Yes they do serve beer. The real question is do they serve milk?

New Rule: Conspiracy Theorists have to get past mere criticism of events (which may actually be legitimate mind you) and actually construct an alternative version of the events that makes more sense than the official story. Any of the valid criticisms still do not make it plausible that the events were significantly different than the official version.

New Rule brought to you by the following.

Oh and is it just me, or does anyone else miss "Whose Like Is It Anyway?" I only got to see the American version with Drew Carey but they say the English version was superior.

"How big a lunatic do you have to be...?"

I don't know why everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists so much. Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science. The United States needs more critical analysis, not less. Even if 9/11 conspiracy theorists are 100 percent incorrect, I don't think that they should be scoffed at, called names, and demoralized. Their efforts should be recognized and applauded at least.

It's rather obvious that the official 9/11 report is partially fabricated, thus there is much room for speculation. I've read and watched much regarding 9/11 from both main sides (inside vs. outside job), as well as many other, smaller sides, and I must say that both main sides have certain plausible scenarios backed by varying amounts of evidence. (Personally, I don't buy into any of them because the evidence for all sides is incomplete.)

If nothing else, conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check. Without them, which is what many people, publications, and broadcasts seem to want, everyone would just go along with the majority in an unthinking mass. We don't want that, do we?

Of course we should allow anyone to ask any questions and speculate but these conspiracy theorists do not do this honestly. They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect.

Everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists because they are fucking retarded. Conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check? How so? By making the rest of us feel more sane because what you say is so utterly outside the realm of reason and logic? Bigfoot sightings and UFO reports are in the same aisle at the nutcase Wal-Mart where you also find tarot readers and horoscopes. May

"They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect."

Seems like they should be running for office with those kind of skills.

I dont think most of the big theories are very accurate, but I havent had any experience that tells me that the people who have presented the offical story are any more trust or respect worthy than the nuts. And the nuts are not waging a war that is making them rich and us poor. The same can not be said for the folks who brought us the official story.

Keep in mind that a large percentage of the "offical story crowd", are also part of the "Jesus died for your sins", "America's health care system is the best in the world", "There is no problem with electronic voting", "Saddam planned, funded 9/11", "we will be greeted as liberators, and out in 6 months" bunch.

Now who sounds more nuts?

Yeah, they are a bit nuts, the conspiracy guys, but living in this world has a way of doing that to people.

Regardless of whether or not the WTC was an inside job, it is extremely obvious that it was a controlled demolition.

"Conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check? How so?"

Well, they have sparked this massive debate that you and I are now discussing. I have seen numerous books published, documentaries created, university debates/conferences held, and more. Without the conspiracy theorists, I bet the majority of this discourse would not exist. It keeps people on their toes, I guess.

What's the worst that could happen, anyway? Everyone becomes a conspiracy theorist and overthrows the government, then puts in an honest, forthright administration that people respect? Aren't they really on our side when you think about it?

Though I generally appreciate Bill Maher's comments, he has his own sort of conspiracy theory concerning biology. He thinks that vaccination is a fraud perpetrated by who knows what medical cabal.

http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-maher-and-his-anti-vaccination.html

Come on Bill,

Loose Change was hilarious! Just throw these guys a bone once in a while and they'll keep serving up some great works of comedy the likes of which no sane person could ever compete with.

The iphone bit had me rolling ;-)

Yeah conspiracy theorists are crazy. Obviously it was the planes that caused the buildings to fall at free fall speed. But how do you explain how Building 7 fell? The 47 story building that wasn't hit by any plane, that collapsed. Google building 7, watch the video, then ask yourself why you've never heard of it, and then ask yourself if you really think it's possible for a building to collapse like that from a fire. If it seems like it would be impossible, then open your mind a little and consider that the official story may the conspiracy theory.

Difficult.

I do not believe the gouvernment itself flew those planes into the WTC.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it would turn out some bush-people hardliners knew about the attack and let them happen as fuel for their political agenda.

And even a not-believer like me must acknowledge that their thories ~between lots of paranoic bullshit~ HAVE a few valid points. Statements by reputable scientists that let you think wether the "official story" is 100% true- The same story that was brought to you by the "Iraq is behind it, and Saddam has WMDs!"-people.

Like it was said - the USA needs more critical thinkers, not less.

Jim, that Building 7-story, wasn't that the one where the owner of the building itself said on television it was blasted, and later hastily revoked his statement, but got millions of insurance-Dollars, far more than he initially had paid for the building?

I don't remember details or names about the story, but it WAS suspicious, even for us sceptics.

In conclusion: We should use our own mind, and do some research on ourselves, then judge, not just echoe the official story or some guys conspiracy-video on the internet.

McRae,

My house is insured for more than I paid for it because it would cost more to rebuild it than I paid for it. This is very common with property insurance. There's nothing suspicious about that unless you don't understand the basic reasons for having property insurance.

Is Paxil right for you? ;-)

I'm not one to believe anyone with a farfetched story, whether it's "Bush did 9/11" or "Iraq has WMDs" but I've watched Zeitgeist and LooseChange and I have to say, there is stuff there that should be addressed. I think some of the connections the conspiracy theorists make might be wrong, but we need to hear from legitimate scientists why, for example, there was molten metal still on fire, hotter than jet fuel, in the basement of 9/11 days after the event... or we need to hear that that claim is not true. We need to hear a credible explanation as to why Bush's father was meeting with Osama's brother the morning of the attack. Etc. Etc.

The Building 7 story is particularly disturbing and I haven't heard a reasonable explanation to explain it. That doesn't mean there isn't one better than the conspiracists'. I just havent heard it.

It's like evolution. I'm prepared to accept another explanation for how we got here. But cooky guys in the sky isn't one of them.

Sorry about the Paxil comment, I was echoing Bill. I understand that depression has nothing to do with paranoia so Paxil would not be of any use to people that cling to conspiracy theories.

Maybe Lithium would have been a better choice of words?

Zak,

I don't know if it'll answer all your questions, but Popular Science did a pretty good job of debunking 9/11 myths.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

NEW RULE: The next national calamity cannot be explained away by an utter work of fiction like the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

NEW RULE: Utter works of fiction like the 9/11 Commission Report deserve as many snarky remarks from smug late-night TeeVee hosts as do the “conspiracy theories.”

NEW RULE: You are not allowed compare every theory you don’t like to Bigfoot or UFOs.

he has his own sort of conspiracy theory concerning biology

Good point, Bill is no poster boy for rational thought.

A document such as "Operation Northwoods" pretty much proved that there a certain thinking that some of "our own" who perish in false flag operations would be suitable to further some goals. In this case 9/11 served as the New Pearl harbor that the neocons atleast needed (just read Rebuilding America's defences - PNAC), I'm pretty sure there are many dems who unofficially support the imperialist agenda. Let's face it, 9/11 was a golden opportunity to go with those goals and there are many high rank individuals who have raised concerns about what happened on 9/11.

When it comes to 9/11 the governemnt pretty much examined it's own failures and didn't fire anyone involved with their failures to do their jobs. On any common day all the four planes would've been shot down before they could've come closer to their destinations. WTC7 remains unxplained and when wearechange confronted Zelikow about WTC7 he was sweating like a pig and then fled the scene because he could't answer questions about WTC7. It is remarkable that it collapsed actually, considering that WTC and/or 6 were a lot more damaged from the debris from WTC1 and 2 and had far larger fires than building 1, 2 and 7 yet they did not collapse.

Hear the scepticism from others: http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/6339

Michael Meacher, British MP, "this war on terrorism is bogus": http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

1984,

You're right, our government always shoots down loaded commercial airliners that stray from their flight plan. Like for instance.... uh... well... maybe they haven't yet, but... It's official government policy.

This is too fun ;-)

You're right, our government always shoots down loaded commercial airliners that stray from their flight plan. Like for instance....

Like for instance that Iranian airliner they shot down, for instance ;)

Even if 9-11 conspiracy "nuts" are indeed "nuts", the kind of investigation of 9-11 carried out by the Bush administration could not have been more conducive to conspiracy theorizing than it has been. Consider just the fact that WTC-7 (a 47-story building that was not hit by planes loaded with jet fuel) fell at near free-fall speed into its own footprint on the afternoon of Sept. 11. Look at the composition of the 9-11 commission:

Kean - Professional Politician

Hamilton – Lawyer and professional politician

Ben-Veniste – Lawyer and professional politician

Fred Fielding – Lawyer

Kerrey – degree in pharmacy, war hero, operated fitness centers, politician

Gorton – Lawyer, politician

Gorelick – attorney

John Lehman – Ph. D. in international relations, Naval Officer, Secretary of the Navy

Roemer – PhD in American Government, politician

Thompson – Lawyer, politician

Anyone see any scientists, or better, structural engineers here? Nope - no Richard Feynman here. Not a single one of these guys is likely to have worried at all about the things that the Loose change "nuts" have raised.

It is all well and good to laugh about people not attributing the collapse of the twin towers to planes crashing into them, but WTC-7 provided the closest thing one might imagine to a control experiment (other than having one of the towers themselves in the WTC-7 role). If you had the responsibility of investigating this whole affair, or had the responsibility of funding such an investigation, would you have recommended that NIST wait the investigation of WTC-7 for six years? (and counting...http://www.nist.gov/publicaffairs/releases/wtc062907.html) I would think that if one were interested in extinguishing 9-11 conspiracy theories, this would have been a top priority.

They may not shoot them down, but they have fighters next to planes off flight paths very quickly. Look up what happened to the golfer Payne Stewarts plane they had fighters there quickly and that happened down in Florida. Compare that to DC which is the most protected airspace in the world, and they couldn't get fighter jets up to stop the plane that hit the pentagon even though they knew planes had been hijacked. Use your brain.

Syngas...

Fun? Look, I'm agnostic about it all, but one can be so sceptical of almost anything so that you dismiss anything without actually studying the other arguments that are out there. Both German and Russian officials have correctly pointed out that the airforce should've been intercepting those aircrafts pretty quickly after it was known that they've been hijacked and it was known very early on...well, there was a bit of confusion about whether it was part of the exercises that were held on that day or if the hijackings were real.

Do as I did, read over at www.cooperativeresearch.org Make up your own mind...and try to avoid coming up with stupid crap like "Do most Americans even know that a third office building, far smaller than the Towers, was also lost on that day? Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane." http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-23.html#feature

Now that is some extremely poor pseudo-scepticism.

Some of the dumbest stuff I've read about 9/11 are from those who make fun of conspiracy theorist.

I recommend 911blogger for alternative viewpoints on 911.

"But how do you explain how Building 7 fell? The 47 story building that wasn't hit by any plane, that collapsed."

See, this is the crap that makes you Conspiracy Dip-wad's look retarded. It is well documented by knowledgeable, accredited, and pretty obvious WHY Building 7 fell. The most obvious is, IT WAS RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWERS, DUH! And it was seriously damaged by two large neighboring structures Violently coming down next (and on top) to it, which scooped out the entire lobby section of the building.

Listen guys, it comes down to the fact that I prefer to listen to people who have a clue about structural engineering and can explain in detail all the numerous worse case scenarios that lead to the destruction of these structures. As opposed to some agoraphobic nutwad with a high school education, or some jerk-off collage students who have to constantly change their viewpoint constantly (The Loose Change morons) because of documented fact and structural knowledge destroy their previous stance.

You conspiracy nuts, especially ANYONE who brings up Building 7 (right across the street, dammit), should always be put in the corner with a pointy hat that has "MORON" written on it. You distract people from real things to rant and rave about. like, ohhh.... GETTING OUT OF IRAQ!?!?!!!!

Right, building 7 fell because the lobby was scooped out. Even though there is no damage on the outside. Compare how stupid that argument is when you look at the damage to WTC 4,5,6 and notice that they didn't collapse into there own footprint. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html This is how buildings act structurally, they don't collapse into their own footprint at freefall speed because of fires and structural damage.

Nivek and Syngas (especially you, Nivek), your arguments are based on ad hom attacks against individuals and not reasoned analyses of the attacks themselves. As Norm suggests in the commenting policy, "Criticize ideas. Do not criticize people. This means do not substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the idea." The Official Explanation leaves many questions unanswered. It is not loony tunes to reject that explanation, or to deduce that the 9/11 Commission engaged in a cover-up. Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, it is entirely reasonable for people to formulate alternate theories.

I believe that because Maher's bit was all about criticizing the ideas of conspiracy theorists, it is entirely fair to agree or disagree with him without violating Norm's policy.

Nivek,

...listen to people who have a clue about structural engineering...

Hey, I'd love to! One thing is clear, these guys don't seem to think the issue is as obvious as you seem to think ii is:

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."

The PhDs at NIST who have been actively investigating this for two years (after 4 years of not investigating it) seem to think that the WTC-7 collapse is a bit more complicated than your "air-tight analysis" would indicate.

I see a lot of arguments in which the educational level of proponents and opponents of a given position on one issue or another are bandied about. Obviously, educational achievment is a big factor in establishing someone's credibility. However, one can find supporters of creation "science" with PhDs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/) and people who are still pushing cold fusion (you'll be happy to know that Steven Jones, a Physics professor and 9-11 conspiracy buff, was also a cold-fusionaire). Ultimately it is the quality of the evidence one brings in support of one's position that counts - and your arguments are ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority.

Tim,

What would be the motive for bringing down an evacuated building few people outside of New York even knew existed? If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was. It would be like throwing a match on an inferno - senseless.

thanks syngas. i'll check it out.

Oh

The building lobby facing the Trade Centers was scooped out, and Building 7 also didn't have a standard structural frame, so that damage was a main factor in it's eventual collapse. On top of fueled fires that weakened and compromised the steel, and that firefighters we're busy trying to find people in the rubble than save a totaled building, there really isn't that much room for debate on this. well, to you people there is, but I personally find that the "evidence" you people reflect on is shaky at best (and I'm being very polite at calling it shaky) to know is that most conspiracy people cannot grasp simple logic like steel doesn't need to melt in order to compromise structural integrity when it is holding up hundreds of Tons of weight. But hey, you can believe whatever you want, but dont try to make out that the rest of us are stupid or blind. There is enough tangible stuff on the Bush administration to bitch about, I really dont think we need to make stuff up like them planning 9/11.

I thought that well written and informed popular mechanics article would quiet alot of this stupity, it's just sad that people are still pushing this "chasing your own tail" agenda.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was.

This is an excellent question, but I don't "think 9/11 was an inside job" - all my posts concern the issue of whether the government has done an adequate job of putting this possibility to rest. As a physical scientist, I'm biased - I tend to think that physical evidence trumps everything. If you have done a thorough analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 and you think there is an airtight case for a "non-conspiratorial" explanation, you don't ever need to get into the murkier waters of imputing motive.

If you had hoped that I would offer something to the effect that Silverstein stood to make more money by taking out WTC-7 or that it was important to take out WTC-7 for some other nefarious reason involving CIA offices - sorry to disappoint. I will only go this far: I don't put anything past the thugs running the Bush administration. But that is a rant for another thread.

From that WELL-INFORMED article...

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

Tim,

The Molten Steel theory debunked here

We need to hear a credible explanation as to why Bush's father was meeting with Osama's brother the morning of the attack.

Zak, this statement is misleading. 9/11 myths.com does a good job of clarifying this claim.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was.

WTC7 was where SEC documents pertaining to the WorldCom and other insider trading investigations were being held.

"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

WTC7 also housed the headquarter for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was investigating allegations of sexual discrimination against Morgan Stanley at the time of the attacks.

I read over the site, syngas... i'm convinced.... they do a good job of refuting many of the conspiracy theory's points. That much as enough for me.

do you know of any sites that refute the other stuff? the Bin Ladens flown out of the country, or that Bush Sr. was meeting with Bin Ladens that morning?

Just checked out the other 911myths site joann, thanks.... very helpful.

My last comment on the 9-11 matter (Like Norm, I'm also weary of this stuff):

I have some sympathy for Firi's opening salvo

I don't know why everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists so much. Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science. The United States needs more critical analysis, not less. Even if 9/11 conspiracy theorists are 100 percent incorrect, I don't think that they should be scoffed at, called names, and demoralized. Their efforts should be recognized and applauded at least.

If a thorough job of answerng the questions raised by conspiracy theorists has been performed and the conspiracy theorists persist in their claims or constantly shift their complaints, then I understand the irratation with them. My complaint was that the most disturbingly plausible aspect of their theories, the WTC-7 collapse, was not thoroughly investigated as fast as possible - that is all. I don't have to subscribe to any or all of the rest of their positions to feel that way about it. I have tremendous respect for the scientists at NIST - I know several scientists working there personally - they should have been given the resources to finish this investigation quickly. Sundar's explanation of why WTC-7 was put on hold, that they had to finish their work on the towers first, doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that NIST managers would actually agree with me on that. My suspicion is that an administration that thinks that throwing away $500 billion on a useless war is OK couldn't be bothered to fund this investigation at a level necessary to finish it years ago.

"Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science."

No, it's the exact opposite of science. Science adjusts its theories upon examining the evidence. These conspiracy theories ignore mountains of evidence, including documentaries by PBS (hardly Bush supporters) and article by Popular Mechanics, which explain in great detail how the towers fell.

I'm sorry, but I've talked to these folks. And I've asked them, well, if you don't believe those were planes crashing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, where do you think all those people who were on those missing flights went? They will actually tell you that government kidnapped those people and has them hidden away somewhere. I'd love to see them tell the families of those people who died on those planes that it didn't really happen.

