Re: Is denying the facts of 911/2001 as bad asdenyingtheHolocaust?

Mike wrote:
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
The facts of 911/2001 are well-grounded. To pretend that there
is still some room for debate - even misapply logical constructs to that
end - is the real cheap trick here. Logical constructs only matter
when the debate is still active. They are not required in post-debate
summaries. The debate was over when one of your ilk effectively
scuttled it with unrelated pursuits.
Hello there. I am a newcomer to the rec.org.mensa group having
only discovered this group a couple of days ago. Hence I am quite
unfamiliar with your theories about 9/11 except insofar as I can infer
them from this discussion thread.

I pose no theories, myself. I've falsified the existing theory
that was put out by the government. Actually, scientists with high-end
degrees in physics and structural engineering have falsified it for me,
I'm merely reporting their evidence.

I gather that you have some qualms
as to the physical details of the collapse of the WTC buildings. In
particular, you feel it necessary to postulate planted explosives so as
to account for the particular manner in which the towers collapsed. I
would like to give your theory all due consideration and perhaps you
could assist me to understand your ideas. Regrettably I am neither a
physicist nor a structural engineer, so I cannot comment expertly on
the physics.

Don't make it personal. The evidence does not care about my
opinion or yours. It has two basic tasks: (1) to winnow out the
impossible from the possible; (2) to separate the possible along a
gradient of probabilities. Much of the government's account, e.g. the
neoAraban tale of Osama bin Laden and his 19 Peeps, fails the winnow
function of the evidence.

However, whatever doubts you have about the physics involved, it
occurs to me that you have not yet offered a theory as to why the
planes flew into the towers in the first place.

My focus is the *falsification* of the existing government
theory. I have my own speculations of what might have happened, but
that's not what my posts on ROM have been about; it is, after all,
speculation.

Let us consider this
and, for the moment, put aside your concerns that the buildings must
have been imploded in order to make sense of the physics. Correct me
if I am wrong, but you do not deny that airplanes DID crash into those
buildings;

Nope. My arguments for the WTC twin towers' collapses is
restricted to post-impact analysis. I neither deny or affirm any aspect
of the plane impacts, at least wrt to the collapse events. The
suspicious fact that some of the 19 Saudi hijackers turned up alive
after 911/2001 raises other issues, but is not germane to the discussion
of the actual collapse events.

you simply find that an inadequate explanation for the
destruction of the WTC. And earlier in the thread you seemed to
express doubt that Arabs (mostly Saudi) commandeered the planes using
box cutters as weapons. Well, if it was not Arabs linked to Al-qaida,
then who was it?

Based on the *nature* of the collapse events, an "inside job"
organization is the only credible culprit. The exact makeup of this
organization is yet to be determined; but if Arabs were involved, it was
as patsies, for they don't have the access required to preplant
controlled demolition charges in either of the towers. If one sifts
through the preponderance of evidence, it's a virtual certainty that
rogue elements of the American, British, Pakistani, and Israeli
governments are part of this culprit organization.

I wish to point out that your conspiracy theories encounter
certain difficulties as to the necessary scale of the conspiracy.

The JFK assassination has been covered up for four decades; the
prime culprits are more or less known. But they have been protected by
the fact that only a single piece of video evidence exists (Zapruder
film), and because of its inconclusiveness, more than one interpretation
is possible. Because of the dearth of visual evidence, it was easy to
construct a "fable" (single bullet theory), a "patsie" (Lee Harvey
Oswald), and a "whitewash" (Warren Commission), and still not have the
public up in arms about it. Forty plus years later, the scale of the
deception is slowly coming into its proper light. Basically, the most
credible account is as simple as this: JFK wanted to withdraw from
Vietnam; the military corporate complex wanted to stay the course (to
the complex, war means profits); JFK essentially signed his own death
warrant by resisting the complex. For details on how a large conspiracy
can be managed from planning to execution to coverup, do some research
into the JFK assassination. But this thread is about 911/2001. And
there exists a bounty of visual evidence to atomize the official
government's account this time around.

Recall that America's first response to 9/11 was to request the entire
world to assist us in investigating the event. Several of the Arab

"... to request the entire world ..." is polemics. Much of what
was said publicly was for public show.

suspects had passed through France, so naturally the French
intelligence services looked into the matter and tracked down their
bios and passed the information on to us. A couple of the suspects had
passed through Germany and so the German authorities investigated for
us also. Four of the suspects, I believe, had passed through Spain,
and so the Spanish authorities diligently investigated the matter. For
obvious reasons Israel has a magnificent intelligence service that very
carefully moniters Arab terrorist activities of all kinds and,
doubtlessly, they assisted us in the matter. Once these suspects had
been tracked down to their countries of origin, a half dozen Arab
countries investigated them and passed on the information to us.

Much of it is contrived information. As you are seeing with the
many *false* terror alerts today, it's easy to mislead a public primed
for being mislead. But I will not going into the details because the
concept of Al Qaeda itself is not genuine. You have former mujaheddin
trained by the CIA to fight the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and
many of those are still on the CIA's payroll. As incredible as it
sounds, the overwhelming evidence suggests that Osama bin Laden himself
is a CIA controlled asset. You also have Pakistani ISI/CIA asset,
General Mahmoud Ahmad, wiring 100,000 to CIA asset and alleged hijacker,
Mohammed Atta, just prior to 911/2001, only to hop on a plane to meet
and be with senior US officials in Washington as the events unfolded.


Well, well, this is truly conspiracy on a GRAND scale. So many
coconspirators from so many different nations had to cooperate so as
to create this charade!

As the JFK conspiracy shows, a GRAND conspiracy has precedent.
The reason the charade is falling apart quickly now is that the culprit
organization has miscalculated the power of the ubiquitous video camera,
which is a quantum leap from Zapruder's lens. Having met with success
in delaying the exposition of the JFK false flag operation for forty
plus years, they thought they would be able to manage something on a
similar scale for a similar period of time. Forty years is time enough
for most middle-age culprits to avoid justice by riding the natural
lifecycle.

In any event, one thing at a time. Speculation about the size
of the conspiracy is secondary to the fact (or absence of fact) of the
conspiracy. Also, the nature of the logistics is not an argument
against conspiracy, but conjecture. Conjecture, you will agree, is not
sufficient to falsify _or_ verify the government's account.

By contrast, the nature of the collapse of either WTC1, WTC2, or
WTC7, is, indeed, sufficient to falsify the government's account, or to
lend credence to it.

I find it very puzzling that such a grand
conspiracy could have been accomplished. And, if the truth be told, it
is somewhat difficult for me to find a plausible common MOTIVE that
would be held in common by the governments of the United States,
France, Germany, Spain, Israel, and a half dozen Arab countries
(doubtless my list is only partial). Perhaps I simply lack imagination
and am too naive to believe that such grand conspiracies truly exist in
the world. Perhaps you could assist me to understand your thinking in
this matter and then we could continue this discourse after I am better
informed about the exact details of your theories.
Best regards

I think that if you set aside issues of conjecture and focus on
the physical evidence, your puzzlement will evaporate. You will see
clearly when the clouds are gone. And you will see obstacles in your
way. Not quite Johnny Nash, but you get the gist.

-zookumar-
.