Pop Mechanics Can't Back it up
September 19, 2006 11:00 AM   Subscribe

Here's what happens when Popular Mechanics sends their lead fact checker to an AZ talk radio station to debate the 911 'inside job' theory. Lots of speculation, stammering and "I'll get back to you on that" ensues. [23 min. mp3]
posted by snakey (122 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
snakey: Is there a file size and length of the audio available, so people can decide whether it's worth the downloading and listening time?
posted by SenshiNeko at 11:04 AM on September 19, 2006


It is twenty-three minutes long.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:06 AM on September 19, 2006


I have 2.7 megs, looks like 23:44 runtime.
posted by Skorgu at 11:07 AM on September 19, 2006


Who is it who does the stammering and "get back to you" part?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:10 AM on September 19, 2006


Is a transcript available?
posted by brain_drain at 11:10 AM on September 19, 2006


I haven't listened to the audio, but pop mechanics doesn't ahve to back anything up. The guy alleging the inside job needs to supply proof. And motives are not proof.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:11 AM on September 19, 2006


Who is it who does the stammering and "get back to you" part?

The popular mechanics guy.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:12 AM on September 19, 2006


this is a shitty post
posted by interrobang at 11:13 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


I don't know, Pasta, but it sounded like it was the Pop Mechanics guy alleging the cover-up. I fast-forwarded through the file and ended up in a segment where the Pop Mechanic said building 7 collapsed because 25% of its mass had been excavated prior to the event, but the pictures proving it can't be shown to anyone (national security or whatever).

So it looks to me as if it really is the Pop Mechanic's job to provide proof, not say "I know x, but the evidence that proves it can't be shown, you'll just have to believe me on it because I know".
posted by splice at 11:15 AM on September 19, 2006


yeah it's a shitty post. i'm really getting tired of these 911 conspirisists.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 11:16 AM on September 19, 2006


This host is a fucking asshole.
posted by Skorgu at 11:16 AM on September 19, 2006


To elaborate, the PopMech guy is saying that the NYPD showed him a picture depicting WTC7 being severely damaged before it fell, but that the NYPD wouldn't release it, and the host goes off on some tangent about "two classes of citizen" and "criminal proceedings."
posted by Skorgu at 11:18 AM on September 19, 2006


I was going to post this in the other PM thread, but it is more relevant here...

Popular mechanics: 9/11: Debunking The Myths Their original article debunking the most extreme conspiracy theories (the planes were carrying missiles / Pentagon was not hit by a 757 etc) which got such a large feedback that they wrote a book (check out the reviews, sort by 'lowest first' for some entertainment!) and a blog.

By the way, that MP3 is hosted on 'Veterans for 911 Truth which summarises it as:
Charles Goyette dresses down Popular Mechanics "Fact Checker" for the so called 9/11 Myth Buster Book
whats with the rash of single-link PM posts all of a sudden?!
posted by nielm at 11:18 AM on September 19, 2006


[politely leaves room]
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:18 AM on September 19, 2006


Transcript.
posted by prostyle at 11:19 AM on September 19, 2006


The better conspiracy theories are the ones that really can't be disproven, like "someone knew it was happening but decided not to stop it." They don't have the sexiness of blurry photographs or lengthy "back and to the left" explanations though.
posted by clevershark at 11:20 AM on September 19, 2006


Google video has (or had, I can't find it now) a 20 minute clip of the kids who made "Loose Change" debating the editors of Popular Mechanics about 911. The kids wanted to know if a plane hit the Pentagon at 500 MPH (which they doubted) then why don't we see the tail section of the plane sticking of out the building?
posted by StarForce5 at 11:21 AM on September 19, 2006


So did this show air before or after that pair of PM editors demolished the folks behind Loose Change on Democracy Now?
posted by moonbiter at 11:21 AM on September 19, 2006


Popular Mechanics destroyed Buliding 7? I never would have suspected them.
posted by black bile at 11:22 AM on September 19, 2006


This was hilarious. The host just rips the PopMan guy about releasing the unreleased evidence, like he had something to do with it.

Completely moronic.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:24 AM on September 19, 2006


PM needs to stop allowing themselves to be baited by these guys. They wrote their book, proved their point and need to now walk away. There's nothing to be gained by debating these guys.

(Also, PM writers need to stay on the page. They're writers, not speakers. I mean, a stammering writer isn't exactly proof positive of a massive government/corporate/university/Popular Mechanics conspiracy to commit mass murder. It's proof that writers are goobers.)
posted by Bookhouse at 11:25 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Ah, thanks, prostyle. Now that I've verified that it's just some wackjob yelling at the PM guy and not letting him finish a sentence, I don't have to waste 24 minutes listening to it.

The only way this post could get any awesomer is if it were deleted and replaced with a completely different post that didn't suck.
posted by spiderwire at 11:25 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


prostyle, thanks for the transcript. It is instructive to see the difference in word-count between the host and the guest ...
posted by moonbiter at 11:25 AM on September 19, 2006


The kids wanted to know if a plane hit the Pentagon at 500 MPH (which they doubted) then why don't we see the tail section of the plane sticking of out the building?

Well, there's this force, it's called inertia... oh, nevermind. Kids these days. What are they teaching them in science class? The Bible?
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:25 AM on September 19, 2006


moonbiter: Yeah, I heard that DN show on the radio. The conspiracy folks really came off sounding bad. One excerpt that stood out:

JASON BERMAS: I'm not calling anybody a liar, sir. I'm calling you a liar, because you are a liar.
posted by milnak at 11:26 AM on September 19, 2006


Despite the interviewer being a bit dickish, I liked it. The core questions seemed reasonable and I would like to know the answer to all three.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:26 AM on September 19, 2006


Does anyone have a downloadable or linux-friendly link to moonbiter's video?
posted by Skorgu at 11:27 AM on September 19, 2006


So after reading the transcript it appears to go something like this...

Host asks lots of questions. Guest answers those questions. Host is not satisfied with answers and asks questions again. Guest doesn't know how else to answer question. Host frames it as if guest is unable to answer questions at all.

Does that about sum it up?
posted by Sandor Clegane at 11:29 AM on September 19, 2006


all i can say is that it must be awfully hard to debate the facts when you don't have any ... and one can always come up with questions that the facts aren't readily available for

so what's the host's alternate theory? ... i see no reason why i shouldn't believe that planes flew into the world trade center and destroyed it because, after all, that's what me and millions of other people SAW

i wish these people would post proof or stfu
posted by pyramid termite at 11:29 AM on September 19, 2006


Popular Mechanics destroyed Buliding 7? I never would have suspected them.

I was about to make a clever remark that would display my indie cred, but breezeway beat me to it.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:31 AM on September 19, 2006


Could only handle about 3/4 of that video. The host is a jerk, and holds the PM writer responsible for all sorts of crap he has nothing to do with. The callers end up sounding like jerks and don't let the guest respond.

So. one thing I've wondered is this: do the "911 truth" people claim there were no planes flown into the towers and pentagon? Was it all demolition? Or was it a combo of planes as a cover + demo?
posted by rsanheim at 11:32 AM on September 19, 2006


Am I imagining it, or is there a trend at the moment for conspirary theorists to post very long video or audio links rather than text or transcripts?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2006


do the "911 truth" people claim there were no planes flown into the towers and pentagon? Was it all demolition? Or was it a combo of planes as a cover + demo?

