| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Angry Elvis
- FB Fan -
USA
68 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2006 : 17:02:37
|
quote:
yep. For all the mention of easily disprovable theories, the things that actually started the controversy, nobody seems to be taking Sheen up on them.
this isn't about sheen
quote:
What I meant by "mathematically harmonious" is the fashion in which demolition experts rig charges around the structure to ensure the building comes down neatly and symmetrically and does not damage neighbouring ones when it gets pulled
in this photo i took you can clearly see a large part of the wtc fell over onto it
sorrry for the cut and paste, people usually don't check the links
Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt floors sagged pulling perimeter columns in. A fact some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.
If the upper floor sags, it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the center of the floor. The beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
A bow is clearly visible as trusses sag and pull in the perimeter columns.
Just before collapse..
Collapse begins a minute later. View from another angle..
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was made to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could feel the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution it's not hard to imagine enough of these factors adding up to cause a collapse. Factors which weren't known at the time. NIST computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
quote:
Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.
Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
More from another blogger…
RealityCheck
“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
i don't know how much will fit so i'm going to post this and see what happens
i do have more
the two photographs on top are ones i took, the real good digital ones were on the hard drive on the other computer that my kid fried
i'm trying to get them sent to me, i can't find the photo card
we also have hours of video that needs to be edited, if i ever look at them again that is
like i said, unfettered access
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
Edited by - Angry Elvis on 03/28/2006 17:13:25 |
 |
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 08:01:59
|
| Thanks Angry E, but, don't expect the loons to buy in. Its Charlie Sheen man, CHARLIE SHEEN! |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 07:47:12
|
I love this. What happened to all of the Charlie Sheen adorers? Where are the rebuttals?? Still searching conspiracy sites??? Maybe we can see Charlie's calculations on what happened?
Just hilarious how this thread dried up when the bright light of reality hit it. |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 07:51:16
|
Or when the unfeasibly long post made everyone give up on it.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:06:03
|
| I don't even have a position on this issue, plus there is no room for gut feelings in such a scientifically profound thread as this. Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no positions will be changed by this thread. |
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:42:50
|
I wouldn´t say this thread has dried up, it´s been going since the 22nd and yesterday AE posted a longish one which I´ve printed up because I don´t like to read or write for a long time by computer, and he´s given me a couple websites to check up on too. I´m also moving apartment, working on a book, a documentary, a series of screenings and leave room for loafing around town taking tea with friends cause the weather is glorious, brass tacks I´m taking the post home with me as ass/swivelchair interface is being kept to a mimimum these days.
quote:
BLT Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:06:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no positions will be changed by this thread.
Doesn´t bother me. If someone wants to volunteer information I´ll check it out, and I´ll provide information if I feel like it - whatever people do with it does not in the least concern me.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
|
|
|
kathryn
~ Selkie Bride ~
Belgium
15320 Posts |
|
|
lonely persuader
= Cult of Ray =
Ireland
488 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2006 : 09:36:09
|
>I don't even have a position on this issue, plus there is no room for gut feelings in such a >scientifically profound thread as this. Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no >positions will be changed by this thread.
"scientifically profound thread as this", I hope you were joking. There is absolutely NOTHING scientific about searching google for media stories and old photos with numbers on em. This is a forum board for god's sake. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:58:09
|
Just in case there are any folks left still suffering from the dementia brought on by Charlie Sheen's foray into the idiotic...
With the upcoming release of the film "United 93," the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have returned to the fore of public consciousness. While for many Americans such painful memories remain forever seared in their minds, for a small but vocal minority the Sept. 11 attacks have taken on a mythical character. These are the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists.
If Web sites such as whatreallyhappened.com, 911truth.org and scholarsfor911truth.org (among countless others) are any indication, the Sept. 11 conspiracists have become a movement in their own right. Despite a host of differences, they share the belief that the widely accepted version of what happened on Sept. 11 is merely a front for a shadowy plot to fool the American people.
