9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

Has anyone involved in that work prior to the 9/11 attacks been identified and questioned?

 

CNN.com yesterday:


9/11 conspiracy theorists energized
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html


More and more mainstream momentum....

 

Nothing like more disingenuous corporate collusionist reporting to reinforce the status quo denials of reality (as those of us old enough to remember can equally recall of other government scripted coverups subsequently exposed for the actual treasonous conspiracies (no theory involved) that they, like 911, were).

Sadly the bandwagoneers continue to live in willful self delusion that the regurgitated lie they so vociferously defend is itself anything other than the real conspiracy "theory" (and one whose source hearkens back to the most repeatedly exposed cabal of brazen liars possible).

No mass psyche manipulating media enterprise in living memory dishonours the callously, ideologically-inspired slaughter of the 911 victims more nor offers the real perpetrators greater continuing impunity than the desperate deference to post-facto junk science collusion evinced by shaggie and co.

But then, its been clear from the start that those like shaggie have not in fact ever given more than the most surface glance at the body of clear evidence compiled by the 911Truth researchers, despite claims to the contrary.

 

The truth isn't based on how many people agree to it. Science isn't a democracy.

That article isn't supporitve of the movement. It brings up that a whopping 75 memebers of the well over 1 million members of the academia community have signed on to the movement.

I would wonder why if this conspiracy was deep and powerful enough to murder 3,000 people with planes, why they couldn't engineer an accident for some of the more vocal conspiracists.

As for why the movement is gaining traction, I would point to several factors.

Most people don't have very good critical thinking skills.

http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/newsroom/releases/2001/survey_results0401.html

Most people are naturally skeptical though. They distrust explanations given to them. When you have general skepticism, along with poor critical thinking skills, these kinds of alternate theories are likely to take place

This would explain why I've never heard any of the 9/11 truth movement come up with their own working set of events that transpired, but each provide disparate facts along with misinformation, scientific fallacies, and lies. They combine this with a tinge of paranoia and come up with their own conspiracy.

It seems that these people don't like the idea that cunning and evil extremists could destroy such a powerful landmark and affect the american psyche so deeply. They'd like to think that there was always a controlling factor to make it make more sense. That there was always a plan.

People have a right to pursue and say these kinds of things. Many of the vocal conspiracist have said very callous things to victims and even more so to victims families.

If someone came up to me with a camera if I had lost a loved one in the attacks and said the kinds of things some of these people have said, I would roll them.

 

For this you need refer only to the NIST, FEMA and similar reports by post facto collusionist "theorists" such as Dr. Thomas Eager.

That you suppose the 911Truth movement should construct a seamless scenario for your consumption only further indicates how steeped in mainstream spoonfed drivel you, like shaggie et al., are. The purpose of the extensive research and expose of glaring pseudo sicience and whitewash by the 911Truth movement has from day 1 aimed at achieving the legitimate, thorough and fully transparent public enquiry the mass murder of 911 has demanded but been stonewalled from receiving (for more than transparent reasons) by this administration and its various appointed agency lackies.

With federal gag orders issued widely and much of the concrete evidence (which should otherwise vindicate the official conspiracy theory apologists if it were true to the official line) confiscated by FEMA, the efforts of decent civic minded researchers in amassing the body of clear evidence of insider orchestration and execution of the day is truly noteworthy.

Sadly authority junkies and mentally complacent/intellectually divergent sheeple such as the notable regurgitants on these forums refuse to actually undertake any substantial review of the evidence beyond the first google search they can make to presume the whole matter involves aliens and lizards or somesuch hogwash.

Stock in trade for the myth-drenched American public psyche.

Once again, nothing is more offensive nor callous both to the victims of 911 and their survivors than the nonsensical, utterly implausible whitewash of the "official" conspiracy theory. More so for its clearly idological-agenda linked intent to initiate perpetual war in the name of those callously murdered for power and profit.

I will give you this Lodui, you have correctly asserted (as I have I all along) that your bandwagon leanings do not offer you the presumption of truth you, again like shaggie, so repeatedly presume in your posts. More often than not, the mainstream is entirely duped as history has repeatedly demonstrated.

 

Well I do agree that no information should be judged firstly by it's source. Because the government says something it obviously isn't true by that fact alone.

But in virtually every scenario, the information is filtered by it's source. In many cases, it obscures the original information it becomes useless.

In my view, the government likely did act in a befudled manner on 9/11. This became the reason for the unreasonable secrecy sourounding the events, especially when it first happened near an election cycle.

I don't expext a complete working model of what happened on 9/11 by conspiracists, because it is mostly conjecture.

I would like at least at least the begginings of a model for what they say transribed. That's not unreasonable at all. In scientific method you'd start out with a theory, then move it on to a model, then begin testing and debate of it. I have seen no testing or debate come out of the 9/11 truth people. I haven't seen a model in it. All I've seen is them try to shoot holes in the official story and then conjecture what really happened. (often involving shadow governments or the jews.)

That's not a theory of their own. And they really lose me when they bring up things like thermite or to suggest that ten thousands of gallons of jet fuel, molten metal alliminum, and office supplies couldn't bring down a steel rise building after already being damaged by a plane crash...

At the very least, your version of the story would require hundreds of insiders from the CIA, FEMA, airport security NORAD, construction workers, engineers, none of whom have leaked these details of these events in 5 years.

Many of these conspiracists claim protecting identities of sources, but they aren't able to uncover anything substantial to make claims on anything specific.

It also requires the vast vast majority of the physics and engeering and other scientific communities to remain silent. Personally, I have very deep respect for scientists, and find it very hard to believe that many are not speaking out for their views because of fear of getting shunned.

It all seems like conjecture and hype. Vast secret plans and people cowed into submission by globalists. 9/11 truth is soft.

 

This is the routine postulate of those who, once again, havent bothered to actually expend much time reviewing the 911 research.

You would believe that 19 (7 of whom were later revealed to be entirely unrelated to the event at all) arab hijackers alone could orchestrate and perpetrate the most sophisticated multiple strategic attack in the most protected airspace in the world and yet suggest it was our own long demonstrable psycopathic, terrorist-funding, training and supplying institutions behind it and suddenly the number of necessarily involved skyrockets to some fictitious, absurd number.

No, Lodui, those behind the actual orchestration with "in the know" awareness of all phases of the operation would not be necessarily numerous at all. If you actually read the comprehensively researched facts, you would know that several concurrent air drills each with the exact scenario to the actual 911 attack itself, were scheduled purposely for that day thus presenting to most operational level officials a total confusion as to what was actual and what was drill air traffic.

With each actor merely playing his normal professional part, from air traffic controllers to maintenance workers in the WTC buildings, etc. only a few well placed overseers would be required to ensure that any undue questions by underlings were quickly explained away or relegated to silence under national security guidelines (such as the recorded air traffic controller discussions seized and destroyed by federal officials on the day). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to piece this logic together if one comprehends anything about the standard operational protocols of federal agencies, especially under national security conditions.

Notwithstanding that, the notion that there "have been no leaks in 5 years" is patently false.

There have been countless leaks, each one in turn calculatingly dismissed and/or smeared by administration "spokespeople" and a compliant corporate press/media (which isnt going to let the possible spread of public alarm and uprising over likely administration orchestration bring down the longterm gravy train which the "War on Terror" represents both to mass media and its hefty big money advertising backers, let alone the resurgent hyper-profitable arms and energy industries underpinning our corporate owned government and its institutions).

All the fundamental investigative principles have long been displayed by the most likely culprits (means, motive and opportunity) right at the heart of our own insitutional power structure. One need only the will and the intellectual honesty to examine ALL the evidence compiled, including the requisite political agenda in which the entire event and all that has followed is properly contextualised.

If you want a blow by blow chronological examination of much of the extensively researched events of the day (and period leading up to the day) and their inter-connectnedness, I present you this lengthy compilation. I do expect, however that youll be back within an all too brief timeframe to issue us another of your patented dismissals. Nevertheless, for what its worth, read on McDuff...

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/9-11update.html

Is the truth of the day's events convoluted, of course it is. The more convulated the easier and more convincing the official denials (and character smears of any subsequent leakers) become along with the standard pre-prepared deference to the far more simplistic "Occam's Razor" scripted coverstory of 19 "Al Qaeda" boogeymen terrorist hijackers and buildings that collapse from uppermost story impacts and smoldering oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires (claimed as "raging infernos").

 

I'll check out your link later. It was a bit obscured by it's 35 page length, but I'll read it when I've got a few minutes.

 

"Obscured by it 35 page length" is your way of saying, "I much prefer the truncated, sanitised, pretense of information presented by mainstream media"?

Sorry to say, Lodui, that awareness of the truth behind the "made for mass consumption" soundbites of corporate media requires some time and effort to view ALL the actions and actors connected to that days events.

God forbid you should ever be selected as a jurist for any case more serious than an unpaid parking fine if you balk at reviewing any substantive body of evidence.

I suggest for your own credibility's sake that you commit more than "a few minutes" to the matter, else simply admit you care more about maintaining your perch on the populist "conpsiracy theory" bandwagon than you do about recognising the true dynamics and culprits behind this seminal act of the New American Century agenda.

 

What's up with this flawed reasoning of conspiracy enthusiasts that precedent is supposedly necessary to make something physically possible? No one ever hit quarter-mile high towers with jumbo jets before 911. If we go by the reasoning of conspiracy advocates, that means it's impossible for jumbo jets to crash into high rises.

The Tacoma bridge oscillated and fell apart violently due to wind loading in the 1940s due to a structural design weakness and wind loading conditions that the engineers didn't anticipate. No one ever saw a bridge collapse in that manner before. If we go by the logic of conspiracy enthusiasts, the lack of precedent means that it was physically impossible and that the government blew up the Tacoma bridge.

A similar situation happened with the failure of the towers where the effects of widespread fires on multiple adjacent aircraft-damaged floors were not anticipated.

.

 

The 'Elvis is Still Alive' craze picked up momentum and media attention too in the 90s. Many people finally came around and started to believe Elvis wasn't dead. Larry King had a guest who had an endless list of what she perceived as anomolies surrounding the death of Elvis and claimed therefore he was still alive. All of this was about 15 years after his death. Then the movement finally pooped out.

.

 

You would have to tell us all about that, shaggie, since you most actively represent the bandwagon "conspiracy theory" adherents camp on these forums now. Believing as you do so fervently in the NIST, FEMA and 911 Commission lies about the construction standards and designs of the towers (fraught with calculated key ommissions of fact that they are) as well as the nature and extent of the actual fires (none remotely hot enough to affect the UL tested and certified steel whatsoever), you are most certainly best qualified to enlighten us on the dynamics of flawed head in the sand reasoning (or more rightly lack thereof) and denial of clear visual record.

Oh and btw, an aircraft impact and structural damage accompanied by extensive fire is not unprecedented, merely (like every other piece of relevant strucutral evidence) dismissed or excused as somehow irrelevant by the desperate "deference to authority" pundits.

 

Lick, you need to start coming up with some valid arguments based on evidence. There's a lot of verbage and generalities being bantered around but nothing of much substance.

.

 

In a previous post, you dismissed the extent of the fire damage and claimed it was just some patchy small oxygen-starved fires that could have easily been put out.

.

 

Which is what they were dear shaggie, and not by "my" claim but by clear recorded testimony of the firefighters present on the upper floors on the day. Obviously in your desperate attempts to dismiss the extensively compiled body of hard evidence against your precious official "conspiracy theory", that salient fact was lost to you as well.

btw, apparently the reference to precedented aircraft impact and fire without global high-rise collapse which you just cited is also lost on you.

Carry on with your routine denials, however, we have long come to realise what a shill you are and will remain for the true culprits.

 

Look at the videos and the extent of the fires. They couldn't have put out even a small fraction of those fires. You can talk with firemen yourself if you wish and see what type of square footage a ladder company can extinguish. And that's when they can actually get all their equipment and water to the fire, not when it's up 80 floors high.

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding proof that firemen said the fires were small. There were some crews on the floors as they were heading up toward the floors with fires. Not every fire a particular crew saw appeared widespread. Truthers are quick to jump on such quotes and try to make it appear that the extent of all the fires wasn't all that bad. If they had been that easy to put out as conspiracy enthusiasts claim, they would have been extinguished.

Also, if the fires had not been that bad, the east wall of the south tower wouldn't have been all buckled in as was clearly observed (that's also where the collapse initiated). The slow but steady bowing in of the east wall that was observed is clear evidence of a weakening caused by elevated temperature.

Kevin Cosgrove was in the northwest corner on the 105th floor of the south tower, far away from the main fires and could barely breath or see.

.

 

A key slip on your part indicating the truth of what has been said about you all along. If you actually bothered to spend any legitimate amount of time reviewing the evidence rather than jumping to your cozy bandwagon denials and dismissals as you have done since first wading into these discussions, youd know exactly what concrete testimonial evidence I was referring to.

Carry on with your conspiracy theory blather.

 

Give us the quote and we will discuss it. We can alway find a quote of a fireman that was in a place where the fire wasn't that bad and then try, without justification, to generalize it to the whole tower.

.

 

The east wall of the south tower didn't defer to conspiracy claims that the fires weren't that bad based on an unjustified generalization of a quote of a fireman in a particular place. It conformed to the laws of physics and bowed inward as a result of the metal being at elevated temperature and weakened.

.

 

Yes yes shaggie, the laws of physics wherein a hydrocarbon fire can miraculously soften steel despite being incapable of reaching any remotely proximate required temperature.

Oh and do refer to Kevin Ryan's UL affidavit on the testing standards and temperatures under which the WTC steel was certified and then do come back and tell us all about your junk science claims (aka NIST, FEMA report regurgitations) of softened steel sufficient to account for total global collapse of all undamaged underlying stories.