I'm sorry, but when people go to those extremes to explain their illogical theories - to try to get them to hold together, when there are so many easy arguments against those theories, then, yes, they absolutely should be compared with UFOologists, Big Foot hunters and tarot readers.

They may be good people, they may really believe what they say they do (I'm sure they do - I watch them speak all the time in Union Square), they may even feel like they're doing something good for their country, but they are unfortunately delusioned.

"WTC7 also housed the headquarter for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was investigating allegations of sexual discrimination against Morgan Stanley at the time of the attacks."

This is one of those arguments that might seem to carry some weight which dissolves under gentle scrutiny. There are probably hundreds of buildings that have similar types of information in them, for one thing. This is kinda like the Christian who thinks the church was spared in a fire, by God, while ignoring that 100 other churches got burned down. Except that in this case, you're trying to attribute special significance to a building which was destroyed, while ignoring the fact that there's sensitive information in every commercial building in Manhattan.

We really need to have mandatory critical thinking classes in our classrooms, so people can learn to see through these sorts of flimsy arguments.

"No, it's the exact opposite of science."

I didn't mean every bit of it. The reasonable parts that still hold were what I was referring to, not the parts such as the government kidnapped the people on the flight(s), which is uncorroborated. I also used the term "basically," because I know it's not definitively science.

Robert S., It's interesting that you bring up Christianity in your argument, because the 9/11 conspiracy debunking arguments are peppered with the same condescending certainty one finds at creationist and intelligent design websites. There's this Great Truth, see -- that God created you, say, or that America would never perpetrate a false-flag terrorist attack -- and anyone who has the audacity to challenge the Great Truth must be silenced with ridicule and name calling. It doesn't matter that the Great Truth was arrived at sans evidence, cuz, well, it's the Great Truth, dammit, and everyone knows it's true. What's the matter? Never heard of the Great Truth before? Idiot. Jerkwad. Moron.

See how it works? It's precisely why so many people still believe Saddam was behind 9/11, or that Oliver North warned us about Osama bin Laden way back in 1986, Or that God created us just as we are 6,000 years ago, and so forth. Once the conclusion is reached, contrary evidence and rational conjecture exist simply to be ridiculed.

Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me.

We really need to have mandatory critical thinking classes in our classrooms, so people can learn to see through these sorts of flimsy arguments

Amen!

Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me.

All of the questions have been addressed. What is it that you don't agree with vis-à-vis the answers given in the links that Syngas I linked to?

"See how it works?"

Yes, I do. I saw no evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, so I don't believe that. I see no evidence that we were created 6,000 years ago, so I don't believe that. And I see no evidence that the Bush administration engineered 9/11, so I don't believe that.

That's how skepticism really works. You don't allow your skepticism to lapse just because people of your own political bent believe something for which they can offer no evidence.

"Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me."

No. You seem to assume I haven't examined any of the "evidence" offered by the conspiracy crowd. I have - and found it entirely unconvincing. And as I said, both PBS and Popular Mechanics have done plenty to debunk their theories. Now, you're rather condescendingly trying to suggest that I haven't examined the so-called evidence. Have you watch the PBS documentary "Why the Towers Fell"? Have you read the Popular Mechanics articles? If not, you've just disqualified yourself from this argument.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole - I'm sure you're a nice bloke. But I'm really tired of conspiracy theorists telling me I haven't considered the evidence, when they've plainly been strenuously avoiding any facts which conflict with what they want to believe.

Cheers.

The issue that seems most important is that this won't go away becouse it is unresolved, and I find it disturbing that the debate ends up with personal attacks and tricky assumptions on both sides. The debate is necessary, yet it keeps getting slammed! Why? Firi's comment (2nd) is on the money! Furthermore, I find it naive to rule out that there is a psychological war happening between us right now. If you arent part of concsious perpetration, why deny public debate? Although it does seem the fearful and gullible might get innocently sucked into it. I actually respect the perpetrators' ability to fool so many people and I eagerly learn their techniques and how it is done. September Clues is a good start I recommend. thanks.

Whoops. Didn't mean to post anonymously at 3:09 above. That was me.

what I mean to say is that I am flabbergasted at how little proper debate has occured... I t seems there should have been 100 times more debate on the issues for something so big. Yet we always find someone like Nivek seemingly speaking with a false hope of their own fear...??

Get us past the part where at a minimum dozens and more likely hundreds would have to be in on it. Further don't forget that correlation is not causation, and the lack of explanation doesn't make your default assumptions true. That really is like the true believers if you can't prove God does not exist he does. If you can't prove me a satisfactory argument for every detail 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy it was. And finally layoff the condescending straw-man arguments you malcontent.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Is 'onegoodmove' the same person as 'Norm'?

