1 Like
*snort*
Hundreds of demolition workers - when you include the crews needed to move all the furniture and take the walls apart each night to get at the building structure, and to put it back together in the morning before the office workers arrived.
Hundreds of late-working office workers, IT staff, cleaning staff from a dozen companies, building maintenance people, security guards and all the other people who would be working in the building at night, and would have to be in on it and not report anything.
The people who prepared and flew the aircraft. Or the holograms, depend on which drugs the truthers are taking.
All those in the FAA, CIA, FBI etc. who would be in on it. All the other airport workers or air base workers who have noticed unscheduled passenger jetliners being prepared and then taking off that morning⌠and then not reporting it once the attack happened.
Reporters and other staff in the BBC who according to the truthers had advanced knowledge of the events of the day, and accidently reported the Building 7 collapse early. Plus all the other international news agencies who were in on it along with the BBC.
Seismologists, who report that the buildings did not âfree-fallâ based on how long the shaking lasted.
A great many banking and securities or insurance officials depending on which all-accusation-no-evidence motive the truthers claim.
And of course all the people who planned and organized it. And all the White House and Pentagon officials to go along with it.
So thousands of people from many, many organizations/compartments. And NONE have them talked or went to the press or police beforehand.
And AFTER, claiming that it would remain âcompartmentalizedâ once it actually happened and all eyes were focused on the event⌠the full weight of the FBI, CIA, police, other organizations in the US and their counterparts around the world⌠And still no evidence. Not so much as a death-bed confession.
That makes the average Saturday morning cartoon for pre-schoolers look credible.
12 Likes
Plus, they seem to my jaded opinion, to be the kind of things that would happen on a daily basis in a large building that existed solely for the purpose of housing financial institutions and the like, regardless of it being blown up with a jetliner.
1 Like
I am of course speaking of only small conspiracies, certainly not your scenario. Just because some conspiracies are not possible or implausible does not make all conspiracies impossible, faith and trust is as conspiratorial as the hoax nuts.
It is possible to believe in the moon landing and yet still also believe that Nixon ordered the Watergate break-ins, and nearly got away with it.
Snowden and Manning only released what they could access at their level, no more. There are still secrets that have not been revealed. Many would be interesting but likely none that would make a big difference in US pseudo-democracy or in the EU for that matter.
1 Like
I donât know the basis for your theory that we so-called âconspiracy theoristsâ are motivated by a desire to âoutwitâ everyoneâas if the only thing that mattered were our egoâbut that sir, is a rather weak hypothesis.
Let me ask youâŚwere Woodward/Bernstein motivated by ego? Were they investigating/following leads with the ultimate goal of one day saying âNixon was behind the break-in! Haha! We have outwitted all of you (i.e., we are intellectually superior)â? No, the reason they investigated Watergate was because they believed the facts warranted further investigation, and, to that end, they hoped a more accurate (truthful) account of the events known at the time would be disclosed.
However, I wonât necessarily denigrate those seeking ego/glory, as long as it does not bias their investigation, because, at the heart of the matter, seeking the truth can hardly be seen as a dishonorable objective. What it seems you are suggesting is that in certain cases, further study into the truth should stop. [And whether you realize it or not, your belief that we should stop truth-seeking on particular matters is because you have been instructed to do soâŚinstructed by the media, by the government, and by the establishment in general.]
But seriously, do we want to live in a world like that? If we are to avoid truth-seeking on certain matters, then each of us needs to seriously decide whether we want take part in a dialog on 9/11 in which one must wear blinders and observe strict boundaries to the free flow of logical discourse or thought. Must I impede the flow of rational thought whenever I reach a point deemed unacceptable by the establishment? Given your assessment (and far more troubling opinions on this topic by individuals such as Cass Sunstein) conspiracy theorists might end up diagnosed as âdelusionalâ or mentally unfit to live with autonomy.
And Iâve said it before elsewhere, but Iâll say it again, the term âconspiracy theoryâ is not a literal description. Rather, itâs a label for ideas that cross certain bordersâin particular, ideas that suggest abuses of power and illegal activity by people in high places. Conspiracy theory is nothing more than a label for forbidden thought. The problem with âgoing thereâ is not just that one can be proven wrong. It is that it is forbidden to even think about it or discuss it. If one disobeys, one is exiled from the community (or worse).
The fact that the term âconspiracy theoryâ has no literal meaning is one of the many things that was firmly established by the events of 9/11.The official explanation of events of that day is unequivocably a theory of conspiracy. Itâs the ultimate conspiracy theory for the worldâs most spectacular crime⌠but itâs not called a conspiracy theory. Why? Because that term is reserved for any ideas that contradict the official story.
And this last point is key: Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies, they are about forbidden thought. Itâs akin to being called a witch 400 years ago.
The label âconspiracy theoryâ is a stop sign on the avenues of rational thought and inquiry. It says, "Stop here. Entrance forbidden."
1 Like
[seventy-odd lines of meta snipped]
Do you actually take a position on 9-11 which youâre willing and able to defend, or do you restrict yourself to - you know - just asking?
I think it was in this thread that I read the âkeep your mind open, but not so open that your brains fall outâ quote; I like the one that goes âThe object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
3 Likes
snort
In any tall building Iâve ever worked in, they just put yellow âconstructionâ tape around the area, and the hard-hats go about their work. There are vertical shafts that carry air, comm cables, etc. in addition to the elevator shafts. If the hardhats have ID badges and look official, no one questions them.
A Bush brother had the security contract for the complex. Just a coincidence Iâm sure.
And as for whistle-blowers, have you noticed how they are treated recently? If you had been doing a hard-hat job on a project like that (âHere, weâd like you to attach this 150-pound module to that support column, itâs a strain gauge.â) ⌠how eager would you be to announce it after?
To what news agency would you take your story? And do you think theyâd publish it? What would your story be? âWell, it had these suction-cup doohickeys on the back, and a little radio antennaâ ⌠How do you know it wasnât a strain gauge?
In that position, Iâd collect my paycheck and shutup and never mention it.
Just to be clear, my definition of a conspiracy theory in this context is one in which the theorists maintain their positions in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Whether it is chemtrails, or FEMA camps, or underground bunkers at Wal-Mart, or secret government plans to confiscate all guns, or Obamaâs Kenyan birth, or missiles hitting the towers, these theories have all been clearly debunked, and yet many still believe them.
Watergate wasnât a vast, well-coordinated governmental conspiracy. Watergate was a few amoral characters corrupted by greed and self-importance into a bumbling and misguided attempt to discredit governmental critics (Daniel Ellsberg among them). The general stupidity of the participants led to its inevitable exposure, as it should have. It was just inept political dirty tricks.
The government surely does many, many things illegally and tries to cover its tracks. This is not evidence of secret cabals, but just examples of self-interest and abuse of power which are endemic to the process. Exposure is critical, and prosecution is necessary in all cases, so no, Iâm not suggesting otherwise.
As others have pointed out, large well-coordinated conspiracies are very difficult to accomplish, and the more people involved, the more likely it will be exposed. The more fantastic the theory, the less likely it is to be true. For some people, the more fantastic the theory, the more likely they are to believe it. In fact, the impossibility of the theory is part of what gives it appeal, and causes the theorist to defend it relentlessly to all who disagree.
4 Likes
Sometimes I wonder if they secretly enjoy the sting and shame of being made fun of.
1 Like
For the record, and there will be many who disagree with me, I think most religion fits into the same category as conspiracy theories. Itâs a special club of believers, who all have to deny reality to accept the premise of their belief system. It pits them against all doubters, and their strong belief is taken as evidence of their exclusive membership in the club. They constantly claim themselves as having special knowledge that others wrongly refuse to accept. They try to recruit new members in the special club. And lastly, they have a special set of writings which they interpret as supportive of their beliefs, which others refuse to accept as proof.
4 Likes
I read a paper to that effect in the 90s militia era, an omnipotent government who cares enough to spy on you becomes the local god in a secular world. The farther we go the more convoluted ways we are still cave-people.
(edit)
[quote=âllamaspit, post:292, topic:65479â]
They constantly claim themselves as having special knowledge that others wrongly refuse to accept.
[/quote]Interesting, a gnostic religion(not all were secret bearing), not unlike Paulian Christianity with a non-human spiritual Jesus you had to accept into your heart rather than the various gospel Jesusi who were stories about real guys making various claims and with various motivations.
3 Likes
Colonial machinations in the middle east were always convoluted and confusing.
2 Likes
They look for the âsignsâ, they point to âmiraclesâ, the less evidence that exists for 9/11 happening the way that they claim is only further proof that their God is real. Their faith will NOT be shaken in the absence of evidence. They know that their personal connection with 9/11 is true and no facts will change their narrative.
1 Like
I would like to ask you a question, and I am not trying to mock you or insult you in any way. I really would like a serious answer, to help me understand your beliefs and processes about this subject. Anyhow, you mention the issue of the buildings collapsing âperfectly into themselvesâ. I have also heard âcollapsing into their own footprintsâ. It seems to be a common argument. That being said, I would assume that you spend time looking at lots of 9/11 imagery. Some of that would be from truther sites, but probably lots of media and personal images as well. No doubt, you have seen images taken from above the site after the event.
such as this one-
Here is a map I resized to match the image.
It is pretty clear that WTC 3,4,5, and 6 were destroyed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Big sections of WTC2 damaged the Bankerâs trust building across Liberty St. Structural pieces from WTC1 smashed into the Winter Garden Building, 600 feet away. So when you look at these images in respect to the âimplode perfectly into themselvesâ argument, what is your thought process?
Follow-up⌠Apparently the answer to the question of why the truthers insist that the buildings fell in their own footprints when they certainly did not, is that they just ignore the question and change the subject. There must be a pathology that would make a person insist on the truth of something that they know to be false.
8 Likes
Check out WTC 7.
Be more specific, please
2 Likes
Hanlonâs razor applies to that. Malice vs. Stupidity = very likely stupidity.
3 Likes
No good. Specifics can be addressed and refuted. Vague feelings of unease, distrust and âthat doesnât look right to meâ canât.
5 Likes
So itâs an ego trip, but itâs not just about being smarter than everyone, itâs about being a victim for being special?
2 Likes
I canât force you to swivel your eyeballs, but itâs in the picture you just posted.
