestrate a demolition rather than just skip it? Why WTC7? Etc.. In a practical world it seems like the least likely possibility. I might instead buy the idea that, rather than a conspiracy, the was gross incompetence and a series of massive fuckups that made it worse than it had to be. From intelligence, politics, and communication to engineering and code violations that point the blame at some top brass and powerful individuals. I could see the government not wanting to scrutinize it too hard and shine the light on those problems.
Thanks zebra2. Which questions do you feel are unanswered? Richard Gage doesn't answer the question of why because that would be speculation and therefore conspiracy theory. He's approaching it from an evidence point of view. If we knew why, there would be no controversy. But just because something seems implausible, it does not mean it's impossible specially if we don't know the full story and motivations. That's an assumption you're making. We don't know how many people it would take to plant those sophisticated termite charges, apparently they're a lot smaller than regular explosives. And who's to say that every modern high rise isn't already pre-wired during the construction phase just in case it needs to be brought down in an emergency? I don't really believe that, I'm just speculating to show you that there might be avenues which we cannot see since we don't have the full picture. Hence the importance of a full independent investigation. Incompetence would be a lot easier to swallow but sadly it doesn't really go with the evidence of the building's symmetrical collapse....why involve the large number of people needed to orchestrate a demolition...
I might instead buy the idea that, rather than a conspiracy, the was gross incompetence...
With regards to the building collapse? I would be inclined to agree that office fires don't quite tell the whole story of why WTC7 dropped. For that to happen, I would think WTC7 would have had some serious integrity issues before 9/11, and that may be the issue that's not being investigated. Assuming a small group could do the same thing is an assumption too. I made my assumption because, as b_b notes, that's just how all demolitions have been done in reality. Now we can continue making assumptions like but that would be positing that all these theories should have even weight. We can humor all the theories we like but that won't change the fact that some of them are just plain garbage. Entertaining every avenue without discrimination isn't productive or insightful, it's just naive. But since we've mentioned the topic of assumptions, why not challenge the assumption that the building's form of collapse was "unnatural"? In every argument for controlled demolition, it's assumed that a building couldn't possibly collapse the way WTC7 did, ergo yadda yadda. But really, there are very few examples in all of history where a building of similar size and construction has collapsed. And I don't think any of these examples happened in circumstances that are truly comparable to 9/11. So what is the collapse supposed to look like? This? If it were brought down by an earthquake then you might think it would topple, but in an earthquake there are lateral forces driving the collapse. There are no lateral forces in this case, thermite or not. To challenge assumptions and not challenge the one at the crux of the controlled demolition argument is intellectually dishonest. Fun fact: there are more than a couple cases where building collapses were preceded by loud explosion sounds. So that aspect of the demolition argument may sound convincing until you dig a little bit.Thanks zebra2. Which questions do you feel are unanswered?
That's an assumption you're making.