They all disagree with each other, generally, excepting the cui bono?, which seems plain enough to them.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:35 AM on September 19, 2006


Why can't we see all the videos of the Pentegon?
Why can some people see evidence of building 7 that other can not?
Where did they get the DNA to match against the terrorists?

Whether these are questions the pm guy can answer or not. Do you guys really think these are not solid questions that should be answered by someone?
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:36 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


The PM guy is my wife's ex-boyfriend. We all went to college together. Nice guy, if a little pompous. I myself regularly look to radio talk show hosts when it comes to well-researched and substantive rebuttals to widely accepted beliefs. Take, if you will, Limbaugh's conversation with leading theologians on how to best approach Aquinas' ontological proofs of God, or Stern's reflections on the evolving role of gender in our society. If there's anything that talk radio encourages, it's nuance.
posted by leotrotsky at 11:37 AM on September 19, 2006 [5 favorites]


Mr_Zero I'm doing this from memory since I can't find the (wonderful) Loose Change debunking website at the moment.

1) The seized videos were not property of the US Government, they were private property and it is not the Government's place to release it to the public. If those tapes have been released to their owners, it is up to those owners to decide what to do with them.

2) I don't really know what the PM guy is talking about here, I've seen a still of the other side of WTC7 showing a pretty massive hole. There are transcripts of first responders that pretty much state that everyone should get away from it as it's coming down soon.

3) I honestly have no idea. I've only seen this claim coming from the direction of the conspiracy theorists, never from a reliable source, so I don't know who's making the claim in the first place.

It could be a strawman, but it could also be a media misuse of the phrase "DNA match." If you sift the wreckage and find X DNA matches and you can eliminate all but 19 of them, it is reasonable to assume that those 19 are unknowns. Given that these people lived at some point in the USA, it's not unreasonable to assume that law enforcement could get DNA samples from (say) hair and fibers, toothbrushes, etc. left at places of residence.

If someone can point me to the Loose Change debunk that I'm pulling this from, that'd be great.
posted by Skorgu at 11:43 AM on September 19, 2006


The seized videos were not property of the US Government, they were private property and it is not the Government's place to release it to the public. If those tapes have been released to their owners, it is up to those owners to decide what to do with them.

I would like to know who has possession of the video. If the owner has it back seems like he/she would have sold it to FOX for 100 million dollars by now. If the government still has them, why?
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:48 AM on September 19, 2006


Mr Zero has hit it with the DNA evidence and the 'Proff" no one ca see.
posted by Elim at 11:53 AM on September 19, 2006


Is this something I'd have to be a conspiracy believing wingnut to understand?
posted by OmieWise at 11:58 AM on September 19, 2006


Mr_Zero I don't have an answer to that. I'm certain various law enforcement agencies have copies, but I don't know the status (or, indeed existence) of specific videos.

"... the government cannot just release confiscated tapes to the public. It may show them at trials, but they are still the property of the company whose camera took them. Look at the settlements with regards to the Zapruder film as a demonstration of why they do not release things."
--9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide.

I don't have any more facts than he does unfortunately.
posted by Skorgu at 11:59 AM on September 19, 2006


Why do conspiracy theorists continue to ask questions that have already been answered?

Why would the massive conspiracy blow up building seven with no cover story after they went out of the way to, you know, make up fucking 9/11 for the other buildings?

Why is this host not filing his own freedom of information lawsuit if he's so goddamn concerned? Why is he browbeating other people to do his job for him?

These are the kind of questions I'd like to see answered before you go out and accuse people of being part of a conspiracy to commit mass murder.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:00 PM on September 19, 2006


Why do conspiracy theorists continue to ask questions that have already been answered?

You have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask, why can't we see all the videos?
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:10 PM on September 19, 2006


Why can't I have a pony?
posted by Floydd at 12:11 PM on September 19, 2006


There is something so repulsive about conspiracy theorists. It is easy to sabotage anyone's line of reasoning with screeds of "how about this?" "how about that?" rather than building a reasoned argument.
That said, PM representative did do a half-assed job. DNA samples of the terrorists? Puh-lease. That's sinking to their level (How about the London paper that had the people who were supposed to be terrorists actually being alive? Huh? Huh?)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:11 PM on September 19, 2006


Hate to invoke Godwin, BUT::::

Wasn't the whole holocaust thing a vast conspiracy involving a lot of people too? that noone believed until confronted with the ovens?


posted by Elim at 12:12 PM on September 19, 2006


PM needs to stop allowing themselves to be baited by these guys. They wrote their book,

Well they're obviously making a lot of money fighting these guys, why shouldn't they keep doing it? It's good that someone is.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on September 19, 2006


Why can't I have a pony?

Because your allergic to them?
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:14 PM on September 19, 2006


rsanheim: here's a "911 truth" summary translated from incoherent barking moonbat to English:

The planes: remote controlled by the DOD.

In-flight phone calls from passengers to family: Some were voice actors and some were real passengers confused by the passengers they thaught were hijackers were really just trying to use their flight school skills to steer the plane to safety.

The "hijackers": All innocent. Had nothing to do with it. Never went to flight school. Never met Osama. Some of them weren't even on the planes. The airport surveillance footage was faked.

Building 7 at WTC: Brought down by demolition because having just two 100-story trade towers fall wasn't enough get the point across so the CIA felt it necessary to also demolish a 20-story building because that would really scare the shit out everyone.

Pentagon: Cruise missle hit an empty part of the building. DoD forgot to spread plane debris everywhere.

Flight 93 crash: Was not a plane crash. A cruise missle hit an empty field. Again the DoD forgot to spread plane debris everywhere or the inept contractor they hired to spread the fake plane debris showed up with the wing of single-engine Cesna, a deflated weather baloon, and a rubber alien head.... which has yet to be analyzed! It might be a real alien head!

Where are the planes and passengers? "Good question! Our goverment isn't telling us?!"

What was the point of all this? "Because our goverment wanted to justify a war with Iraq."

If the CIA and DoD can execute such as wide ranging and elaborate sinister plot, then why can't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq or present Osama Bin Laden in leg irons just before an election or simply replace problemic regimes without all the fuss? "Because... because... because the goverment isn't telling us!"
posted by StarForce5 at 12:19 PM on September 19, 2006 [2 favorites]


Elim no, the holocaust was not particularly conspiratorial. The whole process was pretty well documented and clinical. It also wasn't particularly secret and was well known in the US and Britain (if not, perhaps in scope) well before the liberations of the camps.

Mr_Zero I'm no conspiracy theorist but I'd like to see the videos too. I think that every ounce of first-source data should be made public so that we can learn what we can from the events. I hope that in time the legal ramifications will be settled or mooted and the tapes will be released, but I have come to terms with the fact that there are always unknowns.
posted by Skorgu at 12:21 PM on September 19, 2006


It is easy to sabotage anyone's line of reasoning with screeds of "how about this?" "how about that?" rather than building a reasoned argument.

Reminds one of Creationist debates, no?

I think it is interesting how the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' or 'conspiracy theory' is used, for instance in this thread, as if 'conspiracy theorists' all had some party line to follow like Creationists do. It's a real life fnord!

Really, very few conspiracy theorists agree with each other on much and accuse each other of being 'disinfo agents' ad nauseum.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:26 PM on September 19, 2006


> Am I imagining it, or is there a trend at the moment
> for conspirary theorists to post very long video or
> audio links rather than text or transcripts?
> posted by TheophileEscargot

It's being done, not just conspiracy theorists.

The ability or desire to read is so 20th-Century, I guess.
There's no need to hide information from people any more.
Just provide sound bites and video eyefuls of your spin, because many people rely on nothing else for their information.

Deny the spin in _print_? Who sees that?

Alas.
posted by hank at 12:26 PM on September 19, 2006


Skorgu writes "I have come to terms with the fact that there are always unknowns."

Known unknowns?
posted by OmieWise at 12:29 PM on September 19, 2006


OmieWise Unknowns of all nations, creeds and epistemologies :)
posted by Skorgu at 12:36 PM on September 19, 2006


The Unknown

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.


D. Rumsfeld
posted by Floydd at 12:37 PM on September 19, 2006


StarForce5, you almost make me want to support the conspiracy guys just because you called them "moonbats."
posted by brundlefly at 12:38 PM on September 19, 2006


To sidetrack a bit, Rumsfeld was being a dick when he said it, but he wasn't wrong. It's perfectly rational to classify "unknowns" like that.
posted by Skorgu at 12:41 PM on September 19, 2006


why can't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq

Occams razor - wouldn't a much simpler 9/11 plan have been detonating a nuke offshore or in some shitty part of the U.S and fake reports that it was "in transit" and unsuccessfullly intercepted by the authorities? A terror-nuke would have given them far more WMD leverage with both Iraq and Iran, scared the populace into much deeper submission, and optimally self-tidying in terms of forensic evidence.

But no, the convoluted plane thing was much cooler.
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:51 PM on September 19, 2006


CynicalKnight, that's too simple: the conspiracy theorists would claim the offshore nuke was actually a meteor.
posted by StarForce5 at 1:00 PM on September 19, 2006


If the CIA and DoD can execute such as wide ranging and elaborate sinister plot, then why can't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq

Our government, that competent? Dear God, I wish.

They might be able to get food and water to a flooded city in less than five days. Wouldn't that be something.
posted by dhartung at 1:06 PM on September 19, 2006


the conspiracy theorists would claim the offshore nuke was actually a meteor.

A meteor piloted by aliens in collusion with Majestic-12.
posted by moonbiter at 1:41 PM on September 19, 2006


Damn, three times in the past four days I've come across Popular Mechanics online. Barely even knew that the magazine existed a week ago.

Hooray for Metafilter!
posted by aerotive at 1:52 PM on September 19, 2006


Proof that Bush didn't fake 9/11? My Pet Goat. If Bush was in on the conspiracy he wouldn't have allowed himself to look like a goat's rear end. Unless he did the stupidest thing possible because that's exactly what he wanted us to think!
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:54 PM on September 19, 2006


Given that the ‘official’ story involves finding one of the hijackers wallets on the ground outside the towers, I’ve had my doubts as well. But if they are too incompetant to orchestrate a decent conspiracy how then are they masterfully competant in revealing to us all the information we should rightfully know?
If there was no conspiracy than this was a massive security failure.
Given the failures, is it not logical to assume that some folks who dropped the ball might want to cover their asses and restrict information?
So conspiracy or snafu - either way, the salient point is the American people aren’t getting a straight answer on all particulars.
Given the magnitude of the event here, I’d think people would want all the details run through with a fine tooth comb in a transparent manner.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:04 PM on September 19, 2006


I am not a believer in these conspiracy theories, but just to clarifiy things, if you look back in history, the "black ops" type things which have happened to not involve large-scale deception. It involves getting bad people to do bad things, just not for the reason they think they're doing it.
posted by cell divide at 2:05 PM on September 19, 2006


But, dances_with_sneetches, an anagram for My Pet Goat is Egypt Atom.
It was a signal, obviously.
(On preview, Smedleyman spoils all my conspiracy hatin' fun with a cold dose of reason.)
posted by Floydd at 2:06 PM on September 19, 2006


“why can't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq”
Because they didn’t need to.
I think this administration has proven time and again they can take giant shits on this country with very little repercussion. Yeah, there were no WMDs in Iraq...so? Two things you can do about it, nothing, and like it.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:07 PM on September 19, 2006




Sorry about this, but I'm fucking bored at work right now.

Freedom Of Information Act Request Form.

As for why conspiracy theorists like to browbeat anyone who challenges them, it has to do with a major inferiority/superiority complex (the Jungian style, not that Freudian crap). They feel that people in positions of priviledge or power are only in that position because they try to assert superiority through title, rather than merit. They also have a very poor understanding of social relationships and view corporations and sydicates as mythical, sinister groups who use evil ways to steal and hide things from "the people". Of course, when they say "the people" they are speaking almost entirely about themselves and are simply begging someone to tell them that they are right and give them credit for figuring it out. It's like a kid telling you 40 times that he can tie his shoe laces all by himself and proceeds to show you 40 times. Which I think is where the Popular Mechanics guys comes from with the remark about how a child can ask why over and over again.

Instead of asking "why are people in the government covering this up/consipiring against the public/being mean to me" they should be formulating how to catch them. Screaming for them to "release the evidence" is like beating your head against a wall. It feels better when you stop. Especially if there is no evidence.

I'm also utterly annoyed at anyone who keeps asking for photos of the plane wreckage at the pentagon. They're asking why something that weighed several tons, fully loaded with JP8, made out of aluminum, left very little recognizable stucture intact when it plowed into a concrete building/bunker. S'RSLY?

Or the "thermite bombs set up by the government" cannard. Um, hello? Aluminum + oxidized iron + catalyst (can be a multitude of things) = thermite reaction. Why was it burning weeks after the collapse? Um, because it still had fuel to burn. A thermite reaction does not go out until it consumes all the available fuel for the reaction. Hence the nastiness of thermite. But you say "where did the aluminum come from?" The airplane supplied that. And you say "what about the oxidized iron?" Ever seen what the steel beams of a building look like? Ever notice hot they are kind of reddish? Especially after they've been sitting at a work site for a few weeks while constuction is being performed? Yeah, they have a nice little layer of oxidation on them. Even with anti-rust paint, and "stainless steel". You expose iron to oxygen and moisture, it oxidizes. And then you say "what about the heat? Usually you have to get up to about 2500 Kelvin to start a thermite reaction (very good Chemistry majors)." But then we refer to the "safest" way to create a thermite reaction in a lab enviornment. Potassium permanganate and glycerine. That's right kids. Items you can find around the house. In fact, items that are used in making food and part of a lot of interesting things. But best of all, something used in surface coatings and paints. So you have your glycerine from the paint or any number of sources, you have your potassium manganate in the buildings water system (potassium manganate is used in water treatment plants to remove hydrogen sulfide from well water [Proof], and in case you were not aware, the majority of lower Manahattan's water supply comes from a reservoir system extending from the Catskill mountains and other counties surrounding the City. Reservoir systems that are fed by rural wells and then travel down a river system to the city itself) which becomes vaporized and is mixed with your glycerine, also vaporized by the initial fuel fire. There is your possible ignition agent for the thermite reaction. Your thermite burns and creates your molten iron. Your molten iron burns through the core of the structure, destroying your structural integrity, the whole buildings just kind of twist and collapse as gravity draws more and more of the potential energy built up and it comes crashing down. There was no force to topple the towers to a side because there were no bombs. Yes, there were explosions. Yes, windows were blown outwards. Ever take a large flat peice of plywood and drop it flat side down onto a sawdust covered floor? Notice how the sawdust gets blown away by the plywood displacing the air as it falls? Same principal, applied on a ginormous scale. the air in the core of the building is heating up from the fires, the walls and floors are collapsing, pushing the air against the available exits. Pressure builds and builds and then that point where the pressure exceeds the materials ability to withstand it comes and "POP", windows go crash. Then moments later the whole building comes down. In 30 some seconds. Gravity, she's a bitch, no?

These are all simple physics principals, things I learned in high school. I guess everyone else was busy memorizing test answers instead of learning the basic principals of how the physical world works.

And they always, always, always say some of the dumbest things too. "A plane doesn't just disintegrate on impact." Um. Yes it does. Planes were not designed to make contact with anything but air. Ever notice how you don't see very many airplanes touching each other around airports? In fact, ever notice how just about the only things they do touch have big rubber pads or cushions on them so they don't I don't know, damage the planes?

Building 7? Just stop already. This has been hashed over and over again. Uncontrolled fire, structural damage to the building. They had firefighters in the building until nearly 4PM. The building was evacuated and a "collapse zone" was set up around the building because they knew they could not get the resources necessary into the area to battle the fire without putting more firefighters lives at risk. They "gave up" on the building and let it burn, then collapse. It's sad they could not do anything about it, but trying to cook up some theory about how they intentionally brought it down is bordering on the ridiculous here. I'm talking X-Files:The Movie ridiculous. They wanted to hide something. Hide what? That the building was on fire? I think the smoke pouring out of the building for most of the day would tell you that much. You know why there are no clear pictures of the Southern face of the building? Because Towers 1 and 2 had just collapsed and there was no way to get around to the Southern side of the site because of the danger from smoke, fire, dust, debris, and the very real possibiity that more towers were going to collapse. I'm sure conspiracy theorists would love to have been there, in southern Manhattan, on the day of that event and rushed to the scene of the catastrophy. They'd rush into the blazing inferno to catch the evil government agents planting explosives in a building that is first being slammed by debris and choking dust, and then on fire and turning into a 47 story tall concrete death trap. That makes so much fucking sense. I don't know of very many government workers, CIA or otherwise who would sign up for that assignment. Yes, we're so hardcore patriotic and committed to our cause of taking over the United States government from within that we're going to risk our lives to plant explosives in a burning building amid chunks of steal and concrete and rubble falling around us. This is what they call a "BAD IDEA".

Ok, I'll stop for now. Though I love this "debate". Since people seem to want to ask silly questions that have rational and basic explinations.
posted by daq at 2:18 PM on September 19, 2006 [7 favorites]


That made me happy. It's nice to hear an interviewer with some balls. It's too bad only magazine editors can get the grill in this day and age.
posted by my homunculus is drowning at 2:30 PM on September 19, 2006


you have your potassium manganate in the buildings water system (potassium manganate is used in water treatment plants to remove hydrogen sulfide from well water

There is absolutely no fucking way the potassium permanganate concentration could be high enough in the buidlings water system to join in the reaction. Good thing you put "debate" in quotes.
posted by telstar at 2:41 PM on September 19, 2006


I thouroghly enjoyed that and just don't know what to believe anymore.

Love good discourse about 9/11 questions, and I think the host is clear and correct in his points and questions.

Nice post.
posted by squidfartz at 2:57 PM on September 19, 2006


Could some of the apparent conspiracy theorists in these comments explain what they think really happened on 9/11, in their own words? I'm just curious how it all adds up, in your minds.

I'm talking specifically about snakey, Mr_Zero, my homunculus is drowning, telstar & squidfartz.

Who hijacked the planes? Why? If you're going to blow up a building with explosives, why not just say that terrorists planted bombs? If the purpose was to justify war with Iraq, why invent evidence tying the plot to unrelated individuals? What is the point of faking a plane crashing into the Pentagon when you can just, you know, crash a plane into the Pentagon?
posted by designbot at 3:00 PM on September 19, 2006


" The kids wanted to know if a plane hit the Pentagon at 500 MPH (which they doubted) then why don't we see the tail section of the plane sticking of out the building?"

Google for "Screw Loose Change."

I'm surprised that hasn't made it on here yet. Basically, it's some Canadian guy that goes over "loose change" bit by bit and tears it to shreds.

For people that call themselves "truth activists" (cuz it sounds better than "conspiracy theory addicted nutjobs) they sure do make up a lot of utter bullshit.
posted by drstein at 3:03 PM on September 19, 2006


Most people in the government are well-meaning but incompetent.
Conspiracy theorists allege that they are malevolent and supremely competent.
posted by spazzm at 3:11 PM on September 19, 2006


designbot, the likely answers to all your questions are either "the cabal" or "for nefarious reasons yet to be revealed."
posted by brain_drain at 3:12 PM on September 19, 2006


I said I 'don't know what to believe anymore' and now I'm one of the 'apparent conspiracy theorists' -give me a fucking break, designbot.

I'm not much of a typist and my time on this thread is limited because of my online access this evening... I will however state one simple fact.

Pearl harbor was planned.

I'm just stating a fact.

Circumstances were created so we could get into a war.

It's just a fact that cannot be disputed or argued. We have the evidence, we have the admissions and at least we were fighting for a truly great reason. Combating fascism, Nazis, etc.

All we fight for now is oil and power.

I just don't know what to believe anymore.
posted by squidfartz at 3:23 PM on September 19, 2006


telstar-
I offered up a theory. There are any number of other accelerants that when combined in an enclosed enviornment and ignited with jet fuel could read the required temperatures to initiate a thermite reaction.
It's just a funny little thing I came up with as far as an _actual_ provable theory as to the explinations for molten iron to be present at the site, beyond the cannard of "it was bombs planted by the CIA". With fact checking and everything (making sure that New York actually uses Potassium Manganese in it's water treatment facilities, making sure that the combination of Potassium Manganese and Glycerine burn hot enough to ignite a thermite reaction. There's also the possibility that the plastic from the office furniture and airplane and luggage and everything else in this world that's covered in the stuff could have burned hot enough to be the ignition source. Or insulation. Or copier toner. Or any number of common items around either an airplane or in an office building that when ignited, oxidizes at a high enough temperature to initiate the resulting thermite reaction.

But, you know, go on with your bad self.
posted by daq at 3:41 PM on September 19, 2006


The controlled demolition theories loose me at failing to explain how parts of buildings that were cleanly and professionally demolished to fall "in their own footprint" ended up doing massive structural damage to buildings across a six-lane highway, and drift into every apartment and business in lower Manhattan.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:56 PM on September 19, 2006


Well, daq, I had to shoot that down, since it was the only thing you labelled [Proof]. The rest, as far as this former physics/chemistry major is concerned is mere conjecture. Which puts you on the same footing as the conspiracy theorists from my point of view.

All in all, I think this is going to end up like the Kennedy assasination. Endless debates, finely detailed studies of arcana, no real answers, and no actual denoument. But I must say, the "conspiracy theorists" certainly are getting better at presenting their side.
posted by telstar at 3:57 PM on September 19, 2006


Anyone who doesn't believe the official story is a conspiracy theorist. Nevermind the fact that the official story is the biggest conspiracy of them all and incidentally has very little or no evidence to backup any of it.

Burden of proof my ass.
posted by GrooveJedi at 4:00 PM on September 19, 2006


far more interesting is the socio-chemical reaction which a coupla falling buildings set off - five years later its still burning freedom at an incredible rate, consuming massive amounts of common sense and choking the atmosphere with clabbered, feculent fusillades of bilious fear. un. fucking. believable.
posted by quonsar at 4:04 PM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Conspiracy theorists allege that they are malevolent and supremely competent.

That is exactly the problem I have with virtually all conspiracy theories. At their core, they almost always require supernatural levels of competence and cooperation to pull off, with no one involved ever giving in to the temptation to selling out all the others for personal gain. When you stack them up against the more mundane explanations -- which usually amount to "somebody screwed up" -- they simply lose all believability.
posted by moonbiter at 4:05 PM on September 19, 2006


Pearl harbor was planned.

I'm just stating a fact.

Circumstances were created so we could get into a war.

It's just a fact that cannot be disputed or argued.


Moonbats always think their crazed theories are "facts" that "cannot be disputed or argued." And if you dispute them, it's clear proof that you're part of the conspiracy!
posted by languagehat at 5:02 PM on September 19, 2006


Moonbats always think their crazed theories are "facts" that "cannot be disputed or argued." And if you dispute them, it's clear proof that you're part of the conspiracy!

Similar to sheep who refuse to look at anything other than what is fed to them, no matter how bad it tastes. They will continue to follow all other sheep in a straight line, refusing to look left or right for fear of what they might discover. If you attempt to open their eyes to anything that deviates away from that straight line, they'll just call you a conspiracy theorist and continue walking, all the while, completely oblivious to the fact that the line they are walking on is the biggest conspiracy of them all. Ahhhhhh yes, the irony. :)

Pearl Harbor was planned, but why let facts interfere in our everyday perception of the world?
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:09 PM on September 19, 2006


Pearl Harbor was planned

Why yes, yes it was.






By the Japanese.
posted by languagehat at 5:18 PM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


“That is exactly the problem I have with virtually all conspiracy theories. At their core, they almost always require supernatural levels of competence and cooperation to pull off, with no one involved ever giving in to the temptation to selling out all the others for personal gain.”

Yes, Caesar just slipped on that knife. No conspiracy there.
No one tried to discredit Catholics in England saying they were trying to assasinate King Charles II - I mean who could come up with such a complex plan?
Native Americans just happened to contract smallpox naturally - who would be so diabolic as to give them blankets laden with it?
And once someone sees a conspiracy for what it is, there’s no way they’d go on believing it. Everyone knows that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are forgeries and fortunately no one has died as a result of anyone using this obvious fabrication nor does anyone give any credence to them at all anymore.
That’d be as crazy as manipulating rainfall totals to sucker people into thinking there was a draught (and we’re all much to smart to be fooled by such a thing) and manipulating the press to publish draught articles (they’ve got too much integrity to do that) selling an aqueduct to Los Angeles but diverting the water to irrigate the San Fernado Valley. Forget it Jake , that would take massive amounts of cooperation. (And it’s a good thing the large and efficient L.A. trolley system didn’t fall to any conspiracy). It’s not like one person could orchestrate these kinds of things either. I mean George Bush was the CIA director and director of the President's U.S. Drug Task Force, but just because he was director of Eli Lilly doesn’t mean he had anything to do with running brothels and dosing unconsenting individuals with LSD. And the American people wouldn’t stand for something on a massive scale like bombing a nation we aren’t at war with f’rinstance - Cambodia - surely the people responsible for that would be prosecuted. That’d be as nutty as someone getting away with selling weapons to people holding our people hostage and skirting congress and using the proceeds to fund anti-Communist guerrillas...or something.
Enron, worldcom, Etc. etc. etc.
Conspiracies do happen. They do profit when undiscovered (and sometimes even if discovered). Whether anyone in the American government was complicit in what happened I don’t know. They sure as hell screwed the pooch though and I have yet to see anyone held accountable.
Seems like the same song and dance to me.

“ ‘Circumstances were created so we could get into a war.’
‘Moonbats always think their crazed theories are "facts"...”

languagehat, you’re not seriously arguing the U.S. did not provoke the hell out of the Japanese (?) It’s well known FDR wanted in that war and we were provoking the axis at nearly every opportunity.
(As to the particular of Pearl Harbor some historians think it’s plausible. I myself very much doubt it, for exactly the reason above - that FDR wanted in. The polls were in his favor so why sacrifice one of your principal staging grounds?
I think he was waiting for the Japanese to make the first move, but I doubt he expected Pearl Harbor. A break off in relations maybe.)
posted by Smedleyman at 5:30 PM on September 19, 2006


Why did he order the naval fleet to return closer to Hawaiian shores then? :)
posted by GrooveJedi at 5:35 PM on September 19, 2006


Smedleyman: And of course, governments has never, ever benefitted by disinformation and agent provoceteurs who propigate easily radical and easily dismissed claims.

They sure as hell screwed the pooch though and I have yet to see anyone held accountable.

How does creating elaborate fantasies about the controlled professional demolition of buildings "onto their own footprint" (and simultaneously into every living room, classroom, and office in lower Manhattan hold anyone accountable?

Which is, in my opinion one of the major trajedies of all this is that "conspiracy theorists" do a marvelous job of poisoning the well in order to prevent real movements towards accountability. Obviously if you don't believe that the WTC was loaded with thermite and the Pentagon hit by a cruise missile, you must be opposed to all forms of government accountability.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:45 PM on September 19, 2006


Pearl harbor was planned.

Yeah, by the japanese. Just like Al Quada planned 9/11. It was a conspiracy, a conspiracy of people in Al Quada.
posted by delmoi at 5:54 PM on September 19, 2006


Could some of the apparent conspiracy theorists in these comments explain what they think really happened on 9/11, in their own words? I'm just curious how it all adds up, in your minds.

I would not consider myself a conspiracy theorist. However I do not like to have all the information so I can decide for myself what to think. I like many others did not have any doubts about what occured when the incident happened. However since that time many things have been claimed and many things disproven. However there is something that exist, is factual and could be shown to everyone. The fact that the video's have not been aired seems odd to me that is all. As a matter a fact as important as it should be, I find it down right bizarre, even suspect that only 4 frames of a video has been released. It doesn't seem odd to you that the gas station video has not been released. Don't you REALLY want to see it? Doesn't it bother you that it has not been shown?
posted by Mr_Zero at 5:57 PM on September 19, 2006


I offered up a theory. There are any number of other accelerants that when combined in an enclosed enviornment and ignited with jet fuel could read the required temperatures to initiate a thermite reaction. It's just a funny little thing I came up with as far as an _actual_ provable theory as to the explinations for molten iron to be present at the site, beyond the cannard of "it was bombs planted by the CIA". With fact checking and everything (making sure that New York actually uses Potassium Manganese... bla bla bla bla.

See this is what's so annoying about conspiracy theorists. The temprature that something ignites is the minimum temperature of a fire of that substance, but there is no limit on how hot that fire can get. I mean, ancient people smelted iron by burning wood.

All this conspiracy stuff is just based on logical thinking built on faulty premises.
posted by delmoi at 6:00 PM on September 19, 2006


This is amazing.
Didn't anyone watch the news a few years ago?
Pearl Harbor was deliberate and no one argues that anymore.
Holy crap, am I the only one following the news?
It's not 'weirdo conspiracy' stuff or extreme ideas... it's the product of released documents and people coming forward.
However, the response to my statement seems to bear out the mindset people like me have to combat just by thinking.

Pearl Harbor was planned and that is not a secret.

Open your fucking eyes, people. That's no scandal -just historical fact.

See how hard it is to make a contemporary question when you have to deal with this reactionary crap?!!????

You stay here -I have furthur questions.

Do you?
posted by squidfartz at 6:17 PM on September 19, 2006


“How does creating elaborate fantasies about the controlled professional demolition of buildings "onto their own footprint" (and simultaneously into every living room, classroom, and office in lower Manhattan hold anyone accountable?”

I’ll get back to you on that.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:23 PM on September 19, 2006


...and yes, the 'news' has it's values.

Once in awhile.
posted by squidfartz at 6:27 PM on September 19, 2006


squid - study up on Pearl Harbor. You'll find the "Roosevelt was in on it" is an extreme minority position. Probably up there with Bush planned 9/11 in a few years. And, yes, I watch the news.
And yes there are real conspiracies that do exist.
What does exist, people take advantage of or refashion history towards their own ends. The Gulf of Tonkin (second) incident was probably just noise. It was fashioned into a reason for stepping up involvement in Vietnam. The Maine was not sabotaged - but it was given as a reason for the Spanish American war. Few people have suggested McKinley bombed the Maine though.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:33 PM on September 19, 2006


On Pearl Harbor, WikiPedia, at least, still seems to come down on the "weirdo conspiracy" side, although they do acknowledge there is a "debate". I'm certain that the whole 9/11 thing will likewise be adequately resolved to all parties' satisfaction over the next sixty-five years or so.
posted by yhbc at 6:51 PM on September 19, 2006


“Which is, in my opinion one of the major trajedies of all this is that "conspiracy theorists" do a marvelous job of poisoning the well in order to prevent real movements towards accountability.”

Yeah, I agree with that. But again - as with so many things, the bombing of Cambodia is a nifty example - no accountability. But that goes to your earlier comment - on “disinformation and agent provoceteurs who propigate easily radical and easily dismissed claims.”

Is it regular folks saying the pentagon was hit by a cruise missle? Maybe. Are they the only ones that benefit from that obfuscation? Who does?

I myself asserted only that there have been conspiracies in the past - successful or not and that in many instances the conspirators have gotten away with it.
I did not bring in this controlled demolition b.s. or any details really.

But ok - OBL was one of ours. He’s worked in close contact with U.S. intelligence operatives. He has massive contacts in Saudi Arabia (the country most of those hijackers were from) as does Bush. You can’t seriously believe that it is impossible that several extremely wealthy individuals tapping a U.S. intelligence agency with nearly unlimited resources couldn’t dupe some local goofball fanatics into doing something like this and obscuring the situation during the event enough (using recent changes in policy and several other high ranking officials) to prevent a full and complete response?

They couldn’t do it? Never?
Sounds as unlikely as a small group of fanatic goofs with smuggling boxcutters onto a plane stymying the air defences of the most powerful country in the world and performing very competant flying manuvers after short periods of training to destroy otherwise very solid buildings, doesn’t it?

The odds seem to break both ways on either scenario. Before 9/11 which one would you have said was more likely?
But I have no evidence of one and some evidence of the other, so I’m forced to believe the second one took place.
Given that however - who’s been fired? Anyone? Has someone offered their resignation for failing to protect the skies of New York from an enemy attack? Has the administration admitted failure and taken some kind of responsibility to the extent that someone lost their job?
So it’s natural to start asking questions. Some of those questions are unproductive, but people tend to react that way when frustrated.
What did the administration know and when did they know it and who wasn’t doing their job and how did ‘x,y,z’ screw up lead to those planes hitting the towers? And what has been done to fix it? And where is the primary evidence and why can’t we see it?

So...did Nixon’s secretary really just screw up and erase those few minutes on the tapes?
Can you prove she didn’t? Or did?

Kinda sucks either way. Whether Rose Mary Woods actually pressed down on the record pedal accidentally erasing 18 1/2 minutes off the Watergate tape or not - we don’t know what was on there.
And that’s what I’m saying. Particulars notwithstanding - we should know.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:54 PM on September 19, 2006


Its funny that the people who I've met who believe this stuff are conservstive types, if not outright Bush voters. Its more than a tad strange to vote for a guy you think killed a few thousand of your countrymen. The more I get exposed to this the more I see the scared little boys in these men. Guys who could never admit that the mighty USA could have been damaged so badly by a handful of extremists (or japanese generals 50 years ago.) They must believe only America can hurt America, facts and logic be damned. Conspiracy theories are a national sport here. JFK, Roswell, Crop Circles, Bigfoot, etc. People like to feel they're the clever one in the group. Its interesting to me that those acting like theyre the super-clever ones are the dimmest of the bunch. The way the guy with the 2,000+ dollar Moog is the shitiest synth player I know.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:04 PM on September 19, 2006


Thanks to the people who reasonably suggest I research my views. Seriously. Thank you all.

All I am saying is "I AM NOT SURE".

Is that so bad?
posted by squidfartz at 7:05 PM on September 19, 2006


squidfartz, you're a total fud. 90% of your posts are something like "that is a fact". Now you're not sure? "???!??!??".

I'm beginning to think that all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is a particular kind of American in the denial stage of grief -- grief for America's self-image.

Smedleyman's right when he says that there's been no accountability for 9/11 -- why hasn't Bin Laden been brought to justice? Why didn't the voters vote out Bush? The drivel surrounding the melting point of metal just takes away from that focus.
posted by bonaldi at 7:24 PM on September 19, 2006




At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren't necessary to prove the venality of the Bush Administration. There's plenty of that proof lying around. We don't need to make it up.


From the excellent article posted by Homunculus.

A bunch of questions isn't evidence. Meanwhile the real fight against incompetent gov't is sidetracked by the strident shouting of dead-end fantasies.
posted by storybored at 9:00 PM on September 19, 2006


The video that telstar posted was interesting. They spent a lot of time at the beginning making sure it was understood that there was no way the temperature of the fire could have been hot enough to deform steel.

Then later on they had to show you that it was so hot it must have been thermite.
posted by dhartung at 9:30 PM on September 19, 2006


Similar to sheep who refuse to look at anything other than what is fed to them

you and your conspiracy theory friends are jackals, feeding on the dead bodies of 3,000 americans so you can belch up your misleading and inconclusive tripe to those who are prone to believe it

furthermore, you are a tool ... there IS a conspiracy ... there ARE reasons why such stories are spread ... because people who want to advance their own political philosophies find them useful to destroy the trust people have in the government and the media, (such as it is), and build up belief in what they're trying to get people to follow

i'm sure that many in the 9/11 "truth" movement have ulterior motives for spreading their theories ... and you will follow them blindly ...

it's the dolchstosslegende all over again, and you are unwittingly preparing the way for a fascist leader who will take ruthless advantage of it

and you have the nerve to call US sheep
posted by pyramid termite at 9:43 PM on September 19, 2006


I am more or less sure that the 9/11 story is more or less like the official one BUT I have no way to make sure because the one thing I *do* know for sure is that the government has done everything it possibly can to make sure that the American people have as absolutely little information as absolutely possible to rationally evaluate the truth of the official 9/11 story.

So when people tell me that George Bush or his gang allowed or even organized 9/11, I cannot rationally dispute it. I think it improbable that they could pull something off of this magnitude but it is certainly not out of the question and it's certainly something that Bush might well have done if he'd have thought of it.

It's a sobering thought that I think there's a small but finite chance that the US President is a mass murderer of US citizens but we already know he's caused the unnecessary deaths of some hundred thousand foreigners so I don't think that this idea, repugnant as it is, can be dismissed out of hand.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:22 PM on September 19, 2006


About Pearl Harbor ...

The analogy doesn't fit. You can't compare FDR knowing about the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen (if he did, which I don't concede) and the 9/11 conspiracies. You can only say that if you're claiming that it wasn't really Japanese planes that bombed Pearl Harbor ... they were American missles.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:59 PM on September 19, 2006


Yes, Caesar just slipped on that knife. No conspiracy there. (etc.)

I'm not saying that conspiracies don't exist at all. I'm saying that the elaborate conspiracies that we are generaly speaking of when we talk about "conspiracy theories" -- for example, that a several large US government agencies were involved in a coordinated attack destroying the WTC and surrounding buildings and kidnapping 4 planeloads of pasengers so that the Bush adminstration could create a police state -- are highly, highly unlikely and require a level of coordination and cooperation that mortal humans just can't accomplish successfully. It's far easier to believe that the agencies involved screwed up and let an attacker through than to believe that they were competent enough to pull such an elaborate operation off.

There are several orders of magnitude of difference between the plots you mention and what we are talking about here (not would I call the smallpox blanket thing a "conspiracy" as such). And it is the scale of the thing that is the key.
posted by moonbiter at 5:29 AM on September 20, 2006


I wonder how many of these conspiracy theories are based on a bit of (to avoid dropping the r-bomb) ethnocentrism that any other group could pull off a tactical coup against the U.S.. I suspect that for some it is easier to believe that Rosevelt let it happen, than to believe that a war-hardened and experienced strike force with numeric and technical superiority won a victory against a force that was ill prepared for war.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:33 AM on September 20, 2006


What moonbiter said: Scale is the key.

It occurred to me that we could do a mathematical study of historical examples of real conspiracies that have been uncovered and how many people were involved:

e.g.

Caesar's assassination: < 20 conspirators
Watergate: < 20 conspirators

Since the risk of a conspiracy leak likely rises as the square of the number of conspirators, we could empirically determine a number N, such that the probability of a successful conspiracy of N people is < 5%.

Interestingly N might be a relatively small number. All of the famous conspiracies have small numbers of conspirators.... Can someone identify a historical conspiracy (unsuccessful naturally) of more than 100 individuals?
posted by storybored at 8:09 AM on September 20, 2006


Speaking of conspiracies, how much of what we "know" about Julius Caesar's assassination comes from the people who successfully used it as a pretext for tearing apart the republic?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:55 AM on September 20, 2006


Still waiting for ANY evidence to support the official story.

Until I see/read that, I assume it's all lies.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:33 AM on September 20, 2006


GrooveJedi What would you accept as evidence?
posted by Skorgu at 11:54 AM on September 20, 2006



“Can someone identify a historical conspiracy (unsuccessful naturally) of more than 100 individuals?”

The Hashishim sect. The persecution of the knights templar. (Perhaps the knights templar themselves) The persecution of the Cathars. Would we call the conference at Wannasee a conspiracy? The French resistance? The Mafia? The Tongs? The American revolution? That was a large scale conspiracy to overthrow the rule of a king. Although more properly called a cabal. Colin Powell’s chief of staff said Bushco’s foreign policy is dicated by a ‘Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal.’ I bet more than 10 people work for either of them. The Molly Maguires? The Ku Klux Klan?

The problem is a conspiracy that becomes big enough becomes a movement or an event. Which, really, is the goal of a conspiracy isn’t it?
Or what do you think, these people suddenly came together and said “I know! Let’s fake an attack on American soil so we can invade Iraq!” (for example - not asserting that’s what happened)
But there is ample evidence that there has been a group of very powerful wealthy people with similar agendas aiming at that goal for a long time who are all in power now.
But surely that’s completely a coincidence.

“And it is the scale of the thing that is the key.” - posted by moonbiter

That’s why I alluded to the bombing of Cambodia. Pretty large scale kind of thing involving a lot of material, money, people, etc. and completely illegal. They kept something of that size under wraps for a few months. And - AND! Kissenger, et.al - got away with it. (Anyone remember he was going to be put in charge of the 9/11 commission? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
Now, you’re right - certain conspiracy theories are far fetched and in many particulars are bizarre.

I myself questioned why the towers fell straight down like that at first, but I didn’t think someone would have had time to plant charges.
But the engineering principles involved (buildings are made to withstand extra stress from wind, et.al, not from floors above collapsing) answer satisfies me.

But the real question is ‘why’? And I can think of more than a few ways how without the need for massive cooperation, et.al (I outlined one above) given the principles involved have a great deal of wealth and power.
And of course I’ll concede that OBL has a good deal of wealth and power so perhaps there was no collusion with American authorities.

But questions are raised which fit with certain patterns.
Why hasn’t OBL been caught - much less pursued? F’rinstance.
Indeed, I’d think that most of the conspiracy theories being so transparent would be a dead givaway.
As far as I’m concerned while most of the details are settled (to my mind) the ultimate reason - why? - hasn’t been.

Is it because they hate our freedoms? What possible benefit did AQ get from this? Prestige? 9/11 was hugely counterproductive for Islam extremists - statements by the administration saying ‘they’re gonna gicha!’ for the past 5 years notwithstanding.
Iran, Lybia, Sudan, Syria - have all cooperated in hunting down AQ because they know they could be targeted next.
When the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in ‘79 the jihad call went out and people showed up in droves - tens of thousands - to fight them. When we went in back in ‘01 - nada.

Far from being someone who underestimates the terrorist mind and capability, I know full well how smart, tough and capable many of those people are. They have to be. They are always outgunned, always mobile, always fighting to convince others that the cause they believe passionately in and are willing to die for is right. Most people aren’t like that. Most people just want to live their lives and milk their yak, or mow their lawn and take care of their kids.
Terrorists have to have a depth of understanding in political affairs well beyond that of a common soldier.
So to my mind it is very odd indeed that people smart enough to pull this off did so without anticipating the consequences.
They did not strike the towers (et.al.) because they hate our freedoms. They did so to accomplish a goal. The administration’s explaination of that goal is fuzzy at best.

(Why did Bush and Cheney not want to take an oath before testifying before the 9/11 commission? - f’rinstance. Or why didn’t they listen to Bob Wright who had exposed AQ money laundering and had leads on the AQ cell before 9/11 but was ignored? Is Ann Coulter right in calling the Jersey Girls witches who are enjoying their husbands' deaths or are they right in pushing for an independant panel investigation? )

Now if - and this is a big if - the 9/11 hijackers goal was to force the U.S. to waste resources and to sabotage it’s own national character by encroaching on civil rights - et.al then they have met with some success.

And if that is indeed the case than the Bush administration is worse than willing participants in a conspiracy - they are dupes of one.
But again - who knows? I don’t think anyone would argue the investigation was done half assed so why buy into the official story - or any story - at all?
I’d just like the relevent questions answered - not the “at what temperature does steel buckle” questions. They seem to be getting all the play. I wonder why.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:32 PM on September 20, 2006


(the official investigation was done half assed - should be. Indeed there was evidence NORAD and the FAA was lying to the 9/11 commission - meanwhile the tapes come out, everyone looks like idiots and not one person is fired...why?)
posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM on September 20, 2006


Really, very few conspiracy theorists agree with each other on much and accuse each other of being 'disinfo agents' ad nauseum.

However, they all share a similar mindset. See also squidfartz and smedleyman's "b-b-b-but I'm just asking questions!" BS. No, you aren't asking questions; the answers are there and you're deliberately ignoring them because it suits you.
posted by darukaru at 8:09 PM on September 20, 2006


Now if - and this is a big if - the 9/11 hijackers goal was to force the U.S. to waste resources and to sabotage it’s own national character by encroaching on civil rights - et.al then they have met with some success.

I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist and one of their core beliefs is that, at the end of the World, there will be a huge loss of personal freedom that eventually leads to a National Sunday Law.

Now, I might be wrong, but wouldn't the Anti-Christ be able to pull off a conspiracy such as this?

Ha.
posted by M Edward at 10:06 AM on September 21, 2006


"No, you aren't asking questions; the answers are there and you're deliberately ignoring them because it suits you." - posted by darukaru

Yeah, that 9/11 commission. That was one well run operation. Totally on the level. I totally get now
So darukaru the Jersey girls, the 9/11 families, are really deliberately ignoring the answers because it suits them?

So some people ask: what did President Bush know about the Al Qaeda threat to the United States, when did he know it, and if he knew little, why so?
But we're way out of line? Where's THAT answer? Or do you still believe Iraq has WMDs?
Where was the National Command Authority? Bush said he saw the first hit on t.v. (wha?) Why didn't Bush/Rumsfeld contact each other until after the fourth plane crashed in Shanksville - when the country was, y'know, under attack?
Was an order given to shoot down a plane? Who gave that order?
(We won't find that out by reading the 9/11 report because
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony (The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out. The orders still stand) isn't in the thing).
Why didn't the 9/11 commission ask Giuliani about his command bunker? What's the deal with Ahmed Saeed Sheikh and Pakistan?
Why wasn't Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees briefed on "able danger"? (Or why is he saying he wasn't - and why did the commission say he was? And why did they withhold that info? )

You have answers to those questions do you?

We had a post on MeFi recently I questioned the veracity of concerning the harmful effects of the airborne particulates (et.al) after the fall of the twin towers. In that post a person asserted that they were lied to by the EPA. I understood and granted the possiblity of the entire content of that person's argument without necessarially accepting that the assertion as non-biased because it was an attack focused on the administration.

My line of reasoning is similar here. I accept that the steel was weakened by fire (not everyone does, I am a bit curious why the NIST's computer simulation doesn't go a bit longer, but whatever). I accept nearly all the details surrounding the attack and collapse of the buildings. But there are many questions that make me very curious as to the motives of our own politicians. Not the least of which is how can we trust people to do their jobs when they are incapable of recognizing error?

What is so obtuse about the demand for an honest, well informed public debate - which we manifestly cannot have because of political resistance?
Whether that's based on prior knowlege or collusion or some agenda or (to my mind more likely) a cover up of ineptitude, gross incompetance and political control subverting defense operations.

What then is so unreasonable about questioning why there is political resistance and what the motivations for it are?
Is the answer to that one simply that the bad guys hate our freedoms and are trying to get us?

Or am I asking the wrong questions: Hey, it sure looks like a missle hit the pentagon, don't it? Am I right? They can do that with them computers can't they? It's all a big cover up. Aliens too. At Roswell.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2006


Hollering in the darkness here. It's a late post and God forbid anyone fucking think.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:00 PM on September 21, 2006


See also squidfartz and smedleyman's "b-b-b-but I'm just asking questions!" BS.

I have read a few articles which indicate that there were known structural flaws (due to poor maintenance) that were ignored by the owners of WTC and hushed up to avoid liability.

Does pursuing that line of enquiry make me a big ol' tinfoil hatter?

I'm also intersted in that drug plane in Florida that supposedly connects drug dealers in America with Atta. I'd be interested to know more about that, for sure.

I think the one-world-government-oh-balls-its-illuminati types are more often a convenient foil for those who like to feel super rational and skeptical than anything like being representative of 'conspiracy theorists' in general. The Penn Jillettes of the world, as it were.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:05 PM on September 21, 2006


God forbid anyone fucking think.

It's a lot easier on ones mental faculties to collate individuals into two groups; those who accept what they are told and those who are fucking insane. Obviously, this construct is the fulcrum of all civilized progress and scientific innovation throughout history and to think otherwise would be terribly detrimental.
posted by prostyle at 1:45 PM on September 21, 2006


>Still waiting for ANY evidence to support the official story.

Dude, there's actually VIDEO from places like CNN and TONS of photographers showing two PLANES hitting those buildings. I know its such a scoop but im breaking it on metafilter too. AND some judge released more VIDEO of like this security camera showing the plane that hit the pentagon. AND GET THIS, the people on those planes are missing and presumed dead!!!!! I think some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into those buildings!!!!

Or are you saying you want perfect evidence which, of course, doesnt exist for any crime.
posted by damn dirty ape at 3:43 PM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


"...those who accept what they are told and those who are fucking insane..."

Too true. Any nuance is lost in the haze and rush to associate people with the (presumably, because it's so insipid) disinformation.
Case in point:
"Dude, there's actually VIDEO from places like CNN and TONS of photographers showing two PLANES hitting those buildings...Or are you saying you want perfect evidence which, of course, doesn't exist for any crime."

Indeed, those folks at GITMO are being held on the same logic. They gotta be guilty of something. Why would the official story as to why they are there be wrong?
I myself totally buy that false intelligence led us to believe there were WMDs in Iraq which is not why we invaded though, it was for freedom.
In addition, why would the tobacco companies lie to anyone? A dead smoker isn't smoking right?
And sure General Motors, Firestone, and Standard Oil formed National City Lines which ran trollies and trains out of business, and they were convicted of anti-trust violations and the train system in the U.S. is on par with some third world nations, but that's paranoid delusion.
We don't have to read or watch a full spectrum of evidence to come to a conclusion about something and when that evidence is not forthcoming it's so much easier to just forget about it, who wants that kind of responsibility? Besides, it's somebody else's problem.

Oh, sure the 9/11 families have gone to hearings and paid more attention to the evidence than nearly anyone else because they're motivated to, but they're in grief. They can't handle the truth.
We trust sources like Popular Mechanics because they're SELLING something to us. People who sell things to us don't lie. What possible motivation would the subsidiary of a major media conglomerate have to put forward a false story?

The "official" story helps us believe that things are bright and sunny concerning the events and issues 9/11 dispite many of the same folks holding the belief that we were lied to on Iraq.

Why? 'Cause it's easier and less upsetting and we don't like believing in things that are upsetting.

It's easy to make vague assertions that are politically motivated and shorthand for real thought on that topic too. Oh, sure, we were lied to on Iraq. Ok - WHO, specifically, lied about Iraq? WHY did they lie? What is the ultimate motivation for lying? More importantly - What is being done in Iraq that was not a stated objective?
You see at some point following that line of reasoning, unless we accept some alternative motivation (typically easily attacked - blood for oil? why are gas prices so high then?), we must conclude that we were not lied to on Iraq, it is merely being executed very very poorly.

I find it hard to believe that with the massive amount of money we spend on intelligence operations we could not get better results than this. And, funnily enough, many people in the intelligence community anc counterterrorism field agree with me. And many people in those fields have come forward with testimony that has been competely disregarded. Given the professionalism of the people involved and the resources, I do find it hard to believe we executed our mission that day so very poorly.

But evidence of the crime does not merely extend to the perpetrators. The followup, the investigation, all the other particulars were handled in a poor manner and quite frankly there seems to have been a coverup - if not of involvement then certainly of criminal negligence - by the FAA, NORAD, certainly by several intelligence agencies and most certainly by the CIC. That alone, by definition, is a conspiracy. But it's best not to think about that, just keep handing over 1/3 of your income to the government (plus the bonus on top for the Iraq war which is totally unrelated to events on 9/11 *wink*)
Really, what do we need rule of law for anyway?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:43 PM on September 21, 2006


« Older Be sure to visit the human town of Agensttruslot!   |   Demi Moore Demo Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments