Was 9/11 An Inside Job ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

I normally let this kind of thing go, but I do want to mention that I can cite posts to back up what I say. You ought to know me by now on that point.

(Incidentally, I just did a scan of Plumb's posts and I am starting to get appalled that crap like Daniel Pearl was not decapitated on video while alive—together with the insinuation that the people who did it were not the Islamists because their faces were covered—and other such, was presented by this gentleman with a tone of having a chip on his shoulder. I also looked up Report from Iron Mountain back when he mentioned it. Even the author admitting he faked the report does not convince people like this dude. That's when I stopped reading his posts for a while. I haveen't read most of the rest and I think I will leave it that way. I am irritated enough by this episode.)

I admit that this guy was a cut above your normal conspiracy fanatic since he was well-read, but he still showed up here spoiling for a fight and seeking converts to his cause (after testing the waters, of course), all the while repeating loudly and often like a parrot that nobody had evidence to refute him, regardless of the evidence people mentioned.

The truth is no one wanted to get into hair-splitting shouting matches. I know I didn't.

Think James Valliant and Casy Fahy with a conspiracy slant and thin skin. That's where I peg this dude.

btw - I still see only 10 people have voted in my poll about who really did 9/11. Face it. Not many people are interested.

Michael

[Judith]

I also looked up Report from Iron Mountain back when he mentioned it. Even the author admitting he faked the report does not convince people like this dude.

(*heavy sigh*) If we might get back on topic instead of this boring discussion of personalities...

Joan Veon also seemed to discuss this document as if it were valid. I have a hard copy of it with a forward by the author explaining the circumstances under which it was written and explaining that it is a farce, which made me question Veon's research and/or wonder what she was getting at in mentioning it. Any comments out there?

btw - I still see only 10 people have voted in my poll about who really did 9/11. Face it. Not many people are interested.

I'm not sufficiently interested in the September 11th event specifically to answer the poll. My main interest in those conspiracy theories is that one of my favorite authors (F. Paul Wilson) is coming out with a novel next month based on one of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I followed a number of Doug's links so that I would be familiar with them and know the background behind what the author did when I read the novel.

But Michael, I can't find the blasted poll anywhere on this link even if I were going to answer it.

Judith

Edited May 26, 2009 by Judith

[Rich Engle]

Well, let's talk, Maestro, frankly and as we always do...

The poll, that doesn't surprise me. The soup was spoiled. Even I didn't do it. Okay, here's my vote: Yes.

One of the things I like most about myself, you, and a number of other people in my life is very simple: our clear consciences.

I think this is sometimes a hard-won thing, sometimes it is a re-won thing. And then there are these fortunates who just have that pretty much off-the-rip, bless them, for if they do harm, it is usually by a true slip-up, not malevolence, hateful thinking. Bear with me, I'm going somewhere with this.

That feeling of being clear-conscienced, I often think that might be the best state-of-being that there is out there. For sure, one of the most satisfying sentiments.

I check that at least once a day, usually at end-of-day. Sometimes it just arrives on its own. And, I have been able to say I have a clear conscience, everyday, for a very long time now, but it still feels new. You can't bullshit yourself when you ask that question, really; if you do, you are really pretty much a dumbass, for one thing. In my case, I was only able to do this after my, er, "change" (mysticism thread, etc., let's lay off that though because its going pretty good, thanks to Christopher, who continues to amaze me with his even-handedness, inquisitive nature, and such). Funny, that...those two topics, that which we discuss here, and the other, are pretty much the two most dangerously unstable stretches of discussion turf I ever see. We're batting .500 ball with these right now, which is about .500 more than is usually seen elsewhere.

I don't know Doug, really--never spoke with him on the phone, met him. But we did get to know each other a bit because of that thread (I can think of another time that happened that really worked out well for me) via a fairly significant exchange of emails--no tag team stuff (I hate that crap, a lot of people do it on threads but no one talks about it, dirty little secret that it seems to be), just mano y mano things.

Doug's conscience, I know, is justifiably clear, and its not because he is dim. He was frustrated. He was frustrated with himself, I think, in how he was expressing, and he was frustrated at what he was getting back from some people, who pretty much reminded me of how it was in school when kids, in a weirdly happy/nervous way, picked on retards. That first bit there is hard enough, without the second showing up. The topic at hand is very wide, and there are all kinds of people trying to express things, show various data, because they feel so compelled, horrified at what truths they have managed to discover. Christians are pissed off, morally outraged, all kinds of folk, me included. So you get a lot of diluted, often flat-out wrong, badly expressed information. We're not used to that over here, what with the legendary Objectivist reputation for precision. We're spoiled, that way. When I see stuff (via research, or things given to me), I am automatically running a lot of filters--it's about the same procedure I use when I do digital restorations of analog music; old tapes, whatever. It's a very tedious job, ripping through all that. A lot of the time, "consider the source" has to be thrown right out the window.

