First I should declare myself a card-carrying 9/11 conspiracy theorist although I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with any other popular conspiracy theories.
Except one, which I now reject; namely, the one spoon-fed to us by U.S. federal agencies and disseminated by a criminally unskeptical media, including rather aptly the Disney Corporation (see Path to 9/11) that goes something like this:
Under the direction of Osama Bin Laden a bunch of devout Islamic fundamentalists none of whom had previously flown a jet succeeded in piloting large commercial airliners directly into two strategically chosen targets in Manhattan and the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence, flying for almost an hour and a half over some of America's most heavily defended airspace without a single fighter jet being scrambled and thereby causing three steel framed buildings (one of which they did not hit) to collapse symmetrically at near free-fall speed, something that has never occurred before or since, except during controlled demolitions. The intelligence agencies had no prior knowledge of the terrorists' activities, nor any idea that they might hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
Implausible in outline, it rapidly disintegrates into an absurd coincidence theory when subjected to serious analysis. Like many such theories it works by cherry-picking a fraction of the evidence and ignoring the rest.
There is a wealth of credible, publicly available information (from reputable newspapers and other mainstream sources) that makes an alternative theory almost inescapable to anyone open-minded enough to scrutinize it and draw logical conclusions.
How disappointing that the founders of UK-Skeptics with all their proclaimed zeal for evidence-based rigorous thinking select this as an example of an invalid paranoid conspiracy theory: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph...y_theories.php
In view of the mountain of evidence available supporting the "complicity theory", it seemed unlikely that UK-Skeptics could defeat it with a single well chosen counter example. But, ever hopeful, I felt it my duty to check.
I'm sure some easily falsifiable claims made to support the "controlled demolition theory" (upon which the "complicity theory" is not dependent) could be found, but the one chosen cannot be so easily discarded.
A link is provided to a letter Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories wrote to the National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
We're told: One simple email to the company concerned discredits the source of the letter.
Elsewhere on the site we're warned of the common logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad-hominem, but apparently it will do here. Anyway, let's go with it and see how Underwriters Laboratories and the National Institute of Standards and Technology shoot the messenger: UL comments
UL: "Mr Ryan speculated on the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers"
Ryan does not speculate, but raises genuine questions.
UL: "Mr Ryan wrote the letter without UL's knowledge or authorization."
According to Ryan, he wrote to NIST only after he had written to the CEO of UL asking the same questions. They gave no answers and told him to wait for the NIST report. Only after reading the report did he take the whistleblower's step.
UL: "Mr Ryan was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request. Rather, Mr Ryan was employed in UL's water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory..."
Many have used this statement to debunk the issues Ryan raises, but he never claimed to work in the Fire Protection Division. In the letter he signs himself as "Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories." What he has claimed is that in September of 2001 his CEO told the entire staff of his department about UL's role in certifying the trade center steel.
How else did UL shoot the messenger? By dismissing him five days after he sent the letter.
A follow up to Ryan's letter was posted on 17 Nov 2004: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41119123941493
Now let's look at NIST's response to Ryan's letter: NIST statement
This isn't the place, nor am I qualified, to challenge NIST's analysis of the collapse physics briefly outlined in their letter. The media's diffidence on this issue, suggests we will see no peer-reviewed alternative appearing in a major scientific journal in the near future. However, Ryan now co-edits a website that includes many serious independent critiques of NIST's findings by qualified structural and mechanical engineers.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html
Lets look at NIST's first rebuttal of Ryan's letter. It is worth examining: NIST has no evidence that any standard fire resistance testing (ASTM E119) to determine a fire rating was done for any steel component in either WTC tower."
This is consistent with UL's statement to the South Bend Tribune which covered the sacking of Ryan: "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers. "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
The politest term for these statements would be "disingenuous", but given their clear intent to mislead in this context, it would be more accurate to call them lies.
On NIST's own website (last updated 25/08/03) is the contract award announcement:
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htmUnder solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
If UL and NIST are both prepared to use such tactics to defend their corner, where does that leave the credibility of the official investigation they were paid so handsomely to undertake?
The following online movies (broadband required) provide an introduction to the debate about 9/11 that the mainstream media has largely eschewed:
Press for Truth
The Great Conspiracy
9/11 Mysteries
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
9/11 Coincidence Theory gives an overview of some of the evidence.
Last edited by normal; 1st May 2007 at 04:05 AM. Reason: for brevity
A few questions:
1. Have you spoken to a company that specialises in controlled demolitions in order to find out what it would take to bring down the WTC in the manner in which they collapsed? If so, please let us know
a. how much explosive is required
b. how much cabling is required
c. how said explosive and cabling can be placed in such a way that many thousands of workers don't notice it during its placement
d. how a demolitions company can justify to itself the deliberate murder of thousands of people in search of a profit and all of the employees involved can live wit themselves and not speak out
2. how you consider that the official report "cherry picks" data, which supports the official story, and yet the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who also "cherry pick" the data to support their theories do not come under the same scrutiny from you.
3. why you consider that hijackers, who crashed two planes into the buildings, could not have brought down the WTC, when all the eyewitnesses present saw what happened and the official reports (from agencies and companies some of which have little or no connection to the government) say otherwise.
4. please provide numbers of the amount of people who would have had to have been complicit in the conspiracy in order to make it work, including government agencies, demolition companies, the US Air Force, the Pentagon, the news media, the fire services, the police and eyewitnesses and then explain how all of these people can keep quiet about the deliberate murder of thousands of innocent people.
Conspiracy theorists always argue in the same manner:Sorry normal, you're not going to get much of an argument here unless you come up with something concrete and meaningful. Simply trying to pick apart the official version based on your own incredulity is not going to convince anyone here.
- They assume they are right;
- They provide no evidence to support their position;
- They shift the burden of proof on to their opponents to disprove the conspiracy theories; and
- When their claims are shown to be wrong, the PCTs just shift the goalposts and we go straight back on the merry-go-round and go through the process again.
Well, firstly, you don't actually appear to have said anything. If you think NIST and UL are lying about something, perhaps you would like to tell us what you actually believe happened and provide some evidence for those beliefs. Simply telling us that everyone is wrong is not going to achieve anything.
Secondly, for all your complaining about the NIST report, you do realise it hasn't been released yet? There is a preliminary report that is very much subject to change and which I would bet a large amount of money that you have not actually read.
Thirdly, I will address the rather large pile of straw you appear to have dropped.
And the problem with this is what exactly? Flying a plane is incredibly easy. Taking off and landing are a little harder, but obviously that wasn't really a problem in this case. Argument from incredulity is not a valid argument.Originally Posted by normal
As you would know if you'd actually done any research instead of just spouting stuff you've been fed from deranged conspirators, the air force's mission was to protect from external threats. In the entire history of the USA, exactly one internal flight has been intercepted by fighters. Hijackings followed a standard procedure which didn't involve shooting down planes full of American citizens. If there air force had acted as soon as humanly possible, there is a remote chance that they could have stopped the one that crashed anyway, but there was absolutely no reason to suspect that the planes would be deliberately crashed because such a thing had never occured before. In addition, simply looking at the timeline of events shows quite clearly that there was absolutely no chance of any interception in the time available.flying for almost an hour and a half over some of America's most heavily defended airspace without a single fighter jet being scrambled
They did not collapse symetrically.and thereby causing three steel framed buildings (one of which they did not hit) to collapse symmetrically
There is no such thing as free-fall speed. Free-fall is an acceleration. And they were measurably slower than free-fall.at near free-fall speed,
Firstly, no buildings have had jetliners flown into them before. Secondly, not true.something that has never occurred before or since, except during controlled demolitions.
Amazingly, intelligence agencies are not omniscient.The intelligence agencies had no prior knowledge of the terrorists' activities, nor any idea that they might hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
I'm fairly sure a couple of them had pilots licenses for light aircraft, I'll try and dig up the source later (Gravys' guide covers it but JREF is like molasses).
Yes, they had commercial pilot licenses, but the deniers love to quote one of their instructors who said they weren't very good, or something along those lines. They also bring up the fact that they hadn't had much practice and had mainly used MS Flight Simulator to learn. Obviously, the conclusion from this is that they couldn't possibly have managed to dial in a direction and let the autopilot do everything else.
The thing is, no matter how much people argue about how much training they had and things like that, most people don't realise just how easy it is to fly. Doing it properly and safely from start to finish is a lot harder, but just taking control once it is in the air and not having to worry about landing is something that pretty much everyone who has ever seen a joystick could manage.
Wow, have we got our very first pdoh sock, all of our own?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks