Photo: macten (CC)
Last month, Counterknowledge.com kindly published my post discussing the manner in which the propagators of 9/11 conspiracy theories and their adherents - the so-called ‘truthers’ - operate, with particular emphasis on their disclaimer that they are “just asking questions”. Just for a change, I decided that it was high time that the conspiracy theorists should be put on the spot, and should be obliged to explain the logical flaws and factual fallacies behind claims which placed responsibility for the atrocities of 11th September 2001 on the US government rather than Al Qaeda. This post attracted more attention than I expected, and some ‘truthers’ did post comments claiming to have rebutted the 15 questions I posed. Unfortunately, all of them fluffed the challenge.
In my post, I said:
This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:
Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. Nosuppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers.
The “rebuttals” I received were - needless to say - full of suppositions, speculation and unsupported assertions, with a dearth of detailed, verifiable evidence. The ‘responses’ offered by one ‘truther’ - Bill Glitner - were almost Clintonian in their evasiveness, and in this case boiled down to “I don’t know, and these questions don’t matter”. I cannot say that the failure of the truthers to address this post comes as a great surprise.
Some of the comments on my post accused me of caricaturing the “truth movement” by only highlighting their wildest assertions. I can only respond that I would do my utmost to represent and summarise the arguments and expositions of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as accurately as possible. But if I’m encountered by a disparate group of cranks who cannot agree on basic details - whether the planes were hijacked, or whether they were drones; whether UA93 was shot down or not; whether the Pentagon was hit by a missile etc - then what am I supposed to do? As Pat Curley notes in one of his posts, this is not a multiple choice test, and the inability of the ‘truth movement’ to devise a coherent counter-narrative to what their members call “the official story” is not a sign of strength, but of inherent intellectual weakness, one epitomised (for example) by the failed attempt to promote a Journal of 9/11 Research which had both academic credibility and solid, critically-based, peer-reviewed research.
Mr Glitner states that my “questions call for speculation that would be irresponsible and are not questions that are the most salient to the forensics of the crime”. Fine. In that case I’d like to pose five further, more technical queries which truthers are again invited to offer informed, and referenced, answers.
(1) To those who believe that 9/11 was a replay of Operation Northwoods: your claim is that the Joint Chief of Staff’s contingency plan for “false flag” attacks to be blamed on Castro’s Cuba (dated March 1962) was resurrected forty or so years later, and implemented with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. If the US government intended to use Northwoods as the template for 9/11, then why was the plan declassified and released into the public domain five months beforehand? What kind of government perpetrates an act of mass murder on its own populace, and then reveals to the world how they planned and executed it?
(2) To those who believe that the WTC towers (1, 2 and 7) were destroyed by controlled demolitions: this programme, broadcast last July, shows how complicated and time consuming the process of a controlled demolition is (see 27:24 minutes in to 32:11). An empty building marked for destruction by specialists takes weeks if not months of preparation, during which the entire structure is gutted while the explosives are placed. How exactly were the WTC towers rigged for demolition in such a manner that no one working in the offices within these buildings noticed anything unusual?
(3) To those who believe that the airphone calls by passengers to their loved ones were “morphed”: how exactly did the conspirators know how to get voice samples for the 59 crew and passengers aboard AA77, and the 40 aboard UA93? How did they predict which passengers would be aboard - notably Jeremy Glick (scheluded to take a flight the day before he boarded UA93) and Lauren Grandcolas (who was supposed to board a later flight on 11th September, but actually found a seat on UA93)? How did they anticipate (and prepare the appropriate responses for) questions their loved ones would ask once they received the calls? And how is it that their relatives didn’t notice anything untoward about the comments and responses their loved ones made (other than the obvious fact that the latter were due to die in a grotesque terrorist attack)?
(4) As a follow-up question, if these calls were fake, what happened to the passengers? Were they complicit in the 9/11 cover-up? Are they still alive?
(5) Finally, to those who say there no hijackers: what’s your explanation for this?
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
77 responses
Hi Joseph,
These are interesting questions you pose. Although I don’t consider myself a “truther”, having only read two books, I can only attempt question one in any detail.
What Northwoods provides is documentary evidence that the JCS were prepared to countenance an audacious plan involving, if memory serves, faking the hijacking of civilian American passenger planes, switching the planes in midair and taking the original flights to a secure part of an airforce base and then using the fake planes to attack US targets and claim they were Cuban…four decades prior to the events of September 11th, 2001.
This of course does not mean that the the US DoD/JCS were involved in 911 but it is difficult to argue against the fact that there appears to have been a very real and ruthless plan in the early 1960s to use fake hijackings to provoke a war with a foreign nation. The alarming parallels should not be dismissed lightly.
The Operation Northwoods document was presumably declassified as the result of a decision within the US DoD. That in fairness, is not a question that any 911 activist could answer. Secondly, you are assuming that the DoD’s declassification staff would have been privy to the alleged conspiracy and that they made a glaring mistake in releasing the document. It would seem highly implausible that the alleged conspirators would need the services of these administrators to carry out their plot.
As far as I’m aware, the Northwoods document related only to anti Cuban operations in the 1960s and does not in any way reveal any planning behind an alleged 911 conspiracy. If 911 activists are claiming that, then they making a leap too far but Northwoods does give insight into the coldblooded ruthless that the JCS was prepared to consider.
You go on to ask what kind of government would be prepared to murder its own citizens. Numerous governments around the world have carried out brutal atrocities on their own populations. Cambodia comes to mind immediately.
Q2 – no doubt the planning for such a demolition would take weeks if not months.
Q3- no idea.
Q4.- The plane crashed, the passengers are dead.
Q5-Is that a joke question? No hijackers? Oh dear, talk about shooting your cause in the foot.
Regards
Richard
PS: a further thought re Q2 - has any investigator actually asked people who were in the WTC whether they did see anything unusual prior to 911? Perhaps I am being presumptious but as the Kean Commission’s remit started from the assumption that the towers fell as a result of the plane crashes, then presumably no one was asked whether they saw anyone setting explosive charges etc? Of course, I could be wrong.
Richard
Richard, thank you for your reply. May I stress (regarding Q5) that this is intended for ‘truthers’ who subscribe to the ‘no hijackers’ argument (I hesitate to call it a theory).
Regarding Northwoods, the fact that the plan was even contemplated by General Lemnitzer and his colleagues is of course disturbing (bearing in mind the fact that his political masters also rejected it). I am also fully aware that all governments carry out covert operations of varying degrees of ethical and moral turpitude. And yes, some political regimes have massacred large numbers of their own people. But they tend to be dictatorships (like Cambodia). This is not to say that democratic politicians are instinctively nice and decent - it’s just that if they do feel the need to slaughter large numbers of their own people they face the constraints of a free press and a legitimate opposition. Would even the most cynical politicos like Cheney and Rumsfeld contemplate a false-flag attack which - if exposed - would not only destroy them and their administration politically, but also lead to serious amounts of jail time? I don’t think so.
You may also be one of those few who thinks that the US media and the Democrats have been neutered. A quick survey of press coverage on the causes of the Iraq war - and a consultation of the results of the 2006 Congressional and 2008 Presidential elections - should disabuse you of this notion.
Your response to Q2 is also rather peculiar. Do survivors need to be asked if they noticed any activity indicating that the WTC towers were brought down by a controlled demolition? Surely if they’d noticed anything strange in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 they’d have spilled the beans to the press, if not the 9/11 Commission. The fact that they haven’t done so - even after over seven years of conspiracy theories doing the rounds - speaks volumes.