Rather than accept that Islamic terrorists flew planes into buildings and slaughtered innocents in the name of a fanatical ideology, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists believe the perpetrators included members of their own government -- that somehow the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Pentagon, was either behind the attacks or simply allowed them to happen in order to institute a quasi-police state.
Whatever one's criticisms of the administration and its approach to the war on terrorism, one would have to be awfully cynical to believe that it would kill or allow thousands (at the least) of Americans to die, simply to accumulate additional powers. But even if one assumes the government acted purely in its own interests, why on earth would it risk weakening the economy and creating instability for the foreseeable future? Not exactly a winning formula for the so-called ruling classes.
Flying in the Face of Common Sense
Undaunted by such appeals to common sense, Sept. 11 conspiracists point to gaps in what we know or widely repeated falsehoods as proof positive that the attacks were not what they seemed. To hear them tell it, United Flight 93 was not brought down by the heroism of everyday Americans but was shot down by U.S. fighter pilots. Similarly, the conspiracists insist that airplanes couldn't have taken down the World Trade Center towers or the nearby 7 WTC building, but that controlled demolitions accounted for their collapse. Then there's the theory that the Pentagon was hit not with an airplane but by a missile.
Never mind that the whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and eventually heard the heartrending cell phone calls and cockpit recordings from Flight 93. Or that many studies on the twin towers have concluded that jet fuel combined with incredible levels of heat were to blame for their collapse. Or that 7 WTC sustained much more fire damage in the attack than initially reported. Or that there's no possible way to predict exactly how such a chaotic scenario will play out.
The true believers continue to insist that our minds must have deceived us.
French left-wing activist and author Thierry Meyssan has made a career out of such claims. In his books "L'Effroyable Imposture" (The Big Lie) and "Le Pentegate," Meyssan takes great pains to present an alternative scenario for American Airlines Flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon. Pointing to the seeming disappearance of the airplane after it plowed into the building and the small amount of resulting debris, Meyssan posits that the U.S. government used some variation on a truck bomb, a smaller airplane or a missile to hit the Pentagon. In other words, the government attacked itself.
Meyssan never does explain fully what happened to the 64 passengers who died aboard Flight 77, despite the positive forensic identification at the crash site. Media commentator Barbara Olsen was just one of several passengers who made cell phone calls to loved ones reporting that the plane had been hijacked. No doubt the families of the victims would be thrilled to hear that their relatives didn't really perish that day, but are being hidden in a CIA safe house somewhere.
Blaming the Jews
Yet another myth popular with the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists is a belief in the involvement of the Israeli government and, by extension, the ever useful "international Jewish conspiracy."
Based on a Jerusalem Post article describing the Israeli government's attempts to account for its citizens in the area of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon when the attacks occurred, a conspiracy involving "4,000 Jews" was born. According to the adherents of this theory, the Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) forewarned these Jews about the attacks, and so they were able to escape harm. Such rumors again arose after the bombings in the London subway last year. It seems that whatever happens in the world, there are people who will lay the blame at the feet of the Jews.
In the Muslim world, conspiracies involving the dastardly "Zionists" are a dime a dozen. But up until Sept. 11, in the West they were mostly the province of neo-Nazi groups. A brief look at any of the Sept. 11 conspiracy Web sites indicates that things have changed. In fact, a belief in the exaggerated power of pro-Israel Jews in the United States seems to have reached a much wider audience in the wake of Sept. 11.
Hence, the recent report authored by Harvard University's Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago's John J. Mearsheimer on the alleged influence of the "Israel lobby " over American politics. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, the information in the report could have been culled from any number of neo-Nazi or Islamist Web sites.
Even if one doesn't subscribe to the "blame the Jews" angle of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, any foray into such territory inevitably leads in that direction. That's the problem with dipping one's toes into the waters of conspiracy theories. One might just sink to its bottomless depths.
It's not as if there's a shortage of sources debunking Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. PBS aired programs that examined both the building of the World Trade Center and its collapse. The State Department put out a series of detailed reports directly addressing various Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. Popular Mechanics published an eminently useful article last year that went down the list of every conceivable Sept. 11 conspiracy talking point -- and debunked them all. Author and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer also touched on the matter in an article for Scientific American. Then there's the small matter of al Qaeda having admitted several times to perpetrating the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Paranoid Style
It would be comforting to think that such information would have an impact on the Sept. 11 conspiracists -- but, alas, true believers are rarely moved by facts that contradict their preconceived notions.
Historian Richard Hofstadter encapsulated this political strain with his 1965 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Hofstadter puts it, "I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."
While Hofstadter ascribes such beliefs to the political fringes, Sept. 11 kicked the trend into high gear, and the "paranoid style" has become much more prevalent in the years since. Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists now include politicians such as Cynthia McKinney, actors such as Charlie Sheen, professors, journalists and documentarians.
Indeed, adherents often point to the presence of so many well-educated and otherwise rational people in their ranks as proof of the validity of their claims. But delusional thinking has never been confined to the realm of the uneducated.
The underlying factors likely have more to do with psychology. Indeed, it is often said that conspiracy theories are born out of a sense of powerlessness. In the wake of Sept. 11 and the emergence of the nihilistic threat of Islamic terrorism, feelings of impotence and vulnerability were all too natural. All Americans were affected by such fears. But instead of facing the daunting truth, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists chose the path of denial.
Immersed in a political belief system in which the United States (and Israel) is always the bad guy and never the victim, adherents refuse to give credence to any development that does not fit this narrative. So rather than blaming the perpetrators, they fall back on familiar demons. After all, an enemy one can grapple with is much more appealing than the unknown. Such beliefs offer the tantalizing possibility that there's an explanation for a reality that all too often seems incomprehensible.
I encounter this kind of thinking in the form of feverish e-mails from readers insisting that if I just "knew the truth" I too would understand what's behind it all. And no doubt I'll receive more than a few in response to this column. But I've looked into the abyss and I have yet to see or hear anything to validate such fantasies.
Then again, I could be part of the conspiracy, too.
Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 22:12:05
|
Oh yes, Charlie, please do tell us what to believe and how to behave. Bill Clinton would be so proud of you:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421061sheen1.html [linked page provides PDF of 17 page sworn declaration]
Charlie Sheen Divorce Bombshell
APRIL 21--In a searing court attack on Charlie Sheen, actress Denise Richards alleges that her estranged husband is unstable, violent, addicted to gambling and prostitutes, and visits pornographic web sites featuring young men and girls who appear underage. In a remarkable sworn declaration (a copy of which you'll find below) filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court, Richards also charges that Sheen, 40, assaulted her and threatened her life during a December 30 incident at the actress's Los Angeles home. Richards claims that an enraged Sheen--who was over for a visit with the couple's two children--told her she was "fucking with the wrong guy" and called her a series of vulgar names in front of the children. The actor, Richards said, then shoved her to the ground and screamed, "I hope you f--king die, bitch." As Richards, 35, tells it, Sheen was angry because she had told her divorce attorney about discovering details of Sheen's porn-surfing practices. Richards's declaration, filed in support of her request for a restraining order against Sheen, contends that Sheen "belonged" to "disturbing" sites "which promoted very young girls, who looked underage to me with pigtails, braces, and no pubic hair performing oral sex with each other." Other sites visited by Sheen, Richards alleges, involved "gay pornography also involving very young men who also did not look like adults." Richards claims that she also discovered that Sheen "belonged to several sex search type sites" on which he "looked for women to have sex with." His online profile, Richards adds, included a photo of "his erect penis." The Richards evisceration also portrays Sheen as a lousy father who urged her to abort their first child. And, when she was about to give birth to their second child via a C-section, Sheen's attention was "diverted to his pager for the results of his betting." (17 pages) |
|
|
|
Holy Fingers
- FB Fan -
USA
149 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2006 : 05:43:34
|
I do not have much of a theory. However, I do not trust the U.S. government for a second. Anything is possible (and I mean anything). If the G-Men are indeed responsible for 9/11, then they sure covered their tracks well. Much better than they did with the JFK asassination.
 "When you've done something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Charlie Sheen rulez!
