BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:17 PM

Worth reading AND watching, closely.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM

A mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Not what I have been saying at all, and I think you know that.

You think wrong, Don. But I'm glad to learn that you do not intend to do what I thought you were doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 07:55 PM

On your mark, get set,

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 07:50 PM

You, too, Sweetie Pie. Go back and check the links I posted having to do with transformers. Or did you skip them because they blow your "zippering explosions" idea?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 07:47 PM

"But your posts seem to consistently call for everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of what's what to shut up."

A mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Not what I have been saying at all, and I think you know that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 07:27 PM

Okay...so what'd we settle on for the suspension of the laws of physics on 9/11. Was it the 'buildings fell from rust' theory, or did the transformers do it?

Please clarify all references to transformers. Are you people talking about cartoon characters now being responsible?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:54 PM

I have no desire to stifle legitimate questions, Carol. What I have serious doubts about is when those who pose those legitimate questions claim to have all the answers, and then have manufacture evidence and play fast and loose with the laws of physics in a desparate effort to support those answers.

Some of the people questioning the official version of events have done this but not all have. But your posts seem to consistently call for everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of what's what to shut up.

Still, even the people who are doing what you say can't do any real harm to any kind of legitimate, independent, peer reviewed investigation, so if you are trying to silence even those people, it's really more because of personal annoyance with them than because they are causing any real problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:39 PM

Last night I saw South Park's show on 9-11 being an inside job.
It was exellent. The show was followed by lil Bush and featured GW Condi Don and Dick naked. W was miniscule.

Later that night an outstanding comerical came on selling the talking Steve Irwin doll that would exclaim KRICKY and OH NO. It is currently for sale at Toys r Us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Michael Moore is asking the same question I posed here 6 years ago.
Of the 100's of cameras surrounding the Pentagon why can't we see a single video of the airliner.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:36 PM

I have no desire to stifle legitimate questions, Carol. What I have serious doubts about is when those who pose those legitimate questions claim to have all the answers, and then have manufacture evidence and play fast and loose with the laws of physics in a desparate effort to support those answers.

That's the red herring!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:27 PM

( ...it's also a false dichotomy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:19 PM

As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy."

Exactly, Captain Ginger. That's a point I have been trying to make.

Nonsense. This is a red herring. There's no reason why a comprehensive independent investigation cannot answer all questions, including those asking whether or not it was incompetence (or bad policy) that caused or enabled the events on 9/11.

There isn't any reason at all to silence anyone who wants to ask what they consider legitimate questions, unless what you are trying to do is suppress investigation into questions that make you personally uncomfortable for reasons of your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM

Well, we can rest comfortably knowing that the BBC knew Building 7 was coming down before it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM

"As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy."

Exactly, Captain Ginger. That's a point I have been trying to make.

There is no doubt that the Bush administration was criminally neglegent in ignoring the many warnings and indications. My "conspiracy theory" (and it's more that just a theory; there is a great deal of tesimony to the effect from people who tried to sound a warning and were simply ignored) is that the Bush administration was fairly sure that such an attack was indeed coming, and since it would suit their purposes (provide an excuse to establish a military presence in the Middle East), they simply sat back and let it happen.

That is bad enough!

What's the point of concocting elaborated scenarios to try to make the Devil look more evil than he already is? It tends to obscures the enormity of truth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:57 PM

Substance?
Certainly not. Unlike the other posters here, I have not been directly involved in the investigation, and neither do I have any relevant professional qualifications.
Unusually, perhaps, I'm just an interested bystander; an ordinary Joe if you like. Put me down as the one person in this thread who doesn't have an axe to grind or an inside track. As such, I speak as I find. And, reading the (admittedly biassed, liberal and probably treacherous) British media, along with the various analyses by people who would seem from their experience and qualifications to know what they're talking about, I have reached the conclusions I have.
All I can say as an 'expert witness' is that I have seen plenty of buildings of various sizes and construction made to collapse by various means, and I have no reason to doubt that the collapse of the Twin Towers and the damage to the surrounding buildings was caused by aircraft impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:56 PM

My mistake, I was commenting on Peace's comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:55 PM

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…"

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and NOT TO ANY ALTERNATIVE FORCES [emphasis added].

From here. Official NIST site.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:49 PM

Personally, Captain Ginger, I think your superior tone and your ridicule are evidence that you're simply looking for some cheap thrills and haven't got anything of real substance to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM

Ron, I think you were commenting on Peace's 17 Jul 07 - 04:35 PM post in your 17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM

"While there are a lot of things that do not add up in the official version, there are many things that do."

That is a place to start. What does add up and what doesn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM

I read and comment because I'm interested in the truth as a forensic process, and in the behaviour of people.
As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy. And people like Peace - who seem amazed that masses of dust is created when a building collapses and rush to find preposterous reasons - are the administration's useful idiots.
As I said earlier, the 'how' is no mystery to me. It's the 'why' that should be exercising the attention of any intelligent person. And, while it might not impact directly on me, it can affect the quality of life and the standard of living of my children and almost every person on this planet in an indirect way. As such, I do find the whole thing terribly interesting. And, yes, the witterings of the lunatic fringe are amusing. I'm just glad I can pinch myself and realise that they are, after all, just the ramblings of global village idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM

Which post of mine are you commenting on in your 17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM post, Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:42 PM

Has her "proof" been subjected to peer review?   Her results of disproving the "official" version are not necessarily accurate.

Probably not yet, but I would like to see it happen, and I would like to be able to see whatever peer reviews are done on her work.

When you say that some of us are trying to "marginalize, ridicule, demonize" - you forgot to inclue that we have also shown that some of these theories do not add up. You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done.

There's an awful big difference between pointing out inaccuracies and "marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing", Ron. I'm sure you can recognize which is which. So when I say that, I'm talking about the posts from people that contain "marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing" (read Captain Ginger's posts if you need a good example), and not posts that simply point out inaccuracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: pdq
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:41 PM

Actually, Cpt'n, the point I am making is that the intelligence failure was the result of policy. That makes it more a problem of judgement rather than incompetence.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM

That's not true Carol. While there are a lot of things that do not add up in the official version, there are many things that do.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:37 PM

Captain Ginger, as you have said yourself, you aren't all that terribly affected by what happens in the US, so why should you really care?

Those of us who live here have good reason to be concerned about what happens in this country. Unlike your country, we can't get the Bush administrations nose out our arses. It's surgically implanted. So the best we can do is try to remedy what we see as problems arising from this state of affairs. If you don't enjoy watching this process (not that you are actually reading many of the posts you are commenting on, because we both know that you are not), you are certainly free to not read threads like this one at all. I'm sure that will considerably improve the quality of your life.

Meanwhile, those of us who live in the US will continue to try to muddle on as best we can, even despite people like you making personal attacks on us for fun and recreation.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:35 PM

"You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done. "

Lots of truth to that, Ron. But ya don't have to be a rocket surgeon to know that much doesn't add up in the official version of events leading upto, on and after 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM

"So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the government's version of how it was done."

Has her "proof" been subjected to peer review?   Her results of disproving the "official" version are not necessarily accurate.

When you say that some of us are trying to "marginalize, ridicule, demonize" - you forgot to inclue that we have also shown that some of these theories do not add up. You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM

Coming from a sanctimonious popinjay like you, CG, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM

Question for you beardedbruce...

Do you accept the NIST's version of events?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM

That said, if you don't care, piss off asshole.
Peace, I've always thought that your role here on the Mudcat was like that of the cavalry - fundementally pointless, but with the virtue of lending a bit of tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
And, bless you, you have!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:27 PM

pdq, you make a cogent point - there was staggering incompetence when it came to predicting and interdicting what happened on September 11th.
Are we really to believe that the Establishment which couldn't tell its arse from its elbow when it came to intel was the same Establishment which could carry out a black op on the scale of the Twin Towers?
Don't make me bark!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:26 PM

Not as long as the conspiracists continue (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own.

This is a non-sequitur, beardedbruce, as well as a straw man, and ad hominem argumentation.

First of all, not all people who challenge the official version are conspiracists. To call them that shows that you do not support independent investigations, because you appear to be defining anyone who supports having independent investigations a 'conspiracist'. Secondly, not all people who support independent investigations are engaging in marginalizing, ridiculing, and/or demonizing anyone at all. Many are simply challenging the official version of events. Thirdly, the even those who are doing those things are not in any kind of position of power, so whatever damage they might be able to do is miniscule in comparison to the problems that are caused by the government of the most powerful country in the world engaging in those kinds of behavior.

You seem to think (this observation is based on years of reading your posts) that you can reverse the roles in every kind of debate and come up with a point that makes some kind of sense. You really can't always do that. Sometimes reversal of an argument just isn't logical.

You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the conspiracists' version of how it was done.

Yes, well, what I have been doing is questioning the official version of events. I haven't tried to prove any of the alternative theories. At this point, I would be happy just to see serious investigation about how the official version is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM

Yeah. That's been the problem, what? Your leader's head up their leader's ass. That said, if you don't care, piss off asshole. That's North American for arsehole, but no doubt you knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:23 PM

Have a nice day yourself, poppet. But don't let those black helicopters keep you awake, d'you hear?
And to be accused of condensation by one of the most rebarbative and patronising imbeciles in a very large pool of credulous cretins is praise indeed. Anyway, keep on clicking and the infallible Google will supply the answers for you to cut and paste with all the understanding a parrot has for its profanities. Heck, it must be true - it's on the internet!
Not that I give a flying shit one way or another, of course. I'm lucky enough to be sufficiently 'off grid' for most of your problems in North America to be a matter more for wry amusement than concern, particularly now that HMG seems mercifully to be on the verge of removing its snout from Uncle Sam's scabrous sphincter.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:11 PM

Gosh, Caprain Ginger, I have seen nothing from you at ALL other than smart-assed remarks. Yippee, you're a builder. My uncle and brothers were both carpenters. That doesn't make them engineers either.

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but when you employ sarcasm and condescension, I reserve the right to tell you to shove it up your arse. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: pdq
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM

Make special note of Jamie Gorelick. She was assistant attorney general under Janet Reno. Gorelick was the chief architect of communication walls erected under the Reno Doctrine, a policy that made sure intelligence-gathering organizations (FBI, CIA, DOD and NSA) could not share data with each other. It was so silly that two CIA agents followed known Muslim terrorists on a plane trip to the US. At the airport, they watched the men walk away into the crowd, since contacting the FBI about the would have cost them their jobs. The CIA agents just drove off and had dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:57 PM

Gosh, Peace, with your knowledge of 19th century choo-choos you've convinced me!
But forgive me; I'm just a humble builder who has to deal with loadings and stressings on structures to comply with Building Regs on a day to day basis, while in a previous existence I was quite familiar with the effects of various kinds of demolition charge on structures.
That ignorance aside, however,I have seen absolutely nothing from to dissuade me that what happened to the World Trade Centre buildings was not a direct result of the impact of two aircraft.
Furthermore, if any organisation really did possess the capacity to perpetrate such an act and shift the blame so effectively, I don't think it exists in the USA at present.
Sadly, the truth is always far more boring than fiction. Not that this will dissuade any of you from continuing to insist that the act was somehow more sinister. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories - there's a warm fuzzy glow from being a 'believer'.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:51 PM

Every single person on the Commission was in the past or is presently connected to government. Not one hell of a lotta scientists there.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:46 PM

"The Commission members"

The Commission has released its final report. [more]
The Chair and Vice Chair have released a statement regarding the Commission's closing. [more]

The Commission closed August 21, 2004. [more]


Commission Members


Thomas H. Kean
Chair

Lee H. Hamilton
Vice Chair

Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

Commission Staff

Philip D. Zelikow
Executive Director

Chris Kojm
Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Marcus
General Counsel

It is worth going to this LINK

If you click on their names you'll be able to read their bios. Makes for an interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:44 PM

CarolC,

Your statements are true- but so are the following ones:


Not as long as the conspiracists continue (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own.



You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the conspiracists' version of how it was done.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM

Isn't all of this being "peer reviewed" already?

Not really. Not as long as the government continues (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own.

I go back to the one question that the "government conspiricists" cannot give a strong answer to - how?

Dr. Wood is right about one thing, at least, Ron. You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the government's version of how it was done. That's what independent investigations are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM

However, there ARE serious people who DO know about engineering who have determined that the official version of events jus' don't add up. And that alone ought to prompt another investigation, because the Commission's 'Report' leaves lots to be desired in terms of truth. And there's the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:39 PM

"For a split second, does anyone believe that either Carol C, Peace,toos sweet, Bearded Bruce or myself have a single clue about engineering?"

I am seriously offended by that remark, Ron. I DO know about engineering. Tell ME I don't know about engineering . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:34 PM

Isn't all of this being "peer reviewed" already? You can find engineers and scientists on both sides of the "issue" weighing in with logical theories as to how and why.   It is easy for the rest of us to cut and paste articles that we know nothing about.   

For a split second, does anyone believe that either Carol C, Peace,toos sweet, Bearded Bruce or myself have a single clue about engineering? We are all talking out of our ass and relying on postings from others when you boil it all down.   That doesn't make us wrong, it makes us human.

I go back to the one question that the "government conspiricists" cannot give a strong answer to - how? You need a motive and a plan, and the "government" backed plan seems too risky to ever have been approved for operation as it requires too many conspirators and has more holes for potential failure that would result in a death sentence for everyone involved if caught.   The government is not made up of very bright bulbs, but they aren't stupid.

Every layman can use logic to follow the plot of the story. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:33 PM

Question for you beardedbruce...

Do you accept the NIST's version of events?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:30 PM

Ok. I'll have a look around.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:30 PM

BB: I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers.

CarolC: From where I'm watching, you have already done this.


Oh? Please let me know when.

I have as good credentials as those you seem to think can't be called kooks- MY degree is in Physics ( and Astronomy), and I have 29 years of experience in Space operations. I think I might know something about the basic laws of physics and mechanics. Before you make claims, PLEASE have examples to demonstrate what you claim.

Waiting for your examples.......

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM

Here's an interesting video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:23 PM

I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers.

From where I'm watching, you have already done this.

You have stated that you would accept my aliens IF I show you that Bush was one- this indicates you have somewhat less interest in the truth of what happened than in blaming the Bush administraion for it.

I was being facetious. I don't believe you are sincerely suggesting that it was space aliens who did it. I think you are using that as a way of ridiculing people who are questioning the official whitewash. I refuse to give a serious response to such tactics.

Who do YOU think would be a neutral party to conduct these "independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11"? I

Anyone at all who has enough expertise and research acumen to be able to do it. Even ones who don't for that matter, if they want to do the work. As long as all of it is peer reviewed, the hocus pocus will be weeded out from the legitimate science.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:14 PM

CarolC

Do you really think that ANY government is going to allow a report to be released without "damage control"? No matter who wins in 08, even if there is a new investigation, there will be

1. Points left unsaid, because they would embarass someone important.
2. Points covered up, because they would reveal existing weaknesses in our defences against further acts of terrorism.
3. Points covered up because it would be thought to be too cruel to the survivors- the possibly less than heroic acts of some of those who realized they had no way to survive, for example.
4. Points covered up because , with the best of intentions, not all people will agree on what any specific set of facts actually mean.


You have stated that you would accept my aliens IF I show you that Bush was one- this indicates you have somewhat less interest in the truth of what happened than in blaming the Bush administraion for it.

I do NOT "KNOW" what happened, in all details- but I will look at any reasonable research done- I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. I apply Occam's Razor to most problems- I will believe in a conspiracy when it becomes easier to explain what actually occurred that way.

Who do YOU think would be a neutral party to conduct these "independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11"? It seems to me that anyone who has already stated an opinion, such as most of those here,would bring far too great a predjudice against the truth alone being used for determination of who is to blame.