9/11 Conspiracy

Juan:

Nevermind. Mr Budney is a 'free-market anarchist' who believes what his government says, and thinks that skeptics should be 'shunned' because they give the 'libertarian movement' a bad name. If you read previous posts in this thread you'll notice that people who don't see things the way mr Budney does are regarded by him, basically, as 'stupid'.

You're confused. I mentioned shunning on a different thread, and I think you should be shunned for your advocacy of pedophilia. In this thread I don't believe I used the word "stupid," but it's a fair description of your inability to comprehend the physics debunking the "thermite theory." That doesn't make all truthers stupid: just you.

--Len

 

Pathetic. Would you mind pointing out where I advocated the "thermite theory" ? You can't ? Too bad. I suggest you stop making things up ?

Len Budney:

I certainly don't say that. In specific cases, such as Alex Jones's thermite theory, the conspiracy theory is debunked by cold hard physics, and folks who cling to that theory--like some on this thread, including Juan, but not including you AFAIK--only discredit themselves. When I call someone like that a nut, it's because he's a nut, not because I believe the government.

This is exactly what I am talking about.  Alex Jones isn't the originator of the thermite theory.  It isn't "his theory".  Attributing it to him is a form of strawman, inferring that if it is Alex Joneses theory, then it must be crazy and fabricated.

As mentioned previous, the people who refuse to admit any possibility of a coverup or need for further investigation, are usually the ones with the least familiarity with the issues.

It's thermate btw.

 

 

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Since so many people here believe 9/11 was an 'inside job' I have reconsidered Austrian school of thought because you have to have a complete disregard for the scientific method.

Len:

Alex Jones's thermite theory - and folks who cling to that theory--like some on this thread, including Juan,

Please provide links to posts where I 'cling' to that theory or else shut up.

This is exactly what I am talking about.  Alex Jones isn't the originator of the thermite theory.  It isn't "his theory".  Attributing it to him is a form of strawman, inferring that if it is Alex Joneses theory, then it must be crazy and fabricated.

It's crazy and fabricated because it's crazy and fabricated: thousands of pounds--literally truckloads--would be needed to do what is claimed. Referring to it as "Alex Jones's" is simply a convenient label, because it's a staple of prison-planet reporting. I specifically cited the physics as discrediting the theory. That thing you can learn in college, and work out yourself with a calculator, and that is in no way subject to debate. The quantity of the material needed to melt the requisite amount of steel is impossibly large.

As mentioned previous, the people who refuse to admit any possibility of a coverup or need for further investigation, are usually the ones with the least familiarity with the issues.

Like simple physics?

It's thermate btw.

Doesn't really affect the discussion. Thermate is thermite enhanced with sulfur (and sometimes barium nitrate). Neither substance can do the job in quantities less than about fifteen tons. You're straining at gnats and swallowing camels here. Even if 9/11 WERE an inside job, there's no way in hades they used thermite, thermate or any other aluminothermic reaction.

--Len

Friedreich:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Since so many people here believe 9/11 was an 'inside job' I have reconsidered Austrian school of thought because you have to have a complete disregard for the scientific method.

 

Are you trolling? Austrians have no position on 9/11: they're economists, not journalists or anything else. And a few kooks on an Austrian forum doesn't tell you anything about the merits or demerits of Austrian economics.

--Len

Friedreich:

Since so many people here believe 9/11 was an 'inside job' I have reconsidered Austrian school of thought because you have to have a complete disregard for the scientific method.

 

Perhaps it's best.

Friedreich:

Since so many people here believe 9/11 was an 'inside job' I have reconsidered Austrian school of thought because you have to have a complete disregard for the scientific method.

Good riddance to those who spew such blatant generalizations, perhaps?

 

Len Budney:

It's crazy and fabricated because it's crazy and fabricated: thousands of pounds--literally truckloads--would be needed to do what is claimed. Referring to it as "Alex Jones's" is simply a convenient label, because it's a staple of prison-planet reporting. I specifically cited the physics as discrediting the theory. That thing you can learn in college, and work out yourself with a calculator, and that is in no way subject to debate. The quantity of the material needed to melt the requisite amount of steel is impossibly large.

So you admit that you misuse the "Alex Jones" connection for effect?

You cited the physics, but Architects and Engineers for 9/11 might disagree with you.  As well as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.  Now, these are educated professionals who question it.  And you are citing college physics and stuff you figured out on a calculator?

Anyone who claims that there is no debate, seems a little insecure to me.

Len Budney:

Doesn't really affect the discussion. Thermate is thermite enhanced with sulfur (and sometimes barium nitrate). Neither substance can do the job in quantities less than about fifteen tons. You're straining at gnats and swallowing camels here. Even if 9/11 WERE an inside job, there's no way in hades they used thermite, thermate or any other aluminothermic reaction.

Actually, it does affect the discussion.  I believe Thermate is a brand name product.  If traces of thermate were found, there should be a trail back to the manufacturer.  More info here

I'm not claiming 9/11 is an inside job, and tire of people who make that leap in an attempt to debate or discredit what I am talking about.

There are inconsistencies and ommissions with the official story.  They should be investigated and rectified.  That is, unless you would argue that the world is best served by an incomplete or inaccurate account.  Is that your position?

liberty student:

So you admit that you misuse the "Alex Jones" connection for effect?

No. Stop being silly.

liberty student:

Anyone who claims that there is no debate, seems a little insecure to me.

No, just irritated: I'm trying to impress upon you how futile it's going to be to convince people of things if you insist on adding 2+2 and getting 5. It's not because we're all government stooges; it's because you're blatantly wrong on something that's easily checked.

Actually, it does affect the discussion.  Thermate is a brand name product.  If traces of thermate were found, there should be a trail back to the manufacturer.

Which hasn't happened... (I know--because the government cleaned up all the traces.)

liberty student:

I'm not claiming 9/11 is an inside job...

Never said you were. I temporarily assumed it was an inside job, to point out that under the assumptions most completely adverse to my position, it would still be nonsensical to imagine that and aluminothermic agent was used.

At the same time, it seems difficult to come up with a coherent theory that isn't an inside job but does involve controlled demolition of building 7, using thermate or anything else. So it's not entirely clear what your own position even is. You're mad when I say "no thermate," but you're also pretty mad at the seeming implication that you believe it was an inside job.

There are inconsistencies and ommissions with the official story.

Of COURSE there are! For one thing, they're not going to give clear, consistent documentation of their own incompetence. For another, they're too incompetent to produce a coherent investigation of much of anything.

They should be investigated and rectified.

I got no problem with that. I'm not paying for it, though. I'd rather spend the money shipping Bush and Cheney to the Hague for trial over the deaths of a million Iraqis (plus or minus).

--Len

Len Budney:

No. Stop being silly.

What is being silly?  You clearly said, "convenient label", "prison-planet reporting".  You did say that, right?

I think perhaps instead of inferring my silliness, you should be clarifying your denial of what you clearly wrote.

Len Budney:

No, just irritated: I'm trying to impress upon you how futile it's going to be to convince people of things if you insist on adding 2+2 and getting 5. It's not because we're all government stooges; it's because you're blatantly wrong on something that's easily checked.

That is a strawman.  I have never accused you of being a government stooge.  As far as checking, you're falling into my characterization of people who try to debunk conspiracies without actually knowing what details the conspiracies are based on.

Len Budney:

Which hasn't happened... (I know--because the government cleaned up all the traces.)

Then you didn't read the PDF I linked from the NIST site.  I recommend you do.  It's good to be informed.

Len Budney:

Never said you were. I temporarily assumed it was an inside job, to point out that under the assumptions most completely adverse to my position, it would still be nonsensical to imagine that and aluminothermic agent was used.

Again, please read the PDF I linked from the NIST site.  I believe it was written by an expert on the topic.

Len Budney:

At the same time, it seems difficult to come up with a coherent theory that isn't an inside job but does involve controlled demolition of building 7, using thermate or anything else. So it's not entirely clear what your own position even is. You're mad when I say "no thermate," but you're also pretty mad at the seeming implication that you believe it was an inside job.

My position is, there are inconsistencies.  Such as your insistence that there was no thermate.  It seems there may have been.  Et voila, a reason to investigate further.

I'm not getting mad.  I'm just surprised you are responding with strawmen.

Len Budney:

Of COURSE there are! For one thing, they're not going to give clear, consistent documentation of their own incompetence. For another, they're too incompetent to produce a coherent investigation of much of anything.

Great.  Well, that's why there should be a new unbiased and independent investigation.  Thousands of people have died since 9/11, due to the 9/11 changed everything paradigm.  If we don't fully understand what it changed by way of accurate reporting, then how can we so easily accept the consequences generated by that day?

Len Budney:

I got no problem with that. I'm not paying for it, though. I'd rather spend the money shipping Bush and Cheney to the Hague for trial over the deaths of a million Iraqis (plus or minus).

I'd rather not spend the money at all.  But whether or not you pay for it, is between you and the IRS. 

Quite seriously though, if the Senate can waste time investigating steroids and NFL spygate, then surely this is a more appropriate excuse for the appropriation of funds.

Bush, Cheney, Bush Sr., Clinton, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Ashcroft, Albright, the list goes on and on.

liberty student:

What is being silly?  You clearly said, "convenient label"

Are mathematicians the only people on earth who know what "convenient label" means? I don't really feel like explaining, and you're being a ninny, but a "convenient label" is a "label" because it denotes something, and "convenient" because it's short and the thing referred to doesn't already have any handy designation (that I know of).

Then you didn't read the PDF I linked from the NIST site.

Post the excerpt where they identify thermate and trace it to a manufacturer.

I'm just surprised you are responding with strawmen.

You've mentioned straw-men twice. You don't appear to know what that is. Irrelevant side-issues, whether accurate or not, are not "straw-men." For example, if we argue which of us runs faster, and I mention your "Nikes," it would be idiotic of you to say, "Ha! Straw man! I wear converse!"

Thousands of people have died since 9/11, due to the 9/11 changed everything paradigm.

That's a war crime even if the government's story is accurate in every detail. Executing him for mass murder requires only proving that he murdered masses; it isn't also necessary to prove that his mother was never married. You're helping the war criminals by focusing all your attention on something other than their actual war crimes.

Quite seriously though, if the Senate can waste time investigating steroids and NFL spygate, then surely this is a more appropriate excuse for the appropriation of funds.

Since we're going to be raped anyway, at least we should be treated to a nice dinner first. Is that it? Your priorities are REALLY screwed up.

--Len

Len Budney:

Are mathematicians the only people on earth who know what "convenient label" means? I don't really feel like explaining, and you're being a ninny, but a "convenient label" is a "label" because it denotes something, and "convenient" because it's short and the thing referred to doesn't already have any handy designation (that I know of).

It may be handy for you, but it's clearly meant to undermine the quality of the argument when you refer to the position of respected scholars, professionals and educators as "Alex Jones" "prison-planet reporting".  It seems to me you may be intentionally trying to brand something as inferior, when it has become apparent in the course of this discussion that you don't actually have much familiarity with the subject matter.

My "ninnyness" and your desire to refer to my reponses as such aside, your label may be convenient however, it is intellectually dishonest.  "I don't really feel like explaining" is the path taken by someone on the losing side of a bad position in my opinion.  I'm quite certain you will return to this thread and continue explaining, just not the inconsistent positions you hold.

Len Budney:

Post the excerpt where they identify thermate and trace it to a manufacturer.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Start reading around page 75 (of the document, not page 75 of the PDF).  I think you will find it very interesting through to page 80.

Now I've already referred to a paper at the NIST WTC site by Steven Jones, who has done research and is a physicist.  For the sake of argument, can we assume he is at least your equal when it comes to both college physics and using a calculator?

Len Budney:

You've mentioned straw-men twice. You don't appear to know what that is. Irrelevant side-issues, whether accurate or not, are not "straw-men." For example, if we argue which of us runs faster, and I mention your "Nikes," it would be idiotic of you to say, "Ha! Straw man! I wear converse!"

I trust this definition will be ok with you?

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

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

This I believe is a strawman, attributing the argument to Alex Jones, as it is easier to refute Alex Jones.
In specific cases, such as Alex Jones's thermite theory, the conspiracy theory is debunked by cold hard physics, and folks who cling to that theory--like some on this thread, including Juan, but not including you AFAIK--only discredit themselves.

Although here you seem to claim that this strawman is a "convenient label", claiming it is a "staple of prison-planet reporting".
Referring to it as "Alex Jones's" is simply a convenient label, because it's a staple of prison-planet reporting.

These are more strawmen.  That I am insisting on bad math, and that I imply that the people I am arguing with are government stooges.

I'm trying to impress upon you how futile it's going to be to convince people of things if you insist on adding 2+2 and getting 5. It's not because we're all government stooges; it's because you're blatantly wrong on something that's easily checked.

And another strawman

You're mad when I say "no thermate," but you're also pretty mad at the seeming implication that you believe it was an inside job.

I didn't get mad.  This isn't a really emotional argument for me.  But implying that I may be emotional undermines the quality and motives of my arguments.

Also, if this isn't an example of a strawman, I'm notsure what is

Since we're going to be raped anyway, at least we should be treated to a nice dinner first. Is that it? Your priorities are REALLY screwed up.

