Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Retake the poll when there's a mushroom cloud in the sky.

I guess that in the eight years since 9/11 we've become more philosophical about terrorism, or at least more lackadaisical, because most of the folks-in-the-street I saw interviewed on the heels of this latest arrest and terror warning were pretty blase. That's how they appeared, anyway. The prevailing sentiment could be summarized as, "Hey, if they're gonna hit us, they're gonna hit us. What are ya gonna do?"

Still, I suspect that if we actually do get hit againwhich seems inevitable at some pointand if it's less like a hydrogen-peroxide bomb and more like a plain old hydrogen bomb, or even another 9/11, all of the carping about civil liberties and trashing the Constitution and the injustices of the Patriot Act and the rest will go out the window as fast as all those financial documents that flew out of the Trade Center when it crumbled. I don't think you'll hear too many noble-minded types walking around quoting Nat Hentoff or even Bill Maher. I suspect that the sentiment in such a case will be more like: "I don't care whose email you read or whose phone you tap, and I don't even give a damn who you have to beat up or whose nails you to have to pull out to get the information. Just KEEP ME AND MY FAMILY SAFE!"

42 comments:

Tyro said...

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

Tyro said...

Seems that was a paraphrase but it's close enough :)

RevRon's Rants said...

There will be some folks who abandon their values when something bad happens, but we have cooler heads at the helm now, not quite so prone to heeding those people's cries. If we are attacked again, we'll strike back - this time, at the ones who attacked us. But I have a tough time accepting the inevitability of another big attack. Sure, it might happen, but a redirection of US foreign policy may well reduce its likelihood.

David Brennan said...

Asking the government to keep us safe from terrorism is like Nicole Brown asking O.J. to keep her safe from knife-wielding ex-husbands. Or it's like asking Bernie Madoff to keep your money safe from investing scams.

I have to laugh: I grew up with lots of Arabs in my neighborhood and school (mostly Chaldean, but some Muslims) and a few years ago, I got back in touch with a buddy I hadn't seen since high school, Steve. He was an observant Muslim and I thought he might be interested in some fascinating 9/11 videos, so I whipped out my iPod to show him, for instance, Building 7 or, ya know, all the fake terrorism charges against Arabs where they'd been framed by murderers in the government or just the general phoniness of every - and I mean literally every - one of the government's terrorism cases.

Steve goes, "Dude, where have you been for the past 25 years? Everybody knows it's all a scam! Haven't you ever read 1984?"

I'd been shallow and thought that the government was getting away with murder because people were being duped. But Steve, a high school literature teacher, said that in 1984, the government wants everybody to know that they're lying and that their wars are all frauds and that their enemies are all framed. Because once somebody pretends to believe a lie ("2+2=5" in the parlance of 1984), they're locked into that lie for the rest of their lives. Nobody ever wants to say, "Ya know, all those cries I had to kill Arabs....I made a fool of myself. I'm sorry." Instead, they'll just keep lying 'til the day they die.

It was startling, but I instantly sensed that it was right. I recalled how many people had enjoyed watching 9/11 on TV and pretending to want war so badly: their faux somberness, their hidden little smiles. But for the Arabs, who've been being murdered by effeminate Americans for decades now, it's just business as usual. It's evil, but it's true.

This is America: our words are fake (see the thesis of "S.H.A.M.") our passion is fake (see the fact that American men can't make love without using government-approved drugs) and our terrorism is fake. That's just how we roll nowadays. (Completely off-topic: why is it legal for impotent Neo-cons to pay Pfizer to have sex but when I order a call girl I have to sweat bullets that she's actually an undercover cop?)

So, if the government murders Americans again like they did on 9/11, of course lying Americans will cry out for the government to save them. Like the citizens of Oceania, they backed themselves into a corner with their lies a long time ago, and they haven't got the dignity to extricate themselves from it.

So you bet people will be clamoring for the government to murder more Arabs the next time the Arabs are framed. It's the (modern) American way.

Steve Salerno said...

I said I wasn't going to do this--and maybe that's why you're baiting me, DB?--but... Geez. It's an interesting thesis, though, I think, almost entirely debunked and rebutted by, among other things, that NatGeo special a few years ago that examined all of the Truthers' contentions on a point-by-point basis (relying on actual science, not just a certain nihilism that is itself rooted in a rabid distrust of everything the U.S. government does or will ever do). And now I suppose you're going to argue that NatGeo is "in on it"--just another cog in the military-industrial complex--so I suppose there's no way for me to win here. All I ask is for science to rule here in some sense. Does science have all the answers? No. Most conspicuously, science can't even tell us how we got here, or why.

But if we don't err on the side of science over imagination, reason over rhetoric...then on what do we base any discussion at all?

RevRon's Rants said...

I used to go on the alt.conspiracy newsgroup from time to time, just to see a few people ascribe everything to a dark government plot. And while I certainly don't deny that the government does some scary things, I still got a kick out of the guy who would accuse any challenger to his delusions as being just another government mind control agent.

Now, don't even get me started on Ruby Ridge or Waco...

David Brennan said...

Yeah, that National Geographic special sure showed us that hundreds of I-beams (24"+ steel columns) magically implode simultaneously and symmetrically downward. Right.

They also showed, for instance, why the BBC announced that WTC 7 imploded 30 minutes early when it was standing perfectly in the background behind the reporter.

They sure showed me how a 120 pound Arab was able to commandeer a cockpit from a Naval captain trained in counter-terrorism (who had a physique Lebron James would envy) before he could simply tap his distress button.

Right. Right.

Ya know what, dude? You're right. Arabs are evil, the government is great, the vaunted North Vietnamese navy attacked U.S. ships at the Gulf of Tonkin, the Poles invaded Germany and burnt down the Reichstag to start WW2, and 19 Arabs, most of them living at U.S. military bases, all conspired to kill themselves and thousands of strangers for no benefit to themselves whatsoever. The fact that they lost everything and the U.S. military and defense contractors gained everything was just the law of unintended consequences. Who coulda seen that coming?

19 people conspire to murder themselves and strangers for no reason all the time. It happens all the time.

Hey, you should rejoice! While I'm wasting my time typing this, the military's gonna keep murdering Arabs (and great men like Pat Tillman), they're gonna keep taking our money, and they're gonna keep going to war. So you should be happy as a pig in crap. Good for you.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have your preferred scientists.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20950

Anonymous said...

"I don't even give a damn who you have to beat up or whose nails you to have to pull out to get the information. Just KEEP ME AND MY FAMILY SAFE!"

But that's what THEY think about YOU.

America has killed more innocents than the terrorists have.

DUH!

Steve Salerno said...

Anon 6:27: But who's arguing the point? I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong, and I'm not even saying that the terrorists aren't entitled to want to kill us all. I've made that very clear in previous posts on the subject. I'm just putting a very simple proposition before you:

If you and your family are standing in an alley, and standing there opposite you is another family that wants to kill you--who do you want to come out of it alive? Philosophy tends to fall by the wayside in such scenarios.

David Brennan said...

Anon 3:43: Would you pipe down, already? The impotent middle-age social climbers don't want to, ya know, think about and "engineering" and "physics". C'mon, those require, like, spatial reasoning and basic masculine intuition of construction.

These dudes get jobs in government and media for a reason: they're too weak to actually build anything, so naturally they don't want to read the works of an engineer like Kevin Ryan.

They're too happy fantasizing about murdering Arabs and feigning manhood to, ya know, be honest. Or be men.

Now if we can just get wacko conspiracy theorist Obi-Wan Kenobi to shut his pie-hole, too, I think that Limp-baugh and self-dildo-ing O'Reilly and IVF-procreating Bush and tiny-hand Hannity and hilariously-obviously-closeted-gay Glenn Beck can go back to selling their murderous fantasies to little old ladies who vote and buy idiotic books.

RevRon's Rants said...

David - You do raise some questions that have bothered me in the past, and which I have researched extensively to try and get to the "truth." To be honest, I still am unsure as to the story given to describe the events. If nothing else, the demolition of WT 7 should raise eyebrows, since it was obviously a controlled implosion, rather than a collapse resulting from damage. That it occurred within hours of the attacks, when such a demolition effort takes - at the minimum - two weeks to prepare does indicate foreknowledge. Exactly who had that foreknowledge is still unclear. At the very least, we aren't being told the whole story.

That being said, and despite some valid points you raise, it is unlikely that anyone will listen to you if you immediately react to the slightest challenge with such unjustified vitriol. Nobody wants to listen to an angry preacher and be sprayed with spittle (except perhaps on Sundays!). If you want to make a point with people, you really need to understand that the onus is on you to guide them logically from their current mindset to another. By going all rabid right off the bat, you destroy any chance of getting them to look at things differently.

You're obviously quite young, but that only partially excuses your use of browbeating and name-calling when you don't get your way. Remember: the greatest leaders throughout our history have been those who shunned making a big splash themselves, but who inspired others to take up their cause. Those who attempted to manipulate with tantrums became quickly ineffective. If you see yourself as leading some quest for truth, you might want to give some thought to the most effective means, rather than the most immediately gratifying.

Steve Salerno said...

Re Tower 7: This won't satisfy anyone--and I'm not saying it ought to--but there's some interesting, scientifically anchored stuff here.

http://tinyurl.com/m99kf

RevRon's Rants said...

Steve, The site you linked to does contain some interesting information, but frankly, the author's bias is no less evident than those of the die-hard conspiracy theorists. And as much as he tries to explain it away, the video of the building's collapse clearly indicated that it was the result of the compromise of interior columns untouched by debris from adjacent buildings. The structure simply wouldn't have fallen in upon itself as it did, and if you watch the video, you'll see that the collapse began with the crumbling of the central portion, rather than the area adjacent to previously collapsed buildings. The explanations offered simply don't jive with the actual events.

That said, and as much as I distrusted the past administration, I have a tough time believing they would engage in such a heinous act, or that they could have even pulled off such a sophisticated conspiracy of deception.

Steve Salerno said...

Ron: I'm as skeptical as the next guy--either way. And if 9/11 were all about the collapse of Building 7, I'd have at least as many doubts as any next guy. Probably more.

My problem, however, is that to buy into a conspiracy theory with regard to Building 7 is, unavoidably, to buy into a conspiracy theory regarding the whole of it: all the planes, the Islamic hijackers, etc. And, like you--even leaving aside the incomprehensible sociopathy of such an act--I just don't see how that could've been coordinated and implemented without a snafu, or without some whistleblower coming forward (did they kill everyone who knew?) or some evidence leaking out beyond what we're able to infer merely from looking at video.

RevRon's Rants said...

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, Steve. While I don't buy into the whole conspiracy theory, there are sufficient implausible explanations for some of the events - which are clearly shown to be implausible - that I cannot help but wonder at the truth of the whole. I simply don't know... but I do know that I'm left with an uneasy feeling.

David Brennan said...

RevRon:"By going all rabid right off the bat, you destroy any chance of getting them to look at things differently."

Ron, I agree with this statement (and, ironically, it's a point I make to people all the time, which makes me a hypocrite! For instance, I made that 'Star Wars' video I linked to above - pardon the self-promotion, but I worked hard on it and I think it communicates critical ideas - and you can see in the video's comments section that I similarly try to put people in check.)

In my defense, I'll say this: people's wanton lying about....murder....is just so totally unfathomable to me that, when I see individuals doing it, my heart starts racing and my mind starts whirling and, the next thing you know, I'm ranting like the obnoxious crank everybody avoids. But, at the same time, like, this is murder. Murder. That's the ultimate crime in civilization. How can people joyfully relish in lies about it?

I suppose I was taught a different value system than others, and I've never made peace with the difference between my morality ("Murder=Bad") and Americans' morality ("Murder=Cool"). (Nor do I want to, if making peace would mean tolerating murder.)

But I thank you for your thoughtful sentiment, and I also want to acknowledge your balls. Obviously, most American, um, "men", haven't got the brains or dignity to simply state facts about 9/11, let alone research. So it's kind of a backhanded compliment ("You're not a coward!"), but I'll give it to you anyway.

Regarding Building 7, even if the petty amount of external damage could have destroyed a building, it obviously wouldn't collapse instantly, linearly, and inwardly as it did. Such a hypothetical collapse (which has never happened in building history, nor will it ever happen) would occur over a long period of time and it would be tipping over: parts would be standing, parts would be falling.

For that matter, why do people accept that the Bldgs 1 and 2 were pulverized (for retard American men, that means it was turned into powder) when the Pentagon - which was also hit by an airplane - was not pulverized?

Who had the means? Who had the motive? Who had the opportunity?

For anybody who's interested in this (and Bldg. 7 is just the tip of the iceberg), I refer you to the free documentaries Loose Change: Final Cut and Fabled Enemies. Furthermore, the slew of scientific and technical articles at www.911review.com are great (although sometimes a bit technical). Lastly, the site www.AE911Truth.org has about 900 degreed and licensed architects and engineers (including NASA physicists, structural engineers, computer programmers, etc.) who all sign a petition saying, in essence, that the government's story is a total fraud. (But why should we believe them when 'Skeptic' magazine - which sides with the mainstream media on every single issue - says that only Arab peasants could have done this?)

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNqUW5wwTE

wv=hated

Is that relevant? I don't know, seemed eerie.

Steve Salerno said...

But I thank you for your thoughtful sentiment, and I also want to acknowledge your balls. Obviously, most American, um, "men", haven't got the brains or dignity to simply state facts about 9/11, let alone research.

Just for the record, David, this kind of remark--"if you don't agree with me, you're a moron [or worse]"--is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to extremism. This poll...

http://tinyurl.com/prx43

...says that 36% of Americans hold some degree of belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. That means that roughly 64% don't. That's an awful lot of people whose courage, brainpower and "dignity" you are impugning. And why? Because they don't agree with you?

I have fought many battles on SHAMblog with the intent of trying to uphold certain standards of civil discourse and to eschew ad hominem attacks. I'm too old and weary now to go through that whole exercise again. You are free to cite as many facts and arguments as you care to, in defending your position. But make another remark like that about the folks on the other side, and you needn't bother coming back. I realize that your life will go on as before. So will ours.

RevRon's Rants said...

David, the problem with your comments is not rooted in a clash of moral values, but in a difference of perceptions. You offer some evidence which supports the conclusions you have reached, but deny others the right to reach their own conclusions, which may differ dramatically from your own. What you describe as standing up for moral behavior is, in actuality, an exercise in intellectual tyranny.

Provided with sufficient proof to establish that a heinous crime has been committed by persons in positions of public trust, the American people have shown themselves to be stalwart in their demand for justice. Individuals, however, require different levels of proof to convince them. While you might feel certain that you have offered evidence sufficient to establish a universal acceptance, you clearly have not done so. Condemning and belittling those for whom your "proof" falls short of being universal will not serve to further convince anyone; as a matter of fact, by doing so, you effectively diminish the credibility of even the pertinent - and generally believable - issues you do present.

Bottom line is that your anger and condemnation are, at best, misplaced. If your conclusions are not accepted as being fact - or at least viable theory - you have simply failed to effectively present them in a manner that is sufficiently clear and dispassionate to overcome the conclusions others have reached.

Suggest you take some debate courses. It might not be as immediately gratifying to lead someone to consider your point of view as it is to scream, Gotcha!," but in the long run, you'll have made more converts and fewer enemies. And isn't that the more important goal? Just a thought...

roger o'keefe said...

In my experience when people are that passionate about conspiracy theories it is because they're bringing a lot of prejudices and preconceived ideas to the table. I can certainly understand people having doubts about what happened on 9/11. But right now that's all they are is doubts. Most of the formal evidence is not on the side of the Truthers, it is on the side of the official explanation. So if you are totally married to your conspiracy theory, David, it is probably because you're the type of person who instinctively distrusts any official government explanations of anything. It is clear from your other comments that you're strongly biased against America and the capitalist system to begin with.

I'm reminded of the woman on the OJ Simpson jury who said she wouldn't even believe it if she saw a video of OJ committing the murders because it could've been rigged by the prosecution. That's how I see this discussion.

David Brennan said...

Roger O'Keefe wrote:

"So if you are totally married to your conspiracy theory, David"

"you're strongly biased against America and the capitalist system to begin with."

Three questions for ya, chief:

1) What theory did I propose? (I'll save you the time: none.)

2) "The capitalist system"? Huh? What are you talking about?

3) Can you, like, spare the psychoanalysis for Oprah Winfrey and instead talk about, ya know, data?

-----

RevRon wrote:

"What you describe as standing up for moral behavior is, in actuality, an exercise in intellectual tyranny."

First off, let's cut the "tyranny" hyperbole because (a) I have zero authority over anybody else whatsoever, and (b) I'm talking about statements of material fact, not of opinion. Building 7 was so obviously a controlled demolition (its symmetry and speed, the BBC's announcing it beforehand, the experts who, in a blind test, say so, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) This is obvious to anybody with any grasp of intuitive physics.

....And yet nobody here will even stipulate that. (Instead we've got inane comments about, like, communism or something?)

Imagine if we're police detectives and we see a body with three bullets in the forehead. So you and I go, "Alright, here's a homicide, so let's start investigating the crime and nail the bastard." But then dozens of other people go, "No, no, no: that's not a homicide. No, those bullets probably fell from the sky. Or it could be suicide. Quit being wacko conspiracy theorists, Ron and Dave."

If parties are preventing us from accepting base facts, than those parties are obstructing justice.

(But maybe the reason behind Americans' refusal to admit facts isn't the result of corruption, but just trusty modern American stupidity. After all: I spent the past year-and-a-half on an engineering endeavor and, lemme tell ya'....the foreigners are a hell of a lot smarter than we are when it comes to information that's useful.)

-----

Steve S. wrote:

"This poll...

http://tinyurl.com/prx43

...says that 36% of Americans hold some degree of belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. That means that roughly 64% don't. That's an awful lot of people whose courage, brainpower and "dignity" you are impugning. And why? Because they don't agree with you?"


Honest to God....I don't quite get the point here. But if you're saying that I should respect large masses of people who say something that is facially wrong (such as, "There's no such thing as plate tectonic shifting." or, "The cell is just simple, gelatinous protoplasm."....then, no, I'm not gonna respect 'em. Either they're ignorant or else they're lying. Whichever one it is, I don't have any use for them. (Although their lives are always sacred to me!)

-----

A few questions:

1) Can we all agree that the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" never occurred: that the government made it up and used it as an excuse to kill over 1 million Vietnamese (plus 58,000 Americans).

2) Can we all agree that the government has successfully and completely covered up the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty?

3) Can we all agree that Christians did not burn down Rome in 64 A.D. and that the government either (a) framed them for it outright, or (b) falsely attributed it to them?

We can? Great! Now we've got precedence: governments conspire, lie, and murder.

Now....can we move forward with a fact-based approach to 9/11 and the government's claims of "terrorism"?

Steve Salerno said...

David: Argument-by-anecdote doesn't cut it for me. The fact that the government has lied about individual acts in the past--yes, including Pat Tillman--does not mean that the government lies every time. That is a serious defect in logical analysis. And it is quite a leap of faith to go from the likes of Pat Tillman to the notion that the government orchestrated and coordinated the mass murder of 3000 citizens and then covered the whole thing up--so that we could then purposely invade the wrong country.

RevRon's Rants said...

"First off, let's cut the "tyranny" hyperbole because (a) I have zero authority over anybody else whatsoever..."


I didn't say you were *successful* at imposing intellectual tyranny; you merely made an attempt, albeit an unsuccessful one.

"I'm talking about statements of material fact, not of opinion."

And yet, there are varying interpretations of the "facts" as you present them (even among professional engineers), and you insist that any interpretation other than your own must necessarily be borne of either stupidity or collusion. Such an assumption is both illogical and grandiose. Presenting one's viewpoint from such a stance will inevitably prove to be ineffective.

The real question I see it is, which is more important to you, 1) to convince others of the validity of your viewpoint, or 2) to prove how intellectually and morally superior you are in comparison to other participants?

No answer needed. I think most readers would hazard their own guess, but it's far more important that you ask it of yourself and answer honestly.

David Brennan said...

Steve,

First off, I only mentioned Pat Tillman once, and that was several posts above. I don't know exactly why you're talking about him because there's not a (direct) connection to the subject of 9/11 or false flag terrorism. If you'd like to start a discussion about him, I'd be happy to do so. But that's an (almost) entirely different subject.

-----

In citing past false flag attacks by the government (including a slew by the U.S.), I wasn't "arguing by anecdote". It was simply to establish precedent. These prove merely that it is possible for the government to (a) murder their own people, (b) fool the people, and (c) never suffer any consequences for it.

It's like when a Mrs. Jane Smith, is murdered: countless cases of husbands murdering wives establish precedent that the husband could well be the murderer. Does that mean that, in this case, John Smith did murder Jane? Of course not. But it proves that it's possible and that John should be investigated.

So that's why I listed those false flag attacks.

So, we have ample precedent for governments murdering their own people and blaming it on outsiders, but we nave zero precedent for 19+ strangers murdering themselves and strangers for no profit at all. None. The claim that government's stage false flags is not only non-controversial: it's a fact. Conversely, the claim that 19 people would do this is utterly incredible (and the only reason people believe it, I think, is because we've been taught to be racist against Arabs and think that human nature doesn't apply to them. Steve Jobs, a Syrian, is the only exemption from our frothing racism.)

-----

On another note, you wrote earlier - while conceding that Building 7 was (in all extreme probability) a controlled demolition - that you refused to believe that the government would do it (who, then?) So here you have evidence, and you say, basically "I don't care about that evidence because I don't like the conclusions that it leads to."

Funny. I once read a cartoon called (I think) Scientists vs. Politicians.

The scientist examines some evidence and says, "Here are all the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"

But the politician examines the same evidence and goes, "Here is my conclusion. What facts can I pick to support it?"

I think that, in modern America's perpetually-political landscape, we all think like politicians now, and what you wrote about 9/11 is a perfect example of what that cartoon was satirizing.

It doesn't matter what the conclusion is, that doesn't change the facts. It doesn't matter if the inference to the best cause leads to something evil, politically incorrect, anxiety-inducing, or anything else. The facts are the facts.

And the facts of 9/11 (and, like I wrote before, every other one of the government's "terrorism" cases) lead to the conclusion that it was a false flag.

Tyro said...

David,

These prove merely that it is possible for the government to (a) murder their own people, (b) fool the people, and (c) never suffer any consequences for it.

None of those examples showed the gov't murdering Americans or intentionally staging an incident, least of all on US soil. And don't forget that the evidence that the gov't gathered & presented implicated Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan yet was used as a pretence for an invasion of Iraq. You would have us believe that they pulled off a nearly perfect con and a cover-up yet were so incompetent that they got the faked nationalities wrong? You're gonna need a lot more that a couple of winks and nudges to get anyone at all aware of sceptical inquiry to buy that.

Instead, your own examples show that the gov't can seize an event and spin it to justify their goals which appears to be exactly what happened.

but we nave zero precedent for 19+ strangers murdering themselves and strangers for no profit at all

Actually, there are hundreds of suicide bombers. I'd say they were an excellent precedent.

The scientist examines some evidence and says, "Here are all the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"

But the politician examines the same evidence and goes, "Here is my conclusion. What facts can I pick to support it?"


Which do you imagine you are, a scientist or a politician?

David Brennan said...

RevRon wrote:

"I didn't say you were *successful* at imposing intellectual tyranny; you merely made an attempt, albeit an unsuccessful one."

So....you're saying that I actually thought that I had the authority to silence people? What?

This is getting completely ridiculous.

"The real question I see it is, which is more important to you, 1) to convince others of the validity of your viewpoint, or 2) to prove how intellectually and morally superior you are in comparison to other participants?"

Easy: I want murderers to be tried, convicted, and removed from civilization. That is all that I want. If God came down and told me that I could trade in my own life for justice, I would do so.

"And yet, there are varying interpretations of the "facts" as you present them (even among professional engineers),"

Ummm, no there's not. Yeah, I mean, engineers on the government payroll and working for NIST make the (hilariously idiotic) claim that Building 7 came down from....well, I can't remember what their last story was. They keep changing it and eventually it's just like, "Enjoy your million-dollar contracts, dudes. We know how much your soul sells for ($15 million)."

But the hundreds of architects and engineers at www.AE911Truth.org say that 90+% of the engineers they show the evidence to agree with them (most, of course, had never even heard of Building 7). And I know that I showed it to my friend Ian, who's a mining engineer, and (while he was frightened and confused) he didn't pause for a second in saying it was a controlled demolition.

(Anyway, why am I even arguing what the supposed "consensus" is? Who cares about consensus when you have facts at your disposal? Like I wrote before, prior to 1950, any scientist who argued for plate tectonic theory was considered a kook. Scientists who argued for airborne-theories of disease transmission were similarly mocked. As the late, great Michael Crichton, wrote, appeals to "consensus" groupthink has been an incredibly destructive force to science late in the 20th century.)

RevRon's Rants said...

"So....you're saying that I actually thought that I had the authority to silence people?"

Nope. Read it again. Perhaps the text was too small to be accurately read from your position atop that soap box. I said that your approach was an ineffective *attempt* at intellectual tyranny. I do not presume to know exactly what you think; only what you communicate. You're not building a very convincing case for your ability to logically assess information.

"This is getting completely ridiculous."

Sorry, David. That train obviously left the station several comments back.

David Brennan said...

Tyro wrote:
"None of those examples showed the gov't murdering Americans or intentionally staging an incident, least of all on US soil."

Western governments murdering their own people.

Government (U.S. and Israeli) murdering their own people.

Government staging incidents.

More.

Fun.

Tyro wrote:
"Actually, there are hundreds of suicide bombers. I'd say they were an excellent precedent."

Yes, Tyro, I know that there have been murder-suicides for as long as man has walked the Earth. But there has never been a group of 19 or more people conspiring to kill themselves and thousands of strangers for no reason whatsoever.

And I guess that it was just fluke luck that the government got infinitely richer while the Arabs were slaughtered en masse just stems from the fact that, although your Arab conspirators (with the magical passports!) had superhuman abilities to conquer the U.S. DoD and telekinetically cause buildings to self-implode, alas, they couldn't see that this would invariably lead to the deaths of millions of Arabs.

Steve Salerno said...

DB et al: I was going to leave it to all of you folks to sort out, but I can't let this observation pass:

But there has never been a group of 19 or more people conspiring to kill themselves and thousands of strangers for no reason whatsoever...

And that's...evidence? There was never a 9/11 before, so I guess 9/11 didn't really happen either, huh? And "for no reason whatsoever"? So we're just blithely dismissing OBL/UBL as...what? An artifact? He's part of the government plot? So the government has been cultivating this entirely phony terror network under several presidential administrations just to set up 9/11? Is that seriously what you're proposing? Wouldn't there have been easier ways of achieving the same thing?

Tyro said...

I'm with Steve and would prefer to stay out but I too find the arguments captivating.

If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that there have been suicide attacks for thousands of years but because the scale of this attack is exceptional, you argue it cannot have happened.

Yet if the gov't did co-ordinate the attack, it would be much further from anything which has happened before but you argue this time it must have happened.


You freely cite "900 engineers" and other attempts to use expert opinion yet when the majority consensus disagrees with you, suddenly it becomes a coverup.

You cite the Gulf of Tonkin which got the US into the Vietnam War and let's not forget the faked testimony of Iraqi soldiers tearing infants from incubators. These stories were all that was necessary to launch long and costly wars. Yet even after listing these, you still feel that government and military officials would kill thousands of civilians in a fake terrorist attack when a faked news story is all that's necessary.


It's a fascinating look into double-standards and self-delusion.

David Brennan said...

Steve Salerno wrote:
"And that's...evidence? There was never a 9/11 before, so I guess 9/11 didn't really happen either, huh?"

It's precedence, not evidence. We've never seen private individuals do this, we have seen governments do it. Therefore, the government is the primary suspect. A legit criminal investigation would've started there, and the evidence would've invariable lead to indictments and convictions. (Justice, oh how glorious justice would be!)

(By the way, here's more precedent of the U.S. government murdering people and blaming it on Muslims.)

"So the government has been cultivating this entirely phony terror network under several presidential administrations just to set up 9/11?"

Pretty much, yeah. The government has been using al-qaeda (or "Al-C.I.A.-da" as Alex Jones aptly calls them) for decades.

So, we have two competing propositions:

1) 19 Arabs overcome the infinitely rich and sophisticated U.S. DoD, cause buildings to magically collapse, physically defeat dozens of airline passengers despite their own feeble physiques, and set up a scenario where millions of their own people will be slaughtered and their homelands will be occupied by foreigners.

Or....

2) The U.S. government (and, let's be clear, other nations, because we can't forget the infamous dancing Israelis) did what they had done many times before: framed foreigners for an attack on their country. This explains all the improbabilities - the aircraft stand-down, the collapse of the buildings, the response, the fact that a criminal investigation was preempted, etc., etc.

If that's too much, let's just simplify this: Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Building 7 was the largest CIA office outside of Langley. Therefore, there is no way that the Arabs could have possibly set up the demolition. Therefore, it had to have been somebody else with the access to the explosives and incendiaries necessary to bring the building down. Only the U.S. government had access to the building and access to the explosives.

To me, it's a no-brainer. And the evidence is absolutely and completely overwhelming.

But what can I do? It's totally out of my hands (and, I'm sure, everybody's hands here). I can't punish the murderous animals....but I sure as hell ain't gonna lie for them.

Steve Salerno said...

DB: I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm just curious about your thoughts so I'm honestly asking: Are we also behind all of the suicide bombings and terror strikes that take place elsewhere in the world? Is that part of the cover-up, to lend plausibility to the likes of the 9/11 plot? Or do you concede that those are unrelated events?

David Brennan said...

Tyro wrote:
"It's a fascinating look into double-standards and self-delusion."

898 architects and engineers. (They'll be at 1,000 within two months, easy.)

NASA engineer (one of countless hard scientists on the AE911Truth petition.

Tacit blind test with controlled demolition expert.

No interest in communicating with somebody who calls me "delusional". If you're interested beyond this, do your own research. Leave me alone.

Steve wrote:
"DB: I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm just curious about your thoughts so I'm honestly asking: Are we also behind all of the suicide bombings and terror strikes that take place elsewhere in the world?"

Tons of false flags throughout history. I'm not a historian, criminal investigator, or even all that much of an enthusiast. Can't speak to that.

If you're interested in it, I suggest you do your own research. Sent you links to Michael Meiring (CIA agent murdered Filipinos and framed Muslims for it. His murderous rampage for the CIA was only ended when a bomb he was to plant in a hotel blew off his own legs, accidentally.)

But you're the reporter. I suggest you research. Knock yourself out.

I've presented ample evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Gotten nothing but insults and effeminate psychological attacks. It's a dead-end.

I've spent the past two-plus years realizing how pathetically servile and utterly incompetent American "men" are and it's cost me thousands of dollars and my greatest efforts have been wasted. I like foreigners. They're honest, hard-working, and competent. They're the future. Americans like murder and lies and are spiritually barren and lazy.

I do my best to never lie. And I definitely never lie for the government or about human life, a sacred Creation. I'm sorry to continue to learn that I'm alone in this.

Steve Salerno said...

DB: With all due respect, when you present evidence that's this thin under the guise of being "authoritative"--and especially when you state outright that people on the other side are stupid, obsequious and lacking in "balls"--you are inviting comebacks that involve words like delusional. In fact, that seems mild compared to some of what I thought you might get in response.

And what is it with this "effeminate" thing, anyway? Most of your thread so far is devoted to complaining about how "murderous" we are. Assuming you're right about us, isn't that male enough for you?

RevRon's Rants said...

"No interest in communicating with somebody who calls me "delusional". If you're interested beyond this, do your own research. Leave me alone."

No interest, yet - ironically - you're still here, and one would assume you arrived of your own volition.

"I've presented ample evidence that 9/11 was an inside job."

I would remind you that your criteria for what qualifies as "ample" is not universally accepted. Science itself is not an exact "science." Data can be exact, while the interpretation of that data can and frequently does vary dramatically from scientist to scientist. When the failure by intelligent individuals to accept your interpretation is met with derision and juvenile name-calling, your credibility credibility goes out the window. Sadly, the concept continues to elude you.

"Gotten nothing but insults and effeminate psychological attacks. It's a dead-end."

Pot, meet kettle. The greater irony is that you have only now realized the futility of your argument (Time will tell whether you will actually apply this insight to your actions), and that you continue to ascribe the failure to everyone but yourself. A more objective individual would ask themselves why their arguments weren't sufficiently compelling to sway others to their viewpoint, rather than whine about their audience's shortcomings. Then again, a more secure individual would not be quite so threatened by disagreement. It is, indeed, a dead end; you're just mistaken as to whom is responsible for making it so.

Steve Salerno said...

Let me reiterate that despite the tone of some of the comments back and forth--including my own--I do not really want contributors to pack up their marbles and go away. I never envisioned SHAMblog as a forum for any particular monolithic point of view. I have even permitted many challenges to my own stance on self-help, which was of course the founding precept of this very blog.

My preference is that we have a real dialogue, rather than merely two sides shouting at one another, each side implying that the other is nuts.

Tyro said...

David,

I acknowledge that the 9/11 Truthers have a list of engineers that have signed the petition. I have no idea who amongst them have looked at the evidence, what they've concluded not what their qualifications are. But for this discussion, I'll let that pass.

It brings to mind a couple other cases in the past. Just recently there have been debates about introducing evolution into classrooms and the Discovery Institute released a list of several hundred scientists supporting Intelligent Design. In response, the NCSE compiled a list of 1,000 biologists named "Steve" in support of evolution, nicely demonstrating the disparities between the two groups. The second was the clash between Einstein and the "classical" physics world, where people who disliked his conclusions published a list called "100 Scientists Against Einstein". He replied "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

I can't help but see the overlap. 1,000 engineers and architects on a petition is paltry and if the evidence was available that would be enough.

Yet instead of discussing any of the points I raised, you just repeat the same fallacious talking points. If this is a popularity competition then you've already lost as 9/11 Truthers are a fringe minority position amongst engineers and get smaller as the exposure to evidence and training increases.

If a lack of an equivalent precedent undermines the argument that this was done by terrorists, the lack of an equivalent precedent should undermine your own argument that the government was responsible. You're free to reach different conclusions but while your methodology admits only evidence which strengthens your case and ignores all else, you appear only dogmatic and blinded.

David Brennan said...

RevRon:

Sorry that you don't like the way I communicate. I try to be as honest as I can and, despite some obvious terseness and glibness, I also give people the benefit of all doubts until they lie or they're wantonly lazy.

Tyro:

Didn't I ask you to leave me alone?

Steve:

You don't have to qualify or apologize for anything you've done here, I don't think. At least insofar as managing the discourse goes. (I honestly don't intend to be inflammatory, but I end up having troubles at almost every forum or blog discourse I join, and they're usually a lot quicker to censor and go on power-tripping spells than you appear to be.)

I've spent at least two hours typing all these posts and yet we've apparently gotten absolutely nowhere. In fact, I think I've actually turned RevRon into a neocon or something. Now I've got some moron trying to tell me about the glory of the scientific masses.

No creative discussions about how to identify and penalize the murderers. No expressions of shock upon seeing Building 7. No people reassessing the morality of governments and the media. Just....typical American inanity.

Regardless of whether my conversational style or Americans' utter servility is at fault here, it's clear that this is pointless. I'll leave well enough alone on this subject. (Although, the next time there's a post talking about how The Government Must Save Us from More Superpowered Arabs....I'll probably get outraged again and begin the pointlessness anew.)

Steve Salerno said...

OK folks. I let that last one pass--I always try to give a bit more leeway to those voicing the minority viewpoint--but I don't see anything to be gained by continuing this thread. Maybe we can ease into it again on some other topic. All we're basically doing now is arguing about arguing. Worse, this is causing dispiriting flashbacks to an ethos that emerged on the blog, oh, a year or two ago, for those of you who were around at the time.

Anonymous said...

Are mercenaries in charge of law enforcement in Montana now?

Anonymous said...

Turns out... they're not.
Sorry.