Oh, quite some development in recent days! Material for several essays indeed, but I'll try to pack it into one!
I have not seen the BBC stuff (don't have it here), but the rave reviews give enough of clues. It is VERY interesting that the BBC even mention the open questions around 9/11. Standard Operating Procedure in all mainstream media have been to avoid the issue completely. The mere fact that they try to "debunk" the unofficial conspiracy theories is an indication that the open questions are a problem of some kind.
Well, Vortex, why use so harsh words? It's rather socially disruptive and just scare people from taking part in a sensible discussion. I have not seen such hard and sweeping words used on this site before. Even if Bozzio seem desperate, he(?) relentlessly hammer on questions. You seem to have absolute answers, arrived at trough intuition or such. I must state that I take offense, and would prefer a sensible, adult discussion about the issues rather than mudslinging and character assassinations.
Well, George Monbiot then? Anyone who care can do a "search" and find that I have never commented on him before. Now is the time! I think he is stroking some left-liberal memeplexes and make a good living from that. My opinion is that he has his head so deep up his posterior that they will need sonar to find it.
Ah! I realize I lied! But just a little. There are actually TWO issues which are attracting socially disruptive comments here: 9/11 and AGW.
Could we take a step back? And contemplate our drivers for acting socially disruptive?
The Conspiracy Files
Moderator: Peak Moderation
I have to say I have some sympathy with Mr. Monbiot. He is after all, attempting to fight the good fight in the public arena. You have to pick your battles, and it's quite obvious to me that campaigning or speculating about 9/11 is an utterly futile and unwinnable battle when fought in the mainstream of public opinion.
However given that we're living with the Internet, people are quite free to look outside the mainstream of public discourse and form their own opinions on all manner of topics, including in the 'Lunatic Fringe' (that's here btw). How much credence has been given to Peak Oil in the MSM? More than 9/11 conspiracy theory I'll grant you, but it's still scarcely a blip on the radar compared to the media furore over climate change, Iran's nuclear program or the omnipresent threat from the mythological entity known as 'al-Qaeda'.
Conspiracy Theory is outside the spectrum of publicly acceptable discourse. Mr Monbiot is aware that many of the people who are concerned about the same issues he is are damaging their cause by dabbling in CT. And he's right! This taint by association does damage the credibility of causes he advocates. I don't think there's any question of that.
All of this says nothing at all about the validity or speciousness of the questions hanging over 9/11.
I think the comparison to the Levellers is an interesting one - there are certain parallels with the diversity of opinions available on politics during the 17th century during the Civil Wars and Interregnum thanks to the flourishing of pamphleteering and the explosion of widely disseminated opinions with the Internet.
I suppose it comes down to whether you think real free speech is a good thing. Given people's inherent irrationality it's obvious that they are going to be susceptible to propaganda that bypasses and subverts rational discourse. Free speech both permits and can guard against such propaganda. Can you trust people to make up their own minds?
However given that we're living with the Internet, people are quite free to look outside the mainstream of public discourse and form their own opinions on all manner of topics, including in the 'Lunatic Fringe' (that's here btw). How much credence has been given to Peak Oil in the MSM? More than 9/11 conspiracy theory I'll grant you, but it's still scarcely a blip on the radar compared to the media furore over climate change, Iran's nuclear program or the omnipresent threat from the mythological entity known as 'al-Qaeda'.
Conspiracy Theory is outside the spectrum of publicly acceptable discourse. Mr Monbiot is aware that many of the people who are concerned about the same issues he is are damaging their cause by dabbling in CT. And he's right! This taint by association does damage the credibility of causes he advocates. I don't think there's any question of that.
All of this says nothing at all about the validity or speciousness of the questions hanging over 9/11.
I think the comparison to the Levellers is an interesting one - there are certain parallels with the diversity of opinions available on politics during the 17th century during the Civil Wars and Interregnum thanks to the flourishing of pamphleteering and the explosion of widely disseminated opinions with the Internet.
I suppose it comes down to whether you think real free speech is a good thing. Given people's inherent irrationality it's obvious that they are going to be susceptible to propaganda that bypasses and subverts rational discourse. Free speech both permits and can guard against such propaganda. Can you trust people to make up their own minds?
-
YossarianUK
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
There are some serious questions to be asked about 9/11. A previous poster suggested that the US govt knew, and let it happen. I've believed this for some time.
I also believe that the extension of 9/11 conspiracy theories beyond this is misguided. If Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan, simply flying the planes into the buildings would suffice - why would he have to demolish both towers using controlled explosions, plus building 7 for good measure? What extra purpose would building 7 serve? It makes no sense. If Bush controlled the planes that flew into the WTC, why would he send a missile into the Pentagon, instead of just flying the plane into it?
The extreme conspiracy theories make me question the motives of the people who initially raise these theories - are they trying to question everything because we should believe nothing? Or, are they trying to question everything to discredit ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories? (And am I coming up with yet another conspiracy theory by thinking this?)
Either way, as George Monbiot argues, the whole thing has become a diversion which is grabbing the attention and effort of otherwise useful minds - minds which could be working on Peak Oil mitigation, Global Warming avoidance, and all the rest of the issues of the day.
I also believe that the extension of 9/11 conspiracy theories beyond this is misguided. If Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan, simply flying the planes into the buildings would suffice - why would he have to demolish both towers using controlled explosions, plus building 7 for good measure? What extra purpose would building 7 serve? It makes no sense. If Bush controlled the planes that flew into the WTC, why would he send a missile into the Pentagon, instead of just flying the plane into it?
The extreme conspiracy theories make me question the motives of the people who initially raise these theories - are they trying to question everything because we should believe nothing? Or, are they trying to question everything to discredit ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories? (And am I coming up with yet another conspiracy theory by thinking this?)
Either way, as George Monbiot argues, the whole thing has become a diversion which is grabbing the attention and effort of otherwise useful minds - minds which could be working on Peak Oil mitigation, Global Warming avoidance, and all the rest of the issues of the day.
"Heard about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past each floor, he kept saying to reassure himself: So far so good... so far so good... so far so good. How you fall doesn't matter. It's how you land!"
La Haine, 1995
La Haine, 1995
Monbiot's argument is often used by the debunkers to reinforce their view. Firstly, could the US have installed a WMD facility on a scale and with a level of detail to have confused the weapons inspectors? Secondly, since they were already in the country with much support by the people back home, why would they have needed to bother with such an exercise anyway. The success of 9/11 had achieved their aim already. The fact that Saddam Hussein was not directly tied to Ground Zero was possibly a mistake but probably not required since the propaganda machine sorted that out during the following year. Besides, Afghanistan was the Neo-cons first target as it seems likely the level of urgency to get stuck in was greater in that situation. Osama Bin Laden's link to Afghanistan was very appropriate. It is also very likely that Bush knew nothing about the conspiracy as has been discussed at length by many people.Ballard wrote:I think George sums up my thoughts very well with this...
I'm sure there are lot's of things TPTB would love to be able to do, I just don't belive that they are capable.In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front.
If the questions surrounding the true attacks of 9/11 remain despite whether one feels the Neo-cons were capable of carrying out such a fraud or not, then who carried out 9/11? It certainly wasn't 19 hijackers carrying box cutters so who?
I really don't understand why Monbiot should argue that people are devoting their time to the wrong cause. Apart from the fact that Monbiot obviously diasgrees with the theories, which is amazing considering he confesses never to have heard of David Ray Griffin in today's article, he clearly believes that people are incapable of concentrating on more than one topic at a time. Who the hell does he think he is, apart from the son of the deputy chairman of the conservative party? (According to someone I know who used to work closely with Monbiot in Oxford in the mid 1990's, Monbiot changes his views as often as his underwear and has always put his own career before policies). If 9/11 could be exposed as a fraud and if the Neo-cons were found to be complicit then that would blow all of Monbiot's topics of discussion out of the water and in fact it would answer most of the questions he seeks about Iraq and inequality in one fell swoop.
We do know how persistent are the people obsessed with conspiracy theories. No doubt Monbiot's been under pressure from them, and he's consequently doing a very public "f**k off" job.
Regarding worthwhile effort, Monbiot does like to waste his time campaigning against nuclear weapons; perhaps he should waste a little less of his own time.
Also, it doesn't necessarily follow that the f**k up in Iraq means the neocons couldn't be effective in their own country. They've certainly done an excellent job of covering their tracks irrespective of whether the 9/11 scenario was one of careless negligence or wilful negligence.
Regarding worthwhile effort, Monbiot does like to waste his time campaigning against nuclear weapons; perhaps he should waste a little less of his own time.
Also, it doesn't necessarily follow that the f**k up in Iraq means the neocons couldn't be effective in their own country. They've certainly done an excellent job of covering their tracks irrespective of whether the 9/11 scenario was one of careless negligence or wilful negligence.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Apologies for raising the subject again but I had to share with those who maybe interested a new film clip which has been posted on Google Video. This is an extract from the BBC news on September 11th and it discusses the collapse of WTC7 which the Conspiracy Files programme studied briefly. The incredibly interesting issue here is that it purports to show the BBC discussing the collpase of Building 7 before it actually happened. The clip is quite long at 25 minutes but 15 minutes into the report it clearly shows a live link to a reporter in Manhattan who talks about the building having collpased when it is actually still standing behind her. Strangely, the live link is lost just before the building does actually collapse.
See what you think.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 11#04m37ss
See what you think.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 11#04m37ss
This looks like some nasty sh*t! I need an immediate debunking! Vooortex!Bozzio wrote:See what you think.
I can think of only two possible "honest" explanations. Either:
1) It is not really WTC 7 in the clip. Should be easy enough to verify the approximate position of the camera based on the smoke from WTC1&2 and the direction of the sunlight.
Or:
2) The background is not really live, just a rolling studio background, and the girl is in a studio, not in front of a real window. I dont see any references to actual time from BBC. Should be easy to verify this too.
Otherwise it smells to high heaven.
I'm still downloading the video ... 3rd attempt!
I suspect that the studio was using a blue chroma key stock background shot ... but until I see the video who knows?
This does smell more of a broadcasting cockup than conspiracy!
They weren't expecting their standard skyline photo of New York to suddenly change were they?
Take a look at the BBC News on TV ... often they have a Thames scene behind them ... even if it's night-time!
Suppose a newsflash came in reporting the destruction of Big Ben ... oops ...
I suspect that the studio was using a blue chroma key stock background shot ... but until I see the video who knows?
This does smell more of a broadcasting cockup than conspiracy!
They weren't expecting their standard skyline photo of New York to suddenly change were they?
Take a look at the BBC News on TV ... often they have a Thames scene behind them ... even if it's night-time!
Suppose a newsflash came in reporting the destruction of Big Ben ... oops ...
MacG wrote:This looks like some nasty sh*t! I need an immediate debunking! Vooortex!Bozzio wrote:See what you think.
I can think of only two possible "honest" explanations. Either:
1) It is not really WTC 7 in the clip. Should be easy enough to verify the approximate position of the camera based on the smoke from WTC1&2 and the direction of the sunlight.
Or:
2) The background is not really live, just a rolling studio background, and the girl is in a studio, not in front of a real window. I dont see any references to actual time from BBC. Should be easy to verify this too.
Otherwise it smells to high heaven.
It's a very similar view to the one aired by CBS when they showed the collapse. I don't think there's any question that it's WTC7.
As for your second possible explanation, that still doesn't make sense if the time frame as suggested by the poster is correct (admittedly I don't see any BBC clock on the screen to verify this). Also she points out of the window to indicate the scene behind her at one point. Also you can see the movement of the smoke so it's obviously not a static shot.
The reporter in New York, Jane Standley, does make reference to the Manhattan skyline behind her on at least one occasion and points behind herself on several occasions. Standley even moves to one side to allow the camera to focus in on the empty space left by the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7 can clearly be seen (about 16 mins in). The light shining on her face even looks to be comming from the same direction as the sunlight shining on the buildings.
This doesn't look like blue screen effects to me but then again I'm just a stupid 'conspiracy theorist' so what do I know. Perhaps Monbiot can explain this? Vortex.....?!
This doesn't look like blue screen effects to me but then again I'm just a stupid 'conspiracy theorist' so what do I know. Perhaps Monbiot can explain this? Vortex.....?!
Wow...is this newly available?
Given the open window next to her, the noise in the background, I don't think it's a studio.
Having googled a couple of other things, looks to me like they decided to take it out so they didn't have to send more firemen in. Not sure it's much of a conspiracy though. Probably a completely stupid decision so haven't spoken about it much. Either that or 'they' decided to take advantage of the whole situation and lose a building they didn't want or someone could benefit from losing.
Not sure it means the whole of 911 was rigged though...
Given the open window next to her, the noise in the background, I don't think it's a studio.
Having googled a couple of other things, looks to me like they decided to take it out so they didn't have to send more firemen in. Not sure it's much of a conspiracy though. Probably a completely stupid decision so haven't spoken about it much. Either that or 'they' decided to take advantage of the whole situation and lose a building they didn't want or someone could benefit from losing.
Not sure it means the whole of 911 was rigged though...
Yes it's new.ianryder wrote:Wow...is this newly available?
Given the open window next to her, the noise in the background, I don't think it's a studio.
Having googled a couple of other things, looks to me like they decided to take it out so they didn't have to send more firemen in. Not sure it's much of a conspiracy though. Probably a completely stupid decision so haven't spoken about it much. Either that or 'they' decided to take advantage of the whole situation and lose a building they didn't want or someone could benefit from losing.
Not sure it means the whole of 911 was rigged though...
You do realise that 'taking down' a skyscraper is not something you can accomplish in an afternoons work right? Skyscrapers do not come with self-destruct buttons. And this one was evacuated, as it was on fire. not exactly an ideal working environment.
This video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
gives the first impressions of a (Dutch?) CD expert on seeing the WTC7 footage for the first time.
It's also worth remembering Silverstein's 'pull it' remark. He doesn't seem to imply this was a decision that was taken well in advance.
Last edited by EmptyBee on 26 Feb 2007, 16:36, edited 1 time in total.
Doesn't it also require drilling big holes everywhere and km's of wires dotted about the place? I should probably stop as I don't know the subject that well and I'm sure there's a view on every argument. Just not sure how dropping that building would have advanced the cause of Bush etc given that nobody really cared after the 2 main buildings had gone. It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back...the camel was long since gone!EmptyBee wrote:Yes it's new.
You do realise that 'taking down' a skyscraper is not something you can accomplish in an afternoons work right? Skyscrapers do not come with self-destruct buttons. And this one was evacuated as it was on fire. not exactly an ideal working environment.
It's not necessary to come up with a theory for why WTC7 was imploded (not that there's a shortage of such theories). It's sufficient to acknowledge that if the place was rigged for demolition it implies advance knowledge on the part of whoever did that.
If Silverstein somehow managed to pull off a hasty demolition in an afternoon as an insurance job, that's a pretty impressive conspiracy in itself, especially if it was leaked to the press in advance and they just went along with it.
Of course if it was just fire, and they knew it was coming down and somehow mixed up the story that is was 'about to collapse' and this somehow got misinterpreted at the Beeb that it had already collapsed, I think my credulity is getting stretched a little thin to say the least.
If Silverstein somehow managed to pull off a hasty demolition in an afternoon as an insurance job, that's a pretty impressive conspiracy in itself, especially if it was leaked to the press in advance and they just went along with it.
Of course if it was just fire, and they knew it was coming down and somehow mixed up the story that is was 'about to collapse' and this somehow got misinterpreted at the Beeb that it had already collapsed, I think my credulity is getting stretched a little thin to say the least.