fayfreethinkers.com

First, about conspiracies in general, one needs to make a distinction between classic (paranoid) conspiracy theories and the investigation of actual political and criminal conspiracies. Obviously, historical conspiracies have existed, and there are laws to prosecute criminal conspiracies. A really good article about this difference is from a UK magazine called The Lobster:
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/129consp.htm

Especially with 9/11 please make a distinction between people who spin out theories and those who are mainly asking questions, in other words skeptics of the official explanation. I recommend http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org
http://www.wanttoknow.info
http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp? ... 1_timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org

Coralie.Koonce wrote: Especially with 9/11 please make a distinction between people who spin out theories and those who are mainly asking questions, in other words skeptics of the official explanation.

DAR
Those spinning out theories often operate in the mode of "mainly asking questions" for which they insert their conspiracy answers. And the faulty assumptions get piled up. Your links are just the standard conspiracy stuff. Much of it outdated, referring to news bits from 2001 (we've learned a bit since then). I strongly encourage you to be more skeptical of things you read on the internet.
As I offered to you before, do you have a specific 9/11 conspiracy claim you think has merit? Something showing a cover-up or where the "official version" is false? Pass it along and I'll look into it. Just spinning out piles of conspiracy questions is easy to do and doesn't demonstrate anything. I have never found a 9/11 conspiracy claim that had merit. One or two rose to the level of interesting, that's it.

D.

Darrel, Your're doing that "never" thing again. Did you actually read any of that material?
The problem with 9/11 is that a great many questions never have been answered. There's not even an official explanation. There are no answers at all.
What a lot of people seem to want is a better investigation and a commission that isn't compromised.
You've gone through the timeline and it all seems hunky-dory to you? No jets are scrambled for like 20 minutes or a half hour after 4 planes reported hijacked and that seems just what you'd expect?
President sits in a schoolroom while he presumably doesn't know whether or not terrorists are after him too, but Secret Service doesn't hustle him off.
He doesn't immediately make statement to nation, disappears for a day.
No official explanation for who put the stock options out and made a killing on the affected airlines.
FBI stumblebums missed or squelched a dozen clues but the day after they knew who all the hijackers were.
ETC. These are just some of the things that struck me at the time.
According to surveys, 50% or more of the people in European countries, Canada, even New York City think that the administration had foreknowledge. Why, do you think?

coralie.koonce wrote: According to surveys, 50% or more of the people in European countries, Canada, even New York City think that the administration had foreknowledge. Why, do you think?

I'm going to jump in on this one. Do I believe the administratin had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attackes? Yes! Did they know that the would be on 9/11? No! I believe the administration may have had all kinds of warning signs but just did not believe that the attack would be as successful as it turned out. I believe that the foreknowledge of 9/11 would be similar to predicting an earthquake. Everyone knows that there is one coming but no one knows when or how big. Did the administration take advantage of a situation that has caused all kinds of problems for this country such as an unwinable war, a delay action in getting off foriegn oil and an economy that is tanking fast while members of this administration are getting rich? Yes!

coralie.koonce wrote:Darrel, Your're doing that "never" thing again.

DAR
I have looked into about 20 of the standard, mainstream, most commonly offered 9/11 conspiracy claims. After doing this I find myself in a position to say, as I did above: "I have never found a 9/11 conspiracy claim that had merit." What am supposed to do, lie and say I did?
How many 9/11 conspiracy claims have you investigated? You seem offended that I would say such a thing. Perhaps you have invested some belief in these things. Again, I ask you to pass one along that you think has merit.

Did you actually read any of that material?

DAR
Yes. It is as I described.

The problem with 9/11 is that a great many questions never have been answered.

DAR
With any large event, there are going to be more questions generated than can be answered. That is to be expected. Also, eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, so you are always going to get conflicting stories. Lots of them. Especially in the chaos, panic and smoke. The famous example is how half of the people saved from the Titanic couldn't agree with the other half on whether the ship went down in one piece or two. And then, people just make stuff up and pass it around and the stories get bigger each time. This is how we got the gospels.

There's not even an official explanation.

DAR
An official explanation of what specifically? Why don't you try these:

U.S. Department of State Article: The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

U.S. Department of State - September 11 Conspiracy Theories

There are no answers at all.

DAR
No answers at all. Not one answer? I thought you weren't one to say "never." Take my challenge. Ask a question. I will give you an answer. Your very first answer!

You've gone through the timeline and it all seems hunky-dory to you?

DAR
Yes.

No jets are scrambled for like 20 minutes or a half hour after 4 planes reported hijacked and that seems just what you'd expect?

DAR
Okay, now you are getting to some claims. That's a good one. That's one I found interesting so I looked into it. See references below for the explanation.

President sits in a schoolroom while he presumably doesn't know whether or not terrorists are after him too, but Secret Service doesn't hustle him off.

DAR
President Bush is an idiot. He sat for 7 minutes and then he was hustled off by the grown ups. The fact that he wasn't hustled off earlier means what? Something suspicious? That's the best explanation?

He doesn't immediately make statement to nation, disappears for a day.

DAR
I thought you wanted him hustled off for his protection. If they don't hustle him off and hide him for protection that's suspicious, when they do hide him for a day, that's suspicious too? So the SS was doing it's job, it just took seven minutes to get it's act together. Why doesn't he make a statement? Maybe because he doesn't know jack. Here's an obvious one, he gets with Cheney and begins to formulate their "blame Saddam" strategy.

No official explanation for who put the stock options out and made a killing on the affected airlines.

DAR
And your evidence for this classic is? You read it on the internet? Over and over? Did you investigate this claim? You should have. See below.

FBI stumblebums missed or squelched a dozen clues but the day after they knew who all the hijackers were.
ETC.

DAR
As with the sites you gave, you ask questions but your questions have inaccurate misinformation loaded in them. People read this and go "oh my." Better to check to see if the claims within the loaded questions have merit. I have checked. They don't.

I didn't think it was necessary but apparently we need to do a presentation on this.

Example. At the last meeting some lady made a comment about the Pentagon attack being bogus because a 747 "supposedly" hit the building yet left a hole no bigger than (she motions) the length of the room we were in.

a) It wasn't a 747, it was a 757. There is a big difference. A 757 is 155 feet across, a 747 is 224 feet across.

b) Here is a picture. Does it look like the impact is remotely 25 feet across?

According to surveys, 50% or more of the people in European countries, Canada, even New York City think that the administration had foreknowledge. Why, do you think?

DAR
As you know appeal to popular belief is a fallacy. Consider this, would you be impressed if I said "Saddam was probably involved in the attacks" and provided the following as evidence?

"A poll reported in the Washington Post in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was probably personally involved in the attacks." LINK

I hope you wouldn't be impressed. So we know Americans believe in great stinking piles of crap on many issues. If they didn't we wouldn't need to have this group and I could spend more time playing video games.

But, let me start by checking your claim, which is rather astonishing. It is true that, for whatever reason, almost half of New York City residents believed there was a cover up of some sort. But the way your question is phrased is confusing. What does foreknowledge of an attack mean? Everyone knew there were warnings. Bush had one handed to him in August. But it didn't have a picture the Twin Towers, so he got distracted by something shiny and forgot about it. So it depends on how the question is asked. James seems to understand "foreknowledge" in this looser way in his comment above. Foreknowledge of the specific attacks? That's different.

Here are some other poll questions that don't have half of Americans believing this (not that that would mean much anyway).

***
A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[8] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true.

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

* 59% "not likely"
* 20% "somewhat likely"
* 16% "very likely"[9]

"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".

* 77% "unlikely"
* 10% "somewhat likely"
* 6% "very likely"[10]

"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".

* 80% "not likely"
* 6% "somewhat likely"
* 6% "very likely"[11]

According to surveys, 50% or more of the people in European countries, Canada,...

DAR
Surely my homeland is not that paranoid. Let me check:

"In September 2006 an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans." --ibid

Whew.

Coralie, you have probably spent some time reading the wild 9/11 claims, often posed as questions. Will you spend a little time reading two careful examinations of these questions? I hope so. Here are two fine sources which have been posted on our forum for some time.

If you will read these two articles you will go from having "no answers" to having many answers. I know of no 9/11 conspiracy "question" I was not able to find a satisfactory answer for:

Sixteen of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists

Skeptic Magazine Article

My examination of a claim someone sent me

hope this helps,

D.

coralie.koonce wrote:According to surveys, 50% or more of the people in European countries, Canada, even New York City think that the administration had foreknowledge. Why, do you think?

DOUG
"Appeal to Popularity, or Ad Populum. This is the idea that a claim is true because most people view it favorably. This fallacy obviously fits in with the strong desire of human beings to conform to others--the 'herd instinct.' It is hard to disagree with the majority."

From: Coralie Koonce, Models, Myths, and Muddles, Chapter 24: "You Can't Get There from Here (Popular Fallacies and Bad Arguments)" (Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, Inc., 2008), pp. 343-344.

Not a bad book, overall. If the second one in the series has 9/11 conspiracy material in a favorable light, this will clearly, in my estimation, tarnish the first book and diminish the series as a whole.

Great intellects are skeptical even of skepticism. Especially when it becomes a dogmatic ideology.

I read a book by one of the "Jersey Girls" four widows of men killed in the 9/11 explosions--I think her name is Breitweiser, something like that--you could find it in the Fay Library. She's no dummy, has a law degree. She and the others put a lot of pressure on the govt. to hold the 9/11 Commission--as you may or may not recall, Bush/Cheney were very reluctant to have it.
When it was finally set up, Bush first suggested Henry Kissinger as the chairman--laughable. Kissinger cannot even travel to a couple countries, Spain is one, because they would arrest him as a war criminal. The administration put a number of other roadblocks in the way of the Commission, for instance it was funded at much less than a previous investigation into a plane crach that killed a prominent athlete. Bush and Cheney would not testify on the record. Etc.
At no point in her book did Breitweiser ever suggest a conspiracy theory, much less specific scenarios about planes and explosions, but she made it very clear that the 9/11 Commission had not answered all the questions that needed to be answered.
This is the level at which I am questioning 9/11, not those absurd scenarios that are sometimes put out by hoaxers or those into disinformation. What do you take me for anyway?

Doug, I think the fact that 49% of New Yorkers surveyed thought that there was some foreknowledge DESPITE the complete blackout on such ideas in the media and all the propaganda about how wonderful Giuliani was and so on was a little different from the typical bandwagon effect.
New Yorkers are noted for being cynical (skeptical?)
They also may have compared notes.
As for Europe and Canada, people in other countries get quite a different range of news than we do in this country.
Darrel quoted some different stats from Canada about people who believed in a greater complicity than just "foreknowledge." The stats I saw were about the less intense belief. As Griffin pointed out in THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, there's a range of conspiracy theories from, say, foreknowledge by rogue CIA agents to actual complicity by administration offficials. He lists 8 levels that are alternative explanations to the official explanation. Which in fact is a conspiracy theory in the sense that it is a theory about a conspiracy.

I don't think the State Dept. is a very good neutral source, and those squibs did not begin to analyze the timeline of what was actually known on the first day or days. That was why I sent you to the timeline. But you can just say, "I didn't see anything new there" and that is supposed to be an argument. You don't see anything if your mind is already made up.

coralie.koonce wrote: Doug, I think the fact that 49% of New Yorkers surveyed thought that there was some foreknowledge DESPITE the complete blackout on such ideas in the media and all the propaganda about how wonderful Giuliani was and so on was a little different from the typical bandwagon effect.
New Yorkers are noted for being cynical (skeptical?)

DOUG
OK, but why should anyone think that New Yorkers would have a better idea of whether there was a conspiracy than would people of any other group or town? There is no evidence that there was a conspiracy; at least, no credible evidence. But even if there was evidence, since the hijackers did not have contact with the majority of New Yorkers, and this was a secret operation, how would the average New Yorker have any clue about whether there was a conspiracy? This is just an absurd claim.

And it is the fallacy of biased statistics. To only poll New Yorkers about whether there was a conspiracy makes no sense.

coralie.koonce wrote:They also may have compared notes.

DOUG
Show that they did. If millions of New Yorkers compared notes (notes on what?), there should be plenty of evidence of these meetings or e-mails.

Or by "notes" do you just mean that they received junk e-mail alleging conspiracies? Where is the evidence? As Darrel has already noted, none of the standard conspiracy theory "evidence" even rises to the level of being mildly interesting, let alone compelling.

coralie.koonce wrote: As for Europe and Canada, people in other countries get quite a different range of news than we do in this country.
Darrel quoted some different stats from Canada about people who believed in a greater complicity than just "foreknowledge." The stats I saw were about the less intense belief. As Griffin pointed out in THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, there's a range of conspiracy theories from, say, foreknowledge by rogue CIA agents to actual complicity by administration offficials. He lists 8 levels that are alternative explanations to the official explanation. Which in fact is a conspiracy theory in the sense that it is a theory about a conspiracy.

DOUG
OK. So other countries have different news sources, someone made a category list of levels of conspiracy, and the latter can be called a "theory." So? None of this supports the credibility of theories regarding there being a non-Al-Qaida-based conspiracy regarding 9-11.

coralie.koonce wrote:I don't think the State Dept. is a very good neutral source, and those squibs did not begin to analyze the timeline of what was actually known on the first day or days. That was why I sent you to the timeline. But you can just say, "I didn't see anything new there" and that is supposed to be an argument. You don't see anything if your mind is already made up.

DOUG
The sloth or incompetence of U.S. intelligence agents may show widespread defects in our intelligence system, but it is not support for a conspiracy theory. So far you have not even shown anything worth serious consideration.

Doug wrote:

coralie.koonce wrote: Doug, I think the fact that 49% of New Yorkers surveyed thought that there was some foreknowledge DESPITE the complete blackout on such ideas in the media and all the propaganda about how wonderful Giuliani was...

DOUG
OK, but why should anyone think that New Yorkers would have a better idea of whether there was a conspiracy than would people of any other group or town?

DAR
Earlier in this thread I have shown why a survey would get a ridiculously high 49% for the claim of "foreknowledge." James mentioned this too. They could understand that Bush's direct warning of the threat of an attack by Osama, and/or other threats of attacks, to be a form of "some foreknowledge."

Understanding the question this way does not equal thinking there was a government cover-up/conspiracy and foreknowledge of that attack. That many New Yorkers can not be this paranoid and misinformed.

And if they were, the appeal to popular belief does not lead us to truth. Otherwise when we explain to people about evolution being true, we would have to take them seriously when they respond:

"Well if evolution is so true, how come half of the American population doesn't believe it?"

And we don't take them seriously because we know they are misinformed and don't understand the science. Usually both.

I asked for Coralie to produce the best most perplexing 9/11 problems supporting the idea of a government conspiracy. I got:

"...stock options out and [people] made a killing on the affected airlines."

That one's rubbish. Dealt with.

"Timeline isn't hunky dory."

That's too vague to deal with.

"Jet's scrambled late."

That's a good question and deserves an answer. Here's the answer I posted on this forum in October of 2006:

***
DAR
This is the response from the Popular Mechanics article I referenced above. All that is required to believe it is to go along with the rather mundane claim that the military/government screwed up and were incompetent.
***
No Stand-Down Order

CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Forum link
***

Barbara then asked:

"We're supposed to believe that our military is the greatest in the world AND they are so understaffed and incompetent they couldn't stop the planes that flew into the WTC? There were only 14 fighter jets on alert in 28 Air Force bases?"

DAR
This response, from the article, addresses this by giving a little history of intercepts:

***
Intercepts Not Routine

CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
***

DAR
I am still waiting for a stumper of 9/11 problem.

D.