Conspiracy! Fact and fiction are closer than we think

Jan 15, 2008

Conspiracy theories which claim to shed more light on the 2001 twin towers disaster in New York are often closer to official versions than first thought - according to new research.

Dr Peter Knight from The University of Manchester who conducted the first academic study of 9/11 conspiracy theories says they are more popular today than ever before.

He also lists all major existing conspiracy theories in his report 'Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States'.

The findings come as the "final cut" of Loose Change - the internet video which has been the most influential source of 9/11 conspiracy theories - is now having its first screenings at 9/11 events in the UK.

He said: "Official explanations see America as an innocent victim of a catastrophic event that came out of the blue, explained by an all-powerful conspiracy motivated by Bin Laden's evil lust for power.

"The problem is, this has strong similarities to the conspiracy theories which argue that Bush is himself head of an all-powerful conspiracy.

"The Bush administration also claimed that a highly organized and centrally controlled conspiracy of terrorists carried out 9/11.

"But that too bears strong resemblance to the highly organized and centrally controlled cabal of government and intelligence agents featuring in many conspiracy theories.

"In fact, the above is a reworking of a CIA disinformation campaign developed during President Reagan's administration about the role of the Soviets as puppet masters behind a vast, conspiratorial terror network."

He added: "All 9/11 conspiracy theories are an inevitable counter-reaction - however misguided - to distorted official explanations which seek to find a direct connection between al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil.

"By insisting on a black-and-white version of events, the Bush administration from the outset forcefully rejected any suggestion of the culpability- even through negligence -of his own or even Clinton's administration.

"The lack of transparency and honesty in official explanations also induces counter-reaction: they draw on the rhetoric of paranoia.

"But we are more likely to die by being kicked by a donkey than die in a terrorist atrocity."

Dr Knight lists the most popular conspiracy theories and classifies them into 'Letting it Happen on Purpose' (LIHOP) and 'Making it Happen on Purpose' (MIHOP).

LIHOP argues the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen despite warnings whereas MIHOP claims that elements of the US government and its intelligence agencies conspired proactively to make the events happen.

Dr Knight said: "There are many reasons why conspiracy theories in general are more popular now than ever before - and polls in America and the UK back this up.

"Depicted usually as a form of popular paranoia, they give an insight into how we make sense of the world - which is why we take them more seriously.

"The internet which is a rumour mill has played a major role in promoting a lot of weird and wonderful ideas.

"But also, we are a lot less likely to believe in authority than in times gone by.

"Especially as some contemporary theories such as Watergate, and the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have turned out to be true."

Major conspiracy theories outlined in 'Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States' by Dr Peter Knight:

1. The Bush administration and/or oil corporations had much to gain from the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and were looking for - perhaps even willing to engineer - a modern-day Pearl Harbor in order to gain support for their pre-existing war plans.
2. Plans for an Afghanistan invasion were laid in advance.
3. Small but troubling inconsistencies, such as lampposts which appear to be intact in photos of the Pentagon crash site, despite the plane supposedly flying just above the ground.
4. Mobile phones seemed to have worked on board some of the planes at an altitude that official reports deem impossible.
5. Jet fuel burns at a temperature lower than the melting point of steel leaving many puzzled about the cause of the Twin Towers collapse.
6. The crash hole in the Pentagon was not big enough to have been caused by a Boeing 757. It was more likely to be a missile rather than a plane and consequently that the actual plane and its passengers must have been secretly taken away.
7. The Twin Towers were not brought down by the planes crashing into them but by controlled demolition.
8. The military could have shot down the planes once it was known that they had been hijacked.
9. The hijackers' flying skills were not good enough to fly a plane into the twin towers.
10. The hijackers had connections with the Pakistani intelligence services.
11. Some of the hijackers are still alive.

Source: University of Manchester

Explore further: Cloning whistle-blower: little change in S. Korea

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Why conspiracy theorists won't give up on MH17 and MH370

Aug 20, 2014

A huge criminal investigation is underway in the Netherlands, following the downing of flight MH17. Ten Dutch prosecutors and 200 policemen are involved in collecting evidence to present at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The inv ...

Right, left, wrong: People reject science because ...

Oct 03, 2013

You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged ...

Science denied: Why does doubt persist?

Oct 12, 2012

The sign in front of the tall display case at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History lures visitors to "meet one of your oldest relatives." Inside stands a morganucodon, a mouse-like animal ...

Recommended for you

Cloning whistle-blower: little change in S. Korea

4 hours ago

The whistle-blower who exposed breakthrough cloning research as a devastating fake says South Korea is still dominated by the values that allowed science fraudster Hwang Woo-suk to become an almost untouchable ...

Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

Oct 21, 2014

A new study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), evaluated consumers' choice in fresh tomato selection and revealed which characteristics make the red fruit most appealing.

How the lotus got its own administration

Oct 21, 2014

Actually the lotus is a very ordinary plant. Nevertheless, during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) a complex bureaucratic structure was built up around this plant. The lotus was part of the Imperial Household, ...

What labels on textiles can tell us about society

Oct 21, 2014

Throughout Chinese history, dynastic states used labels on textiles to spread information on the maker, the commissioner, the owner or the date and site of production. Silks produced in state-owned manufacture ...

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

quantum_flux
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2008
I think that Osama Bin Laden is a mythological figure, like Big Foot, that the President invented in order to justify Operation Shock and Awe. Oh, you're sympathising with Osama huh Saddam? That's it, we're going to get midievil on your ass!
cybergarp
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2008
What I got out of the article is that the official version is about as flimsy as the conspiracy versions. I.e. you can trust Bush about as much as you can trust the terrorists.
Polymathes
2.6 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2008
It seems it doesn't matter what really happened.
All that is important is what people think and
feel.
There is a time and place to question the
source of information, but the cause of 9/11
is self evident. There is no mystery. To
mythologize the events does harm to history and
rational thinking.
paulo
2.7 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2008
What is revoltingly stupid and offensive is expecting us to swallow the conspiracy theory that the unbelievably difficult strikes on the twin towers were perpetrated by amateur pilots who could barely fly a cessna, and steel-framed buildings with over 600% redundancy (engineered to take multiple direct airliner hits) collapsed due to kerosene fires. Please. And just how did building 7 (which housed the CIA headquarters) collapse again? No plane hit building 7.

I'll start believing the the Al Qaeda-9/11 myth when the 90-odd security camera videos (all confiscated by the FBI) showing *exactly* what hit the Pentagon are released. Nothing to hide? Then show us. Until then it's ALL conspiracy theory, even the official version.

KeizerSoze
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2008
True, this site is based on science. True, experts have given their expert opinion as to how the WTC buildings collapsed. So, yes, this particular article is quite valid.

Like the old saying goes, "Never believe what you hear and only half of what you see"

For those of you who believe the original conspiracy theory behind 9/11 (aka the "official" explanation), i challenge you to watch WTC7 collapse.

The official explanation about the collapse of WTC7 is that fire brought it down.

Seriously? For you believers of this explanation: You've watched this building collapse and you still believe that?! Or is it that you still WANT to believe that?

My opinion doesn't matter, watch for yourself and you be the judge.

WTC7 is the key, open your mind :)
gopher65
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2008
errr. My view of this article is that it is saying: "The *white house version* of events was clearly propaganda, as can be seen by comparing it to the other official reports that were released. It is almost as much a conspiracy theory as the conspiracy theories."

Which seems self pretty evident. The Bush administration manufactured things such as the "connection between Saddam and Osama" when it was clearly known that the only country that al Qaeda hated more than the US was Iraq. Saddam was their archnemesis:P. They would NEVER team up with him. If anything, the US did al Qaeda a favour by destroying Iraq. That country was the only thing standing between them and domination of the middle east. WTG Bush. Smart move buddy.
pravuil
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2008
What to say about this. For one people have the right to question. To take away conspiracy theory is to take away certain freedoms of speech. If a question is raised, the conflicting party has the right to respond back to tear down any argument against them.

With bad public opinion, I'm not surprised to see such an article on physorg. Certain people would love to spend money to poke holes into an unpopular administration.

To be honest though, what does this article really have to do with science? If there was some aspect of Psychology to explain human behavior in dealing with abstracts and unknowns within the article it would have been a different story. Instead it listed instances or certain arguments made by conspiracy theorists. Points as opposed to research ends up making this article political. Discussion like this is best left on some other heated political forum.
paulo
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2008
I think this article is valid. It has important ramifications for the scientific, engineering, and architectural communities.

There are numerous serious engineering issues raised by the collapse of three over-engineered, super redundant steel-frame buildings due to kerosene fires. That has never happened before, nor has it happened since. If it is possible, then virtually every large building constructed in the last 100 years is vulnerable to the same sort of catastrophic structural failure.

For the scientific community to avoid these questions is, in my opinion, cowardice in the face of political pressure.

The question of whether a steel-frame building can collapse from fire alone is a valid one (WTC 7).... but perhaps the question we are really asking here is whether it can be investigated *scientifically* , without fear of harassment and ridicule.
NeilFarbstein
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2008
I know that the FBI received three ultra high priority messages on the internet warning about the plan to hijack airliners and crash them into american targets. There was an atttiude problem that resulted in those messages being erased before they could have neen read. They said the guy that erased those messages did it by accident. There is a grain of truth to the "they let it happen" type of conspiracy.
SDMike
3.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2008
Most of you just do not understand how the buildings differ from all previous buildings. A stressed skin building is great in the wind not so great when you punch holes in it.

You also do not understand that the original design was not followed. The floors just rested on little shelves because parts were left out. When the skin spread the floor dropped vertically. One falling floor WILL take out the next one. The outside unzipped.

You do not realize how corrupt New York construction is. Who knows what the characteristics of the materials was. Who knows what else was left out or done wrong.
brant
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2008
WTC 7
dachpyarvile
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2008
What do the twin towers and WTC7 have in common? Eutectic reaction. The remnants of girders had a strange swiss cheese pattern in the remnants consistent with eutectic reaction. What a eutectic reaction does is bring down the melting temperature of the steel to the point that portions of the girders melted with lower temperatures, forming swiss cheese patterns, which then caused the girders in some places to buckle. The weight of the building did the rest. The thing is, when such molten metal contacts other hot metal, the same reaction begins in the new metal.

A portion of the twin towers hit part of WTC7 and weakened the structure on one side, causing it to tilt and partially collapse. The steel girders in the buildings contained a good percentage of Manganese Sulfate, which itself can set off a eutectic reaction at the right temperature in the presence of various sulfitic salts and water vapor (duh! the buildings were near an ocean with such salts in the air and there was plenty of water vapor in the building) and lowers the melting point of the steel.

This explains the pools of glowing, molten metal amongst the ruins that stayed hot for long periods of time even after the collapses and the swiss cheese patterns in the remaining girders. When the floors began collapsing under the weight of the upper floors, explosive decompression from the increase in pressure began blowing windows out, causing in influx of cooler, more oxygenated air into the building, turning the entire structure into a sort of bellows, which in turn heated things up more and made it easier to bring down the building.

No need for conspiracy when the chemistry is so simple.
paulo
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2008
from http://www.wpi.ed...eel.html

"From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity."

short version - they have no idea whether the eutectic reaction occurred before or after the collapse. They aren't being given any samples to test.

Anyway, if you actually watch the video of WTC 7's collapse it clearly falls directly in on its own footprint, it does not tilt. There is no partial collapse - it is total failure. If this were down to eutectic reaction then I could believe partial collapses of the three buildings, similar to what has been seen in previous steel structure fires, i.e. Madrid, but the total simultaneous failure of the entire structure through the perfect proliferation of eutectic reaction in a totally uniform manner I find *very* difficult to believe.
paulo
2 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2008

I feel terrible for your loss, wesgeorge, it must have been dreadful. However, it does not change the facts. Please stick to them in your responses in future.

I believe I was actually talking about the possible involvement of eutectic reaction in the collapses.

At no point did I question the Holocaust, nor was I promoting Creationism. Please do not cast such offensive aspersions.

davedude420
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2008
if the buildings collapased because of fire why are all steel buildings not being refitted? or where they the only 3 buildings in the world like this? why did the sprinklers not put the fires out?water tanks are on the roof.
drummerboy
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2008
Why is this on Physorg? Because it involves science. Working out the resistance of steel to heat, air resistance, collapse times etc.

dachpy - Steel is a very effective conductor of heat. Can you explain how long it would take to heat up the steel enough to fail, whilst the rest of the structure is sucking heat away from the point of the crash.

SD - Mike.. ever tried poking a pencil through a mosquito net? Did the rest of the net collapse?

And who said anything about American killing Americans? Ever heard of traitors? Ever think you might have a few people in important positions who might be loyal to countries other than the USA?

Where is Bin Laden.

Did we fund the Taliban or Al Qaeda at any point in our history? We did when it suited us.

911 stinks. But it is fast becoming too late to do anything about it.
wesgeorge
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2008
My comment and others criticizing this article as irrational fantasy-mongering have been deleted by the editors of this site.

To repeat, I would expect an honest science news provider to steer clear of fantastic claims of the supernatural and politically extreme delusions even if the editors believe they benefit from the greater revenues brought by tabloid sensations.

Thus articles about the plausibility of creationism, bigfoot or holocaust denials at Physorg.com are nonexistent as they should be.

Yet here is an article promoting the equally and comparably irrational conspiracy theory that 911 was an inside job by the US governement! I wonder why?

Every real fact suggests that such opinions are only held by people with an extreme anti-American agenda, so extreme in fact, that it ranks as a new type of hate speech equivalent to holocaust denial theories.

As I noted in my first, now deleted, post. I saw the events on that day first hand and have communicated with many others who were also there. Moreover, I have more than a pasting interest in the exact cause of the events of those days.