Not only did I not say that, and the move to use "rape" is a colorful plea for emotional responses, but I don't believe the analogy holds.

Len Budney:

That's a war crime even if the government's story is accurate in every detail. Executing him for mass murder requires only proving that he murdered masses; it isn't also necessary to prove that his mother was never married. You're helping the war criminals by focusing all your attention on something other than their actual war crimes.

Not really.  If the attack was contrived, then that is another set of crimes.  At the very least, there has been criminal negligence that has gone unpunished.

I don't believe you can logically prove that focusing on 9/11 undermines the "actual war crimes".  They will never face trial for war crimes, until they have been completely discredited as either collaborators or instigators.  Which is why continuing a proper investigation is important.  Because Bush Derangement Syndrome doesn't help when Clinton, Obama or McCain carry on the same wars Bush started.

Len Budney:

Since we're going to be raped anyway, at least we should be treated to a nice dinner first. Is that it? Your priorities are REALLY screwed up.

I expected another personal attack and strawman before your response was done.  You've been getting increasingly hostile as this discussion has developed.

I think your priorities aren't quite right, given that you are providing so much resistance and adopting a dismissive stance to simple questions.  The truth shouldn't fear investigation.  And arguments that investigating 9/11 again are a waste of money, seems to be an argument I have seen before.  Oh, we can't get to the truth, THAT'S A WASTE OF MONEY.

Really, a new investigation is a win/win for everyone except the people who might not want to discover something they don't want to believe.  Executing a criminal is not the answer.  Executing 10 criminals is not the answer.  Undermining the credibility of the state in a public, global, honest and irrefutable manner is a much bigger prize, should the evidence support it.

If necessary, I will dedicate myself to raising the money so it doesn't cost you a dime Len.  Now please take a look at that PDF and if you need the URLs for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 or Pilots for 9/11 let me know.  To my knowledge, none of them work with Alex Jones. 

 

liberty student:

It may be handy for you, but it's clearly meant to undermine the quality of the argument...

It was meant to do no such thing. The argument had no quality to begin with, and I stated why. There would be no need for me to invoke fallacies against the argument, since it falls on its complete lack of merit anyway. Your vehemence suggests strongly that you favor this theory.

Really, a new investigation is a win/win for everyone except the people who might not want to discover something they don't want to believe.

I want to see Bush and Cheney tried at the Hague, and then hanged with the same rope they used on Saddam. Anything else is a side show. By dedicating yourself to a sideshow, you distract from what really matters. And by espousing easily-debunked theories, you discredit not only your own focus, but related ones as well. You couldn't do a better job protecting Bush from public outrage if he paid you to.

liberty student:

If necessary, I will dedicate myself to raising the money so it doesn't cost you a dime Len. 

Then investigate to your heart's content. But don't use funds extorted from the taxpayers.

liberty student:

Start reading around page 75 (of the document, not page 75 of the PDF).  I think you will find it very interesting through to page 80.

You didn't quote the bit about finding thermate, and tracing it to a manufacturer. The reason for your omission is obvious. Don't waste everyone's time.

...straw men...

The problem here is that you can't seem to distinguish irrelevancies from the core argument. The core argument is that at least .13 lbs of thermate are required to heat one pound of steel to 700 degrees--which is the temperature at which it is substantially weakened, NOT melted, which would require quite a bit more. Even with that conservative estimate, many tons of thermate would be required. This is cold hard fact you can learn pretty much anywhere, and it shoots the theory completely. Anything else said on the subject is just you writhing helplessly to refuse delivery on the facts.

The best way to do your 9/11-truth movement a favor is to purge out the sub-theories that involve violating the laws of physics, or other obvious gaffes. Clinging tenaciously to them, and even bothering to argue with someone who tells you the facts, only makes you look worse and worse. Rest assured, nobody with a brain is impressed by your argument so far. Whatever departures the "official story" may make from the truth, NONE of them involve controlled demolition using thermate.

For what it's worth, many credible scientists believe that the planes were never hijacked--they were simply blinded by the morning sun as it rose in the west.

--Len

Len Budney:

It was meant to do no such thing. The argument had no quality to begin with, and I stated why. There would be no need for me to invoke fallacies against the argument, since it falls on its complete lack of merit anyway.

I don't understand how you can dismiss the argument, when you don't know or understand it.  Thus far, all you have used is fallacies, because you've been unable to guess the argument accurately.

Len Budney:

Your vehemence suggests strongly that you favor this theory.

I haven't had to be vehement.  You haven't addressed any facts.

Len Budney:

I want to see Bush and Cheney tried at the Hague, and then hanged with the same rope they used on Saddam. Anything else is a side show. By dedicating yourself to a sideshow, you distract from what really matters. And by espousing easily-debunked theories, you discredit not only your own focus, but related ones as well. You couldn't do a better job protecting Bush from public outrage if he paid you to.

If you see only Bush and Cheney as criminals, not Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson etc  then unfortunatly I believe your focus is too narrow.  The neocons like to call your perspective, BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome.  The cast and crew of criminals spans the entire government.  John Yoo, David Addington amongst the names I mentioned earlier.  The side show is that you are obsessed with two men who will be retired in 8 months, and the odds of them facing war crimes charges, let alone the war ending anytime soon, are very small in my estimation.

You keep referring to the theories as "esily debunked", but you don't seem to be aware of the questions and theories I am talking about.

Now, I can understand your dislike for truthers or Alex Jones.  I can understand your desire to believe that the towers were attacked per the official story.  But that doesn't excuse what seems to be a serious unwillingness to address some basic issues.  The name calling, dismissiveness etc only makes your evasion more obvious.

Len Budney:

Then investigate to your heart's content. But don't use funds extorted from the taxpayers.

That's a red herring.

Len Budney:

You didn't quote the bit about finding thermate, and tracing it to a manufacturer. The reason for your omission is obvious. Don't waste everyone's time.

No, I didn't quote it, because you refuse to read a document, by a physicist, on the NIST WTC site, explaining thermate at the WTCs.  The reason for my omission, is that I am not going to play the copy/paste game.  I have provided the link, and the specific pages to reference, so that the argument is presented in full.

The waste of time, is your continual denial of basic facts and professional investigation.  You called it thermite, and attributed it to Alex Jones.  It was actually thermate, and discovered by Dr. Steven Jones.  The difference between thermite and thermate are significant.  The two men involved couldn't be more different.  I find it hard to believe that you got "prison planet" from BYU.

Len Budney:

The problem here is that you can't seem to distinguish irrelevancies from the core argument. The core argument is that at least .13 lbs of thermate are required to heat one pound of steel to 700 degrees--which is the temperature at which it is substantially weakened, NOT melted, which would require quite a bit more. Even with that conservative estimate, many tons of thermate would be required. This is cold hard fact you can learn pretty much anywhere, and it shoots the theory completely. Anything else said on the subject is just you writhing helplessly to refuse delivery on the facts.

I'm not sure this passage you wrote makes any sense.  Have you read the report I linked?

Len Budney:

The best way to do your 9/11-truth movement a favor is to purge out the sub-theories that involve violating the laws of physics, or other obvious gaffes. Clinging tenaciously to them, and even bothering to argue with someone who tells you the facts, only makes you look worse and worse. Rest assured, nobody with a brain is impressed by your argument so far. Whatever departures the "official story" may make from the truth, NONE of them involve controlled demolition using thermate.

Dr. Steven Jones work has not been refuted for violating the laws of physics.  I realize you "tell me the facts" but it seems you don't knwo the questions, which like Popular Mechanics, puts your responses under seious doubt.  The Ad Hom about "nobody with a brain" is suggestive that you are losing the argument, with the number of names or insults directed my way over the last several posts.  Usually, people with strong positions, don't resort to Ad Homs.

Len Budney:

For what it's worth, many credible scientists believe that the planes were never hijacked--they were simply blinded by the morning sun as it rose in the west.

Like most of your statements on 9/11, I imagine you don't have any sources to quote.

Len, I'll ask you please to refrain from the name calling.  If you're not up to a debate about the questions re: 9/11, then perhaps this is the wrong thread for you.

 

Hey, this is cool.  Dr. Steven Jones is just like you.  He can work a calculator.

 

Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm

liberty student:

I don't understand how you can dismiss the argument, when you don't know or understand it.  Thus far, all you have used is fallacies, because you've been unable to guess the argument accurately.

Thermate cannot have been used in the way that is claimed. With all the gum-rattling you indulge in, you appear to be disputing that statement.

Len Budney:

For what it's worth, many credible scientists believe that the planes were never hijacked--they were simply blinded by the morning sun as it rose in the west.

Like most of your statements on 9/11, I imagine you don't have any sources to quote.

My point exactly is that sources are irrelevant when the claim involves the sun rising in the west. Read more carefully.

--Len

Len Budney:

Thermate cannot have been used in the way that is claimed. With all the gum-rattling you indulge in, you appear to be disputing that statement.

In order to maintain that particular opinion, don't you think it might be incumbent upon you to look at the scholarly work that says otherwise?

I've asked you to look at 6 pages in a PDF file.  Until you look at them, consider them for a moment, the conversation can't progress.

 

Hello,

This discussion so far is very interesting.  I just have a question for Len Budney and all those who dismiss the revisionists.

Do you have any particular theory yourselves as to how and by whom the 9/11 acts were perpetrated?  I'm curious to know if you're only dismissing particular alternative theories such as the Thermate theory or any theory which conflict with assertions presented to the public by mainstream media sources?

I'm still trying to make up my mind as to who specifically may have been responsible.  I would like to know what credible alternatives exist to the much defended and much derided "controlled demolition" theory.

A-R:

I'm still trying to make up my mind as to who specifically may have been responsible.  I would like to know what credible alternatives exist to the much defended and much derided "controlled demolition" theory.

For what it's worth (and that may be nothing, since I know little about this), I think it's entirely possible that the two towers really were brought down by the planes. But that doesn't necessarily mean there was no government assistance. I think it's entirely possible that various secret services knew about the pilot training the terrorists were undergoing, and followed them with their progress, but chose not to intervene. It's a bit like with Churchill and Pearl Harbour. They didn't necessarily do the dirty work (hence invalidating the idea that the government was too inefficient for this), they may have simply let events unfold without doing their job.

 

liberty student:

In order to maintain that particular opinion, don't you think it might be incumbent upon you to look at the scholarly work that says otherwise?

To determine that at least 13 lbs of thermate are required for every 100 lbs of steel heated to 700 degrees? No, I don't need to check with "scholarly work" that says otherwise, any more than I need to check with "scholarly work" that affirms the sun rises in the west.

liberty student:

I've asked you to look at 6 pages in a PDF file.

Six pages that don't say thermate was found, let alone traced to a particular manufacturer. Six pages, incidentally, at the other end of a link that doesn't work. The site is down for maintenance and has been for going on 24 hours now.

--Len

A-R:

Do you have any particular theory yourselves as to how and by whom the 9/11 acts were perpetrated?  I'm curious to know if you're only dismissing particular alternative theories such as the Thermate theory or any theory which conflict with assertions presented to the public by mainstream media sources?

I'm only dismissing theories that are impossible on their face. It's a given that the generally accepted story will be full of inaccuracies, and I have no opinion how large they are. It wouldn't surprise me especially if Cheney placed explosives personally in building 7. It would only surprise me that it's managed to stay secret this long.

A-R:

I'm still trying to make up my mind as to who specifically may have been responsible.

Currently, "19 al Qaeda hijackers" are better supported than the alternative theories, most of which have been painfully debunked. The scientific method involves tentatively accepting the best-supported hypothesis, until falsified experimentally or a better hypothesis comes along. Meanwhile, your opinion about 9/11 affects nothing of any importance. If you realize that the government is a criminal gang, then one crime more or less won't change your opinion. If you don't realize it, then that's a more important problem than your opinion about 9/11--or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Pearl Harbor, or the Maine, or the Alamo for that matter.

--Len

Len Budney:

If you realize that the government is a criminal gang, then one crime more or less won't change your opinion.

Yep, I agree totally.  But the question still remains one that I would like to find answers to.

Len Budney:

Currently, "19 al Qaeda hijackers" are better supported than the alternative theories, most of which have been painfully debunked.

Would anyone care to point out what exactly is the evidence is that better supports the 19 al Qaeda hijackers theory?  I understand that this is accepted by a great majority as fact, but I have been at a loss at actually finding what (credible?) evidence points to the Al Qaeda theory.

It's interesting to look through news archives from the day of Sept 11'th.  Mainstream news was mentioning Al Qaeda / Bin Laden almost immediately, and never really did I see any other alternative perps suggested.  I'm sort of at a loss to figure out what evidence would have led them to that conclusion so quickly.

Len Budney:

It would only surprise me that it's managed to stay secret this long.

Well I don't really know if there were explosives in building 7.  But if we are discussing it then obviously it hasn't stayed a secret.  How can we ever say that theory X is wrong because "people would have found out; the information would have been leaked"? If theory X is true, then obviously the information has been leaked and people have found out.  Whether or not the perpetrators themselves (or their propaganda outlets) have admitted their own guilt is another question entirely. 

If we are to believe that 19 al Qaeda operators (with extremely limited means) were successful in orchestrating the 9/11 conspiracy then it seems to be at least as plausible that 19 or fewer other people (with much better means) could have just as effectively done the same.

A-R:

Well I don't really know if there were explosives in building 7.  But if we are discussing it then obviously it hasn't stayed a secret.  How can we ever say that theory X is wrong because "people would have found out; the information would have been leaked"? If theory X is true, then obviously the information has been leaked and people have found out.  Whether or not the perpetrators themselves (or their propaganda outlets) have admitted their own guilt is another question entirely. 

If we are to believe that 19 al Qaeda operators (with extremely limited means) were successful in orchestrating the 9/11 conspiracy then it seems to be at least as plausible that 19 or fewer other people (with much better means) could have just as effectively done the same.

I find it odd that we only have confirmation of Gulf of Tonkin theories when documents become declassified.  So who is to say that future declassifications won't reveal all sorts of insights about 9/11?

The argument that the "info would be leaked" is based on negative proof.  Which is a logical fallacy.

Documents like this ?

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

A-R:

If we are to believe that 19 al Qaeda operators (with extremely limited means) were successful in orchestrating the 9/11 conspiracy...

They didn't. Enough was known beforehand to have prevented it. They succeeded not by their cleverness, but by the criminal negligence of the US government.

--Len

Keep in mind that, to the people who are raped and killed in our prisons every day for drug offenses or wrongful convictions, the government does something even worse, openly and with the approval of much of the population.

I don't know what the government did or didn't do. What I do know is that some very suspicious things happened on that day, and that we have received all information just as if a well-planned cover-up for the modern day had occurred.

First off, any Nazi can tell you that the bigger a lie is, the less apt people will be to suspect it. Coincidentally, such people: neo- and other Jew-haters, tin-foil hatters, alien abductees, were the first to raise questions as to the events of that day, and the ones who seemed to first get access to evidence. This, of course, is a stroke of genius for a person trying to cover something up in the modern day. The fact is, with the internet and digital cameras everywhere, it is completely impossible to actually keep big things a secret anymore. You just can't do it. Someone will find out. So, if you can't actually hide it, what do you do? You reveal it preemptively to someone with no credibility. This taints the evidence, associating anyone who sees merit in it with those who first revealed it, calling their credibility into question as well. The natural mental gullibility of the populace at large will do the rest.

JCFolsom:

First off, any Nazi can tell you that the bigger a lie is, the less apt people will be to suspect it.

 

 

Sure. I always find the argument that the government is too stupid and incompetent to undertake a successful 9/11 to be quite impressive. I used to wonder why who ever brought down those buildings in such an obviously demolition style manner didn't put more effort into making them look like they fell as a result of uneven heating and weakening of the buildings. Then i realized that the more incompetently they made it look as if it were not a controlled demolition, the more obvious it would be to the mesmerized people that it was not a controlled demolition. LMAO! I mean obviously, a so obviously looking controlled demolition could not be the result of an incompetent government operation. This is why Bush is so perfect as a president. He is the imbecile’s imbecile. And he is the face of the state. The string pullers want it this way. And the sleepy public naturally sees it this way – just as intended. What a circus!

pauled:

JCFolsom:

First off, any Nazi can tell you that the bigger a lie is, the less apt people will be to suspect it.

 

 

Sure. I always find the argument that the government is too stupid and incompetent to undertake a successful 9/11 to be quite impressive. I used to wonder why who ever brought down those buildings in such an obviously demolition style manner didn't put more effort into making them look like they fell as a result of uneven heating and weakening of the buildings. Then i realized that the more incompetently they made it look as if it were not a controlled demolition, the more obvious it would be to the mesmerized people that it was not a controlled demolition. LMAO! I mean obviously, a so obviously looking controlled demolition could not be the result of an incompetent government operation. This is why Bush is so perfect as a president. He is the imbecile’s imbecile. And he is the face of the state. The string pullers want it this way. And the sleepy public naturally sees it this way – just as intended. What a circus!

How did you escape the brainwashing?

Ego:

How did you escape the brainwashing?

 

Most libertarians and austrians must have interesting stories to tell on how they avoided at least some of the brainwashing. My story is this: when i was young i realized two things: the popular press often gets their front page stories quite wrong, and if they print retractions at all, it would be not in the front pages where the untruth was told. Second i realized, as i later heard Jefferson quoted as saying, that the person who never reads a paper is better educated than the one who does. Why? Because the details from the paper are more often wrong than not, and the paper reader believes he knows truths when in fact he believes falsehoods. The non-reader will hear about the general facts second-hand, which, by the time they reach him in that manner are general enough to be more likely true, if not necessarily true.

 

At an early age i leaned that what the masses believe to be true, unless i could verify it for myself, was more likely to be a falsehood than a truth. Why this observation came to me i cannot tell you. My father found many occasions to remind me to "believe half of what i see, and nothing of what i hear". Although i took him to be kidding, it always seemed to hold a strong element of truth to me.

 

But it is only later in life when i saw first-hand how the MSM twists, distorts, omits and misleads with the intention of manipulating a docile and weak-minded audience that I understood clearly what I only vaguely suspected as a youth. Not only do they lie and omit out of laziness and lack of interest in the pursuit of truth, but they lie and omit truths with intentional purposes to mislead and misdirect. This is not hidden from serious students of lewrockwell.com and mises.org.

 

To make a long story short, i think i was lucky. I often noticed a disparity between the truth and what the press and popular opinion had to say. And so i was always skeptical and on the lookout for the knowledgeable contrarian perspective – not just in revisionist history, but in current events as the facts seemed to suggest.

It's out of the question that it was an inside job.  Because there is always a participant who will tell after the fact, especially about such a heinous crime as this.  7 years later we still hear of no such confession.

pauled:

Ego:

How did you escape the brainwashing?

Most libertarians and austrians must have interesting stories to tell on how they avoided at least some of the brainwashing.

I didn't.  I had to be a school trained communist before being refuted into submission and finally finding the LvMI.

 

Caley:

I didn't.  I had to be a school trained communist before being refuted into submission and finally finding the LvMI.

 

My hat is off to you. It seems to me that most people tie their egos and their very souls to the beliefs that were instilled in them from childhood. I respect anyone who is willing and able to allow reason to supersede that aspect of human nature. Well done, sir.

 

Caley:

It's out of the question that it was an inside job.  Because there is always a participant who will tell after the fact, especially about such a heinous crime as this.  7 years later we still hear of no such confession.

How long did it take the Gulf of Tonkin to come out?  How long did it take for Pearl Harbor to be seriously questioned (some could argue that hasn't really happened yet)?

I wish people would drop the negative proof attack/defense/whatever.  The absence of proof, is not proof.  Otherwise that would refute the existence of God.  Which would really tick off a lot of religious libertarians.

 

 

Pauled, to be honest, I don't think anyone is brainwashed; that whole idea is pretty condescending to me.

I think will believe what the want to believe; Republicans believe all the conspiracies about Clinton, Democrats believe all the conspiracies about Bush, and libertarians believe all the conspiracies about everyone!

Ego:

Pauled, to be honest, I don't think anyone is brainwashed; that whole idea is pretty condescending to me.

 

That was someone else's term that i didn't think was off the mark enough to bother to refine. But i agree it's not brainwashing in the sense you may be thinking. But then again, i suspect it wasn't intended to be, either.

 

Ego:

I think will believe what the want to believe; Republicans believe all the conspiracies about Clinton, Democrats believe all the conspiracies about Bush, and libertarians believe all the conspiracies about everyone!

 

And there are people who believe all that they hear on the six o'clock news. They believe that the things that never make the mainstream news are either unimportant, or didn't happen. That is the majority, in fact. Me, on the other hand - I'm just skeptical.

 

What i am quite certain of is that if the MSM reported to us tomorrow that Iran was a huge threat to us, had attacked our war ships, and needed to be bombed and invaded, more than half the nation would rally behind Washington’s attacks, invasions, and occupations of Iran - their ostensible defense of this nation - in a heart-beat. And you would be right that people will believe what they want to believe, and yet i would still think i'm right about how and why they come to believe what they want to believe.

To be honest, while I find the arguments of the structural engineers and such, that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that jet fuel just couldn't burn hot or long enough, especially when the initial fireballs had consumed so much of it, to be somewhat convincing, sorting through experts is just not something I am qualified to do. No, what tipped me towards believing that there was a conspiracy was this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6937803281885493976&q=9-11+witness&ei=r7wvSMKxAZW05AKSsIDgCQ

I think the guy in the video is Len Budney.  

 

...sorting through experts is just not something I am qualified to do

People here have talked about the scientific method but have conveniently forgotten to mention that the scientific method relies heavily on repeated and controlled experiments. A good experiment would be to build a steel structure resembling say building 7, damage it in the way gov't claims building 7 was damaged and see if it collapses neatly in its onw footprint.

After reading these replies, there is a reason why Austrians are economists. You are not qualified to examine the evidence.

You don't know what the 'scientific method' is, do you ?