Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 06/15/2005 View Tue 06/14/2005 View Mon 06/13/2005 View Sun 06/12/2005 View Sat 06/11/2005 View Fri 06/10/2005 View Thu 06/09/2005
1
2005-06-15 Home Front: WoT
WTC conspiracy nuts not restricted to Europe anymore.
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-15 07:29|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6480 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 He's a moron. The fire that resulted from all that jet fuel being dumped into the towers was hot enough to soften the floor deck which then pulled away from side wall. After that the upper stories pancacked onto the lower floors crushing them down. I've seen several engineering documentaries on the collapse and they all agree on that point. Biggest argument among engineers seems to be if the fire retardent applied to the WTC strucural members was not enough or if it had been blown off during the impact.
Posted by Steve ">Steve  2005-06-15 08:35||   2005-06-15 08:35|| Front Page Top

#2 Under what rock do they find stupid assholes like this?
Controlled demolition? You'd think they'd finish getting firemen and cops out before they dropped the buildings. Idiot.
This retard is most likely a bitter douchebag with some axe to grind.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-06-15 08:43||   2005-06-15 08:43|| Front Page Top

#3 Poor Osama, I bet he's rolling over in his grave that his big moment of fame has been stolen from him. Oh and binny boy, rather than being a big bad jihadist, you are just a GW stoolie.

The most distressing part of the article is that he was this little note: now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University
Posted by 2b 2005-06-15 08:49||   2005-06-15 08:49|| Front Page Top

#4 BigJim, are you complaining that this is from the UPI feed, or that you found it at the Washington Times? I used to think highly of UPI, they seemed to have some good analysis, but after 9/11 they went into serious BDS mode. A reputable journalist organization would never have written this story straight-faced, but rather for Queerities & Oddities section.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-06-15 08:59||   2005-06-15 08:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Did a little searching and he's a 9-11 nut. Consider this: Bush and the Republican party invoke 9/11 for personal profit, playing the fear card daily, but the downside for these fools is that it fans the thirst for real information about what happened on 9/11. True, the war party has the silent cooperation of a self-censored mainstream media, but that won’t be near enough to carry the day in the information age. Excellent investigations are headed our way and will stir the pot to boiling. To name two, David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor, soon will publish a new book, The 9/11 Commission’s Omissions and Distortions: A Critique of the Zelikow Report, and journalist/activist Michael C. Ruppert will publish his shocking Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.

The 9/11 Commission can’t quell skepticism about what happened three years ago for three major reasons: First, the event was just too big, too important, to accept a slipshod account and then forget about it. Too many big consequences flow from 9/11 daily, not least of which is the bogus "war on terror." Second, the Bush government has boosted suspicion by getting so darned much benefit out of the whole deal. Where would this bunch be without the horrors of that day? Cui bono?, after all, is the linchpin of criminal investigation. Third, the Commission left way too many unanswered questions and avoided too much evidence.


Oh, and "professor emeritus at Texas A&M University" means he's mostly retired and shows up every once and a while.
Posted by Steve ">Steve  2005-06-15 09:14||   2005-06-15 09:14|| Front Page Top

#6  Oh, and "professor emeritus at Texas A&M University" means he's mostly retired and shows up every once and a while.

Hopefully not very often
Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-06-15 09:22||   2005-06-15 09:22|| Front Page Top

#7 So this is what the work product of the "Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis" looks like? Hell, I can come up with better incendiary BS at 6am any given day even before four cups of coffee. Hopefully he wasn't a full nutter ejit when he was in the government. When this chief economist ventures out of his vole hole he begins to look and sound pretty pathetic under the light of day. Somebody should pop a .22 round off his skull (must be really thick so it wouldn't be harmful, let alone lethal, but rather more akin to hitting reset on a machine) to get him back on the tracks. Time for A&M to review the man's short term disability insurance coverage for mental disorders.
Posted by Tkat 2005-06-15 09:23||   2005-06-15 09:23|| Front Page Top

#8 I get this same BS from my sister and her husband all the time - they will not be moved off it.

BTW, UPI and the Washington Times are owned by the same corporate parent.
Posted by VAMark 2005-06-15 09:27||   2005-06-15 09:27|| Front Page Top

#9 I could be wrong but the footage I've seen suggests that a building destroyed by planned demolitions has it's knees cut out from beneath it and the top of the building comes crashing down on it (mostly intact until it hits the bottom). The twin towers pancacked floor by floor on their way down.

