With Sept 11 coming up...
 

Have you watched this documentary? It is a little long, but worth watching. Also please read the rest of the site for more background.

It has some good points... What is your opinion? Would they stoop so low? I wouldn't put it past them.

It's so rife with errors and conjecture that I find it hard to take very seriously. I haven't watched the second edition in its entirety but the parts I saw made claims essentially similar to what I had seen in the first version so I assume it is similarly full of crap.

Many of the claims have been refuted many times over the last five years. There's a fair amount of sarcasm and anger but this addresses the video in tedious details. This Popular Mechanics article attempts to debunk the most common 9/11 myths, most of which appear in the Loose Change video. Here's a blog focused on debunking Loose Change.

Personally, the conspiracy posited by Loose Change is so huge, malignant, and convoluted to strike me as patently unlikely on the face. Combine this with the evidence in counter to specific points (such as the claimed lack of airplane debris at the Pentagon crash site when in fact there is plenty of evidence of debris at the site) and I'm barely intrigued.

Unfortunately, I expect that in another 10 years it will have grown to Kennedy assassination proportions in terms of general acceptance.

Do you remember how oil and pharmaceutical stocks rose after Bush's 'election'? Nothing would surprise me in this world, absolutely nothing. Who'd have thought we would be where we are now, a mere decade ago?

I thnk Cheney is truly evil personified, and I am certain that history will bear that out. He's a bastard, and a terrible shot. ALready things are playing out that supporters are being very quiet about, namely the accusation by the ABA and key Repubs that Bush is usurping the Constitutional process with his 'signatures' to bills, which already outweigh the combined total of his preds. I've been patiently waiting for a conservative commentary on this, and there has been nothing but silence. I try and stay away from any sort of conspiracy theories, but it's really very difficult. I didn't watch the film at this site, but I will. (When I don't have to be a good worker bee and go and make money to pay my taxes to support the wars and ....sigh).


I just wanted to add: I feel sorry for all those that are so afraid that they are willing to sign away their hard won liberties so readily. I'm not.

Thanks Alex. Thats why I posted this. I was shown it the other day. I wanted others views and info/links they may have. . I don't really want to believe that our government (or certain people in it) conspire like this, but unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past a few of them.

I frankly don't believe our government is capable of a conspiracy that large, though I wouldn't put it past it's motives.

On the other hand, the Kennedy assassination is a very manageable, though huge, conspiracy .... I'm quite disappointed that Oliver Stone has gone from one of the greatest American conspiracy films of all time (with JFK) to - what seems to be - a sob story with nada hint of nefariousness in the upcoming World Trade Center.


With a government that won't tell the truth, however, it's hard to totally discount certain conspiracy theories. I certainly believe wholeheartedly in a related conspiracy between the Administration and the EPA to hide the dangers of post-9/11, lower Manhattan contamination from the public. News on that has been steadily trickling out, and I believe a new batch of information was published in the New York Daily News this past week.


So motives yes, if they could get away with it, yes ... but capabilities - pfft, based on the handling of something as important as international War - - I'd have to say No.

I saw the Nova special on PBS where they analyzed why the WTC collapsed the way it did. The failure analysis of their engineers was very well presented.

I still have to change the channel if footage of any of those events comes up. It is still too painful to watch.

I haven't been to/won't see any of the movies about 9/11

I haven't seen the evidence on that either way, I admit ... but in a common sensical, on-its-face way ... I am cynical about those buildings simply collapsing because of the collision damage, heat and fire.


I witnessed the Towers being built on a weekly basis. I've seen their skeletons and such, and I just don't see how damage at the tops could bring the Towers down.

And, not to be creepy or anything, but I can't get enough of it. I thought the recent United 93 movie was excellent, and I'm really looking forward to World Trade Center (and to featuring them both as a home DVD double-feature in the future).

Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker, worked for years two blocks from the Towers, ate lunch there very often, and hung out on the roof frequently during lunch hours.


I think I've mentioned it here before, but because zapppop has a famously phonographic and photographic memory, he cannot shake disturbing imagery - - -and i regret taking him to see United 93. Needless to say, he will not be seeing World Trade Center - or likely reading this thread .... he's pretty sick of 9/11 Mania and would just like to see it go away.


I, on the other hand, find it endlessly fascinating and don't intend to ever forget it.

The explanation (as seen on scientific shows) is actually quite simple.

