You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 6      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Yusef

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #1 
I have created this due to a rare desire to comment on marknadim's video, and also in an effort to aid the editors in their request that a forum entry be made regarding marknadim's desire to discuss 9/11 with other board members. (I'm not sure why this hasn't been started by someone else.)

For a long time I have not believed that 9/11 is an inside job, agreeing with the many logical arguments from the likes of Chomsky and many others I respect. Basically, it has always seemed impossible that so many would be able to keep it a secret, that any group of powerful policy makers would be be so brazen and risk so much knowing that the slightest slip up by anyone would result in a scandal of such incredible proportions. I also think that Chomsky makes a great point when he says something about it being a tactic to release JFK info in order to stimulate debate, and cause distraction (can't remember the details). I have also found the debunking resources to be more convincing than the "truther" sights, and have heard recording which appear to be interviews with witnesses from within teams of the emergency responders such as police and firefighters. Having spent much time reading and watching "documentaries", and re-reading after new recommendations from people I love and respect, I feel I have invested enough time and "scientific rigour" (4 years studying biology at Edinburgh University) to have made up my mind on 9/11. So why am I attracted to read and investigate further? Members of the board have demostrated such good opinions on other matters, I feel I can't just dismiss them. And, after all, wouldn't it seem so satisfying to be able to finger those in power who we know are the "real bad guys". And they are real bad guys. And I don't doubt that they are conspiring to maintain that power.

I know that the internet is the ultimate echo chamber, and the craziest of ideas can take root and grow. But maybe, just maybe, or even hopefully, this time I will see the real evidence of the "smoking gun" to demostrate once and for all, to all the world, that the rich and powerful in America are truly evil. So why not watch this video.

But alas, I am not convinced, marknadim, by this new video. The first clue is the title,

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version)

So I visited the web page http://www.ae911truth.org/, and I see that it is all about selling. I have been reminded that there is an industry making a lot of money out of memberships, DVDs, books, talkshows, merchandising, and who knows what other ways people find to profit from "support for their investigations and work". (Is it any different to Democracy Now or Electronic Intifada in that respect? Well, I suppose not, but they don't only focus on one story, as do the "truthers".)

As for the science, a youtube user has collected a set of videos titled "9/11 Debunked", and they are quite convincing to me.

The user's page, http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4.

I would be interested to know if anyone feels the same. I think that the 9/11 Truth movement is a fringe movement because of the wisdom of the crowds (the crowds being the scientific, engineering, and architecture community). Surprisingly, most people I speak to ALSO think that something fishy happened (not just a group of sick men finding a horrific way to dramatically kill lots of people in America). But I think that we have a yearning for more dramatic, meaningful (to us) explanations of phenomena that bewilder us.

I also notice, marknadim, that you didn't like your chat being pushed down the board, and started a new one. Considering that the forum is designed to prevent that, and that the Editors don't want their board filling up with one topic posts, I think that was a bit rude, and you probably know that too and are being a bit provocative. So, here is a 9/11 debate forum entry and those who are interested can update the different browsers they use to include a new bookmark and debate to their hearts content.

Cheers.
Yusef

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #2 
Hi Marknadim!

You said, "Just read your forum post; couple of things.
First, crucially, you don't explain why you think the subject should stay demoted to the forum when no other subject is treated that way - ? I've explained my reasons for believing it should be treated like any other (in response to Aly above, and in thread below). I posted a new thread above because, as Mack said very well below, the 'excitement' of discussing a banned topic made the thread overlong (if it was normalised that would stop happening) and I wanted to write a summary of the key things said in it. Is that rude? If so, not intentional.
Second, if selling dvds of their report to help fund their campaign is suspicious to you, then that means every charity or campaigning org Ive ever seen will also be suspicious to you. I posted a youtube link in the thread below if you didnt see it."

____________

It's not that the subject has been demoted, it's that what you are suggesting is long thread
dedicated to one subject, which will inevitably get pushed down the board, and probably get brought to the fore again to maintain the "excitement". Why not, as other's have said, write your scientific reasons here in a clear fashion and and see if they generate discussion. Meanwhile, you seemed a little distracted arguing for the right to do that on the message board.

Selling DVDs is one source of income for the "non-profit organisation". Yes, I'm suspicious of most charities.

Do you mean the youtube video I named above? If not, could you paste the link here, please?

Cheers
redadare

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #3 
Yusef; like everyone else you are entitled to your opinion. However as a truther who has spent more time than I care to think about reading all the nonsense, debunking and plainly obfuscation designed to detract from the truth, I am really surprised by one statement you make.

You say "I have also found the debunking resources to be more convincing than the truthers sites". Perhaps they are all written by professionals being paid to cover up the truth whereas the truther sites are just guys like me (and maybe you)?

Perhaps you have read the NIST reports on WTC 1 & 2 and on building 7? You don't have to read them in their entirety, to know that they have been so successfully debunked as by truthers (and agnostics who keep an open mind), that you can't surely believe that NIST has even done anything other than whitewash the whole of 9/11 and a bad job at that.

Better than that, perhaps you should read the 9/11 Commission report which now more than half the members of that commission say their investigation was obstructed and there should be a new report.

Have you followed any of the threads on Pilots for 9/11 truth for example? They have, with minute detail which is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to follow, successfully debunked almost every aspect of the official story. And there has never been any debunking of this site as far as I am aware.

Perhaps you know about the son of the Lear Jet designer, himself a very experienced pilot. He said that the "official" (from the air traffic controllers own logs) speed of the alleged second plane to hit the towers could not fly at the speed it flew at sea level without breaking up. And not even the best pilots in the world could make a steep turn (which it did) at that speed. Can you debunk an expert opinion?

Have you watched any of the actual live news broadcast archives (it was on CNN so it must be true?) of firemen being pulled back from building 7 saying things like "its gonna blow" or "its coming down"? How do you debunk spontaneous on the spot statements from professionals on the scene? Perhaps you can point me to a site which does this?

And as for criticising A&E for 9/11 Truth for concentrating on just one issue, that seems to me that you have not done your research at all. They believe, as do many other truthers, that the scientific evidence here is strong enough to prove a case for a new open and thorough investigation. It is also a simple case, whereas many of the other issues are strong, they are complex and need careful following.

IMO, if you are for real, you should not compare "truther" sites to debunking sites, you should compare them to the official story. If you do that, have an open mind, spend "4 years" doing your research, you too will see the light. As much as one might dislike Alex Jones, he is right when he says 9/11 is an inside job.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #4 


Hi Yusef.

Re: structure experts 'profiting' from sales of cheap DVD's

- If one is looking for profiteers, look no further than the military, security, arms, surveillance and financial industries that plugged into trillions of taxpayers' dollars steered in their direction, starting at 9:30 pm on Sept 11 with the opening meeting of the “War Cabinet” and firmed up by 11:00 pm that evening when the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.  

---------

Is physics universal or geo-specific?

If two planes hit two steel towers in Beijing, say, and then three towers rapidly and totally implode, after which Chinese officials produce American bandanas and passports from the rubble and proceed to shock-and-awe Washington, insert Chinese troops on US soil,  entrench global surveillance and spread drone bases about the planet, would science-based peer review on building performance hold value in that hypothetical case? Would forensic study of the catalysing trigger event be encouraged, utilising public domain video evidence to measure physics-defying rates of free-fall acceleration through structural paths of resistance?

fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #5 
Hi Margo

Agree with everything you say - and mistrust anyone who thinks that debunking sites are in any way credible. I may disagree as to how the deed was actually carried out - much of the detail will not be able to be corroborated as too many disinformation agents and powerful agencies have been involved in the subsequent whitewash, however, enough has been produced to show that it was, indeed, an inside job.

Some interesting info on Names, Connections and Motives...



Cheers
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #6 
The dynamics of the three falling buildings are inconsistent
with gravitational collapse prompted by fires and localized failures.

The fact that they continued to accelerate at all - as definitively demonstrated
by David Chandler et al http://911speakout.org/?page_id=8 - is inconsistent
with the idea that they were simultaneously crushing the structure below.

[edit]

orville

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #7 
Hi Yusef,

It's also worth checking out the Toronto Hearings held in 2011, the talks are all on YouTube. They're not what you'd call exciting but they include talks from victim family members who went to Washington and tried to push for a full investigation (Cheney personally intervened to try and stop this from happening, and Bush's first choice to head the 9/11 commission was, wait for it, Henry Kissinger), NIST whistle blower Kevin Ryan who was sacked for speaking out on the unscientific methods being used in the official explanation, and well as a (quite tedious) talk on the extremely high probability of insider trading in the days leading up to it.

For me, it's not about 'proving' anything or pointing fingers, it's more about examining what we have been told in the official story and deciding, using scientific rigour, whether or not this is an adequate and feasible explanation. At present the science behind what we have been told, not to mention the way the commission was set-up (with a paltry budget of 3m USD and then personally closed down by Bush because it was draining resources from the war on terror - a single predator drone costs over 4m USD) is simply not rigourous enough. People want answers, they were given ones that don't explain everything fully, they want to see a bigger and more thorough investigation.

Anywho, I'd keep reading as much stuff as possible and likewise if you come across anything you think might be of benefit to me I'm all ears.

All the best
Yusef

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #8 
Hello truthers![smile]

I think that if it was an inside job, someone would have blown the whistle. How many people would have to be paid off to keep this a secret? It seems so incredibly implausible that I think that is one of "macro reasons" for not believing in the "controlled demolition" story (mentioned by emersberg, I think). Is there any satisfactory explanation for this lack of whistleblower (apart from there not being anything to blow the whistle on)?

Redadare, yes I said,
"I have also found the debunking resources to be more convincing than the truthers sites", and I mean that whenever you watch a documentary, you obviously have to make a judgement call as to the veracity of the claims made in the documentary, and also the resulting conclusions if you judge the facts to be accurate. Needless to say, how we make that judgement call depends on each person. I have personally found the science more convincing in the videos which debunk than those that...bunk. But I am basing this on things found on the internet. I actually have no way of truly knowing the truth. Who does? For example, the "Top Videos" collected by youtube user RKOwens4 are convincing to me. There are about 11 videos which provide a perspective of most of the common "truther" arguments.



I therefore don't think it's necessary to read the official reports to be convinced by the scientific descriptions of the events. Official investigations and reports are often botched jobs which try not to embarrass anyone powerful.

The pilots for truth page says something about a report stating that the plane was going faster than is possible otherwise the plane would break up, but I saw the video of the planes going into the buildings and they didn't break up so I guess it wasn't going at those speeds. As for the rest of that site, each page has a short trailer for a DVD which you can buy. And the interview with Mr Lear wasn't working. Apparently he said that the planes couldn't possibly do what everyone saw them do? Okay then.

Yes, some firemen and policemen have said things, a few
have said "it sounded like explosions" and they could also start to believe it was an inside job, but nobody has blown the whistle. How many people would need to be involved?

And I wasn't criticising anyone for talking only about one issue, I was merely pointing out that Democracy Now and Electronic intifada do much more important work and are therefore more justified in asking for financial support.

It is indeed true, Margo, that war profiteers have done exactly that. Disaster capitalism is a well established doctrine as I am sure you are aware. And I actually provided a link to the youtube users collection, but I accidentally put a fullstop on the end which made it not work. Please have a look. 11 videos debunking the main "controlled demolition".

As I mentioned, I haven't read any official reports (except snipits quoted in other articles and videos) but I don't think that is very important. I think the basic facts (sick men hijacking planes, plane causing sequence of events resulting in the collapse of the buildings and massive loss of lives) are accurate. The official story may have other details which are inaccurate so maybe Orville is right and another investigation is needed.

I have seen documentaries and talks showing that bigfoot is true, aliens have visited the earth, the earth is hollow, lizards rule us, and any number of things. Just because someone says it doesn't make it true. The same obviously applies to my sources (Chomsky, "9/11 debunked" videos) so we'll have to agree to disagree.

To hopefully conclude, I notice that I am the only "debunker" who is writing here. I also think that it's disappointing that some of the links here from the "bunkers" don't work. I believe that this is a sign of people having saved text from previous discussions which they copy and paste from one place to another over long periods of time, (much like RGs much derided "hasbarollocksers" (love the phrase)). Meanwhile a fool like me spends ages writing a load of new text which isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Thus we have proved that 9/11 conversations/debates are also probably a waste of time!

Cheers!
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #9 
Hi Yusuf

Any physicists, engineers or materials scientists put their name to those anonymous 'debunker' videos you offer? One thing you have to acknowledge about the 2000+ civil, structural and mechanical engineers and architects courageously signed up to the Architects&Engineers (ae911truth) group is that they (and their credentials) are fully identified, meaning their reputations are on the line.

How sad that the result of a Medialens message board debate this week resulted in a padlocked conversation, opening the way for "Yusuf" to cheerily open the floor to  "truthers".

Yusuf: 'I think the basic facts (sick men hijacking planes, plane causing sequence of events resulting in the collapse of the buildings and massive loss of lives) are accurate.'

The official investigators themselves - NIST as well as FEMA - found that the planes did *not* "cause the "sequence of events resulting in the collapse of the buildings",  so you're on your own there.

