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.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:42 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Enige wat ik zo'n beetje geloof:
- er was voorkennis, net zoals bij elke terroristische aanslag... Maar denk niet dat de VS exact wist wat er stond te gebeuren, anders hadden ze wel F16's boven NYC laten vliegen.
- United 93 is volgens mij gewoon neergehaald. Geloof niks van dat heldenverhaaltje... Van wat ik me ervan herinner spande het er destijds ook om en was al bekend dat er nog 1 vlucht in de lucht was en F16's erheen gestuurd...

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:50 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:

[..]

Als Flight93 neergehaald is, waarom zeggen ze er dan niets over ?
Het is dan het enige positieve wat ze die dag gedaan hebben ...
Heb gister een docu over Flight93 gezien met familie van nabestaanden en alle telefoongesprekken enzo, ik blijf het een vaag verhaal vinden.
Vooral de conclusie dat ze de indruk kregen dat die terrors blijkbaar niet goed wisten wat ze deden, en een piloot die amper kon vliegen en het automatische piloot alarm niet kon afzetten, en dat ze zich zogezegd laten overmeesteren hebben door de passagiers ...

quote:

Why we need conspiracy theories


Conspiracy theories make the world seem safer

By BBC News Online's Charlotte Parsons

The moon landing was faked, Princess Diana was murdered and JFK was the victim of an elaborate CIA assassination plot.

When major historic events shake our world, conspiracy theories are seldom far behind.

The US terror attacks are no exception. The dust had barely settled on New York before the cloaks and daggers came out.

Less than two weeks after the disaster, BBC News Online found itself inundated with e-mails seeking confirmation of the various theories now circling the globe.

Hundreds of them cite a web page that lambasted the CNN for stirring up anti-Arab sentiment by running "fake footage" of Palestinians cheering over the attacks on the US.


If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life

Psychology Professor Cary Cooper :
The news network is accused of digging out 10-year-old images of celebrations that followed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and passing them off as Palestinian displays of anti-Americanism.

The allegations can be traced back to a message posted on Chicago Indymedia's website.

"Think for a moment about the impact of such images," the text urges visitors. "This kind of broadcast has a very high possibility of causing waves of anger and rage against the Palestinians."

Another popular theory holds that the Israelis working in the World Trade Center left the building shortly before the attacks. In a similar vein, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have cancelled a visit that would have placed him in New York on 11 September.

The implication: The terror attacks were a trick designed to turn world opinion against Israel's Muslim enemies.

The theories are unsourced, unfounded and untrue. But they are spreading fast.

Human nature

This begs the question: Where do conspiracy theories come from? What is it in human nature that drives us to create alternative worlds peopled by shadowy figures?

Are we paranoid, delusional or just plain bored?

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.



There are 36,000 Diana conspiracy web sites

"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

"If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life. If this can happen, what sense of security can you have?"

We create alternate realities because we reject the world where a single madman can bring down a president, a reckless driver can snuff out a princess... and a few men with knives can terrorise a country.

The internet helps the theories grow and spread. An estimated 36,000 Princess Diana conspiracy web sites were created after her death.

Ripple effect

Professor Cooper predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.

"We simply can't believe a small number of people could be behind it," he says, adding that a similar ripple effect followed the John F Kennedy shooting.

Conspiracy theories are not unique to Western culture. Experts say they have operated in many societies throughout history.

On a certain psychological level, we appear to need them.

Giving misery and injustice an identity makes life more bearable, according to Jeffrey Bale, who writes for an online magazine that examines the phenomenon.

"Conspiracy theories account for current crises and upheavals and explain why bad things are happening to good people or vice versa," he said.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:44 schreef Bolter het volgende:
Ik zelf geloof totaal niet in de samenzweringen. En ga gewoon uit van een "reguliere" doch verschrikkelijke terroristische aanslag. Dat Bush en Co. dit zou hebben laten gebeuren betwijfel ik ook ten zeerste.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:05 schreef groningerstudent het volgende:

[..]

Dat laten gebeuren geloof ik op zich wel, met dien verstande dat het niet bewust hoeft te zijn geweest. Organisaties als de CIA, FBI en Secret Service zijn ontzettend bureaucratische organisaties die elkaar het licht in de ogen niet gunnen. Het kan dus goed zijn dat verdeelde aanwijzingen in combinatie met een log bureaucratisch systeem ervoor hebben gezorgt dat de dreiging niet serieus genoeg genomen werd. Sluit natuurlijk niet uit dat een complot niet mogelijk is, maar in het grote geheel gezien lijkt me dit waarschijnlijker.

quote:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theoristsb
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:11 schreef Mister_Monkeyman het volgende:
Copy-Pasta van http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
[..]

Ik neem aan dat de meeste mensen hier The Manual for the Internet hebben gelezen? Zeer handig in het ontmaskeren van trolls.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:20 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

waarom, alsof we daarmee van die gek balkenende afkomen :-[

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 12:50 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:
Als Flight93 neergehaald is, waarom zeggen ze er dan niets over ?

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:21 schreef Evil_Jur het volgende:
Het enige complot dat ik nog mogelijk acht is dat sommige factoren binnen de inlichtingen-gemeenschap meer wisten en niet zuiver naar die kennis gehandeld hebben. De andere zijn veel te vergezocht.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:26 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Bush, het grootste gevaar

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:29 schreef JohnDope het volgende:

[..]

Kies jij voor het westen of voor de Sharia. Zeg het maar.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:29 schreef JohnDope het volgende:

[..]

Kies jij voor het westen of voor de Sharia. Zeg het maar.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:29 schreef JohnDope het volgende:
Kies jij voor het westen of voor de Sharia. Zeg het maar.

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:26 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Bush, het grootste gevaar

quote:

Op maandag 11 september 2006 13:35 schreef groningerstudent het volgende:

[..]



Goede onderbouwing.

Trouwens, waar is Meki gebleven. Hij was zo lekker op dreef in deeltje 8. Zou ie verdwaald zijn op weg naar dit deel?