Comments on: Wingnuts at the ESF http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Keith Mothersson http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46062 Keith Mothersson Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:32:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46062 To get back to the original concern which inspired this thread, the disapproval chris expressed concerning a presentation about US government involvement in 9-11: first: everybody who accepts a version (for the story keeps morphing) of the 'official story' has already accepted a story or theory involving a conspiracy by Bin Laden from a cave or house in Afghanistan. So the real question is what is the evidence for this or that conspiracy theory. Let's leave aside possible MOTIVE (such as Project for a New American Century plans to dominate the world following a 'catastrophic and catalysing event such as a New Pearl Harbour') and CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (such as that for several years up to June 2001 Marvin Bush was a director of the security company with the contract to protect the WTC). Let's also bracket the swirling cloud of conspiracy theories and allegations and counter theories and allegations about the relationship between the CIA, the Pakistani security service (ISI) and Bin Laden and some real or alleged entity called Al-Qaida. Instead let's focus on the most concrete class of evidence: the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE conserning the 3 (sic) buildings at the World Trade Centre. These were the first steel-framed sky-scrapers ever to collapse - others have survived aircraft hits and much, much hotter fires blazing for much longer. Yet the rubble and oddly short lengths of steel were shipped out under armed guard and destroyed despite protests from the editor of 'Fire Engineering', and from some architects, engineers and relatives. The firemen attending the first blaze didn't think their building was about to behave in an unprecedently lethal way: they initially radioed back, 'we'll only need two hoses, the fires are isolated and dying down'. Firemen and survivors report a series of explosions within the buildings, which is born out by a) the seismographic record; and b) close frame by frame video-analysis of the floors coming down with a burst of energy preceding the collapse of each floor, NOT a burst of dust after each floor hits the next. I'm no expert but I find it absurd that 110 floors in WTC buildings 1 and 2 (or 47 in building 7) should allegedly pancake into each other with so little resistance that the overall collapse takes only 1.8 (or 1) second more than gravity freefall. And either in the scenario of bendy-out pillars or in the alternative case of the even and simulataneous breaking of the brackets attaching the horizontals to the verticals I would expect there to be a stack of compressed floors at the bottom dwarfed by the verticals remaining mostly intact above them. Many people who have bought Clash of Civilisation/neo-Con or Neo-Crusader disparagement of Islam may unconsciously believe Muslims to be evil bastards. But presumably they can't actually defy the laws of physics. Now the laws of physics state that for any fire to achieve a given result (e.g. destroy huge steel beams and pulverise a huge quantity of concrete) there must be an input of x amount of energy. Add up the quanta of energy derivable from a) impact of plane at 450 mph or so); b)maximum 8,000 gallons of aviation fuel; and c) gravity. You are still nowhere near the quantum of energy which you would need if you wanted to plan such-like destruction of such huge well-built buildings. In other words we are compelled to assume the presence of sdome other energy-source (such as dynamite strapped to the pillars) to balance the energy equations. Now consider that the owner of the WTC complex admitted a year later that after talking with the NY Fired Dept he had agreed for WTC building 7 to be 'pulled' (the phrase used for controlled demolition)- despite the presence of s few pathetic little fires, incidentally. You can't wire one of these huge building up in an afternoon. If WTC7 was pre-wired for internal demolition, why not WTC 1 and 2? If the WTC buildings did collapse because of explosions then I think one needs to be a fanatical devotee of ostrich-theories not to want to consider various alternatives to the official 'conspiracy theory' - including the one I presently favour that this inside job was part of an effort to frame Islam and manufacture a pretext for an aggressive war for world control. As for Rich Puchalsky and many others who take the line that the Bush-Cheney group couln't have done it because they weren't competent enough to do so without getting caught, I would reply that they have cocked up, the loose ends and unaswerable anomalies and hugely suspicious pointers are all around! The real question is whether right-thinking liberals want to descend from losfty disdain and roll up our sleeves and help investigate the crime (with an open, skeptical mind and good heart - to be sutre) in order that the crime can be accurately described in the reports of successive high-powered and authoritative INDEPENDENT TRUTH COMMISSIONS so that in the end thre is full accountability by the perpetrators and societal solidarity for the victims, both the immediately bereaved family members and the Islamic world more generally. I write as a skeptical Buddhist, but even if I were a militant Islamist the phsical evidence assembled on www.physics911.org and other sites (as well as books such as The New Pearl Harbour by theologian David Ray Griffin) would have to be effectvely addressed and debunked by those who wish to continue the easy bully-boy policy of sneering and ridicule instead of argument and evidence. To get back to the original concern which inspired this thread, the disapproval chris expressed concerning a presentation about US government involvement in 9-11: first: everybody who accepts a version (for the story keeps morphing) of the ‘official story’ has already accepted a story or theory involving a conspiracy by Bin Laden from a cave or house in Afghanistan. So the real question is what is the evidence for this or that conspiracy theory. Let’s leave aside possible MOTIVE (such as Project for a New American Century plans to dominate the world following a ‘catastrophic and catalysing event such as a New Pearl Harbour’) and CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (such as that for several years up to June 2001 Marvin Bush was a director of the security company with the contract to protect the WTC). Let’s also bracket the swirling cloud of conspiracy theories and allegations and counter theories and allegations about the relationship between the CIA, the Pakistani security service (ISI) and Bin Laden and some real or alleged entity called Al-Qaida. Instead let’s focus on the most concrete class of evidence: the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE conserning the 3 (sic) buildings at the World Trade Centre. These were the first steel-framed sky-scrapers ever to collapse – others have survived aircraft hits and much, much hotter fires blazing for much longer. Yet the rubble and oddly short lengths of steel were shipped out under armed guard and destroyed despite protests from the editor of ‘Fire Engineering’, and from some architects, engineers and relatives. The firemen attending the first blaze didn’t think their building was about to behave in an unprecedently lethal way: they initially radioed back, ‘we’ll only need two hoses, the fires are isolated and dying down’. Firemen and survivors report a series of explosions within the buildings, which is born out by a) the seismographic record; and b) close frame by frame video-analysis of the floors coming down with a burst of energy preceding the collapse of each floor, NOT a burst of dust after each floor hits the next. I’m no expert but I find it absurd that 110 floors in WTC buildings 1 and 2 (or 47 in building 7) should allegedly pancake into each other with so little resistance that the overall collapse takes only 1.8 (or 1) second more than gravity freefall. And either in the scenario of bendy-out pillars or in the alternative case of the even and simulataneous breaking of the brackets attaching the horizontals to the verticals I would expect there to be a stack of compressed floors at the bottom dwarfed by the verticals remaining mostly intact above them. Many people who have bought Clash of Civilisation/neo-Con or Neo-Crusader disparagement of Islam may unconsciously believe Muslims to be evil bastards. But presumably they can’t actually defy the laws of physics. Now the laws of physics state that for any fire to achieve a given result (e.g. destroy huge steel beams and pulverise a huge quantity of concrete) there must be an input of x amount of energy. Add up the quanta of energy derivable from a) impact of plane at 450 mph or so); b)maximum 8,000 gallons of aviation fuel; and c) gravity. You are still nowhere near the quantum of energy which you would need if you wanted to plan such-like destruction of such huge well-built buildings. In other words we are compelled to assume the presence of sdome other energy-source (such as dynamite strapped to the pillars) to balance the energy equations. Now consider that the owner of the WTC complex admitted a year later that after talking with the NY Fired Dept he had agreed for WTC building 7 to be ‘pulled’ (the phrase used for controlled demolition)- despite the presence of s few pathetic little fires, incidentally. You can’t wire one of these huge building up in an afternoon. If WTC7 was pre-wired for internal demolition, why not WTC 1 and 2? If the WTC buildings did collapse because of explosions then I think one needs to be a fanatical devotee of ostrich-theories not to want to consider various alternatives to the official ‘conspiracy theory’ – including the one I presently favour that this inside job was part of an effort to frame Islam and manufacture a pretext for an aggressive war for world control. As for Rich Puchalsky and many others who take the line that the Bush-Cheney group couln’t have done it because they weren’t competent enough to do so without getting caught, I would reply that they have cocked up, the loose ends and unaswerable anomalies and hugely suspicious pointers are all around! The real question is whether right-thinking liberals want to descend from losfty disdain and roll up our sleeves and help investigate the crime (with an open, skeptical mind and good heart – to be sutre) in order that the crime can be accurately described in the reports of successive high-powered and authoritative INDEPENDENT TRUTH COMMISSIONS so that in the end thre is full accountability by the perpetrators and societal solidarity for the victims, both the immediately bereaved family members and the Islamic world more generally. I write as a skeptical Buddhist, but even if I were a militant Islamist the phsical evidence assembled on http://www.physics911.org and other sites (as well as books such as The New Pearl Harbour by theologian David Ray Griffin) would have to be effectvely addressed and debunked by those who wish to continue the easy bully-boy policy of sneering and ridicule instead of argument and evidence.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46061 dsquared Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:23:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46061 I am aghast. "Perjorative", for fuck's sake. I don't even have the excuse of having been drunk. It's absolutely inconciounable. I am aghast. “Perjorative”, for fuck’s sake. I don’t even have the excuse of having been drunk. It’s absolutely inconciounable.

]]> By: Gary Farber http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46060 Gary Farber Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:29:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46060 <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/170804rebuttingpentagon911.htm">Here</a>, incidentally, is a typical defense that the thoughtcrimenews site cited in your post, Chris, provides for this theory. Decide for yourselves how credible it is. Here, incidentally, is a typical defense that the thoughtcrimenews site cited in your post, Chris, provides for this theory. Decide for yourselves how credible it is.

]]> By: Gary Farber http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46059 Gary Farber Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:17:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46059 The amount of distance between the screened movie (and the book it derives from) and its specific accusation that the Pentagon was blown up by a bomb -- there was no plane at all, let alone a hijacked one -- and the anodyne, yet accurate, observation that the Bush Administration was lax and irresponsible in counter-terrorism, is measurable in light-years. I know a bunch of people who saw the plane fly overhead in Washington. Speculation that we should keep "open minds" about this not having happened should be filed by people kidnapped by aliens and put where they were anally probed. Ditto that there was a plane, but it was remotely controlled. More general speculation as to where precisely to draw the line between irresponsibility and deliberate intent in the U.S. government regardin September 11th, I'll leave to each of you to decide for yourselves. I'm big that way. Pet peeve by the way: pejorative. Pejorative. Pejorative. One "r." The amount of distance between the screened movie (and the book it derives from) and its specific accusation that the Pentagon was blown up by a bomb—there was no plane at all, let alone a hijacked one—and the anodyne, yet accurate, observation that the Bush Administration was lax and irresponsible in counter-terrorism, is measurable in light-years. I know a bunch of people who saw the plane fly overhead in Washington. Speculation that we should keep “open minds” about this not having happened should be filed by people kidnapped by aliens and put where they were anally probed. Ditto that there was a plane, but it was remotely controlled. More general speculation as to where precisely to draw the line between irresponsibility and deliberate intent in the U.S. government regardin September 11th, I’ll leave to each of you to decide for yourselves. I’m big that way. Pet peeve by the way: pejorative. Pejorative. Pejorative. One “r.”

]]> By: Martin Wisse http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46058 Martin Wisse Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:28:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46058 What windhorse said. What I find disappointing is that the first time the SF is brought up, it immediately is discredited here by focusing on one particular event and putting it in the most unfavourable light possible. I'd expect that from the fake left at Harry's place, not from you lot. What windhorse said. What I find disappointing is that the first time the SF is brought up, it immediately is discredited here by focusing on one particular event and putting it in the most unfavourable light possible. I’d expect that from the fake left at Harry’s place, not from you lot.

