Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Steve Ulman]

Bernice -

I am very familiar with that photo. It is used by many CT's to give a false impression of a "massive" central core.

Yes, the photo does give a good view of how the Towers were constructed, but unless you know what you are looking at, it can be very misleading, which is why the CT's use it so much.

As mentioned on this site in many threads, possibly even this one, (I'm not going to take the time to find out) the "massive" and heavily braced sections at the corners of the core are the supports for the 4 tower cranes, which were removed once construction was completed. I'll bet you can't find that info on the various CT sites. Actually, no CT who posts here has ever acknowledged that fact. I wonder why?

IIRC, the central core columns were not as substantial as the parameter columns, but there were many of them acting as a system. Also, I believe it is true that the central core did not support as much of the load as the perimeter, but I'm not sure how much "weaker" it was - hence my comment to Peter.

[Kevin M. West]

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes

Hard to imagine how you could call those collapse implosions, when they damaged every single surrounding building and left rubble piles several times the size of the building's footprints. The goal of a building implosion is to get the mass to fall towards the center, much of the WTC 1 & 2 fell outwards as the outer walls peeled away.

a third collapsing in sympathy)

You mean a third collapsing due to massive damage from building 1 debris landing on it and fire burning for 7 hours unchecked.

media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!)

Not even an accident, the building had started to collapse at that point and they were told that. Some stations reported that it 'was collapsing or had collapsed' which was true, one foreign station (bbc) semi-incorrectly said it had collapsed (it had only partially collapsed).

, amateur aeronautical aces

If they were aces why was the flying so sloppy?

suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive

Some reporters found people with the same names as some of the hijackers, and they later corrected themselves. Why are you still hung up on that 5 1/2 years later? Is this you? By your logic it must be.

insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up

AA had just announced bad news, UAL stock was performing poorly as well. A trading newsletter recommended the trades, and someone did it. There is no evidence of any 'insider' trading, only smart moves that would have paid off even without 9/11 happening.

flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker'

If you had done ANY research into plane crashes, you'd see that seemingly fragile objects survive all the time.

, insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc...

Which really had nothing to do with 9/11

[Jack White]

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

Edited April 7, 2007 by Jack White

[Peter McKenna]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

[Jack White]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

The most unbelievable CONSPIRACY THEORY of all is the one of the GOVT that

an arab in a cave masterminded 19 young arab hijackers who could not fly

to take over and pilot four jetliners into targets without a hitch. Now THAT is an

UNBELIEVABLE CONSPIRACY THEORY that makes "truth researchers" look like

geniuses!

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

I believe Mr. White has just broken the forum rules. Mods?

[Sid Walker]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

Peter

If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.

I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.

Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?

Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?

As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.

What's your point?

I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?

That would be a whopper.

[Jack White]

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

I believe Mr. White has just broken the forum rules. Mods?

I am not aware THAT USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is against the rules.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

Peter

If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.

I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.

Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?

Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?

As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.

What's your point?

I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?

That would be a whopper.

Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.

But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,

What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.

Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.

The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.

As to your diatribe:

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”

I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.

As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.

As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).

The symptoms which apply;

“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.

There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.

I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?

Edited April 8, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...

"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...

"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."

Jack

Jack that is utterly ridiculous. Noty only is it a ham handed oversimplification it is absolutely wrong. To make that analogy is a gross distortion and a disservice to JFK assasination researchers as well as myself. Go back to sleep.

[Sid Walker]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

Peter

If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.

I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.

Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?

Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?

As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.

What's your point?

I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?

That would be a whopper.

Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.

But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,

What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.

Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.

The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.

As to your diatribe:

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”

I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.

As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.

As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).

The symptoms which apply;

“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.

There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.

I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?

Peter

I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us.

Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you.

I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good.

Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities.

We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions).

Edited April 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

Peter

If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.

I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.

Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?

Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?

As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.

What's your point?

I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?

That would be a whopper.

Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.

But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,

What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.

Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.

The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.

As to your diatribe:

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”

I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.

As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.

As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).

The symptoms which apply;

“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.

There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.

I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?

Peter

I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us.

Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you.

I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good.

Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities.

We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions).

Actually I wasn’t very familiar with the concept of Group think before reading John Dolva’s post. But it seemed to strike a chord in my anti-authoritarian personality. When a group forms ranks and defends an ideology or theory I have some kind of tendency to take an opposite tack. This is probably due to an anti authoritarian defect in my personality, and not a penchant to apply some canned psychology in order to gain any advantage.

Unfortunately, my points of view are specific to only some aspects of 9/11. I am not knowledgeable about all aspects of this event. I do feel that my beliefs are “personal” and I cannot subscribe to an overall, comprehensive, POV unless I can advocate it categorically and in its entirety. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable concerning all aspects of 9/11, and I do not accept the Conspiracy Theorists views with blind faith. I believe there are many people who feel this way.

.

I agree with you that open discourse between individual POV and Group POV to be the more rewarding. Of course I tend to defend my point of view where it is contrary to the collective’s POV. Sometimes I will argue out of vanity and believing I can “win” an argument. I do like to argue. Mostly, however, I will believe debating will help arrive at the truth.

You are correct when you say that people take offense at being categorized or stereotyped as a tactic of argument, and rightfully so (in most cases, anyway). My apologies if you feel that I did this to you, but you seem more accessible to open discourse than most, so you may be more vulnerable to stereotyping.

When I have asked questions about certain aspects of 9/11 of Conspiracy sites, I have been snubbed when I would not endorse other points of view, with out reservation, that I did not automatically agree with.

Anyway, it’s good to maintain open discourse. As G.W. Hegel maintained, the truth is far more likely to be determined through the dialectic (open polemic).

.

[Sid Walker]

I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.

John

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?

I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.

I never got much of an answer to these questions.

They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.

There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?

I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.

They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time

Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.

Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.

From little things, big things grow

Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.

I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”

Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.

It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.

This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:

“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.

Peter

If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.

I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.

Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?

Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?

As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.

What's your point?

I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?

That would be a whopper.

Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.

But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,

What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.

Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.

The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.

As to your diatribe:

“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”

I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.

As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.

As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).

The symptoms which apply;

“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”

I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.

There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.

I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?

Peter

I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us.

Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you.

I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good.

Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities.

We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions).

Actually I wasn’t very familiar with the concept of Group think before reading John Dolva’s post. But it seemed to strike a chord in my anti-authoritarian personality. When a group forms ranks and defends an ideology or theory I have some kind of tendency to take an opposite tack. This is probably due to an anti authoritarian defect in my personality, and not a penchant to apply some canned psychology in order to gain any advantage.

Unfortunately, my points of view are specific to only some aspects of 9/11. I am not knowledgeable about all aspects of this event. I do feel that my beliefs are “personal” and I cannot subscribe to an overall, comprehensive, POV unless I can advocate it categorically and in its entirety. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable concerning all aspects of 9/11, and I do not accept the Conspiracy Theorists views with blind faith. I believe there are many people who feel this way.

.

I agree with you that open discourse between individual POV and Group POV to be the more rewarding. Of course I tend to defend my point of view where it is contrary to the collective’s POV. Sometimes I will argue out of vanity and believing I can “win” an argument. I do like to argue. Mostly, however, I will believe debating will help arrive at the truth.

You are correct when you say that people take offense at being categorized or stereotyped as a tactic of argument, and rightfully so (in most cases, anyway). My apologies if you feel that I did this to you, but you seem more accessible to open discourse than most, so you may be more vulnerable to stereotyping.

When I have asked questions about certain aspects of 9/11 of Conspiracy sites, I have been snubbed when I would not endorse other points of view, with out reservation, that I did not automatically agree with.

Anyway, it’s good to maintain open discourse. As G.W. Hegel maintained, the truth is far more likely to be determined through the dialectic (open polemic).

Well said.

[Evan Burton]

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

I believe Mr. White has just broken the forum rules. Mods?

Jack - please be careful; because you disagree with it does not necessarily make it disinformation. If you give it the label 'disinformation', you imply that the person who said it put out disinformation. Call it rubbish, call it codswallop, but not disinformation, please.

Thanks.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Evan Burton