9/11 Conspiracies

[[Syl]]

It doesn't have to be 'just an invasion.' That could have just been on the top of their to do list.

[Avatar]

You're not helping my cynicism Syl.

--A

[[Syl]]

Oh, but I am. Just depends on how you look at it.

[Avatar]

--A

[wayfriend]

An interesting side note. Some guy is teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories in a course on Islam at a university. It seems to be causing a stir.

Now, my take on this is that (a) the guy believes the conspiracy, and (b) he believes that a fair and balanced teaching of the events of 9/11 should include mention of the conspiracy. Of course, it ain't exactly reported in such a fair light...

Here's why I would never watch Hannity and Colmes: link. (Interesting point, that Al Queda being behind the attacks is actually a pretty far-out conspiracy theory in its own right.)

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," July 12, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN BARRETT, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN: I do know — I don't believe — I know that 9/11 was an inside job. Professor Steven Jones has found residue on the steel samples from the World Trade Center. We now know that it was taken down in a controlled demolition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: That was a clip from our exclusive interview Monday night with University of Wisconsin Islamic studies professor Kevin Barrett. Now the university, in fact, says they will allow him to teach his class on Islam, in spite of his controversial theories about 9/11.

But Professor Barrett isn't alone in his beliefs. One of his supporters joins us now. Dr. Bob Bowman is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, currently a Florida Democratic congressional candidate.

All right. So you believe this is an inside job. You believe this was a controlled demolition as he does? Do you believe that, you know, Madrid and Bali and Zarqawi carried out by military intelligence, you believe these conspiracy theories?

DR. BOB BOWMAN (D), FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: No. As a matter of fact, I believe that the truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11, and we should.

I'm agnostic about these conspiracy theories. I think Professor Barrett has every reason to say his –- expound his theories just as you do yours. I mean, we know it was a conspiracy.

HANNITY: There's a difference. Kids go into a classroom.

BOWMAN: There was a lot of people involved.

HANNITY: And they are a captive audience, Dr. Bowman. There's a big difference between watching a television show and listening to a radio show. And the question here is whether or not he's the right man for a job.

You know what? It wasn't an inside job. We can see the planes. The planes hit the building — it wasn't a controlled demolition — and the buildings came down.

It's just is beyond bizarre that he believes it, but he's entitled to. But he's not entitled — he doesn't have a right to teach our students in the classroom. That's not a right.

BOWMAN: Well, he has every right, because his conspiracy theory is far more believable than yours.

HANNITY: No conspiracy theory. The planes hit the building the buildings came down.

BOWMAN: There is absolutely no evidence against these guys, Usama bin Laden.

HANNITY: The planes — we have video — actually hit the building. When a big plane hits a building...

BOWMAN: I believe planes hit the building.

HANNITY: ... the building is going to come tumbling down. Do you think George Bush did it? Do you think Israel did it? I've heard so many sick, twisted conspiracy theories. What — you know, what are you leaning towards?

BOWMAN: I don't know who did it, and neither do you. And we need the American people to get the truth. We have a right to know who did it. And so do the families of the victims.

HANNITY: Yes. You know what? You can believe whatever you want. I don't really care. And this teacher can believe whatever he wants. I don't really care. I think you're both a little nutty. But putting that aside, this is what I'm sick of.

I'm sick of sending our kids into college classrooms and having incompetent teachers with bizarre political agendas, having a compelled audience that has to be there to get their education, listen to this drivel.

BOWMAN: No, they don't have to be there any more than your listeners have to be listening to your show.

HANNITY: ... when there are far more competent, better educated — better educated people that are more qualified for those positions. Parents are sick of this, that their kids are indoctrinated.

BOWMAN: He is not incompetent, and his theories are no more bizarre than yours.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Hey, Bob, it’s Alan Colmes. I'm kind of agnostic, as well.

And what troubles me, rather than debate whether, you know, whose theory is right. What troubles me is if we took out of the classroom every teacher who had a bizarre theory on something, or any job, there'd be nobody left doing any jobs. We all have bizarre theories on something.

As I understand it, this theory, while propounded in his class, put forth, is not central to what he's teaching in his class. As a matter of fact, 400 pages are provided supporting the official government version and 75 pages supporting the alternative version that we're debating here.

BOWMAN: That's correct. Even though there's far more evidence for the alternative version.

COLMES: And it just troubles me that, if you have one idea that's crazy — we can debate what crazy is — they want to yank people out of the classroom because they may have a particular crazy idea.

BOWMAN: Well, you're absolutely right. I just feel that we need a truly independent investigation to find out the truth. That's all I want to find out. The American people need the truth, and the most unbelievable of all the wild conspiracy theories is the one that our government has told us.

COLMES: You believe the United States government itself is putting forth a conspiracy theory when it talks about 19 people with box cutters in an airplane and Usama bin Laden being the mastermind? That is a conspiracy theory?

BOWMAN: Well, absolutely. There is 20 people involved, right? That makes it a conspiracy. It was a crime. More than one person plans a crime. That's a conspiracy.

COLMES: But if you're right, you would have to have so many people involved somebody would have had to leak it. This would have come out. This couldn't have been carried out the way you're suggesting without it coming out somehow and this being leaked.

BOWMAN: Wait a minute. I haven't suggested how it's been done. Did I suggest any theory?

HANNITY: You know what, Mr. Bowman? I'm glad you're a Democrat. You belong in the party of Howard Dean.

COLMES: This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

HANNITY: Thank you for being with us.

[sgt.null]

so Hannity's entire argument is that the conspiracy guy is a democrat? way to argue facts sean.

[Avatar]

I don't think that any theory is crazier than any other really. It all comes down to what you want to believe. Whatever you believe, that's the truth as far as you're concerned.

But this Bowman guy is right...whichever way you slice it, it's still a conspiracy theory.

--A

[Cail]

www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[Loredoctor]

I don't think that any theory is crazier than any other really. It all comes down to what you want to believe. Whatever you believe, that's the truth as far as you're concerned.

But that does not make it truth. A person may think he can fly (on his own), but the truth of the matter he wont. The truth of what happened on 9/11 is independent of the many and varied theories.

[Cail]

Well put Lore.

[wayfriend]

But it bites both ways.

A person who wants to believe that there was nothing shady will refuse to consider any indication to the contrary. Cail's links are a case in point. The evidence therein is exactly as well founded as the evidence for a conspiracy ... and yet some will consider that stuff solid, but the other lunacy. A priori.

[Cail]

Well yeah, and that's where critical thinking comes into play.

[Lord Mhoram]

Sean Hannity is a dumbass. I've had the displeasure of watching his show.

[Loredoctor]

Well yeah, and that's where critical thinking comes into play.

Here here.

[[Syl]]

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

[Avatar]

Beat me to it Syl.

Not sure if it belongs in the conspiracy section though...

Pentagon Lied Over 9/11

Washington - The 10-member commission that investigated the US response to the September 11 attacks considered seeking a criminal probe of the Pentagon, believing it had deliberately misled the panel and the public, The Washington Post said on Wednesday.

The panel found discrepancies between statements officials of the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made about their response to the hijackings and audiotapes and e-mails later made available.

The panel, in a secret meeting at the close of its investigation in 2004, decided there was probable cause to believe the officials had broken the law by making false statements in the hope of hiding their bungled response, sources knowledgeable of the debate told the newspaper.

The commission, however, decided to refer the matter not to the justice department but to the inspectors general for the defence and transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they see fit.

The inspectors general report is complete and is being drafted, an FAA spokesperson told the daily without divulging any aspect of the report.

Pentagon claimed jets were scrambled

Originally, vague and at times contradictory statements about how the Pentagon tracked one or more of the four hijacked airliners were attributed to the confusion prevalent on the day of the attacks.

The Pentagon for the first two years after the attacks maintained that its response had been quick and that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings.

But after analysing the audiotapes and other material the commission subpoenaed from NORAD and FAA, panel members found that the air force never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights.

'This is not spin. This is not true'

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, told the daily in a recent interview.

"The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years ... This is not spin. This is not true."

--A

[wayfriend]

Ok, here's the thing that's conspiracy-like:

Think about all of the venues that there are for a terrorist attack. Airlines. Trains. Buses. Malls. Chemical plants. Nuclear reactors. Highways. Schools. Churches. Wendies. The list is innumerable.

So on Sept 11 terrorists strike through commercial airlines.

Now, commercial airlines are already somewhat secure pre-9/11. You have your ticket checks and your gate security checks and your air marshalls.

Think about all those venues. But the terrorists choose commercial airlines.

After 9/11, we beef up security at the airports. A commission points out a zillion other areas that needs beefing up. But the Bush administration concentrates on those commercial airlines, and leave everything else pretty much out to lunch.

And even WITHIN commercial airlines, we beef up only passenger security, not luggage, not parcel. Nothing for ground-based rockets.

You might even say that beefing up commercial airline passenger security is just about the easiest thing to do. Makes a big impression on everyone, but isn't really effective. There already is airport security, people are already used to it, you're not changing a whole lot or expending a lot of effort in beefing up commercial airline security - the infrastruture, if you will, is already there. The expectation is already there. So it's the most Bang for the Buck.

So here we are now on 8/11, and the terrorists are striking again.

Via commercial airlines?

What an freakin amazing coincidence.

I mean, think about the venues. Think about the news we've watched for the last five years. We have no port security. We have no bus security, train security, chemical factory security, nuclear reactor security, etc. The media made this common knowledge.

So ... via commercial airlines?

It makes me wonder if the terrorists don't have an agreement with the administration somewhere ... we'll only attack the airlines ... okay, we won't spend money securing all this other stuff.

And we here about a terrorist plot in '95. Via ... ta da ... commercial airlines.

How far back does this go?

What is the alternative to believing in this conspiracy? That the terrorists are stupid? That they have a fetish for commercial airlines?

They don't even vary how they go after commercial airlines. It's always based on getting passed passenger security. No luggage bombs. No parcel bombs. No mole stewards/stewardesses. No ground-based rockets.

What's the explanation? Why the consistency? Why does it correlate so well with the administrations homeland defense strategy?

[Cail]

Here's the thing though....Airlines make sense. Rather than spending a ton of money on explosives or infiltrating a plant.

With an airplane, you've got a guided missile for the price of a boxcutter.

[Lord Mhoram]

Conspiracy somewhat dispelled by Noam Chomsky:

www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44840

[[Syl]]

Could you post the link, LM? Only registered users of that site can view links.