Phaw … if thermite had a roll in any terrorist attack … it would have a role in all terrorist attacks … it’s super-duper easy to make … kitchen-counter chemistry.
How about this: Bush and Cheney dismissed intelligence reports that attacks were planned out of a sense of complacency that they thought al-Qaeda was incapable of pulling off simultaneous hijackings of multiple airliners and flying the planes into prominent structures. I don’t think they maliciously ignored the reports as a justification for taking us into war. Although the attacks did turn out to be opportune for war once they happened.
Or as Hanlon said, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
Building 7?! Stop thinking so small! The controlled collapse of Building 7 was designed to destroy Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was part of the Borough of Manhattan Community College. Success! Fiterman Hall was torn down and Dick Cheney’s step-grandnephew Clem didn’t have to hand in his already-late “What I did on my summer vacation” essay!
Probably already been addressed, but there are several debunking sites for the “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth”, as well as several that actually look into the credentials of the supposed SE’s and architects. Here is one that talks about several of the SEs and architects named in the OP’s main site (and note…this crap was debunked in freaking 2010!):
So, it’s the usual assortment of guys who aren’t actually SEs or architects, guys who WERE SEs or architects (some with rather shaky creds) who let their licenses laps, and a few nutter fringers who are, well, nutters and on the fringe of their professions. Since we’ve basically debunked the actual claims these guys are making in myriad threads I figured I’d just skip that part. Sorry if someone has linked to this already…there are a ton of cites on this, as well as a bunch of debunking sites specifically aimed at the claims made by the “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” and I figured those have already been linked to earlier in the thread since it’s an easy search.
JohnClay you also have to realize that you’re implying that the government murdered thousands of its own citizens, which is patently false and insulting. It makes people somewhat testy to discuss this again when you refuse to do even basic research for yourself.
And there are indeed reasons to distrust the government, but that was already implied when I cited Chomsky. The reality is that even one of the most intellectual critics of the American political system knows how hare brained is the idea that in this case the government killed all those people to gain control of the oil in Iraq. One should realize that dictators in the past also knew about how to use a crisis to their own advantage.
The evidence demonstrated that 9/11 was organized by Arab terrorists. Bush just used the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. The most ironic thing with that was that Bush actually ended up doing what Osama Bin Laden wanted also.
No. When you say “intentionally failed” you are turning a sin of omission into a sin of commission. You have to remember what the security services were like pre 9/11. Several of them had pieces of the puzzle. The FBI knew a bit of this. The CIA knew a bit of that. INS knew something. The NSA probably knew a lot. However, none of these agencies were willing to talk to one another. They were all separate kingdoms fighting for a slice of federal dollars by jealously guarding their secrets. Had they all been sharing information at the time it might have made a difference. It might not have.
Amidst all of this is Mr. Clarke, doing a lot of warning but not bringing actionable intel. “Terrorists might want to attack something somewhere with planes” is incredibly vague even if we bear in mind that Tom Clancy practically gave directions on how to smash the Capitol in Debt of Honor which was published in 1993. But even that idea was of a lone wolf hitting a single target at a precise moment. What actually happened was not fathomable at the time nor would it be realistic to expect preparation for it. Hindsight along with the PNAC’s fervent desire for a modern-day Pearl Harbor can make it look like the Bush administration planned it this way but the truth is that they were as caught off guard as everyone else.
Well I’m just saying the alleged poll results where 49.3% of New Yorkers surveyed said that “our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”. I agree with what you’re saying.
Well actually before posting I read their FAQ which said “We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation” so I wasn’t thinking about the full implications of their 10 points of “evidence”.
I had heard that the CIA may have gotten up to some diabolical mischief though… probably mainly just involving murdering other country’s citizens though.
As far as research goes, I did stumble across their Wikipedia page that seemed pretty impressive:
A lot of the paragraphs seem to be saying there is good evidence for their views. So I did “basic” research.
Even if only 100 of the 1700 (now 2500+) are qualified experts who know that they’re talking about that’s still 100 vs “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. Though I no longer am interested in that argument anyway.
Well they said “As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports” so I thought I was following what most experts were saying. Though the official story of the government was different of course. Also I didn’t initially know that there were good explanations for their 10 items of key “evidence”.
As others noted in this thread you are looking at their deception. Not all are qualified. What they are doing is like the climate change deniers. They also do the same in an attempt to fool others with fake consensus obtained from deceptive surveys trusting that we will never look at what most experts do think. And we can conclude that not just by logic; but by the fact that, as Chomsky noted, they are not publishing their research to be peer reviewed.
And that is because they do realize that almost all peers in academia are not impressed at all.
Sorry but I did check even that, what you have there is the equivalent to a vanity press. The only intereting bit was that they claimed that “The editors have also published articles in mainstream scientific journals” but that is stinky lie. The first link I saw did go to an “open access journal” Just about the same kind of journals that have shown up in recent news for being very unreliable and with very little “weight” among serious researchers.
Also, it is a paper that was already debunked:
The moral of the history: you are only showing to all that you are not caring about how deceptive or how foolish those “architects for truth” sources actually are. The farther we go you only show a dedication to continue to look at the sources that were already found to be misleading; and at the same time you do not show the same aptitude of searching in the sites like The Skeptic or CSICOP.org. Logic tells me it should be expected that just as you can look around the bad sites from the conspiracy peddlers you should be able to search in the good sites already provided to you.
Just one more note JohnClay, please read XT’s post #124 and I do hope that you realize how dismal then your most recent posts do sound like after reading that.
Even the last posts I made are not really needed once we take into account that others already noted how deceptive that “A&E for 9/11” group is. I was already familiar with that “nano thermite” paper and their past debunking too.
You know, the whole Truther obsession with “nanothermite” seems interesting to me, because I remember arguing with Truthers in AOL chatrooms back in 2002, 2003, 2005, and back then, thermite was never mentioned in their arguments as to why it must’ve been a controlled demolition.
I don’t recall ever hearing the term come up in Truther arguments until later in the decade, somewhere around 2008 or 2009 - which is interesting, because in 2007, Mythbusters ran an episode where they investigated the idea that thermite helped speed the destruction of the Hindenburg.
It’s my hypothesis - though I lack the time or wherewithal to study and confirm or disprove it - that that episode of Mythbusters was responsible for many Truthers becoming aware of the concept of thermite for the first time, and subsequently incorporating it into the Truther Mythos.