The Only Post I'll Ever Make About 9/11
I am not a conspiracy theorist. And I am not a terrorist.I am an American.
And I believe that the events of September 11th, 2001 were not what we have been led to believe.
For the love of God, sit still long enough to watch this. It's long. An hour and a half long, in fact. But it's important.
Make up your own mind. Just don't dismiss these ideas as abject propaganda.
This is the most obvious, right in front of your eyes evidence you could ask for.
I'm not asking you to swallow this whole. I don't expect you to take every word as infallible fact.
I am asking you to think.
As an American, it is your responsibilty.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
~Thomas Paine
posted by cechols @ 4:53 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Chris,
Because you have asked us to, I will watch this when I've got the time. But I will say that those that made this film have some serious persuading to do. Serious persuading.
John
This is now the third effort I've made at posting a response to this. I hope I actually post this one. The other two were probably more homiletic than would have been appropriate, and so I deleted them.
For me, in this case and in any such case, I have come to live and die by Occam's Razor. It is unlikely that I will ever be convinced of any 9/11 cabal outside of the people in bin Laden's little club. In the end, most conspiracy theories look like most theory-driven essays in academia: they presuppose a thesis; they filter in all information that supports that thesis; they tip their hats to opposing views by setting up straw men; and they play to what we hope or wish to be true.
And make no mistake--if I have to live in a world where 9/11 happened, I want there to be plotting, disgusting, hypercapitalist-driven fools that we can hang from the nearest tree. I don't want to hear how bin Laden can't be found. And even if he is found, that's one man. One man's death is only a temporary release. Bringing down an entire conspiracy would be catharsis of the highest order. That's what I'd want. I want a kind of perpetual retribution against people who won't fight back because they've been too busy hiding in the shadows. So I understand the desire to search and ask these questions.
Anyway. Maybe I'll watch more of the film in the future. I flipped ahead to random moments and saw things that I've seen in other places from other sources.
--DW
I'll listen to your critiques after you've taken the time to sit through the film.
The reason I didn't feel compelled to spend ninety minutes of my life watching this film yet have an opinion about the information presented within it is akin to the same reason I don't feel compelled to sit down and read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion yet have an opinion about the information presented within it.
I did, however, watch the first eleven minutes of the film last night, so perhaps I can offer a critique of those minutes. The filmmakers provide--even in those eleven minutes--piece after piece of evidence that's simply compelling. However, everything in those first minutes is built upon this foundation: that the Twin Towers were supposedly built to withstand a crash from a jet. At one point, there's a claim that the designers didn't plan for the burning of the fuel. Of course, the narrator is incredulous. She wonders how you don't plan for that if you're taking jets into account. Okay, so what's being called into question here? The imperfection of human beings or that the designers of the building are part of the cabal and were...even back in the 1970s? If I accept that they made a blunder, then I have to accept the idea that the buildings really did fall to extreme heat from the jet fuel. When I accept that, then this foundation goes away.
If human beings didn't make blunders on a regular basis, I seriously doubt that New Orleans would have been built in a bowl surrounded by water with but a flimsy little levee to protect it. Then again, there are those who believe that was a conspiracy as well. Such people give far more credit to the intelligence and foresight of human beings than I ever will.
Tell ya what--I'll do my best to watch this film in chunks. That'll allow me to critique it more comprehensively anyway. I'll amend past critiques if the film addresses my concerns. The man who made the film claims that he started out with a similar mindset, so perhaps all is not lost with me.
--DW
Okay, I've now watched the first thirty minutes. A few questions/comments:
(Times are approximate, but close enough)
13:15: A Fox News reporter says how a fire chief ushered her out in case there was a "third" explosion. Um, so the fire chief was part of the conspiracy? I seriously cannot wait to hear the details about this thing.
22:40: They make a big deal about the South Tower collapsing first despite being hit second. If the conspiracy was this fine-tuned, I'd imagine that they could orchastrate that a bit better.