First, the planes hit closer to the middle than to the top (CORRECTION: ONE of the planes hit closer to the middle, the other was closer to the top). Plane crashes into building with full loads of fuel. Plane and building start burning. Burning jet fuel starts flowing down building on the inside, burning at MUCH higher temperatures than the building was designed to handle, weakening the steel and causing those levels to collapse. Force of impact of the top half of the building into the bottom half was too much for bottom half and it collapsed.

If you prefer a more detailed explanation, I found this, this, and this (as well as a ton of others if you search Google).

Here's some of the info from the NOVA special...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

I am struggling a bit here to put into words what I'm thinking.

I think the government should not run social security because the money is better in the private sector. Many would say that I am crazy to take it away from government control and give any portion to the private sector, yet believe that same government would launch such a conspiracy.

I think we should not move to government run health care (socialized medicine) because the private sector is more capable of management. Many would say that the private sector is too much about profit and the government should be entrusted with it, yet believe that same government would launch such a conspiracy.

I find the dichotomy of - and I am guilty of this as well - of what the government should and should not be trusted with as an interesting one. The very suggestion that Clinton would have lauched missiles into Iraq and Afghanistan on the same day as the Monica Lewinsky testimony to distract attention from the testimony is met with cries saying that it is a whacked out conspiracy theory. I do not subscribe to that, it just seems so small in comparison to this theory.

I haven't paid much attention to the 9/11 conspiracy theories because the events, as they were reported, seem pretty plausable to me. Not to say that I don't beleive that our administration is filled with lying, rat bastards. I just think that these events were a product of incompetence rather than anything more sinister. This administration seems to lock their focus on things like Iraq, Energy policy, gays, and social security reform; meanwhile neglecting everything else such as disaster relief from a hurricane, reports that Bin Laden was interested in running airplanes into buildings, and basically anything else that doesn't line up with their agenda. I think they were given plenty of evidence to suggest that 9/11 was inevitable but they were too busy figuring out how to get reelected than doing what was in the best interest of the country.

Not conspiricy, just flat out neglegence due to short sighted political goals.

And, iSm, you can add the fact that I'm just as fascinated by the events that occured on 9/11 to the list of things we have in common.

I think that part of it does stem from coming from NY. I remember the skyline before they were there and the sense of awe and wonder after they were built. I never would have imagined that some day they were going to be removed from that skyline, especially in the way that it occurred.

And part of it is simply its historical significance. This attack was unprecedented and horrific and was burned into our memory as vividly as those alive during the Kennedy assasination. I never understood how an event could be so memorable to the extent that damn near everyone could recall in detail exactly what they were doing when they heard the news. Now, I understand.

I saw it a while ago. I thought it was good that it raised questions. I also thought the tone was paranoid and that for the most part it was bunk. I do have to say I believe the government is capable of a conspiracy like this, I just don't believe in this case they were involve. Or, at least not involved in it to the depths that the makers of Loose Change believe.

I like that it says this on the website: I'm all about being given as much info as possible & then being able to make my own decision. I also rely pretty heavily on common sense. For instance, in at least one of the editions (I saw them both at one time or another) they talk about how the plane that went down in PA (I think it was that flight, like I said I saw it a while ago, so the details are getting sketchy in my head) didn't actually go down there, but instead landed in Cleveland or some place and the passengers disembarked. Well, where did they go then? Are they all still living in the airport like that Tom Hanks movie? Were they killed? Put in Witness Protection? Had their memories zapped a la Men In Black? A lot of what the filmmakes present makes less sense to me that what they are saying doesn't make sense. Am I making sense? ;)

I read MBC's post and am tempted to once again get involved with a discussion of where negligence exists - if any - in our government related to 9/11, but it has been discussed so many times that everyone knows what I think.

With political spin, it is possible to make any agenda seem inept when something major happens that was not a part of that agenda. As in, they were paying so much attention to A that they paid no attention to B. Whether A has been affected or not or would have been a problem should B have been he priority doesn't much matter. Political opportunism will rise up to take advantage. It works this way no matter who is in power.

All I know is that during Presidential campaigns, whether against Gore or Kerry, the subject matter wasn't Bin Laden when it came to national security. Kerry said "if you don't believe Iraq is a threat, don't vote for me." However, it is now poliically expedient to forget such words and say Bush didn't care enough about what was the risk.

I discount all such discussion as hindsight being 20/20 and opportunism.

I really dislike conspiracy theories.

I always like a good conspiracy theory* (Courtney killed Kurt; there was no lunar landing; and of course, Andy Kaufman is alive and well.) This particular one, to me, just isn't any good.

*I didn't say I always believe them, I just like them.

One generation's conspiracy theory is another's obvious fact.

Only nimrods think Oswald acted alone ... but that was once considered a wild conspiracy theory.

When we say the "government" or the "administration" may have been involved in a conspiracy, that does not mean the entire government or administration. The Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy among dozens of people in government, but that doesn't mean the entire government was in on it.


As such, I find scaeagles claims that those who believe government conspiracies possible should also not feel comfortable with the government taking heath care out of the profit realm to be a completely meaningless and absurd comparison.

Great book for conspirary lovers.

If the government is capable of such conspiracy and treachery regarding national defense, one of the only constituionally mandated funcions of the federal government, then they should not be trusted to take on other areas outside of specifically enumerated constitutional authority. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are granted to the states.

My point is that I find it ridiculous that so many with such distrust of the government would want them heading up anything additional, such as nationalized health care, or think that social security money (nothing but a federally mandated pyramid scheme) is better left with the government than entrusted into the private sector.

Most certainly not meaningless nor absurd in the comparison to how some view the government.

Leo

Reading your posts in this thread makes me think you are more Libertarian than Republican. Not saying this in any negative light, just simply an observation.

No offense taken whatsoever, Kevy - I'd say I'm somewhere in between. I really consider myself to be a Reagan Republican. This is why I have been so disappointed with Bush.

I'd consider switching to libertarian if most of the political leaders of the party weren't so....odd.

I will add that it is certainly easier to believe in conspiracy theories that fit your political agenda than those that don't.

The whole "One generation's conspiracy theory is another's obvious fact" only goes so far. There are 100 different theories about the Kennedy assassination and I do not consider myself to be any sort of expert on it whatsoever, but they range from the mob to LBJ being the masterminds behind it all.

I have those I certainly believe - one being that my father in law is really in the CIA, but that's another story.

Still haven't watched the film, but I have heard lots of conspiracy theories, most of which I promptly dismiss. A plane did crash into the Pentagon- my cousin-in-law saw it happen. (He worked across the way from the Pentagon). I do believe that, at the very least, part of our rush to Iraq was enouraged by the military complex that Cheney is involved with, and he has certainly profited from the war. I don't put much past anyone, in our government or others, but I do need some sound proof and reasoning behind the accusations.

scaeagles, the government is made up of tens of thousands of people, in hundreds upon hundreds of bureaucracies. It just so happens that your claimed Only Federally Mandated function ... the military function ... is not to be trusted in any nation of the world, at any time in history - for the obvious reasons that its purpose of applying weaponry to cause death might attract a certain type of person.

Those people who might deal with health rather than death, though certainly not 100% unsusceptible to corruption, might have a bent that's somewhat the opposite of the brutal destruction business of the "Defense" deparment (euphemistically renamed from the more apt "War Department" only a few years before I was born). And, in fact, remove the profit motive from anything - - including War - - and the incidence of corruption will decrease dramatically.

We have a completely different view of capitalism. We have a completely different view of application of the military (while the purpose is to kill people and break things, you have a strong military so that others are assured of their defeat should they use their military against you).

I do not believe that removal of the profit motive necessarily eliminates corruption. However, the removal of the profit motive will certainly reduce quality.

All very altruistic, that version of the military you have. One unfortunate thing you forget, though, is that HUMANS must be involved. With instruments of death available, those who want to use them for offense rather than deterrent will inevitably rise to positions of being able to use them for the offenses they desire.


You cannot stop human nature. The world, alas, will always be ruled by those willing to do what the next man will not. This is why terrorism, as a tactic, will never be eradicated.

I completely understand the whole human nature argument. This is why I want us to have a strong military - because I trust us more than I trust Kim Jong Il or the President of Iran. Mutually assured destruction is why Western Europe was not absorbed by the expansionist Sovets.

It is also my understanding of human nature that leads me to support capitalism in medicine. Profit motive leads to better innovation, more research, and the best minds to pursue it (which, on a side note, is why I think teachers should be paid more than what they are).

The profit aspect is a double edged sword: the very thing that motivates some to research and develop new treatments for illnesses places such treatments out of the financial reach of many. I know quite a few seniors who cannot afford their prescriptions right now and with the cuts to Medicare will soon not even be able to afford to go to their doctor.

However, WB, without the money spent on R&D, and the profits necessary to make the R&D worthwhile to those investing the funds, then those new treatments or cures or medicines are not available to anyone. And over time, the costs for new things go down as generic equivalents become available and competition drives down prices.

