This post is but one in a series which will be published irregularly throughout the coming months. Each post in this series will deal with a ONE topic, and commenters should respond ONLY to that specific topic.
Why this restriction? Because 9/11 Truthiness trolls just love to bring up zillions of subjects all at once, whereas I am a more linear thinker. I can't discuss the price of papayas in Peoria if someone is shouting in my left ear about the color of cucumbers in Kalamazoo and someone else shouts in my right ear about the worst watermelons in Wisconsin. In one night, I can research and write a post, but not an entire book. Asking me or any other individual to confront every damn 9/11 question in one evening is unfair.
Today's topic is the disreputable, right-wing origins of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, and I must ask you to restrict your replies (negative or positve) ONLY to that theme. If you want to talk about "freefall speeds" or WTC7 or whatever, just wait until the relevant post appears, and you will get your chance to speak at whatever length seems good to you.
That rule strikes me as fair. But if you find it overly restrictive -- well, just go away, don't come back, and grumble to your gods about what a bastard that Cannon guy is.)
Actually, we know many of their names.
We have Chris Bollyn and the other Holocaust-denying acolytes of Hitler-apologist Willis Carto. I'm talking about the TBRNews crowd, the American Free Press crowd -- the folks who publish a regular "Voice of the White House" column which is one of the internet's most unkillable fakes. Despite this history of racism and deception, these are the guys progressives are now asked to trust. 9/11 "scholars" have cited Bollyn's writings without warning the readers of his background.
Another repository of "controlled demoltion" news is a website called Serendipity, which -- in at least one article -- has festooned all Jewish names with little yellow stars with the word Jude in the center.
Controlled demolition proponents (hereafter CDPs) often make reference to the JFK assassination as a precedent, yet they count among their number almost no leading members of the JFK research community. (I say that with some satisfaction, since I have followed that case for decades and remain in the pro-conspiracy camp.) True, Crossfire author Jim Marrs -- a man who believes in space aliens, Iron Mountain and the Illuminati -- is a leading CDPer. So is Jim Fetzer, the man who, aside from Gerry Posner, did the most to quell the resurgent movement to re-open the Kennedy case. Fetzer annoyed nearly all of the responsible researchers when he called into question the Zapruder film, which is the best evidence in favor of conspiracy. He is, by all accounts, a nice guy; even so, one can argue that Fetzer's nonsense alienated many younger researchers intrigued by the Oliver Stone film. When Fetzer came to prominence circa 1994, I knew that I had to forego any further involvement with the JFK crowd. The loonies had taken over.
Also prominent in the CD community is Dick Eastman, a fellow who feels comfortable saying that the Rockefellers controlled the USSR. That's the straight John Birch line, by the way.
(Oh, and before you accuse me of engaging in argumentum ad hominem -- may I remind you that the entire "no jet hit the Pentagon" theory is predicated on ad hominem attacks against the witnesses who reported a jet? Seems to me that most CDPers can't go five consecutive minutes without mounting an ad hominem attack on a perceived enemy.)
The CDP crowd points to Dr. Steven Jones as their intellectual trump card. Jones, a prominent voice in favor of the CD hypothesis, is an actual Physics professor in the ultra-red state of Utah. Let's take a look at Jones in action:
In Steven Jones PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:I've run into this "gerrymandered quotation" syndrome elsewhere..."One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"However when you look at the link he uses...you find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."Apparently Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.
Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
I urge readers who fell under the spell of Loose Change (rotten title, by the way) to watch the counter-video, Screw Loose Change. (Now that's a clever title.) It's here, and -- once you get past the weak first section -- it is devastating. Please take special note of the section comparing the fall of the twin towers to a real controlled demolition: A real CD starts on the first floor, while the towers fell from the top down.
But if you are a committed CDP, you would refuse to view that video even if a gun were held to your head. CDPers mirror Bush supporters: Only those facts which support preconceived beliefs may enter the eardrum.
I am perfectly willing to read any webpage or book, or to watch any video (if I can acquire said material for free) even if it conflicts with what I state here. But the CDPs never allow themselves to read sites such as this one. Being supremely arrogant and cocksure, they never allow themselves to step back and reassess first principles.
Are the CDPs simply foolish, or are the leaders in that movement deliberately disingenuous? Most of the true believers are, of course, naive and unschooled. But when one studies the way the leaders of the Truthiness Movement have manipulated evidence and laughed in the face of science, one cannot easily maintain the view that these people are operating in good faith.
Frustratingly, this controlled demolition nonsense has drowned out the real conspiracy -- the likely involvement of Bin Laden operatives with a drug operation known to and approved by members of the intelligence community and the right-wing establishment. Daniel Hopsicker has been looking into this story for years, and what he has found tends to dovetail with the little we've learned from Sibel Edmonds.
Hopsicker has a new piece out on the Truthiness Movement -- and although he takes a few low blows (the jabs against Peter Dale Scott are way out of line), I recommend his blistering attack to all interested parties:
It was to obscure the 9.11 Heroin Connection that minions of Saudi billionaire and CIA “fixer” Adnan Khashoggi, like Mars & Venus author John Gray, began to spread money around to assorted easily-corrupted dupes, idiots and government shills who quickly came to lead the misnamed 9.11 Truth Movement, which is neither a movement nor concerned with the truth.I ran into Gray briefly when he gave one of his Mars/Venus lectures in a bookstore about ten years ago. I was appalled by the way he used psychobabble and New Age rhetoric to repackage traditional sexual stereotypes. For example, he said that America could not tolerate Hillary Clinton because "we" instinctively understand that a mother should be devoted to raising her daughter instead of becoming involved with politics. After making this sexist remark, Gray dramatically paused for applause -- and seemed miffed when he did not receive any.
“My suspicions were aroused when the keynote speech was given by ‘relationship guru’ John Gray," German author Matthias Broeckers told us. "In a conference on 9/11, what does “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” have to teach us about the identities of those responsible for murdering 3000 human beings?”
“Michel Chossudovsky told me he’d learned of the International 9/11 Inquiry’s shady financing two weeks before the conference,” Broeckers continued. “He demanded the organizers dump Gray. They told him not to spread ‘bad vibrations.”
“Then someone told me he had ‘donated’ money to the Inquiry, and things began to become clear.”
“To say that John Gray is in business with Adnan Khashoggi doesn’t portray the relationship in quite the right light,” stated another observer, asking to remain anonymous. “Khashoggi owns John Gray. He bought his whole Mars-Venus shtick, his company. Gray works for him.”
(I'll probably get into trouble for saying this, but frankly, I was also a bit bewildered by the spectacle of a guy who sounds like Richard Simmons presuming to lecture me on the intricacies of male-female relationships.)
That bookstore encounter taught me to view Gray as just another right-wing shill. His emergence as a leading figure within the Truthiness Movement did not surprise me. The undeniable influx of Khashoggi money into that movement should shock everyone.
Here's Hopsicker on another leading CD aficionado:
You see, the 9.11 Truth Movement is stocked with true believers, in everything from Jesus to Urantia, and its leading light David Griffin is a divinity professor, of all things, whose books have been touted endlessly in spam email from the well-organized group.Hopsicker on Dr. Jones:
Does anyone begin to smell a rat?
Dr. Griffin, we learned, recently gave an address entitled “9.11 and Demonic Consciousness.”
“My thesis is that the attacks of 9/11 were products of demonic consciousness, with "the demonic" understood as an emergent reality that is diametrically opposed to the creative power of the universe and strong enough to threaten its purposes,” he offered helpfully.
We usually refer people spouting off about "demonic consciousness" to the nearest emergency room.
And then there's the Brigham Young University physicist, Steven Jones, who said he believes an incendiary substance called Thermite, bolstered by sulfur (Aha! Evidence of the demonic!) to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.And yet the situation in this country has become so topsy-turvy that if you question any of these CD apostles, loudmouths will accuse you of being a Bush supporter and a Limbaugh-lover. Somehow, any refusal to accept the gospel according to Fetzer, Jones and Griffen amounts to a sin against the progressive spirit.
In addition to his research in scientific areas, Jones is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and has also published papers like “Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America,” on archeological clues he has found supporting the belief that Jesus Christ visited Latin America after his resurrection, as chronicled in the Book of Mormon.
Anyone who can find Jesus in South America 2000 years ago, we feel sure, is capable of finding pretty much anything he wants to, anytime at all. Maybe cold fusion. Maybe Thermite. Who knows?
Dig it: According to this new definition of progressive politics, I'm not a true progressive. Neither is Al Franken or Josh Marhsall or Kos or Atrios or Arianna Huffington (well, I'm still not quite sure about her) or Eric Alterman or every single Democratic politician you can name.
The only true progressives are those who sing the praises of the CDP gospel -- guys like Chris "Sieg heil!" Bollyn and David "demons gonna getcha" Griffen and Adnan "I do what my Saudi masters tell me to do" Khashoggi. Not to mention that "physics" professor who believes in books translated with the aid of magic stones.
Those guys are progressives.
Riiiiiiight.
Once again, the loonies have taken over.
52 comments:
Racist whacko websites known to deal in disinfo promote CD theory therefore it must be false. Ok, I'm convinced.
I we're to judge by what someone choses to ignore, we could judge your post by it's failure to mention more reasonable sites such at this one
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Anon: You didn't read past the first few paragraphs, did you? Typical!
forgetting2: All is not to be said in one go. If you're new here, you'll know that I'm engaged in a long-running series (as in, I MAY be done by the end of the year) covering all aspects of the 9/11 truthiness movement. So it isn't fair to chide me for not addressing subjects AB&C when I am addressing subjects XY&Z. I cannot write an entire book in one evening.
As for the specific site you point to: It's unimpressive. Compare their simplistic (and difficult to navigae) section on WTC7 to the FACTS of the matter, which you can find here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
...and, if I may cite myself, here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/controlled-demolitions-last-word-i.html
Note the CDPers' careful avoidance of any photos of the south side of WTC7 -- photos which destroy their case. Note their disingenuous refusal to discuss the deisel tanks, the transformers, or the inherently unstable "transfer truss" design. Note their suspicious avoidance of any quotes from the on-scene firemen that might contradict their predetermined theories.
Your belief in CD is not based on science. CD is a new religion. You disagree? Then name ONE renown expert on controlled demolitions who thinks those buildings were destoyed by planted bombs.
Frustratingly, this controlled demolition nonsense has drowned out the real conspiracy -- the likely involvement of Bin Laden operatives with a drug operation known to and approved by members of the intelligence community and the right-wing establishment. Daniel Hopsicker has been looking into this story for years, and what he has found tends to dovetail with the little we've learned from Sibel Edmonds.
Frustratingly, despite the importance of Hopsicker's research, Hopsicker is an egomaniac who refuses to accept that he's not the only person on the planet with meaningful information to contribute. It's not enough for him to have provided an important piece of a larger puzzle - if he can't be the Jesus of the 9/11 movement then the 9/11 movement be damned. This attitude leads him to the self-destructive habit of insulting just about anyone who might be interested in what he has to say.
Hopsicker is really a mediocrity who lucked out in that nobody else has gone down to Florida to investigate these flight schools, giving him a monopoly on an extremely important avenue of research. He's good at finding interesting tidbits of information, but terrible at writing, marketing, and analysis.
Might I ask, what exactly is his theory as to what happened on 9/11? I read Welcome to Terrorland and it's really little more than a mountain of facts with no real explanation of how they fit together or how they explain what happened on 9/11. I've never seen him state clearly what it is that he believes, although he has made quite clear that anyone (supporters and skeptics of the official story alike) who disagrees with whatever it is that he thinks is pondscum in his book.
Really I think the best thing to do with a case like Hopsicker is to use the dirt he's uncovered but to take his opinions (and absurd criticisms of everyone except himself) with a grain of salt.
Your belief in CD is not based on science. CD is a new religion. You disagree? Then name ONE renown expert on controlled demolitions who thinks those buildings were destoyed by planted bombs.
Gosh, and if an expert came out and said it was a controlled demolition, it would just be a really simple statement of technical opinion, huh? Like a doctor diagnosing a cold, I guess, with no further political implications.
Here's a good example. Immediately after 9/11, demolition expert Van Romero said the following:
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures. ... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." ... "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."
Later, not only did he deny that this was correct, he denied that he'd even said this at all:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Now, emphatically I do NOT argue that "the government got to him" or "he was paid off" or anything of that sort. What I suggest is that, at first, when the literal and metaphorical dust had not yet settled and nobody had yet formed any ideas as to what was happening, he simply figured that the terrorists could have planted explosives in the towers, and offered a dispassionate technical opinion. Later, once the official story had coalesced, he realized the implications of what he said and wasn't prepared to handle them, so he recanted.
And I don't even mean to say that his recantation is insincere. Human psychology is weird - we have the capacity to be very rational, but where things like taboos are involved we are prone to a baffling degree of self-deception.
I mean, the idea that not only did the government do 9/11, but that they could get away with it - the implications of that are truly staggering and really I can't blame people for not being able to handle it.
Mr. Cannon,
You embarrass yourself with your ignorance.
Positively the worst rant ever. Loose change? Loose Cannon.
FREEFALL SPEED.
Refusal to read.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Joe, get a grip and stop the straw man inferno. With enough of them you might even melt steel.
While your at it dump the phony right/left parameters that seem to imprison you. I mean at this stage does it matter if what political flavor you are? Hell, I could even sit at a table with a Bircher these days.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/eddlem.php?articleid=8966
You go into ad hominem against so called "Holocaust deniers" in one post and then in your Penta Bomb post... I mean, I liked Joe Vialls and all but ...
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/subliminalsuggestion/tanks.html
Right, I know it's all about evidence, but then why bring the "holocaust" into it all?
Why will you find 'deniers' in the 9-11 truth movement? Probably because they also expose phony holocaust stories.
If you want to be helpful instead of taking Bollyn's flawed take on the seismic spikes try this instead:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic_Proof___9.11_Was_An_Inside_Job.doc
Joe, you do need to be careful about refuting someone's position by showing that another of their positions is crackpot. Strangely enough, there's little evidence to suggest that being right about one thing means someone's more likely to be right about another thing, especially when very bright people are involved. Or, conversely, that having a crackpot view about one thing increases the likelihood that one's other views are also crackpot.
Isaac Newton devoted more of his life to magic alchemy than to physics, but he was the greatest physicist of all time. Just an example.
Arguments must be judged by their truth, not by who offers them.
But beyond that, I have trouble understanding why CD is effective as disinfo. It's not like the WTC hologram hypothesis, which is truly bizarre, or the Pentagon missile hypothesis, which is only a bit less so. But CD is very plausible--even if it's wrong. And it can't be disproved, so the disinfo authors aren't going to pull the rug out from under the believers, like they did with the documents in Rathergate. Accepting the CD hypothesis even conditionally means completely rejecting the narrative the gov't has provided, but that factor clearly isn't working in the disinfo agents' favor. Finally, the CD hypothesis works with, and actually enhances, the credibility of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, even the ones that you yourself think real.
If disinfo agents are pushing CD, they must be idiots.
9-11 curious: Hopsicker has been quite modest and self-effacing in his correspondence with me. It is the CD promoters who have been uniformly arrogant and personally obnoxious.
You seem to want him to theorize beyond the facts that he has gathered. That expectation speaks to your own failures, not to his. (Also keep in mind that when writing about living individuals who possess the means to bring suit, a writer must sometimes rely on the reader's ability to fill in the blanks.)
Regarding Van Romero: You mis-state the situation. I followed the controversy rather closely at the time and the summary here corresponds with what I recall of it:
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
I agree with this statement:
"Human psychology is weird - we have the capacity to be very rational, but where things like taboos are involved we are prone to a baffling degree of self-deception."
The greatest taboo is the admission that one might be wrong. Believe me -- I KNOW what it is like to have to eat crow. I know what if feels like to proselytise for a thesis only to be forced to admit -- after years of self-delusion and strained rationalization -- that the evidence just isn't there. (There's a long and humiliating story to tell here, and I won't tell it no matter how much you insist.) It's a tough job, admitting that you were wrong. The pain can be almost physical.
I've known people within the "conspiracy buff" community since the late 1980s and have read their literature, off and on, since the late 1960s. Many of the the people I've met in this "underground" (which became not-so-underground as the 1990s progressed) have displayed two characteristics which always bugged the shit out of me:
1. An absolute unwillingness to shift position as new evidence arrived.
2. A deep fervor for the least likely ideas.
There is a sort of Gresham's Law in the conspiracy "market": The worst theories grab the most attention. That's what has happened here.
I've attended lectures given by Dave Emory (a former student of conspiracy queen Mae Brussell) where he tried to talk about CIA involvement with drug running or INSLAW or something else that he felt was substantive. Invariably, during the breaks, people would ask him what he thought about the freemasons or the Illuminati or the Protocols or some crap like that. The crowd wasn't really interested in reality. They wanted fear-fantasy.
Now, Emory is NOT my favorite person and I do not always agree with his views. (In fact, agreement is increasingly rare.) But when I saw him field those incessantly inane questions, my sympathy went out to him. He apparently had to deal with the same shit EVERY time, lecture after lecture, year after year. It must get to one after a while.
Me, I would have gone into full Joe Pesci mode as I announced at the beginning of each talk: "If one of you clowns comes up to me and says one more fucking word about the fucking Illuminati or the fucking Freemasons, I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU EAT YOUR OWN TEETH!!"
In truth, I don't like myself very much when my inner Pesci comes to the fore. That's why I've decided to stick to writing instead of dealing with you people directly.
Joseph have you seen this? http://www.arcticbeacon.com/12-Jul-2005.html It might explain about a controlled demolition starting from the bottom up. Laura
uni: I'm sorry, but it DOES say something about the 911 turthiness movement that most of their arguments had disreputable orgins. Let me, by way of analogy, bring up a bit of history.
I've paid some attention the Kennedy assassination literature in its germinal stage -- the period before and just after the publication of the Warren report. Alternatives to the "lone nut" thesis were first mooted by philosopher Bertrand Russell, a young lawyer named Mark Lane, a journalist named Sylvan Fox, a brave Hitler opponent named Joe Joesten, and a mathematician-turned-journalist named Thomas Buchanan. There were a few others. These guys were not a shabby bunch, although Lane sure got into some ultra-weird areas later in life.
Then there were the ones pushing the "commies-diddit" theories, starting with the arch-racist Revilo Oliver and his confreres in the John Birch Society.
The writings of the people in group one eventually formed the basis for the theory the Kennedy was killed by right-wingers within the intelligence community. That's the view held be me and by most others who have studied the case.
The writings of the people in the second category have, in my view, been nothing more than a distraction.
Sorry, but I really do think it is telling -- and important -- that, from the beginning, the first "category of thought" attracted some people who were serious.
My, you certainly finished with 911research in a hurry!
You seem to want him to theorize beyond the facts that he has gathered. That expectation speaks to your own failures, not to his.
My point is that he seems intent on condemning anyone with any theories at all, including supporters of the official story. Well then what the hell are his ideas? What exactly are we supposed to support, according to him? Why go through all the trouble of collecting all this evidence if NOT to subject it to some kind of analysis?
Look at what he writes in his pathetic rant that you cite favorably:
These same people used to proclaim themselves utterly fascinated ... the idea that there weren’t any Arab hijackers on the planes; or, with the supposition that if there were--perish the thought!--Arabs onboard, they must have been patsies.
If there hadn’t already been hundreds of Arab suicide bombers, there might be a rationale for questioning the motives of the 19 hijackers. As it is, there is none. But the argument isn't meant to be defensible...but merely to divert attention.
So, there have been Arab suicide bombers in the past, therefore any particular Arabs accused of being suicide bombers are automatically guilty! Wonderful reasoning, but look at something else: not only are we not to question that these were the hijackers, but also their motives are not to be questioned. Well if their motives are not to be questioned, then what the hell is the point of all his investigations? They were evil Muslims who hated us for our freedoms (according to the official story which must not be questioned). So who gives a damn if they were also smuggling drugs?
And, if he's right about these 19 Arabs being the guilty, then where's his evidence? The guy digs up dirt on these 19 guys for a freaking living. He can tell us whom they knew, what clothes they wore, what bands they listened to, what mixed drinks they liked, what girls they dated, and every other fact you want down to the most minute personal detail, but as far as I know (and I have read his book and a fair number of his articles) he has not found ANY evidence of terrorism. NONE. What the hell? Does that make any freaking sense? He investigates these guys so thoroughly, comes up with squat, and then says not to even be suspicious that they might not have done it?
