-
Subscribe
3,200 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. Pray for Obama
Sickofmygeneration: You will eventually find that an education deserves much more respect. Indianapolis Schools Ban Atheism Websites
Francesco Orsenigo: It’s scary. As much as I support total freedom of speech (for example, I don’t like laws against... Pray for Obama
Olaf: I agree, the US has no a president that they should be proud of. One with brains and that gets a lot of respect from the... The Stupid Virus
rA: Psalm 109:9, Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Pray for Obama
Craig Duckett: Now if Dennet would have said that “God is just a word” that would’ve been another... Meaningless Deepities
-
Science Flies You To The Moon…
100 Comments
wow, thats fantastic lol.
Ha! :)
Um…Is there a third choice?
Pseudoscience flies you to the placebo?
Pseudoscience flies you to the set of the moon landing conspiracy…
Lol!
Bwahahaha.
Now I want one.
Daniel was the one behind the whole thing
I don’t care for the shirt since it pushes the official line that some knife wielding cave dwellers hijacked 3 planes since they were religious extremists and crashed 2 into the WTC. Come on, seriously? It’s been almost 8 years since that horrible day and people still believe that crap?
I can’t remember — did Bush, aliens, or Bigfoot do it? Keep getting em mixed up.
I just blame 9/11 on the Romulans.
Cylons > Romulans.
Ben Linus > Sylar > Cylons > Romulans
(crap. I just proved my total geekery.)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!
Choose your myth. Authorized version or unauthorized.
But I thought Bush WAS an alien. One of the lizardmen, right?
Nobody should believe that.
They hijacked 4 planes.
True dat.
Jack: “the official line that some knife wielding cave dwellers hijacked 3 planes since they were religious extremists and crashed 2 into the WTC. Come on, seriously?”
I thought about that too but can’t resolve what happened to all the people that were supposedly on the planes that weren’t crashed replaced by the cargo planes. I imagine their living on a government island somewhere, similar to LOST.
Who’d play Sayid in that little drama?
People who believe in conspiracy theories, overestimate the intelligence of human beings when the act in large groups.
Alternatively, one could believe that a group of kookie fundies funded by one of the richest families in the world with the epitome of “Black Sheep Child” did it.
I see what you did there.
So Jack, which flavor of troofer are you?
I had to look up “troofer”:
(from Urban Dictionary)
I find it startling how so many people become defensive and enraged at the mere suggestion that the 9/11 attacks may not have happened exactly the way our government tells us it did.
I would think a true skeptic would be so toward all matters.
C’mon everybody, say “OCCAM!”
Some loonies hijacking planes and killing presumably innocent (I really should find out what I mean by that term) people, OR some large scale conspiracy aimed at I don’t know exactly what (proving that skyscrapes are not the best place to be when a plan crashes into it?! That’s it! The FAA is behind 9/11).
Would love to write on, but two funny looking guys in black, wearing sunglasses, just rang at my door…
Being a little suspicious because some factors don’t quite add up, and being willing to listen to some interesting points does not mean I’m paranoid that agent Smith is looking for me.
Just my experience with a “troofer” (unfortunately my cousin) most of the things that “don’t quite add up” that I’ve seen put forward are parroting of other points while ignorant of the details and science around their point (straight out of the creationist playbook).
The two examples that spring to mind being “Jet fuel burns at X degrees, steel melts at [number larger than x] degrees” totally ignorant of the fact that steel weakens as it’s heated and loses a significant about of it’s strength at the temperature the fires in the building would have been.
The other one being citing a fire in a large European building that didn’t bring the building down, but that ignores that the building was steel reinforced concrete rather than a steel alone structure like the WTC. In that fire all the steel supports failed but the concrete held the building up. The building was also much much smaller (why it was able to use something as heavy as concrete to support it.
I expect there are more rational arguments but the ones I’ve been exposed to are ignorant and easily debunked.
Yes, I see many similarities between pseudoscience, superstition, and conspiracy theories.
Isn’t it good that superstitions are more and more becoming just that? Superstitions? Due to asking questions?
I don’t understand why any inquiry suggesting an inkling that the events of one day possibly may not have happened 100% as we believe them to have becomes worthy of ridicule and associated with the dreaded conspiracy theories.
When did inquiry become ok for only some subjects??
-My post below that’s currently caught in the moderation filter because of an unfortunate word choice in the other paragraph.
I understand being frustrated from dealing with ignorance.
I just don’t understand why I feel like I have to defend people that don’t take it at face value and are ridiculed by those that often have never even considered or informed themselves of the evidence. Surely some have looked at the evidence and have opinions based on it, but many have not, and I don’t think have good reason to get offended if someone questions their opinion.
You forget that there are also materials in the building that caught fire that can create heat exceeding the heat of the fuel.
These people really piss me off. I lived on 55th and Broadway when 9/11 happened and it happened the way it was broad cast. When I heard ignorant conspiracy theories (like that no Jews dies… I happen to know a Jewish guy that died) it makes me crazy. STFU idiot conspiracy theorists!!!!
…like I said. Defensive and enraged.
Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? I welcome you to quote a theory that was put forth here. Calm down.
BTW, what does your proximity to the events have to do with anything concerning your oppinion on the matter?
Why not put forward an alternative then? If you don’t believe in the government’s story then put up your alternative and we can see whether it explains the evidence better.
I didn’t mean to suggest that I believed that there are alternatives.
My only point was that I think it’s strange when people become emotional when this particular subject is questioned without even listening to ideas different than their own. I think it’s strange for the same reason I can’t understand why religious people are not able to be skeptical.
I don’t know the first thing about steel melting temps, concrete, piloting commercial airliners etc… That’s why I cannot claim to know anything about that day. So, I have to go on what other people say, just like most people.
Just because I am generally a skeptic (especially when it comes to decisions or positions on very important subjects) does not mean I, or any other skeptic on the matter, has alternate theories to offer. It simply means they are asking questions. I’m sure you don’t see a problem with that.
ok, I (and I think others) assumed you were pussyfooting around a 9/11 conspiracy theory that you believed.
I think the hostility and defensiveness comes from frustration from having to deal with the same ignorance, illogical and magical thinking over and over from troofers, just like creationists, alt-med and others get somewhat hostile receptions from a lot of skeptics because the majority of the time all they have are the same old misinformed, already debunked claims.
My proximity? Are you shitting me? I SAW what happened. So, like I said, when people made conspiracies that Jewish people didn’t die, it was obviously a LIE! Yes I get upset about this. I lived it. And I lived it for months and months. And I heard every bat-crazy bullshit theory about this there is. If you don’t have EVIDENCE for your crazy theory (especially in light of who stepped up and took responsibility for it) then PLEASE don’t blather about a rather sensitive topic.
(who took responsibility = Al Quaeda. Bush, Dick, et al are too stupid to pull this off)
Obviously a theory that Jewish people didn’t die (as if to suggest that they were somehow in on it, I guess?) is completely absurd. What I meant when I asked what your proximity has to do with it is that I don’t care how good of a front seat you had to watch the planes hit the towers and then watch them fall, how would your advantage of seeing it live rather than on tv on the opposite coast mean you know anything more than them? Nobody’s saying that planes didn’t hit the buildings, or that they didn’t fall down (Maybe some nut is? Who knows). Those occurrences are obvious and were recorded by countless cameras. What would you have seen that would cause you to know more than anyone else just because you were closer to the action that couldn’t be easily answered by looking at what was recorded?
Let me clarify. Proximity in this situation to the towers couldn’t have allowed you to know in the slightest all the intricacies of whom was behind the acts, etc.
Again, I don’t personally believe any crazy theories. I just don’t become enraged when I hear people question things and it’s curious to me when people do that often know no more than anyone else about the situation. My observance of this is just to point out that strong emotion will not get anyone closer to the truth of all the intricacies of an event any faster.
McB-
I suppose our govt possibly could have manipulated Al Quaeda into attacking us. I don’t know, but I think that there is a real hatred for the US in the middle east, so it seems logical to me that they did this on their own, especially since they were so keen to take responsibility for it.
I get upset with conspiracy theories on this topic because I have left over feelings from being in NYC while it happened and in the aftermath. I used to have recurring nightmares that I was in a plane and the plane suddenly fell from the sky and I could see the ground coming. For weeks, everything below 59th street was shut down (ie Times Square was empty!) and F-16s flew overhead. They were loud and sounded like low flying planes and I would involuntarily jump and cover my head every time I heard one.
I despise Bush, but even so, I’m not willing to believe that he attacked and killed 3000 innocent bystanders in order to set up a second term in office. And the fact that “only” 3000 died is remarkable. On the day it happened, we thought that at least 10,000 people died. I think Bush is evil, but that evil? Sorry but without evidence, that is just too hard to believe!
LRA,
It seems logical to me too, and that’s most likely the answer to what happened given what we know. Probably it is that simple. All I’m saying is that I don’t think it’s all that improbable that there could be even the slightest difference from that simple explanation, and being willing to hear those ideas does not make someone a crazy theorist. Just because someone asks questions or listens to ideas that don’t agree with the general consensus does not mean they believe the U.S. government was behind it all, or that the buildings had explosives in them. Those are conclusions that can result that may or may not be based on good evidence. Those conclusions are what many people scoff at and label conspiracies usually. I have offered no theories, no conspiracies. When someone does offer them, they of course have to take into consideration how much evidence they have to back that idea up, as well as how credible it is, as well as the effect their theory will have when voiced in public. Often conspiracy theories are easily debunked, but some remain debated upon. Either way, many people like yourself, who obviously have an emotional reaction to these discussions because of their personal experience, become upset at the mere mention of the possibility that the events were not as simple or straightforward as believed, as if this mention were intended to somehow deminish the importance of the lives lost, or the emotions felt that day. This is what I don’t understand.
Besides that, may I ask why you despise Bush? Do you believe he and others led us into an unnecessary war?
If you are just asking questions, no problem. But if you are questioning the collective experiences of those of us who were there in 3-D living it, I can see how people get upset, especially me (not that I’m saying you do- you don’t seem to). If you are questioning the Bush administration’s incompetency, meh. No worries. If you are saying crazy stuff like “No Jews died” or “the towers were rigged to explode” or “America deserved this” etc without evidence, then I get really mad (not that you are– you aren’t). So my ire is directed stupid people who have made me a little hypersensitive to questioners. Sorry bout that. :(
Anyhoo- I hate Bush for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that he lied to the people of Texas when he ran for governor and denied that he would run for president (which he then turned around and did). I thought the whole WMD thing was bunk from the beginning– it was clear to me that this was about oil and about distracting the masses from the fact that he hadn’t got Bin Laden yet. And I couldn’t stand even to listen to him talk. How could such a stupid man gain the most powerful political position in the world and get re-elected? I guess the people wanted a beer buddy as the leader of the free world. It boggles my mind.
Living in 3-D? haha.. We’re so lucky!
Actually I’m not even asking questions. I’m just curious about the subject and am willing to listen. Don’t you think it’s interesting that so many people question that day? Sure, there will always be conspiracy nuts that think they have no control over their lives and believe that everything is suspicious. For some reason, though, it seems like this subject is questioned by those that wouldn’t normally buy into crazy ideas. There’s probably several reasons for this, but most notably I wouldn’t doubt was because of the majority’s disaproval and likely distrust of Bush et al at the time. I would bet that if the country were extremely satisfied with most things that there would not be so many questions. Bad times can cause distrusting people. Bad times can also cause people in power to do sketchy things, I don’t think many would doubt that. Of course, the degree of sketchiness that those in power are capable of is up for debate. This is why I don’t put my fingers in my ears and get upset when this subject comes up. I have yet to hear any credible evidence that supports any alternate theory that hasn’t been debunked, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to keep an open mind, or label anyone that wonders in the slightest if it’s possible things could have happened differently a ‘truthor’, or ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Living it in 3-D… as opposed to experiencing it in 2-D on a tv set. And I don’t think I’m one of those people who plugs up my ears… plus I already admitted to being a bit hypersensitive! But if you find something interesting and not totally idiotic, then do share! :)
Here’s an alternative for you. Watch these two youtube videos (it’s part 1/2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxhGFJaLvEc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLv8J1eUgz4&feature=related
The man speaking is Richard Gage, an architect of 20 years and a member of the American Institute of Architects. The primary point of the video has to do with WTC building 7, which also collapsed. I won’t bother going into all the details, you would be better served just watching the videos.
Do you not understand that different sources of fuel burn at different temperatures?
My husband is an architect. And architects aren’t engineers nor are they forensic specialists. So I’m not sure that they’re qualified to discuss the collapse of the WTC.
Holy jeebus did you even watch the who video (both parts)? For instance, the part where he discusses the molten iron found, which requires 2700 degrees of temperature to form. He says hydrocarbon fires burn at 1700 degrees max. I’m a broadcast production major, so science is far from a strong suit of mine. I realize that different sources of fuel burn at different temperatures. Are you telling me that his statement about hydrocarbon fires burning at 1700 degrees max is false? Was the fuel in the planes from the planes that hit WTC towers 1 and 2 (note that the planes didn’t hit WTC 7, which is the main subject of the video) a special kind of fuel that allowed it to surpass 1700 degree maximum of a hydrocarbon fire?
Here’s a scientific paper that discusses the finding of active thermitic material in the rubble: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Thermite is used in controlled demolitions to cut through STEEL. Gage talks about the topic some more in this recent interview with a TV station in Fresno, CA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkcxVdDSAY4 go to about 2:46 to hear him talk about the thermite.
Mean’t to say “whole video”, not “who video”.
Ok- twice I’ve tried to post the fact that my husband is an architect and not an engineer and it won’t post… but..
Have you considered convection? Have you actually talked to an engineer on this matter?
So how hot fires burn is a matter of several factors: they depend on the material burning, the environment in which they are burning, the amount of oxygen available, and whether or not they are contained. Again, my point is that architects aren’t exactly a credible source of how fires burn.
Thermites are a class of compounds, and they are not explosive. From wiki:
“Thermite’s main ingredients were also utilized for their individual qualities, specifically reflectivity and heat insulation, in a paint coating”
So it’s possible that the finding of thermites in the remains of the WTC was the result of the ingredients (reactants) already being there in the existing materials and undergoing a chemical reaction when exposed to the high temperatures of the burning jet fuel. It, in no way indicates that people put them there, especially as thermite combustion is unreliable and difficult to control.
Thermite being found after the recover process implies only that thermite was used during the recovery process. Do you remember that pile of wreckage, many stories tall? Do you ever wonder how they cut it into pieces and move it away? Hooray, the answer is Thermite.
Yes, thermite. In order to remove bodies from the rubble, they had to remove some of the giant pieces of metal, so they cut those giant many stories tall pieces of metal with thermite. Its so simple, even a truther can understand it.
Ah! Yes! Thanks for clearing that up Aor!
Dang, Cam C, a simple google search will turn up info on why the twin towers collapsed:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
A salient point is that the metal infrastructure of the building didn’t have to melt for the towers to fall, it only had to *weaken*, which happens around 1200 degrees.
Cam C’s links are to a presentation about WTC 7. It wasn’t hit by a plane and it was about a football field away from the twin towers. A singular building in that proximity fell by “fire alone,” but exactly in what looked like a planned demolition.
Kodie- I was responding to the thermite stuff, but I’ll look into building 7 as well. What I remember from that day is that the news broadcasters told us that building 7 was about to fall, so my roommate and I ran up to the roof of our building and watched the smoke come up.
A structural engineer discusses it:
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/wtcpostmortem125.html
Basically, building 7 was damaged (as were others) and that combined with the fire was likely the cause of buidling 7 going down.
Also, here is a report with a detailed discussion of the timeline of events of building 7 falling (at section 5.5)
http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch5.pdf
That section discusses the fact that the building burned for 7 hours and it also discusses a possible mechanism of collapse.
It worked…awesome. Here is what I wanted to post last night but couldn’t..and I had an expanded post in light of the recent comments, but I don’t have time to type that out again because I have to go to work until late tonight. I’ll hopefully have a response then.
I have not considered convection. I guess I would need a better explain of how it supports the status quo explanation for this subject matter. And no, I haven’t talked to an engineer about this either. I’ve actually talked to very few people about this. In this case, I was reading the comments in this discussion and decided to provide an alternative theory that doesn’t have to do with whether or not any Jews were killed, or something equally ridiculous.
You explained the factors that determine how hot a fire burns, but you never answered my question: “Are you telling me that his statement about hydrocarbon fires burning at 1700 degrees max is false?” And you’re right, architects aren’t the most credible source for how fires burn. However, I would like to assume an intelligent man such as himself (you have to be pretty smart to become an architect) would do some research on these sort of facts (and maybe he already knows a great deal about it, I don’t know his complete expertise) before he puts his credibility on the line, like he has done by going around giving presentations, giving TV interviews, etc.
You should also note that his website for this is http://www.ae911truth.org aka Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. At the top of the page, it says “705 architectural and engineering professionals and 3816 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.” Obviously, it’s not just architects dealing with this, but also engineers and demolition experts who do this for a living.
@Cam:
However, I would like to assume an intelligent man such as himself (you have to be pretty smart to become an architect) would do some research on these sort of facts (and maybe he already knows a great deal about it, I don’t know his complete expertise) before he puts his credibility on the line, like he has done by going around giving presentations, giving TV interviews, etc.
That’s an argument from authority. Just because a guy is smart doesn’t mean he’s knowledgeable in a given field of science. It’s not unlike IDers bringing forth engineers and physicians to explain tectonic plates and evolution. He may be smart and not know one iota about what he’s talking about.
Just pointing it out. I have no opinion on the whole 9/11 business, as I am not American and, frankly, it isn’t my immediate concern. I feel sorry for the people who died, and sorrier for those who indirectly did (i.e., Iraqis). I don’t trust American government as far as I can throw it, but that’s the paranoid third-worlder fear-induced one talking.
Being a skeptic is all about evidence.
Sure, it is possible and even likely that the government has not told us everything. But to date there is no hard evidence that the government has said things that are false or that they were behind the whole event to stir up public outrage. Is it possible that it kinda, sorta makes some sense when looked at in a certain way? Sure, it is possible.
But to date, the objective reviews of the evidence support the government story. The Truther slant on the evidence only makes sense if you already buy into the conspiracy before you examine the evidence. That is not skepticism, that is conspiracy theory bias.
Being a skeptic is not only about evidence. Before someone is able to examine and consider all of the evidence, that person can still be a skeptic. Even if all of the evidence is looked at, but does not seem complete for that person (while enough for others to have an opinion), it would be difficult to remain completely void of opinion. That prior skepticism can exist for many reasons that include bias, or previous beliefs about similar matters, or who knows why.
Being a skeptic means to remain inquisitory in spite of the general consensus. I don’t see a problem with that. Do you? Especially when the intention is only for truth, for the good of those concerned?
I do see a problem with coming up with conspiracy theories for no good reason that have the potential to spread lies, paranoia, lower moral, and lower patriotism. I agree that the people that do that need to analyze what they are doing and why they are doing it.
I agree that being skeptical requires being open minded. One must always be open to new information and receptive to new arguments. And there’s nothing wrong with going against the consensus when there is reason.
But there needs to be a reason. Skepticism has to be more than a willingness to doubt the things you don’t find appealing. There has to be a rigor and a criteria, and it needs to be applied evenly and consistently. And skepticism occasionally needs to be turned against the skeptic: why do I doubt?
Or let me put it another way: “I’ve heard all about evolution, but I really feel that it can’t explain how we got here.” Is this skepticism?
Knee-jerk pee-actionary.
“Oh, piss on that”
I completely agree with your point, but, I don’t think just because someone is open to new information and arguments means that they are going against the consensus. Your first two sentences would suggest that the two cannot be mutually exclusive.
Perhaps I have been confusing the definitions of ’skeptic’ and ‘open minded’. It would seem that ’skeptic’ denotes “going against the grain with some motive in mind”. I certainly don’t mean it to mean that.
Funny that you took the second definition, the one with less people agreeing that it was correct. The whole neocon aspersions are not part of the definition of the word. All of the troofers I have ever met are very right-wing, but maybe they are not neocons, the various groups are confusing at times. I mean look at the Judean People’s Front…
Splitters!
aw, come on… conspiracy theories are so FUN though!
That’s only what the government wants you to believe, Molly. :)
South Park strikes again. The government runs the 9/11 truth movement to make the 1/4th of the population that doesn’t think rationally (or in the episode “is retarded”) believe the government is super powerful and in control so that they won’t panic.
I’m going to throw in my two cents:
As far as I know, it’s pretty much a known fact that, since 9/11, the government has been formulating completely fake terrorist conspiracies. I didn’t learn this from a Loose Change-style video – I’ve been reading this on lots of mainstream (”liberal”) blogs. It’s been said that the CIA has been regularly going out to potential extremist groups, or, more often than not, groups of ethnic minorities that are slightly disgruntled (because, honestly, the real domestic terrorists are all white people; I grew up with some of them :( ); they give them this idea that, hey, if you work with me, we can blow something up. Here’s some fertilizer, go to town.
Then, as soon as the government needs a boost in the polls, they go out and say, “Oh, by the way, I’m an undercover cop, and that’s just manure.” And then go on and on about how clever they are for stopping this terrible plot.
Of course, that’s not to say that real terrorism hasn’t happened. I remember 9/11 very well, and I recently saw video of the London train bombing, and, hell, I was in the state when seven trains were bombed simultaneously in Bombay – so, I have some peripheral experience with these things (the Indians don’t even bat an eyelash when shit like this happens, it was chilling, to be honest).
My point is: the government has done stuff like this, that is, agitated “terrorists” and given them the (fake) means to do terrorism and then arrested them, touting their cleverness. It stands to reason that, maybe, just maybe, 9/11 was a similar situation. At the very least, it’s near certain that it was allowed to happen – which also has a historical precedent, as I’ve also heard the legend of Winston Churchill raving on his balcony at night begging the Germans to kill civilians so that he could retaliate in kind.
I mean, Machiavelli is still in print, after all.
As far as I know, it’s pretty much a known fact that, since 9/11, the government has been formulating completely fake terrorist conspiracies.
Maybe it’s because I live in New York, where the state government seems to be imploding, but I have to laugh whenever someone starts talking about how the ‘government’ is doing this and the ‘government’ is behind that.
Our government is fractious, factioned and contentious. Some argue that it was designed to be so. Anyone who speaks of the ‘government’ as a unified entity that is capable of carrying out a complex plan is slipping towards conspiracism.
Exactly. And people wonder why I get mad.
Umm, that’s called a sting operation. If you are a disgruntled group and someone offers you help blowing something up the correct answer is “no thank you”. If that’s not your answer then you do deserve to be locked up.
I’m not with him. =)
When you say things like “As far as I know, it’s pretty much a known fact that…” or “At the very least, it’s near certain that…”, those are pretty wishy washy statements that most certainly should not be thrown around without some evidence to back them up, if at least to add some credit to your opinion. This is why the understandable hostility comes out from a lot of people because you have little reason to “know” or even “believe” these things. You said yourself that you get at least some of your information from blogs… You should realize that it is necessary to evaluate your sources.
Note to others: This is the difference I was trying to express. Asking questions because one may not have complete confidence in the answers given (or lack of answers given) is no where close to the same as actually coming up with or agreeing with opinions (or theories) that are based solely on unsubstantiated claims that often can have negative reactions especially if the dubious theory was to gain traction.
Why be skeptical of people in power that control information? Surely their track record in truth telling is impeccable. Especially those that were running the country when 911 happenned. But what can you expect. It took a thousand years before people started doubting the church.
Especially those that were running the country when 911 happenned.
Could you be referring to the Bush administration, which leaked like a sieve? Given the number of defectors (Clarke, Powell, etc.), what convinces you that the administration would be capable of keeping any explosive secrets?
And again I say rAmen.
I would never misunderestimate the Bush administration, so I don’t take one side of the issue or the other. I am skeptical of them in particular because they took lying to the public to a whole new level, from WMDs to Abu Grahb, etc.
I am skeptical of them in particular because they took lying to the public to a whole new level
Yes, but here’s the thing: these lies were discovered. There is a whole shelf of books dedicated to explaining how the administration screwed up the WMD predictions. Abu Graib was broken from the inside, by a soldier with a functioning conscience.
Despite beating the drum for ‘loyalty’, Bush was never able to ensure the loyalty of his staff. There have been defections, leaks, and tell-alls. It’s like the old line from Ben Franklin, “Three can keep a secret if two are dead.” There are a lot of living people in the Bush administration.
Oh. I see. Skepticism is actually a defense of the conspiracy theory.
but they couldn’t keep that stuff under wraps, even at a hugely critical moment going into the 2004 elections. Their jobs were on the line but they couldn’t keep prisoner abuse out of the media and couldn’t maintain their WMD lie.
Question, is the official, government supported account the best theory for the evidence? If not, please elaborate and explain the theory you feel is better.
You don’t have to know the truth in order to doubt. Every atheist knows this. I am not skeptical of the official story because I have a theory. I am skeptical because the administration habitually lied.
I watched the conspiracy video documentary when it came out and it made a lot of sense at the time, you know “too much sense”? I asked a friend to watch it also and tell me why it was wrong to believe in the conspiracy so we could discuss it. I don’t like falling into traps like that. Put together a film that tells a different story than the one we’ve been fed, I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon and say that’s what really happened, and the “true” story was a cover-up, because the movie was made well enough to fool people or whatever. As far as these things go, I don’t think he ever watched it and I forgot about it for the most part.
I don’t concentrate on 9/11 like how did it happen, what’s the real true story. What I do know is that whether it seems implausible for the US government to create a diversion so that they could plot against ourselves in such a fashion, it is most definitely true that they know more than they can say or will say (about anything) and that what’s true on the outside is not exactly how it goes down on the inside. I’ve had jobs, we’ve all had jobs, where you are privy to the sausage-making and present something a lot cleaner and easier to accept for the client. The whole of business and politics is made of fudge, and some of it is fudgier than others, but I don’t believe the government is capable of creating 9/11 and I just always think things aren’t what they tell us completely. So, in part of my mind, the boxcutter terrorists did it, and wow, it just came off better (sense of the word better but not good-er) and more organized than probably they even imagined, then I sort of think it is a little bit of a smoothing over of the truth, it’s still too simplified, and that’s for the public consumption. Bing: Bad Guys, Bing: Did a Heinous Thing, Bing: Caused a lot of Destruction and Killed Many, Many People. Alright, swallow, swallow. “That’s all you need to know about that.” That’s the part I struggle with the skepticism, and that’s where conspiracy theories come from. The entire inner workings of the plot for that day is missing details and people are looking for things that just don’t add up. Well it involves the government, which one should never take exactly what they said. They like to keep their hands clean, and that’s really all you need to know about that.
Questioning the best supported theory without putting forward a superior (or even a viable) alternative is what we hate on the ID movement for. The comparison to atheism is off, if there was a mountain of evidence for evolution and viable paths for abiogenesis then it would be hard to believe anything but godidit. Which god would certainly be an issue, but if there wasn’t a naturalistic alternative, what else could you do?
If you have what you believe is a better explanation then put it up for comparison. If after years of investigation you don’t have a alternative that makes sense then you don’t really have a legitimate challenge to the accepted theory.
*weren’t a mountain of evidence
“The comparison to atheism is off, if there was a mountain of evidence for evolution and viable paths for abiogenesis then it would be hard to believe anything but godidit. ”
Perhaps. Even though they are both forms of skepticism. If that’s the case then the comparison of 911 doubters with IDers is not closely analogous either.
The ID-Troofer comparison is more about method than evidence. Trying to cast doubt without a viable alternative theory.
I do believe that on the scale of denialism that ID is further down the line than troofers, but that’s mostly just a matter of time to me.
Yeah. I just point out that faint similarity so that maybe people would go light on the condescension.
I work in the aerospace security industry and yes business has been really good with mostly foolish protection measures since the 911 attcks but i am sooooo tired of truthers trying to tell me that the Pentagon was hit by a bloody missile or that the planes flown into the trade centre were drones when the evidence is widely distributed and clear it just may not look like people expect it to look. Especially really stupid people. And i have yet to hear one coherent explanation of how this massive conspiracy was kep quiet.
Chiropractors fly away with your wallet.
If I were a bit more brave I would purchase and wear that shirt. It is genius.
Here are the only few points that still wierd me out. Contrary to what some folks in this thread claimed, Al-qaeda and Osama did NOT jump forward to claim credit for the attacks. This fact jumped out at me like a sore thumb at the time, because usually the difficulty in establishing who to blame for an attack comes from the fact that about 15 different organizations all jump up to scream “we did it!!”, since they take that sort of thing as a badge of honor.
But NOBODY jumped up to scream “we did it” this time. I was assuming Osama did it, as were many, but I was shocked when, days later, still no one was taking credit for the attacks. I figured they knew we were going to come down on them like an H-bomb if they did (maybe literally), and they were scared, because their plan had succeeded a little TOO well, killing thousands instead of hundreds, galvanizing the will of the world against them.
Osama issued 4 videos specifically denying responsibility before doing one in November, in which he issued a vaguely worded statement, admitting to being a person who killed Americans (like we didn’t already know that), and stating that the Towers were “a legitimate target” for violence.
When that wasn’t quite enough to sell the idea to enough of the American populace, then we “found” a tape in a house in Jalalabad, that just happened to have Bin Laden admitting that the attack had exceeded their wildest expectations, and clearly taking the role of planner in the attacks
THAT has always been the really wiggy part of 9/11 to me.
You are right– what I’m remembering is that investigators discovered rather quickly what men were the hijackers and that they had links to Al Qaeda. Yes, it took a while for Al Qaeda to step up, but once they did, they embraced it fully.
Something to consider as well, Wall Street is in the vicinity of the WTC, and it was shut down for a while after the attacks. If Bush et al somehow planned this or encouraged it or allowed it to happen, then why would they risk the financial consequences to the economy seen after 9/11?
Must. Have. That. Shirt!
ya getting back to the shirt- does anyone know where I can buy one?
n/m I should have just clicked on the picture in the first place, my bad
One Trackback
[...] found this via Unreasonable Faith. It’s probably the most awesomely offensive shirt I’ve seen this side of T-Shirt Hell. [...]