Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **proldic** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:29 pm

re: DRG Bing-fucking-go

by **greencrow0** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:24 pm

> "Griffin has one peculiar argument which he constantly repeats: that the existence of the "massive" core columns was "denied" by the 9/11 Commission." This is not an 'Argument' The structured steel cores were photographed and the photographs of the construction of these cores are in the public domain. Go to WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM. to see for yourself. As I said earlier. The debate is over. The CD people won. Unless you want an open public debate, with your experts and engineers vs. our experts and engineers. Why will we never see such a public debate? Go back to point one. We won.

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:12 pm

I for one would love to see such an open and public debate, with qualified experts if possible. I respect Griffin, but he's a theologician, and his opinions on the construction of skyscrapers are of as much value as mine: I'm a Web designer. I started this thread with an open mind, and I've learned an awful lot. But I have to say that the arguments in favor of CD were growing weaker every additional page. Yup, it sure looked like controlled demolition, but that's about all you can say about it. Anyone who's ever stood underneath those towers knows how truly friggin' HUGE they were. In my mind, considering the damage done by the planes and the fires, there's no way they could have gone any other way than straight down.

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:12 pm

Greencrow - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is not an 'Argument' The structured steel cores were photographed and the photographs of the construction of these cores are in the public domain. Go to WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM. to see for yourself.<hr></blockquote> What are you talking about? I know that the core consisted of steel columns. The point is that Griffin makes an argument out of the apparent failure of the 9/11 Commission to mention it. Now that we have the NIST report, it's rather irrelevant what the Kean Commission, which wasn't set up to analyse the collapse of the towers, had to say about it. If you're going to respond to my posts, why don't you read them first.

by **yablonsky** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:34 pm

it's rather irrelevant what the Kean Commission, which wasn't set up to analyse the collapse of the towers, had to say about it. right. keep in mind webster tarpley's observation: the kean commission was set up to assume the governments stance on events of the day, then to go about showing how indeed that was the case - as Tarpley correctly asserts: "a colossal execise in begging the question." prior to any questions regarding physical evidence is the need for a plain acknowledgement that a basic investigation was never done. Due to the scale of the days events, such negligence is mind boggling and unacceptable as explanation either in part or whole. again to borrow from Tarpley, the white house and the offical version of 9/11 are "inextricaly linked"... burden of proof does not lie with controlled demolition proponents at this stage: that perversely twisting the issue my friend..

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:05 pm

I think we can all agree that the official investigations have been sorely lacking. But the argument that the Kean commission was merely asked to confirm the official version no matter what is rather specious. You'd have to at least account for the possibility that if the official version is true (I'm not saying it is, but what if), a proper investigation would simply confirm this. The problem with the CD theory is that it is so unlikely (again, in my humble Web designer's opinion) that it discredits the many other legitimate questions we should be asking. And it bothers me to see Griffin, who does indeed raise many of those questions, is going around claiming there's "no doubt" the buildings were brought down with explosives. My take is: if you can't convincingly prove a certain theory, stay away from it. All you're doing is giving your opponents more ammo.

by **NewKid** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:24 pm

Qutb, I agree with you on the rationale of the govt in not releasing the tapes. My point is not so much why the govt doesn't release them as why normal people and journalists aren't calling for their release. If it's really so obvious what happened at the Pentagon (something Hoffman seems quite certain of, by the way) then it should be easy to establish. We have plenty of journalists and citizen bloggers writing stories making fun of conspiracy theories as self-evidently ridiculous. They obviously have taken the time to do research on some of the conspiracy websites and write their stories. And they seem very emphatic in the conclusions, with no room at all for the possibility of deviation from the official story. Yet they have done so without even attempting to substantiate the official claims with something as easy as the tapes or satellite footage. Very easy, no technical arguments needed -- just ask for the footage and do what Scott Bingham did if they say no. If they're going to ignore the discussion altogether as low on the priority list, fine, but that's not what they're doing. Scientific American and Popular Mechanics as well as numerous mainstream journalists (although they mostly focus on the conspiracist's mindset and don't bother addressing the arguments) have entered the fray. If they are going to do the undertaking, then it seems to me that these are some of the most basic things to ask -- Can I see the video of the jet hitting? Can l see the security tapes of all 19 hijackers boarding the plane, etc? Start with the very basic stuff and go from there. We had a massive failure of the most basic security measures to defend the National Military Command Center with quite a bit of notice after the first plane hit in New York. And we have a very large object that supposedly crashed into it. I don't think a FOIA is too much to ask of journalists who have thrust themselves into the fray by writing these articles. I have to say that I was quite unimpressed with the arguments in the Popular Mechanics piece. I thought the whole presentation of the issue was superficial and tendentious and could have been much better. If they are really seriously attempting to discredit these theories, then why not get someone from implosionworld or whoever to list "all of the reasons why the assertion is, to put it delicately, ludicrously assinine." If you're going to debunk, why not debunk with the best arguments and evidence (with footnotes preferrably) that address what's really being argued? It's a rather strange phenomenon to see arguments being dismissed as so obviously wrong without seeing the explanation why. Hard to assess the credibility of an argument that's never actually made. (This is one of the reasons why I applaud you for taking the time to make it. But after the all the bitching the MSM does about conspiracy theories proliferating, you shouldn't be the only one doing it.) BTW, I completely agree with you about DRG. I think it's quite odd the he has stepped forward as a leading figure on all this. This entire enterprise is a hall of mirrors. Sort of related to that Qutb, I have another question for you. Noam Chomsky and the institutional left have been extremely hesistant to entertain any sort of conspiracy discussions on 9-11. Unlike you, they don't actually review what's out there and come to a conclusion; instead they just dismiss it as not possible and move on. It's not their conclusions that bother me so much as the fact that they think the questions were not even worth asking in the first place. And it would be one thing if they were skeptical of the official story, but just thought wading into it was a waste of time. But people like Chomsky have actually written books premised on the theory that it was blowback and that it really was the 19 hijackers and it all happened the way the official story said it did. Again, it seems to me that if you're advancing an argument like that, you have some sort of duty to make sure the premise is correct. I know this has been discussed on here before somewhere, but I don't think the "left gatekeeper" argument explains enough. I would be interested in hearing your views on this issue. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 11/8/05 6:26 pm

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:25 pm

After the NIST report has been released, the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who choose to espouse the controlled demolition theory. Of course NIST didn't address this theory except in one dismissive sentence, just as they didn't devote a separate chapter to the theory that the twin towers might have been sucked down by a giant magnet in the basement. What they did do, however, was to provide a very detailed and sophisticated analysis of what caused the towers to collapse. Those who, for whatever reason, choose to argue in favor of the controlled demolition theory, has to provide a rebuttal of NIST's analysis, in addition to providing their own analysis and evidence. Anything else is willful ignorance. As for the open debate called for by Greencrow, the peer-reviewed <a href="http://www.iabse.ethz.ch/journalsei/asanauthor/pdf/Guidelines.for.Authors.3.pdf" target="top">journals</a> of the structural engineering community is an excellent place for that. Anyone with the proper credentials who wants to dispute NISTs findings is free to do so there.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Those who, for whatever reason, choose to argue in favor of the controlled demolition theory, has to provide a rebuttal of NIST's analysis, in addition to providing their own analysis and evidence. Anything else is willful ignorance.<hr></blockquote> I agree, Qutb. Though, just to be clear, I feel I owe it to you to provide a more complete case for controlled demolition, not the NIST. You've obviously put a great deal of work into your side of the debate, and I should do the same if I am going to continue promoting mine. I was actually not aware that the September 05 NIST report covered the collapse until you pointed it out in an earlier post. I had thought it was focused on safety implications for high rise building design and didn't bother to review it. I've been working on correcting that mistake, but it'll be some time before I can formulate much of a response.

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:52 pm

NewKid - Yes, I agree about the lack of curiosity of the media, it's almost pathological. In the US, investigative journalism is practically dead. Dan Hopsicker has the story of the century (well, actually several stories of the century) and he's completley ignored. Mohammed Atta's girlfriend? If she isn't a runaway bride, who cares. In Europe, there's still some good journalism. I wish some European journalists would take a closer look at 9/11, but if you do a google search and what turns up is a hundred sites of the "SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED CONTROLLED DEMOLITION" variety, then I can understand why they aren't interested. The security tapes of all the hijackers boarding is something I'd really like to see myself. While I'm sure that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and that the planes really were hijacked, there's no way of being sure about the identities of the hijackers without actually seeing them board the plane. Of course, I'd like to see the Pentagon tapes too, but I think I know what they show. The PM piece could have been much more convincing, if they had put more effort into it. The point is, those who read PM or Scientific American don't believe those theories anyway. So they weren't writing that to convince anyone or "discredit" the theories, it wasn't "let me show you where you're wrong", it was more like "see what those ignorant people believe". I'm not sure what to think about Chomsky. I should perhaps clarify my own position on 9/11. I've drawn two conclusions from the available evidence which I think are pretty well founded and which I'm pretty certain of: 1. It was a real attack by the group/network/organization associated with Bin Laden (but not necessarily led or directed by him), whether or not they call themselves "al-Qaida". The genesis of the plot that would become 9/11 was the "Bojinka plot", planned by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others back in 1995. So I don't think it was "false flag" as such. There's quite a lot of evidence to support this, from foreknowledge all around the world to testimonies by Moussaoui and others. And there's no doubt that these people exist. I don't think they're just patsies or "Emmanuel Goldstein". Furthermore, they aren't "cave dwellers". Bin Laden likes to cultivate the image of a battle-hardned warrior living in a cave, but I don't think he spends much time in that cave of his. He's a billionaire drug lord, after all. And these people have some very interesting connections, from Pakistani and Saudi intel to Swiss bankers and German neo-Nazis. 2. The top echelons of American military/intelligence knew all about it and made sure the attack proceeded unimpeded. I don't believe there was a "stand-down order". They would never do it overtly like that, way too risky. Instead, they scheduled war-games to confuse the system. It worked, and that way there's plausible deniability. No one gave any orders to stand down. It was just unfortunate that the wargams were scheduled that day, that's all. Ptech software may have played a role, too, though exactly which I'm not sure. So I'm in the "lihop" camp, not "mihop". Or maybe somewhere in between. Once you start crossing the line into "mihop", it gets awfully speculative, there's not much (but some) evidence to support it, and it gets very improbable. I think. And way too risky. There are some obvious questions, though, which seem to challenge the lihop paradigm. For instance, how could they know for sure that the hijackers wouldn't change the date after they had scheduled the wargames. What was the CIA station chief in Dubai discussing with Bin Laden (and Turki al-Faisal) in July 2001. If those Pentagon tapes should happen to show a Tomahawk, I'll join the mihop camp. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Chomsky doesn't acknowledge "lihop", though I don't think he rules it out completely. What he's saying is that there isn't any evidence and we'll never find any. I have to disagree with that. If nothing else, Bush sat there like an idiot while the Secret Service did nothing, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread. That should tell you something, and then you can take it from there. And the wargames is the smoking gun. Chomsky doesn't agree, and that's the same position he's always taken on the political assassinations of the 60s. Someone who's been following his carreer more closely than I have could perhaps say more about it. I've never been interested in Chomsky, I've only read a couple of his books many years ago. But I know one thing: shortly after 9/11, when demand for his "alternative" point of view rose sharply, he raised his speaking fee substantially. That makes him a war profiteer, doesn't it?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:15 pm

I doubled my speaking fee this year. Still no one pays me to speak, but I fee l better about myself.

by **yablonsky** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:30 am

Hopsicker has the story of the century (well, actually several stories of the century) and he's completley ignored. Mohammed Atta's girlfriend? If she isn't a runaway bride, who cares. don't forget that "Welcome to Terrorland" early uncovers/makes mention of an assasination attempt againt president bush on the mornong he goes off to read a story about a goat...you never hear about that either..

