What if 9-11 truth movement is wrong? - Michael Nenonen

[greyl]

Michael Nenonen
The Republic of East Vancouver
Current Issue • March 1to March 14, 2007 • No 158

snip>
The movement’s supporters ask us to think about what it would mean if their claims of a conspiracy were true. This is fair enough, but they rarely ask what it would mean if their claims are wrong. They probably don’t like to think about what the answer would be. If their claims are unfounded, this would mean that a large segment of the Bush administration’s critics, most of them on the left, have wasted a lot of time and energy chasing their own tails instead of really challenging the regime. It would mean that they had severely compromised their own credibility, and, in the eyes of the public, the credibility of the entire anti-war movement for decades to come. It would mean that the 9-11 truth movement has been the anti-war movement’s Trojan Horse.

When we’re walking on fragile ice, we need to tread carefully. Unfortunately, the 9-11 truth movement is stomping with reckless abandon, often making unsubstantiated claims and disregarding evidence that doesn’t fit with its agenda.

Let’s take some of the examples I raised above.
continued

[SidDithers]

1. Thanks for posting...

Sometimes, you can step through a looking glass into an inverted world. Other times, you just get a bloody nose and a broken mirror. Perhaps the conspiratorial world the 9-11 truth movement is gazing upon is only the shattered reflection of its own lacerated face.

Sid

[greyl]

3. No sweat.

I had a damn hard time choosing the paragraphs to quote, thanks for the help. ;)

[The Lone Groover]

2. Why don't we try and find out who's right and who's wrong...

...last time the Government obstructed that investigation.

[greyl]

4. Did you miss the thrread where a Truther is trying to STOP the investigation

into WTC7?
_________

Please tell me, who would you appoint to lead and execute an investigation? Seems to me, you're going to need a lot of scientists and relevant experts. Which ones do you trust?

[The Lone Groover]

6. You're right!

No investigation required.

Obviously.

All "truthers" are the same.

Obviously.

[greyl]

10. Yes, you did miss it.

Here it is.
The Truther is calling for an end to the investigation, but you should probably read the article to find out why.
It kind of ties in to question I asked you, namely, who would you trust to lead and execute the investigation?
If that can't be answered, calls for a new investigation are futile.

[The Lone Groover]

21. Futile... it's all futile.

Who do you want to lead the investigation?

[greyl]

29. You and I. We communicate so well. nt

[The Lone Groover]

36. I don't know who I would want...

..but you must have some ideas.

Who do you want to lead the investigation?

[greyl]

38. The public. nt

[Contrite]

47. You are distorting the truth.

The "truther", Ed Haas, of Muckraker Report, clearly states that the NIST WTC7 investigation will compromise the entire report, simply because NIST has issued contradictory statements regarding the finding of evidence of CD. NIST has altered its wording from the earlier statement that it could find no "corrobating evidence of CD" to read that it could find no evidence of a "blast or CD" and will therefore investigate "hypothetical blast scenarios".

It is seen, therefore, that NIST is making a decidedly different claim now where the previously published concept of no “corroborating evidence” of a certain, specifically limited type of controlled demolition; namely, a controlled demolition brought about by a highly specific factual subset – explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001 – has been morphed, changed and broadened far beyond what NIST previously said lacked corroboration into a blanket statement that NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event.

Because of this, he demands that "NIST, then, should correct NCSTAR 1 by articulating what evidence it had that it could not corroborate.

Thus, this request for correction should be understood to entail, contain and include a request for correction of NCSTAR 1 in conjunction with and as a necessary adjunct to the correction of Information Item No. 1 that pertains to the ongoing investigation of the destruction of WTC 7.

The investigation of what caused the destruction of WTC7 has been compromised by the conclusions reached by NIST in its WTC1 and WTC2 investigation conclusions that indicated, as quoted above, and as summarized here, that evidence of controlled demolition could not be corroborated.

A controlled demolition conclusion at WTC7 would indeed challenge the integrity of the WTC1 / WTC2 collapse sequence report. The fact that many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and associates responsible for the WTC1 / WTC2 conclusions are now working on the WTC7 investigation creates a conflict of interest concern because of inherent pressure to conform the outcome of the investigation of what caused the destruction of WTC 7 to that which they indicated caused the “initiation” of (but not actual destruction of) destruction of WTC 1,2..."

He further states that if NIST does not correct the record it is "misleading the public" and is guilty of "fraud and deception".

NIST has also plainly acknowledged that it did not investigate what it defined as the “event of collapse” as is plainly admitted in footnote 2 of the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1 where the following quotation is to be found:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (Bold emphasis added)

Thus, it is quite clear that had NIST claimed there was “no evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC towers, NCSTAR 1 would have been criminally fraudulent on its face had it attempted, on one hand, to acknowledge no investigation was done of what occurred during the actual destruction phase of the buildings and then claimed, on the other, that it lacked evidence of what it did not investigate.

Indeed, one reason why NIST could not “corroborate” evidence of controlled demolition is that it did not look for it. This is something that NIST must now specifically acknowledge so as not to continue misleading the public.

Accordingly, let this request for correction also serve to place NIST on notice that any further refusal by NIST to acknowledge that it cannot rule out the possibility of controlled demolition or otherwise state that it has found no evidence of controlled demolition in a context that suggests that it had looked for and did not find such evidence may be considered as indicative of fraud and of deception.

NIST cannot now state it has found no evidence of controlled demolition because that is decidedly not what it previously stated; and, in any event, having not looked for such evidence in the time and place where it might have been found, NIST must further correct the record.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. "It would mean that the 9-11 truth movement has been the anti-war movement’s Trojan Horse."

That gives a whole different feel to being a gatekeeper, doesn't it?

[mhatrw]

11. "What if Fox News is wrong?"

"What if ever right winger in the US was wrong about Iraq and Iraq's WMDs?"

Liberals can be so ridiculous about stuff like this.

Pro-war factions don't worry about their credibility. They have none whatsoever and they are still surging and provoking a further conflict with Iran.

Every time we try to stop them, they say, "9/11!" We can't stop the War on Terror without questioning 9/11.

[greyl]

13. What if? They are.

Try asking that question of Bill O'Reilly.
If you're trying to make a point, I think it backfired.
"Liberals can be so ridiculous about stuff like this"?

[mhatrw]

42. I know they are 99% wrong on everything. So what?

Do you see them wringing their hands about their blown credibility? Why do liberals engage is such non-productive self-flagellation?

"OH MY GOD, WHAT IF THEY ARE ONLY GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WHEN SOME OF US SAID ACTIVE MALFEASANCE!!! WHAT EVER WILL WE DO THEN???"

If it wasn't so destructively pathetic, it would be hilarious.

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. self delete

should have read the whole thing first.

[mhatrw]

8. If we are wrong, then we still need a better investigation and

we still need a bunch of unanswered questions to be answered.

Why is campaigning to get a slew of perfectly obvious and perfectly legitimate questions answered a wasted effort? Tell that to the 9/11 victims' families!

The only people on thin ice are those who pretend that the non-answers and cover ups that we have been fed about 9/11 justify embarking on a never ending state of warfare and eroding civil rights!

[greyl]

9. please see post #4. nt

[mhatrw]

12. Yes, I missed it.

What are you babbling about and why should I be interested? I'm not a "truther."

[greyl]

14. There's a question in post #4 I was hoping you could answer. nt

[mhatrw]

41. I did. I missed the thread. n/t

[CJCRANE]

15. Follow the money.

Who paid the hijackers?

I find that whenever I ask that question the debunkers disappear.

[greyl]

16. They didn't do it for the money. They were on a homicide/suicide mission. nt

[CJCRANE]

17. Motive, means, opportunity.

"Means": They needed money to live, travel, train.

Atta was also alleged to take cocaine, hang out at strip joints and gamble.

On edit: added "Means".

On edit2: ok, instead of "paid" let's ask "funded" them?

[greyl]

19. Are you sure they needed to be funded?

Iow, do you think all the money from the Saudis had been spent?

edit:

Fisk: ...what of the Arab mujahedin he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over?

bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...
Fisk interview, 1996
http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_bin_ladin_in_sudan1996.htm

"Indeed the presence of those young Arab Afghans in Afghanistan and their increasing numbers represented a failure of US policy and new proof of the famous US political stupidity. The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid. "The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years.

Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance (including sponsorship of orphans, widows, and the war handicapped. Add to all this the donations that were sent on special occasions such as Id al-Fitr and Id al-Adha feasts and during the month of Ramadan."

"Through this unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel, and organization."
http://www.uofh.com/114/id_s/1304/

[CJCRANE]

25. Estimated cotst =$500,000

If you've been paying attention then you know full well we're much of that money is alleged to have come from.

On edit: you say the "Saudis". Who exactly do you mean?

On edit2: and don't say bin Laden because he is not directly implicated in 9/11 (go check his profile on the FBI website if you haven't already).

[greyl]

30. Check out the links in my edit above. nt

[CJCRANE]

35. OK.

But the official investigation must surely have revealed who specifically wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to the hijackers?

As in individual financiers, co-conspirators - who are they?

[The Lone Groover]

24. Greyl... that was so disingenious... ffs!

You knew exactly what "follow the money meant".

It's things like that that make people wonder just what exactly are you up to.

[greyl]

28. I thought "follow the money" means look at who benefitted financially.

CJ has kindly clarified.

[wildbilln864]

18. So fucking what if they're/we're wrong?

Then the investigation will seperate fact from fiction. But let's have the investigation! :eyes:

[greyl]

20. It would mean that the 9-11 truth movement has been the anti-war movement’s Trojan Horse.

Please see post #4.
You would need many scientists and relevant experts to conduct a quality investigation. Who would you appoint to lead and execute the investigation?

[wildbilln864]

22. I'd like to see ....

Steven Jones on that panel!

[wildbilln864]

23. Maybe Fitzgerald too!

But first the decision must be made to investigate it fully to where ever it leads!

[The Lone Groover]

26. Jack Riddler should be on the panel. nt

[wildbilln864]

32. Yes indeed!

Also DrDebug!
Octafish too. lol

[greyl]

27. Do you still believe that the WTC concrete was pulverized to fine powder? nt

[wildbilln864]

31. I believe what....

my eyes saw! :eyes:
Simple enough that!

[greyl]

33. I was talking about your reference to Jones.

I didn't realize you inspected debris like he has.

[wildbilln864]

34. Oh well...

.

[The Lone Groover]

37. There is an incredible amount of dust right from the start..

..where did all that energy come from in the first second?

It has to be said.. It DOES look like a building blowing up.

[greyl]

39. You're not getting the point. See ya. nt

[The Lone Groover]

40. Huh? Ok... whatever. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. How much P was stored in the buildings?

It's not that hard to estimate.

and what would you expect the collapse to look like?

[mhatrw]

44. You mean unlike the commies behind ANSWER?

Unlike the hardcore Palestinian sympathizers who show up for every march?

This has to be the most hilarious argument yet. We can't ask any 9/11 questions because it could backfire by making communists look too radical!

[Contrite]

48. Sez who?

What a load. The 9/11 truth movement is not the same as the anti-war movement and the author has no right to conflate them.

The 9/11 truth movement is about finding the truth about what happened on 9/11. Yes, it was the premise for the war. But there have been so many damned and damnable lies told about why we went to Iraq and are STILL there that even if the 9/11 truth movement dead-ended, the war would STILL be built on a pack of lies and it would STILL be wrong--and it would not change the public's perception of it, either.

The 9/11 truth movement is about finding out just how far our "government" will go to get what they want--never-ending war for dominance in the Middle East and an imperialist military industrial complex to rule the world.

[petgoat]

45. What if we're wrong and the 9/11 Commission Report is

not riddled with omissions and distortions?

I had hopes for a thoughtful essay. Instead all I get is the
old "conspiracy of ten thousand" meme and the usual misuse of
Occam, whose razor was meant to be applied to natural phenomina
and not to human events. You might as well invoke relativistic
principles in debunking 9/11 Truth.

[The Lone Groover]

46. I agree about Occam and his razor...

...human beings are right devious bastards. Occams razor doesn't apply.

[Woody Box]

49. What if the earth is flat? nt

no text