Yusuf: "I actually have no way of truly knowing the truth. Who does?"

Ah, the old "unknowable" trope.

Nothing mysterious or unknowable about engineering mechancis and structure performance, which is why clever engineers continue to confidently build higher and bigger skyscrapers around the globe.
http://stj911.org/blog/papers/
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/corestruct.html

According to NIST, ordinary 'office furnishing fires' (sic) brought down a  steel-framed skyscraper exactly like a controlled demolition:  with sudden onset, rapidity, symmetry and verticality.

Has a new and cheap way of demolishing high-rises been discovered - demolition by matches?

[Btw, Yusuf, do you ascribe to the “untruthers” definition of a “truther” as anyone who doesn’t accept, in its entirety, the 9-11 Commission Report, written by Condi Rice's co-author Philip Zelikow and tweaked by Obama's speechwriter Ben Rhodes? Or are they those who don't accept the US Department of Commerce's NIST report? [confused] ]

redadare

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #10 
Yusuf: I did say "if you are for real ..."

No one has blown the whistle?

I don't know where to start. So, off the top of my head (and my memory is rubbish), ever heard of:

Barry Jennings - Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority
Andreas Von Buelow - Former German Minister of Defense
Sibel Edmonds - Former FBI translator with top secret clearance
Richard Andrew Grove - Silvestream employee who missed the meeting on 98th floor, Sept 11th
Francesco Cossige - Former Italian Prime Minister
Yukihisa Fujita - Former Japanese MP, you can look him up on Wikipedia
Major General Albert Stubblebine - Head of US army strategic intelligence worldwide

I know one is supposed to be polite on ML, but saying no one has blown the whistle, ..........?????



Derek

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by margo
The dynamics of the three falling buildings are inconsistent with gravitational collapse prompted by fires and localized failures.

The fact that they continued to accelerate at all - as definitively demonstrated by David Chandler et al http://911speakout.org/?page_id=8 - is inconsistent with the idea that they were simultaneously crushing the structure below.


In the case of the towers, how does the top 13% of a building crush the undamaged 87% below it? 

See primary evidence  videos to see that the top sections of the Towers first disintegrate outwards in huge balls of pulverised masonry and shredded steel.

Thus there wasn't even any 13% left to 'do' the massive, very rapid crushing of cold hard steel that followed.

What provided the energy for this work?

From what I've read, engineers, scientists say there is an energy deficiency at the heart of the official narrative.

This is not mysterious or unknowable. It is eminently provable.
Derek

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #12 
Hi margo, just want to say I disagree with the block on talking about this on the mb (seems inconsistent with other stuff that can go on there for long replies) but also that to me it seems less important than the resultant provable wars and crimes.

One thing though; has anyone examined seriously the idea that the rocking of the buildings along with structural design may have contributed to collapse; these were new designs after all and have not been copied in most cases that ive read about? I remember reading in depth about the design of the steel structure (in 1 and 2) and seeing the rocking buildings after the planes hit (at the time) I was saying 'these buildings are coming down) . To me at least it was no surprise when they did. Having at that point never seen a building collapse it seemed to happen as I would expect. Since it makes me wonder if the 13% is a red herring, being more about the pillars and superstructure...

There are other issues I have that when I've discussed with people over the years haven't been resolved with satisfactory information that would change my mind.

Again, along with so many others I have no doubt at all of conspiracy involving hundreds of details of the official story; we were lied to - Rumsfeld or Cheney even said we should expect it!

I still think its a leap to controlled demolition but I'm not past convincing. I just don't think that evidence there is a problem with the official conspiracy leads straight to an inside job.

With respect, Derek

Btw compared to the mlmb from a phone this forum is difficult to use! And it does seen like a polite way of saying go away.
George Brennan

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #13 

Hi Yusef,

Re your original 10 jan post I am broadly with you, tho I think you make only one strong point here, namely that the more elaborate a conspiracy is, the more unlikely it is. That obvious piece of common sense is dismissed as common delusion, I notice, in the psychological annex to the video Experts Speak Out. (Conspiracy theorists can be every bit as tiresome as people obsessively hostile to conspiracy theorists. Both parties explain disbelief as  bad faith, often enlisting that highfalutin  “Cognitive Dissonance” on their own own side. And both can then cry out: look at my evidence not my motives)

Your point about “distraction” is not so strong. No doubt the Pentagon would be happy, say, if stories about little green visitors distracted the public from any real secret military research going on near Roswell;  or,in the case of Kennedy, if enormous verifiable crimes in South Asia got less public attention than a putative crime against one of the perpetrators. But to claim that  powerful agencies deliberately “stimulated” such distractions is itself a conspiracy theory that requires proof, and such proof would not say anything about 9/11. And I don’t see what a posse of experts arguing a minority case has to do with “the wisdom of crowds”.  The wisdom of crowds, I thought, was found by averaging inexpert guesses in conditions where deviations from the truth will tend to cancel out. And I doubt if the sceptics are in it for profit. These ideas are not likely to advance their careers.   

Moreover,  the engineers and architects who speak in the main part if Experts  Speak Out are not so manifestly silly as the psychologists who speak at the end of it.  They argue that the collapse of Building 7 was a controlled demolition, not explicable by pancaking caused by the office fires caused by  debris blasted out from the giant towers above. They seem cogent and lucid to me, but I am no engineer;  I do not know what they have left out and what they have got wrong. These qualified experts are outnumbered by the qualified experts who take the opposite view. With your scientific background and your interest in the subject you may have come across an equally cogent and lucid by point specific rebuttal of this video. The link you give does not seem to work. If have found such a  link, we would be curious to see it. (The embattled and and ill-tempered rebuttals found in Skeptic and Popular Mechanics are too technical and tiresome to earn my time)

However, I should frankly state to all obsessives that I shall remain unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job, even if it be the case an expert consensus has not yet provided a banal explanation of all the Building 7 phenomena. Some of us refused to believe that the moon landing was a hoax even before NASA, belatedly and with ill grace, explained apparent anomalies in a manner I could understand. More to the point, I would still remain unconvinced even if Nasa could offer no explanation those fluttering flags etc.

 In the balance of evidence, unanswered technical questions should  not  outweigh totally implausible human behaviour.


Such is the case here. In order  to frame some Saudis - citizens of staunch US ally – we are asked to believe that  some unnamed  powerful agency  secretly installed thousands of explosives fuses and detonaters inside in the walls of the three towers. At the same time they arranged for planes to crash into the buildings. The hundreds of agents needed to carried out this vast logistical operation  did so without raising  suspicions of the office workers or security staff and without ever betraying a word of the conspiracy. I shall never buy it.

Still, every argument has a right to a fair hearing and deserves to be met on its strongest ground. Building 7 seems to be the  truthers strongest ground. Perhaps you can link to an expert source specifically giving a point by point rebuttal of this video, preferably one honest  enough to own up to any puzzles that remain. (Every complex event leaves a trail of unanswered puzzles). Perhaps eg the questions about molten steel have not been satisfactorily dealt with.  Possibly many of those expert signatories who merely ask for “further independent investigation” would find the idea of a gigantic conspiracy as implausible as I do.   

 

I have not time  to read any other contributors to this thread, and I shall attend to yours, Yusef, only in so far as deals with points I have raised.

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #14 
George B: "The more elaborate a conspiracy, the more unlikely it is"

Iran-Contra was a hugely elaborate conspiracy, involving hostages in Lebanon, clients in Nicaraguan jungles, arms dealers in Tehran, officials in Washington. The 911 conspiracy itself was elaborate, involving 19 conspirators moving across continents, a mastermind in a cave, Cessna flying lessons, four simultaneous plane hijackings and so on.  The byzantine derivatives/loan scandals of 2008 were described by the Justice Dept as “a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery.”

Sadly, vile human behaviour is often exposed via crime scene forensics. Conspiracy could be described as self-interested collusion and there's a lot of that about, in business and political spheres.



Derek: "seeing the rocking buildings after the planes hit .. I was saying 'these buildings are coming down'

Buildings may have 'rocked' but, in any event, the planes and plane impact were excluded [by NIST and FEMA] as the *cause* of the buildings telescoping, over an hour later. The implosions were caused by ordinary 'office furnishing fires' in upper floors after jet fuel fireballs burned off in minutes, according to the FEMA report (Appendix A).

 "Skyscrapers may sway and shiver but they're perfectly safe"
http://observer.com/2012/10/skyscrapers-may-shake-and-shiver-but-theyre-perfectly-safe-just-stay-away-from-the-windows/


M.I.T-educated engineer and physicist Dr Jeff King addresses the fact the buildings 'oscillated' for a few minutes, nothing more than they would have in hurricane wind, which is why they stabilised as expected:

#t=207
fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #15 
Hi George - I'd be interested as to how your 'common sense' explains how the BBC were able to announce that building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

leftAll photos courtesy of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools..

Like, Tweet and Share...