Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[William of Walworth]

Erm, yeah, right, sure thing.

I don't quite get where I became a conspiracy theorist in your rigorous analysis - I suspect you may have confused a philosophical point on the evolution of such philosophies with being a defence of them. But nuances do escape some people.

But, since you blow your own trumpet, I'm a cultural historian trained using a hybrid history plus sociology approach; and it's the sociological impact and meaning of such evolution that interests me.

Don't, please, tar me with your silly brush,

Moving on - is there anyone here who truly believes we actually do know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as per 911?

Well, we know it was the guys in the planes wot dunnit, but what else don't we know? It's that fertile space of government-created doubt that permits conspiracy the ground in which to breed.

Apologies for mistakenly applying it to you -- it was your Fox News jibe that got to me really ..

Mine was not a silly brush though -- just that it doesn't apply to you and I made a mistake

But to most conspiracy theorists I've ever encountered, both here and elsewhere, my criticisms do apply.

 

[rocketman]

Apologies for mistakenly applying it to you -- it was your Fox News jibe that got to me really ..

OK. I guess the wider point would be that the mythological role of modern news media - the way it's subsumed for propoganda, rather than the dissemination of truth - means that most modern media outlets can't be regarded as much more of a beacon of truth than more obscure sources can be.

I mean - reality of journalism is cut budgets, closed foreign news desks, sharpo deadlines, advertiser-driven, news for money organisations, or (in the case of the BEEB), a once mighty independent (fairly) voice bought under govt control post Kelly.

This leads to degeneration in quality of media reporting, and the evolution of news-as-delivered into the status of fairy tale. So living in an age of mass market myth is it any wonder that other mythologies (in this case left of centre conspiracies) are finding it easy to generate belief?

Central to the evolution of a citizen journalist media is the tenet that facts, and access to facts, are restricted. So ultimately there's no truth.

 

[pocketscience]

Apologies for mistakenly applying it to you -- it was your Fox News jibe that got to me really ..

Mine was not a silly brush though -- just that it doesn't apply to you and I made a mistake

But to most conspiracy theorists I've ever encountered, both here and elsewhere, my criticisms do apply.

As a historian, are you happy with / convinced by the evidence provided by the US govt, that the events of 911 were solely planned by Al Queda?
Any links to undisputable evidence appreciated!

 

[William of Walworth]

I think we're closer to each other in opinion than I thought originally ...

You are right about the job of citizen journalists being hard because of restricted access to facts. Which is why it's IMO even more incumbent on them to avoid filling the vacuum with wild fact free speculation and reliance of sources and 'interpretations' even more dodgy, of possible, than mainstream media outlets that follow their own agenda.

The ultra sloppy and under sceptical approach of so many CTists makes it harder for the real, responsible citizen journalist or researcher IMO ... some of the people most sceptical about what the establishment is telling them, have no time at all for the most bonkers elements of conspiracy theorising.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I don't doubt there are people infinitely more qualified than me.

All i said was that in 20+ years of erecting steel structures upto and including doing the engineering side i cannot see that a building would collapse in such a way.

I understand this was an unprecedented event.

And by the way i have read the link you posted plus countless more.But thanks anyway.

I think it's the first time a jetliner has been flown into a building. So yes, it's pretty unprecedented

I wonder how this has affected building design - after all, we now know a lot more about what happens to buildings when planes get flown into them, but is the likelihood of that happening again enough to warrant making any significant changes to design parameters, or are we better off just making it harder to hijack planes?

 

[editor]

All i said was that in 20+ years of erecting steel structures upto and including doing the engineering side i cannot see that a building would collapse in such a way.

So what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

What large skyscrapers have you worked on?

 

[editor]

Yeah, everybody should just STFU and believe what the (US) government tell us.

And exactly who's proposed that, then, Mr Rolleyes?

 

[Jazzz]

So what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

What large skyscrapers have you worked on?

oh give it a rest ed.

 

[pocketscience]

I think it's the first time a jetliner has been flown into a building. So yes, it's pretty unprecedented

I wonder how this has affected building design - after all, we now know a lot more about what happens to buildings when planes get flown into them, but is the likelihood of that happening again enough to warrant making any significant changes to design parameters, or are we better off just making it harder to hijack planes?

That's the way things are going.
What with the new Airbus A380 coming into service next year with a max. 800 passengers, flying into buildings is hardly necessary for would-be hijackers.

 

[rocketman]

The ultra sloppy and under sceptical approach of so many CTists makes it harder for the real, responsible citizen journalist or researcher IMO ... some of the people most sceptical about what the establishment is telling them, have no time at all for the most bonkers elements of conspiracy theorising.

Well, you see, I'm quite interested in the extreme threads of thought, for their cultural significance.

It's also - well, I remember when environmentalism was seen as a CT, which it isn't any more. But that's not it - but where access to facts is so limited, then it's natural for CT to emerge to fill the vacuum.

So the existence of such theories, if nothing else, should galvanise any efforts to bring government's into line (they work for us, in theory, so we should have control of them), as the existence of CT says Government isn't being open or accountable. And I don't think you need to be a lunatic to demand that, in these times.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Yeah, everybody should just STFU and believe what the (US) government tell us.

I don't think that's the position being taken. But we don't have to assume that everything the US government tells us must be lies, just because it's the US government saying it.

What I can never quite understand is where all these conspiracy theories lead. So what if someone sekritly put 1500 tons of thermite into the WTC and carefully ignited it - A FUCKING PLANE FLEW INTO THE FUCKING BUILDING. So what if the plane hypothetically didn't have enough force/fuel/whatever to bring the building down - THE FUCKING BUILDING FELL DOWN. I can never see what these frankly desperate attempts to "prove" *cough* that it was somehow nefarious actually alter.

The way it looks to me is that someone flew planes into two tall buildings. Those buildings then fell down. Who flew the planes? Well, it seems as if we know. Why did they do it? It seems as if we know. Whether or not the buildings were dynamited, blown up, or someone just let the air out seems irrelevant. As does any hypothesis about remote controlled aircraft, skyhooks, aliens, the CIA or fucking Noddy and Bigears.

I don't believe everything the US government tells us - in fact, my first reaction every time that clown Bush opens his mouth is to figure out how the reality could be the opposite to what he's actually saying. But there's enough wrong with the line of reasoning the US government used (eg the whole "it was Saddam wot dunnit" line ), even if we just accept the whole al-Q'aeda-flew-planes-into-the-WTC story at face value, to keep me sceptical, without having to invent weird Occam's-Razor-defying hypotheses for how the buildings actually fell down.

So, unless you can tell or show us something significant enough to make it worth our while thinking about it - ie not vague handwaving claims, half-hinted "suggestions" or any more fucking prisonplanet fucking URLs, then I suggest you listen to what I am saying and - yes - Shut The Fuck Up.

Do have a good day, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out...

Jesus H tapdancing Christ*, what do these fuckers put in their tea???

*ta, Jake.

 

[pembrokestephen]

That's the way things are going.
What with the new Airbus A380 coming into service next year with a max. 800 passengers, flying into buildings is hardly necessary for would-be hijackers.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

It would rather depend on what the hijackers are attempting to achieve.

 

[editor]

oh give it a rest ed.

Seeing as you've butted in so rudely, do you still think they've got a fake Saddam?

And how about those holographic planes from that makey uppey sci-fi annual?

 

[handy1]

So what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

What large skyscrapers have you worked on?

Nearly all the big ones on Canary Wharf including Canada Sq (the big one)

 

[Jazzz]

Seeing as you've butted in so rudely, do you still think they've got a fake Saddam?

And how about those holographic planes from that makey uppey sci-fi annual?

All you ever do is ask questions.

But the funny thing is this - you aren't actually looking for answers.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Nearly all the big ones on Canary Wharf including Canada Sq (the big one)

And you're a structural engineer?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Nearly all the big ones on Canary Wharf including Canada Sq (the big one)

Well that's nice. Would have been better if you'd worked on any buildings that have the same sort of internal structure. You do remember the different design that was used for the Twin towers that contributed to it's collapse of course...?

 

[rocketman]

So what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

Thing is ed, I seem to recall that relatively recently after the event, this was actually questioned by major media.Now my memory is rubbish - but I seem to recall a show all about it, which concluded that Osama used his architectural training to assess just where to put those planes. Equally (I pray forgiveness if this actually was a fringe site I visited years ago that made such claims) was there not some reports that said that some architectural elements that were meant to be in the towers actually weren't there?

Before being asked for links - I don't have them - but can anyone remember this?

Main thing is too, why dis input from someone who actually erects (oo-er) such constructions? He's not saying "he's right", he's just saying - as a professional in his field - "I was surprised". A simple and subjective anecdote.

NB: I guess we were all surprised, that day - though it seems some people in US gov actually weren't that surprised, according to the 911 commission, as I recall US security agencies had been expecting some incident or other.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

All you ever do is ask questions.

But the funny thing is this - you aren't actually looking for answers.

Where as you find answers everywhere you look and yet you're never inclined to share them with the rest of us.

 

[handy1]

And you're a structural engineer?

no mate an erector

 

[editor]

All you ever do is ask questions.

But the funny thing is this - you aren't actually looking for answers.

I'd rather have an inquisitive mind than be like you - constantly making big, stupid, wild claims and then wriggling like a fish on a hook when asked for credible evidence to back them up.

See the way you're avoiding the questions I just asked you? It's pathetic.

 

[editor]

no mate an erector

Right. So you have zero qualifications in structural engineering, yes?

So, again, what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

 

[Jazzz]

See the way you're avoiding the questions I just asked you? It's pathetic.

What, you mean your totally off-topic ones?

 

[handy1]

Right. So you have zero qualifications in structural engineering, yes?

So, again, what reason do you have to doubt the opinion of the structural engineer of the WTC, or any of the infinitely more qualified experts who don't agree with your conclusion that it was "unbelievable"?

As i said i could not believe they would collapse like they did .
I may not be an engineer but i understand structure and sometimes engineers ask us for advice on buildings ,but you probably don't believe that eh?

 

[pembrokestephen]

no mate an erector

ah, the bloke with the big spanner and a head for heights?

Sod that for a game of soldiers...

 

[editor]

What, you mean your totally off-topic ones?

Take a look at the title of this thread, dimwit.

You cited holographic planes from a makey uppey sci-fi annual as proof that the towers were brought down as part of an 'inside job.'

Do you still stand by those claims?

 

[pocketscience]

And exactly who's proposed that, then, Mr Rolleyes?

err,, me, just now.

 

[handy1]

ah, the bloke with the big spanner and a head for heights?

Sod that for a game of soldiers...

Yes and notoriously slow typers

 

[Pingu]

lickle baby jesus is crying right now...

much as I know governments are untrustworthy piles of shit there is no way a government would blow up its own hub of commerce just so it could go kill saddam and invade iraq.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If the planes didn't do it then how did they fall? Explosives? No. We've been through that a thousand times, and it's just not possible / practical.

1) Mass of explosives
2) Placement of explosives
3) Prevention of premature detonation
4) Stupid pattern of explosives needed
5) Timing of "explosions" too slow
6) Evidence for cutting charges show no such thing
7) Mention thermite and i'll rip your metaphorical tesitcles off
8) Testimony given rules out the use of HE in inital impacts.
9) There's more but i can't be arsed

If you doubt it then read any of the hundreds of threads on the topic that Jazzz has made.