JoAnn, From what I can see scanning the above thread, the only questions you addressed were the Bush/BinLaden meeting and the molten steel. Those two things were never very big deals to me, so I never bothered with them. The question that are left unanswered are: 1.) Why did it take NORAD so long to respond? 2.) Why did NORAD & FAA representatives lie during their testimony? 3.) Why hasn't the Justice Dept. responded to the 9/11 Commission's request for an investigation into NORAD's & FAA's misleading testimony? 4.) Why did numerous govt. officials repeatedly contend that "no one predicted terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings" when clearly documented NORAD excercises predicted just that? And why haven't critical follow-up questions been asked on that topic? You provided links, so I will too. First, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=911+press+for+truth&total=303&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Then read this: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project And then tell me that you don't have any unanswered questions.

Also, as for the idea that our gov't would've shot down those airliners if they hadn't wanted them to crash into the towers. That's some very creative nonsense.

As most folks know, pre-9/11 it was policy not to engage hijacked planes, precisely because they usually only wanted money and would simply land the plane somewhere without harming the passengers, as long as they thought they would get what they wanted. It was unexpected when the hijackers turned those passengers into human ammunition - despite warnings about Osama Bin Laden being determined to attack. Hijacking situations were simply never treated that way.

Do conspiracy theorist folks really have that short a memory? Or is this another example of attempting to shape the facts to fit the theory? Or, really, an attempt to ignore the facts that don't fit the theory.

mani, i was under the same impression as you that there hasnt been enough debate. i think the trouble is the information is out there but not enough of us (like me until today) read it. The conspiracy stuff is imprinted on our minds because it's dramatic but apparently on further inspection, most of what they're spouting is not true.

But I agree with another poster earlier that conspiracy theorists shouldnt be reprimanded for what they're doing They should be applauded for presenting alternate theories. And if those theories are plausible, let them be investigated and tossed out if they're wrong.

There are many examples of conspiracies in the past, that turned out to be true. So it's not like some of what they claim isn't possible. It is. There is at least an element within the US government and US business (and every gov't and business community for that matter) that is corrupt and that is doing nefarious stuff. But it doesnt mean every dramatic event is the result of a conspiracy.

There is one conspiracy that I do agree with and that is plausible and that has been shown possible, though not beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that is the stolen 2000 election (and probably 2004 as well). I think the trouble with many is they ridicule conspiracy theorists because they cant fathom that "their guy" could do something like that. Well, their guy can. And our guy can too. Politics is rarely based on what's morally good or bad. It's based on what's in the interest of those in or seeking power.

the lack of explanation doesn't make your default assumptions true.

True, but we are not dealing simply with a lack of explanation, we are dealing with an intentionally inadequate explanation.

you malcontent

:-p

As most folks know, pre-9/11 it was policy not to engage hijacked planes, precisely because they usually only wanted money and would simply land the plane somewhere without harming the passengers, as long as they thought they would get what they wanted.

Again with the condescension.

As anyone with an internet connection can determine,

These planes within NORAD’s system routinely scrambled after other aircraft. Often the goal was drug interdiction. General Ralph Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, said that before 9/11, “Normally, our units [flew] 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission.” [Federal News Service, 10/25/01] In 2000, there were 425 “unknowns”—pilots who didn’t file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters were scrambled in response to 129 of those cases, when problems were not immediately resolved. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01]

From the Complete 911 Timeline:

Before 9/11, the web sites of many of these bases used terms like “combat ready,”“five minute alert,”“highest state of readiness,” and so on, indicating they should have been able to quickly respond as well. For instance, the web site for Andrews Air Force Base next to Washington boasted that it hosted two “combat ready” squadrons, “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” The District of Columbia Air National Guard was stationed at Andrews, and its web site claimed its mission was “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Both web sites changed on September 12, 2001, and the phrases suggesting such quick response capability were removed. [DC Military website, DCANG Home Page (before and after the change)] Bases at Westfield, Massachusetts; Syracuse, New York; and Hartford, Connecticut, also promised high readiness status, and these bases would have been in good positions to defend the skies on 9/11.

It's true that they are usually instructed not to shoot down the planes in the even of a highjacking, but that is usually long after the fighters have been scrambled. On 9/11, however, the planes weren't scrambled for over two hours. One must wonder, "por que?" no?