Re Q2. It seems odd to me that random fires toppled three buildings so comprehensively, yet weeks or months of planning and preparation would be needed to achieve the same result with explosives.
The only explanation that sounds reasonable to me is that the buildings were rigged for demolition over a prolonged period of time under the guise of building maintenance. Of course, the very thought sends chills down my spine.
Hi Joseph
Yes I agree that the exposure of a false flag attack would most likely result in the conviction and execution of the plotters.
And yes, Lemnitzer’s superiors rejected his plan although other historical false flag events, notable the Gulf of Tonkin incident, succeeded.
Do you not find it extremely odd that within days of 911, the Bush administration was blaming Iraq? And that war followed within a year? I wonder if our countries would be mired in the unwinnable war if 911 had not happened? For those war hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld, it was certainly remarkably convenient in its timing. And I think there is a general consensus that media investigation of 911 and the evidence supporting the invasion of Iraq (let alone Afghanistan - just remind of why we are there again?) was, at the outset, highly muted and deferential to officialdom.
re Q2 - surely any criminal investigator would ask all witnesses if they had noticed anything suspicious in or around the building prior to 911, as a matter of course. That would seem like a fairly routine question to ask. I of course am not an official investigator so am not privy to any interview transcripts which I would imagine remain confidential. And lets not forget that Bush, for reasons unknown, blocked attempts to investigate 911 for a year. Although I grant you that you would have thought there would at least have been a rumour emerge by now.
re Q5 - maybe I am a bit thick but no hijackers?!? How does that one work?
‘maybe I am a bit thick but no hijackers?!? How does that one work?’
I honestly don’t know. You’d have to ask a ‘truther’.
Nick, if you watched the link to my article you’d see that if the WTC buildings had been rigged for demolition as they were constructed the explosives would be in place for between 20-30 years. According to CD experts, explosives have a shelf life and would simply be unuseable after a decade. I see no reason not to believe them.
Can we also be careful with our terminology. A ‘false flag’ attack is one in which the perpetrator disguises himself so that his actions are blamed on another party. The Gulf of Tonkin was not a ‘false flag’ attack, as it involved one genuine clash between the USS Maddox and North Viernamese PBs (2nd August 1964) and one alleged clash which the Maddox’s crew reported two nights later, but which involved panicky sonar and radar operators mistaking readings for another North Vietnamese attack. The Johnson administration may well have been fully aware that the second contact had not occured, but it didn’t alter the fact that US and North Vietnamese forces had clashed with each other for real.
‘Do you not find it extremely odd that within days of 911, the Bush administration was blaming Iraq? And that war followed within a year?’
It is an established fact that the Bush administration had identified Saddam Hussein as a threat, and that 9/11 made officials even more determined to remove his regime (Saddam didn’t exactly help his position by being the only world leader to praise - rather than condemn - the attacks). Paul Wolfowitz certainly convinced himself that Iraq had a role in the 1993 WTC bombing, and also believed that there was a link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda. This was not deceit - this was a genuine belief. Ironically enough, Wolfowitz behaved like a ‘truther’ in the he seized on the tendentious evidence offered by Laurie Mylroie and ignored expert opinion telling him that this particular conspiracy theory was false.
What you also do is make the leap between Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld reacting to 9/11 by taking the opportunity to deal with Saddam once and for all, as you imply that the September 2001 attacks were therefore engineered in order to provide that pretext. This is flawed logic. As I noted in my previous post - if the US government had intended to use 9/11 to force an enraged nation to go to war in Iraq, why did it not concoct more convincing evidence linking these supposedly false attacks to Saddam’s regime?
There are also precedents for states responding to an attack by taking military action against the ‘wrong’ adversary. For example, after Abu Nidal’s terrorists tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador to London, Shlomo Argov, in June 1982 the Begin government responded by invading Lebanon in order to crush the PLO - even though the latter were mortal enemies of Nidal’s group. That is historical fact; not even the most deranged of conspiracy theorists have suggested that the attempt on Argov’s life was a put-up job. But a similar leap of logic has been committed by the ‘truthers’ with regards 9/11 and Iraq.
OK yes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not, strictly speaking, a false flag event. It did however have the desired result of massively ramping-up the war in Vietnam for a further nine years.
Who is saying that the alleged explosives needed to be in place for 20-30 years? That is simply not plausible for the reason that it is impossible for any clandestine conspiratorial group to have had such a long range plan back in say 1971 or even 1981. Unless of course I accept that the Reagan administration was involved in 911. Highly unlikely.
For me, the key unresolved issues are those of foreknowledge and warning. Why was the public not warned? And the other issue is that of air defences. From what I’ve read in Crossing the Rubicon, most of the north eastern US fighter defences were on an exercise in Alaska and Canada (Northern Vigilance/Vigilant Warrior). The timing on the part of Atta et al could not have been better. One cannot help but think that things may have turned out very differently had they chosen September 12th. But the remaining fighters were apparently launched too late to be of use, with a few being vectored out into the Atlantic in the wrong direction. There are just so many convenient coincidences and botches at work here that is hard to fathom out who really is to blame.
Whatever happened to the “black box” flight recorders in those planes?
“if the WTC buildings had been rigged for demolition as they were constructed the explosives would be in place for between 20-30 years.”
I said building “maintenance”, not building “construction”.
Nick, did you watch the video in my link? If you do, you will see that your suggestion is still completely implausible.
‘Who is saying that the alleged explosives needed to be in place for 20-30 years?’
Richard Gage, for starters.
‘OK yes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not, strictly speaking, a false flag event. It did however have the desired result of massively ramping-up the war in Vietnam for a further nine years.’
Actually, no it didn’t. It took VC guerrilla attacks on two US air bases in Pleiku and Qhi Nhon in February 1965 before the Johnson administration first started the bombing campaign against North Vietnam, and then (the following month) sent combat troops (as opposed to advisors) to the South.
Furthermore, if you were to read Lambeth’s book on the air response to 9/11, you’d see that much of what Ruppert wrote about NORAD and NEADS was plain wrong. In any case, NORAD is (as I noted in my previous post) a joint US-Canadian command. Was Canada in on 9/11 too?
‘Whatever happened to the “black box” flight recorders in those planes?’
This should answer any questions you have:
http://911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes
Joseph, you do well to press the conspiracy theorists to think about what they are claiming. Much of the attraction of conspiracy theories is that they do not demand thought. A conspiracy is, by its nature, secret, and so beyond scrutiny. So individuals can marry their fears, suspicions, ignorances and prejudices to them without having to actually think them out. This is scapegoating. It is not new. Conspiracy theories conveniently facilitate the maligning of Jews, Arabs, homosexuals and others who are already on the conspirators’ hitlists.
I notice Mr Welch that you are not defending the Government account. And quite rightly too. For the onus is not on you to prove that account, but on the ‘truthers’ to justify their’s. They are, after all, suggesting that a Superpower engaged in a well-planned strategy to murder its own people. Why? For what? War with Iraq? Insurance!!??? Why such a murderous and arduous plot for ends that could readily be sought by easier means? These and other questions need to be addressed if they want credibility.
That said, it is possible the Government is hiding some of the truth from the world. That is, if I may be cynical, one of the functions of inquiries. And, in time of national crisis, it is not unusual for Governments to mislead their peoples and dodge questions to avoid inflating public alarm, and yes, sometimes to protect public officers. But to posit a conspiracy of such magnitude insults intelligence.
“Nick, did you watch the video in my link? If you do, you will see that your suggestion is still completely implausible. ”
Yes, I watched that BBC documentary when it first aired.
According to NIST with regard to WTC7, “a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor.”
If we are to assume this is the case, then it would be fair to assume that explosives placed on Floor 13 would also be capable of the same thing.
However, the demolition expert in the linked video claims that the whole building would need to be rigged with explosives.
If that’s the case, then I fail to understand how random fire could have brought down WTC7.
Gazza, thank you for your comments, which I agree with. It goes without saying that no governmental inquiry will ever uncover the entire truth about any historical event. For example, when it came to the sinking of the Belgrano in 1982 we now know that UK signals intelligence decrypts showed that the Argentinean navy had ordered this vessel to alter course to attack the British task force - its sinking was not ordered by Thatcher to derail a peace initiative (as conspiracy theorists claimed). However, the need to protect intelligence sources outweighed the need to put the record straight:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200507180044
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/belgrano-ordered-to-attack-british-ships-on-day-before-sinking-secret-report-reveals-577867.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article537203.ece
Nick, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about WTC7. Perhaps you can approach an accredited expert in controlled demolitions (or maybe even more than one) and ask them whether they think the building was brought down by explosives; that is, if you’re open-minded enough to have your preconceptions challenged.
A further thought has just occurred to me. If the ‘truther’ contention is that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ attack, then why was it required to be a successful one leaving thousands dead? Why didn’t the plotters in the US government simply ‘thwart’ it at the last minute? They would still have had their pretext for war, and they could have removed any loose ends by killing the ‘patsies’ as part of the uncovering of the ‘plot’ - FBI and police SWAT teams could have shot them dead while they ‘resisted arrest’. Furthermore, rather than have a situation where critics would ask why US intelligence failed, the Bush administration and Federal authorities would have the kudos of having apparently saved thousands of lives.
So why create a scenario leaving thousands of American citizens dead, when you can get the same result with no mass casualties, no devastation in two major cities, and no shock to the US economy?
Yes, it makes no sense. In the old days, if you wanted to start a war, you dressed some of your soldiers as neighbour’s soldiers, and ‘violated’ your own border (Germany/Poland 1939). Or you could mistranslate a compromising telegram (France/Germany 1970) or publish misleading intelligence reports (USA, UK, Australia et alia/ Iraq). Why go for such overkill, especially when, as you say, there was no need to consummate the plot?
And that’s another point. The USA already had a pretext for war in the form of those sexed up security dossiers.
I have a further question for Truthers regarding building 7. Basically, what was the point? Why would it have been necessary to pull down building 7? What would it have gained for the alleged conspirators?
If this was a false flag attack, its intended audience was the American public. But, in Hollywood terms, the money shot was the collapse of the twin towers. That alone would have been shocking enough, would have left such a huge impression on the public that pulling down building 7 would have been completely unnecessary.
Why would the alleged conspirators have complicated their plot, and increased substantially the odds that it would be discovered, by including building 7 in the destruction? Until the Truthers began harping on it, building 7 was a forgotten footnote to 9/11. In other words it gained absolutely nothing for the alleged conspirators.
Can truthers explain why this hugely unnecessary risk was taken, when there was nothing to gain from it?
It’s amazing to me that the truthers out there just can’t accept any actual facts. Everything has to be a conspiracy to them.
I.E. The Bush Administration seeing Saddam as a threat.
Here’s a little clue: Saddam was an enemy, no matter how you view the invasion of Iraq. He’s been an enemy since Bush I and Clinton. Clinton even passed a law in Congress stating that regime change was the goal of the U.S. when it came to Saddam. Bush didn’t need 9/11 to see Saddam as a threat. Saddam was already a listed enemy since over a decade of being, well, a complete and utter idiot. Again, regardless of how you feel about the invasion, the fact is that Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Bush I, Bush II - they were all in complete agreement that Saddam was one of our top enemies.
You didn’t need 9/11 to “prove” it. It was widely accepted in society at large.
The “truther movement” has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with historical revisionism.
As soon as Richard revealed that he’d read “Crossing the Rubicon” the veneer of credibility he had somewhat tenuously managed to construct for himself fell away.
“And that’s another point. The USA already had a pretext for war in the form of those sexed up security dossiers.”
Just so you know, an investigation into the suicide of David Kay determined that the BBC had “sexed up” the reports of “sexed up security dossiers.”
The ‘Screw Loose Change’ team have discussed another passenger on UA93, Linda Gronlund, and have noted in particular her last words to her sister:
Joseph DeLuca called his Dad; his girlfriend, Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.
‘Elsa Strong says, “She said, ‘Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.’ And she said, ‘Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.’ And then she got real calm and said, ‘Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.’ And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, ‘I don’t know if I’m ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I’m really going to miss you.’ And she said goodbye.””
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/msnbc090302_flight93.html
Perhaps one of the ‘truthers’ can explain how it was that the US government operatives who faked Ms Gronlund’s words knew the combination code for her own personal safe.
Not a big surprise that no truffer has stepped up to answer the questions posed. I find it quite sad that 20 years from now I will be explaining to my kids about the “conspiracy theories” and why people still believe 9-11 was an inside job.
To accept this hoax is to assume a level of cooperation and secrecy accross multiple levels of local, state, and federal departments that just boggles the mind. It would require hundreds of people to be involved, and yet no one has squeeled yet? I just tell my kids to file this with the chemtrail hoax, the moon landing hoax, and the global warming hoax.
Defending, maintaining, and improving Civilization is a difficult task. Sometimes you have to do very ugly & nasty things to assure its continued existence. This will become increasingly evident. Every person is going to have to ask him/herself are they for or against Civilization? The elements that are against Civilization will have to be removed. Great sacrifices will have to be made. Group thinking into various divisions is foolish.
Not sure where you’re coming from Gobo, but I don’t think I like it. ‘Sometimes you have to do very ugly & nasty things to assure its [civilisation's] continued existence’. What ‘Civilisation’ are you talking about? Both sides of the First World War called it the War to preserve ‘Civilization’. Herr Hitler believed he was saving the world for ‘Civilisation’. ‘Civilisation’ bombed and continues to bomb the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan, killing thousands of voiceless women and children.’Civilisation’ illegally detained and tortured innocent people all over the world. What ‘Civilisation’ are you talking about? Surely Civilisation is a thing common to all Peoples of the earth. And however it may vary across the globe it has common elements: respect for human life; respect for justice; regard for the weak and voiceless. Warring for ‘Civilisation’ is like fucking for virginity.
PS. If someone has to go to war, let them say so. But please, they should not try to sanctify it by kidding themselves they are doing it for ‘Civilisation’. War is dirty. It does not solve anything.
Unless the war is approved by Gazza… Ya know, for the greater good and advance of ’social justice’.
Where did I say that?
‘I have a further question for Truthers regarding building 7. Basically, what was the point? Why would it have been necessary to pull down building 7? What would it have gained for the alleged conspirators?’
If I remember correctly, the ‘Loose Change’ team claimed that WTC7 was destroyed because unnamed Federal agencies kept offices in the building, and the plotters were trying to cover their tracks.
The beauty of it is that if WTC7 had not collapsed, the truthers would probably determine some sinister reason behind the fact that it was still standing.
The point about WTC 7 is – How did it actually happen. I watched the fairly recent TV documentary “The 3rd Tower” which – true to the customary reversal of the burden of proof tactic – spends most of its hour arguing the pros and cons of the demolition theory. I’m eagerly waiting for my mind to be put at rest by the “true, rational” explanation. And what do I get? It was due to fire. So all the right points at all the right times and in the correct sequence were weakened to create this symmetrical collapse in seconds – and all because of fire? That’s one smart fire. The TV team were obviously so embarrassed by this that they tried to sneak it past me with a 1 second computer simulation. Isn’t it amazing what you can do with a computer?
“symmetrical collapse” ?
‘Isn’t it amazing what you can do with a computer?’
Indeed. Before information technology and the internet, village idiots like you would confine their ignorance to their own immediate circle. But now, thanks to Bill Gates, you can show people across the world how monumentally stupid you are. I suppose they call that progress.
Ah Mister (Master?)Welch
I see you have employed the course of direct invective. That’s a bad sign but it’s predictable enough given your previous postings, which amount to a practical text book listing of disinformation techniques, psychological warfare and general confidence trickery.
You use many such devices but I shall focus on only one – and indeed it’s the most important protective device for the “official account” of 9/11.
You illustrate said device here:
“….the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”.”
Well congratulations! You have just abolished the very possibility of critical thought. No- one is allowed to criticise a given theory unless he has a fully worked out, coherent, watertight alternative theory. And – even should he produce such a thing then…. guess what? All eyes are on the alternative theory and not on the original one.
The name for this device is the reversal of the burden of proof and it is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes everywhere. It means the demand for proof is not on those who make a first claim but on anyone who wishes to oppose it. Thus I can accuse you of murder and the onus is not on me to prove your guilt but on you to prove your innocence. Welcome to hell!
And so – the “official account” of 9/11 is raised as dogma and those who dare question any of it are forced to go on the defensive.
The battle is not between you sensible people and the “troofers” but between you 9/11 True Believers and the 9/11 skeptics.
‘Mak’ is betraying the insecurity that ‘truthers’ feel when someone asks them to actually (1) go firm on their claims, and (2) explain the logical, factual and scientific flaws that undermine them.
His assertion that requests for a viable alternative theory represent an assault on ‘critical thought’ confirms my impression of his monumental stupidity. If you look - for example - at every scientific advance, from evolutionism to the Big Bang Theory, proponents of ground-breaking theories were not only able to demonstrate the flaws in existing scientific paradigms, but to show that their revolutionary ideas had a solid basis in the evidence. Much the same principle applies to historiographical debate.
I am reminded of the joke about the animal psychologist who produces a stunning new theory on the behaviour of rats. His findings cause controversy, and one day a colleague asks him for his evidence. The maverick psychologist is impatient at first, and then consents to let him into the lab.
‘Okay’, the maverick says, ‘here are my notes’ (he points to a sheath of papers, ‘and this …’ (pointing to a cage) ‘… is the rat’.
The thing is, the ‘truthers’ don’t even have the rat. I have called them on the fact that they have reserved for themselves the right to make unsupported, scientifically unsound and factually inaccurate assertions about one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in recent memory. In the process, they have been allowed to smear real people (in the form of ordinary military personnel, first responders, law enforcement officers, journalists, technical experts and even victims of 9/11) without a shred of evidence to back them up. Only reheated innuendo, internet-generated rumours, half-truths and outright fabrications. Their methods are not those of the sceptical investigator, but the McCarthyite.
If they were genuine sceptics (to paraphrase Penn and Teller) they would approach the horrors of 11th September 2001 with an open mind. Yes, they would analyse the ‘official story’ in close detail, but they’d also do the same to the array of cockameny ‘theories’ that have sprung up instead. They have failed to do so, and my next post on Michael Ruppert will show how slapdash their methods of inquiry are.
The fact is that ‘truthers’ have made their minds up, and will not let anything change them. No matter how much evidence you offer them, no matter how often you refute their fantasies, no matter how often you demolish their claims, they will stick to their LIHOP or MIHOP arguments like a religious bigot. So I think it’s high time that they either put up or shut up. They either accept intensive scrutiny and criticism of their ‘ideas’ and try to defend their corner, or they can cry to mother that all the other kids aren’t playing fair. The fact that ‘mak’ and others have decided to do the latter tells us all we need to know.
Above all, I notice that very few truthers have attempted to explain away the obvious flaws that undermine their theories (the few that have usually end up revealing instead how truly ignorant they are, http://counterknowledge.com/?p=2145). Surely the whole point is that if you have ‘the truth’, you shouldn’t be standing on the defensive the way that ‘mak’ does, and you should have the balls to tell me where I am wrong, and why you are right. If you haven’t got the knowledge, argumentative skills and guts to do that on an on-line forum, then I honestly don’t know what to say, except that both a brain and a backbone transplant remain in order.
So ‘mak’, have you got what it takes? Will you answer my questions, or will you admit to being one of those credulous ignoramuses who will believe any old tripe that coincides with your ‘inside job’ fixation?
* I have called them on the fact that they have reserved for themselves the right to make unsupported, scientifically unsound and factually inaccurate assertions about one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in recent memory. In the process, they have been allowed to smear real people (in the form of ordinary military personnel, first responders, law enforcement officers, journalists, technical experts and even victims of 9/11) without a shred of evidence to back them up. Only reheated innuendo, internet-generated rumours, half-truths and outright fabrications. Their methods are not those of the sceptical investigator, but the McCarthyite.*
Yes, Joseph Welch! I’m glad someone has finally characterized this conspiracy-fabulism (none of it actually rises to the level of `theory’) as what it is: McCarthyism. Except, the Senator from Wisconsin was a piker where these conspircists are experts.
I feel this way even more so about the conspiracy fables surrounding the Kennedy assassination. In order to construct any kind of plausible conspiracy story, the fabulists have implicated just about anyone who had even passing involvement in the matter, such as:
-Michael and Ruth Paine (the two liberals who were kind enough to let Marina Oswald stay at their Fort Worth home)
-members of the Dallas Police Dept, including JD Tippet, the officer shot to death by Oswald after the latter killed Kennedy (and who was so poorly paid at his job that he had to take a second job as a security guard on weekends)
-members of the Secret Service detail guarding Kennedy in Dallas that day
-the doctors who performed the president’s autopsy
-the U.S. Navy
-the FBI
-the CIA
-Lyndon Johnson
-Justice Earl Warren and members of his commission investigating the assassination…
In fact, as former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi states, the only seeming qualification that implicates you in the Kennedy assassination is that you DON’T have the name Lee Harvey Oswald.
But because of the relentless propaganda from the Kennedy conspiracy-fabulists, much of the U.S. public (and I presume, that of the rest of the world as well) now believes that the murder was a result of a conspiracy.
It is the same with 9/11 conspiracy fabulism today.
All scientific theories are open to testing. The first move towards a new theory is to find fault with the old one. Such fault finding always comes first since, without it, there would be no need for a new theory. Thus it is totally illogical – and in fact a sign of insecure bully boy tactics – to insist that your opponent produce a totally coherent watertight counter theory before your own precious theory can even be discussed. But this is precisely what you do.
It’s as if Einstein were to demand that all theories counter to his were to be tested rigorously but his was to be left alone. Thus does the fundamentalist fanatic operate.
It is not the alternative theories of 9/11 that should be examined here but the original account. The constant focus on these alternative theories serves only to distract attention away from the absurdities and frankly the sheer lack of evidence for the official account.
There is nothing remotely objective about your approach here. Your reference to my “monumental stupidity” betrays your own insecurity as does your constant demonisation of so called truthers.
However – you do have one remarkable talent: the ability to generate an almost convincing aura of detachment and rationality or – at least – enough to dazzle the gullible. All of this in the service of a project that is not merely irrational but anti – rational.
Counterknowledge indeed.
I should have explained in that last post that the “you” referred to is, of course, Mr Welch. I wrote it quickly under extreme irritation at his hypocritical smugness. And in doing so I missed the presumption in his opening paragraph:
“Mak is betraying the insecurity that ‘truthers’ feel when someone asks them to actually (1) go firm on their claims, and (2) explain the logical, factual and scientific flaws that undermine them.”
Note the manipulation at work here:
(1) The assumption that I am making “claims”. No – I am not. I refuse to play this rigged game of providing my own theory to be dissected while that precious “official account” is always presupposed as the great sacred text of 9/11. No – I am looking at that sacred text. I refuse to uncritically accept it.
(2) He assumes even from the start that, were I to make my own “claims”, there would be “logical, factual and scientific flaws that undermine them.” Thus even were I to make a “claim” Mr Welch would assume that it would have to be flawed anyway. This is a real Kangaroo court.
” to insist that your opponent produce a totally coherent watertight counter theory before your own precious theory can even be discussed. But this is precisely what you do.” - mak
The 911 “official account” has been discussed to death for going on 8 years. Every counter claim from the troofers (often self contradictory) has been shot down in flames. If the terroists didn’t do it who did? Let’s hear an even semi-coherent alternate theory.
Did those two aeroplanes crashing into the buildings and the subsequent enormous conflagrations, which nearly the whole world witnessed, have anything to do with it.?
‘I refuse to play this rigged game of providing my own theory to be dissected while that precious “official account” is always presupposed as the great sacred text of 9/11′.
You are a moral coward, ‘mak’. What you’re telling us all is that you refuse to have your innuendos subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as the established account of what happened on 9/11. You are essentially claiming the right to throw as much mud as you like, and are crying foul when anyone asks you to stand up and justify your own claims. If you think that’s fair, then tell me this, exactly when did you stop beating your wife?
If you want me to take you seriously, stand up on your own two feet and rebut my questions highlighting the gross inconsistencies and gaping flaws in the ‘truth’ movement’s output. Failing that, go away and stick to websites where you won’t be put through the discomfort of actually having to back up your assertions with facts.
Mr Welch –
So – now I’m a wife beater? Jeez, you guys are running scared.
You just don’t get it do you? “Gross inconsistencies and gaping flaws in the ‘truth’ movement’s output”? Yet again, Mr Welch, and really astonishingly: you simply ignore a long-established and universally-recognised legal principle - that no one may reverse the burden of proof. Having ignored it, you then make an entirely unreasonable and unfulfillable demand: that “we” (!!) produce our own perfectly coherent alternative scenario.
How would you suggest we go about that task? By hiring a private detective capable of accessing all the evidence sat on by the Bush Gang, the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA? Well, where on earth would we find such a wily sleuth?
Tell me.
More to the point: Why should we even attempt such an absurd undertaking? And why should we accede to the Bush Gang’s proto-fascist desire to reverse the burden of proof?
Here’s the situation: A notoriously mendacious, unprecedentedly secretive, warmongering right-wing US government - the Bush-Cheney regime - utterly fails to present any credible evidence in support of its accusations of ‘Al Qaeda’s’ culpability in The Incomparably Handy Crime.
Then Bush and Cheney block all attempts to establish an independent investigation.
What happens, eventually?
(a) After 411 days - and under mounting pressure from the victims’ relatives and the people in general - Bush and Cheney select a small ‘Commission’ of dependable handpicked toadies… to be headed by Henry Kissinger. (b) Following a wave of public outrage (and because Henry the K refuses to reveal the names of his ‘clients’), Bush and Cheney back down from that appointment. (c) To replace Kissinger, they appoint National Security Advisor ‘Condi’ Rice’s old buddy, political crony and co-author, Philip Zelikow. (d) The families protest - rightly - that he cannot possibly be impartial; they protest in vain. (e) The White House stonewalls incessantly, sits on most of the evidence, blocks out large parts of the evidence it does deign to release, and illegally refuses to hand over countless documents. (f) Senator Max Cleland - a member of that Commission - goes to the press and says: “It’s disgusting! It’s a scam! America is being scammed!” (and is therefore shunted off to another job). (g) The remaining toadies demonstrate their dependability by asking very few of the salient questions. (h) The families continue to protest, in vain.
…(j), (k), (l), etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - far too much even to list. But this is the cherry on the cake:
Bush and Cheney refuse to testify to that Commission unless they are allowed to do so:
* together;
* in the White House;
* without taking oath;
* in the absence of a tape-recorder or a stenographer;
* with the assurance that their statements will not be reported to the press or the public;
* for a maximum of one hour.
AND THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT!
Much, much more could be said about that Commission’s ‘work’ - and has been, for example by Professor Benjamin DeMott in Harper’s Magazine:
Whitewash as Public Service
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation
Friday, November 12, 2004
http://www.harpers.org/ Whitewash…licService.html
- Now, you want my alternative ‘theory’, Mr Welch? OK, I’ll do you that favour and provide it (although I’m by no means obliged to, legally or morally): My ‘theory’ is that all this utterly outrageous shit (and much more besides - see below) signifies very clearly that those notoriously ruthless liars are covering up something very, very damaging to them:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspo…ide-to- 911.html
That’s a summary, with links, of what Bush and Cheney expect us to believe. Seriously. What it in fact demonstrates that no honest and minimally-informed person can even begin to believe their account. That and a great deal else besides suggests very strongly indeed that they were - at the very, very least - very heavily complicit in that Incomparably Handy Crime.
‘mak’, enough of the flim flam. Put up or shut up. Back up your case, refute my questions, or go away.
You’re having a complete fit because I’m asking you to substantiate your claims and answer my criticisms. What kind of ‘truth seeker’ are you? Either stand up and argue your case - as I have done, with the evidence backing me up - or admit that you have no case to offer.
I’ll make it easy for you. Here are the records of the 9/11 Commission (which you claim is a fix) available in the public domain. You go through them (as I am at the moment), and you tell me where the evidence of an ‘inside job’ is:
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/
Put up or shut up.
“Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made. ” - Otto von Bismarck
The same could be said for politics in general
“My ‘theory’ is that all this utterly outrageous shit (and much more besides - see below) signifies very clearly that those notoriously ruthless liars are covering up something very, very damaging to them:” - Mak
Covering up what? Do you have something more than innuendo?
I think South Park said it best:
Kyle: “Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!”
Cartman: “Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy?
Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?”
Kyle: “Yes. I’m saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.”
Stan: “Yeah, at least one-fourth.”
Kyle: “Let’s take a test sample: There’s four of us, you’re a retard, that’s one-fourth.”
What I’d really like to know is who crapped in the urinal?
I don’t know, Mr Welch. You seemed like an intelligent guy but then you direct me to a National Archives website to “prove” your point. That’s like deciding a court case purely by what the accused says.
Joseph Walsh: “Hey – Mr Bush – did you plan 9/11 yourself?”
GW Bush: “Of course not”
J Walsh: “Well – that’ good enough for me.”
And here’s a little clue for you, from that site:
“Approximately 35% of the Commission’s archived textual records are now publicly available.”
So that means that almost two thirds of the Commission’s is still hidden. Would some of that material pertain to the collapse of WTC7? Because this little matter was never mentioned by the 9/11 Commission Report. What else wasn’t mentioned? And furthermore – who gets to decide what is released and what isn’t?
And predictably you once again demand to know my “claims” and my “case”? Why can’t you hear what I’m saying?
Once more from the top:
It is not my job or anyone else’s job to provide an alternative theory for 9/11. A theory already exists. It is the official account and it is so utterly threadbare, absurd and lacking in evidence and, furthermore, was presented in such a suspicious way through such evasive tactics that, if it were not for a vast arsenal of psychological trickery, no-one would have swallowed any of it.
And then there’s this from one of your groupies:
“Covering up what? Do you have something more than innuendo?”
This displays the same utter incomprehension as Mr Welch. Am I supposed to read their minds? If it’s a cover up then that means WE CAN’T SEE WHAT’S GOING ON. And I refuse to fall for that trap of indulging in pointless interminable speculation, which is precisely one of the protective devices of the 9/11 paradigm.
I mean – let’s play it your way for a bit. Here’s what happens:
I put forward my alternative scenario which you will of course find fault with which would be easy to do since it wasn’t assembled by our fabled super sleuth. Thus you score petty little points over me. I’ll hurl abuse at you. You will hurl abuse at me. I’m guessing that you have been through all this before – a nice little self-admiration society. And the whole world is at it – endlessly droning on about the conservation of momentum, the melting point of steel and so on. And the Bushites are laughing because all eyes have been diverted from their house of cards which would collapse faster than WTC7 if anyone actually looked at it directly.
But – let’s get one thing straight: the word “faith” applies to you and not to me. You have faith in the absurdity presented to you. I reject it.
mak, Your moonbat argument seems to boil down to; I don’t like Bush therefore Bush is evil ,and he blew up the WTC. The very fact that I can not prove a single thing or even know what I’m trying to prove is proof enough of a cover-up.
‘mak’, put up or shut up. Either try and answer my points, or admit that you’re a troll that is too lazy and stupid to try and substantiate your allegations.
I’ve given you a chance. I’ve even given you the opportunity to explain - with reference to the documented evidence - why the ‘official story’ as outlined in the 9/11 Commission’s Report is flawed. You refuse to do so, either because you know you haven’t got a leg to stand on, or because you cannot be bothered to go through the hard work and effort of supporting your unsubstantiated claims with research, or (I suspect) because of a combination of both.
Mr Welch
Taking the only legitimate starting point for our investigations i.e. the official account of 9/11, I would like to ask the following questions in particular:
Why did WTC7 collapse? A plausible explanation please. Plus proof.
Why was all the material from the twin towers & WTC7 removed before it could be analysed?
Is there, in fact, any evidence at all that Osama bin Laden has a connection with 9/11?
If so, why was it not presented to the Taliban when they requested it in 2001?
Why did the 2006 FBI file on bin Laden not mention 9/11?
That’s just for starters. There are a total of 402 total questions to be answered here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911q.html?q=911q.html
Considering that my own questions are probably duplicated thereon, we won’t add to that number.
And so, Mr Welch, I would like you to provide fully satisfactory answers to these 402 questions before we even consider examining alternative theories.
Sorry for that duplication of the word “total” above.
‘mak’, practically every ‘question’ you raise has been dealt with before. If you are in the slightest bit interested in actually determining the ‘truth’ behind 9/11, you might want to start by following this thread (and the associated links) here:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/#comments
Or you could go here, and follow the discussion and the links (we’re ahead of you on this):
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/07/tower-7-bad-news-for-911-liars/#comments
Or indeed you could actually go as to follow some of the links I actually offered in the original post - which you clearly could not be bothered to read. If jumping to conclusions were an Olympic sport, you would win gold for years to come.
Or maybe you could even do what I asked you to do, which is take the time and trouble to sift through the 9/11 Commission files I forwarded to you to spot the flaws in the ‘official theory’ which you keep on harping on about. After all, you are a ‘truth seeker’. You will expend all the effort required to determine that the real perpetrators behind 9/11 were not al-Qaeda, but some other bunch of conspirators. You will do all that leg-work for something that important, won’t you?
Or maybe you’d do what I’ve asked you to do all along, which is answer my questions about the flaws within your ‘movement’s’ theories, and explain in detail (and with reference to verifiable evidence) why I am wrong, and you are right.
Or are you going to fluff the challenge again?
I don’t think Bush ever saw Saddam as being behind 9/11, but rather Saddam fell under the larger umbrella of middle eastern fascists that posed a threat to the region-and the world.
The idea of westernizing the Iraqi government into a democracy was not an altruistic endeavor to help the Iraqi people- I couldn’t give a rats ass about them- it was to make the region stable, which would then make the area safe for the world at large. Bringing ‘freedom to the iraqi people’ was in part true, but mostly spin. .
Sending in ground troops was a mistake- we could have solved the problem of middle eastern fascism with around the clock air bombing campaigns. Let them quake in their shoes in terror knowing what will happen if they ever pull another 9/11 again…
The ‘no planers’ are a strange lot- How do they account for the fact that airplane debris was found on the streets below the WTC and on the roof of the marriot hotel? What happned to the planes (and people aborad) that departed Boston if there were no plane crashes?
I have encountred some truthers who questioned if the planes-or the passengers even existed…One of the stewardessses was an x girlfriend of a coworker, and though he hadn’t been in touch with her since the mid 90s, he was devistated by her death, and took time off work. He was NOT acting…
But the one major detail the truthers like to ignore are the thousands of eye witnesses in NYC and New Jersey who saw both planes- But truthers claim there were no witnesses, or that all the people who claimed to see the crashes were actors…
please…
Richard wrote:
“PS: a further thought re Q2 - has any investigator actually asked people who were in the WTC whether they did see anything unusual prior to 911? ”
Excellent question.
I would be VERY interested to hear what WTC workers who survived 9/11 think of the conspiracy theories that the towers were fitted with explosives. Any interviews out there where the WTC/Pentagon 9/11 survivors discuss their views on the Truthers? I do know a few people who were in NYC and saw the planes and the towers fall who like nothing more than to beat the sh*t out of Truthers, who they feel make a mockery of a horrific tragedy.
Nick got you big shot. YOU changed his statement and then knocked it down. It is completely reasonable to assume that it is at least POSSIBLE for the WTC towers to have been rigged for demolition covertly under the guise of regular building maintence. The fact that you dodged his statement speaks volumes of who you really are.
I do however understand why you DODGED and CHANGED his statement. You TRY to debunk the possibility of controlled demolition by saying that it would take months to rig the building. But, then Nick shoots that down, so you try to change his statement. But, it does not matter because if it takes months to rig a building. HOW DID THEY MANAGE TO RIG BUILDING SEVEN IN JUST A FEW HOURS?????? EXPLAIN THAT BIG SHOT.
Clearly Building 7 was rig for demolition (and no one knew it, except for the conspirators and owner) prior to September 11 WHY? And, if that was true then it is that much easier to believe that the WTC towers, which fell very neatly, must have been rigged for demolition too.
Building 7 is the key to the question ‘WAS IT OR WAS IT NOT’ an inside job. Clearly it was. And you who so enthusiastically defend MASS MURDER should examine your soul.
