2
   

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 03:45 pm
That's really a tragic story, f4f. But I sense your purpose in posting it was not limited to simply conveying the tragedy ("WTF ?").

Do you suspect the East African or Somali killers of Mr. Zebuhr are in cahoots with the Bush Administration, which is planning on killing all of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" membership, starting with this West Virginia student member nobody has heard of who was only visiting Minneapolis during his spring break from Clemson?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 04:02 pm
Tico, i'm 99.99% certain its probably just a coincidence, but anything's possible right ?
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 05:36 pm
"Loose Change 2nd Edition" is the follow-up to the most provocative 9-11 documentary on the market today.

This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government.

Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day.

http://www.loosechange911.com/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 09:49 am
Perhaps you could enlighten us on who Loose Change is and their credentials for making this film? The only name I could find on the site was Hunter Thompson best known for writing fun and far out fiction.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:07 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps you could enlighten us on who Loose Change is and their credentials for making this film? The only name I could find on the site was Hunter Thompson best known for writing fun and far out fiction.


Here's what I found on the site by way of background:

Quote:
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2918/us3me.gif

Dylan Avery, 22 (E-MAIL)
Founder, Owner, Director


In May 2002, after spending three months doing construction work on Vines, Dylan had a half hour conversation with James Gandolfini at the opening party. To make a long, drawn out conversation short, James told him, "If you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world."

It was that month that Dylan began writing "Loose Change," a fictional story about himself and his friends discovering that September 11th was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government.

Upon researching for the movie, it became apparant that the subject matter may not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today; a documentary.

In May 2004, Dylan moved down to Washington, DC, at the time when "Loose Change" was beginning to take shape. Bouncing from couch to couch, technically homeless, eventually landing a job and an apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland, the entire time he worked on the documentary with every spare time and dollar to his name.

In January 2005, DJ Skooly moved into Dylan's apartment fresh out of Los Angeles, and donated a rich soundtrack and recording equipment which is responsible for "Loose Change"'s unique presentation.

In April 2005, after a financial boost from Phil Jayhan of Letsroll911.org, a 1,000 DVD pressing of the original Loose Change was released on the internet, mostly on a whim.

Approximately 200 pre-orders, from the course of the past two months, were hand-addressed and packaged by Dylan and his girlfriend Jessica. Orders started to come in at anywhere from 1 to 5 a day, something which at the time was alarming in its own right.

Eventually, word spread, and the movie started collecting a grassroots fanbase. Whenever he wasn't waiting tables at Red Lobster, Dylan and Jessica were in his living room, addressing and stuffing envelopes, one by one. The people at the post office became curious as Dylan and Jess put stamps on hundreds of individual orders at once, creating an assembly line inside the Post Office.

In June 2005, Dylan's best friend Korey went AWOL from the United States Armed Forces to come support the cause, and by July 2005, after a trip to California to visit KPFK 90.7 FM and Sofia Shafquat, it was apparant that Loose Change had taken on a life of its own.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Loose Change and Loose Change 2nd Edition were edited on a $1500 Compaq Presario Laptop, using Adobe Premiere Pro 7.0 and After Effects 6.5 (2nd Edition).

The original Loose Change, including the laptop, footage, and other expenses, cost only $2000 to make, and is responsible for putting Louder Than Words where they are today.



Korey Rowe, 22 (e-mail)
Owner, Producer


"Born and raised for the first 18 years of my life, in Oneonta NY. During that time I attended Greater Plains Elementary, Oneonta Middle School, and Oneonta High School. I was a normal kid, played sports, took vacations, worked for my father on the weekends.

At 18 for no apparent reason I joined the Army. I guess for a way out of my home town. Joined and not even six months later I found my self in a fox hole in Kandahar, Afghanistan (January 14th, 2002 - July 15th, 2002). Served six months there before returning stateside for a hellish 7 month full out training cycle before being shipped back across the Atlantic to Kuwait were we staged for a nice long year in Iraq (February 28th, 2003 - January 16th, 2004).

I am out of the Army now, and have dove straight into the production of Dylan's documentary Loose Change. Due to government obligations that I did not support in the first place, I was unable to dedicate as much of my time as I would have liked to.

As for the future, only life can tell. My life to date has been very interesting, despite the very short life summary. I could only guess where I will be down the road."



Jason Bermas, 26 (E-mail)
Webmaster, Graphic Designer


A Graphic Designer located in Upstate New York , I have been independently researching 9/11 for over three and a half years. After realizing that something was very wrong I began showing people the video and photographic evidence that contradicted the official version of events.

Through a mutual friend I was introduced to Dylan and Korey, and the rest will be history. I was lucky enough to help out on the second edition of the most well produced and concise 9/11 documentary out there, and for that I am eternally grateful.

My goals in this situation are simple, FIGHT this WAR through PEACEFUL INFORMATION until those truly responsible are tried for their CRIMES, and the RESTORATION of the CONSTITUTION and BILL of RIGHTS is complete!



At least this cause is giving them some direction in life. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:14 am
Tico writes
Quote:
At least this cause is giving them some direction in life. Rolling Eyes


Uh huh. And fodder for occupants of the twilight zone too. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:22 am
Quote:
... the fictional movie evolved into what it is today; a documentary.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:28 am
Why should Michael Moore make all the dough?
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 11:15 am
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 08:10 am
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.


The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 10:34 am
Spring Breakthrough for 9/11 Truth -Alex Jones,Webster Tarpley, and Charlie Sheen on Corporate Media http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11109
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 03:11 pm
9/11 ATTACKS
Avoiding the hard questions

Wed, Feb. 01, 2006

ROBERT STEINBACK

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.

Unanswered questions

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:39 am
http://www.fluxview.com/JollyRoger/1-6-05.htm

*Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity.

In July of 1996, flight 800 exploded over Long Island. Shortly after their terrorist explanation failed scrutiny, our government then explained the event by claiming that a faulty electrical system caused a spark that ignited a fuel tank, and the people who doubted this explanation were quickly labeled "conspiracy theorists." More than a hundred witnesses saw a missile travel from the ground up to the plane just prior to its explosion, but rather than being treated as eyewitnesses to an event, they were labeled "conspiracy theorists," which label allowed all subsequent investigation to ignore the strongest evidence in the matter.

Our "investigative" news agencies decided to accept and disseminate the official story, and they helped us forget the U.S. naval station nearby, the fact that missiles were regularly test fired there, and naturally, they paid no heed to more than a hundred "conspiracy theorists" who saw the plane get blown out of the sky by a missile. I believe that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down flight 800, and that's my belief because it's the most sensible explanation that can be drawn from the available evidence. I'm not theorizing about conspiracies, but there are conflicting explanations of the event, and if the Navy did accidentally blow a passenger plane out of the sky, who would have a motive to lie about it? The U.S. government, or a hundred witnesses?

Then of course, there were the "crazy conspiracy theories" arising from the bombing of the Alfred Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. In that matter, audio tapes and witnesses agree that there were two explosions, the first of which occurred inside the building between eight and ten seconds before the truck bomb exploded. Explosive experts agree that Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer bomb could not have destroyed the building, and the FBI's counter terrorism chief, and members of BATF lied about their whereabouts during and prior to the catastrophe. The evening news decided not to tell you any of this, and they will label anyone who tries to a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." In light of the evidence, we would be complete fools if a conspiracy theory didn't exist.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:46 am
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory]Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] wrote:
Conspiracy theory

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.

Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.



Overview

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for a conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

Many conspiracy theories are false, or lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously, raising the intriguing question of what mechanisms might exist in popular culture that lead to their invention and subsequent uptake. In pursuit of answers to that question, conspiracy theory has been a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, when the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy provoked an unprecedented level of speculation. This academic interest has identified a set of familiar structural features by which membership of the genre may be established, and has presented a range of hypotheses on the basis of studying the genre.

Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labelled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. If legitimate uses of the label are admitted, they work by identifying structural features in the story in question which correspond to those features listed below.


Features

Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

...

Clinical psychology

For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, ...

Sociopolitical origins

Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people. Other social commentators and sociologists argue that conspiracy theories are produced according to variables which may change within a democratic (or other type of) society.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance. Alternatively, believers may find themselves committed to a type of activism, to expose the alleged conspirators; see, for example, the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Where responsible behavior is prevented by social conditions, or is simply beyond the ability of an individual, the conspiracy theory facilitates the emotional discharge or closure which such emotional challenges (after Erving Goffman) require. Like moral panics, conspiracy theories thus occur more frequently within communities which are experiencing social isolation or political disempowerment.

Mark Fenster argues that "just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm" (1999: 67).

For example, the modern form of anti-Semitism is identified in Britannica 1911 as a conspiracy theory serving the self-understanding of the European aristocracy, whose social power waned with the rise of bourgeois society.[3]

A particularly political individual or group may respond skeptically or cynically towards an event or process which does not fit with his/its existing worldview. For example, a neo-Nazi or an anti-Israeli organization such as Hizbollah might promote claims of Jewish involvement in 9/11 in order to incorporate that event into its own political narrative in a manner compatible to meeting its own ends.


Disillusionment

In the late 20th century, Western societies increasingly experienced a process of disengagement, disaffection or disillusionment with traditional political institutions among their general populations. Falling election participation and declines in other key metrics of social engagement were noted by several observers. For a prominent example, see Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone thesis. Those who were most influenced by this period, the so-called "Generation X," are characterized by their cynicism towards traditional institutions and authorities, offering a case example of the context of political disempowerment detailed above.

In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks which grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority. For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of to Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda (see 9/11 conspiracy theories.)

...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:51 am
perhaps its better for the health of the nation not to know the truth. Perhaps people need lies.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:55 am
Steve, I actually considered that. It also needs to be known that this 9/11 thing will be exploited by real enemies of the U.S.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:01 am
If enemies of the US are exploiting 911, it begs the question of who is actually exploiting 911 now. Not the families of the bereaved thats for sure.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:07 am
There is off the top of my head about five times when nations have attacked themselves to go to war. Could the possible truth behind 9/11 cause an instability that would compromise the stability of the country to the point to where it is better off left alone?

Or could exposing what is possibly behind 9/11 actually bring a realization to the masses that could end the war, the extent and cost of which is unforseen.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 02:32 am
Tico, Acording to the list of features from wikapedia this 9/11 thing is not really a conspiracy theory.


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:15 am
Amigo wrote:
Tico, Acording to the list of features from wikapedia this 9/11 thing is not really a conspiracy theory.


Hmm. Are all of the 12 present? Perhaps not ... but the Wiki article said "exhibiting several of the following features ...."

Let's take a look, shall we:


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;

Yep. You guys are all about circumstantial evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;

Yep.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;

Yep. (E.g., the government (FBI/CIA) didn't drop the ball on the 9/11 attacks ... the Bush Administration either: (a) knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it -- because it wanted to invade Iraq, either for the oil or to avenge something for Bush Sr. or because PNAC directed Bush to ... and, it wanted to make Halliburton rich ... and, it wanted to make certain favored Jews in the New York area rich, because they could collect on the insurance money on the WTC buildings, or (b) the Bush Administration itself colluded with an unknown huge number of persons in an elaborate scheme to detonate explosives in the buildings, and fly planes into those buildings, and fire a missile at the Pentagon, having somehow managed to recruit a number of al Qaeda operatives and convincing them to work for the interests of this secret Bush Administration/PNAC group -- and were either able to keep these "terrorists" from realizing they were doing the bidding of a secret faction of the US government, or the "terrorists" were okay with it because in any event they thought they were on a jihadist mission and were going to get 70 virgins or some such either way -- all for the same reasons articulated in "a" above, and has somehow managed to keep each of these huge number of persons from speaking to the press about their participation, or perhaps they've already killed each of them, we're not exactly sure about that one.)

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;

Oh, yeah. PNAC & the Jews ... right?

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;


Well, this would have to apply to pull off a conspiracy of this magnatude.


6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;

Yep. "Controlled demolition buildings fall straight down. The WTC buildings fell straight down. Therefore, the WTC buildings fell as a result of a controlled demolition."

7. Appeals to 'common sense';

Yep. This could also be known as the Charlie Sheen Argument: "Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation."


8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;


Yep.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;

Mostly true. But of course the "9/11 Scholars" are attempting to claim legitimacy.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;

Yes. That has been demonstrated time and again.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;

No ... if you consider the "9/11 Scholars" part of the "expert community." This feature doesn't address "experts" who have deep roots in the "conspiracy theorists" community.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

Yes. This would include the response to the Popular Mechanics article debunking most of the 9/11 myths (e.g., the author is a "cousin" of Micheal Chertoff, and PM is a "Hearst" publication, and thus has known Zionist ties, etc.)[/quote]



By my count, somewhere in the range of 10 to 11½ of the 12 features are present.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:30:15