Okay, so the next time a senior tells me they can't pay for their meds I'll reassure them that someday the cost will trickle-er, lower, and their descendants will be able to! They'll be in Canada or Mexico before I finish giving them the good news.

Yes, I was going to (obviously) say the same thing as Wendybeth, and anticipated the as-obvious counter-argument. It's an argument perhaps valid, but so morally repugnant to me that I want to puke.

Assuming its validity, which is preferable:

drugs that will be too expensive for many people or not having the drug at all?

Exactly, Alex. It is immoral to develop medicines that are too expensive for seniors to use right now, so therefore they should not be developed at all.:rolleyes:

And Alex, you left out the part that the drug will come down in price over time. Of course, the complaint then will be that the lates and greatest is too expensive, and what we were complaining about being too expensive before isn't what we want anymore.

I left it out on purpose as I don't think it bears on the central moral question. Even if prices never changed, is it better for to have a beneficial thing not available to everybody or not to have it at all.

Again, this assumes for the sake of argument that without the profit motive the thing would not otherwise exist. This is not always true.

Sorry, i don't accept that either-or as valid. Is it better to spend our citizen's collective money on their collective health or on their collective defense ... when our zillion-dollar-a-second army is pretty much frelling useless at it? There are no more nation-states, and Prussia and the Persian Empire are gone.

We simply cannot defeat with antiquated giant military might the modern threats that have successfully arisen to outfox such might.

This is a different world than it was in 1776 and we require a different national agenda for the federal government's usurous tax dollars.

Then I would suggest that you start a campaign to change the Constitution.

Of course, that answer in my mind is the collective defense. I am not one to bury my head in the sand and pretend that there are not madmen in the world who wish to harm us, and some of those madmen are in charge of the so called nonexistant nation states.

So you're saying the government fund the profit motive? Or that the government should do all of the research to remove a profit motive? Or am I misunderstanding?

For me, whether the government spends money on defense, and how much, is irrelevant to whether the government can effectively pick of the slack if the current method of pharmaceutical finance and reward were overturned.

Yes, I'm saying our government - purportedly of the people, for the people and by the people - should fund all medical research, all highways and biways, all assurces of clean water, clean air, and safe food. For starters.

Funny how it does most of the things on that list - not all of them too well - - but I don't hear anybody moaning that the interstate highway system should have been done better for profit, or that safe drinking water and food should be better handled by for-profit corporations.

So why is it that medical health, arguable less important to our health than basic clean water and safe food, can only be successfully handled by private finance? - - and not "socialized" like highways or food safety.


Why is it that no one smears food safety with the derrogatory term "socialist," but some folks don't hesitate to apply that term to any suggestion that health care should also come under the same pervue???







oh my, how totally derailed.

Um, I think this whole thing should come up for a vote.


On September 11th.

There is plenty of research and development in countries where profit is not such a huge consideration. It is interesting how much less pharmaceuticals cost elsewhere as well. I'd like to think that there are actually people in the world who want to help others for no other reason than it is the right thing to do- silly, isn't it?

We have a deplorable infant mortality rate, and our health care suckage is starting to seep into the middle and upper classes. Money and a great job with bennies is no guarantee of good care.

Well, on road and utilities the profit motive is maintained, the government just pays for it to mediocre results. And if you don't think anybody derided the interstate system as socialist, that's because you weren't there when it was being debated. I do think the FDA should be abolished as a federal agency, or if it exists should only be an advisory organization like the Consumers Union. And I have no idea how good the federal government would be at running a utility, it never has.

There are a lot of people who only do research because they want to help people. But I would guess there are a lot more people who do research because they want to help people, it pays reasonably well, and there is a chance for a huge jackpot. Most people pick professions based on financial reward. Government service hardly ever offers much financial reward.

I'm not necessarily opposed to nationalizing healthcare, but if you do you have to nationalize the whole thing and live with the fact that innovation will go down. Nationalized industries are just a form of monopoly and you can't expect them to operate much differently than any other monopoly (bloat, inefficiency, poor service, disinterest in innovation).

And you think health care is politicized now, just imagine what it would be like when politicians actually run the entire system and senators are the ones debating how large a dose of medicine X should be covered and for what purposes.

Also, I would argue that much of the reason for the spiralling cost of health care is because most Americans are way overinsured (because government regulation has, proabably irrepairably, broken the health care marketplace) which makes it almost impossible for the ones that aren't insured at all.