ALSO, you take the most insane ideas and present them as if they are mainstream for people seeking the truth.
People WERE on those airplanes that hit the towers, they are dead. But it is much more likely that the planes were being remotely controlled than it is to believe that inexperienced arab terroists were able to so perfectly aim the plane for their targets, THEY WEREN’T EVEN PILOTS, and the military flies remote controlled drone air planes all the time.
So stop the stupid faked voice bullshit, it doesn’t prove anything except that you are very good at setting up strawmen for you to knock down. EXPLAIN BUILDING 7 if you’re really such an expert. EXPLAIN WHY BUILDING 7 WAS RIGGED FOR DEMOLITION ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001…
John, can you tell me exactly - from your expert knowledge of demolitions - how exactly an office building can be rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition, and how exactly such an operation can take place without leaving tell-tale evidence (e.g. remnants of det cord) behind?
Can you also tell me why it is that not one accredited expert in this field will support conspiracy theorists’ claims of a controlled demolition?
Can you also explain why it is that none of the first responders on the scene can confirm your claim that WTC7 was brought down by anything other than fire & debris damaging the building as a result of the WTC1 & 2 towers? I presume you watched the programme I linked to in my opening post. I guess that you have the necessary expertise in pyrotechnics and structural engineering to show me that the FDNY officers interviewed in that programme are liars.
As for your assertion about the supposed inability of the hijackers to fly, this particularly specious falsehood has been nailed so comprehensively I’m surprised you have the brass neck to repeat it. The most charitable explanation for your comments are that you are too stupid to review the evidence. So I’ll take it through you step-by-step. Firstly, Hani Hanjour (AA77) did have the necessary flying skills to pilot a jet in flight, despite the frequent (and unsourced) claims made to the contrary:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00551.pdf
As for the other pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi’s ability to fly is confirmed by the former pilot who ran the Opa Locka flight school, Henry George:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340519/FBI-tracks-down-the-Florida-lair-of-flying-school-terrorists.html
On Atta, George stated that:
‘I suppose [he] had just enough training to keep the plane in the air - how to make turns and move it up and down. He could not, however, have taxied a 757 or 767 from the gate, got it airborne or landed it safely.’
Which - as it happened - neither he nor al-Shehhi needed to do. They were going to crash their planes into two tall office blocks, which I think you’ll agree is not standard practice for flight school training.
George was also quoted in Jane Corbin’s ‘The Base’ (Simon & Schuster 2003, p.169) stated that ‘It doesn’t take much to learn to do what they [Atta and al-Shehhi] ended up achieving - to fly a plane at a building, or to make a turn into a skyscraper’. He also noted that ‘They were actually overtrained for the task they performed. They already had about 300 hours flying time. What they got out of us [with the flight simulators] was exposure to a 727 - the ability to feel the performance of the plane’. George noted retrospectively that Atta and al-Shehhi ‘were just making sure that when they got into that jet they could complete the task successfully. I did not sense there was a passion for flying - they were just preparing to do a job’.
Ann Greaves, a student at the Huffman training school, recalled her envy at the fact that Atta qualified before her (same reference as above) - ‘I can remember watching him take off, fly round and come down again, and I was envious as he was more experienced’.
Ziad Jarrah’s qualification to fly has never been in doubt:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html
Let me give you some friendly advice here, John. Blanket assertions and frantic statements in full caps are no substitute for a close analysis of the evidence and familiarity with the facts. That’s why you ‘truthers’ have trouble convincing anyone outside your closed and psychologically challenged circle that you are right.
“Operation Northwoods” in 1962 was a plan by governament to stage acts of real terrorism on US soil and against U.S. interests and then put the blame of these acts on Cuba in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.Kennedy did not approve it in 1962.Bush did in 2001. 9/11 inside job.
It is in wikipedia!!! google “Operation Northwoods”
Why real “terrorists” ( USA elite, CIA) wanted 9/11 terroracts?
* to round constitutional rights with antiterrorist laws ( Homeland security, Patriot act, Real id)
*invade Iraq for oil
*invade Afganistan for oil and pipelines
* big corporation interests in gun trade and chaos in Iraq and Afganistan.
* turn USA in police state ( laws controlling “terrorists”)
terrorist in their thoughts are free US citizens
Real id coming to us!
search youtube for “Real ID”
and “Fema concentration camps”
wanted to ask:
1. Are there similar articles of asking “truthers” questions regarding holocaust denial and “anti-Zionism”, and do you know of any websites like 911myth and 911guide that collect all the myths regarding Holocaust denial or “anti-Zionism” and debunk them in a similar way?
2. Have you thought of writing an article that compares 9/11 conspiracies (or others) with REAL “conspiracies” (like the 1956 Suez incident)?
‘Are there similar articles of asking “truthers” questions regarding holocaust denial and “anti-Zionism”, and do you know of any websites like 911myth and 911guide that collect all the myths regarding Holocaust denial or “anti-Zionism” and debunk them in a similar way?’
Counterknowledge has its own entries on Holocaust Denial. This is also a good starting point (http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/). I would also recommend Deborah Lipstadt’s blog ‘History on Trial’ (http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/).
‘Have you thought of writing an article that compares 9/11 conspiracies (or others) with REAL “conspiracies” (like the 1956 Suez incident)?’
I have no posts on this, but I do refer to real conspiracies in my comments above and on other threads. One of the key points about Rainbow Warrior/Sevres/Iran-Contra is that in all these cases evidence of French/British/US government wrong-doing got into the public domain showing (1) DGSE reponsibility (2) the Eden government’s collusion with France and Israel and (3) the Reagan administration’s dealings with Iran, respectively. When governments (particularly democratic ones) do something nefarious, it usually becomes public knowledge in no short space of time. That again is a key difference between real conspiracies, and the fantasies peddled by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement.
I might also write a short piece on real ‘false flag’ operations when I find the time.
thanx
Regarding anti-Zionism, I know it’s a lot of politics but there are myths and conspiracies surounding it that you simply wouldn’t believe (the whole “chosen people” thing really annoys me, especially since the mainstream zionists were entirly un-religious and there were rivalries between them and the religious Jews, and then you have to get into the whole image of the “new Jew” as opposed to the “immigrant Jew” and the way Holocaust survivores were treated and ridiculed in Israel) are there any articles about it here (presumably in pseudo-history)?
Regarding the “real” consperecies, I meant hat real consperacies don’t need thousands of people, are relativly simple, and isn’t all that different from the official version and doesn’t need to be that big a strech (at least that’s my theory).
You state;
“Just for a change, I decided that it was high time that the conspiracy theorists should be put on the spot, and should be obliged to explain the logical flaws and factual fallacies behind claims which placed responsibility for the atrocities of 11th September 2001 on the US government rather than Al Qaeda.”
What if, and there is suggestion and reports that Al Qaeda is the CIA.
So if it was Al Qaeda that was the mastermind behind 911 then it was some kind Government operation.
In very simple terms…. There is the US Government, Media, CIA, FBI etc… operate on a need to know, top down knowledge system. This means that no one person within these structures knows the whole story about anything.
So it is plausible that covert strategies could well be orchestrated.
The mainstream media is basically run by around 120 people, these people in tern sit on the boards of the main military and industrial complex corporations.
Tom, that particular fantasy rests entirely on the presumption that al-Qaeda is a CIA creation. And if you read my posts on this page and followed the evidence I cited, you’d realise that this proposition is complete balls.
But then you strike me as the kind of person who won’t let the facts get in the way of your preconceived delusions.
Obviously, so do you, Mr. Welch.
I wonder who butters your bread…
Wow, stumbled across this while researching some other topics, and after reading all of the above, and seeing how much more there is on the net, I can only figure: these people all have a LOT of spare time to waste worrying about this. Think of all the good they could be doing instead. sigh
‘I wonder who butters your bread’
This seems to be the standard accusation every time a ‘truther’ knows he’s lost the argument (and it is usually a ‘he’). The idea that members of the reality-based community might actually want to counter truther distortions and lies seems to be beyond them. If anyone points out the logical flaws, scientific illiteracy and historical distortions behind their ‘theories’, then they must be being paid off.
I’ve got to take you up on this, ‘J’. Obviously, you think that there is this massive cover-up organised by the ‘real’ plotters to ensure that no-one ‘in the know’ will spill the beans. That doesn’t just mean ensuring that everyone in the FBI, CIA, NSA, NORAD, the FAA, FDNY, NIST etc keeps schtum. They’ve got to ensure that all those journalists, architects, engineers, aviation experts, assorted academics and other inquiring minds stay away from the ‘real story’. So that presumably means we’re all being bribed, right? Because there’s no other possible reason for not spilling the beans about a grotesque ‘false flag’ attack that murders thousands of people.
So how much are we being paid per annum, ‘J’, to keep ‘the truth’ hidden from the public? Exactly how many of us need to be bought off in order to hide ‘the truth’? And how much exactly does it cost ‘the real plotters’ to collectively buy our silence?
To make it nice and simple for you - has it ever occurred to you that by claiming that people like me have been bought off, you make yourself look like a complete tit?
Boring! Boring! Boring! Joseph Welch you just keep going round and round in circles, not making any relevant points yourself but just keep referring back to the totally biased video that you see as ‘proof’ (yawn!). You just keep telling us to ‘Put up or shut up’ when you run out of comebacks. Despite your intellectual rantings you really aren’t as intelligent as you like to think as you cannot see beyond what you have been told and what you have read in the Commission Report. Take off your rose-coloured glasses, open your mind and start to think for yourself - you may be surprised at what you find! That’s the thing about ‘truthers’, we have our own minds and find things out for ourselves - that’s why people don’t like us and constantly try to put us down as we are a threat to their cosy little world.
I am not even going humour you by giving you all the reasons as to why I believe it was an Inside Job along with the facts/evidence. YOUR insecurities of the Bush administration et al are so blatant by YOUR questions of really happened on 9/11 - if you honestly didn’t feel any threat at what we ‘truthers’ see then why get so defensive and condemn our theories so vehemently? If you are so adamant and convinced that all us ‘truthers’ are living in cloud cuckoo land why not just leave us be with our theories and get back to your obviously very mundane life?
Please do not bore me further by replying to this post - I am simply not interested. No doubt you’ll say I have no real arguments to the matter, that I’m a wimp because I don’t want to thrash it out with you and that if I can’t put up I should shut up ….blah blah blah ,,,, means nothing to me whatsoever … like I said before … so very boring!
so very boring!
So boring that you read it all, composed a response, and then came back to read this one.
we have our own minds and find things out for ourselves
Maybe that’s why you are so often incorrect.
If you are so adamant and convinced that all us ‘truthers’ are living in cloud cuckoo land why not just leave us be with our theories
If you just want to be left alone, what are you doing here? Why inject yourself into the discussion at all? What point are you struggling to make here?
It’s not the discussion that’s boring, Fangbeer, in fact it’s quite amusing, it’s the predictable attacks and instant dismissal of evidence given that’s boring.
As Christians class the Bible as evidential without question and Muslims class the Qu’ran as evidential without question, people like you and Joseph Welch class the 9/11 Commission Report as evidential without question - ‘truthers’ do not live by this blind faith and look deeper when something doesn’t add up - sometimes rightly, and yes sometimes wrongly but at least we don’t stand back and let the dictators of the world, posing as democrats, just rule the masses as they see fit. This is our life and we have the right to question what’s planned for our future.
It’s not the testomonies given in the Commission Report that lead us to question it but it is generally the ones that have been omitted and are deemed ‘negligible’ that sparks questions … ‘negligible’ by whom … us or the Governments?
You demand answers as though we have black & white answers - we openly admit to not having all the answers as, as mentioned above, there are many things being covered up of which we can only theorise. and like any theory there can be multiple answers - this does not discredit our suspicions in the first place.
Like I said in my previous post I am not going to humour you all by listing point by point why I believe 9/11 was an inside job as you would only instantly discredit it (probably accompanied with personal derogatory comments) by quoting the Commission Report, as do fanatic Christians when their bible is being questioned. You remind me of dogs that have been cornered - they attack, and this is what you do when you see that we have valid points to make and these points are threatening to unbalance your perfect world of Governments who only have your best interest at heart. I feel you are in denial.
One thing I will point out is, throughout this site it consistently speaks of ‘questions for truthers’ - it is not for US to answer questions but the other way round! A criminal who is standing in Court, after giving his statement as ‘evidence’, stands in the dock to be questioned by the lawyers as to the validity of the his claims… it is not HE who stands in the dock and questions the lawyers!
I have now said my piece and refuse to be part of this playground activity any further. By all means leave your comments in response this post if you choose to (whatever you put won’t come as any surprise to me) but I will no longer raise to the bait and post a come back response. I do not need to prove myself to you or anyone - I know what I believe about the events of 9/11 and why, and I respect that you believe differently. We are all free to live our lives how we choose to.
I sincerely wish you all the best for the future.
Kate
Sorry - forgot to say - JW .. you mentioned Richard Gage in one of your comebacks, that he allegedly claims that alleged explosives needed to be in place for 20-30 years? Richard Gage also states in one of his presentations that there is becoming enough evidence now, regarding the 9/11 cover up, to bring the Government down…why not contact him and ask him your questions?
This evidence has even led to a petition circulating, that has already been signed by over 3,000 Architects & Engineers who disbelieve the official version, on a FACTUAL & EDUCATED basis, of how the three 9/11 Towers collapsed … RICHARD GAGE IS FIRST ON THE LIST ….. http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php.
Richard Gage also states in one of his presentations that there is becoming enough evidence now, regarding the 9/11 cover up, to bring the Government down
Bring the government down? What does this mean? You intend to advocate for the removal of the American system of government? You think there’s enough evidence for that?
truthers’ do not live by this blind faith and look deeper when something doesn’t add up
And the result is cognitive distortion for the purpose of accomplishing your above stated goal of “bring[ing] down the government.” Your posts are filled to the brim with hasty generalizations, absolute terms, and special pleading. We’re just supposed to accept your theories on their face because you don’t accept things on their face? We’re supposed to answer your questions about the events of 9/11 but you shouldn’t have to answer ours?
I am not going to humour you all by listing point by point why I believe 9/11 was an inside job as you would only instantly discredit it
If your evidence is so flimsy as to be instantly discredited perhaps, as self professed free thinker, you should revisit your evidence yourself.
it is not for US to answer questions but the other way round!
You stated that truthers think for themselves and question the official narrative when it does not make sense. You have obviously constructed a narrative for the purpose of “bring[ing] down the government” I think you should answer questions about that narrative when it does not make sense.
Zzzz. Game of probabilities, forget smoking guns and this site’s arrogant need to conclusively debunk.
Incoming links from other sites