After reading some post recently it has come to my attention that a number of the posters on these boards are supporters of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. This kind of perplexed me as I though that most Austrians were more supporters of the inept/inefficient view of government as opposed to the omniscient/malevolent view. While I agree that the government has used events in the past to raise support for its wars (i.e. USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin) I do not believe that these things were premeditated but merely coincidence. In my mind the terrorist had the motive and the ability to carry out these attacks, and the only difference between these hijackings and ones in the past was the intended outcome. I also do not believe that the government is capable of orchestrating a cover up like this based just on the embarrassments this administration has faced in trying to spy on American citizens and being exposed by whistle blowers. While I dislike the government as much as the next guy, I am inclined to resort to Occam's Razor. I am eager to hear your take on the issue.
I'm with you. 9/11 wasn't an inside job--but it WAS a golden opportunity.
--Len.
I also want to point out that conspiracy theories may draw attention away from the real culprit: blowback. Blowback is a documented and logical response to imperialism and has occurred countless times throughout history.
Tbonesw:I also want to point out that conspiracy theories may draw attention away from the real culprit: blowback. Blowback is a documented and logical response to imperialism and has occurred countless times throughout history.
Agreed. The mass media often toss into one pile the people who support conspiracies, and those who argue for a better understanding of blowback, and then spin it so that both look like loonies.
The terrorists had sufficient motive to do what they did. The fact that to this day many people don't understand why they did it (blowback), is a great danger, and leaves much potential for manipulation of public opinion.
I am one of "those" guys. That is I think that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I base much of my thoughts on the matter on the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones. I find that he makes a very strong case for explosives being planted in WTC 1, 2, and 7. I would most certainly be open to reading more attempted refutations of his work. I would change my postition on the matter if such a refutation successfully refuted his thesis and presented a plausable explanation as to why the towers fell without explosives.
One more thing... I stand very much in the minorty among "Austrians" on this issue (as far as I can tell).
I'm not sure if your labels of the "view of government" are valid. Individuals make up a group that call themselves "government." All of these individuals are driven by their own self-interests and act as such. The ineptness and inefficiency that goes along with many government programs has more to do with bureaucrats' motivations. Are they motivated by market forces to serve the public or do they have other interests in mind? Though the government seems to do an "excellent" job when it comes to raping, robbing, and slaughtering people.
After all, Rothbard does mention the New World Order in some of his works. He also maintained that the Kennedy Assassination was a conspiracy. Rothbard and Hoppe have also at times mentioned David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission (and the Council on Foreign Relations if I'm not mistaken).
Is it really so mind bogglingly absurd to think such "conspiratorial" happenings, of which they and others mention, may occur?
pazlenchantinrocks:Is it really so mind bogglingly absurd to think such "conspiratorial" happenings, of which they and others mention, may occur?
I certainly don't deny conspiracies in general, and I think that the CFR plays a very important, and detrimental role in American foreign, and possibly domestic policy through their lobby powers. Having said that, in the particular case of 9/11, as much as the government took tremendous advantage of it to strip the rights of Americans, expand government, and start an unnecessary war, this does not hence mean that they conspired to committ 9/11, since as I've said the terrorists had more than sufficient motivation.
I still prefer to go by the maxim "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity/incompetence".
pazlenchantinrocks:I base much of my thoughts on the matter on the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones.
I have read Jones and seen him present his findings in person. I have to say that Jones' conclusions appear to be very well researched and supported. Based on Jones, I think there is a lot that we are not being told. Whether this amounts to an "inside" job, I cannot say. But, the federal government is certainly trying to keep the bodies buried...for whatever reason. It was either a golden opportunity or a Reichstag. I'm still trying to determine which.
It definantely was NOT an inside job, it is silly and extremely illogical to think so.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Why worry about conspiracies when all the stuff right out in the open is troublesome enough?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
pazlenchantinrocks:I am one of "those" guys. That is I think that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I base much of my thoughts on the matter on the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones. I find that he makes a very strong case for explosives being planted in WTC 1, 2, and 7. I would most certainly be open to reading more attempted refutations of his work. I would change my postition on the matter if such a refutation successfully refuted his thesis and presented a plausable explanation as to why the towers fell without explosives.
Do you really believe that our governmnet is capable of deliberately constructing and executing a situation like 9/11. Further, do you really believe they could do it without it ever being leaked? Further, do you really believe George Bush, Cheney, and the like, wouldn't even want to do something like this?
Don't get me wrong, I think Bush and the like are a bunch of morons who have no clue when it comes to understanding what's best for the people, i.e., understanding the beauty of freedom, but at the same time, do you really believe they're so evil as to actually want to knowingly kill people in order to spread their agenda. I know the president has grown the state at a grotesque rate and for that, I regard him as an utterly horrible president. But at the same time, I cannot put him at the same level as men like Hitler and Stalin.
Hitler obviously had no qualms with killing people in order to further his agenda but I doubt the white house is willing to employ the same means. We're simply not at that stage yet. Despite the size of the state it's still rather disaggregated and unorganized thus meaning it is unable to efficiently carry out such intricate things as the conspiracies you speak of.
I believe in conspiracy theories in the sense that I believe there are fundamental underlying directions which society moves in (e.g. the state grows gradually, taking more and more of the people's power) but it is very rare that "deliberate" consipiracy theories hold any truth.
Anyone can find a way to believe in something if they really want to. That's what has happened here. It's human. But seriously, use the logical side of your brain and think about what you're saying.
I think Bush and the like are a bunch of morons who have no clue when it comes to understanding what's best for the people, i.e., understanding the beauty of freedom, but at the same time, do you really believe they're so evil as to actually want to knowingly kill people in order to spread their agenda.
edward_1313:do you really believe they're so evil as to actually want to knowingly kill people in order to spread their agenda.
Absolutely. The neocons have already murdered hundreds of thousands to further their agenda (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)
As for 9/11, I have no idea if Bush/Cheney had any involvement with it, but I can't put it past them. Something is seriously wrong with the whole situation. Those "hijackers" simply could not have pulled something off like this alone. 9/11 becomes even more suspect when you look at the science behind the towers' falling on their footprints. I don't claim to have the answers, I don't claim that anyone in particular in our government was involved, but I can't rule Bush/Cheney/other neocons out, and I can't help but look at the whole situation and just wonder.
Juan:Well, what's going on in the middle east, exactly ? It seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed to further the agenda of the American gov't. Well perhaps the inhabitants of Iraq are not people ? Only americans killed in 911 qualify as people ?
Well, what's going on in the middle east, exactly ? It seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed to further the agenda of the American gov't. Well perhaps the inhabitants of Iraq are not people ? Only americans killed in 911 qualify as people ?
The situation in the middle east is terribly different from 9/11. It's laughable that you'd even try to compare the two. There's nothing secretive about the war in Iraq, i.e., the people are aware that it's going on. It's not a covert operation where the state has taken it upon themselves to execute something that the public will never learn about.
Further, I would say, to a certain extent, that Bush, etc. do view Americans as more human than they view non-Americans. I think that's the case with many nationallistic people. They view all others as outsiders, less human. This is one reason why they can engage in war and not believe they're doing something harmful to humanity.
I would also say that in a war each side believes the other side is wrong or evil and that helps each side to feel justified in killing the other side. George Bush believes America is great, that democracy is great, and that Islam is evil.
But when one is, or the group one is associated with, willing to kill what he perceives as his own side in order to further an agenda; I would say you're talking about something on a whole new level.
The nationalistic mentality that characterizes many of the neo-cons will indeed lead to war. But it will not lead to the murder of their own people in order justify the war! This is a step which has yet to be taken and one which we are still a ways away from.
Lastly, I would advise you to be careful when analyzing something from a conspiracy perspective. Everything that the state does from taxation to war is evil and coercive, that I do not doubt. But the state never "set out" to steal from the people. It never "set out" to kill thousands in war and expand its empire. While this is in fact what is happening it is not because the state has "conspired" for it be so. It is because this is the natural evolution of the state.
Reidbump: As for 9/11, I have no idea if Bush/Cheney had any involvement with it, but I can't put it past them. Something is seriously wrong with the whole situation. Those "hijackers" simply could not have pulled something off like this alone. 9/11 becomes even more suspect when you look at the science behind the towers' falling on their footprints. I don't claim to have the answers, I don't claim that anyone in particular in our government was involved, but I can't rule Bush/Cheney/other neocons out, and I can't help but look at the whole situation and just wonder.
Give me a break, you sound like a lunatic. I'm sorry for the namecalling but it's ridiculous. Why is it so difficult to believe that the "hijackers" were capable of doing something so horrific, but it's not so difficult to believe that the state constructed some intricate plan that would eventually lead to a justification for war!? Give me a break.
I feel like there's something wrong with me in defending the state. I'm not really defending the state per say, but the libertarian movement will have a lot of difficulty in gaining credit if everytime we say that the Fed is stealing our money, others perceive us to be saying that the Fed is deribately and knowingly stealing our money, like they're robbers burglarizing a house. This is indeed what is happening, but it's not a cognitive or conscious process. Bernanke isn't playing us all while him and his buddies sit in some back room and laugh together about how they're swindling the American people. They're stealing from everyone, but they don't know they are, nor believe they are (in truth they're just a bunch of morons).
This is the difference between what I call a "deliberate" or "cognitive" conspiracy theory and a sort natural conspiracy theory which isn't really a conspiracy theory at all.
Interesting that the believers in the 19 men with boxcutters conspiracy theory site as their prime motivation that "govt would not have gotten away with it" in terms of any kind of inside involvement. I would have to agree with these individuals that govt is too inneficient, stupid, reckless, etc to pull it off without getting caught. But that's the point: They have been caught! The state apologists simply have not examined the hundreds of instances of leaks and contradictions of fact in the official account. It is disturbing (but not too surprising) that corporate media would sensor this information and even participate in perpetuating lies but it is out there for all to see.
Why is one conspiracy theory so much more outlandish/crazy than another? One involves men with both means and motive whilst the other blames patsies with neither. Have we already forgotten the Lusitania, the Reichstag, Pearl Harbor...? History will vindicate the truth.
edward_1313:Bernanke isn't playing us all while him and his buddies sit in some back room and laugh together about how they're swindling the American people. They're stealing from everyone, but they don't know they are, nor believe they are (in truth they're just a bunch of morons).
You really do have a naive view of politicians, edward_1313. What makes you think that evil men don't enter into politics expressly to rob and plunder as much as they possibly can in the short time that they are able, and make as many friends as possible at the same time? There is very little motivation for men with any kind of moral scruples to enter politics at all.
Mr. B. really would have to be one kind of special person to not know precisely what he's doing. I can't speak for him directly, but his predecessor wrote all about the evils of fiat, decades before ascending the throne of the Federal Reserve.
edward_1313:This is the difference between what I call a "deliberate" or "cognitive" conspiracy theory and a sort natural conspiracy theory which isn't really a conspiracy theory at all.
To suggest that individuals within the state don't act "deliberately" or "cognitively" goes against the very foundation of Austrian economics and human action. Of course the state is a conspiracy between rational actors seeking to achieve their own ends.
edward_1313 :The nationalistic mentality that characterizes many of the neo-cons will indeed lead to war. But it will not lead to the murder of their own people in order justify the war!
This is a step which has yet to be taken and one which we are still a ways away from.
edward_1313:Give me a break, you sound like a lunatic. I'm sorry for the namecalling but it's ridiculous. Why is it so difficult to believe that the "hijackers" were capable of doing something so horrific, but it's not so difficult to believe that the state constructed some intricate plan that would eventually lead to a justification for war!? Give me a break.
It isn't difficult to believe that the hijackers could do something so horrific...because they did just that. I question whether they were the only ones involved. I did not know that questioning such things would bring down such wrath.
You seem to misunderstand my position so I will clarify. First, I simply am looking at both sides and the evidence in support. Based on that evidence I believe the issue is not undisputed. There are many holes, a fact which you must face. Second, I do not believe that the "state" was involved with 9/11, but there may be those with strong connections to the "state" who were aware of and facilitated 9/11. If you doubt this, I question your judgment and your knowledge of history. Third, I reiterate that I do not know, which is why I am taking an objective approach, an approach which you deny or fail to consider. I will not accept something as fact merely because CNN and Fox tells me it is fact. I question everything. I recommend you do the same.
I don't mind if you call a "lunatic" if you point out why. I am willing to concede that a position I take is fallible if shown why. Your comment offers nothing of substance, only subjective opinion--an opinion which lacks foundation because its premise is that I am a lunatice because I consider both sides of the aisle. If your position is that there is only one side of the aisle, then I suggest that you are being "ridiculous."
19 men with hate towards the west(due in large part to US intervention) and the support of Al-Qaeda, took flight lessons in the United States. They then proceeded with their plan and hijacked 4 airplanes and flew them into buildings.
All of the evidence is well documented, you do not need to look to our government for the it, it's everywhere.
But the truth just isn't fun enough for some people, some people need their own "truth".
A-R:To suggest that individuals within the state don't act "deliberately" or "cognitively" goes against the very foundation of Austrian economics and human action. Of course the state is a conspiracy between rational actors seeking to achieve their own ends.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that the state as a whole does not act cognitively or deliberately. I'm not saying that individuals don't act in such a way, that's preposterous!
A-R: You really do have a naive view of politicians, edward_1313. What makes you think that evil men don't enter into politics expressly to rob and plunder as much as they possibly can in the short time that they are able, and make as many friends as possible at the same time? There is very little motivation for men with any kind of moral scruples to enter politics at all.
I do not think that politicians are politicians because they conspire to plunder and rob their constituents, that's ridiculous. The robbing of their consitituents is a natural outcome of their desire to attain power, i.e., it's the necessary means. I think we agree on this. But where we differ is that you believe these same politicians actually perceive their means as stealing and coercing their constituents. I don't think they perceive their actions this way. This is where the definition of conspiracy theory becomes important.
Let me see if I can illustrate the difference for you because you don't seem to grasp it.
Every time it snows there are always paths spontaneously formed by individuals walking to their specified destination. Each individual takes this path because it's the best means for their given end, namely, to get closer to their destination. Thus, a nicely broken in path is formed.
Conspiracy theorists would look at the path and think something like this. When it snowed, various individuals came together and "planned" or "conspired" to create a path so that they could walk more easily to their given destinations. This is precisely what conspiracy theorists often propose with regard to many of the nefarious acts committed by the state. It was politicians sitting in dark rooms conspiring and planning to rob their constituents! When in reality it was individually acting politicians choosing certain means for their desired ends and the means employed tend to be those means most harmful to their constituents. Further, those who create the snow paths don't perceive the purpose of their actions as creating paths for others or as growing the path. They simply employ it as a means to an end. Such is the same with politicians. They do not perceive their actions as evil or coercive, even though they are.
Thus, not only do you believe that they're coming together and conspiring, but you also believe that they actually perceive these actions as nefarious, it's ridiculous.
The ultimate point is this; conspiracy theorists often adhere to ideas which are the complete opposite of what Austrian Economics teaches. They want to believe that there is some central collective force "planning" many of the various phenomena that we encounter everyday. There is a force, it's individual actors, each with their own desires. The outcomes of these processess can be anything. There are very few true conspiracy theories that go beyond individal action, i.e. conspiracy theories involving grand collective cognitive action. The hijackers are an example, not the state. You mise well jump on the socialism band wagon if you think the state is so good at planning.
I won't argue any longer, it seems to be a fruitless endeavor.
While I am skeptical of the government's ability to conduct a conspiracy on that large a scale without any leaks coming out, I would like for a non-biased report to explain how WTC7 collapsed and how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed at freefall speed.
Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of articulating what I'm trying to say. Here's a piece from a recently posted article by Rothbard. He distinguishes between "good" and "bad" conspiracy theorists. The second part I find especially well put.
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict. [The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited; Murray Rothbard]
edward_1313: Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of articulating what I'm trying to say. Here's a piece from a recently posted article by Rothbard. He distinguishes between "good" and "bad" conspiracy theorists. The second part I find especially well put. There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict. [The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited; Murray Rothbard]
Well, you are assuming that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are bad conspiracy analysts. While many of them are bad conspiracy analysts, there are some that bring about legitimate arguments of debate. Doesn't it at least cause you to be suspicious that a building that wasn't even attacked collapsed, and the collapse fit to controlled demolition model perfectly? I'm not sayign 9/11 was a conspiracy; I'm just pointing out that there are reasons to be suspicious.
It will take you a while but here's one pretty good report, imho. He actually focuses his attention on Steven Jones. Further, he provides a myriad of other sources that destroy the demolition theory. I should also point out that the auther is no Bush backer. He's a staunch anti-war advocate, you'll find this in his analysis. He's utterly opposed to the killing of innocent peoples.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
I know you say an 'unbiased' report but in giving any credit to conspiracy theorists you're for some reason not assuming that they're biased.
Maybe he is considered a pariah on this board but Alex Jones videos, in particular Martial Law 9/11 are very interesting. Even if you disagree with his views he certainly collects a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as the closing down of NORAD and the email sent the day before 9/11, which need proper explaination. You can pick a cheap copy up from ebay.
Remember that David Rockafella admits to there being a conspiracy, in general, in his memoirs, if I remember rightly, and he is proud of it.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
i dont believe the "official" explanation including the timeline of 9-11 so call me a truther.
flight 93 the one that "crashed" was OBVIOUSLY shot down by a interceptor before it reached Washington D.C. ive come to that affirmative conclusion... everything else is still grey.
Physiocrat: Maybe he is considered a pariah on this board but Alex Jones videos, in particular Martial Law 9/11 are very interesting. Even if you disagree with his views he certainly collects a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as the closing down of NORAD and the email sent the day before 9/11, which need proper explaination. You can pick a cheap copy up from ebay.Remember that David Rockafella admits to there being a conspiracy, in general, in his memoirs, if I remember rightly, and he is proud of it.
If Jones has any talent he's wasted it with his various inquiries. Further, he's caused countless others, intelligent men, to waste their time, explaining relatively obvious phenomena. There's been alot of wasted energy because of the truthers. Scientific disagreement is a good thing, but sometimes it's not really scientific at all, it's a 'feeling', and in order to satiate that 'feeling', men will go on wild goose chases, believing one big whopper after another. Jones's rants make Keynes or the histrocial German economists look like sane geniouses.
edward_1313:It will take you a while but here's one pretty good report, imho. He actually focuses his attention on Steven Jones. Further, he provides a myriad of other sources that destroy the demolition theory. I should also point out that the auther is no Bush backer. He's a staunch anti-war advocate, you'll find this in his analysis. He's utterly opposed to the killing of innocent peoples. http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
This article raises some interesting points, but is not supported by science, but by conjecture. Who is this guy? He has a background in science but he's been in visual arts for the last 20 years? What does that mean? What is his science background? Did he build a baking soda volcano when he was in sixth grade? Jones is a Ph.D. and provides supporting evidence. This guy does not provide supporting evidence, he merely points out weaknesses in Jones. As with any scientific study, Jones' piece of course has weaknesses, but King does not debunk Jones' theory.
Further, consider that Jones' paper was peer reviewed by other science professors. Was King's?
At this point in the game, what good can come of continuing to debate, people whose entire argument is based on wild conjecture and the cherry-picking of circumstantial evidence to support their idiotically fantastic tales of shadowy boogeymen pulling the world's strings?
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - Ayn Rand
I would however, love to see more people call out the 9/11 "Truthers" on the insidious damage that their "support" did to the credibility of the Ron Paul campaign. I don't understand, in the slightest how someone who whole-hearted believed that our secret Illuminati overlords were the ones responsible for the events of 9/11, could simultaneously endorse a candidate who made such a splash, with the only rational and honest assessment of what the actual cause of the events were.
In reference to the thread in general and not to any particular posts in particular.
I believe that 9/11 was just what it appeared to be. The planes were hijacked by men with box cutters and flown into the towers, causing fires leading to structural failure. Are there unanswered questions??? Yes. Have either the government or the truthers come up with any satisfactory responses??? No.
Yes, the government bears the blame for faulty intelligence and failure to use the intelligence they did have. I do not believe this was part of either a U.S. Government or Mossad conspiracy. I simply do not believe the government could have pulled it off without at least one person blabbing.
Do I think the government actually could or would do something like that??? Yes. It happened at Pearl Harbor, were we have clear proof the government knew to the exact hour when the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did absolutely nothing. However, in the case of 9/11, it was not a government conspiracy.
reidbump: This article raises some interesting points, but is not supported by science, but by conjecture. Who is this guy? He has a background in science but he's been in visual arts for the last 20 years? What does that mean? What is his science background? Did he build a baking soda volcano when he was in sixth grade? Jones is a Ph.D. and provides supporting evidence. This guy does not provide supporting evidence, he merely points out weaknesses in Jones. As with any scientific study, Jones' piece of course has weaknesses, but King does not debunk Jones' theory. Further, consider that Jones' paper was peer reviewed by other science professors. Was King's?
I have been incredibly dissapointed by the number of those who consider themselves "truthers". Here are a number of links. If you can read all of them thoroughly and still believe 9/11 was inside job you're reaching way too far and I'm embarassed to have you on the side of Austrian economics, a discipline which I consider a true science.
Start with the top. I thought it was sufficient.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
www.debunking911.com
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Reidbump, if you really believe science is on your side you're mistaken. Of the thousands of physicists, Jones is one, and yet you think he's on the side of established thought! Please. Further, I put up the link to what some may call an educated layman b/c I thought many of you 'conspiracy theorists' would be paranoid about whether the other various sources were governmental or not. There are many official refutations as well. Also, of all people, we here at Mises understand that a Phd is merely a label which many must attain because society, formed by the state in many ways, has deemed it to be so. You of all people should know that there are countless morons who have a Phd. For some reason you seem to think that logic stops with Jones. On top of this, the number of Phds who subscribe to your paranoia are a paltry few compared to the over whelming number who do not.
Mark B.: I believe that 9/11 was just what it appeared to be. The planes were hijacked by men with box cutters and flown into the towers, causing fires leading to structural failure. Are there unanswered questions??? Yes. Have either the government or the truthers come up with any satisfactory responses??? No
I'm not a "truther" and I do not think 9/11 was a "government" conspiracy, but the very questions that you mention leave such gaping holes in the 9/11 story that I simply cannot accept that the entire plot was planned and carried out by 19 guys who taught themselves how to fly with simulators.
Some people in this thread find it offensive that anyone would question the "official" account. I find it offensive that people do not question it.
edward_1313:Reidbump, if you really believe science is on your side you're mistaken. Of the thousands of physicists, Jones is one, and yet you think he's on the side of established thought! Please. Further, I put up the link to what some may call an educated layman b/c I thought many of you 'conspiracy theorists' would be paranoid about whether the other various sources were governmental or not. There are many official refutations as well. Also, of all people, we here at Mises understand that a Phd is merely a label which many must attain because society, formed by the state in many ways, has deemed it to be so. You of all people should know that there are countless morons who have a Phd. For some reason you seem to think that logic stops with Jones. On top of this, the number of Phds who subscribe to your paranoia are a paltry few compared to the over whelming number who do not.
Again, you misunderstand my position. I do not take Jones as conclusive and the end-all, be-all of the 9/11 story. Nor do I consider the links you list to contain the whole story or to provide every explanation possible. My point simply is this: there is enough evidence to create an issue of fact. I think it wise to consider all sides of the story. So, please don't classify me as paranoid or as a "truther" or a conspiracy theorist. You are trying to place me into group in which I simply don't belong. I consider issues and I weigh the facts. The difference is that I give weight to Jones, you do not. I also give weight to those which you hold deserve all the weight.
As for Ph.D's, yes, I agree. A Ph.D generally does not mean a whole lot and there are probably more morons than not with Ph.D's. I tend to think that science Ph.D's, however, are more credible and that those with Ph.D's in physics or computer science are less able to rely on personal opinion because they are forced to back up their position with science. That said, I tend to agree with your statement.
I do not think that logic stops with Jones, but I think that Jones is logical. Further, I think that many of the statements made by those in the links you have copied also are logical. If Mises and Austrian economics has taught me anything it is that I should question everything in order to make a reasoned conclusion. With that said I ask:
Do you admit that there is sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact with regards to 9/11? Or do you maintain that the evidence supports only one possible conclusion? If the latter, that is fine and I will respect your conclusion.
What do you 9/11 conspiracy theorists say was the motive for the plan?
Because I know of such a guy here whose response was "Iraq". "They were planning to attack Iraq from the beginning", he said. I don't doubt Bush wanted to invade Iraq, but why then didn't they bother to create some link to Iraq? It also takes to the absurd that a government as resourceful and competent to plan an operation of such a magnitude as 9/11 [1] without blow-whistlers, and that wanted U.N. support badly for Iraq, failed to plant WMD in Iraq, which would change the U.N. position and the international sentiment towards that war.
[1] and 9/11 to be organized by government would have to be an operation of amazing magnitude. On the other hand, it would be way easier in comparison for terrorists to organize it -- they didn't even had to plan the airplane, or take in any consideration the tricky parts of flighting!
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
reidbump:Again, you misunderstand my position. I do not take Jones as conclusive and the end-all, be-all of the 9/11 story. Nor do I consider the links you list to contain the whole story or to provide every explanation possible. My point simply is this: there is enough evidence to create an issue of fact. I think it wise to consider all sides of the story. So, please don't classify me as paranoid or as a "truther" or a conspiracy theorist. You are trying to place me into group in which I simply don't belong. I consider issues and I weigh the facts. The difference is that I give weight to Jones, you do not. I also give weight to those which you hold deserve all the weight.
You're the fastest reader I've ever encountered if you've read all of those refutations already.
reidbump:Do you admit that there is sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact with regards to 9/11? Or do you maintain that the evidence supports only one possible conclusion? If the latter, that is fine and I will respect your conclusion.
There was no where near sufficient evidence to create some alternative reason for 9/11. The ostensible "evidence" presented in favor of 9/11 being an inside job isn't hard evidence at all. It's hearsay and wild speculation.
reidbump:You are trying to place me into group in which I simply don't belong. I consider issues and I weigh the facts. The difference is that I give weight to Jones, you do not. I also give weight to those which you hold deserve all the weight.
I suppose then you would consider those who believe in alien abduction and big foot to have legitimate points? Is it wrong to not even consider the legitimacy of someone's statements if they say something so absurd as, "my dog spoke to me in the english language"?! These are the sorts of things Jones and his adherents are saying except it's a bit more obscure. Yes, you should always weigh both sides, but Jones side isn't even a side at all, it's lunacy! It's like someone saying they saw an elephant driving a car! Would you really consider that statement?!