Skeptic Project

Has anyone read through www.9112010.com? I have, and I would like to see what people have to say about it.

Apparently it's a web site from the future that doesn't know about the hundreds of investigations into 9/11. By "real" what they mean is "one that agrees with our pre-determined conclusion."

The portion at the end is intended to show what could happen in the future. The first two parts include information regarding the events surrounding 911 that I have not seen debunked anywhere.

I would like to hear comments about the information mentioned in the first two parts.

@Edward:

From the "about us" page at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
...
Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice. (emphasis added)

(http://www.ae911truth.org/aboutus.php)

I guess they're just a bunch of idiots who also don't "know about the hundreds of investigations into 9/11".

@maninwarren:

In my experience truthers either know about them or don't know about them (the plenty of investigations and studies done on 9/11), but even when they are informed it usually makes little difference.

For example, they may claim that all steel was shipped off and melted down before anyone could study it. That isn't true. Various studies were done on the steel itself including independent studies. They may act like it took a year before there was an investigation into 9/11 (ie. the 911 Commission) yet there was PENTTBOM the largest investigation in FBI history that started after the attacks and FEMA already came out with a report on the collapses 7 months before the Commission was set up. Truthers may also act like other than the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA were the only investigations done into 9/11. In reality there's been hundreds of studies done on the collapses and published in legitimate peer reviewed journals by scientists and engineers around the world. NOT ONE of them have been truther papers, truther's can get anything in a legitimate journal.

You see truthers aren't looking for just any investigation, they are looking for an impossible investigation where past and present heads of state are answerable to incompetents and liars like Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin. People who will lie over and over again even when they have been proven wrong multiple times in various different ways.

If you are basing your opinion that there should be a new investigation on lies and false claims then there's no reason to have that opinion, is there?

In regards that website, I browsed quickly and found two lies already. First they have a problem with Building 7's collapse, obviously (they are truthers after all). And secondly they take out of context PNAC, as usual. That's reason enough to ignore the rest of it.

@Sky & Ed

I suppose I ought to read the 911 debunking sites more in depth. In the least, I think this website provides information from both the press and the government that is worth reading about.

I too felt this site takes the PNAC quote about the "politically useful tool[s]." What is the general consensus on PNAC? Do debunkers think that it's nothing to concern ourselves with?

Edward, I'm relatively uninterested in the conspiracies regarding how the towers fell or whether a plane or missile hit the pentagon.

What I am interested in is uncovering details that have not been brought to light before. This website provided me with many details that were not in (and thus debunked by this website) Zeitgeist.

Thanks, Matt. There are a few parts regarding Afghanistan and the corporate oil issues going on in Iraq. These have less to do with the conspiracy and more to do with the pure blunder and travesty of the situation at hand.

Interesting response, Ed. To make it clear, I try my best to remain objective and unbiased. I try not to assert my personal beliefs into my arguments. I would rather discuss facts than opinions. I have no intention of spreading more 911 truther propaganda.

With that being said, I try to play devil's advocate to help me different angles of an issue.

Could it be that putting together a flawless conspiracy - one where Bush could successfully plant WMDs or get Iraqi terrorists to attack us - was implausible? The very imperfection of the conspiracy only adds to the likelihood of a small group of leaders putting it all together.

I think it would be best for me to look into more of the 911 debunking sites.

Playing devils advocate is fine, I do that with myself all the time. I also used to believe a lot of this stuff, in fact what made me "stop" being a truther was that I wanted to made damn sure these claims could be defended. If I was going to really start promoting 911 Truth and feel honest I realised I had to do that, I did not want to promote lies to people.

To do that I had to go to the people who really did not agree with truthers and see if any of their points were valid and which ones of mine were valid. Through doing that I realised that they were wrong about damn near everything. But not just wrong, so wrong that its impossible to tell the difference between someone being wrong because they are just unbelievably incompetent or just plain lying. It really is incredible just how wrong some of these claims are yet stated as fact by so many people and yet even when you point it out they usually just don't care and just move onto some other point equally wrong. For people who claim to interested in truth its amazing how little they seem to care about it.

@Sil, I was addressing your apparent problem with the lack of time travelers in the story; none of those other works of extrapolation have them either, so I thought I'd save you from the pain of trying to figure out why not.

@Ed: "The truthers claims about PNAC is similar in that yes 911 helped get more money in the military budget, but NOT in the way PNAC wanted." Are you kidding? Have you even read their documents? Are you aware of their affiliations? America is the biggest consumer of oil on the planet -- no one else comes close. Dick Cheney and the other chicken hawks are very well aware of this, just as they are very aware that if China, Russia, and India -- not to mention Europe and the third world -- continue to grow as they are, the proxy wars over oil and natural gas will turn into all-out war; and the country with troops on the ground and supply lines in place in the oil-rich regions of the world will have a huge advantage when that day comes. And oh, gee, 9/11 gave the neocons the blank check they needed to invade Afghanistan, one of the most strategically important countries in that region (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM). And oh, gee, they still had enough political capital left to let them (after adding a few lies about WMD to the mix) to convince Congress and the ignorant American masses that we had to invade Iraq, too. And oh, gee, we're still there, and Halliburton, KBR, the defense industry, and the oil majors couldn't be happier. How exactly could PNAC have gotten more?

@aaronmhatch: "There are a few parts regarding Afghanistan and the corporate oil issues going on in Iraq. These have less to do with the conspiracy and more to do with the pure blunder and travesty of the situation at hand." Read the above paragraph. The industries and organizations I listed achieved unprecedented profits and power as a direct result of the policies of their closest allies (and very often former employees) in the Bush administration. The country is on a course of perpetual war with no end in sight, and the more war there is, the more money they'll make. When crimes are committed, a reasonable investigator counts as suspect anyone with the motive, means, and opportunity to commit those crimes. Well, crimes have been and still are being committed, and hundreds of billions of dollars for corporations that have a long history of committing war crimes is plenty of motivation. And if you think that the ultimate Washington insiders, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, couldn't find the means among their cronies in both government and industry to commit these crimes, then I can only conclude that your understanding of human nature and power are childlike at best.

Last one:
@Sil: "An ultra convoluted plan that involves getting Obama impeached, swearing in Nancy Pelosi and then having her pick him as her VP and then resigning so he could be President?"
I will spell it out for you.
A nuke goes off on American territory, a red state, no less.
The right-wing news media -- which kept up the pressure that almost ended the Clinton presidency over a blowjob -- is given the most powerful leverage they could ever get: and unspeakable attack against America that makes 9/11 look mild by comparison, and which happened after Dick "Our Great Protector" Cheney "kept us safe" for more than 7 years.
Just as they did before the invasion of Iraq, the "liberal media" fall all over themselves to prove how "patriotic" they are by falling in line with the prevailing "wisdom": Obama and his policies "allowed" this to happen, his is therefore criminally negligent.
With no defenders in any quarter, the midterms decimate the Democratic party in both Houses. An impeachment -- which is guaranteed -- is the least of Obama's and the Democratic leadership's worries: anti-Democrat sentiment becomes the most powerful political force in American history, and given how imaginative they are, the Republicans have no problem coming up with "crimes" they can charge their enemies with -- crimes that will put them in prison.
But there's a way out: do as your told, and you'll never see the inside of a prison cell. All you (Obama and Biden) have to do is step down; and all you (Ms. Pelosi) have to do is nominate the man who is now (post midterms 2010) lionized as the greatest modern leader of the United States, former Vice President Dick Cheney, to take up his former post. Heck, you'll look like patriots for doing it! And you'll be dogmeat if you don't.

Is that really so hard to follow? Is that "ultra convoluted"? If it is, do yourself a favor: don't read about a certain deluded German corporal who thought he and his beer-hall buddies could take over a modern (at that time) European country and then take over Europe itself! It'll be WAY too complicated for you.

maninwarren, 9112010.com actually includes the House Committee discussion you linked us to. The site goes into detail about how building oil pipes through Afghanistan is the most lucrative choice. It thoroughly discusses the potential monetary and power gains PNAC signers and their constituents would enjoy if they invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

@maninwarren are you the creator of 9112010.com?

"If someone is going to suggest such a massive conspiracy requiring the participation of thousands and thousands of people and a HELL of lot of luck and technology that doesn't exist to be invented for this purpose it should require a major pay off."

Ed, certain pages on 9112010 explain how the inside job could have worked with only a few people in the know. I thought the writer did a good job of explaining how it could have theoretically been possible. One of the suggestions is that lower rank personnel were instructed to put certain parts of the job together. When it was over, those personnel were instructed to board flights for their next mission's locations. These flights would have been AA 11, AA 77, UA 175, and UA 93. This way, the conspirators such as Cheney and Rumsfeld would feel a little less guilty and more secure knowing they would be sending personnel in the know to their death instead of mostly innocent Americans.

I'm not saying I agree; but the way 9112010 lays it out is convincing.

>> One of the suggestions is that lower rank personnel were instructed to put certain parts of the job together

I think that's on the assumption that the lower ranking people were all total idiots incapable of putting pieces together. On 9/11 or after many of them would have realized how their part of a task could have been a part of the plot in some way. But we have not a single person coming out saying anything like that at all.

>> When CT'ers will believe that John Tiller(?) the time traveler story.

I remember following the John Titor story while it was going on, I found it very interesting, not because I believed he was a real time traveler, but because he told the story so well. Not to mention that nearly every single one of Titor's predictions didn't come true. Sounds like most conspiracy theorists to me, fantastic claims that never came true.