So my point is: it's tempting to look at the research he's done, recognize its importance, and then take his condemnation of the rest of the 9/11 movement seriously, but that's obviously not a good way to think about him. Not only are his criticisms way off-base, but they alienate just about the only people who might listen to him - which frustrates me, because I think the drug angle is important to understanding 9/11.
Regarding Van Romero: You mis-state the situation. I followed the controversy rather closely at the time and the summary here corresponds with what I recall of it:
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
Not sure what I misstated. At first, he came out and said that there must have been explosives in the towers. Later, he denied that he said this and claimed to have said that it simply looked like a controlled demolition, but based on those quotes that's not really a tenable position.
laura: The link you give goes to a garbled account of an interview with a janitor named Willie Rodriguez, who is interviewed in Loose Change. Go here...
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
...and while you ought to (but probably won't) watch the whole damn thing, you can scoot up to the 1:28 mark or therabouts and see the whole thing, plus some common-sense observations by Mark Iradian. Notice all the stuff that Szymanski left out. Like the bit where Rodriguez talks about the deisel tanks in hte basement...which were linked to upper floors via pipeline. Rupture that line, set the gas alight, and guess what happens?
Seriously.... all these ad hominem attacks do not strengthen the plug the holes in the official story. The folk at http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ have 2 scientific papers which only provide speculation.
1. How does a fire manage to burn from the 80th floor all the way down to the basement to blow up the diesel tanks and we see no visual evidence of it?
2. If someone failed to shut off the tanks to prevent the gas from rising to the upper floors, shouldn't someone be prosecuted for that?? Seeing that the buildings stood for over 30 mins??
There was a program on dutch tv last sunday that debunked the cd of tt and the pentagon missile attack. However, a cd-expert with 30 years of experience, looking at the collapse of building 7 without obviously knowing it was building 7, concluded: this building was brought down with explosives, you can see it by the way it collapses.
He reacted spontanously, and was left in confusion when the reporter told him the collapse took place at the same site.
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060910.asf
the building 7 piece starts at about 46 minutes. it's in dutch, but you can read bodylanguage, i presume.
I have just seen the "physics" at the following:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
This has to be the work of some high school student... at best, or maybe even a college republican. Firstly, if you're dropping a ball the height of 1m above the floor and there is a table in between the ball and the floor at 0.5m, the PE = mgh will have h at 0.5m, not 1m.
If the whole building was not dropped from its peak, how can you even hope to obtain an average kinetic energy by multiplying over all the floors?? At best, you would have the mass of the floors above the plane strike zone.
Worst of all, for this math to work, the floors beneath the strike zone would have to mysteriously vanish, in order for the upper floors to fall unimpeded.
Now, why is an unimpeded fall so important to the math?? Simply, the conservation of mass law is guaranteed not to hold in this situation. The mass above the strike zone is barely even a quarter of the mass below it. If it strikes the lower mass, the upper floors would start to fall apart and lose mass on the way done, and the kinetic energy, which is 1/2mv^2, will lose much of its mass.
Note: I see that I've fallen into a trap I had foreseen some time ago. It's not fair to ask me to stay up ALL NIGHT LONG looking into every damn question to arise out of 9/11.
In an earlier post, I set the ground rule: We will stick to a single topic in each post in this series. (I should have reiterated that rule at the beginning of the present post.)
In other words, when a post addresses the Pentagon crash (and I will have much more to say on that subject), you may speak at whatever length you like on THAT topic, but you may not blather on about WTC7. When the time comes to talk once more about WTC7, you may say whatever you like about that, but don't go on and on about the Pentagon crash.
This rule will strike reasonable people as fair. If you are not reasonable, please go away and do not read Cannonfire ever again.
Anonymous: I know this will seem unfair, but we must table the freefall discussion until that becomes the topic, which will occur soon. If you want to send me anything further, feel free to do so privately.
I happen to know a lady who came THAT close to getting her PhD in Physics -- for some reason, when she was inches away from the finish line, she suddenly decided to switch to law! So I am going to ask her if I can run this stuff by her. And if the law books have her too bogged down to deal with this material, maybe she will be able to recommend someone who can help.
All I'm looking for is a Physics person who does NOT believe that it is possible to translate books using magic stones.
Wake up, Joe, you're not done yet. I still want to know why Khashoggi and his minions would promote CD as some kind of disinfo effort. It doesn't make any sense to me, but it's clearly your implication.
uni, thanks for asking a question that is on topic.
First, don't you think you ought to be asking Adnan Khashoggi, and not me? The important point is that he HAS financially backed the Truthiness movement.
If you are asking me to surmise as to why he has done so, I would argue that the CD theory IS embarrassing, and should be easy to demolish once the major news magazines and television networks decide to pay attention to it -- which will surely happen the moment any major Democratic pol allies himself with the Truthiness movement.
When that happens, those progressives who embraced this nonsense will look very, very, very bad. Really, all that any TV network need do is show footage of the towers falling and then show footage of a REAL controlled demolition. The differences will be so striking as to give every CD promoter an instant nationwide egg facial.
I can just imagine what Limbaugh and Hannity and their ilk will do the next day.
Even in the absence of such a demonstration, the CD thesis is neither plausible nor intuitive. Most people instinctively object to the CD theory for the same reason I do: It makes no basic sense. There is no reason to go to such measures -- to destroy both buildings -- when the image of jets hitting the towers provides all the necessary casus belli.
(Don't make me repeat the OOMPH riff here; look it up if you need to re-read it.)
uni, do you recall Milton William Cooper and his stupid theory that JFK was shot by his driver? The JFK research community was incensed by this inanity. Quite sensibly, they did not take the attitude of "Well, at least Cooper is causing a new generation to take an interest in the case." Our allegiance should be to the truth.
And now I gotta get some sleep. And after that I have to earn a living. If you see fewer responses from me and if it pleases you people to think that you've "beaten" me -- fine, think whatever the hell you like. I have sheep to count and a landlord to pay.
Joe,
For one, you were the one posting the links to the debunking911 freefall page in the comments section. Second, I wasn't looking for some knee-jerk reaction, and would rather you had sleep on it and then thought about it some more.
I really was highlighting the gross inaccuracies on the debunking911 page. Honestly, you shouldn't even need a physics person to dig through my comments, it's "elementary, my Dear Cannon..."
This "debate" represents an irredeemable waste of time.
We already *know* who is destroying America and American society today. How much more Bush Administration and far-right perfidy does anyone need to see, to be convinced that this people are a threat to civilization?
The CD question might be interesting to pursue if we had nothing else to do.
Please put this shit aside, and concentrate on what's going on now, which is worse than CD (if it occurred).
I heard on NPR yesterday that surveys of Muslims in select other countries show that the majority of Muslims in these countries do not believe that the buildings going down was due to terrorism. I find that very interesting.
