You might be interested to know that there are plenty of truthers who believe controlled demolition IS disinformation. Your whimsical idea is not a new one.
Personally, I think controlled demolition was necessary to bring down the buildings, as flying an airplane into a skyscraper won’t make the skyscraper fall down. Why the planes, then? To prove that it was terrorists. Planes = suicide = zealots = terrorists.
It’s too bad we can’t just move the comments from the other thread over here. What I was getting at is that I think just listing improbable events and strange coincidences is noise. We have an accepted account of what happened and a bunch of evidence supporting that account. If you want to provide a case for a conspiracy you actually need to provide a hypothesis and show how that hypothesis is a better explanation of the evidence than the standard account.
That’s a very reasonable objection. It’s certainly true that if you look at anything in enough detail, be it 9/11, the JFK assassination, or the king james bible, you’ll start to notice peculiarities.
To reply to your post in the other thread:
So some shadowing group kills two thousand people, arranges planes to get flown into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and the middle of Pennsylvania and does hundreds of billions in damage to the economy to pick up an insurance check… when the building was on some of the most expensive real estate in the world? Or to destroy evidence the SEC had? Is that how you would do it? Really?
The insurance check went to larry silverstein, owner of the WTC complex (who purchased it two months prior to the attacks. Sorry if that’s just noise). Presumably this was his slice of the pie for facilitating the operation, the PRIMARY motive of which was to create a pretext for war and politically beneficial hysteria.
By that logic, why should rich people ever take risks at all? Aren’t they already rich?
I’d say it was a pretty smart move on his part. Conspiracies don’t get revealed by the straw that breaks the camel’s back anyway, the camel is already buried in a mountain of straw, the trick is finding the needle… I’ve mixed my metaphors. But you get the point. Considering he’s sitting pretty, greedily taking that seventh box of money was the optimal move.
The question isn’t “Why the planes”. It’s “Why the explosives.” After all, as you say, the planes already sufficed to imply terrorists, so that’s all that would be needed to incite war or whatever the motive was.
Let me guess: goading the terrorists into hijacking and piloting the jets into the buildings was easy enough, but getting the terrorists to plant sufficient explosives in the structure to demolish straight up (with intentionally lax security) would have been beyond the competence and reach of your conspirators? After all, terrorists like to put explosives somewhere and detonate them; why do the conspirators have to do it and then frame up the terrorists?
Well, as I said in cheesy equation form three comments above you, using planes cements the notion of suicide bombing. If some shady guys plant explosives somewhere, they could’ve been working for anybody, but if the method necessarily involves killing themselves, it has to be the work of somebody crazy.
Additionally, doing this all with just a few pairs of box-cutters is much more fear-inspiring than doing it with explosives. If all it takes to bring down a skyscraper is the will to throw away your life, there’s nothing we can do to save ourselves but retreat into jingoistic paranoia, or so the thinking goes.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, many truthers don’t think there really were any hijackers at all, but it’s possible an inside job involved them, not too long ago the CIA was arming and funding the mujahideen, they were a tool of US foreign policy. On september 10th 2001, george hw bush was at a meeting of the carlyle group, together with shafiq bin laden, but that’s probably a meaningless coincidence, it’s not like he’s osama’s brother or anything. He’s only his half-brother.
It’s quite clear that you’re desperate to confirm. Box cutters and airliner hijackings—no, those were not more terrifying to me than the idea that terrorists can plant explosives sufficient to demolish any building I might be in. Consider the likelihood of another box-cutter airliner hijacking succeeding after seeing the consequence (3rd plane arguably proved this). People didn’t fight vs. box-cutters only because they had some hope of hijackers landing the plane safely.
Someone was at a meeting with someone else? So?
CIA doing shady things—generally true, but what does that demonstrate?
You fail because all the details you point out that are somewhat more likely given conspiracy (than no conspiracy) and the observed evidence, are not nearly as impressive as your bias leads you to think, and more tellingly, you think arguing over how impressive they are matters at all, when even a 100-fold difference is still dwarfed by:
1) the details you weren’t motivated to select, which in fact weigh in the opposite direction (the official straightforward story of how the buildings collapsed is likely true); or as a proxy for that, a lack of appreciation for the expected number of cool coincidences about any significant event that draws the attention and imagination of millions of people.
2) your incredibly wrong prior for the leadership of the US wanting planes full of its citizens crashed into buildings, and worse, wanting the economic damage (including deaths) of the full collapse of those buildings.
I’ve attempted to simply reply to people’s questions and objections as they’re made, thus visiting the weaker parts of my position. The evidence for controlled demolition, the starting point of this argument, is far from unimpeachable. I certainly wouldn’t call it a “slam-dunk”, and there are many truthers who think it’s misinformation, as yudkowsky jokingly proposes.
The best evidence of complicity, at least in my opinion, is the behavior of the administration following the attacks. Their efforts to hinder the investigation are a matter of public record, and quite inarguable.
