Therefore, it is statistically much more likely that Cheney and/or other high-level U.S. government and military officials pulled the 9/11 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least, they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers' attacks succeeded.
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Did you read this article, check the links, consider what was said, or just dismiss it outright cuz it doesn't support your pet theory that 9/11 was exclusively "Al Qaeda"s doing?
Do you really believe all those war games that coincided with the attacks, that confused the FAA/NORAD, that sucked resources away from air defense, that the 9/11 Commission ignored- were just a "coincidence"?
from above:
Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:
(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower; or
(2) Someone like Cheney -- who on 9/11 apparently had full control over all defense, war game and counter-terrorism powers -- rigging and gaming the system?
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 11:06:22 PM
I'll say it again (one more time). Yes, I have been to almost all the sites that GW referenced - and many more that he didn't. I've also looked at sites that counter the assertions in GW's links. I even (get this) reviewed a number of the actual source documents on which both pro and con conspiracy base their assertions. Lastly, I approached the available data, which I'll admit is considerable, using the scientific method.
And... through a diligent application of Occam's Razor, I found that the most reasonable and likely theory that better explains the available data is largely that uncovered in the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST report on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (as well as the status report and presentation issued on WTC 7).
The multiple theories offered by those within the so-called Truth Movement may be possible but have a very low probability of actually having happened. Given the necessity that these theories rely on so many apparent and independent variables (both inside and outside the government) working as one, cohesive unit toward a common goal of creating a new "Pearl Harbor-like" event (which is a widely misinterpreted statement in and of itself) has a decidedly low probability.
Is it possible that all of the oxygen atoms that occupy the volume within the room that I'm sitting will concentrate in a stratified layer near the ceiling without any deliberate action? Yes, it's possible given the application of the Theory of Relativity and application of quantum mechanics. But (and more importantly) is it probable? Not in my lifetime.
And yet with the events of 9/11, those results did happen - so they were both possible and probable (to a high degree even). Therefore, what theory explains the available data in a reasonable and most likely setting? I'll leave this open because you're either open to an honest review of the data or you're not.
The logistical question is immaterial in that both obviously had the means. The better question is who has actually applied their logistical capabilities to commit similar acts? Do I have to list the USS Cole, African embassies, WTC 1993, Somalia, etc...? I think you get my point.
What I liken the Truth Movement to was/is the never ending quest for WMDs in Iraq. There is no "smoking gun" for 911Truthers to which they can point and say, "See!" just like there were/are no WMDs found in Iraq - except for a few older mustard gas artillery shells. So, you can pile on as much circumstantial evidence that you want, twist it crazy like a pretzel too, but in the end - that dog won't hunt.
And this is why the great majority of Americans don't (1) accept the theories presented by the Truth Movement and (2) don't feel compelled to waste additional taxpayers' money chasing down the patently absurd claims of some 911Truthers (e.g., death beams from outer space that result in a totally new - yet unproven - physical process termed "dustification").
What the people do believe (and is so often reflected in the quoting of 911Truthers via a twisting of poll results) is that the Administrations (Bush and Clinton) weren't being entirely honest with their testimonies but not because they were "Letting It Happen On Purpose" or "Making It Happen On Purpose". Rather, it was because they were covering their asses in light of the severe incompetence that culminated in the events of 9/11. A small minority of people (for that is what 911Truthers represent – a small minority) elected to take this incompetence and then grant the same Administrations (which they criticized daily for neglect and incompetence) the ability to pull off the largest conspiracy probably known to humanity. On its surface, this is what seems unbelievable.
I'll refrain from responding to GW's continued posting of the multiple layers of 9/11 – unless there's something new presented. But the continued posting of the same assertions is reflective of a preacher serving a homily to his congregation because the "actual" application of the scientific method has already disproved much of what GW posts – again and again and again. But GW can't look at those results because he'd loose the respect and admiration of the congregation. Oh well...
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 7:27:49 AM
I respect your intellect -- you are obviously very bright (a sincere compliment).
But you write "But the continued posting of the same assertions is reflective of a preacher serving a homily to his congregation because the "actual" application of the scientific method has already disproved much of what GW posts – again and again and again."
What is your training in the scientific method. Is it better than these people's:
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Very impressive collection of other 911Truthers who (from their titles alone) suggest a likelihood of "knowing" about the scientifc method. As to their application of it, that's what scientific journals are for, isn't it?
Therefore, could you please provide me (a) link(s) to where the identified people have passed peer-reviewed papers in to a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible?
I'd be greatly interested in reading them. I'm still interested if it's only an abstract reference that requires a fee for the full article.
As to my knowledge and application of the scientific method, my bio speaks for itself. I'll go on record, though, and state that I am very much a believer in its use for matters such as the collpasing of the WTC structures.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 1:54:59 PM
Very impressive collection of other 911Truthers who (from their titles alone) suggest a likelihood of "knowing" about the scientifc method. As to their application of it, that's what scientific journals are for, isn't it?
Therefore, could you please provide me (a) link(s) to where the identified people have passed peer-reviewed papers in to a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible?
I'd be greatly interested in reading them. I'm still interested if it's only an abstract reference that requires a fee for the full article.
As to my knowledge and application of the scientific method, my bio speaks for itself. I'll go on record, though, and state that I am very much a believer in its use for matters such as the collpasing of the WTC structures.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 1:55:04 PM
I support your theory wholeheartedly. This administration is the administration of deception. They have lied at every turn to further their political and ideological agenda. I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BELIEVE their version of 9-11, not one bit. Unlike our patriotic bretheren who believe in the Osama Bin Laden theory, I think there's only one of two logical scenarios, and neither of them are good for America.
The first theory is that the entire 9-11 terrorist attack was the brainchild of Dick Cheney, and he controlled it lock, stock and barrel. Think about it. Does this guy have any scruples? Does he have trouble sleeping at night? Absolutely not. He is absolutely the champion of expanding presidential powers and building military might. Call him a throwback, if you will. But he's crazy in an ideological sense and that's worse than being clinically insane. And really, is there any question that it's Dick Cheney running this country? George is just the front man/puppet.
The second theory is that both Bush and Cheney knew this was coming and made minimal effort to stop it. Let's face it, people. Bush was not high on the popularity charts at this time. He was known as the "vacation president." That's a far cry from the "war president." This administration needed another Pearl Harbor to sway public sentiment to their side. They got it. Not only did Bush's approval rating soar with his tough talk, but he got the American public to give up their civil liberties with the USA Patriot Act (a terrible piece of legislation that is so counter-constitutional it makes me angry to think about it). If that isn't enough, he drew a parallel between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein (which was a bald-faced lie), and claimed that Iraq had WMD and mobile biological weapons labs. In other words, he lied to the Congress and the American people in order to justify an illegal war. A war for what? Liberaton of the Iraqis? Defending our freedom? Neither is true. The Iraqis are much worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, and we were never under threat from Iraq. They don't even have an air force. Yet, we swallowed the pill.
Neither the American public, the mainstream media, or the Congress questioned any of this information. The few who did, like Joe Wilson, were duly punished. In his case, his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, was outed by someone high up in the administration. All fingers are now pointing to the Oval Office. I believe under a well-functioning democracy, this would be considered treasonous. But not here. Not if the Bush administration is doing it. As for the media, they are owned by the Republican party. This has been a progressive move since the Reagan era. It's only now coming to fruition. The White House spends billions of dollars packaging the news for the media, and the media simply takes it and foists it on an unsuspecting public. We no longer have "investigative journalists," we have "talking heads." It's of paramount importance that they look pretty READING THE NEWS every night.
So, I wonder why it is that people have a hard time believing that this whole 9-11 thing was a mastermind of this administration. There are absolutely no checks and balances on the Bush administration. Immediately after 9-11, he declared that it was Osama Bin Laden and that was it. Everyone set their sights on him, no questions asked. And it may well have been. But I find it hard to believe that all of our defensive systems and practices fell apart at the same time by coincidence.
It's time to stop hiding our collective heads in the sand and face the facts. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked of this administration and there are a lot of answers they have to supply. This has to happen if there's to be any hope that our democracy will survive.
by
Deb Della Piana (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments)
on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 1:00:54 PM
You sound like quite a reasonable fellow, someone who understands the difficulty of proving facts contrary to government claims without the power of subpoena, someone who can appreciate a level of suspicious evidence that justifies an official re-investigation with full powers to compel sworn testimony and the surrender of documentation. You would support a more thorough official investigation, at least - wouldn't you? Your studied sophistication wouldn't be a mask for some latent emotional need to protect your "father" from criticism and possible exposure - would it? Just wondering.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 2:05:57 PM
"You would support a more thorough official investigation, at least - wouldn't you? Your studied sophistication wouldn't be a mask for some latent emotional need to protect your "father" from criticism and possible exposure - would it? "
I would support an investigation that expanded upon certain areas that require additional explanation, but I would not condone an investigation that started from scratch. Such a review would be wasteful of people's time, misuse of limited resources, and disregard taxpayers' money. In particluar, I'd like the history of U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern affairs in the two decades before 9/11 to be better detailed; however, I would not review the actual hijackings of the aircraft by terrorists and the subsequents results. These events are sound and well-documented.
I try to leave emotions out of any scientific analysis; these only cloud and confuse one's understanding of the available data. Also, emotions create biases that tend to skewer (1) the formation of your hypothesis by (2) placing your conclusions first. The reference to my "father', while quippy, is immaterial - especially in light of the fact that I asked a legitimate question (i.e., peer-reviewed papers) that NOT ONE 911Truther can answer. Does this not raise your suspicion? It does mine as to their legitimacy and possibly honesty.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:04:31 PM
True, it isn't. But dismissal of available data for political expediancy's sake or handpicking only certain data to align with a pre-determined conclusion certainly aren't scientific either.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 10:47:32 AM
I apologize for not answering your question about peer reviewed articles. I think the question goes to naiveté or disingenuousness. I believe it would be extremely difficult to find an editor of an academic journal who would publish an article challenging the government's spin on 911. The pressure against printing such an article from publishers, not to mention the feds, would be enormous.
I believe academic journals would refuse articles supporting the official version as well, to avoid having to defend the refusal to print any challenges. I'll ask you a question: Have you seen a peer reviewed article in support of the official version? If so, where?
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 10:13:52 AM
"I believe academic journals would refuse articles supporting the official version as well, to avoid having to defend the refusal to print any challenges. I'll ask you a question: Have you seen a peer reviewed article in support of the official version? If so, where? "
Hmmm... Your belief - like your stance on 9/11 - is incorrect. Enjoy the following:
There are many more that require a fee to access, if interested. Do you have anything to offer in support of the alternative theories? I'll save you the trouble and tell you the answer. Nope - not one peer-reviewed paper that's published in a reputable scientific journal. Why do you think that is? Those dogs won't hunt - that's why. They may make for tabloid reading but not scientific study let along reading.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1707 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 10:45:36 AM
Thanks for the list. Clearly, I was naïve myself. But given that qualified PhD’s are writing in opposition it seems I was naïve in believing that the journals would avoid printing just one side. It's worse than I thought.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 10:56:26 AM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (