|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 132)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Lads, arguing with conspiracy theorists is pointless, don't waste your time unless you're amused by this fruitless discussion:
| quote: | Rejecting conspiracy thinking keeps it alive and well
IVOR TOSSELL
The problem with deriding conspiracy theories is that it really does leave your columnist feeling like he's just playing his part in the International Bankers' plan for one-world government.
Yet the topic asserts itself this week, despite my years-long attempt to ignore it. A two-hour movie, slickly produced and wrapped in an air of appealing mystery, has been making the rounds, propelled by recommendations from bloggers whose eyes were opened and lives changed. The reputable A-list websites are starting to acknowledge it. People in the offline world have asked me about it.
The thing is called Zeitgeist and can be found via Google Video. It's a online video set against a black backdrop, with no clue as to its creators' identities. It assembles archival footage, animations, and breathless narration into a kind of primer on conspiracies.
The movie comes in three parts. The first makes the case that Jesus is a mythological figure built from parts of earlier mythological figures. Christianity, say the filmmakers, is a concoction, just a form of social control.
So far, nothing ground-breaking. But now the movie jumps to 9/11, and things really get moving. The middle segment steps us through the orthodoxy of 9/11 conspiracy thinking. The twin towers weren't destroyed by jetliners; they were intentionally demolished with explosives. Something fishy happened to Flight 93, which the banker-controlled media will tell you crashed in Pennsylvania.
The Air Force, we're told, deliberately failed to intercept any of the planes. Meanwhile, the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airliner, but by something more like a missile. All of this leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, staged by elements of the U.S. government to provide a pretext for invading Iraq and curtailing civil liberties.
To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves.
They arranged for the Lusitania to be torpedoed, dragging the U.S. into the First World War. They manipulated FDR into essentially staging Pearl Harbour, starting The Second World War. (That was the start of The Second World War, right?) Ditto Vietnam, ditto 9/11.
Their ultimate goal? A one-world government whose citizens all carry implanted microchip IDs. And all the while, the hidden powers are using the consolidated mass media, the church, and the educational establishment to create a complacent zeitgeist — a spirit of the times — that leaves us dumb as sheep.
The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular. (In 2006, one poll suggested that a full third of Americans thought their government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.) It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context.
It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when it suits it. It ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.
The funny thing about this stuff is that it's all been thoroughly debunked for years. Everyone from Scientific American to Popular Mechanics have produced reports puncturing the central claims of the 9/11 theory, and when you look gullible next to Popular Mechanics, you know you're in trouble.
Evidently, debunking isn't the issue. You can't argue aliens with someone who has an "I want to believe" poster on his or her office wall. Nor can you cite the findings of the professional, journalistic, and academic consensus to someone who's decided that having credibility means being under the sway of shadowy forces. To that line of thinking, an expert who is rejected by his peers — say, for lunatic conspiracy thinking — gains credibility just for being ostracized.
What troubles me the most is that, for all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement — much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense.
Just look at the video evidence, they say! Did the collapsing buildings on 9/11 look like they were being demolished? Then they must have been demolished. Did the 757 that hit the Pentagon's blast-proof walls fail to make a plane-shaped hole? Then it must have been something else. Are there unexplained quirks in the official story? Then it must be the work of a higher power.
That's the thing: Conspiracy theorists want to see a guiding force, a malevolent design, behind events. The notion that calamity might be the unintended consequence of subtler causes doesn't hold the same appeal. Evil, whatever its other uses, drives a great narrative. Complexity, not so much.
The Internet bred the 9/11 conspiracy movement, and thanks to films like Zeitgeist, it's alive and well. Now riddle me this: I look at what's happening, and I see people using the Internet to gain widespread currency by rejecting social institutions in favour of an amateur-accessible common-sense approach.
I see people who are highly selective about facts, and who are ready to write off opposing views as the bile of powers that be. I see them using the Web's echo-chamber to create a place where they're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Does this sound familiar? If I told you that I look around the Internet, and am troubled to see this pattern everywhere, would you accuse me of seeing a conspiracy? |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...tory/Technology
He's got a point right there: because of their fragility, most conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they are, need to look "obvious" so it isn't threatened by disputing points of view (I mean, what are you guys posting polls for? Does the average Joe really know anything about civil engineering?).
Arguing with conspiracy theorists will, strangely enough, convince them they're right. They're smart and can see things no one else has, because everyone else has been blinded by the government/church/aliens/zionist movement. They must then help all those that haven't seen the light yet. They must fight a powerful enemy, using nothing but their superior cognitive skills.
Would you engage on a debate with a drunkard on the street? Yeah, I thought so :p |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
In other words, don't think for yourselves. You have no right to do so.
Let Big Brother decide for you what is right and what is wrong.
He know's better than you!
Can't you tell by the way that he's handled all of our wars in such an efficient and benevolent manner?
"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it."
- Thomas Paine |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
and CNN is a reliable news source.........rrrrrrright....
actually i saw the same kind of poll on CNN before except it was % of CNN viewers who thought JFK and Elvis were still alive........ |
Well then find a reliable poll that shows the majority supporting the official story. You cannot use any links to those pay sites like PKC posts here either, they are full of virii/spyware or contain a direct link to Langley.
Wait there is one problem you cannot find a credible poll showing this. Sorry you are out of luck again.
There was a Zogby poll a little while back and it also showed a land slide win supporting the cover up which 9/11 is. The polls are very accurate within a few percentage points if I recall correctly.
For guys who like to boost about facts you cannot deny the numbers which out weigh you in every instance.
Power is in the numbers. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
In other words, don't think for yourselves. You have no right to do so.
Let Big Brother decide for you what is right and what is wrong.
He know's better than you!
Can't you tell by the way that he's handled all of our wars in such an efficient and benevolent manner?
"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it."
- Thomas Paine |
And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought.
You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote :) |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought.
You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote :) |
The problem here is you along with a few others still believe this is a "theory". |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Lads, arguing with conspiracy theorists is pointless, don't waste your time unless you're amused by this fruitless discussion:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...tory/Technology
He's got a point right there: because of their fragility, most conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they are, need to look "obvious" so it isn't threatened by disputing points of view (I mean, what are you guys posting polls for? Does the average Joe really know anything about civil engineering?).
Arguing with conspiracy theorists will, strangely enough, convince them they're right. They're smart and can see things no one else has, because everyone else has been blinded by the government/church/aliens/zionist movement. They must then help all those that haven't seen the light yet. They must fight a powerful enemy, using nothing but their superior cognitive skills.
Would you engage on a debate with a drunkard on the street? Yeah, I thought so :p |
Another dandy.
Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology
Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change?
Currently...
Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes
You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes
Total votes: 199
Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought.
You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote :) |
Don't discuss the fact that the official story is riddled with holes/falsehoods, just capitulate to authority while maintaining your freedom of thought?
Is that right? I'm just trying to understand this correctly. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
and CNN is a reliable news source.........rrrrrrright....
actually i saw the same kind of poll on CNN before except it was % of CNN viewers who thought JFK and Elvis were still alive........ |
Is there even really such a thing as a reliable source anymore? What do you consider reliable? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Another dandy.
Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology
Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change?
Currently...
Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes
You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes
Total votes: 199
Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel. |
you know, i could get a professional poll to ask the question "what is your favorite color" to a special ed class, and 67% of respondants will answer "i like tatter tots" with +- .05% accuracy. This proves absolutley nothing other than the people polled are mentally reatarded....
similar conclusions can be drawn about your "put up your hands if you belive in conspiracy theories" poll.... it just proves that im in top 5th percentile of the population aka the ones that are not metally handicapped. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The problem here is you along with a few others still believe this is a "theory". |
True, it's a hypothesis. I stand corrected.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Another dandy.
Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology
Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change?
Currently...
Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes
You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes
Total votes: 199
Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel. |
lol, I can't believe it. Oh, well, I'd better follow my own advice.
Bye guys  |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
he also doesn't subscribe to the "official" conspiracy theory.
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
by Alan Miller
http://www.opednews.com
James Quintiere, Ph.D.
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...C7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
- Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
- Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
- Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
- NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
- Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
- The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...hsy24133_0f.htm ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
- The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
- The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
- The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
- The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/inde...bc57ec492fa21e3
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://PatriotsQuestion911.com |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
And where's pkcRAISTLIN when you need him?! How come you didn't alert us to the fact that the NIST investigation wasn't peer reviewed?
No peer review = not credible, right? Isn't that what you've been alluding to? lol
| quote: |
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