As to specifically CD, the only thought I ever toyed with was that perhaps buildings 'should' be designed with explosives that would cause a CD in the event of some impending structural disaster, thus making a tragedy a little less so? Just sayin.
Other than that little fantasy, I'm with Joe all the way on this. And am fascinated by these discussions.
Miss P.
Joseph,
Ok so you don't like some of the groups advocating conspiracy because you don't like thier politics, that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong about everything. even others have issues with people and ideas you champion.
i think the main point to which we must all agree and push is a new 9/11 commission that is not beholden to the repigs.
Frustratingly, this controlled demolition nonsense has drowned out the real conspiracy -- the likely involvement of Bin Laden operatives with a drug operation known to and approved by members of the intelligence community and the right-wing establishment. Daniel Hopsicker has been looking into this story for years, and what he has found tends to dovetail with the little we've learned from Sibel Edmonds.
You think that is the real 9/11 conspiracy?
CIA dope dealing?
Well that is hardly news to anyone.
Regarding Hopsicker, he can be summed up by his own quote:
Any 9-11"expert" whose revelations don’t frequently use the word "Saudi" in conjunction with the word "Florida" is peddling a red herring.
In other words, the Saudis did it.
Period.
Hopsicker's work distills down to support for the 19 Saudi Hijackers With Boxcutters Did 9/11 myth.
Since you champion Hopsicker, you must also champion this belief.
Joe,
I don't blog because I have a list of 5 - 10 blogs linked from my website that regularly and eloquently say what I would probably say if I took the time to do it. Cannonfire is one of those blogs.
Sadly, your 911 research posts disappoint me greatly -- because quite frankly, they are not very good, irrespective of your position on the subject. Personally, I don't consider Kean and Kerrey any more reliable than say, Jones & Hopsicker. I read the NIST report, and it has a "ring" of credibility; but so does some of the "truth movement" writing. I used to have a FEMA report linked from my site, but FEMA has oddly chosen to move (or remove) the report.
Because of the poor quality of what has passed as the official "investigation" of this most important matter, there are few things we who don't live in NYC know with any certainty. The WTC towers came down. They don't seem to have collapsed toward the aircraft impact and the debris seemingly stayed relatively within the towers' footprints.
Jones has a link to an interesting YouTube video of a CNBC anchor describing the collapse as appearing to be a controlled demolition at or about the actual time of collapse. So, the CD debate is at least a natural one.
Personally, I will never have the engineering knowledge to analyze the forensic evidence; and of course, the forensic evidence was not properly maintained or investigated anyway.
The 9/11 story is one that will rage on ad infinitum for the next 40 years, just like the JFK assassination.
In my view, if society responded constructively to an incident such as 9/11, then the "whodunit" aspect would pale substantially. First, there would be a proper investigation and we would be much more likely to have satisfactory answers. Second, innocent people all over the globe would not be massacred in "revenge," while the perpetrators remain free, having largely accomplished whatever goals they may have had. (Be they "Bin Forgotten's" merry band of cave dwellers or some other nefarious group with lodgings closer to NYC.)
Third, we would not have our constitution shredded in order to impose "security measures" that add nothing to security, while making modern-day US look an awful lot like the East Germany we were taught in grade school that the US would never be like.
Joe, your non-911 posts help steer society toward the kind of constructive response that would neutralize much of the evil consequences of the WTC attacks. I hope that you would rethink your desire to engage in a mudfest.
I will close with one additional observation. Given that the current administration has misused the 9-11 disaster to carry forward a most unfortunate agenda -- wouldn't it be a sort of poetic irony if the public came to [wrongly] believe elements of the same administration had nefarious ties to the disaster itself, and therefore chose to undo the excesses?
for what it's worth:
more than half these comments suggest that their authors did not actually read carefully what joe said, particularly the rules part.
also, yesterday amy goodman hosted a fascinating debate between the 'loose change' filmmakers and popular mechanics editors about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
fascinating for several reasons. i admit i have not taken the time to watch the film; as per the commenter who said there is too much going on right now to try and solve this unsolveable crime, and meanwhile, our democracy is dying. the discussions often remind me of trekkies; folks with way too much time on their hands and not enough imagination to apply to what really needs attention.
not that 9/11 does not need attention. i am fully satisfied that our misleadership is so greedy and so thoroughly incompetent that they (1) missed the signals about 9/11 because they were obsessed with greed over iraq, (2) then blew everything of substance about recovering from 9/11 (tho very successfully exploited it for their greedy gain), (3) used 9/11 to drag us into iraq, (4) then blew iraq, (5) then exposed their greed by trying to steal social security, (6) exposed yet more greed and powerlust by their unbridled corruption, (7) blew katrina, (8) stole each and every election from 2000 forward, (9) and lied, covered-up, and deceived every step along the way.
although none of these things explains how 9/11 happened or why, it is enough explanation for me to get these bastards out of office with everything i've got. which means i really cannot waste my time on this inane debate. what an utter distraction! to answer those who want to know what the motivation of rightwingnuts might be in keeping it alive.
back to the debate on democracynow! the other fascinating thing was the demeanor of these two pairs of people. the editors of popular mechanics were suits, older, calm, and respectful. but they were not arrogant or presumptious. they took great pains to present their rebuttals with clarity and logic.
in stark contrast, the filmmakers were young, cazzyul, flip, and rude. frequently while the editors were talking, you could hear these guys snorting or laughing with disdain in the background. often, when presented with data they did not like, the guys simply accused the editors of lying , calling them liars to their faces.
this part was embarrassing, and i found myself at first really disgusted with them, and then almost starting to feel sorry for them, this latter sentiment arising because it was painfully clear that they were really sophomoric, naive, and did not have anything remotely resembling a good handle on what honest and difficult research and investigation actually means. they exposed only the fact that they would not recognize it apart from crap.
amy aired some clips from the film, which - again - i have not taken the time to watch, and i have to say that, before the editors even offered their rebuttals, i could see right through the weaknesses of the films' points. the whole thing was so amateurish and sad, really.
and then it made me angry. angry, because these guys reminded me so much of all the fundamentalists i have encountered, all the 'intelligent design' nuts i have suffered, all the ruightwingnut bush cultist i have debated.
this disease of not knowing how to engage a logical argument, not having a clue how to discern what counts as reasonable evidence, not recognizing the difference between a position based on passion and need from one that is based on the truth -- THIS is what will destroy us, from the fundamentalist christians to those who ignore science and the real evidence.
joe is right; folks out there who make impassioned statements about CD or wtc7 or missles at the pentagon without carefully reviewing the counterevidence with a discerning eye, forgive me, but you are all placing yourselves in the same camp with cheney and bush and rummy and rice, and falwell and robertson and rush and hannity, and horowitz and john birchers and kristol and, yes, bin laden.
what all those individuals share is an inability to be open to counter evidence, to be open to facts that refute their position, to be open to truth.
again, it is this sickness that will destroy - not just america - but, if not the planet (i suspect she can take care of herself), then certainly humanity.
and if that is too hyperbolic for you, then at least accept my observation that those inabilities certainly close the doors on honest and respectful debate.
and then consider spending your time on something a bit more immediate and fruitful, like securing our vote, for chrissake.
Ever consider the idea that the neo-nazi types are being used as a firewall to keep people from looking more seriously at the CD theory?
Sort of like the government uses the meme of "conspiracy theory" to keep people from questioning 9/11?
It is possible you know.
dr elsewhere,
i am listening to the interview right now and the guys from popular mechanics just say we talked to experts, never did they say the coroner refuted his previous assertations about no bodies being found.they also never answered the question about the landing gear they say made the hole in the pentagon, they even stated thay had photos, from who and why aren't they made public.
i don't believe everything the kids who did loose change but they raise some serious questions that need to be answered.
also the guys from popular mechanics attacked (verbally) the guys from loose change a lot more frequently than did the guys from loose change who only once called them liars whereas the popular mechanic guys constantly denigrated the loose change guys as conspiracy theorists even comparing them to houlacaust deniers and intelligent design fundamentalists.
sofla said:
It has long been noted that the conspiracy theories of the (far) left and the (far) right have much in common with each other, sort of mirror images or Moebus strip-like, wherein often the leading candidates for the top perpetrators are the same, doing the same kinds of things, but for allegedly opposite reasons.
In the area of Bush criticism, we find the so-called paleo-conservatives, among them Pat Buchanan and his publication 'The American Conservative' (is it?), offering among the leading critiques of Bush's imperial presidency and his implicit advocacy of an American imperium.
Are we to disagree and object, and refuse to consider such an analysis as possibly correct, because of the pedigree of such sources, with whom many of us would have profound disagreements overall? I presume not, as the critical question isn't who is saying something, but whether it's accurate (or plausible, supported by evidence and reasonable argument, etc.).
Did the CD theory originate with the righties? Really? Or isn't it the case that the first responders on the scene, the sainted professionals from the NYPD and NYFD, made numerous spontaneous judgments from their own experiences, recorded on video and audio, that multiple explosions attendant to their collapse had rocked the buildings, and that they believed 'bombs had been set in the building'? News anchors in real time remarked that the buildings 'exploded' or had 'explosions' (and indeed they did), and commented how much it was reminiscent of CD examples we'd all seen from the past (as indeed it was).
Where's any right wing agenda in these spontaneous statements from witnesses at the scene? Typically, those asserting bombs were in the building were entirely in the hijackers did it mode, saying they thought the terrorists or their confederates may have planted the additional explosives in the building.
So I reject the notion that simply because right wing or reactionary parties have become among the leading advocates of CD, that either they originated the idea, or that they are necessarily wrong about this if they are wrong about other things.
Right wing conspiracy paranoia features a deep and abiding suspicion (panic?) about government power and the agenda of the PTB behind the throne of our nominal leaders, and a history of rather fearlessly making points that are ludicrous to an average person. This means they aren't reluctant to put forward highly contentious positions, or much fear the kind of shunning and ridicule, loss of job or community status, that may inhibit those who value their mainstream status, job security, etc. Which is to say, when the rest of society is praising the emperor's new clothes out of political correctness, the few that speak up contrary to the conventional wisdom are going to be unusual types, typically on the fringes, by definition.
I find the questioning of the opinions of Dr. Steve Jones and Dr. David Ray Griffin by relation to various religious beliefs they hold to be religious bigotry.
Take any conventional Christian, the dominant religion in America, and you'll find someone who may believe Jesus was born of a virgin birth, died and arose from the dead in 3 days, rose other people from the dead, etc.. Now, is THAT disqualifying of someone's other factual opinions? If not, how are other differing beliefs of that kind supposed to be disqualifying?
As to Jones being a 'physicist,' in scare quotes, as in, 'not really,' he has the credentials, and IS a physicist.
In 1973, Jones earned his bachelors degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[6]
Research interests and background
Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho, from 1979 to 1985, where he was a senior engineering specialist. He was the principal investigator for experimental Muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones researched fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy and for the Electric Power Research Institute.
Jones has also been a collaborator in several experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.
Jones has had articles published in the premier peer-reviewed scientific journal in America, 'Nature,' (on cold fusion) and in Scientific American.
Griffin's 9/11 books are models of rational argument and set such a high standard of exposition and analysis that, frankly, I think they are unassailable on their merits. Which would account for people jumping right to the ad hominem and ignoring his compelling positions-- it's the only way I've seen anyone try to refute them.
But, my gosh, he's a divine by training and profession, and holds some religious beliefs? To the trash heap with his books, then! Please.
unirealist:
I have trouble understanding why CD is effective as disinfo.
If disinfo agents are pushing CD, they must be idiots.
I'm with unirealist. The purpose of disinfo would be to steer suspicion away from politically sensitive suspects (for example, away from the PTB toward a renegade military unit, or toward Saudi Arabia, or toward space aliens ;-)
You're asking us to believe that this particular disinfo is designed to steer us away from Al Qaeda and towards the US government. Why?
I also disagree that anyone "right" must automatically be suspect. Presumably there are true conservatives (not the supporters or GWB) and their goals would presumably be to conserve some desired state (1950's America, 1980's America, 1990's America). True conservatives may be as upset about the direction of the country as anyone "left".
Joseph re JFK assassination:
The writings of the people in group one eventually formed the basis for the theory the Kennedy was killed by right-wingers within the intelligence community.
Then there were the ones pushing the "commies-diddit" theories
So in this case the disinfo is intended to steer us away from right-wingers with the complicity of people in the military, CIA, FBI, and local police and towards the Soviet Union (or at least, Cuba). I believe this is what they used to get Earl Warren to go along with the lone nut theory ("We can't tell them the truth. It'll start World War III!")
If CD is disino it's designed to steer us away from "Al Qaeda did it" towards what exactly?
anon 1039.
you describe your interesting response. did you just miss the snide laughter and snorting on the part of the filmmakers? did you miss this direct quote from bermas, ""This is simply a lie" referring to the editors' assertion that the towers did a pancake fall? Then when meigs pointed out that everytime their arguments are refuted, they call whoever refuted them a liar, bermas says:
"I'm not calling anybody a liar, sir. I'm calling you a liar, because you are a liar."
later, he says this after dunbar made an argument:
or "What [dunbar]'s saying is a total lie."
did you just not hear these three separate and distinct instances of the filmmakers calling the editors liars, and what they said lies? how can that be? the transcript does not lie.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
moreover, the editors did not directly call anyone a name or directly accuse anyone of anything; they simply mentioned the holocaust deniers in the same way i warned against anyone (do you hear me? ANYone!) closing their minds to logic and reasonable evidence.
anon, what i have listed above here are objective DATA. they refute your personal and subjective description of your experience of the debate. which is interesting. cognitive psychologists (of which i am one) have long documented the propensity of folks to hear what they want to hear. and voila! you have demonstrated precisely that fact. bush and crew have shown us that it's not just nazis and commies who restrict their reality to what comforts them. and voila! you have also demonstrated that fact.
to which i have to say, please, i beg of you, learn how to listen, learn how to read, carefully, learn how to reason, and learn how to weigh evidence. it absolutely requires that, as much as is humanly possible, you dampen your passions and your prejudices. and your pride.
to the extent that you and each of us can do this, not for just this debate but for EVERY issue that confronts us, we will all be the better for it.
thank you for listening.
anon 1039, i also meant to include this point. the editors stated that they talked to experts to try to discover any answers to the questions that loose change (and other theorists) raise. the point the editors were trying to make was that these experts actually answered many of them. and if you had listened carefully to what was being said, you'd also notice that the editors also pointed out that the filmmakers left out a great deal of information that was already available to them, had they actually done the work of investigative reporting. instead, they just threw a bunch of carefully selected video up, added a background of spooky music, and asked the ominous questions. i find this no less manipulative than the crappy 'path to 9/11' that stirred up so much ire last week.
manipulative, and insulting. i am inclined to believe that you, anon, are actually more intelligent than the loose change film requires. because they are NOT professionals. they do NOT know what they are doing. and they did NOT do the hard work that any reasonable human being would require in a logical discussion, or in a court of law.
so, to them i say, please do not waste my precious time pretending to be something you are not. please do not waste my precious time pretending there is reason to fear something when there is not. please do not waste my precious time pretending that there are boogeymen out there when there are not.
(please note this paragraph applies across a very broad spectrum.)
we have met the enemy, and he is us.
and ultimately, each of us can only control our reactions to the world. and nothing else. so again, i beg of you, try to do the hard work necessary to weigh a reasoned debate.
c'mon dr elswhere transcripts do lie, see link http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/09/wh-alters-transcript/
did the guys from popular mechanics just listen to the "experts"? did they conduct thier own experiments based on what the "experts" told them to confirm what they were being told.
did they actually check the credentials of these experts or were they simply presented to them as "experts"?
the simple fact is the people who believe the gulf of tonkin was a setup were nuts at one point too as were the people who believed oswald was a patsy or pearl harbour was a surprise.
things don't add up and i think a new 9/11 commission would add volumes to the debate
Hey~ Keep that friggen gate closed!
The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon
The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established Left media. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, pooh-poohed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.
Researcher Mark Robinowitz devotes much of his vast website to tracking the Left gatekeeper phenomenon.
e x c e r p t
title: Denial is not a river in Egypt: 'Not See's,' Nazis and the psychological difficulty in facing the truth about 9/11
authors: Mark Robinowitz
Both the corporate, mainstream media and most of the foundation-funded "alternative" media have sought to restrict investigative journalism and dissident opinions about the so-called "War on Terror." Since 9/11, the Left media -- including The Nation, Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternative Radio -- have shied away from examining the pretext for endless war. They have ignored the national "Deception Dollar" campaign, which has printed over three million DD's listing websites of the independent investigations of 911, despite a massive distribution effort across the country, especially at peace rallies.
Worse, several of these institutions have gone on the attack against independent media and journalists who have done excellent work exposing the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In the spring of 2002, when some of the material documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked independent investigators who are piecing together the evidence, instead of helping those who have done the best work.
...
site: www.oilempire.us page: www.oilempire.us/denial.html
Hypocrisy Now!
One of the most notable cases of Left denial is that of the respected journalist Amy Goodman and her show Democracy Now. Goodman has long rebuffed requests that she interview an expert on the subject. Instead she has tiptoed around the core facts of the attack and addressed only peripheral issues, such as the EPA's fraudulent assurances that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe while Ground Zero was still smouldering. Finally, after a concerted campaign by the 9-11 Visibility Project, Goodman featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Goodman pitted Chip Berlet against Griffin, and gave the last word and closing summary to Berlet, who spun the myth that the attack was strictly blowback. Nonetheless, Griffin was allowed to make the case that the attack was an inside job for the first time ever on the nationally
First, I'm going to have to be a bit harsh about my rule regarding off-topic posts. This is not the place to be discussing the origins of Israel and other such matters.
Second, regarding Dr. Jones (who IS on topic): I confess to being at least a bit suspicious of ANY scientist with deeply-held relgious beliefs. But there are two religions -- Mormonism and Scientology -- founded by such obvious charlatans that I am and always will remain irrevocably prejudiced against anyone who remains ensnared by those cons. If you aren't smart enough to know that Holy Joe and Elron were grifters, then I ain't listening to what you have to say on any scientific matter, and I don't care what kind of sheepskin you have on your wall. Sorry, but we all have our biases and them's mine.
(For what it's worth, I have similarly irrevocable biases against any scientist in any field who believes in any form of creationism.)
Note that I offered evidence that Jones misrepresented a key source by using a gerrymandered quote. And your counter-argument? Do you have one?
As I understand it, Jones based much of his argument on the presence of sulfur without doing "due diligence" to find out what other sources of the stuff might have been in those buildings.
Exculpating Bin Laden is annoying to those of us who think that there is more to Bin Laden than most believe. To that extent, the CD theory is a serious distraction from the most promising line of investigation.
None of you (with one honorable exception -- the physics guy) made a single attempt to rebut the sources I cited. None of you show any hint of having seen Screw Loose Change. I am willing to view the materials on your side of the aisle; you refuse to look at the other stuff. Is that fair?
You counter the Popular Mechanics book (which I've not read: I've seen the articles, though) using nothing but sheer argumentum ad hominem. Yet you score me for same. Is that fair?
As I've said before, this isn't Calvinball. You can't say "ad hominem is fine when WE do it, not when YOU do it."
And for those who say that I should embrace arguments I consider non-scientific purely for tactical political reasons -- I say to hell with THAT idea. Such tactics tend to backfire. Besides, if I think a myth is taking hold, then I must do what I can to counter it, just as scientists should do whatever they can to lower the number of people who believe in creationsism.
Yes, pretty much all the 911 CD arguments have their origin point with rightists. The argument has, of course, gone far beyond that segment of the population, but that's where this stuff began, and beginnings ARE important. The right wing has been pushing crap-ball conspiracy theories ever since the heyday of Nesta Webster.
As Perry Logan points out, a lot of the pro-CD guys were also happy to push the anti-Clinton mythos that is at the heart of "The Path to 9/11."
I guess what pisses me off is that bad conspiracy theories tend to decredibilize the good ones. A few of you (are you there, Gary?) may be old enough or hip enough to catch this reference: Remember how, every time there was renewed interest in the JFK controversy, someone would republish Hugh MacDonald's crap?
Maybe we should ask the doctors' opinion, not the engineers'???
See yesterday's WMR (FEMA sources) about R(adioactive)Controlled Demolition...
Remember how, every time there was renewed interest in the JFK controversy, someone would republish Hugh MacDonald's crap?
So McDonald's disinfo steers us away from CIA involvement and steers us toward a mysterious conspiracy involving "Saul" and Oswald.
If CD is disinfo, it steers us away from Al Qaeda involvement and towards what exactly?
do you recall Milton William Cooper and his stupid theory that JFK was shot by his driver?
So Cooper's disinfo was steering us away from intelligence agency involvement and toward a theory where JFK's driver did it by accident.
Remember how, every time there was renewed interest in the JFK controversy, someone would republish Hugh MacDonald's crap?
So McDonald's disinfo was steering us away from CIA involvement and toward a weird conspiracy between "Saul" and Oswald.
If CD is disinfo it's meant to steer us away from Al Qaeda involvement towards what exactly?
If you see fewer responses from me and if it pleases you people to think that you've "beaten" me -- fine, think whatever the hell you like.
Joseph, I don't want to "beat" you (whatever that may mean). Khashoggi doesn't post here so I can't ask him what he's up to (if he would honestly tell me). He may have his own reasons for doing what he does (perhaps he wants to steer us away from Al Qaeda because they're his business partners).
Which is more probable: CD is disinfo designed to steer us away from Al Qaeda towards what exactly? Or the official story is disinfo designed to steer us away from intelligence agency involvement (JFK, again) towards Al Qaeda involvement?
What is the purpose of CD disinfo? I"ve made this clear before but I'll repeat myself. I hope I won't have to do it toomany more times.
In my view, or at least in my suspicion, CD theory is itself a plot by far right-wingers to bait progressives into a trap.
In the long run, this issue can only make progressives look bad. Indeed, we already have some indication that Rove plans to use 911 conspiracy theories against Democrats in the future. (There was a DU thread on this recently.)
Now imagine that some well-known Democratic pol actually falls for this shit. Imagine that some prominent Democrat says in public that he believes in a controleld demoliton. What will happen next? What will we see within, say, the next two or three months?
It's easy to predict. As Sam Elliott said in "Gettysburg," I can see it so clearly, it's as if it has already happened.
There will be a full-court press, just as there was on JFK in 1993. Books, TV documentaries, mainstream magazine articles.
Only this time they won't have to hire a Gerry Posner to tell lies. This time the job will be a lot easier, because the truth really will be on their side.
There will be a TV special on a major network. Hell, there will be several specials. I want you to try to visualize how such a production would go...
The highlight of the show will be a segment showing the differences between a real controlled demolition and the fall of the twin towers. The two things look utterly dissimilar. Even children will be able to see the glaring differences.
That'll be it right there. Game over.
Just to twist the knife, the show will mention the fact that no expert in controlled demolition in the world believes this theory. No physicist believes it, except for Dr. Steven Jones, whose work is shoddy and who (as I demonstrated) falsified a key source. No peer-reviewed journal has accepted an article in favor of this theory. No seismic evidence backs up the idea.
We will see the photographic evidence that the CD proponents have studiously hid from their gulls -- such as the shots of the OTHER side of WTC7.
And then the show will trot out the guys with the REALLY weird theories -- hologram planes and shit like that. Imagine cutting back and forth between THOSE freaks and the calm pronouncements of leading scientists.
And then we will see once more the footage of real controlled demoltions. Over and over. Just to make sure everyone sees how different the real thing is.
Can you see it? I can.
Every single CD enthusiast in the country will get a history-making egg facial.
And then...AND THEN...the next morning...
Rush and Hannity and their confreres will get in front of their mikes the next day and paint every single liberal as a believer in wild conspiracy theories designed to mislead the American public. And they will repeat that script for WEEKS.
That's my worst-case scenario. That's what I think they have planned.
And I think that this scenario is not at all unlikely.
Gatekeepers on the left? Damn straight. They are necessary. May they continue to do their honorable work. Let the G.O.P. be the party of pseudoscience. Otherwise the Chris Bollyns of the world will trick us into shooting ourselves in the foot.
sofla said:
Joe, thanks for the reference to the anti-Loose Change film. I've started watching, although I had to stop about 40 minutes in on the first go-round. I'll get the rest in over the next couple of days.
Thanks also for clarifying your position on the LDS. While I don't disagree that their dogma is ridiculous, I find it no more inherently ridiculous than claiming Papal infallibility (as a Roman Catholic), or claiming salvation requires complete immersion during baptism (as a Baptist). Those are all ridiculous positions that any rational person should see through and reject. But I guess when somebody's similarly ridiculous dogmas were created more recently in history, THOSE we can use to discount someones life work and education in physics, despite how many professional achievements in the field he accomplishes? (Getting published in Nature is quite the career coup and official recognition for a scientist, and they do NOT publish non-scientific work nor non-scientists).
Going back to a basic analysis of how disinformation would be done, it seems the greatest attention would be paid in the area of greatest vulnerability (to the plotters). If it were obvious. If not, they'd possibly try to avoid discussing it altogether as to not attract attention to an issue people were ignoring. Then, if it were decided that the area was getting too ripe, that it was certainly going to come to the fore and be considered, likely there would be a pre-emptive move to muddy that water.
I think there is deadly danger to the plotters in the physical evidence at the Pentagon and the WTC, and that it is of vital importance to dissuade the skeptic community from the obvious position they'd otherwise soon come to.
Which is to say, the very people warning against pursuit of some of these lines of thought, that those proposing them are disinfo specialists, could be the disinfo specialists themselves. Not necessarily you, Joe-- there's still room for uninvolved pure 3rd parties to be convinced by such arguments, and make them themselves, without intending any misdirection at all.
I just watched "Who killed John Oneal" at www.wkjo.com it rocks!
Cannonfire says..
Today's topic is the disreputable, right-wing origins of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, and I must ask you to restrict your replies (negative or positve) ONLY to that theme.
The Truth movement is made up of all kinds of people who want "the truth". Your attempt to erase the truth by "guilt by association" is a very shallow effort indeed. Please apologise to all the family members that are in anguish still over the loss of loved ones and who are totally dedicated to "the truth movement".
Please rethink your so called "reason" attributes and put aside all your angst so we can "reason together". You just might be the harbinger of "truth" after all.
Now that would make us all happy and proud to have known you.
CD theory is itself a plot by far right-wingers to bait progressives into a trap.
Presumably, we can reveal the right-wing source of all this and then egg will be on their face.
Really, I can't see the point in this. They already marginalize and discredit progressives at every opportunitity. Why would they need this? Do you have to claim allegiance to the Democratic party before you can belong to the CD club? If not, how can it be used to discredit the Democratic party?
They may hope a Democratic politician signs up for it but how likely is that (all a Democratic politician has to do to put pressure on the current administration and by extension the Republican party is to keep calling for more investigations to answer questions which remain).
And what if, say, Ron Paul comes out as a CD proponent. Does that work to discredit the Republican party?
Post a Comment