23:00: The biggest flaw I've seen so far. We're shown the top of a tower falling to the side then all of a sudden appearing to change its trajectory to purely vertical. The narrator wants us to believe that the tower was falling sideways--as towers always do, by her account--then the explosions from inside "corrected" its fall. Very compelling. Except for one thing: this contradicts the entire documentary up to this point. How can any part of a building be falling naturally if the fire wasn't hot or expansive enough to make a building collapse in the first place? She basically says that the building was about to fall naturally before the explosions corrected it. What happened to the nature of steel and the nature of the core and all of that jazz?
26:35: This is backed up by an expert saying that the building was falling slowly first but then picked up speed. Again, how does any part of this structure fall slowly and naturally if fires couldn't cause it?
(Jumping back a bit):
24:30: Can a person go more smoothly through a closed door than an opened one? Uh, if I shoot her from a cannon she can. If I put enough force behind her, she'd fly through that door. I imagine that fifteen or so floors falling might pack a harder punch.
27:00: C'mon now, this is just lazy. How did all the papers go everywhere with an organized explosion? Uh, the papers were flying everywhere for a full hour before the collapse. Surely everyone who was watching remembers that. As for metal going everywhere, I do seem to recall an explosion or two that day. I also put more faith in the power of two buildings falling naturally then they do.
28:35: This lobby damage scene supposes that that kind of damage was not consistent throughout the building. I'd love to know if it was or not, but the film doesn't provide that information. I gather that if it wasn't consistent, we probably would have been told.
As far as eyewitness accounts, I find these unreliable on two counts: one, specific accounts are selected to present a specific picture. We don't get the accounts that say four planes hit the buildings (such as came from my dad on that day). In a time of confusion, I cannot expect eyewitness accounts to be a wholly accurate account of what happened, ESPECIALLY when I select accounts that back up what I think. Now if a majority or everyone says the same thing, then it's a different story. But from eyewitness accounts, you have to draw a composite picture, and that's not even being attempted in this film.
I'm beginning to enjoy the film a little more, so I might have it done tonight.
--DW
Okay, I've finished it. Some immediate thoughts:
--There is a good twenty minutes of this film between the 30 minute mark and the 50 minute mark that deals with steel, fire, and the nature of volcanic eruptions. While I certainly don't know enough to say, "Oh no, that's not an X-type explosion, that's a Y-type explosion!" or "Heavens, don't they know about (Random Fact about steel)?!"
However, even with my ignorance, I can identify two glaring things missing from this part of the film and the rest of the film. One, I see comparison of 9/11 to other building fires and demolitions. However, such comparisons are incomplete because none of these other incidents involved a huge jet ramming the the building at an angle to inflict as much damage as possible. Of course, such a comparison would be difficult since no such other incident exists that I'm aware of. The Empire State Building incident from the 30s or 40s involved a comparatively small bomber that wasn't hellbent on inflicting as much damage as possible. According to (the always reliable) wikipedia, the fire was put out in 40 minutes, so the scale was obviously different.
This brings me to the second thing--that the filmmakers do overlook the violence of the initial explosions. How are things scattered as if by an explosion? Well, there were two very massive explosions that they overlook. We're talking about huge, multi-floored gaps in these buildings IN ADDITION to fire.
But more to specific points:
54:00- I'm going to shock you. Here I finally see some good, interesting points. This business about building #7 is very interesting. It does, by everything I see in this film as compared with everything I saw on the day, appear as though that building was intentionally pulled down. Now. That's not to say I'm quite ready to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. What we know is this:
--The building was empty; there were no people killed as a result of its collapse.
--It had been cleared by 11:30 (was it?) and collapsed hours later, so that gives us a time frame.
--The owner of the building did say, "I told them to pull it." Now that's fairly clear. However, if it was so important to keep the larger conspiracy under wraps, I'm not sure that he would have uttered that to a national audience.
--As compared with the other surrounding buildings, its collapse does seem odd.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that I accept that it was intentionally knocked down. The simple explanation is that it was pulled down as a precaution. The more (reasonable) nefarious explanation is that the building was going to have to be explored and examined, and since it was the home to such sensitive organizations, it was pulled to protect any anticipated information leaks coming from curious firemen, policemen, insurance agents, and other assorted officials. Now I'm not necessarily married to either of those ideas, but they at least seem far more plausible to me. I think connection that in to some massive global conspiracy is the wrong way to handle it. In fact, a 90-minute documentary about building seven and nothing else would probably be far more insightful, interesting, and enlightening than what they ended up producing.
55:00: *Sigh* I was afraid of this. In the earlier posts that I deleted, I expressed a concern that most of these conspiracy theories were either overtly related to anti-semitism, covertly related to anti-semitism, or inspired by theories that were related to anti-semitism. The earliest 9/11 conspiracy theories came from our nutty Muslim extremist friends. These are the types who would point to a stereotypically "greedy, Zionist Crusader" Jewish person or people as being responsible for all the evils in the world. However, I erased those posts because I did think they were not appropriate as a comment on a specific film (that I hadn't seen at the time.)
Yet by indicating that Silverstein, a wealthy Jew, arranged a fantastic plot (the most brilliant plot in human history or imagination) wherein he arranged the murders of thousands and used the American government as his puppet for pure financial gain, the filmmakers fall into the same camp as the Ahmadinejads of the world.
Now do not misunderstand me--I am not saying that this is inherently an anti-semitic claim made by the filmmakers or that there is any intended anti-semiticism on the part of the filmmakers. Instead, I say that this theory sounds far more like something an Ahmadinejad would cook up rather than someone interested in an objective exploration of the issue. For all I know, the filmmakers could subscribe to I Hate Zionist Crusaders Weekly. Again for all I know, they could subscribe to I Love the Hebrews Weekly. But they need to realize this: the reason that most people find Jewish conspiracy theories (or any other such expansive theories) ridiculous is because they skirt common sense as well as a posteriori evidence. The conspiracy theory presented in this film (skimpy on details as to the nature of the conspiracy though it is) falls into the same category as being worthy of our amused scorn.
Especially when--
108:00--I can't believe this. Silverstein had to replace asbestos. This would have cost him money and tons of it. He didn't like this. So instead of using all of his money and power and evil brilliance (that the filmmakers want to attribute to him)to buy off local officials or kill them off for that matter, he decides to dream up some massively impressive scheme in which he enlists members of the government, the fire department, and members of al-Qaeda (and most likely cost him more money than would the original asbestos replacement). I'll also take this time to chide the filmmakers on ignoring al-Qaeda's role altogether. You put together a 90-minute film and you mention not one word about the hijacked planes themselves? I assume that the filmmakers believe that hijacked planes actually crashed into the buildings (unless Silverstein enlisted a large portion of WASP America). So how does that work, exactly? "Hi fundamentalist Muslims. I'm a very wealthy Jew who wants to organize one of my typically evil schemes to kill thousands and make me even richer than I already am. Howza bout helping me out?" Did the filmmakers stop to consider (whatever their own thoughts about Jews) that Jews and fundamentalist Muslims in a terror organization aren't historically the best of friends? So what, then? What of the planes and the victims on those planes? That not a word is said about them is beyond lazy. To abruptly end the film with, "Err...we made this so you'd ask questions" does not make us ignore the elephant in the room. What of the Muslim connections?
And--
115:45--US government policy being dictated by the incidents of 9/11? Huh? What happened to Silverstein's role? Are they suggesting that Silverstein has enough sway over the government to get them to care about his personal finances? Are they saying that he influenced them but hid his own personal motivations? I would ask the filmmakers to connect the dots for me, but considering that they provide a solitary dot, a few squares, and some amorphous shapes, I'm not sure that that's possible. Sloppy.
120:00--This stuff about strange construction might be more interesting if the filmmakers had found more than two witnesses to testify to it and its weirdness. Since it was shaking entire floors, I imagine that finding other like minds may have be fairly easy to do.
125:00: I've never heard that call before. (The one with the screaming.) That is really, really haunting and sobering. I suppose this is ultimately why I really don't appreciate a group of sloppy, lazy filmmakers implying at the end of the film that I'm a sheep for accepting the idea that crazed, fanatical Muslims were responsible for 9/11, especially when bin Laden has gleefully admitted to his role. Ah, but I remember the extremist conspiracy theories about how those videotaped admissions were part of the conspiracy as well. *Sigh* When it gets to a certain point, there's only so much you can say.
Now that I've said all of that, I should emphasize this point. Chris, I don't know what you have to say about this film, so the attitude behind many of these comments really is directed at the film and its makers. I'll admit to being abrasive, but I hope I've put that under enough control so as that points aren't clouded.
First let me say that my hope in posting this video was that what happend with DW would happen with everyone who watched it: that they would look at the questions and implications presented, and take them apart to make some decisions about the nature of 9/11.
It is not my intent to convince anyone of conspiracy, but rather to present a fairly well-articulated counterpoint to the "official" story we've heard for 5 years.
I'm not trying to make up anyone's mind for them.
What you've done, DW, is what I hope others are doing after watching the film.
What I expect however, is that most people didn't bother to watch the whole thing. And they probably don't even care to question these events anyway.
You make some excellent points. I don't agree with several of them, but then, I believe the core argument of this piece: that the buildings were rigged for demolition prior to the planes hitting.
Really, in my mind, there is only one question: was the destruction at the World Trade Center caused entirely by the two jets?
If it wasn't, then "conspiracy" immediately comes into focus. What sort? I'm not sure.
But if WTC7 was "pulled" or came down for any reason other than the damage caused by the jet debris, then that means - unequivocally - that the building was already rigged for demolition.
Buildings aren't built with shape charges on their support structures. And outfitting a structure for controlled demolition can't be done in a few hours time.
So if WTC7 was leveled by any means other than fire and damage from the jets, then that means that someone had already planned to make it come down.
If you notice the damage to WTC4, 5 and 6 - they are almost totally destroyed. But their structures are intact. WTC7 has very little damage. But "they" probably expected WTC7 to have extensive damage, and were unprepared for it to remain largely undamaged.
You can't leave a building standing that is wired up with shape charges and explosives. Someone will find it. So it had to come down.
I won't use this forum to take the argument further. The film makes those claims as well as I could. For me, though, if there is any reason to believe that any of the buildings were artificially destroyed, then that immediately introduces doubt about the entire official story.
As someone once said, "If there is any doubt, there is no doubt."
Like I said, the building seven stuff is the strongest thing I saw. This is why I found that it had the air of legitimacy: because of the interview with Silverstein in which he said, "I told them to pull it." His spokespeople later clarified that he meant the firemen inside. If I argue for the "official" POV--and I ultimately do--then I have to accept this explanation. Otherwise, I have to accept that one of the masterminds behind the plot revealed a huge piece of the puzzle to a national audience. If he's *that* smart, I can't accept that he's *that* dumb.
If there were a legitimate, plausible, less convoluted counterstory, perhaps I could understand these and other similar theories. Example: the JFK assassination. Imagining that the mafia killed Kennedy and set up a patsy is quite plausible. I'm open to the idea and I understand why some people believe it. Of course, those theories get wild, which is why we got that famous Onion headline if you recall.
I see no semblance of any such plausible counterstory with these 9/11 talks. I mean, Muslims obviously had to take over those planes as we hear recordings of doomed passengers describing the action--not to mention the black box recordings of the men speaking Arabic. So either we have to accept an unlikely, astoundingly confounding partnership between Western powers and Muslim terrorists or we have to start rethinking the finer points of our conspiracy theory.
It ultimately comes down to this for me: there is a conflict of interest between Muslim extremists and anyone who could have staged this. It gets to a point where to accept this conspiracy, you have to accept a conspiracy to destroy New Orleans so as to be consistent with one's opinion of the government's power and efficiency. Most importantly, one has to either finally see Muslim extremists as (at best) a participating-but-ignorant patsy or (at worst) completely framed by, to use the vocabulary most appropriate when this idea is thrown about, Zionist Crusaders.
Just as a sum-up to my sum-up.
But I am curious as to what other disagreements you had with my points.
The Truth is In My Pants.
--DW
(What? I meant I have The Truth candy bar (by Nestle) in my pocket! Pervs.)
Post a Comment
<< Home