Do the 911 NORAD tapes given any more grist to the conspiracists, or is it just more money for old rope?
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...sintensify.htm
Banned
Do the 911 NORAD tapes given any more grist to the conspiracists, or is it just more money for old rope?
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...sintensify.htm
Order of Kilopi
From what I have read about them, they are more indicative of the cock-up theory of history than the conspiracy theory of history. (To be fair, prior to 911 you would not have expected that a hijacked airliner may need shooting down.)Originally Posted by Nonkers
Established Member
Also prior to 911, NORAD rarely ran intercepts over the continental US. The vast majority of intercepts were over international waters for an external, incoming threat.
Established Member
Bad News
The CTs are getting mentioned in the mainstream press (see: Yahoo!) and even worse, the article praises their academic qualifications as if that has a bearing on the quality of their ideas
Member
Also picked up by CNN. Infuriating.The CTs are getting mentioned in the mainstream press (see: Yahoo!) and even worse, the article praises their academic qualifications as if that has a bearing on the quality of their ideas
Established Member
Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there who will be drawn to the theory due to it's hard political slant, disregarding scientific merit issues.
I personally expect to see a lot more coverage in the coming months.
Established Member
I actually didn't find thye article to be too bad. They tried to keeo things in perspective, and at the end they linked to one of the better debunking sites and the NIST, not just the Sf911T site. If people aren't going to take the time to educate themselves about the issue, there is not much one can do. Personally, I thought they did a reasonable job of pointing out the lack of support and credibility most of the so called "scholars" have, including both Barret and Jones.
It's probably driving Fetzler around the bend that Jones and Wood were both more heavily discussed and quoted than he was. Hope he pops a blood vessel!
Established Member
Meanwhile...I actually didn't find thye article to be too bad. They tried to keeo things in perspective, and at the end they linked to one of the better debunking sites and the NIST, not just the Sf911T site. If people aren't going to take the time to educate themselves about the issue, there is not much one can do. Personally, I thought they did a reasonable job of pointing out the lack of support and credibility most of the so called "scholars" have, including both Barret and Jones.
It's probably driving Fetzler around the bend that Jones and Wood were both more heavily discussed and quoted than he was. Hope he pops a blood vessel!
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Slammed By Sen. John McCain
Order of Kilopi
I find it disappointing that Americans seem to be increasing interested in a good story more than actual, fact; and I'm absolutely livid that mainstream press seems all too happy to pander to it.
Did none of these reporters check to see that the credentials offered by these scholars (and their associated "scholars") have nothing to do with the claims they make? Did they research the backgrounds of the principals to see that they do little more than bounce from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, capitalizing on the most popular one of the day?
Established Member
Actually, the article they refer to from PM is old news.
Jay, it is an unfortunate truism that newspaper editors worry more about selling papers than about things like "accuracy" or "research". Until people stop voting for fluff with their money, it just isn't going to stop.
Established Member
The article is from last year but the book they refer to comes out this month.
Established Member
I did. Lots of nuggets of nuttyness. I was going to quote a few of my favorites but that would be just cruel.
Order of Kilopi
It's a pity they didn't point out Dr Jones apparent confusion over Stainless Steel and Structural Steel. Still could be fun waiting for him to have his paper "Peer Reviewed" (when will CT's realise that peer review means beign reviewed by people with the knowledge in the field of the paper, not other CT's) and see if it still includes that whooper (one sort of thinks it has to since the entire premise rests on it.) If so, it will certainly prove that their entire system of doing things is totally flawed. I sort of hope he does publish this paper loudly and widely, it'll do the more damage to the 9/11 Truth Movement than a strategically placed Nuke.
Member
I am sorry to say, but if so many believe in a conspiracy (polls ranging from 36% to 60% nowadays), including academics, it might have credence in the story, may be not all, but certainly aspects are suspicious.
If I read in this board that a plane liquified at the pentagon, or wings flapped backward on impact,I have a hard to to swallow that part of the 'official' story.
Established Member
Two Questions:
Where did someone say that the plane liquified?
And what would you think to be more stable, the aluminium wings of an airplane, or the specially reinforced concrete walls of the US Pentagon?
Order of Kilopi
RE the 'academics': A PhD in art history is no more qualified to look into a building collapse than any other person of that same general age. A guy that builds buildings but never went to college will probably have more insight as to why something falls, becuse they deal with it. Having a few letters after your name means little if the topic is very specialized and you have no training in that field. This is, in part, why eye doctors don't run particle colliders.
As for the polls: It depends a lot on where and how the polls were taken and how the questions were worded. It also depends on how that data is used. If someone were to ask me if I thought every aspect of September 11th was fuly explained, I'd have to say No. That does not mean I doubt the offical story, that means that there are parts of it that are not explained.
Statistics can be useful, but they can also be manipulated and abused very easily. I got this as an E mail a while a go and I think it really illustrtes the point very well.
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.Then there's the dihydrogen monoxide problem...
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete with celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.
And if I read on another board that the planes were actually a hologram and that the WTC was brought down with a small fusion bomb, I should take that seriously?If I read in this board that a plane liquified at the pentagon, or wings flapped backward on impact,I have a hard to to swallow that part of the 'official' story.
No. Read the boards, then look a the actual evidence. Any time you see something that MUST be a certain thing because it LOOKS LIKE something should be suspect and you owe it to yourself (and any you plan to talk to) to look into it with an open mind. By open, I mean there is some allowance that the officail tory might actually be what really happened. Too often here, we see people claim that having an open mind means your HAVE to accept that everything in the offical report is wrong.
Look at the different stories. See which ones are supported by actual evidence. See if you can find anythig that can legitimately refute that evidence (not just a lot of fancy double talk). Then make a desicion based on real evidence and personal research.
I'm Not Evil.
An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.
Established Member
Sadly, however this is not going to matter, I was not aware that there was a difference between Stainless & Structural Steel and this is going to be the case for many of the people who see the paper when it comes out.
And in any case the 'person-in-the-street' is just going to see the word 'professor' in front of 'Dr' Jones name and think it qualification enough to prove his claims.
Established Member
A wise political economist who I used to work with always said "if you're explaining, you're losing". That's the trouble. The CT mob's whacky theories are superficially attractive, but our explanations and forensic demolition ain't.
Incidentally, on the subject of experts I was trained by just such a well respected individual - a gruff Dundonian, the only architect in a long line of trawlermen - who's take was "Ah'm no an expert, youse just all ken f-all".
Established Member
I am sorry to say, but if so many believe in a conspiracy (polls ranging from 36% to 60% nowadays), including academics, it might have credence in the story, may be not all, but certainly aspects are suspicious.
Roughly 20% of Americans polled believe the Sun revolves about the Earth. That's tens of millions of people. Does that mean that Geocentrism "might have credence"?
And among those academics, how many are actual structural or civil engineers? It's rather like the Discovery Institute's petition of PhDs who believe in "Intelligent Design" creationism; very few of them are in relevant fields.
Opinion polls are meaningless as a means of determining truth.
If I read in this board that a plane liquified at the pentagon, or wings flapped backward on impact,I have a hard to to swallow that part of the 'official' story.
An aircraft disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon - a a very tough target indeed. No one said the plane "liquefied". But if you believe the wings should have cut a nice wing-shaped hole through heavily reinforced concrete, you're badly misinformed.
Established Member
Wile E. Coyote does, so why not that plane?
Administrator
If professors of Art History are going to give serious dissertations on Structural Engineering, maybe we should do a little turn-about here.
How about we start a group to reveal the TRUTH about the French Impressionists! And boy, could I tell you some things about the Pointillists!
Member
I did not claim they would make a wing-shaped hole, but I reject the explaination that the wings,and its engines, were able to magically flip in a nanosecond en enter the hole at the pentagon with the rest of the plane.
It is not that I agree the vast amount of conspiracies out there, but I just want to state I found the 9/11 commissions findings suspicious and that the report just doesnt add up. To many coincidences.
(ps note:English is not my native language...)
Administrator
Who invoked magic? What do you think should have happened to the wings and how long should it have taken? What else doesn't add up?
P.S.: Your English is fine.
Member
About the the reason I question the 911 commission findings; someone sent me a list of some 50 newsitems, (together with source), which I will post when I get time for it; probably tomorrow.
These newsitems do not deal with controlled demolisions, rockets or what else have you, but give good insight in events surrounding 911, and how it does not align with the 911 Commission report.
E.g. Some in 9/11 panel concluded the Pentagon may have lied about how they first reacted to the 9/11 attacks and debated referring the matter to the Justice Dept for a criminal investigation. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101300.html )
Of course the Pentagon refuted it, but it is interesting such claim comes after 911-revisionists made it to mainstream media (e.g. C-span).
Moderator
If you read your linked article, you'll see that the 9/11 Commission had doubts from the beginning. However, those doubts were centered on how the military responded to the events of that day and how honestly they reported their response, and not on any collusion by the military or the government in those events.
And - as you mentioned but failed to link - the military did respond to charges it lied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/wa...erland&emc=rss
A producer of the movie United 93 did extensive research into the military repsonse on 9/11. He was given complete access to the tapes for that day. His report is fascinating (and PG-13 or even R rated for language... understandable considering what was happening) but shows a military that responded as well as they could, and certainly not one in cahoots with any conspiracists.
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01 (warning: explicit language)
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Order of Kilopi
But in Conspiracy Bizarro-World, the "only" reason any agency or organization questioned in the 9/11 investigation would have for lying is if they were covering up their collusion in some conspiracy. It could never be simply because they felt they goofed up and didn't want to admit it.
Established Member
Guys I am going to give up, on the experiments, no point experimenting when you have the solutions, it all has to do with.
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/sciamer8980.pdf
page 85 please.
And the temperature 1550 celcius.
I can not say anymore at this time, I think you are smart enough to figure out the problem by yourselves.
My Aluminum burns best to heavy rock or the 1812 overture.
Established Member
Guys I am going to give up, on the experiments, no point experimenting when you have the solutions, it all has to do with.
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/sciamer8980.pdf
page 85 please.
And the temperature 1550 celcius.
I can not say anymore at this time, I think you are smart enough to figure out the problem by yourselves.
My Aluminum burns best to heavy rock or the 1812 overture.
Established Member
The whole list of 'scholars' PHD's makes me think that the Eloi have suddenly decided that they know how the world operates and are insisting that the Morlocks listen to their theories.
In a perfect world, this would make the Morlocks hungry.
Established Member
I bring your attention to Frank Greening's new paper and 9/11 conspirator's response here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote