I tend to be more convinced by people who make some an attempt to support their suppositions with evidence.

I can go with much of what this says I'm not at all keen on swallowing the idea that the US Government is responsible for 9/11.

Making 'extreme' and highly contestible claims like that undermines the point of what you're saying rather than supporting it.

Flash animation, click below

 http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

Explanatory Note on the Simulation of the Consequences of a Nuclear Bunker Buster Bomb Attack on Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

The simulation in the Flash Animation pertains to a one megaton bunker buster thermonuclear bomb with an explosive capacity of 60 times a Hiroshima bomb.

Military documents distinguish between the NEP as in the case of the simulation, and the "mini-nuke" which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or 60 times a Hiroshima bomb.

In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon is contemplating the launching of punitive bombings using "mini-nukes" or tactical thermonuclear weapons. While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US and/or Israeli nuclear arsenal, as envisaged in the simulation, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East tend to favor the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb with a yield of 10 kt.

This distinction between mini-nukes and larger NEPs is in many regard misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several "available yields", ranging from "low yields" of less than one kiloton, to mid-range and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb. In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several "available yields".

What is contemplated for theater use is the "low yield" 10 kt bomb, two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. The impacts in terms of deaths and radioactive fallout would be less dramatic than that contemplated in the simulation. It would nonetheless result in the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area " (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson,Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

According to GlobalSecurity.org , the use of the B61-11 against North Korea would result in extensive radioactive fallout over nearby countries, thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust.

"... In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth,... But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan" ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm )

If it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East - Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )

At present, the B61-11 is slated for use in war theaters together with conventional weapons. (Congressional Report“ Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues , Congressional Research Service March 2005). (Other versions of the B61, namely mod 3, 4, 7 and 10, which are part of the US arsenal, involve nuclear bunker buster bombs with a lower yield to that of B61-11).

 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=OF%2020060418&articleId=2281

I spent years thinking that all the 9/11 questions were just "conspiracy theories"... but now it's clear to me that the official story simply can't be true -- there are far too many holes in it -- just look at the science.

Look at the failure of building 7 -- the official reports don't even try to explain this, they have gone out to tender to see if they can buy a report to explain it...

 http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/

 http://wtc7.net/

And the speed of the collapse of the twin towers:

 http://damien911.blogspot.com/2006/03/judy-wood.html

And all the other issues such as molten metal weeks later etc from Steven Jones:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Videos of Steven Jones:

 http://www.archive.org/details/byu_jones_911

 http://www.archive.org/details/Professor_Jones

For more general questions see this:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846

And there is a video of him presenting his case here:

 http://www.archive.org/details/drgriffin

Of course this site attacts loks of comments that rubbish the people question the official story, but what all these peddlers of disinfo have in common is their failure to address the scientific questions, they just sling mud.

Investigate what happened yourself.

I started off believing that 9/11 was an inside job, a ruse, another burning Reichstag. However all these years later I haven't seen any compelling evidence to support the hypothesis. It looks lke something is being covered up, but it's inevident what that is and why.

What has burgeoned in the last few years is the conspiracy craze and the inevitable commercial industry that attends all sub-cultures. Thousands of books, DVDs, T-shirts etc etc etc are being offloaded onto the conspiracy fans. Hordes of websites blossom like algae in a pool starved of oxygen and healthy bacteria.

These information sources more often fail to scrutinise their theses professionally and often do not check the sources. Thus pure conjecture, supposition and downright fabrication runs away like an unstoppable train.

The biggest internet sources for such conspiracy gossip are often extremely politically biased in the general coverage and often nigh-on anti-semetic.

My overarching complaint regarding the assertions of these sights is that they have often very little to no credible professional support. A situation that just would not be plausible in any field of research.

Hi fence sitter, you checked out the Steven Jones paper linked to above? In what way is his paper not credible?

Regarding the crazies that have sites about 9/11 I couldn't agree more, in fact I think the situation is worse than you suggest... but admist the crap there is some good stuff...

In what way is Steve Jones' paper not credible? Oh where to start.....

Tell you what, just have a look at this thread

 http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37585

That should put you right on the flimsy claims that the 911 "truth" (haha) movement fling around, and in a forum where you can't spam Indymedia with this kind of rubbish.

another load of twaddle shot down in flames.

Who's for the pub then?

"Architect", as usual, fails to actually address any concrete concerns in Steve Jones's paper, rather -- "look, over ther, lots of people attacking the paper..." But if you do look again it's just ad hominem attacks, nothing substantial addressing the questions...

....in that thread and many entried clearly do directly address the issues raised - try reading it again.

I found the sections on the alleged use of 'thermite' in the explosions to be particularly interesting. And what is so unreasonable for expecting an 'expert' to have expertise in a relevant field of study?

This is the problem when people misunderstand how academic research and publishing functions. It's only in the saddest caseswhere you get rank pulling, many academics I have known have as a rule refused to state their PhD or Prof. status on papers, thus encouraging an anti-authoritarian process of exchange. However, it is always expected that subject researchers have subject expertise and a good indicator of that is if a paper gets published in the *relevant* journals.

If there is a distinct lack of publication and support (in relevant & respected places) for theses it usually tells us something... and no it's not another conspiracy to suppress, it's just twaddle. Attempts to suppress sound theses are pretty hard to achieve in these of of the Internet. Support will blossom all around the globe. Look at Blair's attempts to stifle the GM debate or ME.

It's really just crazy to suggest that all academics/scientists are either being duped or silenced. Yes, they are subject to exposure to the same disinfo as the rest of us, but a bit better predisposed to examine the veracity of their corner of it.

If a thesis is fundamentally flawed, it will stick out like a sore thumb.

That there hasn't been a single web page put together by anyone to refute the case put forwards in Steve Jones paper:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Instead we are told that the refutations can be found amoung crap comments on a web discussion board...

Is that the best you can do...?

"But I believe the [thermite] hypothesis worthy of consideration.

Yes. And I have considered it at length. The hypothesis goes like this.

There are rumors of melted steel in the rubble. There are reports of sulfur and/or the effects of sulfidation. What's one possible explanation for this? Well, there's one formulation of thermite that uses sulfur, and we know that thermite can melt steel and is often used for it. So what about the idea that thermite was used to melt the steel?

Lots wrong with it. First, in commercial thermite sulfur is never used as a binder. The most common binder is a polyurethane compound. It's a lot easier to work with in a large-scale production process, and it doesn't stink. The recipe for diasite (sulfur-bound thermite) comes from The Anarchist's Cookbook. It's meant to be mixed in small amounts by clever malcontents in their basements, where heating sulfur is easier than obtaining and mixing urethane resins. And the sulfur dioxide by-product during combustion is meant to annoy firefighters and, frankly, stink like crazy. In other words, to announce itself.

Even better, you can sinter thermite. Sintering is where you take a powdered material and compress it while heating it to a plastic state -- not molten, just gushy. And when you compress it and let it cool, you get a brick of material. And in thermite's case, you get a brick of properly mixed reactants in solid form with no binder.

Why is that important? Because, according to the conspiracy theory, thermite was a "foreign" substance placed intentionally in order to wreak some sort of havoc with the WTC structure. That role creates the motive to keep the thermite and its effects undetectable. So if we rank the available thermite formulations in order of detectability, at the top you have diasite, part of whose purpose is to stink to high heaven. At any rate it will leave sulfur compounds in the air and on nearby materials. In the middle you have the commercial thermite. Polyurethane binder residue is harder to detect. And at the bottom of the list you have sintered thermite which would leave absolutely no foreign residue. It is composed of iron oxides and aluminum, both of which materials -- if discovered in the WTC debris -- would not be considered out of place.

So the first question is why the alleged conspirators used the most detectable form of thermite?

Second, thermite is not an explosive. It is an incendiary. It doesn't "blow up" stuff, it just burns or melts it. And it takes its time doing it too. Yes, thermite is completely capable of melting the steel used in the WTC structure, but it cannot "cut" it or displace it such as is usually desired in a controlled demolition.

Further, the estimates by conspiracy theorists of how much thermite would be required to, say, compromise the core columns are woefully naive. They ignore much of the gritty details of thermodynamics and heat transfer and come up with estimates that are off by orders of magnitude from those derived with proper methods. This is what happens when self-proclaimed "experts" try to meddle in sciences they don't really understand.

If you want to make a steel column fail, thermite is just not a very good way of doing it. And the massive steel construction of the base of the WTC core would require enormous amounts of thermite to melt it simultaneously to the point of failure.

And melted steel is, frankly, anomalous. If the alleged conspirators planned to fail the columns by melting them instead of buckling or fracturing them -- as would be expected in a strictly mechanical collapse -- why would they think that uninvolved forensic engineers coming later would simply overlook the "anomalously" melted steel?

The second question therefore is why the conspirators chose this particular substance and what effect it was intended to create that would be harmonious with the later official explanation?

Third, the thermite is alleged to have been placed in the basement, where the melted steel was supposed to have been seen. But the structure was not observed to fail in the basement, nor would any activity in the basement have led to the observed failure modes at the point of impact and subsequently below.

So the third question is why the allegations are inconsistent with the observations?

When you start adding stuff up like this, it becomes very unlikely that thermite had anything to do with the failure of WTC 1 or 2. The properties of thermite are incompatible with its claimed role, and the alleged scenario is incompatible with the observed sequence of events.

There is a methodological mistake being made as well. The conspiracy theorists presume a commonality between the sulfur and the melted steel. That is, they presume that a single explanation must account for both observations. In real investigations you never presume that two observations are connected. You consider the possibility that they are, but you don't follow only that possibility. You consider that the sulfur and the melting are not connected, and that possibly two independent chains of cause and effect are more probable than the one combined chain.

Now it would seem that the thermite theory is the most parsimonious theory because it explains the most observations. But that is not how parsimony works in real-world investigations. Simplicity of the theory is not measured by how many cause-effect chains you need, but rather whether the combination of chains is globally more or less plausible than another. And this must consider all the new questions that your hypothesis raises: the things that must be true (or testable) in order for your hypothesis to hold (or be tested).

If you have one theory that explains two observations, but it raises three or four new problematic questions (e.g., why did the conspirators choose the stupidest way of making thermite?), then it isn't necessarily more parsimonious than two theories -- one for each observation -- that don't raise any new questions. The "simplest" theory is often mischaracterized by people who don't have a lot of hands-on experience conducting investigations.

Now it turns out that this particular commonality is not thoroughly implausible, but the thermite explanation to account for both is clearly unparsimonious because it raises too many additional questions. There is another possible explanation involving the formation of eutectic mixtures of sulfur and steel. Sulfidation of steel occurs in urban environments, and where it occurs it would allow the melting of steel at lower temperatures, precluding the need for high-temperature incendiary.

The natural sulfidation theory is, of course, not perfect either. But it is more parsimonious in that it requires only materials and processes known or reasonably postulated to exist at the time: sulfur, steel, and temperatures on the order of 1,000 C. Those were known to exist. We don't have to postulate about how thermite got there. The problems with the theory include the exact method of sulfidation, which hasn't been substantiated. But it's a less egregious unknown than all those associated with thermite.

Remember, you don't choose the perfect theory; just the best.

If you want to look at theories that don't presume a commonality, then you can examine a hypothesis that the amount of melted steel was quite small and confined, and that it was simply melted by local hot spots. That theory has supposedly been rejected by conspiracists on the grounds that normal fires simply cannot generate enough heat to melt steel in any amount. But that's based solely on stoichiometrics -- the study of how concentrations of reactants affect reaction rates.

It is argued that because the fires underground would have been deprived of oxygen, they would not have been able to release heat at a rate compatible with the melting of steel. However, oxygen deprivation is only one factor that affects heating models. The form factors of the surrounding materials have just as great an effect. That is, if heat is not allowed to escape via convection, conduction, or radiation, then it is possible for an oxygen-starved fire actually to generate higher temperatures in an enclosed space than a stoichiometrically ideal combustion in a context where heat rejection is more vigorous.

Thus melted steel may not be the "anomaly" that has been claimed.

Why did it come down? FEMA could only come up with an unlikely hypothesis, by their own admission; NIST postpones and postpones...

That is the nature of investigation. By all accounts, WTC 7's collapse cause-effect chain was not straightforward. If NIST needs additional time to get the job done correctly, let them. On the one hand you seem to fault NIST for being too cursory when dealing with WTC 1 and 2, and now you seem to fault NIST for being too thorough on WTC 7. Why do I get the feeling that you're intent on villifying NIST no matter what they do?

I remember late last year being tasked with root-causing a particular failure. I gave an estimate of 0.25 man-months. It ended up 4 man-months. Why? Because I had to go through about 4 different hypotheses before I discovered the complex interaction between three different components (that worked fine individually and with other kinds of components) that led to failure.

Earlier you opined that we shouldn't leave a "shred of doubt". Doesn't that mean that the robustness of the final result is more important than finishing by some a deadline that's likely to have been a total guess? Or are you just setting up the argument that NIST is having trouble coming up with a plausible cover story? The delay is just as easily (and more parsimoniously) explained by the notion that NIST is having trouble with an investigation we in the profession suspected would be problematic.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams"


_________
_________

That rubbishes the thermite hypothesis. Do you have the expertise to refute that?

Why would anyone put together a website to counter utter tripe??? I mean nutters put up sites full of tripe. Sane people just usually have better things to do- or at least have no agenda on such matters. However, I suspect the obvious reason is that serious academics only peer review serious theses.

Anything else that never got addressed in that thread RE: Jones?

"I started off believing that 9/11 was an inside job"

Somehow, I doubt your sincerity. Trolls will often say such things, then launch into a massive BUT, filled with nothing.

"However all these years later I haven't seen any compelling evidence to support the hypothesis"

See? What compelling evidence have you seen which would make you doubt it, and believe the "let us slaughter Arabs" Conspiracy Theory put forth by the proven LIARS in the Bush/PNAC Regime? Exactly, non, because the compelling evidence which would be forthcoming if it was true, simply does not exist!

What really sells it is the willingness of these Criminal Extremists to admit they were wrong. Since they never admit they were wrong, you can bet that when they DO claim Incompetence, there's more to the story.

"What has burgeoned (...) the inevitable commercial industry"

Questioning Motives is a Tactic of Disinformation.

"These information sources more often fail to scrutinise their theses professionally and often do not check the sources."

Examples? Some, indeed, are guilty of this, but most of the people and sources I've encountered are right on the money. It should be pointed out that many of these are intentionally so, creations of the Government and its agencies, intended to destroy the message and discredit anyone asking questions.

"The biggest internet sources for such conspiracy gossip are often extremely politically biased"

Being informed about the evils of the Junta currently in power (www.newamericancentury.org) does not amount to "political bias".

"often nigh-on anti-semetic."

Now I KNOW you're a Plant. Talking about the obvious but "classified" role of the hundred or so Mossad agents arrested throughout the US, under suspicious circumstances, on 9/11, has nothing to do with their ethnicity. It's about their actions, and the actions and fundamentalist beliefs of the people now acting as the US Government.

Instead of the usual blanket attack of anyone asking questions about the obvious False Flag of 9/11, why don't you put together all the evidence you've seen which would support the story fed to us by the Criminals who've LIED us into two wars already, and are now embarking on a third ... ?

You could start with the airport boarding gate surveillance video, which would show "ze terrorists" boarding the planes that terrible day, if they'd been there. They're still missing. Perhaps you could ask the Israeli "security firm" manning the gates at ONLY those airports, the same company providing "security" for the London Underground on 7/7.

If I'm a plant, I'm sage- it goes well with meat on the bone. I'm afraid sir, you are a nut or a vegetable.

You sure have big mouth for fanciful claims and a bigger cheek to lash out with "LIAR!"

Can you provide some palpable evidence to support your claims? A list of identities of Mossad agents and documentary proof linking them to both Mossad and the events of 9/11 directly?

By evidence I mean irrefutable documented facts and not web links to opinion.

What evidence do I have to believe "the "let us slaughter Arabs" Conspiracy Theory"? If I had the slightest clue what it meant I may be able to furnish you. I do however suspect you are saying I am positing some official theory here. I'm not. I'm just assenting to the high likelihood that Steve Jones is obviously out of his depth- a common theme in 9/11 Truth sites.

Ah, I see. So pointing out that people like Alex Jones et al are making a comfortable living out of selling conspiracy products is "disinformation". I guess I must have hacked his site and plastered it with fake advertising.

Examples of dubious sources? Most of these sources are at best very selective of what they pick up on in terms of witness accounts and news stories. They disregard conflicts in interest. For example: citing an unproven story on a Chinese news website that Israel was forewarned of 7/7. Citing organised criminals regarding the "Basra incident". Citing an uncorroborated statement from a dancer regarding the nature of the 7/7 explosions- the list unfortunately endless.

If you are willing to believe such rubbish, that's your problem. But asking meto convince you otherwise is like asking me to debunk your theory that the moon is indeed made of cheese. It's impossible, because you are only willing to hear agreement.

I seriously doubt that there will ever be any evidence to counter the line that the WTC came down due to aeroplane collisions, and I'm sure that'll never stop you doubting whatever it is you believe happened.

So where is this orgy of evidence I have been missing all these years? Where are the names, the identities, the documents, the forensics that all fall together into an undeniable conspiracy? If such a thing exited there'd be more shit hitting the fan than you could ever dream of.

All I have seen is politically-biased rumours based on apparent motives reverse engineered into any data they can be violently crowbarred into.

No fingerprints, no smoking guns, no confessions, no expert outcry.

That may be enough to secure a conviction in a 3rd World dictatorship, but not enough for much else. Except perhaps selling DVDs, books and T-shirts to conspiracy fans and people with a agenda.

Yes, for starters the speed of the failure of WTC7, see "Collapse Speed":  http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/

.... war of msmerrorism ...."long" in a sort of "over by xmas" way

""Architect", as usual, fails to actually address any concrete concerns in Steve Jones's paper"

I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else. Perhaps ol' Gerry Holmgren, the man incapable of producing a reasoned argument or anything to back it up.

You may recall that I have, for example, previously posted a series of rather lengthy (some would say tedious) pieces on (for example) the recognition of structural failure of steel under fire loadings in Building Regulations/Codes the world over - with links - by way of rebuttal to suggestions that steel is inherrently stable in such circumstances. Or the ones about computer fire modelling of the fires?

Or do you disregard these things, a little like you seem to disregard any opinion other than 911 CTers?

"If I'm a plant ..."

You are a Plant. That's quite obvious. You only reinforce that fact with this screed, undoing your "I once thought 911 was a US plot" bullsh*t in the process.

"Can you provide some palpable evidence to support your claims?"

Sure. It's all been reported in the mainstream. You just have to do a bit of digging and connect the dots, since todays "news" is all compartmentalized. An understanding of the intelligence apparatus, as well as the Madmen currently in power, also helps.

"A list of identities of Mossad agents"

Sorry, but the US Government has said that "evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified" (Carl Cameron, Fox News report about the Israeli spy ring uncovered shortly before 911. Incidentally, the Defense Department released a report on September 10, 2001, warning that the Mossad is a "wildcard. Able to commit violent acts against US citizens, and make it appear as if Palestinians are to blame".

"documentary proof linking them to both Mossad and the events of 9/11 directly?"

If you'll do some searching, there is a wealth of material within the mainstream media - most archived on 911 Truth sites - from the "Dancing Israelis" arrested on 911, to those arrested in the south, found with explosives and maps, etc. apparently before they struck further targets.

"What evidence do I have to believe "the "let us slaughter Arabs" Conspiracy Theory"? If I had the slightest clue what it meant I may be able to furnish you."

That's the Official Conspiracy Theory, the one which duped Americans into allowing the PNAC Regime to embark upon its long-planned agenda of Aggression against the Middle East, driven in great part by Zionist Extremism, which has already slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab men, women, and children.

And if these Neo-Fascists have their way, they've only just begun ...
www.newamericancentury.org

No, I didn't think you'd provide that evidence, because it simply does not exist, proving that Bush/PNAC's story is yet another Big Lie.

"So where is this orgy of evidence I have been missing all these years?"

That's the problem. All we have is what law enforcement terms an "Orgy of Evidence". That means the stuff that's easily planted exists in droves, but the real, compelling evidence, which would exist if the PNAC Regime's Conspiracy Theory, upon which they've attempted to excuse the indefensible, were true, is simply nowhere to be found.

Well over four years after the fact ...

....within the first thread linked to by 'Architect' and this includes alot of additional detail re the collapse of WTC-7:

 http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

Scitech

You claimed the original thread contained nothing but ad hominum attacks and did not address any of the issues in Steve Jones' paper, but that clearly is not the case, as 'Fence' indicated with the extract on thermite. By the way, I reiterate Fence's query - do you have the expertise to refute what is being said, as you seem now to have moved on to the issue of the collapse of WTC-7 without making any comment on the issue of thermite? You may want to dismiss the thread as 'crappy' but it seems to me that people were seriously dicussing the issues raised.

Do you dismiss all the comments made as being 'ad hominum'? Is it that you simply do not want to face the fact that the Steve Jones paper is not, in fact, credible at all. Much was made by supporters of his paper that it was 'peer reviewed', but, as it turns out, it was reviewed by professors of political science not by other physicists and certainly not by anyone with any expertise in building construction. I have a PHD in history but I would have little to meaningfully contribute if I was asked to comment on a paper submitted by someone holding a doctorate in chemistry (other than perhaps, its readability). To point out that someone's expertise is not, in fact, in a directly relevant field to the questions being addressed seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.

9/11= Mossad/Mr Psyops

Why is it that you persist in calling anyone who disagrees with your strident views a 'plant' or a 'spook'. Just face the fact that not everyone swallows the delusional tripe you come out with re 9/11, the evil zionists etc.

Pointing out that there is an awful lot of money to be made in peddling these 9/11 conspiracy theories seems to me to be an astute observation, not disinformation.

And why do you also persist in believing that anyone who fails to be convinced by the hearsay, rumour and gossip you seem to believe constitutes hard evidence of a cover-up re 9/11, actually supports the war? Who here has actually said that they do. Why does acknowledging that 9/11 was, in fact, perpetrated my Muslim extremists, somehow justify the subsequent actions of Bush/Blair. It does not. But, being anti-war, does not mean forgetting all rational principles of thought and logic and swallowing this utter drivel about 9/11 being an inside job.

Once again, Jordan the ZOG troll fails to provide any evidence to back up his nutty claims.

No list of agents identities and activities set out in proper documentary evidence that is uncontestable. Just a load of waffle about how we should present the Defence's case for it by surfing some crappy loon sites.

In other words, all you have are some news reports that don't directly implicate 'an Israeli spy ring' ("MOssad") to 9/11. You have no real evidence of what they were up to or it'd be all over the public domain like an angry rash.

In fact, lets face it, it's just one of many interpretations of many events that you PREFER to BELIEVE. Otherwise you'd shut us all up by presenting us with a case that blew us out the water.

Planted evidence? Prove it! Show us documentary proof that evidence was planted. Not just present conjectured motive and opportunity.

These "9/11 Truth" sites are just the Heat magazine of the paranoid: Full of gossip a few sensational pictures and stories dreamt up by merketing campaigns and bugger all in the way of facts.

As for being a plant. What exactly is someone who leaps on anyone that is remotely Jewish with accussations of ZOG-ery doing posting on this site???

Go do something useful about the REAL conspiracies. The ones than CAN be proven. The needless slaughter of civillians in Afghanistan & Iraq; globalisation; the erosion of civil liberties; etc.

The CT'ers say there is little or no real evidence of Government involvement because they have deliberately obscured it, andthey have deliberately planted more compelling evidence framing Osama and co.

Well assuming that they weighed up and assessed all tis evidence in a proper way, how were the CT'ers able to arrive at their conclusion of a conspiracy in the first place?

The thing that gets me is all this "inside job" conspiacy stuff presumes that there is no reason for anyone in the Middle East, Arab & Muslim nations who could possibly have a gripe with the the West and the US especially. And then further presumes they wouldn't have the nous to pull of sophisticated terrorist attacks.

The CTers crack on like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda just appeared out of the ether on 9/11 like some Orwellian fabrication. The concept of Al Qaeda gained public attention under the Clinton administration regarding the USS Cole and various embassy bombs; Algerian and Egyptian links etc etc.

They forget the years of TV footage of the CIA backed Mujas in Aghanistan, the Chechnyan war and the Balkans.

Yeah Al Qaeda only exists in a vague way, and yes it is parttly the creation of western intelligence, but in the sense we trained, funded, and equipped its precursor and it took on a life of its own and came back to bite us on the arse.

The most relevant question about 9/11 in terms of intelligence isn't "was it an inside job" it's "have we ensured that governments aren't setting us up again for more blowback".

The only distraction I can see is cynical frauds like Alex Jones helping to avoid that question and also detracting from the real issue of the the subsequent wars by turning them into some paraoid soap opera.

We don't have to prove that the Coalition are liars. It's already been done: WMD, Yellow Cake Uranium, Saddam & Bin Laden, 45 Minutes to Doom, Abu Ghraib & Gitmo, the Downing Street Memos, Fallujah, the failure in duty of care to the troops, etc etc etc.

They are already proven mass murderers.

Now, what are you doing about those very real and uncontestable facts Jordan?

If you channelled as much effort into those issues and tried to spread awareness further than a venue that already is highly awae of these matters, I'd be right behind you!

I agree that there is a degree of old colonialism about the apparent unwillingness of conspiracy theorists to accept that 'arabs' could not possibly have undertaken such an attack against a country as 'sophisitcated' as the US.

I think the '9/11 cover up' has become the new 'Roswell' or 'JFK assassination' as the great urban legend of the early 21st century. I am sure there is much of interest that could be written about 9/11 conspiracies, but more from a psychological or sociological perspective, why people wish to believe in them etc. While I do not always agree with Wikipedia entries, the one on conspiracy theories is quite interesting, particularly the section outlining the archetypal features (see how many you can spot from the postings often made here)


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, unrepentant resolve, advanced or 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.

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organsations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organisations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the templars, the nazis and just about any secret service.

No doubt someone is going to come back and say the 'official view' is just as much a conspiracy and could therefore be dismissed under the same criteria - but I would draw your attention to 1, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 in particular.

"Once again ..."

Ad Hominem attacks don't address the subject, Plant. All they do is expose the fact that you've nothing to add.

"No list of agents identities and activities set out in proper documentary evidence that is uncontestable."

Again, you can find much of this within the reports from the mainstream media in the week following 9/11. Much of it is catalogued on the variuous 911 Truth sites. However, Demanding Impossible Proofs is Disinformation. I don't have access to the US Government's files, and they've already said that "evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified".

"In other words, all you have are some news reports that don't directly implicate 'an Israeli spy ring' ("MOssad") to 9/11."

Yes, they do. I find the story of the "Dancing Israelis" the most compelling. www.whatreallyhappened.com

It demonstrates not only foreknowledge, but Israeli glee at the attacks.

"Planted evidence? Prove it!"

I don't have to. It's obvious, what investigators refer to as an "Orgy of Evidence". This, coupled with the fact that the Bush/PNAC Criminal LIARS can't present the still-missing, key and independently-originating/verifiable evidence to support their Conspiracy Theory, renders this irrelevant.

"As for being a plant."

We've already covered this. Your purpose here is pretty clear, not to mention the fact that you're monitoring usage of this site. Pretty stupid to jump on people by name when they haven't posted anything but an article from another source.

"Go do something useful about the REAL conspiracies."

I'm active on all those subjects, but provong the case where 911 is concerned will unseat a whole host of evildoers, and keep them from threatening us again.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he refuses to believe that it exists" - J. Edgar Hoover

It's what Hitler refered to as the "big lie". Research the many Academic studies explaining the many siliarities between Bush/PNAC and Hitler's Nazis. You may be disturbed ... Surely you know enough to understand where they've derived their tactics from.

As for the rest of the tripe you posted as "Onion" - Occam's Razor is the answer.

There is also a bit of a linguistic issue here. An age old one at that regarding register (social contextual meaning of vocabulary). For a start It wold seem that most CTers have never been exposed to any sort emperical research procedures and have at best a shaky grip of what constitutes scientific evidence as opposed to the more venacular understanding of what the word evidence means.

The usual problems with register is that by its nature you have many different words that will seem interchangeable (car, auto, motorvehicle, banger, wheels etc) but if you are exposed to a jargon (professional vocabulary) that you have no grounding in, you are really struggling against a false understanding of the terminology.

This as many already know is a problem even across sciences (if not especially). Thus a word like 'compression' will have widely different meaning to different professions, and if you have no grounding to understanding the term, you are quite simply groping in the dark- irrespective of how well you believe you understand the language.

In other words it's the similarity of terminology that lulls us into a false sense of understanding.

Why is this so relevant?

Well, if a physicist writes a paper on structural engineering that is peer reviewed by a economist, you have massive potential for the whole process being polluted with misconception (error) at every stage. A bit like asking an electrician out to look at your car and getting a carpenter to check the work.

It's an excerice that would be nigh on a miracle if it yielded a positive result- it would require everyone involved to be essentially a competent car mechanic as much as anything else. Not impossible, but not liekly and certainly not the best way to getting a good job done.

This problem with register and common vocabulary also by it's nature is a potential breeding ground to fallacy is an unwashed armpt is to bacteria. Great events provoke great interest and in these days of the Internet it is a lot easier to find scientific texts on such events and thereby the amount of people who are reading such texts with no great understanding of them has also increased vastly. Which in turn means there is a vast increase in erroneous interpretation.

Now throw in a liberal dash of people with an agenda- people who are already convinced of a verdict and who are looking to prove that verdict in any corner they can find verification and you have a recipe for drivel.

That's why so few professionals address conspiracy theories beyond a few scathing comments. They often start of on a totally false presumption (arrived at through prejudice and ignorance) and just degenerate into unimaginable garbage.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Your ZOG theories are entirely relevant to your line of reason. That's like suggesting calling Hitler a Nazi is "ad hominem".

No, single-sourced news stories don't qualify as prrof. Unless, you count "45 Minutes to Doom!" as proof of Iraqi WMD.

Proof in this instance would be the positive identification of Mossad agents through documentary evidence, documentary evidence of their actvities. You failed to provide either and thus admit this is pure speculation (see 'fantasy')

It demonstrates a big fat nothing, other than someone ran a newspaper story.

No, you do actually have a burden of proof when it comes to your claims. Where's the evidence of evidence planting? Foresenics, witnesses etc. You have presented nothing but rumour (see 'fantasy')

Jordan you are easier to spot than a pink elephant in a desert. Your limited phrasal vocubalury and cheesy catchphrases made you easier to identify from other IM posts than finding donkey porn on the Net. It's THAT simple. You are truly disturbed if you think any intelligence agency has the slightest interest in you.

LMAO @ "proving the case where 911 is concerned will unseat a whole host of evildoers"

Have you read any history???

Okay, show us all what you have been doing about the bullshit wars Jordan! Cough it up!

I suspecting we'll be waiting as long as we have for you to cough up some evidence to back you claims (see 'fantasy').

You cite J.E. Hoover as a credible source? Go read some history!

Once again you fail to provide any evidence. Once again all you can do is cite CT sites. Once again you damage the credibility of this site.

"Demanding Impossible Proofs is Disinformation."

No, it's pretty much universallly normal for people to ask for proof of claims. The act of demanding is only made impossible on the basis of your allegations being unfounded (see 'fantasy').

.... manchuria (late 30s+) added the addatives (bio-chem personnel "management") to the elec-trix + "that petrol emoting", the "paperclips" add it all up to transform"enhance"degrade - "everybody, people, everybody" + + + + throws out the sentience with the "unthink"

. . . . house of cards worlds topple lots of different ways,
as MK cultured types, pseudo-gangs, + co-erced "toontowns" of all sorts get conned into playing kapos as some other poor sods caught in the "slowcarcrashworld" , blackmailed or frozen in the "full-spectrum-distraction", roll out the last bits of the ultimate cover-up .... full spectrum stupidity.... grid+
Unless we all wake up, act together across the "boundaries", re-open tactful discussions,
take that "algebraic" approach - see the crimes in society as to include in the big peace process - without forgetting anybody or sweeping any casualties under the carpet.
Yes we can. It is that time in the planet.
A couple of soluble problems. . . .
1 Some serious dissuasion of the people trying to racketeer the "endgame" +
2 Explaining the "worst practise" spread from defence of the realm to public to commercial to criminal .... also the accelerating effects of new techs as they distort each other,
+ old M. Os ( + users of ).... for instance, the way a "cut-out", programmed to take the rap, w orks so much more if they are programmed to think "hee hee i dunnit".... imagine if that JFK bloke, instead of saying he was innocent, had said
W H A T E V E R ????




BORINGRUBBISHRIDICULOUSABSURDF***


THINK?
sentience . . . . f***ing wonderful
isnt it



yes y'can, yes we can, strange bedfellows in a stranger time



luck when y'need it!!!!

**** *** ****

libraries, post offices, the organs of sentience - are full of clots. . . .
its also essential that we explain to, + organise the the dissuasion of, the people that have got conned into thinking they have bought timeshares in dubai, or various equivalent pie in disguise, some sort of "ticket in the last pod off the planet" in a couple of years . . . .
the time for change is adequate,
but we have to stop tolerating the scams.
in the usa people are asked to keep a record of books looked at by others.... google got asked to give customers "pagehits" to the "clampdown" - to get misused by ....
the spread of worst practise from "defence of the realm" to public, to commercial, to criminal - the old background of ex- "economic" + army(etc) intel. people, abusing their talent + newtech(s) . . . . to - often in the most cack-handed ways - play others as tools.... cutouts that , say, instead of that JFK bloke , claim innocence, are programmed to say
hee hee hee whatever
much easier to hate
vorsprung dorks.... lets wake up

.... obscure big piksha wiv over-repetition, minutiae, details
block 7. the SECC investigatings .
ps. moulded into big, disguised objects.... more than one sort.... to let the people puppeteered into doing it think they'd put a distraction into the op (the "recipe" thing),
....cover-ups can get manipulated lots of ways - it aint always by the people that think it was them that did it.... etc etc
RIGHT the real thing is to break this debate out of the margins.
FAST.
It is breaking out - so.... two things
deter other "news management by event"
get serious about peace plans that include these crimes - they ( continually fail to ) cover-up other crimes that go back decades ( - the internal myths say thousands of years, etc etc - but - that is bollox - even if some minds are a bit boggled (N. Bohr ref.) by what comes out) - but there ARE explanations that go some way to letting people off the hooks they have gotten stuck on - the "cutouts programmed to act as future-punchbag material" has some growing resonance, as does the "Sierra Leone kid-soldiers" (all ages) response
- the "debrief, investigate, support to involve in change to a good future" thing - instead of
vengeances that dont prevent it all happening again, or even "target" the people that WERE, in fact, responsible - or . . . . the key thing . . . . comprehend the factors involved to prevent the tragic recurrence or continuing of all this, using others, perhaps.
TO BREAK OUT OF THE MARGINS....
commence where people are . . . . that isnt gradualism, its seeing "mental blocks", logic jumps, blindspots etc for as weak as they are . . . . they shatter with the right sense, spoken with the reasoned expectation of getting agreement . . . .
E.G.
Is a pattern of trying to play "news management" games, even geopolitics, with alleged terrorist explosions, proof without doubt, etc, in the public record?
Yes. The okhrana - to the extent of screwing things up to the extent of getting shut down. . . . then, what happened to those people . . . . then, the pattern is legitimate to investigate. Reichstag fire, then the attempt by old operators in s.a. a few years ago to use their old "talents" that resulted in a COURTCASE ....
THIS SORT OF THING I S N T " THEORY".
Its fact.








"....expect some turbulence"
but its fact.
peaceplan, change, etc.
even enjoying pointing out the next, all too predicted bit of infowar scam, the "the mob, the mob.... le terreur! ....if they discover our crimes theyll hang everybody with a car, get you to dig the pastures with your hands, + forget to poke pinkies out when they try to drink tea"

if this includes exmssd, even excia . . . . then surprise surprise.
can people STOP ASSUMING OFFICIAL BACKING for things when everybodys experience of office games tells them different.
next .... if a few "rotten apples" from various barrels HAD existed,
( wot .... a disaffected bunch of people that bend the rules, fiddle expenses .... perhaps even go on the take a bit.... try to manipulate the boss ....SURELY NOT )
....as i was saying, had existed, say, postWW2, .... then ....what?
What .... you mean to say, sherlock, that they mightve got bent in a deliberate way by people from a bunch post-WW1(-ish) that retired to the side a bit, worked via the "n ew" bunch, took "quieter" jobs, invented the odd "bogeyman" to whip up the occasional cry of wolf, put their "cash" in armsbiz, then oilbiz, then cashbiz + hotelz.
Then they do "payments" in kind, perhaps - as "fences" are often old criminals that want to avoid thinking anymore, steer others a bit, let everybody else take the bullets + the consequences of the con sequences.
naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
way.

see what y'mean
the odd thing is to say it aint possible.
hmmmmmmm....
PS molecatchers ....reds under the bed ....but whats the USUAL reason for intriguings....
.... the lure of a future in the soviet bloc + a blindspot about stalin
.... or dosh.

DOH.




PS CC KEYWORDS
ZOG MOSSAD CIA DIA MI5 MI6 +PLEASE ADD OTHERS
putting a spin on things to amp up the budgets a bit, or getting distracted by turfwar games ISNT the same as ANY conscious involvement in any of this .
are they getting , at times, manipulations from out-organisation, even out-state?
for the cash'n'cover-ups, in fact, even if it pretends its from the planet zarg, at times, (or any equivalent that presses the "right" combination of peoples "right" combination of buttons.
ps smedley dartington .... 1932 french ....unexpurgated congressional record....
.... these things do happen
sometimes they dont work (s.a.recent).... sometimes (****)....

Sorry, "Onion", but I'm a Journalist who's worked in the MSM in two countries for over ten years. I know how to research.

I also know that when dealing with statements from Bush/PNAC, evidence is necessary. Without it, what they say is meaningless, and we haven't seen the still-missing, compelling evidence which would exist, and be forthcoming, if their Conspiracy Theory were true.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he refuses to believe that it exists" - J. Edgar Hoover

It's what Hitler refered to as the "big lie". Research the many Academic studies explaining the many siliarities between Bush/PNAC and Hitler's Nazis. You may be disturbed ... Surely you know enough to understand where they've derived their tactics from.

As for the rest of the tripe you posted as "Onion" - Occam's Razor is the answer.

Jordan, you have had about 2 things published in you career from what I can gather. Journalist? Comedian would be more appropriate. Prove me wrong and post your bona fides.

You say you know how to research, butyou frequenly cite single-sources and blatant rubbish from prisonplanet that anysubject matter expert would swallow his own tongue reading.

You don't even recognise the semantic different in register between journalistic research and scientific research let alone know how to conduct either.

I'd gather by your level of reasoning you are probably a 2nd year further/higher education student (jouralism and something that isn't sociology or English... media studies?)

Perhaps one day you will learn enough to spot Alex Jones & Co for the utter bullshiters they are but I suspect you will go to the grave protesting that the jews were behind 9/11.

Please do some "research" on J.E. Hoover. You seem totally unaware of what kind of a man you are borrowing from.

Thanks for more cut & paste platitudes that serve as a substitute for addressing points.

"Journalist?"

Yes. Journalist. It was television. We didn't often "publish" things. The many articles I've had published I produced independently.

What are your credentials ... ?

"You say you know how to research"

Yes, I do, and no, I use a myriad of sources from all over the world.

"Please do some "research" on J.E. Hoover."

I've done it. Of anyone, he should know what the "Big Lie" is all about. Just because I quote him doesn't mean I like the man. It's just I know he understands the concept well. That's what we're dealing with here.

As soon as you can actually address anything I've said, Plant, or produce the still-missing evidence to support the Conspiracy Theory you're here defending, you let me know.

K?

Your pathological penchant for unverifiable "facts" may have currency at www.911loons.org but it doesn't wash here. So basically you can't substantiate your boasted bona fides. Looks like you are lying to us... again.

So closed quesion time: are you currently employed or have been very recently employed as a journalist? In fact have you ever been employed as a jobbing journalist.

Open question: What constitutes "journalist"?

Um, I don't have to provide mine since I'm not the one boasting credentials.

Actually Jordan, it's pretty obvious that you are the one that just descends into personal insult each time you argue yourself into a corner and have nothing but prejudice and hearsay at hand. And like a politician you just keep repeating something enrelated and hope that it goes away- just as sulking infants do.

So, uncorroborated and unverfiable single-sources equal a "reseached" fact"? Where did you study journalism? The Eastern Bloc with an internship at News of the World?

Keep it up! There nothing quite as entertaining to watch a lippy bullshitter digging himself into a hole.