Thread: 9/11

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org


Can anyone still believe the official version?

То же самое по-русски.

I really don't know what to believe.
But I know that something like 2500 Americans died. 250,000 Afghans and Iraqis, probably more since I saw those figures, have died in the ensuing wars.
I doubt more than a one or two of these, if any, had any responsibility whatsoever for 9/11.

I don't know what to believe either. I get sick of all the conspiracy theories, to be honest. It isn't that some of them don't have merit; to be honest some of them scare the heck out of me. It's just that 9/11 was such a horrifying time, I don't like to constantly think about it really. That, and I hate how 9/11 has been turned into a "political football" here in the United States.

9/11 was used to get support for the war in Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. How ridiculous is that? Sentiment against people from all Arab countries was high in the years immediately following 9/11, so our government used our own xenophobia against us to get support for a war! The Afghanistan War, I could understand in the years right after 9/11. But I don't know why it took over a DECADE of war to catch one old man with a terminal health condition? It's all a big mess.

Then there is this issue, which really angers me: The poor firefighters who ran into those buildings to save people, most of them ended up terminally ill. But the politicians haggled for ten years over how to deal with that. Finally, as they were about to vote AGAINST helping the sick firefighters, a comedian (Jon Stewart) makes an 11th hour plea for help, and only THEN do the politicians agree that, yes, the sick firefighters needed help.

9/11 is just a difficult topic, I think. People have really strong feelings about it still.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Can anyone still believe the official version?

New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week

The mainstream media ignored most of this, too.



There's just too many instances of lies and deceit. The smoking gun in this case is Building Number 7.

There's many other examples such as the USS Liberty incident. It's just sad that it's taken so long to convince people to ask questions and have doubts. Usually, people don't even want to have an open mind. The most common reaction is refusal to contemplate any conspiracy based on how elaborate a plan it'd have to be. Yet, the populace is so foolish and gullible, it's not that hard to pull wool over their eyes. Sure, you have to spin things and pay some people off, but big deal. These people have propaganda and spin to an art form.

Can anyone still believe the official version?

I don't have really have an hour and 45 minutes to waste without a brief summary of what I'm going to see -- namely, which aspects of "the official version" does it actually challenge? The brief reviews I've been able to find are long on "glittering generalities" about not buying into everything we're told by Government and Big Corporate Interests, without offering much information about what sort of alternative hypotheses the film is actually putting forward.

I mean, does the film mostly argue that the Bush Administration lied and lied after the 9/11 attacks, in order to politically-spin the event for its own purposes? That's an argument worth making, IMHO. But the argument that Bush and/or the CIA actually planned and perpetrated the attacks is a far more extraordinary claim requiring proportionately more extraordinary evidence.
And some arguments that some people have made about 9/11 were never worth making at all (e.g., that the Pentagon was hit by a remote-controlled missile, because AA Flight 77 and the people on it didn't exist, and there were in fact only three airplanes).

Remarkably, this "Pentagon hit by a missile" notion has been defended by self-described skeptics who would never dream of arguing that the Universe is only 6000 years old, or that the Sun and the other planets orbit the Earth, or that a 1:10^400 diluted extract of duck liver will cure influenza -- and, correspondingly, a massive worldwide secret cabal of atheistic scientists and/or Big Corporate Interests must be conspiring to Hide The Truth about Creation Science, about Ptolemaic Geocentrism, about Homeopathy.

Yet some people who are too educated to believe THOSE idiocies will eagerly brag about being "9/11 Skeptics," and will scold others for being "credulous sheeple."

So, that's why I'd like to know before watching it: what is this 105-minute documentary actually selling, Marcus?

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

...So, that's why I'd like to know before watching it: what is this 105-minute documentary actually selling, Marcus?

(Not answering for Marcus.)

