clocker bob wrote:I guess I wasn't clear enough. There was nothing in the film critic's article that debunked any of the conspiracy theories- it just offered further opinions disagreeing with them. It didn't tackle the meat of the issue.

Exactly, why should he debunk theories that he doesn't even acknowledge. Kermode does offer an analysis, though--an analysis that you're currently avoiding.

Cranius wrote:
Exactly, why should he debunk theories that he doesn't even acknowledge. Kermode does offer an analysis, though--an analysis that you're currently avoiding.

Kermode offers no defense of the official story, at least not one that takes the form of a dismantling of the unofficial story. He offers analysis of the conspiratorial mindset and he says that conspiracy theories can make great movie plots.

He's definitely correct on the second point and might even be correct in his psychoanalysis of conspiracy theorists, but neither is useful ammunition against a conspiracy theory. It's just preaching to the choir.

Like I said, I'm glad you posted it and I'm glad I read it. What more response can I give? Kermode addresses no specific questions raised by Loose Change. He called it baloney. I respect his review to the point that I respect his right to review it.

I didn't bother reading through all of this. I always thought Loose Change was a movie about Bill Murray robbing a bank as a clown.

Edit: Or was it "Quick Change"? I forget.

clocker bob wrote:

Cranius wrote:
Exactly, why should he debunk theories that he doesn't even acknowledge. Kermode does offer an analysis, though--an analysis that you're currently avoiding.

Kermode offers no defense of the official story, at least not one that takes the form of a dismantling of the unofficial story. He offers analysis of the conspiratorial mindset and he says that conspiracy theories can make great movie plots.

He's definitely correct on the second point and might even be correct in his psychoanalysis of conspiracy theorists, but neither is useful ammunition against a conspiracy theory. It's just preaching to the choir.

Like I said, I'm glad you posted it and I'm glad I read it. What more response can I give? Kermode addresses no specific questions raised by Loose Change. He called it baloney. I respect his review to the point that I respect his right to review it.

Cranius, I've got to admit, i'm a little perplexed. It seems to me like you're citing a film critic as a source for refuting these alternate theories. Moreover, you're citing a film critic who himself cited only a filmmaker to confirm his assessment. Is that right? If I was to cite Gene Siskel for the proposition that JFK was murdered by Cuban nationalists in league with the CIA, because Oliver Stone told him it was right, would that have any credence with you at all? It wouldn't with me.

Mind you, I think a bunch of the suggestions made by Loose Change aren't worth a hill of beans, without more: the numerous bystanders who "heard explosions", "saw a noncommercial jet", etc. don't inspire much faith, because they are only reporting memories of perceptions, filtered through the sieve of extraordinary, nearly unbelievable events. But I think Clocker Bob has pointed to some substantial, physical evidence (and lack thereof) which, if nothing more, at least suggests that those buildings that fell down or were partially demolished did not perform as desired. If it's true that people are by nature curious, or at least that curiosity is learned, over and over, from a very young age, I think it must be some competing impulse that allows naturally curious individuals to accept the kind of pat answers offered by that film critic, and the author of the PM article, and the authors of the 9-11 report. I mean, millions of people spend hours each week reading about K-Fed's new jams. So what's stopping them from wondering about why these buildings fell down? So another question offers itself: what impulse is it that keeps those of us who are not "conspiracy theorists" from being curious about the answers? Do you think that maybe that response is somehow externally enforced?

joshsolberg wrote:what impulse is it that keeps those of us who are not "conspiracy theorists" from being curious about the answers? Do you think that maybe that response is somehow externally enforced?

This would be part of my answer.

joshsolberg wrote:Cranius, I've got to admit, i'm a little perplexed. It seems to me like you're citing a film critic as a source for refuting these alternate theories.

Josh, it wasn't my intention to sound obtuse. The article interested me because it addressed some overarching issues surrounding the film, particularly regarding the motivations of conspiracy believers. I've seen the film and I'm unmoved by the doubts raised. That's it, really.

What I do find interesting are the factors that predicate the basis of 9-11 conspiracy theories. Namely:

1. The failure, on the part of conspiracy theorists, to understand the bureaucratic oversights before and after the attack. And how public embarrassment, on the the part of the government, would have been a likely cause for hiding certain pertinent details.

2. The refusal by the US press to criticize power, as well as the practice of self-censorship in mainstream discourse. Both of which provide fertile territory for hyperbolic suspicion.

I'll happily discuss these issues, but I'm unprepared to mire myself in forensic detail...basically, because I'm not able to judge that sort of information effectively.

Cranius wrote:

joshsolberg wrote:Cranius, I've got to admit, i'm a little perplexed. It seems to me like you're citing a film critic as a source for refuting these alternate theories.

Josh, it wasn't my intention to sound obtuse. The article interested me because it addressed some overarching issues surrounding the film, particularly regarding the motivations of conspiracy believers. I've seen the film and I'm unmoved by the doubts raised. That's it, really.

What I do find interesting are the factors that predicate the basis of 9-11 conspiracy theories.

As do I. If the factors are interesting to you, entertain yourself with them.

Cranius wrote:
Namely:

1. The failure, on the part of conspiracy theorists, to understand the bureaucratic oversights before and after the attack. And how public embarrassment, on the the part of the government, would have been a likely cause for hiding certain pertinent details.

I don't think that conspiracy theorists are unwilling to attribute part of what went wrong on 9/11 to official incompetence, but just not to the degree that the 9/11 Commission retreated to that explanation. If you ask the US military after a good day, they will tell you they are the most sophisticated and prepared fighting machine on Earth. In my estimation, the FAA, from the earliest indications of hijackings, followed its response protocol. From there forward, NORAD performed about as horribly as the most sophisticated fighting machine on Earth could have.

At 8:14 am on 9/11, Flight 11 first ignored air traffic communication and shut off its radio.

At 9:38 am on 9/11, Flight 77 ( allegedly ) struck the Pentagon.

One hour and 24 minutes of hijacked commercial airliners ignoring radio calls, turning off transponders, changing course, passengers ( allegedly ) making phone calls, buildings being hit by 8:46 am !, and NORAD successfully intercepts or even attempts to escort not a single one of them?!

That is not happenstance or Homer Simpson manning the response desk; that is designed criminal negligence in my opinion.

Cranius, if you care to make the case for bureaucratic oversights regarding the civil air defense, I will gladly attempt to counter.

Cranius wrote:2. The refusal by the US press to criticize power, as well as the practice of self-censorship in mainstream discourse. Both of which provide fertile territory for hyperbolic suspicion.

So we should resist our suspicion because it happens to grow from fertile soil? If anyone is practicing self-censorship, then it is the job of the conspiracy theorist to give them the keys to escape, if we can manage it.

Cranius wrote:I'll happily discuss these issues, but I'm unprepared to mire myself in forensic detail...basically, because I'm not able to judge that sort of information effectively.

No need to pay any attention to any part of the conspiracy theory that is too dependent on forensic detail. The timeline of our air response is not.

If the facts listed above provoke curiosity, then please, happily discuss them.

Andrew L. wrote:

joshsolberg wrote:what impulse is it that keeps those of us who are not "conspiracy theorists" from being curious about the answers? Do you think that maybe that response is somehow externally enforced?

This would be part of my answer.

Andrew, what is meant by a link that takes you backwards in the same thread?

Signed,

Confused

joshsolberg wrote:the numerous bystanders who "heard explosions", "saw a noncommercial jet", etc. don't inspire much faith, because they are only reporting memories of perceptions, filtered through the sieve of extraordinary, nearly unbelievable events.

I'm coming in very late here, but I figured this was one place where evidence is easily found, which is rare. Portions of the FDNY communications during the event were finally released via a Freedom of Information Act Request. You can download all of the released audio from here:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fdny_dispatches.htm

There are calls/radio communicatons where firefighters are yelling about explosions, other than those created by the plane fuel. I have heard excerpts from these calls. I can look for specifics if anyone is interested. Or you can download them all and peruse them yourself.

I am not attached to any answers yet, but something is definitely fishy. I haven't jumped into this until now because it feels like such a futile debate - not because I don't think the people involved are unworthy of debate, but that it's a very complex issue, impossible to responsibly argue to some extent. An internet forum does not give much room for in depth analysis and information. People generally don't come here to read tome-like posts and burrow through hundreds of links on a difficult subject. Well, I know I don't. The topic and its history are so incredibly muddied at this point. "Going down the rabbit hole", as it's sometimes been called, is a solitary endeavor, because you can't trust any one source.

The documentary makes some very good points, and some very bad ones. It makes mistakes, and it dramatizes when it's not necessary. It's confused about who its intended audience is. It only touches the surface, and is meant to get an emotional response (as any documentary about 9/11 has done). I felt some relief when watching it, because the elephant in the room was being addressed. Its only real use is to me is to gather information and formulate my own questions and research on my own. I believe that's what they are hoping people will do. It's not outlandish to hope that citizens will inform themselves beyond the surface, especially considering what we have for media.

As for the psychology of conspiracy theories that dispute the official story of a Muslim terrorist conspiracy being solely responsible for 9/11 and other attacks - I personally think it is a much scarier proposition to intellectually entertain the possibility that our own government or other trusted parties could be complicit or involved in something this horrible. It's far easier to assume and believe that crazy evil-doers from another culture, and one that the general populace is psychologically and emotionally separate from, would do such things. It's also far easier to root out people like that, than to start questioning our own. Once the finger comes out of the dam, the possible reality that everything we believed in and trusted to work as intended has been an elaborate sham, or at least taken over from within, is a much more oppressive, overwhelming thing.

I think it's my duty as a citizen to keep looking and questioning, and to be as understanding of people's responses to this as possible. It's an emotional and devastating topic, and there needs to be room for respect and carefulness. It's not an easy or a popular debate. It's a nightmare, whatever the answers turn out to be, official story or otherwise. I think it's a healthy debate, in part because of observations contained in the statement below.

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
"The Perpetuatuion of our Political Institutions"

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bounaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."


Beyond the conspiracy of that day, whoever perpetrated it, there are interesting events that occurred before it. If anyone is interested in seeing any backstory (with sources) to our country's/organizations' relations and disagreements with the organizations and countries in question, this is a very informative timeline:

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

I don't know what the answer is, I only believe that we aren't being told the full story by the people in power....and that's a situation not without precedent. At best there was negligence, and that's scary enough. To my mind, a possible further conspiracy is even more terrifying, because it implies that we are not only unprotected by our own government, but actually being terrorized by it. I want my country to be strong, and willing and able to protect its people, as well as provide for their freedom, so I want to know the truth.

Enjoyed the post, alp4eris- Lincoln is welcome in any debate; when you explore the public rhetoric of our greatest ancestors, you're reminded over and over of how plainspoken they were, how willing they were to be firmly on one side of an issue or the other, and finally, how much faith they had in our abilities to be masters of our own fates.

You don't often find anything resembling "trust your government, we know best" in their words.

George Bush would never speak the words you quoted from Lincoln. He believes that he needs tyranny to control us. He doesn't trust us with our own lives. The message is that democracy is too unpredictable to be safe.

Regarding your link to the timeline- if you found that useful, Michael Ruppert's most recent book, "Crossing The Rubicon" is very good; it's a very detailed expose of the interlocking webs of arms sales, drug sales, and the oil markets.