Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Finding the most outlandish example of those who question the official version of events on 9/11/2001 to make an example of.
What's the matter Farhad, couldn't you find anyone who thought space aliens were responsible for 9/11?
The Pentagon - a jillion surveillance cameras on all sides - and not a single video of the plane - flying 400 mph/3 ft. off the ground w/o touching it and then disappearing into a tiny hold 12 ft. in diameter w/o breaking any windows around the hole (until the wall collapsed). Would love to see the the wings fold up and magically enter the building w/o leaving a trace of themselves or the tail on the lawn which remained looking like a green at Augusta.
Amazing. Never before have I seen the very effect that a blog posting was talking about evidenced so quickly in the response to the very blog posting.
This article was about how our biases color our perception of various bits of evidence. This is not a new theory, as the post itself notes there were studies done showing this at least as far back as the 1950s. But now, in this world of the internet, around the clock news, and cameras all over the place, we get so much more information to process. Photos, video, news artciles and opinion posts all come flowing at us. And it all comes in through our biases. Once it gets in your head in a certain way, it's amazingly difficult to change that perception, and any new information is going to either be viewed as supporting the point of view or discarded as something made up from the "other side."
In this letters post, we've got lots of people, keyed off of "9/11" in the title, all displaying how their own reality is entrenched in their minds. It doesn't matter if you believe the official accounts of what happened that day, or the alternative accounts. All are pretty much committed to their point of view, no matter what. An excellent example of exactly what the post was talking about.
that's what conspiracies are.
You are correct - and the other videos of the Pentagon strike, confiscated by the FBI, have never been shown to the public.
The first Loose Change video was sensationalistic, the second one was a little more rational, but still over the top.
The LC "Final Cut" edition tries to stick closer to facts but veers off into hyperbole.
Just because some of the folks spinning crazy theories believe that the whole September 11th story has not been told does not negate the fact that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 are the first and only skyscrapers to collapse due to "fire".
The fact that there were two debris fields in Shanksville almost certainly indicates that the passenger aircraft was shot down, with the exploded engine landing in one debris field and the remaining aircraft landing in the other.
To have faith in the official 9/11 report requires total suspension of belief in reality.
I don't know what happened that day, but I do know we are not being told the truth, and probably never will be.
There can be no doubt that there are a number of conspiracy buffs out there, many on the outer edge. These fanatics certainly get their fair share of press. However, as long as the press gives priority to their outrageous theories, and ignores real questions (such as what happened to the men cheering on the rooftop as the WTC burned), the nit-wits will continue to manufacture fantasies. Why the outrageous theories always get the press while tough, hard questions remain un-asked, is the real issue.
9/11 DENIERS ARE THE ONES THAT THINK 267 STORIES OF STEEL AND CONCRETE CAN FALL TO THE GROUND IN 27 SECONDS. THE FALL OF THOSE THREE BUILDINGS DEFY PHYSICS AND COMMON SENSE. TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK DOWN THE DARK HOLE OF THIS REALITY AND BE A TRUE PATRIOT.
No proof? Why that IS proof.
Forget the pics and videos. Simply based on the machinations of Bush/Cheney surrounding the 9/11 Commission Report and its demonstrably flawed analysis, the official report that Mr. Manjoo accepts will always be open to suspicion by critical thinkers.
If, like Mr. Manjoo, you believe the official explanation, then you too are a conspiracy theorist. At this late date, without a legitimate, no strings attached, fully funded, subpoena powered investigation, we will never know the truth.
However, lost in the debate is the indisputable fact that while we invaded Iraq over WMD, the only real WMD attack this nation has ever suffered has gone uninvestigated and unsolved. I can't wait to read what Mr. Manjoo thinks of the anthrax attacks that (coincidentally?) occurred during the same time period of 9/11.
Weapons grade anthrax that could only been made at 2 sites in the U.S., requiring technical expertise that only a handful of people had, that was sent by mail before 9/11 and arriving a week after, that shut down Congress for a month at a cost of billions, killing innocent people, targeting 2 Dem leaders who were holding up the passing of the Patriot Act, etc. And to date, the crime is still unsolved.
Until Mr. Manjoo has demonstrated that he has done even the most rudimentary research on the attacks surrounding 9/11, both anthrax and WTC, he is no more credible on the issue than Philip Jayhan.
If you really believe the Twin Towers couldn't have collapsed without pre-planted demolitions/missiles/whatever, go ahead and google "how the twin towers collapsed", and educate yourself.
Structural engineers and architects understand precisely how the towers collapsed. There's nothing mysterious about it.
And there's the perception problem in a nutshell. The idea of structural failure is boring; the notion of demo crews planting explosives in the middle of the night is thrilling. Government ineptitude is boring; government "conspiracies" are sexy.
Are our lives really so dull and unfulfilled that we have to make this other stuff up? Guess so.
To say that there is unanimous consensus between all architects and engineers regarding the reason for the World Trade Center collapse is incorrect and misleading.
If anyone (engineer or otherwise) can explain how a Boeing aircraft piloted by an inexperienced beginner can execute a 160 degree turn at 300+ miles per hour and hit the Pentagon without leaving any impact marks on the lawn or on the building from the wings, I'm all ears.
Since there are so many questions about this, what rational national security reasoning could there be for withholding the other videos from all of the other security cameras?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