In other words someone planted the demolitions on or around the exact floors the planes hit. The planning required would be staggering even with evil Haliburton remote controlled jets.

A Zimmerman Telegraph scenerio implicating past and future attacks to Iraq combined with some statements from operative Bin Laden himself would have ensured enough lee-way to take out the Taliban and Iraq without mass murder and economic havoc.

The wacky left live in a dark world if they believe this crap.
Posted by RJSchwarz 2005-06-15 09:41||   2005-06-15 09:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Steve - correct, except the fire protection sprayed onto the steel is intended to withstand the heat from normal combustibles in buildings, not the tearing impact and all that jet fuel, which overwhelmed any sprinkler systems. The fact he's an economist, as is Paul Krugman, says it all
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-15 09:53||   2005-06-15 09:53|| Front Page Top

#11 The building did it's job, quite well, actually, holding up forover an hour. Fire ratings are usually two-hour or three-hour, designed to give the occupants time to get out and the firemen time to get in. But all that jet fuel was never considered in the design.

And reynolds is not a "moron" - he doesn;t have enough to be a "more-on" - he's barely a less-on©!
Posted by Bobby 2005-06-15 12:23||   2005-06-15 12:23|| Front Page Top

#12 This ridiculous "theory" keeps surfacing. I had a long-running email battle with a nutter from sydney who refused to budge from this same position.

In some warped brains it is more plausible that the US govmint plus Jooos planted explosives all over the WTC and the pentagon and set them off.

They have all sorts of phoney "science" (misquoted or wrong 'facts', twisted half-truths and out of context assertion and plain old lies) to back up their theory.

Of course it ignores the bleeding freakin' obvious: it happened live in real time, we all saw it, OBL confessed etc.

Yah and the world is still flat ......

But guaranteed it will keep popping up as the human mind likes to look for the harder, hidden 'truth' when the facts are just too simple. It's the X-files effect.

He needs to meet Occam's Razor.
Posted by anon1 2005-06-15 12:57||   2005-06-15 12:57|| Front Page Top

#13 Lots of Aggies are military officers. Might be one reason for this:

The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”
Posted by rkb 2005-06-15 12:59||   2005-06-15 12:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Forgot to mention: it is WIDELY believed in the Arab world.

They think JoooOooos did it to incite a US war against muslims.

Arabs are paranoid islamist supremecists
Posted by anon1 2005-06-15 12:59||   2005-06-15 12:59|| Front Page Top

#15 I knew it - The Jews did it, operating out of Roswell and aided by BigFoot and Elvis. Oh and I bet the Romulens (part of that vast right wing Republican/ omulan conspiricy) were in on it too!
Posted by FeralCat 2005-06-15 13:05||   2005-06-15 13:05|| Front Page Top

#16 Their are 2000 members of the Corps of Cadets on campus, many of whom will commission into the military. I don't imagine Reynolds is their favorite prof. Time for the university to give Reynolds a very low key retirement.
Posted by ed 2005-06-15 13:24||   2005-06-15 13:24|| Front Page Top

#17 To hear the Radio Free Conspiracy people over the last couple days, you'd think this guy was both completely objective and a civil engineer or other authority.

He's an economist?

I suspect there's a lot of money to be made (courtesy of the same people who really funded 9/11) for pedalling this load of ___p.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-15 14:03|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-06-15 14:03|| Front Page Top

#18 The fact he's an economist, as is Paul Krugman, says it all

Okay AH, I have lotsa naked bridge pictures.
Posted by Shipman 2005-06-15 18:00||   2005-06-15 18:00|| Front Page Top

#19 Damn you Elvis! Damn you to HELL!!!
Posted by Scott R">Scott R  2005-06-15 18:11|| http://five24.net]">[http://five24.net]  2005-06-15 18:11|| Front Page Top

#20 hee hee - bring it on!
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-15 19:12||   2005-06-15 19:12|| Front Page Top

#21  Their are 2000 members of the Corps of Cadets on campus, many of whom will commission into the military.

It's the alums the Aggie administration might want to be careful with .... they start withholding $$ for the football team and things could get ugly quick.
Posted by too true 2005-06-15 19:59||   2005-06-15 19:59|| Front Page Top

#22 ____ like this is probably going to be the end of tenure on may college campuses.

