Democracy Now! Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanic

it's worse than that....

I'm an Astro, Rocket, Texan fan

(mainly Rockets)

 

i haven't gone thru everything you posted but i clicked on these 2 links first and it gives me no urge to look at anything else. lol you think that is anywhere near solid evidence that could prove anything you are talking about. the firefighters said "it was LIKE a bomb" they didn't say it was a bomb.

the other video the guy said evacuate the area because of a bomb in the building. that could have been in any context possible. there might have been a bomb threat that was later discovered to be untrue. jesus man if you want to make outrageous claims at least post decent stuff backing up your claims.

do you know how much work would have to be put in to rig these buildings to blow up? further that work would have had to have gone COMPLETELY UNNOTICED! show me videos of people saying they saw people rigging the WTC and other buildings to blow up.

i have an open mind to any theory out there but these 2 links are the weakest stuff i have ever seen. you are asking us 2 treat these clips as the gospel. at least post something compelling because these are worthless.

 

Start here and research for yourself if you really want evidence read the book Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.
link

link
link

link

give yourself one weekend of research using google , read as much as possible and read the Ruppert book.

 

ok i will look thru more stuff but he already made one pretty significant error. it's sad i picked this out so quickly. on the first link he says 700C for the temps but it was 700 kelvin which is around 800F and a reasonable temp for jet fuel to burn at.

 

sorry 2nd link on the whatreallyhappened page

 

page 11 point 3 - a "remember the maine" incident could be arranged in several forms. we could blow up a u.s. ship in guantanamo bay and blame cuba.

page 11-12 point 4 - we could develop a communist cuban terror campaign in miami or even in washington d.c. we could sink a boatload of cubans enroute to florida (real or simuluated)

page 13 point 8 - it is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the u.s. to jamaica, guatemala, panama or venezuela. the destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross cuba. the passangers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, but no official record of this exists. The proposal was sent for approval to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, but was not implemented. President Kennedy removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

No where in the info you cited does it mention anything about killing anyone. If you read further about the college students, you will see it talks about switching planes and letting the passengers off. Why did you quit reading at page 13? Why didn't you read points a and b? Particularly point b which says the passengers would be evacuated.

A ship could be blown up without anyone on board.

So the ABC news story mentions nothing about a "prompt firing" (it mentions that he was denied another term as chairman "within months" and transferred to another job) and wikipedia does. Yet wikipedia also says he was named supreme NATO commander, hardly a trivial job.

 

Why worry about silly conspiracy theories when the real conspiracy and dishonor was to use 9/11 to win national elections and start the Iraq War which was based on lies and has soon if not already, killed more Americans than 9/11.

Bush, Cheney and the gang hopped on the 9/11 band wagon on the same day or the day after to do their hoped for invsion of Iraq.

Just because they took advantage of the opportunity of 9/11 does not mean Bush and gang actualy planned it or took part in it.

Another more recent example. The Israelis with the prodding of the Bush gang long planned on invading Lebanon to go after Hezbollah. When Hezbollah captured the Israelis soldiers that are even now being negotiated over, they launched their invasion. This does not mean Israel or the Bush gang actually planned or took part in the initial capture of the Israeli soldiers.

There are more than enough shenanigans without the spectacular yet unlikely conspriracy theories.

 

"we could sink a boatload of cubans enroute to florida (real or simuluated)" - how do you interpret that, b/c to me it sounds like they want to sink a boat of refugees?

true, but when they say "a 'remember the maine' incident could be arranged" i dont think they are refering to blowing up unmanned ships. im sure we all know that the maine was blown up with u.s. personel on board.

either way, looking at the big picture what we have is our own military plotting to carry out terrorist attacks against its own country in order to go to war with another nation.

 

no he didnt - im talking about building 7 collapsing even though it wasnt hit by a plane, norad standing down, the cia and pentagon running drills on 9/11 with planes flying into the pentagon and wtc, fbi agents living with the hijackers, hijackers training at pensacola naval station, bush ignoring dozens of warnings from other countries about terrorists hijacking airplanes and the ignoring of the august PDB to name a few.

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.'' [NY Times]

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]
Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell. [People]

9/11 NBC News broadcast
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."

Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ... "Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.

"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!' [Arctic Beacon]

[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. [Prison Planet]

 

Has controlled demolition of a building even a fraction of the size of WTC ever been done? Controlled demolition of two of the largest buildings in the world would be an undertaking of absolutely massive, massive proportions. Yet somehow explosions were planted all over the building, completely unbeknownst to the inhabitants?
And these explosives were activated after two airliners were crashed into the buildings?

Look, if you're really going to go with conspiracy theories, at least go with something that makes more sense. For example, the administration knew it was going to happen and allowed it to, or the CIA brainwashed 20 guys to do the suicide hijackings.

 

This sums it up well.
The conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 don't engage in logical, critical thought. They leave tons of hanging questions, and hint that it must point to governmental conspiratorial control.
Except they're not hinting- they are insisting. There is zero evidence in the truest sense of the word. When the popular mechanics editors produce evidence, that's not enough because a hanging question trumps evidence in their minds.

Unanswered questions and lack of evidence does not equal guilt.

For example, the LC film says there no chance that an airliner hit the Pentagon (despite the fact that there are dozens of eye witnesses and plane debris in the Pentagon to confirm it) and continues to assert that a cruise missle was used. This defies belief, yet their own assertions never have to go under the same razor-sharp criticism. If they had to prove that a cruise missle was used (with military forensics, for example) they'd be SOL.

Conspiracy theories operate under the assumption that poking holes and hanging questions equals the solid formation of an alternative truth. This utterly defies basic principles of logic and the scientific method. If some theorists would bother to follow these principles they would be (and should be) taken more seriously.

I think the government should stop being so secretive and release the materials that people are asking for. I hope the movement gains enough momentum for that to happen.

Verbal accounts of explosions in the WTC does not equal evidence of controlled demolition.

 

There is a crucial problem with these quotes. They all come from people immediately after the incident and is the only evidence in existance. There were people in Louisiana who heard loud cracks and "explosions" when the dykes broke in New Orleans. However, those weren't bombs, that was the sound of a hole that was created from intense water pressure that broke through.

There's no way within standard logic to disprove a conspiracy theory. I can produce evidence and more evidence, but you're engaging in a Socratic method of thinking. You're asking questions and putting the burden of proof on me to prove you wrong. And furthermore, even small amounts of hearsay from firefighters who are speaking based off of sounds rather than strong scientific evidence, are enough to cast doubt.

Our 5 senses maybe the worst criterion of "fact" that we have. That's why in scientific circles, it is given the least amount of weight in determining the truth or fact about something.

It's fine to hypothesize about what might've happened and questions are a good thing. But conspiracy theories need to follow a standard way of thinking. Rather than forcing us to prove you wrong, you need to prove your hypothesis is right by gathering scientific evidence beyond visual and auditory evidence. For example, Popular Mechanics quotes scientists and experts in the field who did studies on the engineering and physics of the disaster. Those who wish to question the government's portrayal need to engage in the same sort of scientific thinking. Otherwise, these types of criticisms are just words with no real credibility outside of a small fringe group.

 

No way. Kennedy sucks..

Ya betcha!

 

Your description of the Loose Change arguments reminds me a lot of the WMD and ties to Al Qaeda arguments that were made to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

*hank hill voice*

Yep.