Conspiracy Nuts Ignore Prosaic, Real Conspiracies

by Timgos Mon Sep 11, 2006 09:21

R Isible claims Cockburn in his article found a "sinister connection" beween Tarpley & Griffin two 911 conspiracy authors.

In fact all he has is a lame joke about how they share a name. Tarpley's middle name is "Griffin".
Maybe R Isible should read the article Cockburn wrote again?

by R. Isible Mon Sep 11, 2006 13:42

The denial of a connection between the two main gatekeepers is a staple of the thought repression enforced upon the populace. There are other obvious connections e.g. between the Royal Family and the City of London and the cryptic keythongs exposed on their coat of arms. Don't be fooled, read between the lines:

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 14:04

Behold the Pale White Lie: Why Conspiracy Theories are Patriotic

by Timgos Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:59

Gatekeeper Cockburn Attacks 9/11"Conspiracy Nuts"

By Kurt Nimmo

Sept 8 2006

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=556

by R. Isible Mon Sep 11, 2006 21:43

For example he writes:
According to Cockburn, writing for the subscription-based Nation web site—kudos to the anarchists at Infoshop who filched and reposted it
Nimmo is apparently completely unaware that the piece is published for free on the Counterpunch website.

Then he characterises Cockburn as a fake progressive:
For “progressives” such as Cockburn
and is apparently again completely unaware that Cockburn is disdainful of the ineffectual bumblers that style themselves progressive and have supported every right-wing Democrat government since the 50s.

Then he goes off on a rant asserting that because flight-controllers are hired for their competence there is no way that among the thousands of planes that move along the skies on any day in a very small area of the highly habited east coast that all the traffic controllers could have missed the deviation of the hijacked planes because they are overworked and shit happens. He then goes on to quote a passage from the airtraffic controllers union which supports exactly that contention. Somehow Nimmo sees this as confirmation that he's correct!

He ends up repeating one of the debunked "steel can't melt with aeroplane fuel" tropes (debunked above) and then splashes out the completely unsourced sneer that Of course, all of this runs smack into the immovable brick wall of the “progressive” ideology with its blue sky insistence nine eleven was in fact a noble blow

I give up. What a complete nut. Logic is impossible with these people. For anyone that wants a fair assessment of the situation: make a list of the conspiracies that are supposed to have occurred, then read the Popular Mechanics article linked earlier and read the Cockburn piece. After that decide whether there is a strong factual basis to believe the conspiracy theories, no innuendo or insinuation, or destroyed reports, just the available non-contested facts.

by Seán Ryan Mon Sep 11, 2006 23:46

I don't want to get into conspiracies. But damnit this is hard to do when you folks keep talking about them.

If jet fuel melted the steel or brought it to 50% of its strength, how come folks were walking around the hole that the plane left in one of the towers? Some people even jumped from the hole to their deaths (possibly to avoid a slow painful death from toxic fumes). If the jet fuel heated the steel to this level it ought to have destroyed all life in the area. The pancake theory as advocated by the authorities has also been debunked. (I cannot remember which of the towers that survivors were filmed at.)

It also looks strange that the jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn't incinerate most of the area it crashed into, considering it was still carrying most of its fuel. No wreckage on the lawn seems suspicious too. Only one working camera in the most secure building on the planet is downright ridiculous. If the Plane had crashed into somewhere (anywhere) in Dublin, there'd be footage coming out of our ears.

Then there's building 7 or was it 5? What made it fall. The dude who'd recently leased it and who later claimed massive insurance was recorded as saying that he'd told the fire department to 'pull it.' Ie. blow it up, or rather implode it - a process that takes weeks to plan and execute.

Why were the planes not intercepted by the airforce? Training exercises are often given as an excuse, though the more popular excuse seems to be 'downright incompetence.'

Whattabout the manouevers the jet that smacked the Pentagon had to make, instead of hitting the side it was headed for it performed a complex manouever and hit the side furthest away from its direct flight path and hit the area being repaired, the area with the least ammount of personnell. If it had just flown in a straight line it woulda smacked into the area containing Rumsfeld (or Cheney - I cannot remember which one).

Tis only five years, and already Kennedy in Dallas looks a lot less complex. (Twas the chauffer ;OP)

I dunno what happened for sure during 9/11. And in truth I'm not too curious, I'm more concerned with its aftermath. Wars on anyone who doesn't bow before Bush and his cohorts. Most of the heroes of that day (the cops and firefighters) suffering from horrible lung conditions - the people of New York being lied to and being told that the air was safe to breathe.

I think there's enough in the public domain that has been verified, that we need never look to conspiracy theories to condemn Bush and his murdering brethren.

by Rationalist Tue Sep 12, 2006 02:09

"I don't want to get into conspiracies. But damnit this is hard to do when you folks keep talking about them."

Thats how I feel about it. But with over 35% of the US populace believing that the gubmint did it and ignoring the more plausible theory that capitalism sucks and that their participation in it opens them to exposure from terrorism it's good to expose the obvious frauds.

"If jet fuel melted the steel or brought it to 50% of its strength, how come folks were walking around the hole that the plane left in one of the towers?"

Jet fuel probably didn't melt it according to the article. If people were walking around the hole (hadn't heard that yet) then it's probably because it hadn't collapsed yet. The world isn't perfect and engineering failures are complex. The idea that Rummy planned all the details so that they could continue bombing the fuck out of other countries (and got thousands of other people to play along) is implausible. The USA is an inefficient, incompetent sow that doesn't care if some of its farrow are squashed when it rolls over. The other piglets will squeal a bit, but then settle down and continue jostling for the teats.

by Dagnamit Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:49

Nah, I watched it all on TV, anad again and again, and it just does not add up.
The buildings did not collapse through weakness. Weakness from a fire like that (and to be honest it aint that big a fire if there are photos of people STANDING IN THE HOLES in the building, does not simoultaneously weaken 100 floors of steel girders.
So, if the girders are only weakened on the floors on fire, why did the building fall at almost free-fall speed as if the floors below just gave way? And how come they fell so symmetrically?
Thermate sounds like a likely culprit... certainly more believable than 19 numb nuts with box cutters and hardly any flying skills, and OH, a fireproof passport? Anyone remember that little jewel?

And yeah, where the fuck were the fighter jets to intercept? This wasn't the backwoods of beaver creek, this was the East Coast of the US, full of air bases. The four planes were not in rapid succession, and NORAD does have procedures for this type of thing.

Stewart Payne's plane (google it) got intercepted a hell of a lot faster.

And come on, airspace around the PENTAGON?
And Sean, interesting enough, it's not just the side that was least occupied, but also the side that had the walls reinforced with a kevlar like material to reduce damage from bomb blasts. (saw that on Discovery channel, when they interviewed construction crew re-building the place "It's weird, we were just doing this last year" )

I dunno who was running the show, but 19 dummies, could not have pulled off the NORAD stand-down, the identical drills taking place, or the collapse of the towers and building 7 which was not hit by a plane and which did house Guliani's FEMA HQ, but they were all out at the pier at the time on another drill.

by Rationalist Wed Sep 13, 2006 06:15

to be honest it aint that big a fire if there are photos of people STANDING IN THE HOLES in the building,

If there are photos? You mean you can't post a link to them here? Do they not exist?

So, if the girders are only weakened on the floors on fire, why did the building fall at almost free-fall speed

Because there was a big weight of the collapsed floors above them thudding down on them?
Read this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16...7.stm
I suppose that was a dry run for 9-11 by the secret conspiracy society?

9-11 was done by terrorists that hate the USA and it was made possible by the fact that open societies are vulnerable to terrorism. There's a lot to blame Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney for, including destabilising countries in the middle east and creating the terrorists, but accusing them of doing 9-11 is just perverse.

by another Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:18

Morgan Stack - the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist in Ireland - claims he 'realised' it was all a plot by the Bushites after having seen photos on TV of the hole in the Pentagon. He later adduced more evidence of the 'plot' from reading a bunch of books by US conspiracy theorists like Webster Tarpley. He goes on with the same shite as above, using homemade 'expertise' to 'undermine' the idea the Bin Laden's crew did it. Stack is a business graduate with no knowledge of engineering or physics.

I've heard this sort of know-all stuff all my life from self-appointed physicists and structural engineers, as they shift on their barstools telling you that 'Ah, no, that COULDN'T have happened like that! Sure, it's well known that water in a pipe never moves more that 5 square centimetres a mile when held upside down by the ear. I read a book by a guy with a PhD, a PhD!!, who PROVES this beyond any doubt." And on it goes...

Tiresome stuff, really.

by Healthy Skeptic Wed Sep 13, 2006 13:49

If there are photos? You mean you can't post a link to them here? Do they not exist?

http://www.september-11th.us/peoplejump.JPG
here's one. took me 20 seconds on google to find it. Not surprised that you didn't look for one. You're that happy to take the official story without question? These poor people are doomed, but they are obviously not in the middle of a fire hot enough to melt steel, (over 1,000 C) otherwise they wouldn't have made it to the holes. It was hot enough for people to jump to escape being burned to death, but not to melt the construction steel holding up the building.
The people killed on the lower floors were killed by more than just a plane crash. That fire burned up the fuel fairly quickly, and burned up office furniture and paper and then started getting low on oxygen.

===Because there was a big weight of the collapsed floors above them thudding down on them?
Read this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16...7.stm

And look at that photo! The central pillars are STILL standing the whole way to the top of that building. The floors fell, but the weight bearing structures stayed in place, and the collapse slowed, and there was less damage to lower floors. That's NOT what happened to the Twin Towers. You have eyes don't you?

===9-11 was done by terrorists that hate the USA and it was made possible by the fact that open societies are vulnerable to terrorism.

Are you arguing that we should give up our freedoms? Saudi Arabia has more terrorism than the US as does Russia. They don't handle it any better. Iraq in 2003, a closed dictatorship, suffered a huge amount of terrorism in the form of aerial bombardment, killing thousands of civilians. Maybe you should move to China. They don't seem to have much in the way of terrorism, or open society.
In the US, UK and Ireland people are still far, far, more likely to die in a car accident than from terrorism. Criticising the government is tantamount to terrorism in some countries. And Bush calls them appeasers to terrorists.
It was made possible by a lot more than open society. Normal Air Traffic and NORAD procedures had to fail, the Pentagon had to be asleep, WT7 had to fall without being hit by a plane. Terrorists had to get on planes, without being on the passenger lists, pull off tricky aerial moves (like the second tower strike - a high speed turn, and the spiral descent into the Pentagon) in planes they had never flown before. And then to be more spectacular, the black boxes had to disappear, and a lone passport had to survive the fire and collapsing building. I don't attribute ANY of that to 'open society' or to 'coincidence'.

==There's a lot to blame Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney for, including destabilising countries in the middle east and creating the terrorists, but accusing them of doing 9-11 is just perverse.

Why is it perverse? Seriously, why? You accept that these people will have little trouble bombing thousands in Iraq, and imagine that some form of mental block would arise if their plans involved killing stangers in New York? Can you explain what mental process would prevent them doing that? Or is it not really murder when it's abroad?

==Morgan Stack - the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist in Ireland - claims he 'realised' it was all a plot by the Bushites after having seen photos on TV of the hole in the Pentagon.

Never heard of him. Not interested in how you say he realised anything. The thing that should have shocked him about the Pentagon is that it was hit by ANYTHING, - not whether it was a cruise missile, a drone jet, or a Boeing - but, what stopped the normal anti aircraft procedures from going into place, when they were already aware of what happened in NYC an hour earlier? That's a very pertinent question, which nobody has answered properly.

==Stack is a business graduate with no knowledge of engineering or physics.

And your knowledge of engineering and physics? And why you support the official story, other than you find it offensive to disagree? Does he need a physics degree to question why building 7 fell down so quickly, and so symmetrically even though no plane hit it.
Does he need a degree in anything to ask where the interceptor jets were?
I think he's entitled to ask these questions. Nobody is obliged to believe Griffin or Tarpley's answers, but there is some plausible explanations in the theory's of Steve Jones that are worth considering, even to disprove them if possible.

===I've heard this sort of know-all stuff all my life from self-appointed physicists and structural engineers, as they shift on their barstools telling you that .

I've little time for them either, but what about New York firemen who said there were bombs? Did you ever listen to that? Go look, you will find video and audio. Audio is from firefighters radio chatter. If they say bombs in the building, and long serving firemen say they reckon they can put the fires out, then I am inclined to believe them. Something else stopped these heroes doing their job.

Find them yourself. I'm not massively interested in convincing you. You will believe what you choose. And it won't change a damn thing what we think in Ireland anyway. It didn't happen here. I'm just interested in how likely you are to believe the official flimsy version without questioning the situation, and comparing it to what you saw happen, and what didn't happen but should have happened.

===Tiresome stuff, really.

Yes. I agree. America is a great country, it doesn't have a great government, but it's got great people, freedom of speech, the right to question authority, and rational debate. Slamming people who ask uncomfortable questions and answering them with insults rather than intellect is not what civilisation is about.

by Morgan Stack - Scholars for 9/11 Truth Tue Sep 26, 2006 07:32

Well said skeptic.

I love this idea that we have to be professors in a specific field to question, among many other impossible things, why a 47 story steel framed building falls to the ground symetrically in 6 seconds - for no reason. If that was the standard we'd need a phd to put on our shoes.

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1242.shtml

Reply to Popular
Mechanics re 9/11
by Peter Meyer

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular...s.htm

Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

Debunking Popular Mechanics...

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/debunking/popula....html

-----

Also,

www.911truth.ie
www.st911.org
www.911blogger.com
www.nineeleven.co.uk

and a fantastic resource for documentaries, books and audio files here:

http://www.nw0.info/

-----

9/11 American Scholars Symposium Panel Discussion (on C-Span)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-42589468925146...%2F11

Terrorstorm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176...storm

by M Cotton Sat Sep 30, 2006 23:32

Tbe bbc seem to have stopped access to the pictures referred to in this link in the article above:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16...7.stm

by redjade Sun Oct 01, 2006 01:18

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16...7.stm

one just needed to copy and past the actual address, not the oscailtised shortened version. its one of those bugs in oscailt thats actually a feature. weird, i know.

by Destiny's Soldier - Fianna Fail Sun Oct 01, 2006 23:25

I am 100% convinced 9/11 was an inside job. I am too long knocking around the political and scientific world to know where the real story lies. The conspiracy concept will not be obvious to those who look at it first because it will shake their beliefs to the core. That a government could plot against it's own people and pull off such an event is too fantastic to ring true. It's easier to take the party line because that's far more logical and safe. History however proves otherwise for those who have eyes to see.

The collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 at the speed they did was a physical impossibility without the use of explosives. This is THE problem for those who argue otherwise. Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch.org is not studying the evidence because its a distraction to him. He is far enough in the alternative media already and does not want a loss in credibility by stepping into 9/11 conspiracy territory. He has other fish to fry. Galloway is much of the same school.

I would typically be classified as right wing or conservative: but for those who are beginners in the world of politics let me tell you the school of left and right politics is long over. Its the science of right and wrong only that counts. It is an irritation to hear categorisation of being a leftist for holding a view that has good scientific logic. No emotional nonsense stick to right and wrong. Stick with scientific , researched fact as much as possible. Do the calculations: each floor of the twin towers would have taken at least 0.5 -to1.0 second to break the undamaged, structurally sound steel columns below the floors of the burning area. These columns would impede the collapsing floors above when they were piling down. So, 90 or so floors up the collapse begins, 90 x 0.5 = 45 secs at the quickest to collapse. But we can see these buildings fell in roughly about 10 seconds..... Yes my learned friends -a physical impossibility without the use of explosives.

Look, there are people who absolutely believe Abraham of the Bible was a historical person who lived for 950 years. The obvious interpretation is allegory or legend. The Bible is not an accurate historical document and neither is the Kean Zelikow commission report on 9/11.

by Destiny's Soldier - Fianna Fail Sun Oct 01, 2006 23:34

Morgan, you'll be getting my No.1 in South Central though I probably won't be saying it at party meetings.