9-11 Pie chart…and where the hell is Mack?

wv wrote:

After all these years, I dunno what to think about 9-11. I really dont. I dont trust the official version anymore, but i dont trust any of the alternative versions either. I ‘lean toward’ the official version but I am not totally convinced. I wish there were sources on this i could trust.

Another example of wv-ram not-knowing-somethin.

Anybody on this board a 9-11 agnostic, like me? Just curious. I know at one time Mack was, but then he moved toward the official theory. …where the hell is Mack, btw?

w
v

I don’t trust the official story in this sense:

It didn’t really deal with government’s failure to prevent it, or its role in indirectly provoking it.

(Blowback)

I think they got who did it right. And I’ve never believed the Alex Jones bullshit about it being a false flag. It just never made any sense that the powers that be would blow up their own key installations, especially not major seats of economic, military and political power.

Not that the government is beyond major operations to provoke wars. But if they’re gonna do them, they’re gonna make sure it’s overseas and doesn’t result in major losses to their own key assets.

Plus, it’s really not that hard to persuade enough Americans that we need yet another war. Our history shows this. Why take all of that risk, blowing up key assets at home, in the centers of power, when there are so many other ways to start a war and get a buy-in?

Matt Taibbi wrote some really excellent pieces concerning the Truthers back in the day. He dealt with much of the above.

I believe the US government may have been negligent, but not actively involved.

The prime directive of the Bush admin assholes was regime change in Iraq which was supposed to debut a grand Americanization of the Middle East. We know this without doubt.

So…if the US government had a hand in this, the pilots would have been Iraqis. That just would have been very simple to do, and vastly more effective.

They weren’t. They inconveniently were mostly from countries allied with the US.

Zooey wrote:

I believe the US government may have been negligent, but not actively involved.

The prime directive of the Bush admin assholes was regime change in Iraq which was supposed to debut a grand Americanization of the Middle East. We know this without doubt.

So…if the US government had a hand in this, the pilots would have been Iraqis. That just would have been very simple to do, and vastly more effective.

They weren’t. They inconveniently were mostly from countries allied with the US.

The problem was that the new Bush administration kind of disdainfully got rid of a lot of procedures Clinton had established for intel sharing among the agencies to keep track of the possibility of a domestic attack. In this case the FBI knew some things and the CIA knew some things, and had they had regular meetings to share intel and hunt for red flags, they probably would have turned up enough to see something was brewing. The Bush administration treated those kinds of intel parleys as just part of Clinton making up domestic terror threats for political gain.

wv wrote:

I think what bothers me most is that one tower that just crumbled the way it did. And there do seem to be plenty of sciency people who say the whole thing could not have happened by planes alone. And they say the Commission just didnt investigate lots and lots of stuff they should have.

That’s the stuff I don’t buy. The science on this is pretty clear I think. Mack once played around with this approach and then dropped it because the actual science demolishes it. I don’t even see it as the “official version”–we don’t need to listen to one single government supported statement because thousands of people with the right knowledge have discussed this independently of any “officiality.” I actually just call it the non-conspiracy version.

I think there’s a “masses accepted” version of the entire story, going beyond the science, which people accept, and it has big holes in it. So for example ask the normal everyday moderately patriotic guy or gal WHY al-qaeda attacked the USA and they can’t give you a coherent answer. BUT no terrorist organization exists without stated goals, for 2 reasons: (q) they’re trying to accomplish those goals, and (2) those who join or ally with them or just back them have to be pulling for the same thing. So for example, when the IRA was setting off bombs in English pubs, you would not want one of the operatives participating in a mission like that to say “yes! at last we’re sticking it to the jewish conspiracy!” cause the rest of his IRA comrades would have to go “wait? what!? no!” So in fact al qaeda’s reasons for attacking were made directly explicit–that’s the way that kind of thing works. Yet most people cannot accurately tell you what that reason was.

…

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

<
That’s the stuff I don’t buy. The science on this is pretty clear I think.

…

================

Well i used to think it was clear, but now i have doubts. There are plenty of sciency people that dont buy the official version. And i do not have the background to know. So…I have to ‘trust’…who? I dunno.

So thats where I’m at.

And Mack has gone awol.

w
v

What we do have is a world full of thousands of independent engineers, metallurgists, chemists, chemical engineers, and so on (how many other fields?) not just in the USA but all over the world, and they all have all the data they need to reach conclusions.

Is there a universal outcry from discipline-relevant scientists in american universities and around the world that something is fishy about the accepted story of what happened to the buildings? No.

Instead what you constantly find is things like this:

Did a European Scientific Journal Conclude 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

Viral news stories misattributed an article written by “9/11 Truth” advocates as one published in the European Scientific Journal; it was actually published in Europhysics News, which is not peer-reviewed.

nittany ram wrote:

A conspiracy of this magnitude would have to involve 1000s of people. It would nearly be impossible to keep it a secret for a few weeks, let alone 17 years.

And that’s the other thing.

The planning and implementation for a false flag operation on this scale would have been vast. This isn’t just one plane that flew into the Statue of Liberty, or the Washington monument, or whatever…comparatively simple feats that would have achieved the same “excuse” for war.

Why would they increase the chances of something going wrong with the plan, and involving so many possible “leakers” in the event, when the same result could be achieved far easier, for far less cost, with much less risk?

is his lack of trust for official sources.

I believe there are things we can know and nail down. We went through it ourselves years ago when we had to demonstrate in advance of the invasion of Iraq that the WMD argument was invalid. And it was.

It never gets down to simply trusting or distrusting “official sources.”

…

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

After all these years, I dunno what to think about 9-11. I really dont. I dont trust the official version anymore, but i dont trust any of the alternative versions either. I ‘lean toward’ the official version but I am not totally convinced. I wish there were sources on this i could trust.

Another example of wv-ram not-knowing-somethin.

Anybody on this board a 9-11 agnostic, like me? Just curious. I know at one time Mack was, but then he moved toward the official theory. …where the hell is Mack, btw?

w
v

I don’t trust the official story in this sense:

It didn’t really deal with government’s failure to prevent it, or its role in indirectly provoking it.

(Blowback)

I think they got who did it right. And I’ve never believed the Alex Jones bullshit about it being a false flag. It just never made any sense that the powers that be would blow up their own key installations, especially not major seats of economic, military and political power.

Not that the government is beyond major operations to provoke wars. But if they’re gonna do them, they’re gonna make sure it’s overseas and doesn’t result in major losses to their own key assets.

Plus, it’s really not that hard to persuade enough Americans that we need yet another war. Our history shows this. Why take all of that risk, blowing up key assets at home, in the centers of power, when there are so many other ways to start a war and get a buy-in?

Matt Taibbi wrote some really excellent pieces concerning the Truthers back in the day. He dealt with much of the above.

I am here.

Wish I had the money because I’d buy the site and make it both mobile friendly and not take forever to load. I have FiOS running 150mbps with usually 14ms latency to anywhere in the world…and this site loads like Compuserve from the early 90s. And…mostly I’m on my phone and this site doesn’t do well on the phone, so I tend to avoid the aggravation. I love that there IS a site and love the people…but it’s kinda like not visiting friends who don’t live too far away, but the only road is completely torn up with construction so it takes forever and in my computing vehicle, it difficult to navigate.

All that said, I’m just a text away if anyone needs to reach me. I can DM anyone who is interested.

As for the 9/11 stuff, a few things.

The engineering is sound on the post mortem. NO ONE blew up any buildings with shaped charges. The buildings were brought down with fire and the unique construction of the buildings is what led to their collapse.

Al-Qaeda did it. Osama Bin Laden planned it with the express goal of catching us sleeping and then bankrupting us in fruitless overreaction. He’s basically succeeded in that. We’ve lost our way of life, our freedoms and nearly bankrupted ourselves turning our entire country into a prison state.

As for it being a government inside job. It wasn’t. That said, it’s not like that equation wouldn’t balance. It’s hard to argue with folks who assert that it was…not based on the buildings (many believe the government colluded with the Saudis), but based on what happened after. If you believe in the deep state, then NOTHING was better for the deep state than 9/11. While even the CIA and FBI had checks and balances, once basically everything got rolled into Homeland Security, those checks basically went away and any questions became “unpatriotic”… which is as fascist as it sounds. So, even though it wasn’t even close to a government job, this theory is like a puzzle piece whose shape matches perfectly…only when you look at the actual picture…you can clearly see it’s not the right piece. Many can’t get past the fact that there is more than one piece that fits very well if not perfectly.

As for peer-review, I tend to focus on the specific bits. Like the original Popular Mechanics “take” as an effort to debunk was real crap. It was the engineering team from Purdue, iirc, that properly modeled the physics of the collapsing buildings. Now, when you got the Popular Mechanics articles, it is basically a summation of the Purdue Engineering Dept findings. When I saw their paper, I INSTANTLY stopped questioning because they nailed the physics. Period, end of story. But I understood what to look for when someone was going to try and talk about the physics such as why the melting point of UL rated steel mattered and why it wasn’t a function of the melting point (which the fire even with a “flueing” effect didn’t get hot enough to melt the steel), but rather the point at which steel loses a certain percent of its tensile strength.

So maybe because I understood a) the foreign policy basis for why it was a Saudi-based terrorist org that would and did pull this off and b) the physics, that I didn’t really feel the need to read any peer-reviewed analyses.

We really have all the facts in front of us. And while people doing the analysis is crucially important, unlike in some instances like Lockerbie or Flight MH17 that crashed in Ukraine and was shot down by a Russian missile, we don’t really need it for now, but posterity.

For Lockerbie and MH17, we need these analyses because there are crucial pieces which had to be interpreted by experts coupled with the fact that the public doesn’t have access to all the pertinent facts.

Also, I love you guys bunches and I’ll make a greater effort now that I’m back on my ‘puter to jump in.

Mackeyser wrote:

All that said, I’m just a text away if anyone needs to reach me. I can DM anyone who is interested.

I’m interested. I was actually getting a bit worried since you had been gone so long, and you have health issues. But I don’t think this board can provide DMs any longer. My email is zooey_d@hotmail.

I also wish this board worked better on phones.