I know for a fact that Doug is not out for "converts." That, I can pick up in a NY minute, because I've had direct experience, big time. I lived with someone who makes Doug a totally easy "read," by comparison. Both have their hearts in the right place. Both, I would still trust when it matters. The social awkwardness, the frustration internal and external, those are why I have the filters, and they never fail me. As far as straight-up gaffs went on that thread (or at least snotty, superior left-handed retard shots), he was not faultless, but way in the back of the bus. O-people have a certain way of being pricks, those that are still locked in that.

Yeah, filters, dude. He sent me a scan of a pamphlet he had run into. In this pamphlet was a lot of truth, but it was a big honking mess. For sure, it lit me up because, quote-laden as it was, they managed to even stick effing Werner Erhard ones in there (and you KNOW what that does to me). And I told him as much--this thing was, while containing validities, over-the-top, statistically dense, intellectually disorganized...etc. But I knew where the author was coming from, it still managed to resonate.

Just over passionate, gushy, and too hyper-compressed to be an efficient communique.

My conscience is clear on that thread. If it wasn't, I'd be confessing, publicly. That's one way I am a very different person in recent years--I find self-honesty liberating, just like truth always is. And the truth is always the truth, for sure...it's just sometimes you have to have a little tender mercy when you are making use of it.

On the other hand, whether admitted or not, I do not think quite everyone over there can really say that, and sleep right. It was embarrassing, what I saw. And I know what I saw, because of the many similar situations I have been in on forums. Less here, way less, but there was a lot of it on the old SOLO, for instance.

Doug was not prepared for his audience, and it showed. Yes, we all hold each other to task, the standards are high, as they should be. What troubled me was not so much his cumbersome way, but how I saw some pointless sabotaging going on. There were a lot of people that were steady Eddies, as always, I count on that (Judith, say).

I also got a number of personal emails from people who normally don't email me. Some of them were reflective, candidly apologetic, even--like you feel bad after you kicked a cat or something. There were two (odd) that actually thought there was a conscious effort to suppress discussion of the topic itself (and these two folk were the LAST I'd ever expect that from).

I guess there is always background chatter. You have flat out shared instances with me, privately, in confidence--because, I think, you found it ponderous, maybe even a little disappointing (though you are street-wise enough to remain non-plussed).

So for me, all I think on this is "try to keep doing better, do better the next time." Sticking to the ideas was definitely not in play there like it should have. Good manners were not in play as they should always be. NB once mentioned how he thinks so many problems are avoided in the first place by good manners. I have a very, very sharp tongue, and I know how to push buttons. My general thing is to not use that weapon. But I will, just about 99% less than I used to. An attainable goal, but the 1%, when I do it, no quarter. I'm not proud of it, I merely consider it an occasional, sad necessity.

rde

Yup, conscience OK today...everybody good? If not, forgive yourself and move on.

[Brant Gaede]

Rich,

It's obvious Doug is a deeply concerned, caring human being, but he violates Occam's Razor all over his conspiracy place and space.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Brant,

I hear you. It is a good heuristic. Of course, it is not the only one. But you gotta have something.

r

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Here's the poll:

9-11 - What's your take?

Rich,

My problem is twofold: (1) To keep order on this forum enough so that it remains a proper venue for rational discussion, and (2) I am a critic of epistemological method at the outset with any proposition.

In the first case, I think I do a pretty good job. In the second, I go with cognitive identification before normative evaluation. And I usually piss off people, especially when I look behind their words at their thinking method or at why they seek an audience.

Take a good look at the poll I did. It's boring. You know why? There is no predigested conclusion. This 9-11 thing usually comes with a lot of mudslinging and you can't sling mud with a balanced evaluation. That's why Plumb said it was "diluted."

Now, can you imagine what a mess that thread would be if I had left it as Plumb wanted it, i.e.:

Was 9-11 an inside job?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don't know

4. Don't care

I assure you Plumb knew. He knew damn well it would start with some people asking to take it down so he could start yelling at them.

I hate this kind of hypocritical crap, where you ask questions in a form that is already answered just so you can goad people and push an agenda.

Conspiracy stuff, just like global warming stuff, is always laced with this kind of intellectual poison. I don't feel sorry for the poisoners when they feel misunderstood and get their feelings hurt.

I don't really like people who poison on purpose.

Michael

[Selene]

Micheal, Rich, Brant Judith et. al.

Essentially, a lot was learned I hope by everyone. I know that I began to bite my tongue because Doug just would not "evolve" to the reality

of this forum.

