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.
Reply
Old 18th March 2019, 11:49 AM   #81
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,774
I'm hesitant to call any conspiracy theory movement "failed."

Roswell wasn't a "thing" until like... 40-60 years after it happened.

The Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy, while never going away, had really kind of stalled out until Oliver Stone's film... lied it back into the spotlight.

Yeah the Truthers seem to be dying off from... huffing paint fumes or whatever now, but all it takes is one big pop culture moment to put it back into the spotlight.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 18th March 2019 at 11:55 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 18th March 2019, 11:53 AM   #82
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Are the remains of the twin towers to remain, in a spot that is guarded to prevent tampering, forever.
Let's talk about the reality of that for a second. I believe that the folks in charge set aside steel beams that showed signs structural strain, and signs of impact from the aircraft. There was never any need to recover and store the rest of the structure.

That would have been stupid.

Then there is the expense involved with storing the materials. Who pays for that? New York? The US Government? And how long would it need to be stored before it could be scrapped?

The government can't seem to keep its promised financial obligations to the NYC first responders as it is:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...225-story.html

Over 3,000 people worked to clear Ground Zero. Nobody saw evidence of explosives, and there is no way to keep that many people silent.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 18th March 2019, 11:06 PM   #83
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Did you consider that perhaps people accept what the government said because it was supported by evidence you don't understand?
Actually I accept what the evidence says. What the US Government says is of little relevance or interest. Sure they got most of it right... ...and the doubtful bits of technical explanation are not significant.

So I would restate the question:
"Did you consider that perhaps people accept what is supported by evidence?"

To which the answer for me is "Yes!"

The fact that the US Government supports all the key factors makes little difference.. If the US Government said "Santa's Custard*** caused the WTC collapses" I would ignore the US Government and still accept the evidence.

And the fact that this claimant and other so-called "truthers" spouting false claims "...don't understand?" may offer opportunities for explaining reality to those so afflicted. But I doubt it - the trolls of 2019 are too firmly locked into playing their silly games. And very few of them are genuine "truthers".
.
.
.
*** My own parody hypothesis I have used for many years. I wont re-post it.
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 19th March 2019, 02:51 AM   #84
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,891
I have maintained all along that the problem with debating the events of 9/11 is not what the various explanations are...but agreeing to what the actual facts are and what they mean or how they contribute to any explanation.

If you take free fall acceleration as something that is debated as a case in point. First, was there FF? what descended at free wall? How does science explain free fall and how would it apply to whatever was measured at descending at free fall? Memes like free fall is a unique tell tale sign of CD is simply made up from whole cloth.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 19th March 2019, 03:07 AM   #85
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Memes like free fall is a unique tell tale sign of CD is simply made up from whole cloth.
The truther "meme" is that "free fall proves CD" ... It doesn't but how many fail to pick that fundamental error at the foundation of the argument. A false starting premise. Little point debating whether there was FF or FFA when it doesn't prove CD.

That "missing the false starting point" is possibly the second most common generic weakness of "debunker side" arguments. Just look at the current "debate" of the Hulsey scam project. Nearly all focussed on Hulsey's engineering when his starting point - his foundation premise is wrong. His project CANNOT prove "Fire could NOT cause collapse of WTC7" = a fundamental error of logic BEFORE we even look at the engineering technicalities.

Last edited by ozeco41; 19th March 2019 at 03:08 AM.
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 19th March 2019, 04:33 AM   #86
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Let's talk about the reality of that for a second. I believe that the folks in charge set aside steel beams that showed signs structural strain, and signs of impact from the aircraft. There was never any need to recover and store the rest of the structure.

That would have been stupid.

Then there is the expense involved with storing the materials. Who pays for that? New York? The US Government? And how long would it need to be stored before it could be scrapped?
And the implication that there's something nefarious about that is ridiculous: the steel being destroyed sure is compatible with the idea that they did so to hide evidence, but it's also completely compatible with the idea that 19 terrorists ran planes into the WTC and the government was satisfied with the explanation and so got rid of useless steel.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 19th March 2019, 12:19 PM   #87
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And the implication that there's something nefarious about that is ridiculous: the steel being destroyed sure is compatible with the idea that they did so to hide evidence, but it's also completely compatible with the idea that 19 terrorists ran planes into the WTC and the government was satisfied with the explanation and so got rid of useless steel.
The other factor ignored by Truthers is the NYPD. They lost 23 officers, and the Port Authority Police (PAPD) lost 37 officers in the towers on 9-11.

The law of the jungle in NYC is that if an NYPD officer is murdered the gloves come off, and it's all hands on deck until the perpetrator is caught (the same is true for any large city PD). Cops from neighboring agencies offer to help, and if the case drags out, retired NYPD officers converge on the city to lend a hand.

Nobody kills an NYPD officer and gets away with it.

23 NYPD officers were killed on 9-11. If there was any proof of CD, the NYPD would have been kicking in doors in Washinton D.C, Kennebunkport, and Crawford, Texas. There would be no threatening the NYPD into silence.

Think about it, think about the career move of an NYPD detective bringing down the White House. They'd be a legend, they could name their price. That detective or group of detectives would be untouchable within the state of New York. Where is the incentive to remain silent? If there's an New York cop who would go along with some D.C. scumbag conspiracy that ends with a bunch of brother officers dead I haven't met him yet.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 19th March 2019, 01:10 PM   #88
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,260
Ralfyman shows the one lf the worst things about 9/11 Truthers: They are boring. It's just the same old crap endlessly recycled.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 20th March 2019, 01:47 AM   #89
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: 2,810
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Please quote these reports, and explain how it was that this physical evidence was not destroyed, as you previously claimed it had been.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
False. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/


After it had been examined thoroughly. Why do people usually sell things, ralfyman?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...d_Trade_Center



What videos and simulations did the 9/11 Commission use, ralfyman?




How many of the dead hijackers would you like to have put on trial?




Why do you think?



Yes and no- which you would have known had you done any serious research into this. Al Qaeda was initially set up and funded by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments to fight the Russians. Later it went rogue. It was never funded by the US.



Are you saying that the relatives of criminals should also be treated as criminals? If not, what are you saying?




Not really, Anyone who has done a modicum of basic research will have known about this for years. Have you been busy elsewhere?

And to no-one's great surprise, our fearless truthseeker has turned tail and fled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Do we still need to ask why the truth movement failed?
__________________
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 20th March 2019, 01:59 AM   #90
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,159
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Do we still need to ask why the truth movement failed?
Yes, I think we do. The truth movement failed not because of the incompetence of its members, or their disinclination to defend their case against any but the most sycophantic scrutiny, but because its entire purpose was logically impossible. Its aim was to reveal a hidden truth that did not, in fact, exist; it was never possible for it to succeed however able or determined its membership. It was defeated by reality.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 20th March 2019, 08:36 AM   #91
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: 2,810
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, I think we do. The truth movement failed not because of the incompetence of its members, or their disinclination to defend their case against any but the most sycophantic scrutiny, but because its entire purpose was logically impossible. Its aim was to reveal a hidden truth that did not, in fact, exist; it was never possible for it to succeed however able or determined its membership. It was defeated by reality.

Dave
Good point, but good luck with getting anyone on the conspiracy side of the fence to admit it.
__________________
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 20th March 2019, 08:49 AM   #92
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, I think we do. The truth movement failed not because of the incompetence of its members, or their disinclination to defend their case against any but the most sycophantic scrutiny, but because its entire purpose was logically impossible. Its aim was to reveal a hidden truth that did not, in fact, exist; it was never possible for it to succeed however able or determined its membership. It was defeated by reality.

Dave
I've mentioned a few times that in recent years conspiracy theories have gotten... weird.

Okay let's look at what was the Ur example before the Truther movement, the Kennedy assassination.

The general (of course there were variations but this was the most common) was that some... force wanted Kennedy dead. So they got an assassin to kill him from the grassy knoll, faked the evidence to make it look like Oswald had shot him from the School Book Depository, and had Oswald killed before he could say anything.

Now that's not what happened... but at least that's a good story. It's logically internally consistent, it just falls apart if you start looking at outside evidence. If you saw the Kennedy Conspiracy Scenario like in a spy movie, you could follow it as a narrative.

Now let's look at the Twoofers.

The United States government decides to fake a terrorist attack because reasons. So they fly fake planes full of people who never existed into the World Trade Centers which were also rigged to detonate with magic explosives. They then shoot a cruise missile at the Pentagon and say it is a plane. They create a narrative of heroic passengers that didn't exist taking down one of the flights before it can be used in a terrorist attack... I guess to give the story some heroic angle because of reasons. They then... attack a country who was harboring a terrorist who was already an international wanted man and later a country that had nothing to do with anything because... oil I guess.

See the difference? That doesn't make sense even if you believe it. It's just random nonsense that doesn't fit together or form a narrative. The actions and the motivations of the conspirators doesn't make any sense even within the context of the scenario we're being told.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 20th March 2019, 09:22 AM   #93
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,527
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've mentioned a few times that in recent years conspiracy theories have gotten... weird.

Okay let's look at what was the Ur example before the Truther movement, the Kennedy assassination.

The general (of course there were variations but this was the most common) was that some... force wanted Kennedy dead. So they got an assassin to kill him from the grassy knoll, faked the evidence to make it look like Oswald had shot him from the School Book Depository, and had Oswald killed before he could say anything.

Now that's not what happened... but at least that's a good story. It's logically internally consistent, it just falls apart if you start looking at outside evidence. If you saw the Kennedy Conspiracy Scenario like in a spy movie, you could follow it as a narrative.

Now let's look at the Twoofers.

The United States government decides to fake a terrorist attack because reasons. So they fly fake planes full of people who never existed into the World Trade Centers which were also rigged to detonate with magic explosives. They then shoot a cruise missile at the Pentagon and say it is a plane. They create a narrative of heroic passengers that didn't exist taking down one of the flights before it can be used in a terrorist attack... I guess to give the story some heroic angle because of reasons. They then... attack a country who was harboring a terrorist who was already an international wanted man and later a country that had nothing to do with anything because... oil I guess.

See the difference? That doesn't make sense even if you believe it. It's just random nonsense that doesn't fit together or form a narrative. The actions and the motivations of the conspirators doesn't make any sense even within the context of the scenario we're being told.
the whole conspiracy narrative is just so contrived; a lie to cover up another lie they pulled out of the ass.
Venom is online now   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 20th March 2019, 09:29 AM   #94
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
the whole conspiracy narrative is just so contrived; a lie to cover up another lie they pulled out of the ass.
That's the problem with almost all conspiracy theories... the conspirators just... stop lying at a random moment that makes no sense.

Okay so Bush, Chaney, and Co wanted to invade Iraq to take it's precious, precious oil. So they lie and say that Iraq had WEAPONS... OF.... MASS... DESTRUCTION (wait for a moment while the booming echo dies down) so we have an excuse to invade them.

Okay with you so far.

But then we invade Iraq and... they say they can't find Weapons of Mass Destruction. ERrrrrr... why? Why would they do that? Why not... just keep lying? Just say you found some WMDs. Why is that a bigger or harder lie then the first one? Sends someone in to plant some WMDs. Send someone to Kinko's to print out some plans for WMDs in Photoshop. Something, anything! Why stop lying? What are risking by lying at that point that you weren't risking before?

Because for some reason to a lot of people that kind of logically inconsistent story is still more comforting then the said truth, that one of the strongest and most powerful countries in the world let itself get duped by the macho swagger of a third world dictator.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 20th March 2019, 09:34 AM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've mentioned a few times that in recent years conspiracy theories have gotten... weird.

Okay let's look at what was the Ur example before the Truther movement, the Kennedy assassination.

The general (of course there were variations but this was the most common) was that some... force wanted Kennedy dead. So they got an assassin to kill him from the grassy knoll, faked the evidence to make it look like Oswald had shot him from the School Book Depository, and had Oswald killed before he could say anything.

Now that's not what happened... but at least that's a good story. It's logically internally consistent, it just falls apart if you start looking at outside evidence. If you saw the Kennedy Conspiracy Scenario like in a spy movie, you could follow it as a narrative.
My own conspiracy musing about JFK is a lot more boring: someone hired Oswald to kill the President. Hell, it's even plausible, making it even more boring.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 20th March 2019, 09:35 AM   #96
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
the whole conspiracy narrative is just so contrived; a lie to cover up another lie they pulled out of the ass.
The oddest part for me is 7WTC, which was apparently brought down in order to cover up something by destroying documents. Apparently the evil government doesn't have the budget for paper shredders so it used their controlled demolition money instead.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 20th March 2019, 09:43 AM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
My own conspiracy musing about JFK is a lot more boring: someone hired Oswald to kill the President. Hell, it's even plausible, making it even more boring.
There was one that made the rounds a few years ago that I never once came close to actually considered as even a wild possibility, but I did at least "like" for certain usages of the word "Like."

In 1992 a book came out detailing a theory set forth by ballistics expert Howard Donahue that in the chaos and heat of the moment a Secret Service agent, George Warren Hickey, 100% by accident, fired the fatal shot from his AR-15 while attempting to return fire on Oswald's position.

The story goes Oswald opened fire on the motorcade. The first shot missed, the second shot hits Kennedy and Connelly. By this time Hickey, in the car in front of Kennedy, has drawn a bead on Oswald's position, and at the moment he returns fire the motorcade accelerates and he pitches forward from the momentun and accidentally fires the fatal shot, hitting Kennedy in the top/back of the head as he pitches forward from the first shot.

Now this is still pretty outlandish and no more intellectually viable then any other conspiracy theory but it strikes me... I don't know less cynical I guess? Less predatory? There's no "bad guy" added on in this version, no shadowy force with ulterior motives, just one guy with nothing but good intentions who makes a mistake.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 20th March 2019 at 09:50 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 20th March 2019, 09:50 AM   #98
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Yeah, mine's better, but more boring.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 20th March 2019, 10:11 AM   #99
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There was one that made the rounds a few years ago that I never once came close to actually considered as even a wild possibility, but I did at least "like" for certain usages of the word "Like."

In 1992 a book came out detailing a theory set forth by ballistics expert Howard Donahue that in the chaos and heat of the moment a Secret Service agent, George Warren Hickey, 100% by accident, fired the fatal shot from his AR-15 while attempting to return fire on Oswald's position.

The story goes Oswald opened fire on the motorcade. The first shot missed, the second shot hits Kennedy and Connelly. By this time Hickey, in the car in front of Kennedy, has drawn a bead on Oswald's position, and at the moment he returns fire the motorcade accelerates and he pitches forward from the momentun and accidentally fires the fatal shot, hitting Kennedy in the top/back of the head as he pitches forward from the first shot.

Now this is still pretty outlandish and no more intellectually viable then any other conspiracy theory but it strikes me... I don't know less cynical I guess? Less predatory? There's no "bad guy" added on in this version, no shadowy force with ulterior motives, just one guy with nothing but good intentions who makes a mistake.
This author proposes a scenario is preposterous, physically speaking, let alone that there was no physical evidence of the AR-15 round.

It is good that you never bought into the theory.
bknight 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 20th March 2019, 10:20 AM   #100
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,527
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because for some reason to a lot of people that kind of logically inconsistent story is still more comforting then the said truth, that one of the strongest and most powerful countries in the world let itself get duped by the macho swagger of a third world dictator.
On this point, I think it reveals a really naive view of the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. In the conspiracists' eyes the U.S. has unchallenged sway over them in the sense that everyone there is just a poor goat herder or living in "caves", forgetting about the relatively luxurious lifestyle many Arab, Egyptian, Turkish elites live in the western "Middle East". Nobody there could possibly stand up to the U.S., even with asymmetric tactics like terrorism. They're just dirt poor, Mosque visiting, caravan trading Muslims...
Venom is online now   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 20th March 2019, 10:57 AM   #101
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,864
Some people (too many people) are just wired to see conspiracy in everything. None of the Pizzagate crowd have backed off on their CT, in fact they continue to expand it. I haven't looked but I'm certain I can find charges of a false flag operation in New Zealand's mosque shooting tied to George Soros.

The bottom line for the sea of JFK Assassination CT's is that there is no way a nobody like Lee Harvey Oswald could just shoot and kill John F Kennedy. The facts be damned. Nobody wanted to believe it was possible, and the CT's took advantage of this skepticism. Today we all know what one man with a gun can do because we get new examples on a daily basis.

The bottom line on 9-11 was the idea that the USA could be caught with its pants down on every operational level was inconceivable to most Americans at the time. The CT's fed on this incredulity because it was easier for some to feel that we were manipulated into a war with Iraq instead of accepting some hard facts about who we elected into power, and who oversees the intelligence apparatus, and the public's overall laziness when it comes to fact checking, and keeping a tight leash on our government. We invaded Iraq because we wanted to. Anyone who had sat in a bar between 1992 and 2000 often heard how "The US should have finished the job in Iraq." There was never a counter argument to this idea. For some reason it's easier for CTists to believe 9-11 was all faked instead accepting that after 9-11 Americans went a little crazy.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 20th March 2019, 11:00 AM   #102
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Some people (too many people) are just wired to see conspiracy in everything. None of the Pizzagate crowd have backed off on their CT, in fact they continue to expand it. I haven't looked but I'm certain I can find charges of a false flag operation in New Zealand's mosque shooting tied to George Soros.
I saw a headline this morning already that Rush Limbaugh declared the Christchurch shooting a "false flag".
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 20th March 2019, 11:58 AM   #103
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 621
All of the question on 9/11 have been answered?

Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
The 9/11 Truth Movement failed because the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions gradually moved on once they got those answers. This allowed the movement to be taken over by conspiracy believers who welded a political agenda to patently false technical claims.
I must have missed something. The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?
paloalto 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 20th March 2019, 12:06 PM   #104
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I must have missed something. The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?
Man of straw. I made no such claim. Try again.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 20th March 2019, 12:22 PM   #105
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,189
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I must have missed something. The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?
A question you can't answer? I thought you had pre-knowledge of 9/11? What happened?

People were murdered on 9/11 because of the act of 19 terrorists when they faked hijackings.

As for KalM and NalH, if they were stopped, the plot would have had 17 terrorists, and maybe only 3 planes (no Flt93?) - thus your BS is not Spock like.

This is why 9/11 truth failed (okay, 9/11 truth has not failed to fool gullible and paranoid people), pushing ideas and not able to make a point. No, 3000 people where not murdered because 2 terrorists were not arrested due to coordination failure between FBI and CIA. 19 terrorists did it.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 20th March 2019, 12:59 PM   #106
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I must have missed something. The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?
They simply did not act on the information nd pass it to the FBI. There is no conspiracy here, just bureaucratic snafu. Have you ever forgot something?
bknight 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 20th March 2019, 01:27 PM   #107
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Man of straw. I made no such claim. Try again.
Well, well, well, did you post the following post on March 13, 2019, in post #54.

"The 9/11 Truth Movement failed because the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions gradually moved on once they got those answers."

As I said before the main question that came out of 9/11 was in the question I had posted before below:

"The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?"

So did you not claim that "the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions gradually moved on once they got those answers.", if the main question, in fact the most important question that came out of the 9/11 attacks, was why did the CIA not give the information that they had on Mihdhar and Hazm to the FBI, has never been answered? Almost 3000 people were brutally murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists because this information was withheld from the FBI.

So your post "Man of straw. I made no such claim. Try again", unfortunately is pure bull ******

Last edited by paloalto; 20th March 2019 at 01:28 PM.
paloalto 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 20th March 2019, 01:45 PM   #108
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A question you can't answer? I thought you had pre-knowledge of 9/11? What happened?

People were murdered on 9/11 because of the act of 19 terrorists when they faked hijackings.

As for KalM and NalH, if they were stopped, the plot would have had 17 terrorists, and maybe only 3 planes (no Flt93?) - thus your BS is not Spock like.

This is why 9/11 truth failed (okay, 9/11 truth has not failed to fool gullible and paranoid people), pushing ideas and not able to make a point. No, 3000 people where not murdered because 2 terrorists were not arrested due to coordination failure between FBI and CIA. 19 terrorists did it.
Yet another post that is beyond stupid.

Mihdhar and Hazmi used their credit cards to pay for the tickets for 10 of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11. Even George Tenet, Director of the CIA, who had withheld information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI, said that it was the fault of the FBI because 10 tickets used by the terrorists on 9/11 was paid for by Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Tenet conveniently left out the fact that it was his orders that had been sent to managers at at FBI HQ's to block the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by the Cole bombing investigators.
paloalto 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 20th March 2019, 01:58 PM   #109
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Well, well, well, did you post the following post on March 13, 2019, in post #54.

"The 9/11 Truth Movement failed because the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions gradually moved on once they got those answers."
I did indeed.

Quote:
As I said before the main question that came out of 9/11 was in the question I had posted before below:

"The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?"
You can assert whatever you want. Even believe that because it comes from you it must be the most important thing ever. Doesn't change facts. That specific subject was not the subject of my post referenced above.

Further, I do not accept your claim that the most important question of 9/11 was why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazm OR that this question remains unanswered.

Most of us - you excluded apparently - figured that out years ago.

You deliberately attempted to introduce a man of straw, claiming I made a claim I didn't make, simply as a pathetic excuse to introduce your little pet project.

Sorry, not interested.

My previous post stands. All the genuine truth seekers got the answers they were looking for years ago. All that remain today are POE's, attention seeking trolls and the hopelessly unreachable.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 20th March 2019, 02:01 PM   #110
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
They simply did not act on the information nd pass it to the FBI. There is no conspiracy here, just bureaucratic snafu. Have you ever forgot something?
There is no conspiracy here, just bureaucratic snafu.

What "bureaucratic snafu."!

Please post a link for this statement. You will really have to prove this. At this point as far as I know, there has never been any information provided by the CIA to back up this "bull ****" claim".

This claim has been repeatably posted on this forum when the poster has no other explanation for the completely bizarre behavior of the CIA prior to the attacks on 9/11. Both the CIA and FBI HQ's had information over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that al Qaeda terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that both agencies had been getting numerous warnings about since April 2001.

Since both agencies had access to Mihdhar's credit card number, they could have found these terrorists in a very short time, if they had really wanted to.
paloalto 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 20th March 2019, 02:14 PM   #111
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
There is no conspiracy here, just bureaucratic snafu.

What "bureaucratic snafu."!

Please post a link for this statement. You will really have to prove this. At this point as far as I know, there has never been any information provided by the CIA to back up this "bull ****" claim".

This claim has been repeatably posted on this forum when the poster has no other explanation for the completely bizarre behavior of the CIA prior to the attacks on 9/11. Both the CIA and FBI HQ's had information over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that al Qaeda terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that both agencies had been getting numerous warnings about since April 2001.

Since both agencies had access to Mihdhar's credit card number, they could have found these terrorists in a very short time, if they had really wanted to.
If you like this topic so much you should really start a thread on it where it would be,... oh I don't know,... on topic.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 20th March 2019, 02:16 PM   #112
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I did indeed.



You can assert whatever you want. Even believe that because it comes from you it must be the most important thing ever. Doesn't change facts. That specific subject was not the subject of my post referenced above.

Further, I do not accept your claim that the most important question of 9/11 was why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazm OR that this question remains unanswered.

Most of us - you excluded apparently - figured that out years ago.

You deliberately attempted to introduce a man of straw, claiming I made a claim I didn't make, simply as a pathetic excuse to introduce your little pet project.

Sorry, not interested.

My previous post stands. All the genuine truth seekers got the answers they were looking for years ago. All that remain today are POE's, attention seeking trolls and the hopelessly unreachable.
Great!
Since you have posted the following:

"Further, I do not accept your claim that the most important question of 9/11 was why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazm OR that this question remains unanswered." you can then answer the following questions.

What was the most important question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and your comment "Further, I do not accept your claim that this question, (why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazmi) remains unanswered", then explain the answer to this question, and back it up with a link to a reliable source.

I doubt very much, if you will ever be able to do this.

Last edited by paloalto; 20th March 2019 at 02:31 PM.
paloalto 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 20th March 2019, 02:36 PM   #113
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,698
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Great!
Since you have posted the following:

"Further, I do not accept your claim that the most important question of 9/11 was why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazm OR that this question remains unanswered." you can then answer the following questions.