every modern high rise isn't already pre-wired during the construction phase just in case it needs to be brought down in an emergency
I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Perhaps that is what happened. Perhaps there isn't anything sinister about the events of the 9/11 but wouldn't you agree that we need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of it? If you go back and read the full paragraph you'll see that I was not making an assumption but providing an example that could fit in the story since you're play around with potential scenarios of what actually happened. In context, I said: And who's to say that every modern high rise isn't already pre-wired during the construction phase just in case it needs to be brought down in an emergency? I don't really believe that, I'm just speculating to show you that there might be avenues which we cannot see since we don't have the full picture. As I mentioned in my original post "...if true the questions whom, why and how would have vast consequences on how we believe the world works. However if we don't jump to conclusions and simply try to look at some of the questions which make some people to stop and research..." I think trying to come to a conclusion at this point, it's counter productive, it's what generates conspiracy theories and creates friction because everyone will come up with their own idea of what happened. I am glad that we agree that something isn't right with the way building 7 collapsed. Maybe we can also agree that it grants a new investigation? I agree that entertaining all the theories in general is counter productive. That's why I'm trying to focus on facts, you keep bring up theories, which is I think a natural process of how we try to fit fragments of what we know into our view of reality. I admit it's not an easy task to ignore possible outcomes and focus on facts. That's a good point. If there weren't 2200 Architects and engineers raising the alarm, I would have no problem with the official story. When the first 9/11 conspiracy theories started coming out, sceptics claimed that they were not experts and therefore should be given no attention. Now that we have actual experts, people (like b_b) still dismiss them as "experts" and don't give them any credit. At what point do we take people seriously? Which amount of credentials does someone have to have to be worthy whistle-blowers?! It appears that in today's day and age we give more weight to credentials and channels of information than information itself. I think it is naive to put our common sense aside and blindly and solely believe what comes out certain channels of authority. If we look at history we see example after example of authority abusing its power in order to aggregate more power and wealth. But I digress... It isn't assumed. As the architect said, no steel frame building has fell like building 7 did due to only office fires. Hence the controversy. Haha, thanks for the laugh, I needed that : ) I don't know, I'm not an architect. I'm listening to what the experts are saying. 2200 architects & engineers have a better background to make a better informed decision than me. Are all of these people out of their mind?! All that I can see is a building falling at free-fall speed without any resistance and onto its own footprint. To paraphrase what they say, if gravity was the only force, each floor would offer residence to the fall. Then there is the testimony firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." It's possible the explosion sounds first responders heard were gas explosions. Still if this was the case, the rest of the facts still don't match the official story. By the way, I have no intention of coming across confrontational or harsh. The written word can sometimes be interpreted as blunt but I do really appreciate you taking the time to look into this.With regards to the building collapse? I would be inclined to agree that office fires don't quite tell the whole story of why WTC7 dropped. For that to happen, I would think WTC7 would have had some serious integrity issues before 9/11, and that may be the issue that's not being investigated.
Assuming a small group could do the same thing is an assumption too.
We can humor all the theories we like but that won't change the fact that some of them are just plain garbage. Entertaining every avenue without discrimination isn't productive or insightful, it's just naive.
But since we've mentioned the topic of assumptions, why not challenge the assumption that the building's form of collapse was "unnatural"?
In every argument for controlled demolition, it's assumed that a building couldn't possibly collapse the way WTC7 did, ergo yadda yadda.
So what is the collapse supposed to look like? This?
If it were brought down by an earthquake then you might think it would topple, but in an earthquake there are lateral forces driving the collapse. There are no lateral forces in this case, thermite or not. To challenge assumptions and not challenge the one at the crux of the controlled demolition argument is intellectually dishonest.
Fun fact: there are more than a couple cases where building collapses were preceded by loud explosion sounds. So that aspect of the demolition argument may sound convincing until you dig a little bit.
You are allowed to have unpopular ideas. There are things we may never be able to explain - like consciousness. Look how long it took for Deep Throat to be uncovered. Besides, I doubt that anyone who puts the word "hugs" in a bio would be totally ostracised.
No, I did not watch that particular video. I have read various other reports about alternate theories to the general 9-1-1 story. It doesn't seem to be a necessary use of my time. There are many BIG and IMPORTANT things going on that we know nothing or little about. Decisions governments, corporations, and individuals make actually affect people's lives and livelihood. I also suspect many things that seem disconnected are actually connected - the US economic collapse in 2007 and the housing market collapse (anniversary coming up) in 2008, cheating at the Olympics, volcanic ash in Iceland, and the collapse of honey bee colonies. I try to understand how those events are connected to decisions governments made or failed to make. Maybe humans in democratic countries can find enough trust in one another to elect governments that can move in the direction of goodness. There are many threads to unravel, so, no, I did not watch the video.
Or to use more government friendly rhetoric (as we must sometimes do), the federal government carefully filters information such that the American public can understand the federal government's official stance(s) on matters which may pertain to the public interest. In any event, I think it's natural to have questions about the events of 9/11 or even less dramatic events in recent U.S. history. People forget that as Americans, part of our civic duty is to question the authority of those we have elected to govern and if necessary, to remove them from office by using the mechanisms of the democratic system on which our nation is founded. Barring that, Thomas Jefferson recommended that we resort to revolution and in his opinion, that is something we should do every 20 years. (Emphasis added)"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
Thanks for the reminder humanodon. You bring up an important point, which is that power structures can't be trusted and should be questioned at all times. Sadly western society fully trusts concentrated power and does very little to question and confront it. Even in a day an age when the obvious manipulation of governments by corporations is out there for everyone to see, where politicians lie and promises are never kept and when we don't really know what half of the vast secret & intelligence agencies are up to, people still have this blind faith in central power. Maybe FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) was right when he said:The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.
I think part of the reason we keep blindly trusting centralized power is that we don't really have much of a choice. It's basically part of our culture to not make a big deal about anything, because to do anything else is to be "stirring up shit" and "causing an unnecessary and destructive uproar". This includes outrage over the government. The prevailing line of thought is this: they don't target you personally, everyone else has it as bad as you do, and you can't do anything about it, so what can you do besides suck it up and pray for the best?
I understand what you're saying, the issues are so overwhelming that it's pointless to waste our time trying to change them. Part of me feels that way but the other part fells that if we all stay idle we'll eventually walk into another fascist nightmare as the tools for surveillance & oppression have never been as powerful. This along side the concentration of decision making through corporate and now centralized government (such as EU), the recipe for disaster is only increasing. Like Gandhi said, "What you do is insignificant but it's very important that you do it."
I know what you mean as well. I'm not saying I endorse the line of thought I presented up there, but that that's the way most people really do think, and they have reason for it. I understand what you're saying, the issues are so overwhelming that it's pointless to waste our time trying to change them. Part of me feels that way but the other part fells that if we all stay idle we'll eventually walk into another fascist nightmare as the tools for surveillance & oppression have never been as powerful.
Watching the video is a start to getting to understand the controversy. Did you watch it?
What are your thoughts specifically on the video above and on 9/11 in general?
I watched this video yesterday when you posted it. It's much more compelling within this context that you've given. I wanted to shout out to sounds_sound, one of our resident architects and ask what he thinks regarding whether or not explosives were used? I'm not sure how much they teach you in architecture school about how to destroy buildings with military grade composites? I'll admit, I'm one of those people that knew little to nothing about building #7 prior to this interview. I'm glad you posted it.
Remember the Hudson's building demolition? That was the largest controlled implosion in history. And it took an entire team of people working for a full time week to lay enough explosive to bring the thing down. This building makes Hudson's look like a play house. Where were all these people hiding? "Don't mind me. I'm just the maintenance man laying C4 around these structural beams. Nothing to see here, folks." Forget about all the other crazy, batshit scenarios that would have to line up to make 9/11 a government conspiracy (as opposed to an actual terrorist conspiracy, a fact conveniently ignored by conspiracy theorists who, for whatever reason, want the US government to be responsible), and just focus on the fact that it's literally impossible to blow up a building of this magnitude clandestinely. Here's the thing. An unexpected event happens. The government investigates the event to find out the cause. They release their findings. A group of experts (or, maybe "experts") says, "Hmmm, the government's explanation is insufficient to explain the facts we know to be true." Here's how you get taken seriously: You offer an alternate explanation that's MORE PLAUSIBLE, not one that is literally and utterly out of the realm of what is possible in the universe. Newton's theory didn't quite explain planetary phenomena. If Einstein's relativeity would've taken us back to the days of Greek epicycles, do you think we'd be celebrating him as a hero? I doubt it. I feel shame for even commenting here.