Or at least I hope so.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-15 20:08|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-06-15 20:08|| Front Page Top

#23 "Assuming the consequent" plays a major role in conspiracism, asking "if this is true what else must be true?"
It figures on both sides. For conspiracists, it is really the origin of many of the really whacked out theories. The credulous media slave asks itself, "Well, if the gummint can fake a Moon landing and blow up the WTC, why can't the world be secretly controlled by lizards from the fourth dimension?" Acceptance of one major alternate reality makes others credible since the case for a new belief, a new conspiracy, is as good as that for others that are already believed.

It also works for the skeptic, however. "If the government can blow up the WTC and essentially get away with it, then what else would have to be true?"
In this case, the Democratic Party itself would have to be under Bush control. The leading Dems have the same evidence Dr. Reynolds does (and indeed that we all do) and the same qualifications (none) yet, with the exception of a couple of two-bit hangers-on, none of them have reached the same conclusions. The same may be said for the law enforcement community, all of it, academia and the major media. The control has to be positive and compelling, too, since an "atmosphere of intimidation" would not silence everyone. If the Bushites have that kind of control, why did we hear about Abu Ghraib or any number of other stories that the Bush administration would prefer had not happened?

There is only one answer, True Believers. We Rantburgers and LGF lizardoids really are alien reptiles from the fourth dimension. Ever consider that, Moonbats? Why not?
Sleep tight.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 20:14||   2005-06-15 20:14|| Front Page Top

#24 I agree, Phil. Whether it's judges for life or untouchable academics, the privilege has been thoroughly and dangerously abused. That such an honor, and that's what it should be, should be abolished because of the acts of these Moonbats, cretins,and fuckwits is a true shame, but there's no doubt that they've made such a move an eventuality.
Posted by .com 2005-06-15 20:16||   2005-06-15 20:16|| Front Page Top

#25 Lol, AC - that rocks!

*slither*
Posted by .com 2005-06-15 20:18||   2005-06-15 20:18|| Front Page Top

#26 pfffttttthhhhhh~
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-15 20:40||   2005-06-15 20:40|| Front Page Top

#27 Does this guy also help the Aggie pep squad build its bon fires before the Big Game?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-15 20:42||   2005-06-15 20:42|| Front Page Top

#28 Many thanks, .com.
I even have photographic evidence, in the form of this warning sign posted near the Denver Airport:



Incidentally, the "assumption of the consequent" is the basis for a classification system of conspiracy theories. A first order theory, like the Moon Hoax, is one that any sufficiently credulous person, with or without existing conspiracist beliefs, might be persuaded to believe.
A second order theory, such as secret alien invasion, requires an existing belief in one or more first order theories.
A third order theory requires a belief in a whole complex of first and second order theories. An example would be the notion that alien abductions are actually the result of a deal between the aliens and the US Government. This allows the aliens to kidnap people for food, and in return the government receives alien goodies, such as advanced technology and immortality.
Such luminaries as Louis Farrakhan have claimed to believe in this, Farrakhan adding the detail that the victims are kept in "holding pens" under the Denver Airport until they are whisked off to alien steakhouses and the like.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 20:55||   2005-06-15 20:55|| Front Page Top

#29 I am not encouraged by the level of debate here, but I'm not really surprised either. This shouldn't be a left-right thing. I do not think it horrible for some people to question some aspects of the about what happened on 9/11 any more than I think it's horrible for Jayna Davis to question some aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing, or Laurie Mylrioe to question some aspects of the first WTC attack, or Peter Lance to question TWA 800. In fact, I strongly suspect they're all threads in the same tapestry.

The US gov't's response to any terrorist attack, if possible, is to deny it. It was an accident. Eight simultaneous explosions at an oil refinery? Oh, it was an accident. Railroad car full of hazmat catches fire? Accident. Security guard at the same BASF plant shot point blank a year later? Local cops say a bearded perp did it. FBI says it was self-inflicted.

Plane blows up in a fireball over Long Island sound? Center wing tank explosion. Plane's tail falls off into Jamaica Bay? Top Gun jet wash. The Russians squirmed for a couple of days trying to come up with a really good reason why two of their aircraft crashed within an hour of each other. But in the end, they had to admit it.

