South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 06, 2019, 22:12:37 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

 (Read 16385 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« on: September 11, 2006, 11:10:41 AM »

A good summary of the conspiracy theories and why it is unlikely to be true:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2006, 13:43:59 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2007, 15:15:15 PM »

This page of movie downloads, which may be more accurately called A Tragedy of Errors: How Ragtag Barmies Join the Plots, is chockfull of 9/11 finger-pointing.  If nothing else, many of the features on offer illustrate abundantly the lengths to which CTists are prepared to go in their endeavours to reconcile the geometry of a right paralleliped with that of a circular orifice sans the use of Occam's Razor.  It is not, however, clear if the advanced hypotheses are put forward primarily because they are believed to be factual, or merely for the purpose of being provocatively controversial.

'Luthon64
(a.k.a. Bush-flunkey-lackey-stooge  Roll Eyes)
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2007, 11:58:06 AM »

A good summary of the conspiracy theories and why it is unlikely to be true:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html



Well, I agree that many of the hypotheses that have been advanced about various aspects of the 9/11 events are quite unfounded, and are often based on looking a single piece of evidence in isolation.

However, the arguments over whether the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft or a cruise missile or whether the aircraft that hit the towers were real American Airlines Boeing 777s or military versions etc are quite irrelevant.

The real issues are:

Who was really responsible for planning the 9/11 events?
What was their motive for doing so?

The actions and words of the US Government, the President and the Vice President since then have been far from transparent, and the whole 9/11 Commission investigation was a whitewash from the outset because their brief did not allow them to investigate properly.

It's a pity that the rubble was removed and dumped and the steel sold to scrap metal dealers before a proper investigation was done.  A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted.  Why wasn't it done?

The truth about who did 9/11 and why is being concealed, and until the truth is revealed, we ought to remain sceptical about the official account.  There's a definite pattern to it.  The incident occurs, an FBI or White House spokesperson (or the President) appears on TV and says, "Osama did it" and then no credible proof is produced and no-one is indicted in court and evidence is never produced in an open and transparent forum.

The assassination of JFK, MLK and even Abraham Lincoln were much the same, as was the Oklahoma City bombing.  It's remarkable how these events all are blamed on the "lone nutter" who is found to have planned and executed the incident without any outside help.  It's remarkable how quickly that lone nutter is identified.  It's remarkable how little is offered in the way of proof.

In the case of 9/11, a strange (and as-yet not fully identified) group of men from the Islamic version of the Gideons (because they left copies of the Quran wherever they went) managed to outwit, outlast and outplay the intelligence community of the world's only Superpower, and, without any support or aid from any outside agency, pull off the most outrageous and daring terrorist stunt ever right under their noses.  And that Superpower was powerless to react to that small group of "Islamic extremist nutters" because of bungling and incompetence on a massive scale involving multiple agencies and top generals and decision makers.  Remarkable, isn't it?

In the case of Osama bin Laden, who was a CIA asset during the invasion of Afganistan by the USSR, is it not remarkable that the US military and intelligence community has been unable to apprehend him?  Perhaps they don't want to find him because of what he might reveal?

Anyhow, the official version that Osama bin Laden planned it, Al Queda operatives executed it and all the lies about various people having taken flying lessons in the USA etc are the clumsiest, flimsiest and most laughable "Conspiracy Theory" that has ever been presented with a straight face by a bunch of Washington Suits in the history of mankind.

There's a lot of BS on the Internet about various details of the events of 9/11, but the Official Version is unconvincing and much is still unanswered.  That Official Version deserves as much scepticism as anything that has been given the perjorative lable of "Conspiracy Theory" (note how often the words are capitalised by those denegrating them!).

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the "Official Version" that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy.  It's meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere.  Well, of course, the term should be "conspiracy hypothesis", but it's hard to say that with a sneer.  The term "theory" is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.

Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, "it's just a theory".  So is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but I don't think that the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945 stopped what they were doing to argue that point.

Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2007, 12:35:00 PM »

A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted.  Why wasn't it done?
Wasn't it done?

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the "Official Version" that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy.  It's meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere.  Well, of course, the term should be "conspiracy hypothesis", but it's hard to say that with a sneer.  The term "theory" is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.
Hey, nothing wrong with a theory, but not all theories are equally probable. Usually 'conspiracy theories' are much less likely to be true than a 'scientific theory'. That is why it is ridiculed.

Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, "it's just a theory".
And I can give the same reply to you that I give to them. What makes the theory probable, is the proof behind the theory. In the case of evolution it is supported by reliable evidence. But with most conspiracy theories there is little to no evidence. Only speculation, what ifs and "isn't it remarkable" Wink

PS. Welcome to the forum BTW Grin
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 12:39:18 PM by bluegray V » Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2007, 13:04:57 PM »

A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted.  Why wasn't it done?
Wasn't it done?

No.  The relevant people, such as the New York City Fire Department were banned from the site.  There was indecent haste in getting rid of the rubble, and the steel was sold to a scrap dealer in the Far East, Singapore, I think, and recycled.


The term "Conspiracy Theory" is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the "Official Version" that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy.  It's meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere.  Well, of course, the term should be "conspiracy hypothesis", but it's hard to say that with a sneer.  The term "theory" is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.

Hey, nothing wrong with a theory, but not all theories are equally probable. Usually 'conspiracy theories' are much less likely to be true than a 'scientific theory'. That is why it is ridiculed.

You mean, there's nothing wrong with a hypothesis?

Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, "it's just a theory".
And I can give the same reply to you that I give to them. What makes the theory probable, is the proof behind the theory. In the case of evolution it is supported by reliable evidence. But with most conspiracy theories there is little to no evidence. Only speculation, what ifs and "isn't it remarkable" Wink

One must be honest and admit that Science tends to be as much of a religion as any religion.  People have been caught out for faking evidence to "prove" that some aspect of Evolution is valid.  Not all Scientists are honest and objective.  Many people treat Science as their God (or god) and are fervent and religious about it.  There are high emotions on both the Evolutionist and Creationist sides.


PS. Welcome to the forum BTW Grin


Thankyou.  Smiley

Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2007, 13:49:52 PM »

What makes the theory probable, is the proof behind the theory. In the case of evolution it is supported by reliable evidence. But with most conspiracy theories there is little to no evidence. Only speculation, what ifs and "isn't it remarkable" Wink

Mm, I missed this on the first pass.  Evolution is supported by mostly reliable evidence.  There are some big gaps and huge assumptions too.  Just because we think that the Creationists are deluded does not mean that we should deny the weaknesses in the current understanding of evolution and lack of evidence in some areas.  We should also admit that quite a lot of radio isotope dating is based on assumptions and speculation, and in a lot of cases, the Scientists involved are just guessing.  We think it works this way, and until we get better evidence, we will use the current theory.  If contrary evidence is found, Scientists will either conceal that evidence, or modify the theory accordingly.

In respect of 9/11, I think it's justified for me to ridicule the official version with the words, "isn't it remarkable" since the various government agencies involved have made many pronouncements such as who did it, why the buildings collapsed, and why the aircraft were allowed to fly on unchallenged after they had deviated from their original flight plan without providing credible proof for any of it.

The same standards of proof are required from the proponents of the official version as are required from so-called "conspiracy theorists".  Just because one has the coat of arms on the front of the podium and the flag behind one, does not mean that one should be allowed to make pronouncements about these matters without being required to produce proof.

It's high time that we all start demanding proof and not accepting what "talking heads" say on TV.  For instance, where is the proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons or that they have enriched more than a few grams of uranium?  It's not acceptable to attack a sovereign state on the basis of unproven "conspiracy theories", is it?  Nor can we take the word of proven liars at face value.


Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2007, 14:15:59 PM »

Hello kennyg, and welcome to the forum.

It is probably true that there are some unanswered questions.  That is because they are, as is often the case when calamities strike, unanswerable in even the loosest interpretation of the word "accurate."  It is, alas, in the nature of many people to misconstrue this circumstance as an indication of something sinister being afoot, rather than as what it actually is, namely simple lack of knowledge.  This need to fill the gaps at any cost is at root the same human syndrome that persists in keeping god in ICU.

The single major difficulty with 9/11 theories is one of cogency.  At most two of perpetrators, motive and execution come together in a credible synthesis, never all three.  Usually, it is the execution part that is argued over.  The reason for this is not hard to see either: it's much easier to dazzle the majority of people with voodoo science than to build a coherent, dispassionate case against those whom you think of as your enemies and the cause of all your misfortune.  Convincing one group of people of another group's supposed evil requires that you give the first group a reason to hate the second.  The "truth" of their supposed evil then follows as a matter of course.

9/11 struck at the very heart of the US, and the ongoing blame mongering, through a whole gamut of contrived scenarios, is indicative of the almost bottomless supply of hate being mined from those lamentable events.  Because it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that the US government is evil incarnate, isn't it?

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2007, 14:53:32 PM »

9/11 struck at the very heart of the US, and the ongoing blame mongering, through a whole gamut of contrived scenarios, is indicative of the almost bottomless supply of hate being mined from those lamentable events.  Because it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that the US government is evil incarnate, isn't it?

Mm, no.  That's a bit of a stretch.  It is however self apparent that the United States of America is the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism, and has been since the time of Teddy Rooseveldt.

Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2007, 15:26:54 PM »

Mm, no.  That's a bit of a stretch.

At all familiar with the term sarcasm?

It is however self apparent that the United States of America is the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism, and has been since the time of Teddy Rooseveldt.

"Perpetrator?"  Where, please, have US troops fought a guerrilla war as guerrillas using guerrilla tactics that would qualify them as you suggest?  "Instigator" perhaps.  The US has set itself up as World Cop (and simultaneously as World Whore) without exercising the impartiality that position implicitly demands.  Their self-interest has consistently prevented them from an even-handed application of foreign policy, and has often provoked them into using subversive and sneaky machinations to achieve their ends.  There are many derogatory things one can accuse the US of with some justification, but being "the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism" is not among them.

Are you perhaps of the opinion that the US deserved 9/11?

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2007, 15:41:41 PM »

No.  The relevant people, such as the New York City Fire Department were banned from the site.  There was indecent haste in getting rid of the rubble, and the steel was sold to a scrap dealer in the Far East, Singapore, I think, and recycled.
None of which is proof of any conspiracy. There are probably good reasons why this happened. You also don't need to analyze the rubble to know how the buildings collapsed. The reasons for the collapse was examined by a number of qualified engineers, and the findings are available to anyone who care too look.

One must be honest and admit that Science tends to be as much of a religion as any religion.  People have been caught out for faking evidence to "prove" that some aspect of Evolution is valid.  Not all Scientists are honest and objective.  Many people treat Science as their God (or god) and are fervent and religious about it.  There are high emotions on both the Evolutionist and Creationist sides.
You can call it what you want, but the difference in the amount and quality of the evidence will always separate the two ideas.
It is the same for scientific theories and conspiracy theories. Once you have proper evidence for either religion or a conspiracy theory, it stops being that.
Of coarse scientists are not perfect, but that is why proper science have measures in place to to minimize that.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2007, 15:49:05 PM »

One must be honest and admit that Science tends to be as much of a religion as any religion.  People have been caught out for faking evidence to "prove" that some aspect of Evolution is valid.  Not all Scientists are honest and objective.  Many people treat Science as their God (or god) and are fervent and religious about it.  There are high emotions on both the Evolutionist and Creationist sides.
You show your blind and ill-conceived prejudice here, I'm afraid.  Science is by its very nature self-correcting, which is not true of any religion.  Science is empirical and evidence-based, which is a vital ingredient that religions, being authority-based, have in only the most meagre supply.  Each of these two differences is sufficient to refute your position.  Together they demolish it completely.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2007, 15:57:21 PM »

Evolution is supported by mostly reliable evidence.  There are some big gaps and huge assumptions too.  Just because we think that the Creationists are deluded does not mean that we should deny the weaknesses in the current understanding of evolution and lack of evidence in some areas.  We should also admit that quite a lot of radio isotope dating is based on assumptions and speculation, and in a lot of cases, the Scientists involved are just guessing.  We think it works this way, and until we get better evidence, we will use the current theory.  If contrary evidence is found, Scientists will either conceal that evidence, or modify the theory accordingly.
No good scientist will conceal the evidence. In fact you will get very famous if you did find anything to overthrow a theory. And indeed that is encouraged.

The same standards of proof are required from the proponents of the official version as are required from so-called "conspiracy theorists".  Just because one has the coat of arms on the front of the podium and the flag behind one, does not mean that one should be allowed to make pronouncements about these matters without being required to produce proof.
I agree. And ditto to the conspiracy theorists.
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2007, 15:59:14 PM »

Mm, no.  That's a bit of a stretch.

At all familiar with the term sarcasm?


Yes!  And irony too.   Roll Eyes

It is however self apparent that the United States of America is the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism, and has been since the time of Teddy Rooseveldt.

"Perpetrator?"  Where, please, have US troops fought a guerrilla war as guerrillas using guerrilla tactics that would qualify them as you suggest?  "Instigator" perhaps.  The US has set itself up as World Cop (and simultaneously as World Whore) without exercising the impartiality that position implicitly demands.  Their self-interest has consistently prevented them from an even-handed application of foreign policy, and has often provoked them into using subversive and sneaky machinations to achieve their ends.  There are many derogatory things one can accuse the US of with some justification, but being "the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism" is not among them.


Then your definition of "terrorism" may be too narrow.  Don't you think that bombing a group of civilians in another country with which your country is not in a state of declared war could be construed as terrorism?  Even if you excuse it by saying that it is part of a "war on terrorism".  Since when is guerrilla warfare the only form of "terrorism".  Since the word was invented it has always been applied to people that the US does not like.  Likewise the word "insurgent".

The US has invaded pretty much every country in their part of the world, except Canada.  Occupying a sovereign nation with no provocation is hardly the act of a righteous party.

Just how narrowly do you wish to define terrorism?

Are you perhaps of the opinion that the US deserved 9/11?


No, I'm not.  In particular I do not think that the 3000 odd people who died there deserved it.  I will say that the US is party to the practice of extorting money out of most of the poor nations of the world.  It's called "developmental loans" and so forth.  Less than 1/20th of the cost of the Iraq adventure would pay off the entire foreign debt of Africa and improve the lives of 90% of Africans.  That would remove most incentives to terrorism directed at US targets from people living in Africa.  Same applies to Asia and Central and South America, just the numbers differ.

Instead of the approach of attempting to subdue the citizens of other countries using guns and bombs, they could try being friendly and generous towards them.  Debt forgiveness would be a great place to start.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2007, 16:03:18 PM »

One must be honest and admit that Science tends to be as much of a religion as any religion.  People have been caught out for faking evidence to "prove" that some aspect of Evolution is valid.  Not all Scientists are honest and objective.  Many people treat Science as their God (or god) and are fervent and religious about it.  There are high emotions on both the Evolutionist and Creationist sides.
You show your blind and ill-conceived prejudice here, I'm afraid.  Science is by its very nature self-correcting, which is not true of any religion.  Science is empirical and evidence-based, which is a vital ingredient that religions, being authority-based, have in only the most meagre supply.  Each of these two differences is sufficient to refute your position.  Together they demolish it completely.

Well, then I must be more precise.  I wish to distinguish between Science that is objective and Scientism that is dogmatic and religious.  Some Scientists are one, and some are the other.  Not all scientists handle the evidence with the same degree of objectivity and honesty.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.973 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 17, 2019, 01:29:07 AM
Privacy Policy