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?

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.

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.

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 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?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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?

No, I don't think you took even 5 minutes to visit any of those sites.

I figured you chose to focus on the mainstream link and pick out a 'view' that supports your bias.

Btw, one of the other links is collected from an article by a Toronto newspaper editor.

The main point I was trying to make is that after examining all the reports, evidence, first-hand accounts and various perspectives, it's obvious to me, that there is some sort of coverup and potential for a false flag event to have occurred.

So, I question your motives and bias when you single out a quote and perspective from some Israeli historian who concurs with official reports. Is it feasible that academics and official investigators will most likely side with the Government accounts?

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of such opinions when the available evidence seems to be at odds with the official story. I likened the situation to 9/11. When you look at all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the NIST reports, then it should be natural to have a double take. Instead, most people will ignore it and concentrate on what supports their bias.

So, out of 20 odd minutes that you supposedly took to go over those links, why choose a source that has no direct connection to the event? 'Peculiar.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

No, I don't think you took even 5 minutes to visit any of those sites.
[...] why choose a source that has no direct connection to the event?

Well, I guess, the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first. It's either I spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites and was able to choose the source that I wanted, or I haven't spent 5 minutes and then I was unable choose a source since I haven't even spent 5 minutes to visit any of those sites. Only one of the above might be true.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

[...] after examining all the reports, evidence, first-hand accounts and various perspectives, it's obvious to me [...]

Well, I'm not in a position to question your research and deductive abilities, but something (the former part of my post, actually) is telling me I could still reserve the right to be skeptical and not trust your educated conclusions blindly.

Seriously, though... you see, in my opinion, some of the conspiracy theories have a significant logical flaw which they don't like to expose. (Yay! The conspiracy of the conspiracy theories; how do you like that?) They all go mainly like that:

1. Oh, the 'official version' provided by the government to explain X fails to explain Y and Z.
2. Therefore, the government is lying.
3. Therefore, the government wants to hide something.
4. The 'inevitable' conclusion: the government itself is responsible for causing X.

In that step, the conclusion is not inevitable. There might be other causes. A somewhat better conclusion is that the government (i.e. the finite set of politicians) cannot make any good use of knowing who caused X. Or it can foresee bad uses.

What do you think of that?