Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
No... (1.00 / 3)
Where Cenk goes wrong is in not having the curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour and watch "loose change". Cenk's opinion on one of the most significant events in American history? "I officially have no opinion on 9/11." Fantastic.

My friend Kirk refuses to watch any of the "9/11 truth" videos; says that he's afraid of what he'll learn and would rather not know. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying....

by fgoyeau on 06/08/2009 10:56:19 PM EST

I bet there are some videos on flat Earth theory (5.00 / 4)
"Where Cenk goes wrong is in not having the curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour and watch "loose change".

Should Cenk have the "curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour" and watch them as well?

"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 06/09/2009 12:17:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
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 ]
yes (2.50 / 2)
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!

That was weak sauce from Cenk, sorry, love ya' but its true.

I loved that Ventura gave Cenk a hard time (not too many guests are good enough to lay the smack down on Cenk). The best part was when Cenk was saying how improbable it would be for a bunch of people higher up to create 911 and Ventura said something like "you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!" When you think about it like that then yeah, I guess anything is possible.

I think a lot of people are just turned off by the "conspiracy" crap and blow it off as crazy stuff, all I'm saying is give it a chance.

Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 01:44:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Simplicity (3.40 / 3)
Occam's Razor demands simplicity.

"...you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!"

Yes.

The plan was elegant and simple.  It did require preparation, including gathering identifications and passports, and learning the basics of flying a large aircraft (but not how to take off or land).  They needed enough money for flight school, travel, and living expenses.  And box cutters.

It was simple, do-able, and they did it.

All I'm asking for is some credible evidence for a broader conspiracy reaching into the White House or (name your agency here).

With all of the backstabbing going on by members of the previous administration and the Republican Party in general, if there was any such evidence, I think it would have come out by now even if it didn't during the 9/11 Commission's investigation.  But the only people who are talking are people whose sole occupation is selling their hollow books (see Alan Miller's comment below), and no one is vouching for them.

Besides, why hasn't Richard Clarke talked about any of this?  If there was anyone credible who could have direct knowledge of such a conspiracy as well as a motive for exposing it, wouldn't it be him?  Or is he "in" on the conspiracy?

And yes, before you hang me for it, I admit that is another "lack of evidence" argument just like so many of the conspiracy theories.  But the positivists always bear the burden of proof, and lack of evidence is sufficient grounds for dismissal, not acceptance.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:38:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
lack of evidence? (1.00 / 4)
are you serious?  The whole reason there are still 9/11 conspiracy theorists is because the physical evidence at the scene points contrary to what the story says.  Obviously you are a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.  Loose change was not done by a nutjob...who says it wasn't done by someone in the government.  If someone came out within the government with "evidence" that 9/11 was a conspiracy set up by the government, you don't think that person would be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life?  I mean, shit, if the conspiracy is true, and the goverment killed 3,000 Americans, you think one more would be a hard decision?  I just think it's odd that people who are discrediting the conspiracy theory based on a "lack of evidence" must ignore some things that are scientifically proveable, such as the metling point of steel vs. the peak burning temperatures of the reported fuels on site.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 12:04:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obviously (2.60 / 1)
I am a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 04:33:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
there's a Turkish saying (1.00 / 3)
Yarasi olan gocunur

"he who bears the wound takes offense.

Nice rating our comment AnEngineer, it says a lot;)

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chris (none / 0)
this is what I was talking about earlier, some people also don't really know what is scientific fact and evidence vs speculation (which is sad). Like the boiling point of water at sea level or the melting point of steel. These are undisputable facts. Whereas things such as "I survived a car crash and that must be a miracle from God" are not fact and cannot be proven.

Common sense, isn't actually all that common.

This dude is my fav pseudo-scientist who thinks he understands facts and science:

wadda genius. I'll bet he can explain 911 and dispute Loose Change point by point with his flawless logic.

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:33:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A rose is not always a rose. (none / 1)
"Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up. Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up."

I agree completely.

Listening to that exchange bought to mind watching Charlie Rose who, when he interviewed Naomi Klien on her book 'The Shock Doctrine',  got really defensive and kept interupting her, I mean A LOT, like I've never seen him do before, and trying to shoot down what she was saying. Very revealing of where Rose's head is really at. Worth watching if you can dig it up.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 02:12:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
'mainstream' (none / 0)
I've seen the interview, Charlie wouldn't even use the word torture he kept refering to it as 'enhanced interrogation'. Cenk, you have an internet show you don't have to play the mainstream game. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a taboo subject in the mainstream media and you're playing thier game by favouring the official story without taking the time to see the arguements presented in 'fringe, conspiracy nutjob movies'.

And you can't find this conspirarcy too unthinkable because of the humanity of the people at the top. That thay couldn't kill that many of their citizens. Do they care about the 4000 Americans that died in Iraq? That's about the same number that died in 9/11. If they don't care enough to send them to die in a for-profit war, then is it really that improbable that they staged the event killing about the same number of citezens that would necissitate public support for the war?

by Tansul on 06/09/2009 06:08:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
weak sauce (none / 0)
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!
That was weak sauce from Cenk.

EXACTLY




by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 08:50:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's the general idea. (none / 1)
I think one of the problems many people have with critical thinking, alternative scenarios, and the like, is how much would change if it were generally accepted that airplanes alone didn't bring down two towers the same way. Almost too much would change at once. It's certainly very scary.

I mean, as a citizen you can go back through years of news and pick out every time they've went with the assumption it was terrorists trying to kill us, with no motive other than being evil, and think of an alternate explanation for every action the government took against terrorism.

My biggest fear, is that if it IS one day, generally accepted in America, as it is many other countries, is that we go through the ultimate case of denial. It's hard to explain, but I almost picture it like...

"You don't understand, it HAD to be terrorists."
"But, all the evidence..."
"No, no. You aren't listening to me. Terrorists HAD to have done it. If it was the government, it would cause so much backtracking we'd have to evaluate the entire history of United States differently. If they lied to us about this, what else have they lied to us about? It has to be simple. It has to go down in history as terrorists."

by Dradeeus on 06/08/2009 11:56:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What would Jack do? (none / 0)
"Too much would change at once. It's very scary."

You know how, when talking about evolution, religion, sex ed, gay rights, etc, Cenk likes to say about the conservatives "You can't handle the truth"?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 09:04:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

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