9/11-complot of *-->niet<--*? #09 [NWS]

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:03 schreef haaahaha het volgende:

[..]

Wat is gebruikelijk bij aanslagen en vrijgeven van beeldmateriaal bij onderzoek? Er is verschil tussen beeldmateriaal van media bij wtc torens en niet-media beeldmateriaal bij het intelligence hoofdkantoor van de us overheid.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:14 schreef Toffe_Ellende het volgende:

[..]

Dat is geen antwoord, dat weet je zelf ook wel. Het gaat er niet om wat de procedures zijn. Het gaat erom of procedures niet verbogen kunnen worden om niet zelf verdacht te worden. Gezien de reputatie van de CIA (wanneer ben je als groep eigenlijk een criminele organisatie?) roep je bij zo'n ramp al snel iets over je af als er twijfel optreedt. Een hoop van die twijfels kun je op een logische manier weerleggen, maar als er mensen denken dat het geen vliegtuig is geweest dat in het Pentagon vloog, dan zorg je toch dat je een paar echte beelden (want ze schijnen er te zijn) vrijkomen om mensen gerust te stellen?

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 11:52 schreef _The_General_ het volgende:
Dit is dus het probleem van een documentaire zoals loose change. De extreem domme, ontevreden of labiele onder ons, ( meki ? ) nemen zoiets als zoete koek aan.

Eigenlijk best gevaarlijk zo’n documentaire.

quote:

The following list is probably not complete, but sums up the shortcomings of the majority of the movie.

* Many, many statements are factually incorrect or have become incorrect after further investigation happens over time;
* many statements can be interpreted very differently;
* many, many statements are based upon speculation, instead of solid arguments;
* if sources are named, many of them could be described as controversial because they either have conflicting interests or are not experienced in the field that is discussed, and
* quite a number of statements are taken out of context.

It should be noted though, that these issues are not unique to LC. In many discussions I have had about this subject, the "truth seekers" consiously or unconsiouly apply these methods. It doesn't mean that one should not be critical of their governments though. Government regulates people, but people should make sure they regulate their government as well.

I have a firm believe that one can only come to a justifiable conclusion if they have taken the time and effort to investigate both sides of the story and are willing to adapt their conclusion as new evidence or insights become available over time. A long time ago, I saw the first edition of LC and was intrigued with the questions and statements is made. Now, many months later, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion there is now way it was an inside job. To me, the arguments of the truth seekers are too far fetched and to easily refuted.

I firmly believe that on that sad morning, four aircraft were taken over by extremists and that they drove the aircraft in respectively the WTC, the Pentagon and the ground. It does not mean I take the official report for granted though. There are definitively aspects that could use some clarification, but in general terms it seems likelier to me than the truth seeker's alternative.

Many of the truth seekers that I have spoken to believe that version over the official, mostly because they are unhappy with their government. Often they supported the alternative because it was an easy way to make the government a scapegoat for all the issues they didn't like. They often have trouble indentifying an exact reason why the alternative version of events would hold more truth than the official one. I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone here regarding this observation; you should do that for yourself.

I try not to go to indepth on the video itself here, as I believe that their is little point is mentioning the specifics. It would take to long, and it would be rather boring. There are however two issues that I feel that do need addressing: the phonecalls section and the conclusion. I'll start with the latter first.

The conclusion is summed up in the movie as such:

After September 11th, President Bush had and continues to have permission to do and say whatever he wants:

The Patriot Act.
The Department of Homeland Security.
Afghanistan.
Iraq


Somebody once gave wrote an interesting metaphor to describe the aftermath of 9/11. All (or most) events in the world can be compared to a pebble hitting a still, flat body of water. The bigger the pebble (event) the bigger and more extreme the waves (reactions to this events). The attacks were unprecedented (huge pebble) which caused an extreme set of reactions: crude, chaotic, contradictory. As time goes by these reactions smooth out. Emergency crews developed rescue plans, new laws were passed to prevent such a tragedy again and in many years from now the ripple will cease to exist: the attacks will be forgotten, exept for the history books.

I believe that we are still in the smoothing out phase. The Bush administration passed laws like the Patriot Act, but as time goes by, more and more people start to realize that this is not desirable. Afghanistan and Iraq have also started to reflect in Bush's popularity a while ago.

As I said, the attacks were unprecedented. Up to that point, most people could not imagine something happening like this, so it will take a long time before everything is all said and done. For comparison, a rocket that destroys one or more homes in Israel or Palestinia have by now become more or less routine to them. The event is no longer big and people return to ordinary life fairly quickly.

Back to LC. The conclusion is in my opinion flawed. LC assumes that the Patriot Act and such was the prologue to 9/11. I believe it was a (rather irratic) reaction to 9/11.

The phonecalls. As I said, I need to address this. While most of the movie is relatively harmless (assuming that one at least considers other options than those precented in LC), I have some serious troubles with the phonecalls.

LC says it is dedicating the movie to the victims of 9/11. I do not personally know anybody that was directly involved in the tragedy. I do know however, that if I would have been the one talking to my son, daughter, father, mother or friend for the last time (as they were in the air) I would be deeply, deeply insulted. I doubt I could find the right words to express how unbelievably cold and raw such accusations are. It shows no respect or dedication to those that lost a loved one on one of those aircraft.

I have seen a lot of speculation as to what didn't happen that faithfull day, but not a shred of genuine evidence has come forward in the video (or other truth seeker's contribution) that leads me to believe that the identification of those passengers were a fraud. Suggesting otherwise without relevant evidence is in my opinion as low as one can go. I'll step of the soapbox now regarding this issue.

In conclusion. I do not believe in any sinister plot by the government. I never have, and giving that probably all such arguments are quite easily refuted I most likely never will. The sheer magnitude of this event makes it next to impossible to keep such a complot a secret, as it would (among many, many others) involve: the government, the fbi, the cia, the fire departments, the police departments, the press, the coroners, the pilots, air traffic control, Larry Silverstein and many more. That, plus the fact that the majority of eyewitness reports do not support the alternative version.

It is a valuable thing that we can freely inform others about mishaps in this world, especially with a production like LC. But as LC tries to appear being factual and is a relatively large production in the truth seeker's community, it does require some responsibility. Responsibility that at the very least facts are checked and that the story actually includes facts, instead of unfounded assumptions and speculations.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:17 schreef haaahaha het volgende:

[..]

De complottheorie speelt enkel bij een selecte groep. Wellicht een groeiende groep, maar het is nog niet algemeen. Waarom zou de us overheid dan die beelden moeten vrijgeven en mogelijk procedures moeten veranderen? Omdat die selecte groep mensen iets vermoeden?

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:20 schreef assuranseturix het volgende:
nah, het antwoord hierop is gisteren vrij overtuigend te zien geweest bij Zembla: nope.. geen complot

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:29 schreef SunChaser het volgende:

[..]

Dat zei Zembla helemaal niet. Zembla toonde alleen aan dat je wel het pentagon in kon vliegen en dat de gebouwen wel vanzelf waren ingstort.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:31 schreef assuranseturix het volgende:

[..]

toch wel de 2 belangrijkste pijlers van de conspiracy-theorie

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:21 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Goeie post

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:32 schreef SunChaser het volgende:

[..]

Wat ik eerder zei, ik geloof niet in een inside job, maar een buitenkansje voor Bush. Hij wist er van af en wat zijn 3000 levens tegenover de olievelden in Irak, de mensen bang maken en onder de duim houden en investeren in het leger.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:35 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Als je echt wil weten wat er waar is van 9/11 en de politiek ervoor en erna zal je daar ontzettend veel tijd voor vrij moeten maken.