Eh, disregard my continued derailing of the thread.

It's covered territory, irrelevent to whether Bush muders 6,000 Americans so that he could have a war to avenge his daddy, and I haven't the energy to persue it.

Yeah, my apologies also- I don't know that I am for nationalizing medicine, but things are so very crappy now there may come a day that we have no choice.

Anyway........

Hehehe, maybe we should have kept it all in the general political thread anyway.


That'll show FEJ not to start any new threads 'round here, young upstart.

I wouldn't put it past them, but I also wouldn't give them that much credit. It would imply that this Administration would be smart enough to do it.

There's a lot of funky scenarios out there. I don't know what to believe.

My own thoughts? Well, I wonder how 2 buildings hit differently fall the same way. Also, I heard that the rubble was sent to China. (I don't know if that's fact or not.) But why there? It's like the ending of 'Raiders' or them dumping the body in the junkyard in 'Pulp Fiction'... never to be seen again...

Just FYI, the weight of the buildings left them each with no option but to fall straight down upon themselves. Something that heavy simply cannot fall to any side.

(as explained by engineers in one of the helpful links elsewhere in this thread)





Ohhh, the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy are due to come out on DVD at midnight on September 11th (into 12th), and I was planning on having a bonfire to burn the hated "uber-special edition" DVDs that came out a couple years ago. Because of the date, I intend to have a replica of the WTC as the centerpiece of the bonfire. Tasteless, I know ... but how can I resist when I already have a bonfire scheduled for that date??

Initially all of the rubble was removed to the aptly named Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Fresh Kills was a very famous landfill (the largest in the world at one point) and had just been permanently closed a few months before 9/11. After 9/11 it was reopened for the WTC debris and everything was taken there for forensic examination and body part searches.

Once that was complete salvagable recyclable materials (such as steel and whatnot) were sold as scrap. China is a huge processor of scrap metal recycling so I wouldn't be surprised if much of it did end up there. Everything else still remains in Fresh Kills Landfill and has been covered with earth so that the area can move forward with the original post-closure plan to turn the area into reclaimed wetlands and recreation area.

There is a vocal minority group of 9/11 family members who are trying to get the area declared a burial ground or have the remaining debris dug up and removed to another location that can be treated as a burial ground. They feel that even though all larger body parts were removed that the ashes must contain bits and pieces of people. The official position is (or was when I last heard about it) that such a move would be way too expensive, that it would be impossible to get all the debris, and that the dead have been memorialized in many ways already.

This just came out today. Interesting.
Source

Asimov-fears be damned ... i welcome the day when everyone in health, police, justice and government is a robot.

It works for Alex Trebek apparently...
Source
:D

Show me nothing. If it gets people discussing on a discussion board, then I will continue. :D

The changes in how the weight is distributed would have enough sheer force to easily implode a steel frame building regardless of size. The shaping charges in building demolition alone would do little damage even if put all together and exploded in the middle of one floor but remove enough structural integrity by cutting key supports brings a cascading amount of eponental pressure to bear.

And putting heat and fire as equals is incorrect
the fire triangle is: heat fuel and oxygen this creates
fire.

The jetfuel and office enterior (Fuel), impact (Heat) and gaping hole produced by the collision damage provided enough (oxygen) to make a largescale blast furnace wich could indeed melt steel supports which BTW only need to be weakened not cut in-order to cause an implosion.

I thought you guys believed in science. If benifit of the doubt is too much to wrap your bean around try out try Occam's Razor

I have a copy of the 9/11 documentary made by the two French guys who were in the WTC. That's the only one I ever *need* to watch. It's stressful enough.

This new book may be of interest. I haven't read it yet but several people I know have and say it is a good refutation of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Debunking 9/11 Myths

It is a much more detailed expansion on the Popular Mechanics article I believe I linked to above.

If you have 45 minutes you may find this debate between the makers of Loose Change and the editors of the Popular Mechanics pieces on the myths of 9/11.

Of course, it probably won't change any minds. It was sent to me by a believer in the conspiracy who thought it was compelling evidence of how wrong the Popular Mechanics people are. While I just thought the Loose Change people looked silly.

It is somewhat slanted in presentation since clips from Loose Change are shown with all the editing and music and leading questions that allows while in response the Popular Mechanics guys had no props or presentations.

Did you (or anyone else) watch the updated version this past Sunday? I missed it as I was on the road and hadn't set the DVR. Just curious to know what was updated.