What I saw with my eyes was not a bloody CIA movie set. That is simply creepy nutty. It is not science, but the exact opposite of scientific enquiry. It is slander and magical thinking. It is manufacturing of urban superstition. Simply by repeating the lie you are complicit in the crime of propagating an inhumane and destructive meme.

Some here want to play the Orwellian game of science-speak with a great mendacity and pretend to examine 911 objectively all the while twisting and contorting the facts to fit a phantasmagoric vision of cultural hatred and ruin thus amplifying the wound inflicted by the 911 terrorists. It's the stuff bad school boys howl while bullying on the playground.

Physorg must realize that to support the pretense of pseudo-scientific analyses of the 911 event as a the greatest fraud of the modern age is the equivalent to supporting an enquiry into the legitimacy of holocaust denial with inconclusive findings.. But Physorg is more than an immature schoolboy, it is a media provider with ethical responsibilities to the society which it serves.

As a kid I remember reading in the Pravada that the moon landing was filmed in a stage set in Florida. People that believe 911 was staged are of the same psychological profile that believe NASA faked the moon landing.

I can think of a dozen issues more worth of skeptical scrutiny that Physorg has yet to cast a critical eye upon.
Chainsaw,
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2008
I did it I admit it!

Come on people it is not about fantasy but about the truth, the planes were physically capable of doing the deed I am more convinced of that than when I started looking into it.

Give me one reason the planes could not have done it in a building filled with fuels?

Also how do you burn that much Jet fuel in air with air being only 20% oxygen do you people actually understand what your saying?

Wild speculation gets you no where but confused, there is more going on in the fires in the buildings than you know, but it is not from planted explosives that degrade at 250C or from thermites or nano thermites.

Can some one point me to a good Science site where this can be discussed?
gopher65
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2008
Again, I think you are all taking this article the wrong way. The name of the guy's book is "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories". He's saying that the listed conspiracy theories are nutty.

I think what people are latching on to is his statements that the version of events put out by the bush administration contradict the version of events put out by the official investigations by other branches of the US government. In other words, he's saying that bush politicized the issue for his own gain.

Call that statement what you will (fact or fiction), but to me that says that the author of the book agrees with the US government version, but not the twisted version put out by the whitehouse (which, as the author points out, has conspiracy theories of its own built in, like the bit about Saddam and Osama being buddy-buddy when they in fact were not).

So I don't see this article as promoting any conspiracy theories. Mind you, it is a poorly written article, like so many others on physorg.com, but that has more to do with the poor editing skills of the staff than with with any particular article.
dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2008
"dachpy - Steel is a very effective conductor of heat. Can you explain how long it would take to heat up the steel enough to fail, whilst the rest of the structure is sucking heat away from the point of the crash."

Eutectic reactions (and the evidence of the swiss cheese patterns in the remaining girders seems to show that to me) tend to change a number of qualities of the steel in the locations where the reactions are occurring in the steel. These reactions provide their own heat once underway. The intense heat, the presence of sulfur in the air from burning rubber seals and heated gypsum in the drywall, as well as the presence of sulfitic salts from sea water particulates, as well as components from molten aluminum and the Barium salts in the jet fuel itself all lent a hand to setting off such a reaction. When the reactions begin, the metal sluffs off and contacts other metal with like composition. The reactions begin again in the new area, all tending toward weakening the overall structural integrity of the steel. Take a piece of the type of structural steel used in the construction of the towers of like composition and thickness and set off a eutectic reaction. It changes the chemical qualities of the steel and quickly erodes holes through the metal as well as lowering the melting temperature of the metal and degrading its heat conducting qualities. Steel with such qualities will not support a building and will buckle and give way under the weight of the buildings above the crash sites. The weight and inertia of the moving mass will then produce the pancake effect as well as cause explosive decompression, which in turn will create the effect of drawing air into the building interiors and further weaken the already stressed structures.
Chainsaw,
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2008
I can tell you that Eutectic reactions are so likely in those buildings that I would be surprised if they did not occur in those buildings in the fires at as little as 700c.

I can not however tell you how I know this right now, I can tell you that steel is perfectly capable of reaching the melting point from it's own oxidation, and reduction reactions.
I also agree with much the article states, when science is lacking pseudo Science runs a muck.
OH the presence of pyrites in the steel indicates a low temperature reaction of the steel, as pyrites decompose at 520c in air.
They can form in steels at higher temperatures n low oxygen or reducing environments but not well in a oxygen atmosphere.
The critical point is not the reactions themselves but a structure that would allow for the reactions to occur, that structure I believe I am convinced existed in all three buildings.
I can not say more at this time.
Chainsaw,
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2008
Doodler

Please show me all this evidence of thermite will you please?
I just do not see any at this time.
Bold claim little evidence.
wesgeorge
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2008
gopher65,

You may well be right about the book being an expose of the human lunacy that is at the root of most conspiracy theories. If so Mr. Knight's book is a service to those confused or just curious enough to delve into the sociological and psychological aspects of this myth.

However, the Physorg article is a patchwork of out of context quotes which make the nonsensical point that the 911 conspiracy theories aren't as whacky as they might seem.

I suspect the real motive behind such an article is an ideological hatred of the Bush administration. I don't support Bush, however, I fine it sad that the defaming of the 911 event as vile act of subterfuge on the part of the US government is the way that some people cowardly choose to diss Bush.

The 911 conspiracy theories represent a type of hate speech directed at America and are thus in exactly the same category neo-Nazi Holocaust denial theories.

Hmm, don't recall any Physorg articles examining research performed on the plausibility of Holocaust denial theories.

HarryStottle
4 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2008
I'm still open to the LIHOP arguments, but not the MIHOP. Especially not the controlled demolition theories. Especially after reading this:
http://www.counte...006.html
paulo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2008
I'm very disturbed by the linking of any questioning of the Official History of 9/11 to Holocaust Denial. This seems to me to be highly spurious and not a little offensive. I believe that's why previous comments to that effect had been deleted by moderators - it's slander, and it's disgusting. You are effectively calling anyone who questions the Official Story of 9/11 a Nazi.

To compare 9/11 to the Holocaust is deeply offensive. MORE THAN SIX MILLION men, women, and children being marched to their deaths in a calm, calculated manner - over a number of years - with all the historical record this entails - because of their race - does not compare, and it just seems like a ridiculous way to get off-topic.

The Official History of 9/11 states that, well, you know, 19 amateur pilots (Arabs) overthrew the US Air Force, who just happened to be distracted by exercises that day. These amateur pilots managed to hit two buildings - (apparently pretty difficult in one of those big planes). These buildings, plus another one that wasn't hit, then fell pretty much *straight* down. A lot of innocent people died. We all saw it on TV.

To question HOW this could have happened is hate speech against America? Doesn't that go against your Constitution? You know, "freedom of speech"?

Who's the Fascist? The person who asks questions freely and without fear, or the person who says they MUST NOT ask these questions?

Once again, show me the 90-odd security videos of what hit the Pentagon, and maybe I'll buy the Official History of 9/11.

Until then it's just another Reichstag fire.
Chainsaw,
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2008
I'm very disturbed by the linking of any questioning of the Official History of 9/11 to Holocaust Denial. This seems to me to be highly spurious and not a little offensive. I believe that's why previous comments to that effect had been deleted by moderators - it's slander, and it's disgusting. You are effectively calling anyone who questions the Official Story of 9/11 a Nazi.

To compare 9/11 to the Holocaust is deeply offensive. MORE THAN SIX MILLION men, women, and children being marched to their deaths in a calm, calculated manner - over a number of years - with all the historical record this entails - because of their race - does not compare, and it just seems like a ridiculous way to get off-topic.

The Official History of 9/11 states that, well, you know, 19 amateur pilots (Arabs) overthrew the US Air Force, who just happened to be distracted by exercises that day. These amateur pilots managed to hit two buildings - (apparently pretty difficult in one of those big planes). These buildings, plus another one that wasn't hit, then fell pretty much *straight* down. A lot of innocent people died. We all saw it on TV.

To question HOW this could have happened is hate speech against America? Doesn't that go against your Constitution? You know, "freedom of speech"?

Who's the Fascist? The person who asks questions freely and without fear, or the person who says they MUST NOT ask these questions?

Once again, show me the 90-odd security videos of what hit the Pentagon, and maybe I'll buy the Official History of 9/11.

Until then it's just another Reichstag fire.


Where is your evidence that there are 90 security videos at the pentagon? Last time I check the pentagon used the most sophisticated security system in the world, live marines with brains watching video monitors not recordings.
Cameras do not necessarily mean tapes.
Brains are still way a head of computers and live personnel not Cameras make the best security system!
I encourage you to question, it is the making claims based on ignorance that I disagree with.
paulo
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2008
You're right, it's only 84 tapes the FBI is withholding. My mistake, thanks for the catch on that.

http://infowars.n...deos.htm

If we were being told the truth why withhold all these tapes?

Thanks for dredging up this 9/11 stuff, Physorg. I'd almost forgotten it(!)

I don't think we'll be able to talk rationally about it for some time yet. It's still (obviously) too politically charged.

Chainsaw,
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2008
You're right, it's only 84 tapes the FBI is withholding. My mistake, thanks for the catch on that.

http://infowars.n...deos.htm


If we were being told the truth why withhold all these tapes?

Thanks for dredging up this 9/11 stuff, Physorg. I'd almost forgotten it(!)

I don't think we'll be able to talk rationally about it for some time yet. It's still (obviously) too politically charged.



The site you listed shows evidence that the tapes you refer to do not show anything impacting the pentagon, so what is the point in even mentioning them,
IF there is nothing on them?
paulo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2008
No, I think if you read the article it's the FBI saying that there's *nothing to see*.

Well, if they say so.

Ultimately it's up to the individual to do their own research on this, Chainsaw.

The mainstream media will not touch any of this without cloaking it in the 'moonbat conspiracy' rhetoric. It is unfortunate that we can't discuss it, as I'd really like to know how it all went down. The steel-frame buildings particularly. Frankly I'm surprised that others don't. At the very least, shouldn't we be a little concerned that steel-frame buildings can completely fail from fire? If eutectic reaction can bring down skyscrapers shouldn't we be re-engineering/re-fitting to compensate? Were these huge buildings THAT close to collapse anyway?

I think we should look at the definition of "conspiracy". This is from my computer's dictionary....

conspiracy |k%u0259n%u02C8spir%u0259s%u0113|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot .
%u2022 the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
PHRASES
a conspiracy of silence an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French conspiracie, alteration of Old French conspiration, based on Latin conspirare %u2018agree, plot%u2019 (see conspire ).

According to this definition the Official History is a conspiracy theory just as much as the 'moonbat' ones... People Conspired, there was a Conspiracy.

All the best everyone.

Blair
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2008
Some of the comments on the article there
are much better than that article itself ,,.

It is back to the bifurcation point
caused by the paradigm shifting ...

If a person cannot accept the idea
that their own government is the
worst gang of criminals, then,

they cannot understand 9/11.

If they are willing to accept that truth about 9/11

(that the government of the USA and mass media,
have been complicit & covering up what occurred)

then the rest of a slippery slope is before them,

they slide down into the pit of the problems that

the monetary and taxation systems, & EVERYTHING,

are based on huge lies & lots of violence ...

This is the social polarization stretching,
until it snaps ...

That general social process occurs
in each individual's mind, or not.

You either believe in the bullies' bullshit,
or else you perceive that it is bullshit ...

People who try to compromise

are like "cube" Earth people.

They cannot make the switch

between flat or round Earth,

and so they ended up cubic.

The real 9/11 event was a pivotal mass murder ...

The meaning of that event is crucial to our times.

I continue to agree that

the opinion one finally holds regarding building 7

is central to the rest of one's related opinions ...

Only the government officials
could have arranged for that
building to collapse, and
only they could have then
covered that story up ...

Once one accepts that building 7's collapse
was an inside job, whose truth was then
covered up, then in order for the rest
of the real world to make any sense
and make a consistent whole,

the rest of the package of possible
extreme evils run by governments
follows as the corollaries.

I am not sure exactly who and how ???

However, the paradigm shift is to see
that the world is controlled by lies,
and governments are organized gangs
of criminals that have built and
maintain their social pyramids.

Everything I now know fits consistently
within that world view, and makes lots
of theoretical sense why that is true.

However, the psychic shock that first comes
from beginning to perceive that real truth
about real governments is so devastating,
that many mainstream people are not able
to go through the process to do so ...

9/11/2001 events drive social polarization.

There is no stable middle ground between
believing the official stories, compared
to seeing the official stories are lies.

Thus, there is social polarization snapping ...

the same as the mental attitude of an individual
who bothers to take the time to learn enough
will eventually snap into a different way
of understanding 9/11, that then leads
to a different way of understanding
everything else around them ...

People on each side of a social divide
more, and more, are going to regard
the other side as being insane.

There is no more way to compromise
with paradigm shifts about 9/11
than one can compromise over
whether the Earth is
flat or round.
Blair
2 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2008
I also wanted to add the comment that I think it is completely appropriate for physorg.com to carry an article of this type.

The main thing that motivates me to disbelieve the official stories of 9/11/2001 is commons sense notions of physics and engineering.

I have spent at least a thousand hours wading through information and disinformation about the 9/11 events.

I believe that no other steel structure building have collapsed from internal fires, either before or since 9/11/2001, but on that day, three buildings were alleged to have done so on the same day.

It is interesting that no effort was made to try to understand why those buildings collapsed, but that the physical evidence was hauled away and destroy asap by the authorities in New York.

Despite the complaints that it was extremely important to future architectural designs to understand why those three buildings collapsed, no serious effort was made, but rather the physical evidence that was necessary was destroyed instead before it could be properly studied.

It is my ideas of physics and engineering that convinced me that the official stories are impossible. It is my ideas about politics, power if politics to corrupt science that convinced me that none of the explanations that support the official stories are credible, and that all of the explanations that support the official stories deliberately ignore large chunks of the available evidence.

I will repeat that there is a reinforcement of my conclusions that follows from knowing more of the details about what was inside building 7 that support the view that the collapse of that building was a vital part of the kind of false flag terrorism, inside job, that 9/11 really was.

The combination of learning a lot of the social and political details, plus considering common sense physics and engineering, is what made me conclude that the official stories are absurd.

The official stories are the most ridiculous of all the conspiracy theories regarding what happened on 9/11.

I have never run into any explanation of what happened that supports that official story that I have not found to be part of the overall disinformation campaign.

To understand 9/11/2001, one has to appreciate that some people made billions of dollars of profit from those events. Those events led to further mass murders in other countries in subsequent years measured in the hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people, as well as providing opportunities for even more billions of dollars of profit for people in the war related industries.

In that context, the interaction between political facts and physical facts reinforce each other to lead me to conclude that the far more probable truth is that the government of the USA aided and abetted the 9/11 events, and that a huge disinformation campaign has followed after that.

When a real event results in mass murders and billions of dollars of profit, science is in the most precarious context that it could possibly be in.

After more than a thousand hours of thinking about everything that I have been able to learn about the 9/11/2001 events, I came to conclusions in my previous post above.

It is a different as working out of a Ptolemiac or Copernican frame of reference to understand the movements of the stars and planets through the sky.

It is possible to use great intellectual vigour, all based on the assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe, to explain how the stars and the planet move around the Earth. However, that is almost totally wrong. The truth is that the Earth revolves around the center of gravity of the Solar system, which is almost totally around the Sun.

An analogous thing happens when attempting to understand the 9/11 events.

If one REFUSES to consider that the government of the USA was a major player in making those events happen, then one has to try to fit all the facts into that world view, and must ignore all the facts that would contradict that presumption.

One can appear to be an intelligent person when working of the details of the Ptolemaic system, but one is on totally the wrong track.

In scientific revolutions, in the sense of Thomas Kuhn's famous book on the structure of scientific revolutions, anomalies add up until they force a profound paradigm shift in the frame of reference.

This process happens when attempting to understand the 9/11 events. There are too many anomalies that do not add up to anything that makes overall sense in the official stories about what happened.

Once one switches the frame of reference to believe that the government of the USA was complicit in permitting explosives to be pre-planted in the World Trade Center building 1 and 2, and 7, and worked to cover that up, then all the evidence fits into one consistent story.

The only way to support the official stories is to deliberately ignore the anomalies that indicate that story is not consistent will all the evidence.

Considering the magnitude of the mass murders and billions of dollars of profit that surround the 9/11 events, there is an overwhelming motivation for people to deliberately ignore the anomalies that would otherwise lead them to conclude the official story is absurd.

9/11 is one of the most socially important examples of applied science. It is also one of the best illustrations of how the political context can subvert science.

Like the earlier poster in this thread of comments wrote, look at the video of the collapse of building 7. Also, learn more of the details about what was in that building, and what it meant that that building was destroyed.

The more one learns, the worse it gets, because the only conclusion that can be left after one assimilates all the evidence is that the government of the USA must have participated in making the 9/11 events happen, and actively worked to cover that up.

A general principle is that it is easy to get away with a crime if one can control the investigation afterwards.

If one goes through the paradigm shift to perceive 9/11 events in this way, then the commemoration of those events have a radically different meaning.

One can still buy memorabilia from that event that are classic propaganda pieces made from material collected from the N.Y. ground zero.

There are still wars and profits being made from those wars, and people being killing, and a fascist police state being built, that are all based on the huge lies of the official story about what happened on 9/11/2001.

For me, it is the physical science and engineering considerations about the collapse of building seven that are the frontier battle where the understanding of those events reverses direction. In a way as certain as a gun shot through the heart, there is the paradigm shift to perceive that the government of the USA facilitated the 9/11 events, and the cover up of the truth of those events.

There is a more wide-spread way in which the Bush administration has been subverting science for political ends. The most crucially important particular subversion of science and engineering is displayed in the official stories that are supposed to explain the 9/11 events, and all of the subsequent studies that are supposed to prove that those official stories were correct.

In the short-term, there can indeed be a triumph of dishonesty backed up with violence, that serves systems of fraud and robbery making a profit for powerful people.

However, the great ideals of science need to be struggled for through difficulties and dangers in the political realms.

History is full examples of the paradigm shifts in science, and the extreme personal problems that particular people endured during those changes.

I think it is impossible to provide a proof of the official story that explains the 9/11 events.

Everything along those lines that I have read deliberately ignores the anomalous evidence that does not fit inside of that world view.

The only way that I can reconcile all of the facts is to think that building 7 collapsed because there were explosives pre-planted in that building, and that nobody could have done that and covered that up without the agreement of senior government officials.

After going through that kind of paradigm shift, as I indicated in my previous post, numerous other anomalous facts fit into the overall pattern that is based on regarding the government as being the best organized gangs of criminals.

Paradigm shifts are radical changes in the entire frame of reference in which all problems are being solved.

Everything laid out in Thomas Kuhn's book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions applies to the 9/11 events.

As a pebble thrown into a pond, the ripples spread out from the plunk in point.
Chainsaw,
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2008
OH I see you people have actually done experiments on the proposed explosive compounds?
You have done experiment into entrapped gases, and other reactions, you can tell me what happened in the fires, you can tell me what happened in the rubble pile?
You can tell me the maximum temperature obtained in the buildings?
You can tell me all these things why did you not tell me them before I risked my life to find out?
I wish some one would tell me what super explosive compound would have been used since explosive can not survive 250c fires?
I wish you could tell me who is dumb enough to walk into a building caring explosive charges when an entrapped gas explosion can cause a shock wave and set off high explosives?
Controlled demolition seems like such a dumb Idea after I researched it, that I can not believe I once bought into it.
wesgeorge
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2008
Jeez, this story really has brought out the nutters, hasn't it?

Sure, like the US gov blew up Manhatten so that it could invade the MidEast, as if Bush really needed a reason. Wonder what Bush (or Obama or Clinton) will do to justify bombing Iran? Wait, maybe they'll nuke Israel or San Fran with a bomb that appears made in Iran. Good idea. For conspiracy jerks there is no end to the mental illness that they suffer, it just goes on and on and on. It's a type of self-hatred extrapolated to the nation as a whole.

To repeat: 911 Al Qaeda denial is the same as denying that the Nazis murdered 6 or more million Jew in WWII.

It's a type of hate speech when repeated by malicious people who aren't mentally unbalanced. I suppose for many conspiracy types it's merely a physical symptom of paranoia rather than hate speech. I feel your pathos.

This is a good reason for Physorg to stay out of the supermarket tabloid business and stick with something at least resembling scientific method and peer review. Although, maybe the extra page views are worth it from a business perspective? Or maybe not in the long run because Psyorg will lose a rational science-orientated audience for a nutter/thrill-seeking one.
paulo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2008

The meme that "9/11 Al Qaeda denial is the same as Holocaust denial" is bandied about a lot to make people stop looking at the obvious flaws in the official story of 9/11/01. It has no basis in logic, and therefore cannot be argued with, just ignored.

The collapse of WTC 7 is indeed the elephant in the room, and all argument surrounding 9/11 hangs on how that building, which housed the CIA headquarters, and was not hit by a plane, could collapse so neatly into its own footprint. Here's the video :

http://video.goog...07499063

From a geo-political perspective, 9/11 allowed many projects to go ahead full steam - from the invasion of Afghanistan to build a gas pipeline, to the invasion of Iraq to secure oil reserves, to the widespread rollback of civil liberties and the massive increase in domestic spying, all under the sweeping terms of terrorism.

Historically, the best parallel to 9/11/01 is the Reichstag Fire. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page -
http://en.wikiped...tag_fire

All the best everyone.

scattertonic
not rated yet Dec 17, 2008
I can't believe people are comparing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to the equivalent of Mel Gibson's father.

What baffles me is that, concerning this subject, more people don't talk about the acts of terror the U.S. government has already committed all over the world, as if it would actually be so mind bending to consider they would aid in such an act to their own land. The United State's military and political leaders are pretty vicious, corrupt, and overall destructive people. It is plainly visible that those who hold high political office have close ties with household name corporations who happen to slide by with some pretty atrocious deeds. Hell, Union Carbide, for starters. If governments could look the other way during the Bhopal disaster, how many other times have their eyes been willingly averted? What else might they let happen? How far can greed degrade the hearts of men? Could Bhopal have happened in Colorado? Did it already, except over a longer period of time?

I don't know what to believe, myself-- I don't think the truth will come out for a long time.

Meanwhile, 9/11 truth seekers should calm themselves down a little and hold off on the full blown anti-government rhetoric until they're sure of themselves and we find out how well Obama does on keeping his promise of change, and we have some sort of concrete evidence that these conspiracy theories hold some validity. The opposite side -- the close minded people telling the open minded people they are mentally ill and deserving of ridicule and social expulsion -- you need to resorting to name calling, address the issues brought up instead of attacking people's character, and consider the fact that you don't know what happened on 9/11 any better than the rest of us with access to a public library.