What was the most important question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and your comment "Further, I do not accept your claim that this question, (why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazmi) remains unanswered", then explain the answer to this question, and back it up with a link to a reliable source.

I doubt very much, if you will ever be able to do this.
This has been explained to you numerous times. Why was the information not shared? Because back then it was not common practice for the CIA and the FBI to share anything. The CIA's tactics for intel gathering often excluded any usefulness to the FBI for any chance of prosecution if they had the info. "The Wall" was created for this reason. Did "The Wall" prevent such communication? No. It was just policy and common practice back then.

The question you are repeatedly asked (and never answer) is, Was there any actually information (without hindsight) that clearly pointed to the plan to carry out the events of 9/11? Did anyone knowingly hide this knowledge with the intent to allow the attacks to take place?

The answer to both of these questions is, NO. This is why no one was prosecuted even though all the "facts" you post come from official investigations of the event.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 20th March 2019 at 03:50 PM.
DGM 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 20th March 2019, 02:55 PM   #114
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
OK I'm going to disagree with several members here from both "sides" - and recall that I fundamentally disagree with the polarised "only two sides" concept.

Let's go back to the OP question of "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?"

My hypothesis is that the primary reasons the truth movement failed are at the level of strategy. Put simply:

The Truth Movement chose an unwinnable main target - four/five false technical claims. So bad strategy. AND to compound the error they persisted stubbornly in arguing details when they had "lost the plot"

So My Hypothesis:
The TM focussed on technical claims - and mostly ignored the political issues;
AND
Failed to shift focus when the technical claims were shown to be false.

Then they locked in their losing position by continuing to argue irrelevant details. As I said some years back (and thanks DGM's"sig"):
'"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41'
... most debate has focussed on "leaves in the technical forest" when they should have shifted to the political "forest".

OK - that's probably too much metaphor. I was about to post some examples but I see that DGM has commented - so I'll end this post and probably come back with the examples in a later post.
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 20th March 2019, 03:14 PM   #115
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This has been explained to you numerous times. Why was the information not shared?...
The question you are repeatedly asked (and never answer) is, Was there any actually information (without hindsight) that clearly pointed to the plan to carry out the events of 9/11? Did anyone knowingly hide this knowledge with the intent to allow the attacks to take place?

The answer to both of these questions is, NO. This is why no one was prosecuted even though all the "facts" you post come investigations of the event.
A comprehensive explanation DGM...and the umpteenth time paloalto has been given that information.

And it is debate of the "politics" - which BTW is the one aspect that paloalto has right even tho he hasn't a clue as to how to argue it.

Now back on the OP question "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?"
...we see that paloalto is in the right "forest" BUT posting poor arguments and focussed on details.

And THAT is the main reason I suggest that the truth movement has failed. Paloalto is one of the more persistent truthers AND he argues in the right "forest" BUT his arguments are weak...

The truth movement failed because:
1) Far too much attention on false technical claims persisting long after the claims were known to be false;
2) Far too little attention on the political realities of lead up - causation- the event - and - the consequences of 9/11
3) AND No evidence that ANY truther can competently argue those "political" aspects OR even put them into a proper context.
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 20th March 2019, 03:24 PM   #116
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,159
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
OK I'm going to disagree with several members here from both "sides" - and recall that I fundamentally disagree with the polarised "only two sides" concept.

Let's go back to the OP question of "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?"

My hypothesis is that the primary reasons the truth movement failed are at the level of strategy.
I think, actually, it's more fundamental than that. Let me ask you the question that has rather been left hanging here:

What, for the truth movement, would have constituted success?

As long as there isn't an answer to that question - and I rather believe that in fact there isn't, and never will be - then the answer is "Because it could not have done anything else but fail."

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 20th March 2019, 03:29 PM   #117
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,523
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I must have missed something. The big question, in fact the main question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was why did the CIA withhold information on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI. Almost 3000 people in the US were murdered because of this. You claim that this question has been answered, I must have missed this, so can you fill me and everyone one else on this forum on the answer. Why did the CIA withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI?
paloalto,

are YOU a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

If you answer yes - could you please elucidate on that? Who among the Triuthers is moving with you? Are there any "XYZ for 9/11 Truth" who claim you as one of their own? Are there any "XYZ for 9/11 Truth" that you proudly boast membership of? Which 9/11 Truth Conferences have invideted you to speak, which 9/11 Truth blogs spread your work, which 9/11 Truth leaders have used photo ops with you, or you with them? Which 9/11 Truth petitions have you signed in recent years, which have you set up yourself, and how many signatures did you collect?

There are many kinds of 9/11 Truthers, with various styles, vastly different levels of knowledge and intelligence, proposing all sorts of hypotheses from the almost plausible to the astoundingly outlandish; the 9/11 Truthers have split into countless denominations that fight each other with abandon. There is only one thing they all have in common - one and only one defining characteristic that they all share - here is the best, the only viable definition for the term "9/11 Truther": "A person who persists in being essentially wrong about what happened on 9/11".

So, paloalto: Are you a 9/11 Truther?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 20th March 2019, 04:03 PM   #118
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,260
I always wondered why MIHOP is so very much more popular in the Truth Movement then LIHOP. Both are worthless BS, but at least with LIHOP you don't have the idiocy of trying to disprove indisputable facts:that four airliners were hijacked by Mideastern terrorist and flown into the WTC and the Pentagon and a meadow in Pennslyvania.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 20th March 2019, 05:28 PM   #119
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think, actually, it's more fundamental than that. Let me ask you the question that has rather been left hanging here:

What, for the truth movement, would have constituted success?
Agreed - but I prefer one step at a time. Given that the need I am identifying is to get debate onto the actual topic of this thread - probably overly optimistic - THEN the question of what the goal is arises in that debate. The thread is and has been thrashing around in partial arguments about details. Recently about proving paloalto's assertions wrong. And not addressing the full scope of the OP Topic.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As long as there isn't an answer to that question* - and I rather believe that in fact there isn't**, and never will be*** - then the answer is "Because it could not have done anything else but fail."****...
But that is begging the question - several of them. If we agree the "big picture" has two sets of issues of concern which are "political and technical". Technical more or less addressed and essentially shown to be false. The "political" not addressed at anything like the same rigour of argument. So - your points:
* True but setting the goal is part - probably step one - of the debate.
** Probably true - present tense "isn't" - which is actually part of the problem of no effective debate.
*** That is your guess of "probability". I disagree but let's be careful about the polarisation. It is not "I guess there never will be" >>your position. Nor am I taking the opposite extreme of "I guess there will be". I am saying "We don't know because there has been insufficient debate." AKA "I'm not persuaded...yet".
**** The "could not have done anything else..." is presumptive until the debate has taken place and has adequately covered the scope of the topic. I'm saying it hasn't...yet.
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 20th March 2019, 05:45 PM   #120
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I always wondered why MIHOP is so very much more popular in the Truth Movement then LIHOP. Both are worthless BS, but at least with LIHOP you don't have the idiocy of trying to disprove indisputable facts:that four airliners were hijacked by Mideastern terrorist and flown into the WTC and the Pentagon and a meadow in Pennslyvania.
My frustration with most debate of "MIHOP" or "LIHOP" is that no one defines what they mean by "IT" and they assume "IT" means all of 9/11. I have many times said "nonsense" to "IT" being one thing.

9/11 was a lot of bits of action and decision making variously interconnected or independent. And at many levels from whole of Government down through the mid levels of agencies and parts of agencies down to failures of individual persons.

And the usually ignored aspect of LIHOOI.

So - examples only:
(a) there can be no doubt that 9/11 was not prevented and that at very least is LIHOOI at whole of US Government level. Implicitly accepted by most even if they dont use the acronym.

(b) It is accepted that inter agency communication was a problem. The SOP's at the time REQUIRED "walls"... So that SOP REQUIRED inter-agency LIHOP or MIHOP; AND

(c) There must have been many failures at individual and team level. Whether they were MIHOP, LIHOP or LIHOOI is probably situation specific or even ambiguous of definition.

So my position - the debate of M/LIHOP treated implicitly as if "IT" was one homogeneous entity subject to a unified central control....misses the point. Rational debate must consider the segmentation of responsibility and the various levels of delegated or divided control.

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th March 2019 at 05:46 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
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 09:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.