]]> By: Windhorse http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46057 Windhorse Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:05:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46057 With the stigma surrounding "conspiracy theories" it is difficult to discuss them in a balanced way. The tendency is either to dismiss them out of hand or embrace them with open arms. I wonder if it's not because CT's are considered somehow beneath rational analysis, and anyone attempting such an analysis leaves themselves open to ridicule, so most of us instinctively avoid it. But the CT's aren't going anywhere and still beg some sort of judgment, so we're left with only an emotional or gut-level method to approach them. Consequently the discourse around them tends to be more emotionally charged, with people relying on intuitions about "what seems probable" to evaluate the validity of the CT's one way or another. The problem with that approach is that plenty of improbable situations exist. But as for dismissing large-scale government shenanigans out of hand, there's plenty of documented evidence of the military subjecting unknowing soldiers and civilians alike to radiation dosing, diseases, and chemical weapons, resulting in many injuries and fatalities. And while it's almost trite to bring it up, Operation Northwoods does show that at least once the military considered slaughtering U.S. citizens and scapegoating an enemy to advance a military agenda. With the stigma surrounding “conspiracy theories” it is difficult to discuss them in a balanced way. The tendency is either to dismiss them out of hand or embrace them with open arms. I wonder if it’s not because CT’s are considered somehow beneath rational analysis, and anyone attempting such an analysis leaves themselves open to ridicule, so most of us instinctively avoid it. But the CT’s aren’t going anywhere and still beg some sort of judgment, so we’re left with only an emotional or gut-level method to approach them. Consequently the discourse around them tends to be more emotionally charged, with people relying on intuitions about “what seems probable” to evaluate the validity of the CT’s one way or another. The problem with that approach is that plenty of improbable situations exist. But as for dismissing large-scale government shenanigans out of hand, there’s plenty of documented evidence of the military subjecting unknowing soldiers and civilians alike to radiation dosing, diseases, and chemical weapons, resulting in many injuries and fatalities. And while it’s almost trite to bring it up, Operation Northwoods does show that at least once the military considered slaughtering U.S. citizens and scapegoating an enemy to advance a military agenda.

]]> By: yabonn http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46056 yabonn Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:10:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46056 I'd be suprised if there weren't conspiracy theories, given the handling of the 9/11 related information by this administration. The passport, the blackboxes, the mini boeing in the pentagon. All this conspiracy theorist red meat from the top of my head, and i am not specially interested in the subject. Come to think of it, i'm surprised too that there's no more of an outcry about this, ah, discretion. I’d be suprised if there weren’t conspiracy theories, given the handling of the 9/11 related information by this administration. The passport, the blackboxes, the mini boeing in the pentagon. All this conspiracy theorist red meat from the top of my head, and i am not specially interested in the subject. Come to think of it, i’m surprised too that there’s no more of an outcry about this, ah, discretion.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46055 abb1 Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:31:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46055 <i>But I guess revamping the entire US paradigm for dealing with terrorism only counts as “going fishing”.</i> Wait a sec, it was only a couple of years ago and you've already forgotten. They were revamping for the missile defense, that was the big thing at the time - remember? They wouldn't give a fuck about terrorism, they were worried about 'rogue states' with missiles. Sane people were saying that it doesn't seem to make much sense to spend billions on missile defense when it's so easy to smuggle a bomb into the US, but the Bushies were steaming ahead with their big plans - breaking out of the ABM treaty and so on. Well, missiles or no missles they sure managed to turn it back to blaming the evil 'rogue states' virtually in no time. One thing these guys certainly do have is focus - on world domination. But I guess revamping the entire US paradigm for dealing with terrorism only counts as “going fishing”. Wait a sec, it was only a couple of years ago and you’ve already forgotten. They were revamping for the missile defense, that was the big thing at the time – remember? They wouldn’t give a fuck about terrorism, they were worried about ‘rogue states’ with missiles. Sane people were saying that it doesn’t seem to make much sense to spend billions on missile defense when it’s so easy to smuggle a bomb into the US, but the Bushies were steaming ahead with their big plans – breaking out of the ABM treaty and so on. Well, missiles or no missles they sure managed to turn it back to blaming the evil ‘rogue states’ virtually in no time. One thing these guys certainly do have is focus – on world domination.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46054 dsquared Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:05:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46054 I'm the CT member with the greatest degree of sympathy toward parapolitics and what is perjoratively called "conspiracy theory" research. There certainly are a number of anomalies in the official account of 9/11 (the miraculous flameproof passports of the hijackers being the most glaring example). But the theory that the US government in some way planned the attacks is a "conspiracy theory" in the perjorative sense; it's an unwarranted piece of speculation with nothing to recommend it other than that it helps some people find a congenially simple explanation of a complicated world. I’m the CT member with the greatest degree of sympathy toward parapolitics and what is perjoratively called “conspiracy theory” research. There certainly are a number of anomalies in the official account of 9/11 (the miraculous flameproof passports of the hijackers being the most glaring example). But the theory that the US government in some way planned the attacks is a “conspiracy theory” in the perjorative sense; it’s an unwarranted piece of speculation with nothing to recommend it other than that it helps some people find a congenially simple explanation of a complicated world.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46053 jet Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:48:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46053 abb1, and while Richard Clarke is probably a huge partisan grinding an ax, you are making it sound like Bush was doing nothing. The first draft of a major realignment of how the US dealt with terrorism was completed the beginning of September. But I guess revamping the entire US paradigm for dealing with terrorism only counts as "going fishing". And maybe Bush should have told the FBI to focus on airlines, and maybe Bush thought he'd have time for his changes to be in place. I'd say that maybe the Dem's shouldn't have crushed intelligence in 94 and 95 and this probably wouldn't have happened because somebody's cousin, who has an uncle, who has a son, who smuggles drugs, would have been on the CIA pay roll and tipped us off. So as long as we are playing the "what if" game, let's use Occam's Razor and start at the top. Saying Bush should have magically fixed 8 years of CIA hamstringing in 9 months is a bit ridiculous. But either way the government failed us. But to think Gore would have given the incredibly un-PC order to start investigating "suspicious Arabs" is a bit disingenuous. Even though it probably would have made you feel better after 9/11 to know the US wasn't going to do anything rash like invade the country who trained the terrorists, I guess you'll have to live with Bush's actions ;) abb1, and while Richard Clarke is probably a huge partisan grinding an ax, you are making it sound like Bush was doing nothing. The first draft of a major realignment of how the US dealt with terrorism was completed the beginning of September. But I guess revamping the entire US paradigm for dealing with terrorism only counts as “going fishing”. And maybe Bush should have told the FBI to focus on airlines, and maybe Bush thought he’d have time for his changes to be in place. I’d say that maybe the Dem’s shouldn’t have crushed intelligence in 94 and 95 and this probably wouldn’t have happened because somebody’s cousin, who has an uncle, who has a son, who smuggles drugs, would have been on the CIA pay roll and tipped us off. So as long as we are playing the “what if” game, let’s use Occam’s Razor and start at the top. Saying Bush should have magically fixed 8 years of CIA hamstringing in 9 months is a bit ridiculous. But either way the government failed us. But to think Gore would have given the incredibly un-PC order to start investigating “suspicious Arabs” is a bit disingenuous. Even though it probably would have made you feel better after 9/11 to know the US wasn’t going to do anything rash like invade the country who trained the terrorists, I guess you’ll have to live with Bush’s actions ;)