by **NewKid** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:03 am

Qutb, I agree with your comments about journalists. My only point is that the fact that PM's missions is "see what those ignorant people believe" and not "let me show you where you're wrong" is that it detracts from their credibility as a source. I completely agree with you on their agenda, it's just because that is their mission, it's a source that cannot be fully trusted. Maybe what they're saying is all true, and maybe it isn't. But people who are genuinely interested in what happened unfortunately can't rely on them to be presenting an open and honest discussion. On the Pentagon, I have to remain agnostic until further evidence. Yes, there are eyewitnesses, and yes it's possible that the impact could have been from a plane, and yes Meyssan and a bunch of others are disinformational, but all of that is far from convincing to me about what did happen. As you have noted in the WTC context, eyewitness testimony is quite unreliable, and the witnesses have never been tested in any meaningful way. Much of what I've seen about their statements is not very convincing and is double or triple hearsay in any event. McGowan has a piece on this in his 9-11 series (Act II Addendum II) where he covers some of this, but even apart from that, I've just never been too impressed with what I've seen. Maybe there is good evidence for it, I just haven't seen it yet. For me, there are just too many possibilities to be convinced one way or the other absent authenticated video/photographic evidence or something equally as definitive. And while this is a slightly different question, I do have a little trouble with Hanjour piloting the plane as well. BTW, McGowan discussued a third theory on Silverstein in his discussion of "pull it" -- that his remarks were intentionally disinformational and were "essentially planting a red herring in the 9-11 skeptics movement by delivering a very carefully crafted bit of deliberate ambiguity." (Act III Addendum II.) Don't know about that, but then I've never thought Silverstein was good evidence of much of anything to begin with. Qutb, one more question. This is pretty speculative, but what do you think most of the inside the beltway pundits and Washington types believe privately? Do you think they uncritically buy the official story or do you think they all sort of assume it was (at least) lihop, and just know they're not really supposed to talk about it? Or something in between?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:00 am

Just a little cursory research should have been enough to reveal to you who wrote the PM piece and why. Ben Chertoff is first cousing to Michael Chertoff --homeland insecurity czar. Doesn't that say anything to you?? Not only that, but in the month before the 911 piece was published, their entire senior editorial staff was sacked and 20something year old Ben Chertoff allowed as senior editor...Duh....

by **Qutb** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:44 pm

NewKid, Yes, the PM piece is obviously not an authoritative source of anything. People should read the NIST report, if they're in doubt about the towers. I've read the rumor about Ben Chertoff being Michael's first cousin, by the way, but I've never seen anyone substantiating it (Cristopher Bollyn of American Free Press, not a credible source by any strectch of the imagination, claims that they have "learned" that he is, that Ben himself denied it, but that his mother confirmed it). Anyway, if that's true, then perhaps it really was a hit-piece, meant to discredit serious inquiry into 9/11 by highlighting the far-out theories. If so, the point would be to equate alternative analysis with controlled demolition and no plane-theories, and perhaps do such a sloppy job of debunking that those who believed those theories would become even more convinced of their veracity. It was a sophisticated "morale operation", if that's what it was. Pentagon: what did it for me was the lamp-posts, which must have been clipped by a plane the size of a 757. Also, photos of <a href="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html" target="top">landing gear</a> that mathces precisely a 757's landing gear. I addition, while eye witness accounts differ, there are a lot of people who claim to have seen a plane crash into the Pentagon, and many more who have seen a plane heading in that direction. <img src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/065-large.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/184.jpg" style="border:0;"/> So I think it was Flight 77, but I can understand why doubts linger. And I doubt Hani flew it, or the same Hani who couldn't fly a Cessna properly, anyway. I don't buy McGovan's theory about Silverstein. I think he was talking about evacuating the building. As for those who seized on that quote and claimed that "pull" means "demolish with explosives", it could have been a simple misunderstanding, but, you know, why not do a little fact-checking before running the story. Inside the beltway, who knows, I've never been there. Since I think "lihop" is pretty well founded, and the evidence of it isn't that hard to come by, I'd like to think many "inside the beltway" harbor the same suspicions. Remember that two of Washington's most senior "liberal" media personalities were among those who received anthrax letters. I think the media got the message.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

The CD people won?

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

kean commission irrelevant, i agree

Re: kean commission irrelevant, i agree

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Burden of prood and public debate

Re: Burden of prood and public debate

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

hopsicker

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Qutb and newkid Ben Chertoff Wrote PM piece...

Re: Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Who is online