I was even quite surprised at how upset Chris became when I mentioned the JFK assassination. I keep forgetting how emotionally and personally

invested in the conspiracy gestalt both the deniers [??word??] and the conspiratorialists [??word??] can become. However, it is always a good

awareness check to see it. Rich is correct as to living cleanly consciously. Nice and selfish.

I am always open to a different point of view, but will quickly tire of a fanatic. I actually thought the debate proposition concept would permit Doug to take advantage of all the good minds here and give him a structure to lay out his case.

Boy was I wrong. And thanks Rich for pointing out that I did not have to say it the way I did.

It is good you said that because I had a really infantile statement regarding Doug and another member of this forum which is best left in the immature comments waste basket.

Good job Michael.

Adam

Edited May 26, 2009 by Selene

[Rich Engle]

MSK,

As you well know, I have always admired your even-handedness, rational tolerance, and such. This has never been in question as far as I am concerned.

I am simply saying that he was ill-prepared for reasonable discourse. I do not find his actions consciously malevolent. Fortunately, I think Doug saw this, and he withdrew, meaning you didn't have to do moderator stomping. It's your house, dude. I do not buy that he had a pre-planned agenda. He is a good seeker.

There are, for sure, things in place such as he speaks of. I know this. I don't think general dismissiveness of topic is honest action. But, if it is to be talked about at all, it would have to be started from scratch, so as to create a reasonably-well-understood flow that is agreeable/available to all here.

There were a couple of things I saw/learned from in this, though. Educational issues, call them.

The first was the old walking the talk thing. It was disappointing to see duplicities out of some who demanded high standards. And I don't mean linear logical standards, just. I mean making snotty fun of people.

The second one was what I suppose could be a behavior involving endless requests for evidence evidence evidence. Bring it to me on a silver platter, at just the temperature I desire; perhaps I won't be peckish if you get my hot chocolate just right.

Those two things, working interactively, made me feel like I was seeing hypocritical actions. As I more or less said, I found it embarrassing.

Hopefully all will learn from the process; take what is good, leave the rest. That is, is it not, one of the purposes of discussion.

best,

r

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joan Veon also seemed to discuss this document as if it were valid. I have a hard copy of it with a forward by the author explaining the circumstances under which it was written and explaining that it is a farce, which made me question Veon's research and/or wonder what she was getting at in mentioning it. Any comments out there?

Judith,

I only have speculation and I learned it a bit from experience. People always seek oversimplified solutions to complex issues and try to cram the facts this way or that to fit their oversimplification. That tendency is present in all of us to a degree, but it gets really out of balance in some people.

Although fabricated, there is a grain of truth to the report since war does produce a market for guns. I have no doubt there are some people who encourage war so they can profit. The market is dirty and huge and it's easy to get killed. That's enough to establish a motive for a whistleblower to take measure to protect himself and that's the crack the conspiracy people slip through. So when the author himself later says he faked the report, the conspiracy people imagine he is, or was, being coerced in some manner to lie to the public. At that point, it no longer matters what the author says. He has lost control of what he lived and the "real truth" is told by those who were never present.

The plain fact is that the author could simply be a complicated human being who wrote a book with a grain of truth in it. I personally believe this to be the most plausible explanation.

Here's a story from my life that has impacted my view of conspiracy stuff.

I once put on a show in Presidente Stroessner, Paraguay, (now called Ciudad del Este) with Brazil's most polemical protest singer, Geraldo Vandré. Geraldo had not sung in public for years and there were all kinds of theories floating around about him having been tortured and brainwashed by the military dictatorship. He was a bit nuts and acted that way in public at times, but from living in close quarters with him for a while, I am convinced he had bipolar disorder allied to using too many drugs allied to being a perfect showman. A lot of times he acted nuts to goad people. Frankly the reactions used to tickle me and we would laugh for hours.

Geraldo wanted to return to the stage on the other side of the Friendship Bridge in Paraguay because he said his music had been banned in Brazil for a long time (it was no longer prohibited by this time), so on his return, he was banning Brazil. If any Brazilian wanted to see his comeback show, they had to step outside the country to do so.

There's ideological logic to this, but it was a wonderful publicity stunt. To add spice to it, we were going to do the show at the recreation hall of the Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam, which was a joint venture between Brazil and Paraguay.

While we were setting up the promotion, we went to a TV station in a nearby Brazilian city Cascavel in the state Paraná. Since everyone was talking about gazillions of dollars with this event, Geraldo started going to the meetings in one-piece work overalls unbuttoned down to his bellybutton. They looked something like the following photo I just gleaned quickly from a Google search (without the hat).

Geraldo also didn't shave for several days. Definitely not corporate executive style... He was purposely trying to appear grungy to TV executives to make a point, although he didn't say that. He put on his "nuts" show instead.

There was a reporter from a newspaper from another city (Londrina) hanging around inside the TV station one day while we were there. He had his camera and wanted to take a picture of Geraldo. Suddenly Geraldo was no longer nuts. His visual presentation was for TV executives, not for his fans.

He asked the reporter not to take a picture. The reporter did anyway and Geraldo went nuts for real. He took the dude's camera, smashed it and physically threw him out of the TV station. The next day, in the Folha de Londrina, the headline read, "Enemy No. 1 of the Brazilian Government is doing a Show at Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam."

Despite this dam being a joint venture, most all of the money came from Brazil. Paraguay was even paving its roads with money from that project. So their feeling was that anything against the Brazilian government was against them. The security council for the dam was made up of generals from both countries, but the Paraguayan generals obviously took care of security issues on the Paraguayan side. A Brazilian general that morning took this newspaper and handed it to a Paraguayan general. He said nothing and did not mention it anymore. The Paraguayan general took this as an official message from Brasília and immediately canceled the authorization for our show.

This happened a couple of days before the show and there was no time to get the word out, so people came down from all over Brazil and did not get to see Geraldo Vandré's comeback.

I was pissed. Really pissed. I drove to Asuncion (Paraguay) with a politician friend to speak with the Ministro del Interior. I didn't get to him, but I got to his Chief of Staff (a man named Mr. Bestard). I explained that I was doing a commercial venture that only had the allure of politics, that we were not engaged in any political or armed movement against the Brazilian government, etc. He looked the matter over and agreed with me. So he authorized the show in Presidente Stroessner, merely requesting that it be moved from the Itaipu Dam to another venue. This didn't help all those fans who showed up for nothing, but it did give the press an enormous amount of material for conspiracy speculation.

"Geraldo Vandré Banned Again"

"Vandré Jailed on the Frontier"

"Vandré Tortured in Paraguay"

On and on it went. Obviously, my name went with it, including my nickname at the time, Gringo. I was quite famous for a while for this. I watched this thing grow with a sense of unreality floating all around me. I had lived the event and it had nothing to do with what all these newspaper people were claiming to be fact.

During one press conference, I asked them flat out why they were doing that. I told them they were not doing any good for their profession, for their country, for Geraldo, nor for their news organizations. One of them told me, "You are an American. You don't know how things are here."

That's the way it is with conspiracy fanatics. With a wave of the magic wand, even people who lived events don't know the "real truth." I'm not saying that all the information is wrong coming from conspiracy fanatics, but I do not trust their epistemology to get the facts right. In short, they lie to themselves, so that makes it easy for them to lie to you.

We ended up doing our set of shows to a diminished audience, but the fire left Geraldo with all that nonsense. There was no follow-through or further planning to make another splash, so after the show, we simply drifted apart.

One comical part to this was that I actually did almost get my ass shot off in Paraguay, but that was due to my arrogance and imprudence, not because of politics. When I presented the authorization to the acting mayor of Presidente Stroessner, we were inside a military compound. He got duly impressed and I puffed up full of piss and vinegar.

I had a big car and the road was very narrow. Instead of turning the car around to leave the compound, I decided to take the scenic route and drive down to the other side of the compound in front of the barracks. I went slowly. As I was coming back around, a Paraguayan Sergeant jumped in front of the car holding his hand out.

"Halt! Halt! Halt!" he yelled. Then I slowly stopped and he pointed his finger to his head. "Loco! Loco!."

I looked around and there were three soldiers with machine guns trained on me. Mansur (my politician friend) turned white as a sheet.

I bullshitted some apology and listened to a lot of yelling, but the Sergeant finally let us go. Mansur was still white. He was really angry with me.

He said, "You are crazier than Vandré, Gringo. At least he doesn't get me killed." And on and on he went...

It all worked out in the end, though, and we did our set of shows.

That story never made it to the press. If it did, they would say I made it up, or worse, start asking what really went on in the military compound...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

"I do not trust their epistemology to get the facts right. In short, they lie to themselves, so that makes it easy for them to lie to you."

That is precisely correct.

There were a number of "events" while I was in government that would clearly follow the scenario that you describe. As an actor within

the event being a "whistle blower" or being "truthful" in the wrong place can get you either dead, imprisoned or vanished.

Gringo - now that makes me laugh from the tan tien!

Adam

[Christopher]

The video was so hilarious that I had to find this old thread and post here.

Since I seem to be unable to embed the thread (as attractive as it is), here is the link entitled "Stormtroopers' 9/11"

Edited October 17, 2009 by Christopher

[Selene]

The video was so hilarious that I had to find this old thread and post here.

Since I seem to be unable to embed the thread (as attractive as it is), here is the link entitled "Stormtroopers' 9/11"

Chris:

Hilarious. Good job.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Christopher: Thanks! It was quite enjoyable.