Thursday, February 22, 2007

Look It Up

One thing that becomes more and more apparent, is that to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists does not require any great investigative ability, worthy of a Bob Woodward. In fact it usually requires nothing more than just looking up the source that the theorist is citing, or a quick check of the supporting facts. Some of our frequent commenters have provided us with some good examples.

First, while arguing against the NIST report, BG posts the following:

British engineers strongly disputed official American claims that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse after the hijacked aircraft scraped vital fire protection from their steel frames.

While this is an accurate quote, another commenter points out that he is leaving out is the following:

We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June).

So in reality, rather than supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis, these engineers argue even more strongly against it than even NIST did!

Our second example comes from Swing Dangler who posts the following, while arguing that it would be out of character for Al Qaeda to not claim responsibility for a terrorist attack:

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for arming Somali factions who battled U.S. forces there in October 1993, and who killed 18 U.S. special operations forces in Mogadishu in October 1993
Source:CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web
Order Code RL33038
Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment

August 17, 2005


I found this interesting, because I remember following the events at the time, and read the book Black Hawk Down, as well as watching the movie. I even remember reading Mark Bowden's original newspaper series on the events. I don't recall any mention of Al Qaeda claiming responsibility at the time. In fact the term Al Qaeda was not even in widespread use until the 1998 embassy bombings.

A quick web search backs this up. Osama bin Laden did not claim a connection to the attacks until 1997, 4 years later:

In October 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen involved in the U.S. humanitarian relief effort in Somalia were killed during an operation in Mogadishu. One soldier's body was dragged through the streets.

Bin Laden was indicted in 1996 on charges of training the people involved in the attack and in a 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said his followers, together with local Muslims, killed those troops.

For comparison, bin Laden stated that Arabs were responsible for 9/11, in an interview only a few months after 9/11. Interestingly enough, in this same CNN article, bin Laden also denies a connection to the embassy bombings:

On August 7, 1998, eight years after the U.S. deployment in Saudi Arabia, a pair of truck bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Bin Laden has denied responsibility, but prosecutors allege his culpability is evident on faxes sent by his London cell to at least three international media outlets. They also point to incriminating statements by certain alleged embassy bombers who are admitted al Qaeda members.


So much for the theory that Al Qaeda always takes credit for its attacks. In fact, it is easier to find cases where they deny responsibility.

Labels: ,

36 Comments:

At 22 February, 2007 13:36, Blogger CHF said...

It takes a special kind of incompetance to have one's claim debunked by the very source used for the claim itself.

Congrates, BG. Your momma must be so proud of her boy.

 
At 22 February, 2007 14:19, Blogger Alex said...

I'm thinkin' his momma should have swallowed.

 
At 22 February, 2007 14:39, Blogger Falco98 said...

still more examples of the phenomenon you observe by reading the entire statement following the portion quoted in loose change, "after 20 minutes i stopped being coroner..."

 
At 22 February, 2007 14:46, Blogger CHF said...

I love how after his sloppy reading comprehension skills were exposed, BG then proceeded to pretend that he really, really cares about fireproofing codes - as if that was his whole point all along!

 
At 22 February, 2007 14:51, Blogger ewing2001 said...

Freezing the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.911researchers.com/node/249

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:08, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well, BG and Swing don't care about facts, this is religion for them. Please don't expect them to be honest.

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:16, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Bin Laden should die if he isn't dead already!

Now, lets examine JamesB source here..

Bin Laden was indicted in 1996 on charges of training the people involved in the attack and in a 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said his followers, together with local Muslims, killed those troops.
From the linked CNN article.

What does the actual interview state?

Actual transcript from CNN, March 1977:
Reporter: Q) Mr. Bin Ladin, in a recent interview with an Arabic newspaper, you said that Arabs who fought in the Afghan war killed U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Can you tell us about that?

OBL:With Allah's grace, Muslims over there, cooperated with some Arab "Mujahideen" who were in Afghanistan. They participated with their brothers in Somalia against the American occupation troops and killed large numbers of them. The American administration was aware of that. After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies...

OBL does not state his followers committed the attacks he states some left over troops from Afghanistan and locals did, as you assert through your source, only locals and the Mujahadeen. Mujahideen literally "strugglers") is a term for Muslims fighting in a war or involved in any other struggle, not followers of bin-laden, which would be Al-Q in relationship to 9/11.

Secondly, they were engaged in a war in Somalia, not acts of terrorism, again a substantial difference in meaning, goal, and purpose.
And the interview itself does not purport to show a connection at all nor does Bin Laden admit or claim responsibility.

Lets examine a third source:
Eighteen US troops are killed in an urban attack in Mogadishu, Somalia. American law enforcement, intelligence and national security officials are divided as to whether, as a federal indictment charges, bin Laden and his adherents helped train and arm the men who killed the US troops (Source: New York Times 2/8/99)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
shows/binladen/etc/cron.html

Strike 1, James. You should know better than using heresay from the mainstream. I won't accuse you of lying as you were simply relying on CNN..supposedly America's most trusted news source.

I would have hoped your professor would have told you to always try to go to the source material, as I did. Didn't they teach you that in college?

Lets go to the next source that JamesB tries to use to prove me wrong...

Bin Laden has denied responsibility, but prosecutors allege his culpability is evident on faxes sent by his London cell to at least three international media outlets. They also point to incriminating statements by certain alleged embassy bombers who are admitted al Qaeda members

Allege-1.to assert without proof. So the authorities will allege OBL as being responsible...without proof. But in the same breath, Al-Q sends the fax to 3 media outlets! But because he is the supposed leader of Al-Q he is allegedly guilty.

Besides that, your second example actually supports my position that that Al-Q. will publically claim responsiblity for terrorist attacks.

In this case sending three faxes to media outlets! Did you even think about that before posting it? Apparently not!


Other historical claims:
Al Qaeda claims responsibility for subway attacks in videotape where London bomber issued call to arms.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/
article/id/1029

l Qaeda claims responsibility for simultaneous bombings in Algeria
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
archives/015260.php

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/
meast/08/23/jordan.attack.
alqaeda/index.html

And finally the initial claim for 9/11, a shitty ass of a forgery with a fake
OBL with controversial translations found by sheer luck in a city in Afghanistan.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is one instance prior to 9/11 where OBL denied responsibility and then later claimed responsibility.

The second claim politically timed
'release' 4 days prior to the elections which both Kerry and the Bush camp admit helped to sway the vote for the Bush campaign. Not on the annversary of the attacks, not on some martyr's birthday or death day, but 4 days prior to our elections.
The tape released by Al-Jezzera was only 7 minutes long and they made no comment about the rest of the tape.

So much for trying to prove me wrong again. Here is your ass, James. You can have it back now.

To sum up you just posted one example that was an error or a lie, and two you provided another example proving my case. Three I posted several examples of AL-Q claiming responsibility not denying it as you assert.

Try again.

Oh, did you ever form those concrete questions you have about NORAAD and the FAA?

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Cons, do you care to point out the dishonesty in my posts or are you firing from the hip with your pom poms, cheerleader?

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:34, Blogger CHF said...

Swing, you are sure taking your time with your engineers.

What's the hold-up?

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:38, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 February, 2007 18:41, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I was speaking of Deniers generally, your "evidence" is almost all made up. None of your arguments are convincing. Look at the "controlled demolition" crap you clowns peddle it endlessly, simply because suits your world view. Planes dissappearing,etc, you name it, all the allegations are based on the desire to believe something, not because that the belief is based solid evidence. You morons don't care about facts.

 
At 22 February, 2007 19:08, Blogger shawn said...

do you care to point out the dishonesty in my posts

Any post where you say that the government is responsible for 9/11 is dishonest.

 
At 22 February, 2007 21:25, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, OK swing, let me get this straight. You claim that Osama claims responsibility for terrorist attacks, and cite Somalia as an example. Now to defend yourself, you point out that Osama didn't claim responsibility, and that he wasn't really involved in the attacks anyway, both of which I basically agree with by the way, but which completely contradict your original argument.

Yeah, you sure showed me.

 
At 22 February, 2007 21:25, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, OK swing, let me get this straight. You claim that Osama claims responsibility for terrorist attacks, and cite Somalia as an example. Now to defend yourself, you point out that Osama didn't claim responsibility, and that he wasn't really involved in the attacks anyway, both of which I basically agree with by the way, but which completely contradict your original argument.

Yeah, you sure showed me.

 
At 22 February, 2007 22:28, Blogger BG said...

When I made my post (comment), the topic at hand was whether there are to be engineers / scientists to be included in ongoing review of details of 9/11.

My point, made in a devastating fashion, was, and is, that the NIST study is not the slam dunk, completely unassailed document that this blog has made it out to be. Indeed there is honest serious ongoing debate in the science and engineering community. This blog has not taken even a tiny step to acknowledge that fact.

My point was about that particular argument.

The idea that, my pointing out the clear dissention among individuals with credentials which this blog has denied is somehow dishonest or not valid on my part is rubbish.

 
At 23 February, 2007 05:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

JamesB, lets get this straight. Go back to the original issue. In my original arguement, I stated Al-Qaeida will claim responsibility, not OBL.

I didn't say OBL. I said Al-Q. One might argue that they are one in the same, which of course they aren't. Al-Q is that loose network of terrorists that operate independently of one another according to the govt., where as everything I've read OBL simply finances, praises, possibly plans the attacks.

Now, what concrete questions do you have regarding NORAD and the FAA?
In the light that the DOD lied to the 9/11 Commission, I'm sure we can come to a middle ground and help each other get those questions answered.

CON, just as I thought. You can't post or relink to where I've lied. It is good that you mentioned deniers in general or you would be in CHF's lonely boat. Lets classify something, when you type 'you' and it follows my post then of course I'm going to think you are talking to me. I've never supported a no plane hypothesis in any of the events. Two, the explosive device theory has not been proven wrong, and for that matter was not forensically examined by the NIST which of course makes it a viable theory to explain the global collapse feature of all the buildnigs. Bring me verifiable certified reports from independent structural engineering firms who used all of the NIST data, examined eyewitness testimony, the video and audio record of the day from all the sources, the historical record of the first attack of the world trade center, the belief of the head SE of the towers, the white paper his firm produced, foresnic and chemical analysis of the evidence, and if there conclusion is that there were no explosive devices used on that day, then I will never mention it again. It is that simple. Now how many strucutral engineering firms in the world have done that?

For whatever you think about him, Dr. Jones isn't going to put his life, career, standard of living, and character on untestable, unprovable, unsubstantiated theories.

Besides, no matter what you think about terrorists or who did it why do you deny they could do this?
Impossibility? Hell they managed to run around in this country undetected and being monitored by the FEDs, received financial support from abroad, get through airport security with all sorts of items, take over a plane, fly around unintercepted for an ungodly ammount of time, and hit their targets like expert pilots, and cause 3.5 buildings to collapse. That seems like an impossiblity to me, but according to you, it all occured because of a system wide failure to imagine. In your world, what your told in what to believe and you aimlessly do. That is fine, Con, that is your perogative.

If that is the case, then it is quite easy to imagine how some terrorists could rig 3 buildings with explosive devices.

Perhaps explosive devices would answer all of the unanswered questions as well as explain the global collapse feature.

BG, you have an excellent point. The little tiff between American and British engineers goes on to prove that the NIST report is incomplete and not the end all of what happened that day, or else why would these groups be debatting it? Why woudl the NSE publication call for the NIST models to be released? What the article fails to mention is how both groups modeled their findings considering the NIST refused to release their models. What data did the one group use to arrive at a global collapse if the NIST hasn't released the information to the public? Did they assume all core collums were severed? Or did they take the NIST's data that even a collum with 10% damage is assumed to be totally destroyed. What data did they use to show the failure of all of the supporting steel all at once?

Perhaps more of these engineer groups would debate the issue if they had the data and computer models that the NIST uses to check for errors, etc. Alas, they can't because the NIST won't release the data they used. Without the critique of the report by others, I would have read the report and agreed. I mean afterall they are experts and experts never error. But thankfully many people have read the report and found many glaring holes and problems with their conclusion. And the kicker of it all is how it all lead to a global collapse in the first place and how did all of those collums fail at one, and finally why did the wrong tower fall first. I would think that would be the most important issues of all for the current and future high rise structures in the world and for the sake of human life living in those types of buildings.

 
At 23 February, 2007 06:29, Blogger Alex said...

My point, made in a devastating fashion, was, and is, that the NIST study is not the slam dunk, completely unassailed document that this blog has made it out to be.

Excuse me? Who said that???

Indeed there is honest serious ongoing debate in the science and engineering community.

About minor variations and details. Not about the goddamn BASIC CONCPEPT.

Seriously, are you a Creationist? Because this is the EXACT same argument they always make. Look:

"There is an honest serious ongoing debate within the scientific community about evolution, therefore God did it".

vs.

"There is honest serious ongoing debate in the science and engineering community about the NIST report, therefore thermate did it".

That's not only a logical fallacy, but one of the most intellectualy dishonest arguments that it's possible to make.

 
At 23 February, 2007 06:50, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 February, 2007 06:51, Blogger BG said...

"There is an honest serious ongoing debate within the scientific community about evolution, therefore God did it".

Here's the difference.

I wasn't arguing that the scientific debate about the NIST report calls for ANY conclusion.

I was just saying that many here seem to think that any of us who question the NIST report on any point have no standing, which is clearly untrue.

You seem to want to put words in my mouth. I remain fundamentally agnostic as to exactly what happened on 9/11.

 
At 23 February, 2007 07:20, Blogger Alex said...

I wasn't arguing that the scientific debate about the NIST report calls for ANY conclusion.

Bullshit. The creationist crowd will try this approach too:

"Well, we're not SAYING that evolution isn't real. We're just saying that we should teach both evolution AND creationism in school, and let people make up their own minds!"

That's, if anything, even more dishonest! It's quite clear what you believe, you're just too chickenshit to come right out and say it because you know you have no way of actually proving any of it. So instead you hide behind "questions" and pretend that you're just seeking knowledge.

I remain fundamentally agnostic as to exactly what happened on 9/11.

Bullshit. You keep attempting to drag the NIST report and the 9/11 commission report through the mud, while reporting any insane theory you can find, and suggesting some of the most callous and hateful ideas that I've heard from any denier. If that's your idea of agnostic, I'd love to see your idea of a religious zealot.

 
At 23 February, 2007 07:22, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

if there was a "new investigation" would you call on those UK engineers to testify?

Do you think it would help your position or hurt it?

 
At 23 February, 2007 07:35, Blogger BG said...

First of All:

Controlled Demo is not "My Position".

My position is that the 9/11 Commission and NIST have offered glaringly incomplete explanations.

The testimony of the UK Engineers, and the head of the New York office of Arup (whose opinion I included from the NY Times), a British based world wide structural engineering consultancy, would help my position.

 
At 23 February, 2007 08:26, Blogger Alex said...

Controlled Demo is not "My Position".

No, ofcourse not. You just think thermate was used to bring down the towers, and people jumped because of government agents with heat rays.

 
At 23 February, 2007 10:09, Blogger BG said...

Alex said...

Controlled Demo is not "My Position".

No, of course not. You just think thermate was used to bring down the towers, and people jumped because of government agents with heat rays.


I have no expertise in explosives. I took Statics and Dynamics, Physics, Physical Chemistry when I was planning to be a Chem E. However, I wouldn't say that qualifies me to formulate an opinion of the details of the WTC collapse.

I have no way to validate any thermate theories as put forward by S. Jones.

As for the speculations of Judy Wood, she and Fetzer are clearly out of their element and their speculations deserve the utmost sketpicism. Your derision is understandable.

 
At 23 February, 2007 10:35, Blogger CHF said...

Yes Bg,

having engineers say "the towers would have fallen with ONLY fires" sure helps you out, dunnit?

Face it kid - you thought you could fool us with a headline and it backfired horribly on you.

You gotta learn how to admit your fuckups, BG. Otherwise you just end up digging your hole deeper.

 
At 23 February, 2007 10:44, Blogger James B. said...

The testimony of the UK Engineers, and the head of the New York office of Arup (whose opinion I included from the NY Times), a British based world wide structural engineering consultancy, would help my position.


BG, if you truly believe that, I hope to God you aren't a defense attorney.

 
At 23 February, 2007 11:04, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 February, 2007 11:05, Blogger BG said...

I admit mistakes, screw-ups, etc. when there is something to admit.

For example, James helped me see how the claims of DRG and others about "missile batteries" at the Pentagon, or the idea that the Pentagon was the best defended building in the World on 9/11 are contentions that are not supported by any reliable evidence.

In his latest book (as quoted by James), DRG is downright smarmy in the way he using a rhetorical question argumentation.

I'm here to learn from others. I'm here to drop ideas I have if the evidence is brought forward that goes to the side of dropping them.

I read the article that I posted about the WTC and NIST. I didn't say, when I posted it that it support CD or any specific alternative conclusion (other than open questions about NIST).

I didn't try to hide the whole article... just the opposite I provided the link for all to see.

 
At 23 February, 2007 11:21, Blogger James B. said...

BG, be serious, there is no way that article in any way supports any of the conspiracy theories.

To extend my defense attorney argument:

"You honor, I disagree with the prosecution's argument that my client murder his wife by shooting her with a 357 magnum. And I will prove this by calling a forensic expert who will testify that he had strangled her to death well before he ever shot her!"

 
At 23 February, 2007 12:03, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Alex wrote: "So instead you hide behind "questions" and pretend that you're just seeking knowledge."

I believe Jon Stewart pointed this tactic out on The Daily Show a while back: You can say anything as long as it's in the form of a question.

He was referring to the media, of course, but it applies equally well to the "truthers". Funny, that.

 
At 23 February, 2007 14:27, Blogger BG said...

James B. said...
BG, be serious, there is no way that article in any way supports any of the conspiracy theories


You must think my discussion is totally biased by only looking for stuff that helps me make a case of one particular type.

Contrary to this, I'm interesting in the truth, and will try every way possible to be more like an umpire or impartial jury rather than a prosecuting or defense atty.

It's a goal that all here would do well to seek.

I think this blog is misguided in general, as I've explained many times. However if the evidence proves you right in general, I will support what the evidence shows.

The shoddy 9/11 Commission is in large part responsible for the predicament honest observers find themselves in: We have not been allowed the investigation and oversight that would produce a settled case.

 
At 23 February, 2007 14:53, Blogger Alex said...

It's a goal that all here would do well to seek.

MORE Bullshit! Boy oh boy. Penn and Teller could do a whole episode, just about YOU!

What else should we be "fair and balanced" about? Creationism? Holocaust denial? The moon landing hoax?

Screw that. While it may be a good idea to have an open mind about new ideas, you've opened your mind so wide that your brains have fallen out. Once a concept has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's absolutely pointless to keep entertaining the paranoid delusions of lunatics. And the events of 9/11 HAVE been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You need to have a truly twisted world view to even contemplate some of the theories you idiots bandy about, let alone to actually believe in them.

 
At 23 February, 2007 17:38, Blogger CHF said...

Give it up, BG.

No one buys your claim of being interested in fireproofing. You're just trying to cast doubt on NIST and were stupid enough to link to something that casts doubt in the WRONG DIRECTION.

The shoddy 9/11 Commission is in large part responsible for the predicament honest observers find themselves in: We have not been allowed the investigation and oversight that would produce a settled case.

Investigation and oversight by WHO???

 
At 23 February, 2007 18:37, Blogger ConsDemo said...

CON, just as I thought. You can't post or relink to where I've lied.

Don’t flatter yourself, the whole Denier movement peddles nothing but crap, I make no distinctions among you. You may or may not believe the idiocy you peddle here and if you do believe it then technically you wouldn’t be a liar, but it is immaterial. As Shawn said, if you claim there is credible evidence to back up the claim 9/11 was an inside job, you are dishonest. You are dishonest simply because you are simply unwilling or incapable to comprehend evidence, even overwhelming evidence, that contradicts your world view. If you truly believe this crap, then you are acting on emotion, in this case vitriolic hatred for the United States, not facts.

I've never supported a no plane hypothesis in any of the events.

Big whup, ALL the arguments the purport to show 9/11 was an inside job are idiotic, just like I make no distinctions among the people making the argument, I make no distinctions among the arguments themselves because all that I have seen so far expect me to suspend what I know to be true in simply accept the Denier argument because a Denier says so. Bring forth a credible argument and I might treat it seriously.

Two, the explosive device theory has not been proven wrong

Typical ridiculous argument. The onus is not on others to disprove your idiotic theories, the onus is on you to prove them. Everyone saw planes fly into the buildings, I’ve yet to see any video or eyewitness accounts of anyone planting explosives. 9/11 Denial is a Religion, not a science. I don’t believe in normal religions either but at least their intentions are usually good, yours are not.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:00, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Consdemo, you should change your name because you did exactly what you couldn't prove.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home