Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
Actually, we should. (2.25 / 4)
As humans with intelligence, we should always be open to scientifically presented evidence, even if it should contradict our very views of the world.

The "Flat Earth Theory" might be a bad example, because I'm assuming that would be more based on faith. Faith, by definition, is believing something without the need for evidence. I'm against this, and other such faith-based arguments.

However, if a scientist were to present "fringe" evidence (let me exaggerate, SCIENTIFIC evidence) that suggested that the US water supply causes AIDS, should we ignore him? He might be proven dead wrong, through investigation and debate.

But if he's presenting scientific evidence, we have a responsibility to consider it. To not do so is to act like you have a preset definition of the way the world is, and refuse to change it.

I will stress that some 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest a "lack of an explanation" is an explanation. These should be ignored. However, if there is legitimate, private investigations, people explaining architectural design and the science behind steel melting, I do have a responsibility to sit my ass down and watch it.

The only alternative in this case, is believe it was evil, evil terrorists. Of course, the details behind NIST's investigations are a matter of national security and can't be disclosed. We just have to believe it without evidence. Faith.

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 12:54:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm willing to listen to alternative ideas (3.40 / 3)
I'll listen to "fringe" scientific evidence if I have some spare time (rarely) and it's the only entertainment available.  But I much prefer peer-reviewed scientific evidence.  Sometimes the heavy-weight scientists who poo-poo a particular idea are wrong, but that is an extremely rare occurrence, and the proofs always hinge on newly-discovered evidence that dominates the headlines.

Unless I'm mistaken, there have been no explosive headlines about new evidence linking Cheney to 9/11.

In this case, I see no probable cause to think that there is anything interesting behind any of these mis-identified "theories".  They are not theories.  They are unwarranted conjecture lacking sufficient evidence to peak my interest.

Bring me a memo and an on-site witness, both of which offer direct evidence that Cheney or someone else is guilty of murder.  Until then, I'll be busy doing other things.

It will be much easier to find him culpable in the murders of the prisoners whom we tortured to death.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:42:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There are many! (3.33 / 3)
Headlines, that is. Not here, though, in America. Why? Well, that's kinda easy. It's considered unpatriotic and unacceptable.

David Ray Griffin, a leading author and investigator for alternate theories, was asked to come on a program, then was told "It is wrong, blasphemous and sinful to assume or lead others to assume that the US government killed 3000 of it's own citizens. Because it didn't." by a reporter, before he could even present any evidence whatsoever.

Blasphemous. That's a strong word, apparently asking questions about America's motives is also questioning God.

As for around the world, it's actually WELL accepted that 9/11 at least warrants a non-government, independent investigation, and that is what I'm for, as well. I'm generally opposed to pointing the blame at someone prematurely, which is where many 9/11 theorists go wrong. Like Ventura said, simply ask questions. CONSTANTLY. Never accept anything at face value.

As far as current events, even 8 years later, it is still being talked about. About 4 weeks ago, an Icelandic scientist claimed to have discovered undetonated thermite (a steel-melting explosive) that came from the ruins of 9/11. Whether or not he's telling the truth is one thing, but it goes to show you that, outside of America, people are thinking critically about what may or may not have happened even to this day.

The main thing is... they won't teach you this in school. They won't print it in the news, or show TV specials about it. (Also, this refers to America, there are plenty of news articles and TV specials covering 9/11 in other countries.) You have to put in a little effort, and this may make you feel like some cliche, basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist. There's simply no alternative when something is so incredibly taboo to talk about, though.

I will say this, though. Just because a subject does or doesn't make headlines is absolutely not a measure of it's credibility.

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 05:18:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I absolutely agree (3.40 / 3)
I do want a much better investigation than the partisan and incomplete B.S. that we were fed by the 9/11 Commission.  It's sad that Obama is so busy burying the past.  We'll probably never have a good investigation.

But about the "undetonated thermite" that you mentioned:

Those were two huge buildings with a lot of people doing a lot of different things in them.  I believe there were also a lot of security personnel as well as laboratories of various sorts in those buildings.

Is there any reason to believe that the thermite didn't belong there?  You did say that it was UN-detonated.  If there had been traces of DETONATED thermite, then we'd be talking.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 05:42:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
About Thermite (2.00 / 3)
Actually, detonated thermite remains is somewhat old news. Traces of it have been found in the clouds of dust that covered the city after 9/11, and has been cited as evidence of explosives, a "smoking gun", if you will. However...

These glowing, molten pools, cited as evidence of melted steel, and even chemicals directly caused by thermite, have been challenged by skeptics as being melted remains of office furniture, rugs, things that are typically found in a office skyscraper, and that, melted, some architecture can produce the chemicals that are found in thermite dust.

This is why unreacted thermite is a big deal. It adds credibility to the theory that the molten pools of metal found at the base of each tower was likely caused by properly detonated thermite. ...And the obvious question of... "Why would they be storing demolition explosives in the Trade Center?"

...Actually, I'm really bad at explaining things, I'm not a scientist. I could go on and on, but I have no credibility whatsoever, I just picked this information up with a little curiosity. Like I said, even opposing views such as mine should be questioned and scrutinized just as much as the government's.

What I really don't like is people saying "You have not sufficiently proven your case, therefore it is terrorists." No. For both the government's version of 9/11, and the alternative theories, you must start at "not guilty" and work your case. It shouldn't be "You have to prove to me terrorists are not guilty," because, well, that's not how our justice system works. You have to prove that they are guilty.

ANYWAYS, while I'm not staking my entire viewpoint on this one scientist, since you did show a little interest in the thermite, the interview can be found here. It is in Danish, with subtitles.
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=8_tf25lx_3o

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 06:19:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here we go again (5.00 / 3)
"Traces of (thermite) have been found in the clouds of dust that covered the city after 9/11"

Given that thermite is iron oxide (rust) and aluminum, yes, it is not surprising those substances would be found in the atmosphere following the colapse of the WTC.

"molten pools of metal found at the base of each tower"

This, as well as the "thermite" blather are meaningless. Please, tell us what the significance of "thermite" means to you (as opposed to any other explosive substance, e.g. RDX, C4, etc...) and what conclusions you draw from "molten pools of metal" following a skyscraper fire?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 06/10/2009 01:18:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So the terrorists with boxcutters AREN'T guilty? (3.40 / 3)
I could not have stated it more clearly than you did: At this point you have to prove to me that the terrorists are not guilty.  I can't imagine any other reasonable position.

They took boxcutters on the planes.  They killed the pilots.  They piloted the planes into the buildings.  All of the evidence points that way and there is no contrary evidence.

Can you make an offer of proof that that isn't true? Or can we safely leave this subject behind until there is at least SOME actual evidence contradicting their guilt?

Beyond that, I have nothing more to say on this subject, and I can't spend any more time on useless, baseless conjecture.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 07:31:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)