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46052 abb1 Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:29:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46052 Jet, read this: <blockquote> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3561181.stm ... JEREMY PAXMAN: Do you believe that, had there been a greater sense of urgency, the attacks of September 11th might have been prevented? <br /><br /> RICHARD A CLARKE: Well, I think that's facile to say that, but I will contrast for you the period December 1999, when we had similar information that an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack was going to take place, and President Clinton ordered his national security adviser to have meetings almost every day with the head of the FBI, head of the CIA, the Attorney-General. They would then go back to their departments and shake the trees and find out every little detail, and we succeeded in stopping three planned attacks that were going to take place around the Millennium. Contrast that with June and July of 2001, when we had similar information that something was about to happen, but the President did not ask the national security adviser to run any meetings. She did not run any meetings with the Attorney-General and the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA, and the defence department, to try to stop the attacks. I did what I could at my level, but there is a big difference between having the national security adviser holding meetings every other day at the request of the President, and having me do it. </blockquote> One of the attacks they apparently prevented in 1999 was planned for Boston. I lived 15 miles from Boston in 1999, worked in Cambridge - but I don't remember any <i>gaming the media with fear-mongering</i> nor any <i>military action against Afghanistan</i> at the time. It's simple: in 1999 people who were responsible for preventing these attacks <i>did</i> prevent them and they acted like professionals. In 2001 people who were responsible went fishing. And then after the attacks happened they bought flags, talked tough and bombed and killed some peasants half the world away. At the very least they are a bunch of liars and pathetic losers, that's a fact. And if some people suspect they might also be criminals - who can blame them. Jet, read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3561181.stm … JEREMY PAXMAN: Do you believe that, had there been a greater sense of urgency, the attacks of September 11th might have been prevented?

RICHARD A CLARKE: Well, I think that’s facile to say that, but I will contrast for you the period December 1999, when we had similar information that an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack was going to take place, and President Clinton ordered his national security adviser to have meetings almost every day with the head of the FBI, head of the CIA, the Attorney-General. They would then go back to their departments and shake the trees and find out every little detail, and we succeeded in stopping three planned attacks that were going to take place around the Millennium. Contrast that with June and July of 2001, when we had similar information that something was about to happen, but the President did not ask the national security adviser to run any meetings. She did not run any meetings with the Attorney-General and the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA, and the defence department, to try to stop the attacks. I did what I could at my level, but there is a big difference between having the national security adviser holding meetings every other day at the request of the President, and having me do it.
One of the attacks they apparently prevented in 1999 was planned for Boston. I lived 15 miles from Boston in 1999, worked in Cambridge – but I don’t remember any gaming the media with fear-mongering nor any military action against Afghanistan at the time. It’s simple: in 1999 people who were responsible for preventing these attacks did prevent them and they acted like professionals. In 2001 people who were responsible went fishing. And then after the attacks happened they bought flags, talked tough and bombed and killed some peasants half the world away. At the very least they are a bunch of liars and pathetic losers, that’s a fact. And if some people suspect they might also be criminals – who can blame them.

]]> By: Shelby http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46051 Shelby Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:17:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46051 cs: <i>Why would anyone dismiss the entire realm of inquiry as “nonsense”?</i> Probably because it's often presented in so extreme a fashion. When you start claiming that the US government was behind 9/11, you've entered la-la land. That makes you less credible when you say, "or maybe they just didn't fully explain their failures." I think the people pushing these arguments together are paranoid conspiracy-heads (and not, say, brilliant wielders of the straw man). Unfortunately the paranoid approach swamps the reasonable one. cs: Why would anyone dismiss the entire realm of inquiry as “nonsense”? Probably because it’s often presented in so extreme a fashion. When you start claiming that the US government was behind 9/11, you’ve entered la-la land. That makes you less credible when you say, “or maybe they just didn’t fully explain their failures.” I think the people pushing these arguments together are paranoid conspiracy-heads (and not, say, brilliant wielders of the straw man). Unfortunately the paranoid approach swamps the reasonable one.

]]> By: Pollie Anon http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46050 Pollie Anon Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:15:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46050 OK, so now we see clearly where a lot of the regular posters are coming from. It's not pretty. OK, so now we see clearly where a lot of the regular posters are coming from. It’s not pretty.

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46049 cs Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:01:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46049 Unlike jet, I don't claim to know what would have happened or not happened in an alternative reality. I always find such arguments the weakest and most intellectually vacuous of all. "Conspiracy Theory" is a catagory deliberately created to dismiss whole lines of empirical investigation and theoretical inquiry. Rigorous skepticism in the required approach to all forms of productive research. No reasonable person can argue that there are no serious unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Why would anyone dismiss the entire realm of inquiry as "nonsense"? Unlike jet, I don’t claim to know what would have happened or not happened in an alternative reality. I always find such arguments the weakest and most intellectually vacuous of all. “Conspiracy Theory” is a catagory deliberately created to dismiss whole lines of empirical investigation and theoretical inquiry. Rigorous skepticism in the required approach to all forms of productive research. No reasonable person can argue that there are no serious unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Why would anyone dismiss the entire realm of inquiry as “nonsense”?

]]> By: john b http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/13/wingnuts-at-the-esf/comment-page-1/#comment-46048 john b Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:52:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2347#comment-46048 Jet: some of the reports that the Bush briefing was based on talked about using aeroplanes to attack high-profile targets. Moussaoui was arrested before the attacks; his flight school instructor had previously notified the FBI that he thought something weird was going on. I don't work in counter-terrorist inteligence, and nor do you. But it's pushing it to claim that the executive branch had no power to strengthen airline security, to check flight schools for dodgy Arabs or to investigate Mr Moussaoui's previous movements. These could've been done and would've made the attacks less likely. Jet: some of the reports that the Bush briefing was based on talked about using aeroplanes to attack high-profile targets. Moussaoui was arrested before the attacks; his flight school instructor had previously notified the FBI that he thought something weird was going on. I don’t work in counter-terrorist inteligence, and nor do you. But it’s pushing it to claim that the executive branch had no power to strengthen airline security, to check flight schools for dodgy Arabs or to investigate Mr Moussaoui’s previous movements. These could’ve been done and would’ve made the attacks less likely.

]]>