I am sorry for linking to things rather than making my arguments in my own words, but I’m arguing with about a dozen people at this point and I’m spread pretty thin.
Generally this theory is said to imply that the planes were remote controlled , correct? I’ve always wondered how this theory fits in with all of the dead passengers. Could you explain that please?*
*I apologize for any perceived troll-feeding, I’ve always wanted to understand this.
The truthers diverge widely on this. Some think there really were muslim hijackers, some think the planes were swapped with drones and the passengers were shot in the head or something, some think the passengers and crew were knocked out or killed with gas while the planes were in the air, and then they were flown by autopilot into their targets.
You’d be hard pressed to find two truthers who agree about what really happened on 9/11, just as you’d be hard pressed to find two singularitarians who agree about the singularity. As the saying goes, the fringe likes to fray.
All the theories are quite contorted, but it’s important to bear in mind that the official story is also contorted, and full of holes to boot. It’s just that we’re familiar with it. For instance, those cell phone calls from 30000 feet?
I’m done after this, but nothing I’ve read ever claimed that flight had used them. And as I’ve said, the mobile phone calls would have been certainly possible.
You accept that airplanes can have radio contact with the ground as part of normal operation, but have trouble with the idea that the radios in mobile phones could work? (Yes they are lower power, but they’re just radios.)
That’s not difficult at all. The remote control of the planes was designed to be used in the event of a hijack. That means once activated there is no possibility for anyone on the plane, not even the pilot to do anything about it. Probably the passengers weren’t even aware of what was happening because I suppose the pilots didn’t tell them “Ahem, I just want you to know that we are no longer in control of this plane. Keep your calm.”
The blackboxes could reveal what happened but, conveniently they didn’t survive, at least that’s the official story.
Regarding the passengers what is hard to explain is why the alleged terrorists don’t appear on the passenger lists and all the passengers on the list really died so there is no possibility of someone having flown under false identity.
Edit: Maybe I should make this clear. There were some companies who have a built in anti-hijack system that allows the plane to be overtaken and controlled from the outside. Those are not special planes.
More info at:
http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm
You might be interested to know that there are plenty of truthers who believe controlled demolition IS disinformation. Your whimsical idea is not a new one.
Personally, I think controlled demolition was necessary to bring down the buildings, as flying an airplane into a skyscraper won’t make the skyscraper fall down. Why the planes, then? To prove that it was terrorists. Planes = suicide = zealots = terrorists.
It’s too bad we can’t just move the comments from the other thread over here. What I was getting at is that I think just listing improbable events and strange coincidences is noise. We have an accepted account of what happened and a bunch of evidence supporting that account. If you want to provide a case for a conspiracy you actually need to provide a hypothesis and show how that hypothesis is a better explanation of the evidence than the standard account.
That’s a very reasonable objection. It’s certainly true that if you look at anything in enough detail, be it 9/11, the JFK assassination, or the king james bible, you’ll start to notice peculiarities.
To reply to your post in the other thread:
The insurance check went to larry silverstein, owner of the WTC complex (who purchased it two months prior to the attacks. Sorry if that’s just noise). Presumably this was his slice of the pie for facilitating the operation, the PRIMARY motive of which was to create a pretext for war and politically beneficial hysteria.
Wouldn’t Silverstein collect plenty just from the towers?
By that logic, why should rich people ever take risks at all? Aren’t they already rich?
I’d say it was a pretty smart move on his part. Conspiracies don’t get revealed by the straw that breaks the camel’s back anyway, the camel is already buried in a mountain of straw, the trick is finding the needle… I’ve mixed my metaphors. But you get the point. Considering he’s sitting pretty, greedily taking that seventh box of money was the optimal move.
The question isn’t “Why the planes”. It’s “Why the explosives.” After all, as you say, the planes already sufficed to imply terrorists, so that’s all that would be needed to incite war or whatever the motive was.
Destroying skyscrapers is a far bigger punch to america’s gut than impotently crunching planes into them.
Let me guess: goading the terrorists into hijacking and piloting the jets into the buildings was easy enough, but getting the terrorists to plant sufficient explosives in the structure to demolish straight up (with intentionally lax security) would have been beyond the competence and reach of your conspirators? After all, terrorists like to put explosives somewhere and detonate them; why do the conspirators have to do it and then frame up the terrorists?
Well, as I said in cheesy equation form three comments above you, using planes cements the notion of suicide bombing. If some shady guys plant explosives somewhere, they could’ve been working for anybody, but if the method necessarily involves killing themselves, it has to be the work of somebody crazy.
