As I’ve said in the past two posts, what I personally find suspicious about 9/11 is not the story of the hijackers, but rather the claim that the attack could not have been prevented.
It seems to me that the FBI and the CIA had no good excuse not to have known about the plot in advance, in detail, given that the plot had been hatched way back in 1995 or so, and given that the FBI and the CIA had indeed been spying on al-Qaeda for lo these many years, except that the FBI sometimes refused, for no good reason, to follow up on obvious leads.
In my recent post My current views on 9/11 – brief summary, I wrote:
I’m an activist against religion-based bigotry, but I strongly disagree with the idea that, in order to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, one must deny that there were any live human hijackers on 9/11. There is not enough evidence for the pure “MIHOP” view (see What is your HOP level? Ten 9/11 paradigms by Nicholas Levis), whereas there is, alas, plenty of evidence that there were indeed live human hijackers on 9/11, although one may legitimately question some of the specifics.
We then got into a discussion about Hani Hanjour’s flying skills or lack thereof. In this comment, I also pointed out that there are some difficulties with the remote-controlled planes idea.
Since July of last year, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying various arguments and counterarguments about what happened on 9/11. Below is a brief summary of my current thoughts.
A topic I’ve been reading up on lately is the history of U.S. government sponsorship of Islamist terror.
I highly recommend the Cooperative Research site’s pages on The use of Islamist militants by American and Israeli militarists. (See especially the more recent stuff on page 2.) One caveat: Some items here are well-sourced, others aren’t. However, even if one confines one’s attention to the better-sourced items, the picture that emerges is still quite disturbing.
To Jared Israel:
Hi! Lately I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading your fascinating website, The Emperor’s New Clothes. I’m learning a lot from it.
These past couple of days, I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at a very interesting website called The Emperor’s New Clothes, authored primarily by Jared Israel. In 2001, it was one of the first websites to publish a bunch of articles questioning 9/11.
Needed: More scientists and engineers. And more teamwork. And better peer review.
I just now heard about the following, on 911blogger: A Proposal for Proving Controlled Demolition in a Civil Negligence Suit Against the Security Groups Responsible for the WTC.
In my opinion, this is WAY premature. We are NOT yet anywhere near ready to prove any such thing in a court of law, not even in a civil case.
In a comment in reply to my post Hiding the planting of incendiaries, explosives, or whatever? Response to a common a priori objection, “realitydesign” wrote:
“Can you tell me one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?”
Comment by ref1 — February 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
One thing that stands out is the 4 verified WAR GAMES on 9/11 facilitating the ensuing documented confusion in terms of (not) responding adequately.
Indeed there certainly were war games (military exercises) on 9/11.
However, there has been some debate about what the war games imply.
Below is a copy of a bunch of comments originally posted in reply to my post Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement. I’m deleting them there and moving them here because the comments are about WTC no-planes theories.
Please note: Here on this blog, comments on the topic of no-planes theories should be posted only in response to this and other posts in the no-planes theories category, and not underneath any other posts.
Below is a copy of a long bunch of comments I’ve deleted from the thread below my post He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.
The copied comments below deal mainly with the question of how thermite, etc., could have been planted in World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 without being noticed by many witnesses.
The comment area below this post will be the proper place, here on this blog, for general gripes about about the 9/11 Truth movement, to avoid having such comments clutter up threads below posts on more specific topics.
Note that there are already other posts dealing with common a priori objections by opponents of the 9/11 Truth movement. Please post your comment there if directly relevant to one of those posts. Otherwise, you may post it here.
The comment area below this post will be the proper place, here on this blog, for general gripes about about me, my blog, and my comment policy, to avoid having such comments clutter up threads below posts on other topics.
Below is a slightly edited copy of three sections of my very long post Common a priori objections by “debunkers,” including arguments from authority and the “someone would have talked” and “too many people” arguments.
The sections below contain a history of my online interactions with “debunkers” here on this blog up until February 23, 2008. That history is interesting in its own right, apart from the larger post that it was buried in. So here it is, in a post of its own.
Every now and then I get a wave of “debunkers” visiting this blog. They’re welcome to post here; I’ve learned a lot from them. But, in the future, I would like to try to avoid certain repetitious arguments, or at least confine those particular arguments to relevant threads such as this one.
There are some a priori arguments they almost always bring up in an effort to prove that there could not have been any government complicity in the attacks of 9/11. In recent debates here, those arguments got jumbled together with other, meatier issues in comment threads.
To avoid such jumbling in the future, I’ve decided to devote this post to the more common a priori arguments. I’ll then add a rule to my comment policy requiring that, in the future, these and similar a priori arguments be discussed only in comments below this post (or other posts on these same topics), rather than jumbled together with other, more substantive discussions.
In this post I’ll also provide a brief review of my debates with “debunkers” in general, for the benefit of “debunkers” visiting this blog for the first time. Some of the discussions we’ve had here have been very worthwhile.
Steven Jones gave me permission to quote some questions which he posted in a private forum. I would be interested to see comments by “debunkers.” I would also appreciate it very much if anyone could post links to relevant pages by “debunkers.”
To Patrick S. McNally: What is your overall view regarding 9/11 (and the 9/11 Truth movement) these days?
Whatever your current stance, you are still welcome to post comments here on my blog. Many of your comments here have been very informative and all-around very helpful.
I have not been keeping up with all the latest details of Steven Jones’s research and all the critiques thereof, so I’m not going to say a lot about it right now. The main purpose of this post is simply to set up a page where those who want to talk to me about his research, for whatever reason, can post comments about it, rather than mixing this topic with miscellaneous other discussions.