Evidence No One Wants To Know About

[PassedOut]

One of the good things about the internet is that one becomes aware of how many different viewpoints people have that vary from the mainstream. While this can't help but broaden one's thinking, it's literally impossible to examine each claim or idea in sufficient detail to refute it or confirm it.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't believe that one can get large numbers of people to conspire in a horrific deed (especially one with little or no benefit to the perpetrators) without someone involved blowing the whistle on it.

 

Six years ago a man began to post on websites in my community to warn us that the government was systematically poisoning us. He asked us to look up at the sky to observe the poisonous chemicals, clearly visible, being sprayed from the jets flying overhead. In my innocence, I responded that he had nothing to worry about, that I had been watching the contrails from jets for fifty years.

 

To my surprise, he began to provide links to all sorts of websites "documenting" that "chemtrails" were a serious threat to the population. (You can find such sites by doing a google search using chemtrails in the sky.) He demanded that I refute them.

 

I asked him where Bush (and Clinton before him) found all the pilots willing to drop poison on their own friends and relatives. To him, I was hopelessly naive.

 

After a bit, his posts started to accuse me of being Bush's paid accomplice. He had the notion that Bush was paying people all over the country to post messages in a propaganda effort to cover up what was going on.

 

My posts were not anonymous and his were, so when his posts began to get vaguely threatening I entered his (very distinctive) user name in a google search and found that he used the same name posting in quite a few sites about chemtrails and other such things. I found that he lived in a small town about 20 miles from me. He had posted a picture of himself that I recognized from local meetings.

 

I did not blow his anonymity, but I posted a couple of details that let him know I had identified him. That confirmed for him that I was indeed a Bush agent with fearsome intelligence capabilities and he posted just one final warning to everyone in our community.

 

After that experience (and I recognize that Winston is a good person, nothing like this guy at all), I try -- not always successfully -- to avoid getting pulled into discussions of this sort.

[blackshoe]

The internet also brings to the fore that the number of whackos in the world is much larger than one might think.

 

It's one thing to have whacky ideas. It's quite another to threaten people.

[luke warm]

The only criticism I made was that your argument was invalid - my interpretation of what you implied was that the authors must be goofballs or simply wrong or in some way cheating in their findings because it was impossible for you to grasp how a building could have been sabotaged and brought down.

this seems to be a sticking point with you in most of your posts, and i'm not quite sure why... most people will hear or read about a potential conspiracy (or nefarious deed) and, even if they lend credence to the concept, will immediately ask themselves "how in the world would such a thing be accomplished? what would be needed to pull this off?"... when people do that here though, you say it's the wrong thing to ask... why? to me, and if i understand what others have written, to them, that's exactly the correct line of thought...

 

take a faked moon landing, or a cia led jfk assassination... can those things be true? certainly... can evidence be found (or manufactured) to make the possibility true? of course... but then a person naturally starts asking "if they faked the moon landing, how did they do it? how many were involved? how was it kept secret?"... concerning the events of 9/11, my mind works that same way, especially since i absolutely *know* that the mainstream media would be all over any credible story that could even potentially harm the bush administration

[luke warm]

and i think that's were you and i, and possibly you and most people, differ... our minds immediately jump to the things you place little or no importance on, regardless of specific knowledge about certain things

 

fwiw i refuse to admit that i am wrong to ask how such a thing could be accomplished... specific knowledge of certain aspects have no bearing on who would have conspired to do this, why the nyt wouldn't gladly dig into it (if bush was involved), and how it could remain a secret - just as if the moon landing had been faked, we'd know because someone would have confessed

[kenberg]

On some things I do not have an open mind. My guess is that most of us find it necessary to close our minds on some topics.

 

 

Growing up, the claim was that Roosevelt knew of the impending attack on Pearl harbor but let it take place in order to bring the US into the war. The logic ran something like this:

 

Roosevelt wanted to bring the US into the war on the side of Britain and its allies. True, I think.

 

There was great resistance in the US to this. Also true, I believe. Some opposed getting involved in European problems, some admired Hitler, some just didn't give a *****.

 

Roosevelt was not always a straight-shooter. I am willing to believe this.

 

Therefore Roosevelt knew in advance of the attack and let it happen. (No one, as far as I know, claimed that Roosevelt faked the attack.)

 

You can still sometimes hear this view expressed by those who are my age or older.

 

 

I can't prove that the claim is false. How would I rate the chances of it being true? Remote is a severe understatement. Do I have an open mind on this? Not really. Have I carefully reviewed the evidence? Not at all.

 

Pretty much the same, as near as I can see.

 

The issues of how and why one would do such a thing are certainly part of my assessment. I realize that G Gordon once misunderstood a conversation and thought he was being told to knock of Jack Anderson, but still, how would this work? Some guy comes in and says "Hey, I got this really good idea. Let's hijack some planes, knock down the Twin Towers, and blame it on the Muslims." Everyone congratulates him for thinking outside the box and the rest is history. Really?

 

 

My mind is closed on this one. Also on alien abductions.

[Al_U_Card]

How would I rate the chances of it being true? Remote is a severe understatement. Do I have an open mind on this? Not really. Have I carefully reviewed the evidence? Not at all.

Would it shatter your world view to know that politicians and statesmen sacrifice others to further their grandiose schemes?

 

Review the evidence, the sources are there. He knew and took measures to ensure that the attack took place as a "surprise" to ensure immediate response by the American people for supporting the war effort.

 

It makes little difference in the grander scheme of things but a big difference to those who were sacrificed as well as the sacrifice of your opinion of the perpetrator.

[kenberg]

Would it shatter your world view to know that politicians and statesmen sacrifice others to further their grandiose schemes?

 

Review the evidence, the sources are there. He knew and took measures to ensure that the attack took place as a "surprise" to ensure immediate response by the American people for supporting the war effort.

 

It makes little difference in the grander scheme of things but a big difference to those who were sacrificed as well as the sacrifice of your opinion of the perpetrator.

No, it would not shatter my world view. So maybe Roosevelt knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Could be true, in sme logical sense of "could be". I cannot prove it false.

 

I will not be reviewing the evidence for Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, for the CIA and the Twin Towers, or for many other things too numerous to mention. Perhaps at my death I will meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates and realize I have made a drastic error in my religious beliefs. Perhaps so. I cannot prove otherwise.

 

On some issues I have a closed mind. In defense of this stance, at least I do not claim otherwise.

[brianshark]

Did they really need the buildings to collapse in order to get the public behind their retaliation? Surely a few planes flying into a couple of buildings causing a few thousand casualties would have been enough on it's own, not to mention the chance that the buildings would collapse anyway makes planting explosives a ridiculously unnecessary risk.

[vuroth]

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into".  Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

 

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

An interesting rebuttal, linked off of JREF

 

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_the...at_the_wtc.html

 

Another: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jo...ethermateclaims

I looked at these and find that unlike the published article, these have no authorship claims, are not in a peer-reviewed publication, show no proof of the claims made, and both are criticisms of earlier work from Dr. Jones and are not a critique of this particular article showing findings of specific gray/red particles.

Oh, I agree that they don't pertain to the specific work that you mentioned. I still found them interesting.

 

It would be better if a critique were published in a peer-reviewed journal, don't you think?

 

I endeavour to be polite whenever possible in situations like this, but ARE YOU INSANE?

 

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to just say "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC PROCESS" and "I JUST BELIEVE WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE REGARDLESS OF FACT" instead of what you just said? It means the same thing, and is so much clearer and honest.

 

:)

 

V

[Lobowolf]

Just on the subject of conspiratorial plausibility, if I were a nefarious government agency in charge of all the secret evil stuff, and I had the capability to bring down the Twin Towers with a controlled demolition, and for some reason, I thought it was a great idea to do so...

 

Never in a million years would I institute a plan that involved or relied upon multiple successful hijackings. Just off the top of my head:

1) It would dramatically increase the chances that it wouldn't work.

2) It would necessarily involve more people.

3) It might leave traces of nanothermite that would provide fuel (no pun intended) for conspiracy theorists to say, "Hey! If it was just planes, then why is there this nanothermite!"

4) There's a much better way that eliminates problems 1-3:

 

I'd just drop the towers, send in my investigators, and use manufactured evidence to "show" that my predesignated patsies had done it. There was already one attempt to bring down the Towers the old-fashioned way; this time, they were successful. Found nanothermite? Yup, that's what they used. WTP?

 

With respect to the example of the guy who falls over dead in the restaurant, I think it's a lot more like someone walks up to a guy at a restaurant in front of hundreds of witnesses (I'd say thousands, but that would be one hell of a big restaurant), shoots the guy in the head, then shoots himself in the head. Then 5 people at surrounding tables send tissue samples to a coroner who determines that there are trace amounts of arsenic in the guy's (not the shooter, the other guy) blood. Well, ok.

[luke warm]

Never in a million years would I institute a plan that involved or relied upon multiple successful hijackings. Just off the top of my head:

1) It would dramatically increase the chances that it wouldn't work.

you are incredibly naive to think that there had to be a reason to do it with jets... in any case, you're barking up the wrong tree... planning and executing it is not an important question, you have to start with the thermite... silly

[blackshoe]

Fire has never before been the cause of total collapse;

Leaving aside the distinct possibility that this assertion is just plain wrong, if I remember correctly, the twin towers were a unique (at the time they were built) new design. If my memory of this is correct, it's not surprising there's no experience of collapse of these types of building.

[hotShot]

Fire has never before been the cause of total collapse; but demolition has been the cause of many total collapses; so the most likely scenario is that something that has never before happened occured 3 times in one day?

How many times where buildings hit by big airplanes before?

 

What about the McCormick Place Exhibition Center 1967?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate. Thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard.[3] A subsequent investigation found major flaws in the design and construction of the building, and led to a much better understanding of how modern steel and concrete structures can be vulnerable to fire.

 

Burning a big airplane inside a building is similar to this event.

 

Or the Windsor Tower in Madrid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Building

The Windsor Tower (in Spanish Torre Windsor) was built in 1979 in the financial center of Madrid, Spain. This office building was 106 m high and had 32 floors of which 29 were above ground level and 3 below, thus ranking it as the eighth tallest building in Madrid (and 23rd in Spain). It was gutted by a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed; it has since been demolished.

 

Even without crashing an airplane into a building and burning tons of jet fuel a fire can collapse a building.

 

Or the Partial Freeway Collapse in Oakland/Emerville CA 2007:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html

The elevated section of highway that carries motorists from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to a number of freeways was destroyed early Sunday when the heat of a burning gasoline tanker truck weakened part of one overpass, crumpling it onto another.

 

"Burning fuel" ... "weakened structure", does that sound familiar?

[jmcw]

Applicants are currently being interviewed for Americas first trip to the moon.

[jdonn]

Fire has never before been the cause of total collapse; but demolition has been the cause of many total collapses; so the most likely scenario is that something that has never before happened occured 3 times in one day?

Aside from the above objections (that maybe/definitely it has happened before, and that the towers were unique in their design so what has happened before may not matter) it's a bit misleading to say "3 times in one day" as though that makes it so much less likely. The towers were extremely similar and the exact same thing happened to both of them. If one collapsed due to the results of being hit by a plane, it would be pretty unbelievable if the other one didn't collapse from the exact same thing.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, WTC7 didn't have any planes hit it, and the fires were only moderate....but it did contain the SEC files on Cheney/Haliburton as well as other state documents of interest....nah, just a coincidence.....

 

 

and the BBC did "predict" it's collapse 20 min ahead of time.