Additionally, doing this all with just a few pairs of box-cutters is much more fear-inspiring than doing it with explosives. If all it takes to bring down a skyscraper is the will to throw away your life, there’s nothing we can do to save ourselves but retreat into jingoistic paranoia, or so the thinking goes.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, many truthers don’t think there really were any hijackers at all, but it’s possible an inside job involved them, not too long ago the CIA was arming and funding the mujahideen, they were a tool of US foreign policy. On september 10th 2001, george hw bush was at a meeting of the carlyle group, together with shafiq bin laden, but that’s probably a meaningless coincidence, it’s not like he’s osama’s brother or anything. He’s only his half-brother.
It’s quite clear that you’re desperate to confirm. Box cutters and airliner hijackings—no, those were not more terrifying to me than the idea that terrorists can plant explosives sufficient to demolish any building I might be in. Consider the likelihood of another box-cutter airliner hijacking succeeding after seeing the consequence (3rd plane arguably proved this). People didn’t fight vs. box-cutters only because they had some hope of hijackers landing the plane safely.
Someone was at a meeting with someone else? So?
CIA doing shady things—generally true, but what does that demonstrate?
You fail because all the details you point out that are somewhat more likely given conspiracy (than no conspiracy) and the observed evidence, are not nearly as impressive as your bias leads you to think, and more tellingly, you think arguing over how impressive they are matters at all, when even a 100-fold difference is still dwarfed by:
1) the details you weren’t motivated to select, which in fact weigh in the opposite direction (the official straightforward story of how the buildings collapsed is likely true); or as a proxy for that, a lack of appreciation for the expected number of cool coincidences about any significant event that draws the attention and imagination of millions of people.
2) your incredibly wrong prior for the leadership of the US wanting planes full of its citizens crashed into buildings, and worse, wanting the economic damage (including deaths) of the full collapse of those buildings.
I’ve attempted to simply reply to people’s questions and objections as they’re made, thus visiting the weaker parts of my position. The evidence for controlled demolition, the starting point of this argument, is far from unimpeachable. I certainly wouldn’t call it a “slam-dunk”, and there are many truthers who think it’s misinformation, as yudkowsky jokingly proposes.
The best evidence of complicity, at least in my opinion, is the behavior of the administration following the attacks. Their efforts to hinder the investigation are a matter of public record, and quite inarguable.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=111797990720729032&hl=en&emb=1#49m22s
I am sorry for linking to things rather than making my arguments in my own words, but I’m arguing with about a dozen people at this point and I’m spread pretty thin.
As far as I can tell you haven’t actually said whether you yourself actually believe this stuff. Do you?
Generally this theory is said to imply that the planes were remote controlled , correct? I’ve always wondered how this theory fits in with all of the dead passengers. Could you explain that please?*
*I apologize for any perceived troll-feeding, I’ve always wanted to understand this.
The truthers diverge widely on this. Some think there really were muslim hijackers, some think the planes were swapped with drones and the passengers were shot in the head or something, some think the passengers and crew were knocked out or killed with gas while the planes were in the air, and then they were flown by autopilot into their targets.
You’d be hard pressed to find two truthers who agree about what really happened on 9/11, just as you’d be hard pressed to find two singularitarians who agree about the singularity. As the saying goes, the fringe likes to fray.
All the theories are quite contorted, but it’s important to bear in mind that the official story is also contorted, and full of holes to boot. It’s just that we’re familiar with it. For instance, those cell phone calls from 30000 feet?
I didn’t watch your video, but most of the “impossible” calls were from flipping GTE Airphones, not cell phones.
The calls that were actually made by cellular phones (near the end) would certainly have been possible.
(I was an RF engineer for a mobile phone company until I changed jobs this year)
I hesitate to post this, because… debating 9/11 conspiracy people on Less Wrong?!
At least we don’t have any “fundies” yet. ;)
As the video explains, it later came to light that flight 77 did not HAVE airphones.
I’m done after this, but nothing I’ve read ever claimed that flight had used them. And as I’ve said, the mobile phone calls would have been certainly possible.
You accept that airplanes can have radio contact with the ground as part of normal operation, but have trouble with the idea that the radios in mobile phones could work? (Yes they are lower power, but they’re just radios.)
I suggest you read this
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/griffin-and-barrett-suggest-olsons-were.html
That’s not difficult at all. The remote control of the planes was designed to be used in the event of a hijack. That means once activated there is no possibility for anyone on the plane, not even the pilot to do anything about it. Probably the passengers weren’t even aware of what was happening because I suppose the pilots didn’t tell them “Ahem, I just want you to know that we are no longer in control of this plane. Keep your calm.”
The blackboxes could reveal what happened but, conveniently they didn’t survive, at least that’s the official story.
Regarding the passengers what is hard to explain is why the alleged terrorists don’t appear on the passenger lists and all the passengers on the list really died so there is no possibility of someone having flown under false identity.
Edit: Maybe I should make this clear. There were some companies who have a built in anti-hijack system that allows the plane to be overtaken and controlled from the outside. Those are not special planes. More info at: http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm