ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ground zero , Matt Nelson

Reply
Old 11th September 2018, 09:41 PM   #161
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
What do you mean? It is an absolute fact that WTC7's debris removal was expedited so that a new substation could be built (plus the human remains search at WTC7 did not need to be nearly as intensive as in the tower debris piles). And the new WTC7 contains that new substation to this day.
I have added this fact to my book with a few other things, but I had to put the NY Times quotes in the Appendix, else spend days rearranging the pictures and text on all following pages... which I'll do sometime!
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 10:27 PM   #162
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,755
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.
I suggest you really take in what the professionals in this board are telling you. Not just skim over them.

Think...and you're certainly capable of that, you left the no planes crap years ago. But think about what led you to believe them. What fundamental biases you held (unfamiliarity with plane crashes and debris behavior, surface conditions, for instance).

One could deduce easily from reading about NTSB investigations or even just watching air disaster documentaries that the crashes in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon probably aren't the wisest areas for a conspiracy theorist to claim something's amiss.

Now explore other biases and false premises you hold. It may explain your obsession here.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 01:48 AM   #163
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,376
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
You are wrong when you say I don't care about 9/11 truth.

You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.
Have you watched any of Chris Mohr's videos? You seem to be going over a lot of the same ground.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 06:41 AM   #164
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
There is no shortage of books written by people who were actually at ground zero on or in the months after 9/11.

Here are some that I've read:

https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=ii4oHnDfw9gC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=4VD--5-T5IcC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=7EYjl-f3DhAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=Hw9JZu7DWFAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=nOVAyVcEj1QC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=cOlqd4jWigYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=uixp9REhsz8C
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=d83M6yIBao0C
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=pV1AqPxMnqUC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=D3YQIY1ShFYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=F-aFmMRBdbQC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=-_7GlXXvgc8C

There are also quite a few hardcopy photography books that I discussed over at metabunk in this thread.

The NYTimes also has no shortage of extensive articles about survivors and the clean-up (see, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/n...wers-died.html). Seriously, go to your local library (or pay a small fee for an account) and just search the NYTimes for "9/11" or "ground zero" and you will find hundreds of articles that discuss the attacks and aftermath with first hand accounts.

As to what actually happened and why, the 9/11 Commission Report is actually highly comprehensive and well-organized.

The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.

So are you a serious scholarly investigator trying to add some value to this subject for posterity or are you just content to be some rube on the internet who, in his own ignorance of the subject he studies, has assembled a hodgepodge of incomplete information that grossly misleads others? For whatever reason (I suspect a combination of motivated reasoning and an echo chamber effect) you have spent countless hours preparing a book on a subject that studiously ignores the key aspects of that subject. You need to go back to brass tacks and try a different approach to researching because what you've been doing, while it did lead you to a few sources that the typical truther dunces would never find, really isn't treading any new ground that others couldn't themselves tread via google and you are still somehow missing the big picture.

Step back and remember there were tens of thousands of people who were actually directly affected by the attacks or involved in the actual investigation of them. You aren't going to assemble via internet searches a PDF report that provides some amazing evidence for controlled demolition of the towers when the NYPD arson and explosives team didn't find any such evidence during its months at ground zero. Wake up and snap out of it.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 12th September 2018 at 07:07 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 10:08 AM   #165
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post

The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.
Correction to be clear: the FBI spent almost 4 million hours on the PENTTBOM investigation through 2003.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 01:08 PM   #166
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
There is no shortage of books written by people who were actually at ground zero on or in the months after 9/11.

Here are some that I've read:

https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=ii4oHnDfw9gC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=4VD--5-T5IcC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=7EYjl-f3DhAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=Hw9JZu7DWFAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=nOVAyVcEj1QC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=cOlqd4jWigYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=uixp9REhsz8C
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=d83M6yIBao0C
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=pV1AqPxMnqUC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=D3YQIY1ShFYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=F-aFmMRBdbQC
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=-_7GlXXvgc8C

There are also quite a few hardcopy photography books that I discussed over at metabunk in this thread.

The NYTimes also has no shortage of extensive articles about survivors and the clean-up (see, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/n...wers-died.html). Seriously, go to your local library (or pay a small fee for an account) and just search the NYTimes for "9/11" or "ground zero" and you will find hundreds of articles that discuss the attacks and aftermath with first hand accounts.

As to what actually happened and why, the 9/11 Commission Report is actually highly comprehensive and well-organized.

The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.

So are you a serious scholarly investigator trying to add some value to this subject for posterity or are you just content to be some rube on the internet who, in his own ignorance of the subject he studies, has assembled a hodgepodge of incomplete information that grossly misleads others? For whatever reason (I suspect a combination of motivated reasoning and an echo chamber effect) you have spent countless hours preparing a book on a subject that studiously ignores the key aspects of that subject. You need to go back to brass tacks and try a different approach to researching because what you've been doing, while it did lead you to a few sources that the typical truther dunces would never find, really isn't treading any new ground that others couldn't themselves tread via google and you are still somehow missing the big picture.

Step back and remember there were tens of thousands of people who were actually directly affected by the attacks or involved in the actual investigation of them. You aren't going to assemble via internet searches a PDF report that provides some amazing evidence for controlled demolition of the towers when the NYPD arson and explosives team didn't find any such evidence during its months at ground zero. Wake up and snap out of it.
Thank you very much for the list of books. From that list I have American Ground, Report from Ground Zero, What We Saw, and the 9/11 Commission Report. I've read Watching the World Change, but the other books in your list I've never seen.

I have been to the library a couple times to scour the many 9/11 articles in the microfiche NY Times. I need to go again.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 01:59 PM   #167
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thank you very much for the list of books. From that list I have American Ground, Report from Ground Zero, What We Saw, and the 9/11 Commission Report. I've read Watching the World Change, but the other books in your list I've never seen.

I have been to the library a couple times to scour the many 9/11 articles in the microfiche NY Times. I need to go again.
Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 09:18 PM   #168
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,755
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
Still ticks me off that truthers often just gloss over that...just like they gloss over the NIST reports and then try to search for alternatives, though they have not really refuted the content therein, they just don't like it.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 11:26 AM   #169
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
Matt—the above should be easy to answer unless your book isn’t actually interested in documenting what is actually knowable re 9/11. In the three weeks that you’ve been unable to answer that question, I hope you’ve reflected on the cognitive dissonance that is preventing you from answering.

The 9/11 truth “movement” was never a movement and is just dead end. Reread your own book and look and how often you jump to conclusions that do not necessarily follow and repeatedly ask open ended questions in order to imply sinister answers when non-sinister answers exist and are never even discussed. Take your inability to answer the question as a prompt to reevaluate your own biases, then embrace the concept of sunk costs and move on with your life.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 01:43 PM   #170
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
Thanks. The book is about Ground Zero, so a full background on the terrorists would be out of the scope. However, I do get a bit off topic going into the 1st plane impact and lower level explosions.

You make a good point. A proper story, even non-fiction, needs to have the cause as well as the effect. Three or 4 of the WTC terrorists were identified by DNA, apparently. I agree that I should at least name them. (We never learned the names of the terrorists identified by DNA.)

What open-ended question with sinister implications did I ask that made you take notice?
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 01:59 PM   #171
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,744
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Still ticks me off that truthers often just gloss over that...just like they gloss over the NIST reports and then try to search for alternatives, though they have not really refuted the content therein, they just don't like it.
They did manage to find a drawing that was off.

By a whole, entire, inch.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 02:14 PM   #172
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
I was going to post this anyway:

Announcing the release of a PDF picturing most of the WTC plane debris, "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." It's 84 pages, 48 MB. I made a video on my channel CTV911 also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCyBtXLI8U4

CBS shows some Flight 11 debris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coqYraFn-B4#t=2m40s

"Collateral Damages" shows more, mostly from Flight 175: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYt1Xm7LMAE#t=7m28s

Some talk about the 2 engines. The Flight 11 engine was never identified as such. The Flight 175 engine was mythologized as coming from the wrong kind of plane, but it was eventually proven to be the correct model.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2018, 08:45 PM   #173
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
They did manage to find a drawing that was off.

By a whole, entire, inch.
And even that inch - if you are referring to the one I'm thinking of - was irrelevant in the context where it arose. The proof of girder walk off which led to a near enough valid assumption that it needed half the beam width which was thought to be .....

...so the walk off was independent of the actual width in inches - and the initial wrong inch figure was reverse engineered from what was thought to be the actual width. Much to the delight of T Sz who for the umpteenth time in his career was working from false premises...

Last edited by ozeco41; 6th October 2018 at 08:46 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2018, 01:59 PM   #174
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thanks. The book is about Ground Zero, so a full background on the terrorists would be out of the scope. However, I do get a bit off topic going into the 1st plane impact and lower level explosions.

You make a good point. A proper story, even non-fiction, needs to have the cause as well as the effect. Three or 4 of the WTC terrorists were identified by DNA, apparently. I agree that I should at least name them. (We never learned the names of the terrorists identified by DNA.)

What open-ended question with sinister implications did I ask that made you take notice?
Here's one from page 9: "If the City of New York was in charge, then who gave the military orders to prohibit photography before Mayor Giuliani's announcement on the 25th, as we saw with WTC dust investigator Paul Lioy on the 17th?"

This is a stupid question based on a series of false premises. An unspecified military person told someone not take pictures of ground zero on 9/17. From this you infer there must have been military orders in place prohibiting photography at ground zero. Could it be that the military person himself used his own discretion to ask for no pictures (as many firemen and police officers also reportedly did independently out of respect for all of the dead bodies in the rubble)? Joel Meyerowitz, who by all accounts was the first civilian photographer allowed to photograph ground zero extensively, discussed this phenomenon at length. Why doesn't your pdf make any mention of that? And why is there no discussion at all of the legitimate interest those at the scenes had in limiting the prurient and exploitative photography of corpses of deceased victims?

Moreover, even if the military person had been ordered by one or more of his superiors to limit photograph by civilians, so what? There is nothing inconsistent with that (contrary to the implication you attempt to draw) and NYC generally being in charge of ground zero. Anyone in the command chain could have made a judgement call re the limitation on photographers and that call, even though I personally disagree with it, would be defensible on the merits. for the reasons stated above There was no playbook for this kind of event, as the vast amount of writing by the people actually involved makes clear, and so it is not at all surprising that all of the different agencies pouring people and resources into the site were not magically unified as to the limitations applicable limitations placed on civilian photography, among other things, within 1 week or even much longer after the collapse. They were focused on saving peoples' lives, first and foremost, and it should be obvious that the various agencies and individuals were all improvising towards that end.

Does you pdf have any meaningful discussion of this and the various agencies and individuals and their actual goals in exposing themselves to danger day in and day out at ground zero? Not really. Instead, you are content to ask stupid questions based on false premises in a transparent attempt to imply sinister motives to unspecified people.

It's par for the course for your book -- snippets strung together with important information somehow missed (I note you still haven't even fixed the key section re the reason WTC7's clean-up was rushed, by the way), and sad attempts to gin up controversy without any actual interesting or meaningful discussion.

And no this isn't the stupidest of the questions you breathlessly ask in your pdf; it's merely the first of many. I'm not going to bother skimming it over again further to pull out others. You get the idea.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 07:28 PM   #175
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
Thanks for taking the time. To answer your note that I "haven't even fixed the key section re the reason WTC7's clean-up was rushed, by the way" -- As soon as it was brought up, I added (was able to fit) one sentence to the main body: "Perhaps the best reason to rush was the electrical substation. See App. 4, 2018 edits."

I've been making many additions in the Appendix 4, which works as a notepad for items to work into the main document when I have time to deal with the glitchy formatting all at once. A link to the appendix leads to several paragraphs. Under the heading UPDATE 2018 we read: "Perhaps the most important update is in the WTC 7 section, because I unintentionally left out the fact that the electrical substation – like it was in the old WTC 7 – was rebuilt in the new WTC 7. Obviously repairing the electrical grid warranted fast demolition. ..." A few quotes follow from reputable sources.

I'll get that worked into a new version that also fixes the Available Images section to address the lame conspiracy innuendo. It will take some time to weed out such throughout the document. You bring up good points I will steal. Thanks again. I need to get that Joel Meyerowitz book.

Last edited by MattNelson; 10th October 2018 at 07:31 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 12:51 AM   #176
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,895
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
I was going to post this anyway:

Announcing the release of a PDF picturing most of the WTC plane debris, "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." It's 84 pages, 48 MB. I made a video on my channel CTV911 also:
I thought your version of the no-planer fantasy involved remote-controlled planes?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 07:58 AM   #177
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
"Perhaps the best reason to rush was the electrical substation. See App. 4, 2018 edits."
why 'perhaps the best reason' instead of 'the reason'. there is no 'perhaps' or 'best' about it.
your tiptoeing around the actual facts just show you are a conspiracy theorist and could care less about the truth.
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2018, 03:03 PM   #178
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 52
Brainster, I may give up the idea. With all the airplane debris and human remains, I won't support switched planes.

Whip, maybe it was 'the' reason. I wonder sometimes if part of the reason was just to be working on the job at all. People wanted to work fast as part of their patriotic duty.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.