19 men with hate towards the west(due in large part to US intervention) and the support of Al-Qaeda, took flight lessons in the United States. They then proceeded with their plan and hijacked 4 airplanes and flew them into buildings.
All of the evidence is well documented, you do not need to look to our government for the it, it’s everywhere.
But the truth just isn’t fun enough for some people, some people need their own “truth”.
You misunderstand. I’m saying that the state as a whole does not act cognitively or deliberately. I’m not saying that individuals don’t act in such a way, that’s preposterous!
I do not think that politicians are politicians because they conspire to plunder and rob their constituents, that’s ridiculous. The robbing of their consitituents is a natural outcome of their desire to attain power, i.e., it’s the necessary means. I think we agree on this. But where we differ is that you believe these same politicians actually perceive their means as stealing and coercing their constituents. I don’t think they perceive their actions this way. This is where the definition of conspiracy theory becomes important.
Let me see if I can illustrate the difference for you because you don’t seem to grasp it.
Every time it snows there are always paths spontaneously formed by individuals walking to their specified destination. Each individual takes this path because it’s the best means for their given end, namely, to get closer to their destination. Thus, a nicely broken in path is formed.
Conspiracy theorists would look at the path and think something like this. When it snowed, various individuals came together and “planned” or “conspired” to create a path so that they could walk more easily to their given destinations. This is precisely what conspiracy theorists often propose with regard to many of the nefarious acts committed by the state. It was politicians sitting in dark rooms conspiring and planning to rob their constituents! When in reality it was individually acting politicians choosing certain means for their desired ends and the means employed tend to be those means most harmful to their constituents. Further, those who create the snow paths don’t perceive the purpose of their actions as creating paths for others or as growing the path. They simply employ it as a means to an end. Such is the same with politicians. They do not perceive their actions as evil or coercive, even though they are.
Thus, not only do you believe that they’re coming together and conspiring, but you also believe that they actually perceive these actions as nefarious, it’s ridiculous.
The ultimate point is this; conspiracy theorists often adhere to ideas which are the complete opposite of what Austrian Economics teaches. They want to believe that there is some central collective force “planning” many of the various phenomena that we encounter everyday. There is a force, it’s individual actors, each with their own desires. The outcomes of these processess can be anything. There are very few true conspiracy theories that go beyond individal action, i.e. conspiracy theories involving grand collective cognitive action. The hijackers are an example, not the state. You mise well jump on the socialism band wagon if you think the state is so good at planning.
I won’t argue any longer, it seems to be a fruitless endeavor.
While I am skeptical of the government’s ability to conduct a conspiracy on that large a scale without any leaks coming out, I would like for a non-biased report to explain how WTC7 collapsed and how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed at freefall speed.
While I am skeptical of the government’s ability to conduct a conspiracy on that large a scale without any leaks coming out, I would like for a non-biased report to explain how WTC7 collapsed and how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed at freefall speed.
edward_1313,
You’re just twisting logic. Politicians are quite capable of murdering their own subjects. That’s a fact you can’t face. And your reciting ‘praxeology’ won’t change the nature of the state…or the nature of politicians.
Perhaps I’m doing a bad job of articulating what I’m trying to say. Here’s a piece from a recently posted article by Rothbard. He distinguishes between “good” and “bad” conspiracy theorists. The second part I find especially well put.
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of “paranoia.” First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler’s policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict. [The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited; Murray Rothbard]
Well, you are assuming that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are bad conspiracy analysts. While many of them are bad conspiracy analysts, there are some that bring about legitimate arguments of debate. Doesn’t it at least cause you to be suspicious that a building that wasn’t even attacked collapsed, and the collapse fit to controlled demolition model perfectly? I’m not sayign 9/11 was a conspiracy; I’m just pointing out that there are reasons to be suspicious.
It will take you a while but here’s one pretty good report, imho. He actually focuses his attention on Steven Jones. Further, he provides a myriad of other sources that destroy the demolition theory. I should also point out that the auther is no Bush backer. He’s a staunch anti-war advocate, you’ll find this in his analysis. He’s utterly opposed to the killing of innocent peoples.
I know you say an ‘unbiased’ report but in giving any credit to conspiracy theorists you’re for some reason not assuming that they’re biased.
Maybe he is considered a pariah on this board but Alex Jones videos, in particular Martial Law 9/11 are very interesting. Even if you disagree with his views he certainly collects a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as the closing down of NORAD and the email sent the day before 9/11, which need proper explaination. You can pick a cheap copy up from ebay.
Remember that David Rockafella admits to there being a conspiracy, in general, in his memoirs, if I remember rightly, and he is proud of it.
i dont believe the “official” explanation including the timeline of 9-11 so call me a truther.
flight 93 the one that “crashed” was OBVIOUSLY shot down by a interceptor before it reached Washington D.C. ive come to that affirmative conclusion… everything else is still grey.
If Jones has any talent he’s wasted it with his various inquiries. Further, he’s caused countless others, intelligent men, to waste their time, explaining relatively obvious phenomena. There’s been alot of wasted energy because of the truthers. Scientific disagreement is a good thing, but sometimes it’s not really scientific at all, it’s a ‘feeling’, and in order to satiate that ‘feeling’, men will go on wild goose chases, believing one big whopper after another. Jones’s rants make Keynes or the histrocial German economists look like sane geniouses.
This article raises some interesting points, but is not supported by science, but by conjecture. Who is this guy? He has a background in science but he’s been in visual arts for the last 20 years? What does that mean? What is his science background? Did he build a baking soda volcano when he was in sixth grade? Jones is a Ph.D. and provides supporting evidence. This guy does not provide supporting evidence, he merely points out weaknesses in Jones. As with any scientific study, Jones’ piece of course has weaknesses, but King does not debunk Jones’ theory.
Further, consider that Jones’ paper was peer reviewed by other science professors. Was King’s?
At this point in the game, what good can come of continuing to debate, people whose entire argument is based on wild conjecture and the cherry-picking of circumstantial evidence to support their idiotically fantastic tales of shadowy boogeymen pulling the world’s strings?
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” - Ayn Rand
I would however, love to see more people call out the 9/11 “Truthers” on the insidious damage that their “support” did to the credibility of the Ron Paul campaign. I don’t understand, in the slightest how someone who whole-hearted believed that our secret Illuminati overlords were the ones responsible for the events of 9/11, could simultaneously endorse a candidate who made such a splash, with the only rational and honest assessment of what the actual cause of the events were.
In reference to the thread in general and not to any particular posts in particular.
I believe that 9/11 was just what it appeared to be. The planes were hijacked by men with box cutters and flown into the towers, causing fires leading to structural failure. Are there unanswered questions??? Yes. Have either the government or the truthers come up with any satisfactory responses??? No.
Yes, the government bears the blame for faulty intelligence and failure to use the intelligence they did have. I do not believe this was part of either a U.S. Government or Mossad conspiracy. I simply do not believe the government could have pulled it off without at least one person blabbing.
Do I think the government actually could or would do something like that??? Yes. It happened at Pearl Harbor, were we have clear proof the government knew to the exact hour when the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did absolutely nothing. However, in the case of 9/11, it was not a government conspiracy.
I have been incredibly dissapointed by the number of those who consider themselves “truthers”. Here are a number of links. If you can read all of them thoroughly and still believe 9/11 was inside job you’re reaching way too far and I’m embarassed to have you on the side of Austrian economics, a discipline which I consider a true science.
Start with the top. I thought it was sufficient.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Reidbump, if you really believe science is on your side you’re mistaken. Of the thousands of physicists, Jones is one, and yet you think he’s on the side of established thought! Please. Further, I put up the link to what some may call an educated layman b/c I thought many of you ‘conspiracy theorists’ would be paranoid about whether the other various sources were governmental or not. There are many official refutations as well. Also, of all people, we here at Mises understand that a Phd is merely a label which many must attain because society, formed by the state in many ways, has deemed it to be so. You of all people should know that there are countless morons who have a Phd. For some reason you seem to think that logic stops with Jones. On top of this, the number of Phds who subscribe to your paranoia are a paltry few compared to the over whelming number who do not.
I’m not a “truther” and I do not think 9/11 was a “government” conspiracy, but the very questions that you mention leave such gaping holes in the 9/11 story that I simply cannot accept that the entire plot was planned and carried out by 19 guys who taught themselves how to fly with simulators.
Some people in this thread find it offensive that anyone would question the “official” account. I find it offensive that people do not question it.
Again, you misunderstand my position. I do not take Jones as conclusive and the end-all, be-all of the 9/11 story. Nor do I consider the links you list to contain the whole story or to provide every explanation possible. My point simply is this: there is enough evidence to create an issue of fact. I think it wise to consider all sides of the story. So, please don’t classify me as paranoid or as a “truther” or a conspiracy theorist. You are trying to place me into group in which I simply don’t belong. I consider issues and I weigh the facts. The difference is that I give weight to Jones, you do not. I also give weight to those which you hold deserve all the weight.
As for Ph.D’s, yes, I agree. A Ph.D generally does not mean a whole lot and there are probably more morons than not with Ph.D’s. I tend to think that science Ph.D’s, however, are more credible and that those with Ph.D’s in physics or computer science are less able to rely on personal opinion because they are forced to back up their position with science. That said, I tend to agree with your statement.
I do not think that logic stops with Jones, but I think that Jones is logical. Further, I think that many of the statements made by those in the links you have copied also are logical. If Mises and Austrian economics has taught me anything it is that I should question everything in order to make a reasoned conclusion. With that said I ask:
Do you admit that there is sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact with regards to 9/11? Or do you maintain that the evidence supports only one possible conclusion? If the latter, that is fine and I will respect your conclusion.
What do you 9/11 conspiracy theorists say was the motive for the plan?
Because I know of such a guy here whose response was “Iraq”. “They were planning to attack Iraq from the beginning”, he said. I don’t doubt Bush wanted to invade Iraq, but why then didn’t they bother to create some link to Iraq? It also takes to the absurd that a government as resourceful and competent to plan an operation of such a magnitude as 9/11 [1] without blow-whistlers, and that wanted U.N. support badly for Iraq, failed to plant WMD in Iraq, which would change the U.N. position and the international sentiment towards that war.
[1] and 9/11 to be organized by government would have to be an operation of amazing magnitude. On the other hand, it would be way easier in comparison for terrorists to organize it – they didn’t even had to plan the airplane, or take in any consideration the tricky parts of flighting!
You’re the fastest reader I’ve ever encountered if you’ve read all of those refutations already.
There was no where near sufficient evidence to create some alternative reason for 9/11. The ostensible “evidence” presented in favor of 9/11 being an inside job isn’t hard evidence at all. It’s hearsay and wild speculation.
I suppose then you would consider those who believe in alien abduction and big foot to have legitimate points? Is it wrong to not even consider the legitimacy of someone’s statements if they say something so absurd as, “my dog spoke to me in the english language”?! These are the sorts of things Jones and his adherents are saying except it’s a bit more obscure. Yes, you should always weigh both sides, but Jones side isn’t even a side at all, it’s lunacy! It’s like someone saying they saw an elephant driving a car! Would you really consider that statement?!