b_b you're jumping to the conclusion of how much effort it would take to wire a building up instead of looking at the evidence. Of course the conclusions sound ludicrous but look and listen before judging. Did you watch the video?
b_b: If this was a 'bona fide' (!) terrorist attack as claimed by the US authorities, then how did the alleged plotters gain access to so much privileged and classified information, the knowledge of which allowed the attacks to succeed? How did the alleged hijackers even board the four planes, given that there is no evidence of such (ticket purchases, credit card records, boarding passes, video with a certified chain of custody showing them board the planes etc.)? Why did they fly indirect routes to their assigned targets when they must have known that the USAF has an unblemished record for promptly scrambling F-15s and F-16s, capable of Mach II and faster, and challenging any problematic or off course airplane within a few minutes - and there are dozens of air bases within a very short flying distance of the hijacked planes' flight paths. Your claim that skeptics regard "the US Government" as responsible is disingenuous at best. The US Government consists of many 10s of thousands of federal employees in hundreds of diverse agencies and departments that range from the USPS to NASA , or from the USGS to NSA. Yeah, it took that many incompetent government employees to organize 9/11 on one side, yet on the other story, it only took 19 young rookies with no paramilitary experience and little flying ability, a handful of organizers and a guy in a cave in Afghanistan pull the whole operation? That these kids, with no motivation and in total stealth, somehow ran rings around the entire, $multitrillion US military-defense-security-law enforcement-intelligence apparatus, in their own front yard, for nearly two whole hours, without a response from the world's most professional and highly trained air force? It makes one wonder why the most senior officials in the Bush Administration did their damnedest to avoid any form of independent investigation into the attacks, especially VP Cheney, who used threatening language against Sen. Tom Daschle when the latter brought up the subject of "inquiry". It makes one wonder why the 9/11 Commission was such a whitewash - a majority of the senior commissioners, including the two co-chairs and lead counsel have said that "we were not told the truth about what happened", and "we were set up to fail" and "we were lied to by the CIA, NORAD and the Pentagon". It makes one wonder why the Joint Chiefs issued a change of protocol (CJCSI3610.01A) regarding the scrambling of planes in response to aerial emergencies on June 1, 2001, which stripped all USAF base commanders of their authority to order a scramble operation, transferring those permissions to the Defense Secretary (Don Rumsfeld) in person. It just happened that Rumsfeld was "unavailable" during the two critical hours that morning. Without that change of procedure, none of those planes would have reached their targets before being challenged. The original protocol was restored on 9/12/2001. Why did the CIA's field station in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia authorize the quick issuance of US Visas to all 15 Saudi Arabian nationals who were alleged to have been amongst the 19 hijackers? I don't know the answers to any of these and 1000 other anomalous aspects of 9/11 which make no sense if the official story was the truth and nothing but the truth. The "batshit" elements clearly rest with what the corporate media and the US Government "informed" us. Our comfort zone filled in the gaps.
There absolutely is evidence of the plane ticket purchases. Listed here in chronological order There is also quite a lot of information available about the amount of flight training that the hijackers received. while not experts, they did have a fair amount of actual flight experience and significant simulated flight experience. There also was a lot of independent scientific investigation of the incident which was not stopped or hindered by the US government. For example this computer simulation done by Purdue University and this investigation by popular mechanics
It'd be interesting to hear b_b's response to this. Thanks for taking the time to write, it feels like the cavalry has arrived! I was feeling a bit lonely around here. Building 7 is intriguing enough but I didn't know about half of the stuff you mention! What would you say are the best 9/11 research resources?
I haven't watched the video and I'm leaving off grid for the weekend so I'm afraid I won't be much help on the matter. Demo, in terms of taking down a whole building isn't something that most architects would know how to do. It's definitely a specialized field, since the majority of architects and engineers are in the business of trying to keep buildings up - not tearing them down. In terms of structural capacity and fire strength of the steel, what I can tell you is that material testing is typically done in a lab without any unknown externalities so that what can be learned is reduced to a very small quantity of environmental conditions. This testing is what allows people to guarantee performance and state that "this building should act this way". Once a building or material enters the real world though, there are contingencies that can never be planned for. Starting the day the material is produced, it is susceptible to so many variables. For example, what kind of intumescent paint was used? What is the shelf life of the paint? Was the steel primered in shop or on site? How much exposure did the building have to water? Pollution or exhaust? How long did the material sit on site before erection? Was the building fabricated to spec? Was it constructed to spec? Were the welds tested? Was the concrete tested? What was the outcome of these tests? What about seismic testing? Any little thing that can somehow compromise the integrity of the steel material, fabrication to construction should be questioned because over a long enough period of time, a seemingly small imperfection in material integrity or maintenance could have large built up consequences. Some of this stuff may have been covered in the video, I don't know. Looking at the comments, I agrees with zebra2. The main question is "What would be gained from this?" I don't think anymore than if just two buildings went down.
Thanks for your insight. It's great that you took the time to reply but it'd be greater to know your opinion after watching the video of how building 7 collapsed. As I mentioned before, to answer that question it would be to speculate and therefore enter the realm of conspiracy theory. Because we don't know the answer all we can do is watch the evidence and allow it to take us where it will. Hence why the sole purpose of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth is to push for a new independent investigation.The main question is "What would be gained from this?" I don't think anymore than if just two buildings went down.
Thanks for the insight sounds_sound, that was actually quite helpful. have a great weekend.
Thanks for this @thenewgreen I agree, it'd be great to hear @sounds_sound opinion. Richard Gage in that interview says the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth contains about a dozen structural engineers who have signed the petition for a new independent investigation. However we don't need to be a trained expert to look and see the similarities between how building 7 came down and controlled demolition. Like Richard Gage says, fires would NOT cause all columns of the infrastructure to fail simultaneously. Fires have burned steal frame high raises before for much longer than Building 7 burned and none of them collapsed in this pancake like fashion.
Just to piggy back a bit here, I work with a lot of architecture students, many of which are my close friends, so I'll ask for their opinion tonight. Just to give them some credibility, they're fourth year students in a five year accredited program and some are working in firms currently so its not like they're first year students or anything. I guarantee most of them will tell me its a better question for a civil engineer, so if we have a resident civil engineer that'd be even better!
Thanks @ThatsAFreeThinker it'd be great to get as many people to watch it as possible. What do you personally think after watching the video?
For the record, I watched it and agree with b_b's assessment of the claim. But I did watch it and I don't think it's a bad practice to question such events to an extent.
What is the problem with asking questions to which answers have yet to be given?
What is the problem with asking questions that challenge impossible claims?
What is the problem with asking questions about claims that have been presented by the US authorities and have since been found to be untrue? If asking such questions, by some wild stretch, renders me a conspiracy theorist, then I am proud of it.
Thank you for the support bloggulator. People around here seem to be ok with the question asking side of things. They just can't seem to be able to save the conclusions for after they've seen all the pieces of evidence. In some people's eyes, not even 2200 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth have enough expertise to raise inconsistencies in the official report. The jump from what people believe to be true and the contradictory evidence is so huge that people dismiss the whole thing because of some opinion based theory of impossibility they've created in their minds. Many won't even have the guts to watch or listen, they've made up their minds and they'll debate as if they know everything there's to know. It's as if people have lost the ability of basic critical thinking.
I've been reading the comments here but have remained hands off the discussion because I would never touch it with a ten foot pole. But this comment strikes a nerve. Beyond the fact that your sentence style is much too passive voiced for my taste, I think you should give the Hubskiers here a bit more credit. I think the response you've gotten here is levelheaded and thoughtful. Considering the sensitivity of the topic, and how most people on and off the internet would simply dismiss you immedietly because of the emotions it brings to the table, I'd say you're doin alright here. Critical thought is what Hubski is all about. Just because its not the critical though that you like doesn't make it any less valid. Not trying to be antagonistic, but dismissing everyone else's thoughts on the matter sorta dismisses your own.
Coming from someone who feels this topic is beneath them: It isn't surprising that you believe that: While I appreciate people's comments expressing their approval about questioning, if you read the comments, few have actually watched the video and engaged in the topic. While others have done exactly what I tried to warn about in the post, jumped to conclusions rather than to read/watch and then join the discussion with an open mind. Quite honestly, from my end, it feels like a bit of a condescending tap on the head. To me a positive discussion would have been for people to engage with the parts of evidence mentioned in the video and then explain with other evidence why they disagree. That'd have been way more productive for everyone. But since we have different points of view on the topic, and the fact that you only joined in when you felt your ego had been poked, it doesn't surprise me we'd also perceive the response differently.I would never touch it with a ten foot pole.
...the response you've gotten here is levelheaded and thoughtful.
Dude. September 11 2001 was 13 years ago. Loose Change is pushing 10 years. It's foolish to assume we haven't "engaged the topic." We've had three presidential administrations to engage with it. It's possible that we don't want to engage the topic again or we don't want to engage the topic with you. Or both.
You seem to have this hang up about time. Do you mind explaining your logic as to why events in the past should not be discussed? At our previous interaction you got upset that I was replying to a thread that was a few weeks old. You ended the discussion telling me to fuck off and then muted me. I never assumed people haven't engaged in the topic ever. I can only evaluate the response I've had in this post. Thank you for emphasising my evaluation with this irrelevant reply and personal attack. You're a true intellectual kleinbl00.
That's a community tag which has changed slightly since we added them in almost 2 years ago. I'm not sure who put it on, it could've been set by the OP when he initially posted, or added/changed by someone who has earned at least one full hubwheel.
Suggested reading: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 Video for the lazy Public comments on the report: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/combined2008publicComments.pdf For good measure, link to full text of 9/11 commission report, which is fascinating besides being awfully informative:
Thanks for sharing the official documents ghostoffuffle. I assume that you don't agree with any of the inconsistencies mentioned by Architect Richard Gage (and the 2200 architects & engineers backing him) as raised in the post's video?
Yeah, it's a stretch. Everybody's already raised the "why". That's a biggie. If you're gonna be party to conspiracy, you'd better have a damn good reason to go to the trouble and risk the consequences. Given that 9/11 has proven to be our biggest nat'l security black eye since Pearl Harbor, and resulted in not much more than overextension of resources, involvement in two intractable and costly wars, social and political polarization, alienation from several strategic allies... man, this list goes on. Anyhow, that'd make for piss-poor conspiracy. Basically did more than any other wartime act in post-WW2 history to call our world primacy into question. Then there's the fact that UBL wrote and published a manifesto against the United States expressing his intent to orchestrate an attack on American soil, and then he claimed responsibility for 9/11. Then there's all the evidence in favor of that. Beyond all that, yeah, I find the initial NIST report way more plausible on a technical level than the hypotheses put forth by your guy. Especially given that the original report was conducted in concert with a host of independent engineering organizations, and is supported by careful analysis of one of the most widely-documented and well-witnessed disasters of our time. Look, 9/11 was one of those things that was so bad on so many levels that digging through the rubble for conspiracy seems way extraneous. You want to mistrust the government in the face of what happened, fine- look no further than their failure to stop what happened in light of oodles of poorly-shared intel (again, read 9/11 report); their focus on totally pointless military incursion (Iraq) when they should have reserved resources for the important front (Afghanistan); the resulting destabilization of an entire region of the world- the consequences of which me may just be realizing; and their disproportionately draconian national security response, which all but cemented UBL's legacy and absolutely supported his goals. Be mad and mistrustful in light of that. Don't waste your time on the fringe stuff, it's so much less titillating.