Bomb blows up Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma? Two angry white guys. Nothing more. OK, the Fortiers, too. Terry Nichols visited Cebu city at the exact same time Ramzi Yousef was there? Nothing. Oh, and we just found some explosives in Nichols old basement - so maybe the bomb was more sophisticated than we allowed at first - despite our extensive forensic investigation, which consisted of bulldozing the site and paving it over. Our source for the cache location - just some crank felon named Gregory Scarpa Jr. Did you know he tried to tell us that Ramzi Yousef gave the order for the TWA 800 explosion, while he was on trial for the Bojinka plot? Sure, Scarpa was in the adjoining cell, but how much of his BS are you gonna believe?

Heaven forbid that anyone suggest that Al Qaeda is as incompetent as it appears. Heaven forbid that anyone suggest that AQ is incapable of mounting the sophisticated disinformation and technical operations that were required to pull off 9/11. Heaven forbid that anyone suggest that Osama bin Laden couldn't take a piss without a professional intelligence agency to hold his dick for him -- agencies like the IRGC or Unit 999 or the ISI or all three together. Heaven forbid that we get a narrative that the Towers were mined - for that would suggest extreme sophistication. Much more sophistication than the dunderheads living in mud huts and caves in Waziristan could offer up.

Once we start getting into questions of state sponsorship, things start to look really sticky. Where did that anthrax come from? Who sent it and why? How much more of it is there? Avigdor Haselkorn wrote the only competent assessment of the 1991 Gulf War. He saw the reason the conflict ended, and he saw the future. "The Crisis of Deterrence" he called it.

Why can't Bush be honest about 9/11 -- it is not because of ooiiiilll or haliburton or the Jeeeewwws. Bush can't be honest about 9/11 for the same reason he can't sit in front of a camera in the oval office and say: "Look, you anti-war chumps..." and read, verbatim, Stephen Hayes' The Connection or Jayna Davis' The Third Terrorist.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 21:09||   2005-06-15 21:09|| Front Page Top

#30 ROFLMAO!!!

Under the Denver Airport? Um, WTF did Denver do to become so popular? Air rage due to oxygen deprivation / thinner atmosphere? Lol!

The explanation of the classification of conspiracy believers is spot-on. And instructive. Perhaps, in future posts, we can use short-hand and refer to the depth of moonbattedness in the 1-3 range. Farrakhan - yes, now there's a luminary in the field of lucidity and critical thinking. Sigh.
Posted by .com 2005-06-15 21:09||   2005-06-15 21:09|| Front Page Top

#31 So, Rory, is that the forward of your upcoming book? Are you asserting or offering a view of possibilities?

There's no way to respond, as it is. Looks like a mass of wiggling worms. You invite cherry-picking.

Determining whether or not there's substance to an assertion is one hell of a lot more time-consuming and difficult than throwing spaghetti at the frdge door to see what sticks making an assertion.
Posted by .com 2005-06-15 21:33||   2005-06-15 21:33|| Front Page Top

#32 Rory, when your meds wear off do you post under the name Joseph Mendiola perchance?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-15 22:01||   2005-06-15 22:01|| Front Page Top

#33 Dot Com. Sorry, point taken. I tried to cram an awful lot into a small space in a short amount of time. After breathing into a brown paper bag for a few minutes ;) I'll try to get my point across.

Governments aren't always entirely honest. This is particularly the case in wartime. Governments often have good reason to keep secrets.

Shortly after 9/11 Cheney (I think it was on Meet The Press) described al Qaeda as a "chat room" for terrorists. This struck me as an odd description. But thinking on it now, I can see what he meant, though I probably would have used the words "out sourcing company" or something like that.

I beleive that the major terrorist attacks of our time have been, in fact, state sponsored. I don't think al Qaeda has the capability to do the things it has been blamed for/takes credit for. This is a convenient fiction for all sides.

The state sponsor send sly signals about the real authorship.

Bin Laden and his merrie men get to look the the international badasses they so desperately want to be.

The US, and our allies, get freedom of action (or inaction) in dealing with the state sponsors.

In the commission of these state-sponsored terrorist acts, though, the states leave some fingerprints, both deliberate (those sly signals) or inadvertant. Sometimes we may infer the state sponsorship.

Some people see these elements of sophistication shining through, and automatically assume that, since the government is keeping secrets about the attack, then the government is responsible for the attack.

When the Murrah Federal Building was bombed in 1995, the Clinton administration was not honest about many things. One of those many things recently came to light when the FBI suddenly found those explosives in Nichols' former residence. (If they forget to search a place for evidence, they don't have to find the evidence, don't have to enter it into evidence, don't have to reveal it to the defence during discovery, etc. etc.)

Some people on the right automatically assumed that the Clinton administration were the real perps. Well, no, they had reasons for what they did. Maybe not all *good* reasons, but they had reasons.

Same with 9/11. Bush & Co. have reasons for sitting on lots of information. Including - MAYBE - that the buildings had explosives pre-positioned inside. But the people most likely to be skeptical, most likely to trumpet their skepticism, are on the other side of the political spectrum. They've detected the foul stench of deceit, but they don't see the reasons behind it. They view everything through their ideological lenses.

Of course, the knee-jerk response of any right winger will be "Of course Bush hasn't lied about 9/11. How grotesque!" Just as any left-winger will say the same about Clinton's handling of several terrorist incidents.

Mining the WTC towers (and I think that even the most hard-boiled anti-skeptic must admit that WTC building number 7 represents a real mystery) would indicate serious state support. Not from within - from hostiles abroad. And it might help explain the stories floating around NYC shortly after the attacks, e.g. the cab drivers that wouldn't go below Canal Street on that morning, the Muslim kid in elementary school that said "those towers won't be there tomorrow." If there was a ground team to supplement the air team, there would be locals who knew about it.

The first reaction of a government is to deny a terrorist incident. This destroys the main purpose behind the act. And I believe that Bush administration was on this path - hence Bush staying planted in that classroom - until the second plane hit. Then the position became untenable. But in his remarks soon afterword, he still referred to it as a "tradgedy" not an attack. Hadn't had time to update the speech.

So, now you're stuck with an undeniable terrorist act. You still want to supress knowledge of state sponsorship. Keep the options open, always. In 1914-1917 there were numerous, mysterious explosions in the US at munitions factories. The most notorious was the Black Tom plant in New Jersey. The obvious culprit was Germany, as US production was going solely to Britain and France. But the US govermnent repeatedly denied that Germans were involved - in public. In private Wilson was getting angrier and angrier.

During to cold war, the Soviets sponsored myriad terrorist groups - Japan's Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof, Italy's Red Bridgades, 11 November, etc. But the polite fiction persisted that these groups were independent of Moscow's control. The US & NATO didn't make as big a deal as they might have out of it. Keep the options open.

Keeping options open was especially important in the Cold War scenario. Becase Weapons of Mass Destruction were involved, ultimately. WMDs are intimately involved in 9/11 and its aftermath, too. Anthrax. The sophisticated anthrax was, in the words of one anonymous official, prima fascie evidence of state support.

I have considerably more thoughts on the matter, especially the details on Ihsan Barbouti, Ramzi Yousef, KSM, Susan Lindauer, Dr. David Kelly et al but that's enough for one day! Yes, I will admit to being a bit more consipracy-minded than most. (I do believe, for example that Silas Deane was poisoned.) Atomic Conspiracy's tale about Lois F. and the Three degrees of conspiracy serve as a warning.

But I do think that my argument has validity.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 22:17||   2005-06-15 22:17|| Front Page Top

#34 hee heee Rory! I feel SO much better as an "intelligent" human being knowing you aren't.
Good luck on that North Korean PR campaign...
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-15 22:22||   2005-06-15 22:22|| Front Page Top

#35 No, Mrs. Davis, I don't post under the name of Joseph Mendiola.

I will admit that I've read Rantburg for a long time, from back in the dark ages when only Fred posted articles. I used to post comments (and only a few articles) under my real name, but I've since decided cowardly anonymity is better. If Fred wanted to check the IP numbers he could find it out.

And I was in fact recently hospitalized for depression, and I've been on medication for a couple months now. I really needed it. But I had these ideas before the medication started! :)
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 22:24||   2005-06-15 22:24|| Front Page Top

#36 Well, sorry you feel that way Frank. I'm not claiming to be absolutely correct here. But I think there is room for some new thinking on the matter.

While these WTC conspiracy nuts may be absolutely wrong in their CONCLUSIONS, some of their OBSERVATIONS may be valid. I think Iraq was the prime mover behind 9/11 with an assist from the Iranians. AQ mostly provided cheap muscle.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 22:28||   2005-06-15 22:28|| Front Page Top

#37 Lordy, lordy - that's a LOT to digest in one sitting - you should've started this at 12:01 AM, lol!

I hate to do it, but I have to cherry-pick the WTC event. There is no way I'll buy that the WTC towers had "pre-positioned explosives" to take them down. Just doesn't fit what I saw and know of structures. I saw it in real-time, though I was on the other side of the planet. CNN (via Orbis Satellite Network in Saudi Arabia) was the view I had. Though not the best, at least they kept cameras on the towers from about 6 minutes after the first bldg was struck. Perfect view of the second plane hitting.

The number of things that make me doubt the notion of the explosives are beyond recitation in the time available to me (about 10 minutes, in fact), but even intuitively - no way. The second bldg struck fell first - because of the angled entry and taking out a corner support on a lower floor - greater weight / stress / loss of structural integrity on the point of impact.

It just does not wash intuitively. You would have to present some amazing evidence to make the case.

Bush knew in advance as he sat there with the kiddies?

Now I believe you need adult supervision. No fucking way. If you'd like to start this over, say on tomorrow's Opinion page, then you could have some fun with us - and get a ton of replies - especially from our engineers. I'm just a lowly software guy, though I've used Ansys, PostTen, etc. in support of construction clients.

That would be my suggestion to get a fair hearing for your ideas.
Posted by .com 2005-06-15 22:34||   2005-06-15 22:34|| Front Page Top

#38 Rory, you should change your name to "long-winded." You have generalized our criticism of this particular claim into a broad opposition to the questioning of authority. This, of course, is a strawman.
You have also conflated this claim with various others, suggesting for no good reason that rejection of one would necessarily entail rejection of others.
You pretend that our opposition to this is based on an authoritarian acceptance of the government's word, another strawman and a trademark of the conspiracy industry and its victim/dupes.

In fact, you, as a representative of the conspiracist mindset, are the authority that is being challenged. Your post is one authoritarian pronouncement after another, one unsupported claim heaped upon another, one strawman after another. We have not denounced Reynolds for questioning; that is, examining; the
government's claims, but for reaching conclusions that are provably dishonest and destructive.

"Questioning" is not under attack, the conclusion is. Do you understand the distinction? It is closed-minded to refuse to consider a claim, it is not closed minded to reject it once that is done, nor is it closed-minded to infer likely motives once a pattern of willful dishonesty is established.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 22:48||   2005-06-15 22:48|| Front Page Top

#39 Rory -
I can rip your reality in less than 100 words (with citations) - but there's no upside in "refuting smoke and mirrors" for free. Why don't you try a factual refute with cites, and I'll respond? That way, you actually have to work to back your shit up?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-15 22:52||   2005-06-15 22:52|| Front Page Top

#40 Assumption of the consequent:

What else has to be true if the Bush administration and most of the Democrat opposition are concealing the placement of explosives in the twin towers?

It means, for example, that state and local investigators, and the owners of the building, are under absolutely rigid federal control and that the federal bureacracy is uniformly loyal and utterly reliable in enforcing this evil purpose.

It means that the government has some incentive for this cover-up, a very powerful one. If they did it, the incentive is obvious. If foreign intel agencies did it, things are a lot murkier.
Why is Bush covering for them?
If Saddam was involved, as Rory suggests, why would this not have been brought up during the lead-up to Iraqi Freedom? For that matter, why wasn't the Murrah building brought up if there was evidence of Iraqi involvement? Since the latter revelation would automatically imply heinous complicity by the Clinton Administration, the Bush gang would have double incentive to reveal it.

It would mean that everything we know about controlled demolition and the procedures necessary to implement it is either false, or the owners and managers of the building were complicit. Some of the latter died on 9-11.

I really don't have a lot of time for this, but, as CS Lewis famously observed, this is on a par with a man claiming to be poached egg.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 23:04||   2005-06-15 23:04|| Front Page Top

#41 ...a poached egg.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 23:11||   2005-06-15 23:11|| Front Page Top

#42 Rory, a word of warning.

Anyone wielding Occam's razor will tear your tissue of tales to shreds.

I've been inside. And I've been around a lot of this stuff pre-9/11 and post.

You're simply dead wrong about damn near everythign you post. Provide valid citations. Especially the "Osama cant take a piss woithout some western agency holding his dick". That in itself proves you are a moron. Have you studied the money the BinLaden family and the wahabbists and salafists place at his disposal? You see the tunnels in the Stans? You ever study the tribal relationsships that provide not only strong linkages, but damn near opaque comminications and secrecy?

I could go on and on. But if you are smart you'll discard the convulted twists and pretzle logic you contort yourself with, in order to support implausible and impossible conspiracy theories.

The "convienent fiction" here is all the completely unsupported (upon critical examination) crap you are flinging about. You use a lot of unsupported assertions, wild assumptions and propaganda techniques instead of fact gathering, logic and reason.

Bottom line: This country can't even keep a presidential blow job secret during relatively calm times with not nearly the rancor in the political arena as today. What makes you beleive that a conspiracy this large, this deep and this widespread could be concealed in the least with so much political ahy to be made and so many outlets for it? Hmm?
Posted by OldSpook 2005-06-15 23:13||   2005-06-15 23:13|| Front Page Top

#43 Gentlemen,

As dot com pointed out I should have started this at 12:01 am, so I could get more responses/feedback/you'reanidiot and maybe I will post something in the opinion section at midnight thirty tomorrow. It would also let me take some time to insert some links, as Frank G. helpfully suggests. I normally try to include links to back up my assertions, but I haven't tonight because I'm pressed for time.

Atomic Conspiracy - I'm sorry, but I don't feel that I can flesh out some of my arguments and be brief. And this is, after all, Fred's nickel, not mine. And if he wants to nix this thing, then I'd understand.

>>You have generalized our criticism of this particular claim into a broad opposition to the questioning of authority. This, of course, is a strawman.<<

This is true enough, and I apologize. I'll just say that it's not my intention. I'm not a particularly skilled writer, and I was trying to write some of my ideas in a very compressed amount of time.

>>You have also conflated this claim with various others, suggesting for no good reason that rejection of one would necessarily entail rejection of others.<<

I see it all as fitting into the same pattern. I might be mistaken in particular cases or in the whole thing.

>>"Questioning" is not under attack, the conclusion is. Do you understand the distinction?<<

Yes. I do understand, and you are absolutely correct here. I was being overly defensive of WTC theories in general. I was trying to convince people that some of these observations might have some merit in them - if not the conclusions. I will try to be more careful.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 23:16||   2005-06-15 23:16|| Front Page Top

#44 Paranoid conspiracy theorists incite the global jihad and rationalize its Moonbat fifth column.

The conspireacy industry is a criminal enterprise and should be treated accordingly.

What do swine like the Moon Hoaxer Bart Sibrel really do other than enrich themselves? They justify fear and loathing of the United States and its collective intentions. Someone who believes in the Moon Hoax, as many Eurabians do, could easily believe that the US government secretly controls all media and that American perceptions are therefore worthless. They could easily believe that the US intends to bulldoze the Grand Mosque and convert it into a Wal-Mart. They could easily believe that Americans are simpletons and barbarians, and that the real purpose of 9-11 was to simplify the acquisition of a pipeline route.
These people are monsters, parasites on the First Amendment, and they should be eradicated like the vermin they are.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 23:23||   2005-06-15 23:23|| Front Page Top

#45 Thank you, Rory. I have to take back some of my harsher comments then. I am used to dealing with completely implacable and dishonest opponents and it sometimes leads me to get ahead of myself when that is not the case.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-15 23:25||   2005-06-15 23:25|| Front Page Top

#46 >>Anyone wielding Occam's razor will tear your tissue of tales to shreds.<<

Sometimes the simplest explanation is: there is a connection.

>>Especially the "Osama cant take a piss woithout some western agency holding his dick". That in itself proves you are a moron. Have you studied the money the BinLaden family and the wahabbists and salafists place at his disposal? You see the tunnels in the Stans? You ever study the tribal relationsships that provide not only strong linkages, but damn near opaque comminications and secrecy?<<

I was exagerrating about the taking a leak thing. Yes, I have studied, though I'm sure less than you, about the golden chain, etc. But at every step of the way, Al Qaeda has been significantly aided by state intelligence arms. Starting with Hezbollah IRGC trainers in the Sudan. I believe Dan Darling put Al Qaeda's budget at about 120 million per year.

My idea is that fighting in the 055 Brigade in Afghanistan, or fighting in Chechnya, or fighting in Kashmir, or Dafur, doesn't really prepare one for comitting acts of terrorism in American cities. The truly worrisome terrorist attacks have the hand of a state behind them, especially Iraq (or its remnants) or Iran.

I'm addressing some points at random here, just to get it in under the midnight rollover:

The buildings - if an engineer could set me straight on the tower collapses I can be persuaded. But wouldn't it at least make sense to have something else in there? They tried a truck bomb in 1993. Didn't the government post a BOLO for ambulances full of explosives the very night of 9/11? Suppose you fly an airplane into the building for some structural damage, but basically a diversion. The nasty stuff is disguised as a rescue vehicle that you drive right in.

>>Bush knew in advance as he sat there with the kiddies?<<

I think there was an extensive disinformation campaign run against the US govermnent in the weeks leading up to 9/11. The Iraqis allowed an Israeli intelligence asset to learn some details of the plot but not others. They might have done the same thing before OKC with the whole Elohim City crew. The Bush administration tried to stop it through finesse rather than force, and they got beat. They knew they were beat for sure as soon as the second plane hit.

>>If Saddam was involved, as Rory suggests, why would this not have been brought up during the lead-up to Iraqi Freedom?<<

The anthrax is the key. The stuff that got mailed to Daschle and Leahy wasn't junk by any standard. A 10 kilograms could wipe out a city, for sure.

Saddam and his cronies were convinced they survived the Iran-Iraq war only through their use and perfection of chemical agents. They were conviced (And Avigdor Haselkorn concurrs) that they survived the 1991 conflict only through their brinksmanship with SCUDs. And shortly after 9/11 they unveiled their newest strategic deterrent. As they found out, though, WMDs don't offer much flexibility. Once you use them, MAD sets in. The Soviets lost the cold war, but there are still lines that we won't cross with the Russians due to their deterrent. So it is with Saddam. I doubt he'll ever be executed.

>>What makes you beleive that a conspiracy this large, this deep and this widespread could be concealed in the least with so much political ahy to be made and so many outlets for it?<<

Journalists can understand basic stuff like the blowjuob you cited. But how many really skilled military/geopolitical analysts are there on the staff of the New York Times? WaPo? Time? Newsweek?

Managing the press can be done, if you just leak out the right bits to the right folks. Plus, things like this, if properly done, have an onion-like quality to them. Peel off one layer, and you find another story underneath, and then another. You're never quite sure if you've penetrated the final veil.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-06-15 23:43||   2005-06-15 23:43|| Front Page Top

#47 Gee, I work most of the day, and I come back at 11:00 and find out this thread has been going on ad infinitum...

OldSpook: I'm not sure, but based on what I've speed-skimmed thus far I'm not sure Rory is a moonbat, but may just be using some of the same sources.

Rory: The discussion started out limited to the collapse of the towers themselves, and the possibilities that this was because of "demo charges" already set. Given the amount of time and labor involved in demolishing other structures of similar size (the Kingdome, et alia) I find this to be doubtful. ALso, the jihadis themselves tried that once before, and failed miserably, despite having a large truckload of explosives. Finally, I am convinced that the fire from the planes' impact was sufficient to cause the collapse of the towers, and I've heard a lot of bull**** attempting to make the contrary case.

Additionally, I do read and listen to a lot of the conspiratorially minded material, and know that they're leaving out a lot of material of interest. For instance, you brought up anthrax. You might be suprised to find that I agree with you that the anthrax (for more info why, see John Ringo's comments on the subject here) attacks are an important mystery that remain unexplained, that they may have been state-sponsored, and may have explained some subsequent events, such as the invasion of Iraq). If you can, I suggest getting a streamlink membership with Coast to Coast AM and checking out the interview they did with Peter Lance. Somewhere along the way they got a caller in who, like you, was curious about the anthrax attack and how it fit in with everything else.

They dropped him and changed the subject like someone had wheeled radioactive waste into the studio.

"Oh, never mind, that was domestic, we're pretty sure, NEXT CALLER!"

(Oh, I almost forgot: this was the show where the interview in question happened. He's been on there a couple other times.)

It was an amazing example of how much some of these people are editing away the evidence they don't agree with. I suggest you listen to it, it'll only cost you six dollars or so, and it will give you insight into how they operate when they get the chance.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-16 00:03|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-06-16 00:03|| Front Page Top

02:31 War on Islam
00:03 Phil Fraering
23:43 Rory B. Bellows
23:42 3dc
23:38 OldSpook
23:36 muck4doo
23:31 OldSpook
23:25 Atomic Conspiracy
23:25 markb
23:23 Atomic Conspiracy
23:21 OldSpook
23:16 Rory B. Bellows
23:14 muck4doo
23:13 OldSpook
23:11 Atomic Conspiracy
23:11 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:05 tipper
23:04 Atomic Conspiracy
23:03 Aussie
23:01 Bomb-a-rama
22:53 Jackal
22:53 Jackal
22:53 3dc
22:52 Frank G
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com