.The GREATEST tribute Americans and the world can give on this most SOLEMN day... | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
.
Throbert: it seems you are pointing out the great confusion and uncertainty, lack of clarity about the issue. Without viewing the video, it is easy to guess that what it is selling, is the need for investigation, precisely to bring light to the issue. Why is it easy to guess? The man on the cover picture is the father of one of the first victims pulled out. He, and all the other families of victims, and many others for professional reasons need, want, deserve to have better investigation. And since this is used as justification for various things, we the public, deserve a real investigation, that really stands up.

Originally Posted by Seraph

we the public, deserve a real investigation, that really stands up.

Somehow, deep down I think a real investigation will not produce anything more sensible that what we have right now. I'm pretty sure the FBI knows the answer, but they can't do anything productive with that.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Somehow, deep down I think a real investigation will not produce anything more sensible that what we have right now. I'm pretty sure the FBI knows the answer, but they can't do anything productive with that.

One of the issues involved here is that of engineering, design, architectural etc, building codes and fire codes, insurance and actuarial issues, and related things. Since the early part of the twentieth century, buildings have been designed specifically to not come down under various disaster conditions. And so for the various engineering, design and architectural procedures/practices, safety and building codes and inspections, occupancy permits, etc, it is important to know what really happened in order to determine whether all those things need to be changed. The event really has a lot of infrastructure, construction, finance, insurance etc related issues as to improvements for safety. The buildings were not supposed to come down the way they did.

Originally Posted by Seraph

One of the issues involved here is that of engineering, design, architectural etc, building codes and fire codes, insurance and actuarial issues, and related things. Since the early part of the twentieth century, buildings have been designed specifically to not come down under various disaster conditions. And so for the various engineering, design and architectural procedures/practices, safety and building codes, it is important to know what really happened in order to determine whether all those things need to be changed. The event really has a lot of infrastructure, construction, finance, insurance etc related issues as to improvements for safety. The buildings were not supposed to come down the way they did.

You're good!

Originally Posted by Seraph

One of the issues involved here is that of engineering, design, architectural etc, building codes and fire codes, insurance and actuarial issues, and related things.

I just wanted to highlight this and add a point: Some "Truth About 9/11" websites and documentaries have produced petitions signed by 5,000 professional engineers who "are asking troubling questions" or "agree that the official version is incomplete," etc. Suffice to say, some of these sites and movies are very eager to create the impression that 5,000 engineers support the "controlled demolition by CIA-planted explosives" hypothesis.

But in fact, the vast majority of these engineers are asking questions about how to improve the fire-resistant insulation on steel girders, and whether the fuel tanks for Building 7's emergency electrical generators were properly constructed, etc. (And I suspect that some of the engineers who signed this or that petition were kicking themselves afterwards, upon realizing that their positions had been misrepresented.)

P.S. Decades ago, "telekinetic spoon-bender" Uri Geller went on Johnny Carson's talk show, and ended up rather embarrassed -- Geller didn't know that Carson had worked professionally as a stage magician in his younger days, and thus Carson had no difficulty spotting Geller's фокусы. So, of course, Geller's "telekinesis" suddenly didn't work, and he had to make up an excuse about solar flares, or something. James Randi and Penn & Teller have made the same point: scientists are sometimes easy "marks" for con-artists, because scientists tend to assume that everyone is being honest, and aren't trained in deception (as magicians are, of course). So I suspect that some of the scientists and engineers who get quoted by "9/11 Skeptics" were deceived, as Geller tried to do with Carson; and others were simply quoted out of context without their permission.

The smoking gun in this case is Building Number 7.

There's many other examples such as the USS Liberty incident.

What exactly do you think that that incident is an "example" of? I mean, I've heard various explanations for the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard it described as a "false flag operation" or a "casus belli" or whatever. The attack may have been a sort of "conspiracy" to make it more difficult for the U.S. to interfere in the already-planned Israeli campaign against Syria, but that's a rather different type of "conspiracy theory" than the ones floated about 9/11. (I mean, no one claims that the USS Liberty was attacked as an excuse for Israel to go to war against that the Arabs, since the Six-Day-War was already into its third or fourth day! Thus, whatever the reason was for the attack, it can't have been a "false flag operation.")

P.S. I'm inclined to believe that the attack can be explained as "accidental misidentification in the fog of war" -- mainly because it seems to me that the small strategic benefits that Israel might've gained by disabling the ship would be significantly outweighed by the risks to Israel in attacking an American military vessel. In other words, I'm not convinced that there was a believable motive for Israel to attack the USS Liberty on purpose -- there was just too much danger for not enough gain, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

What exactly do you think that that incident is an "example" of? I mean, I've heard various explanations for the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard it described as a "false flag operation" or a "casus belli" or whatever. The attack may have been a sort of "conspiracy" to make it more difficult for the U.S. to interfere in the already-planned Israeli campaign against Syria, but that's a rather different type of "conspiracy theory" than the ones floated about 9/11. (I mean, no one claims that the USS Liberty was attacked as an excuse for Israel to go to war against that the Arabs, since the Six-Day-War was already into its third or fourth day! Thus, whatever the reason was for the attack, it can't have been a "false flag operation.")

P.S. I'm inclined to believe that the attack can be explained as "accidental misidentification in the fog of war" -- mainly because it seems to me that the small strategic benefits that Israel might've gained by disabling the ship would be significantly outweighed by the risks to Israel in attacking an American military vessel. In other words, I'm not convinced that there was a believable motive for Israel to attack the USS Liberty on purpose -- there was just too much danger for not enough gain, IMHO.

It doesn't look like you have researched or read much on this topic. Else, you wouldn't be asking these questions. I suggest you research somewhat and read some of the articles out there. There's also some videos if you also want something to watch and listen to.

The USS Liberty Cover-Up
'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
USS Liberty - Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

The USS Liberty

USS Liberty Dead in the Water | Watch Free Documentary Online

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?

US President LBJ Ordered USS Liberty Sunk as Pretext for War - YouTube

There's a lot more. The excuses given don't fly.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I suggest you research somewhat and read some of the articles out there.

I clicked on just one of the links arbitrarily and read it. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?
It concludes with:

"If I could prove the Liberty was attacked in a premeditated fashion, I would write it - it would be a great historical scoop - but the truth is far more mundane."

I might be wrong, but from the tone of you earlier message I assumed the Israeli/US government conspiracy was a proven thing, but the source you've just cited leaves the question mark, to say the least...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I clicked on just one of the links arbitrarily and read it. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Why did Israel attack USS Liberty?
It concludes with:

"If I could prove the Liberty was attacked in a premeditated fashion, I would write it - it would be a great historical scoop - but the truth is far more mundane."

I might be wrong, but from the tone of you earlier message I assumed the Israeli/US government conspiracy was a proven thing, but the source you've just cited leaves the question mark, to say the least...

Arbitrarily, really?

So, you chose to 'randomly' choose the mainstream link I posted and a quote from some 'historian?' Yes, I believe you.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Arbitrarily, really?

So, you chose to 'randomly' choose the mainstream link I posted and a quote from some 'historian?' Yes, I believe you.

Well, you don't have to and, to tell the truth, there's no way I could make you to.

However, consider that I posted my reply 23 minutes after you posted yours. So, even if you assume I read your post right after you published it and it took me no time to write mine, you still believe it only took me 23 minutes to visit all 7 links you posted and read/watch them all, carefully picking up the only context that would convey my biased opinion... I must be a super-researching-hero, must I not?

Do you work for CIA, Throbert?

I agree with Throbert. To use to one's advantage and initiate are two rather different things. It's not news politicians are 'riding the waves' as opportunities come up.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's not news politicians are 'riding the waves' as opportunities come up.

Nope, it isn't news and it isn't remotely surprising.
Unfortunately.

Теория заговора - это то, что какие-то Бен Ладен и Аль-Каида сумели атаковать Пентагон. А то, что это провокация, следует изо всего.