Applying Critical Thinking to 9/11

[Mark Gobell]

To: Jay Ref

I have started this new topic in the Critics Corner, which as you know is the preferred place to offer criticism of the principal forum theme that the official 9/11 story does not make sense.

I personally could do with somebody challenging some of my beliefs in this matter, because, frankly I think it's healthy and can only inform my views further.

I don't know where a good starting point would be really, so I'll just post this question to begin with.

Are there any aspects of the "official" version of events regarding 9/11 that bother you ?

If so which ones ?

Can you illustrate for us "sceptics" how you have applied critical thinking to those aspects ?

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

You have stated unequivocally that nothing bothers you about any aspect of the official version of events regarding 9/11.

Logically then it is a fair assumption that you believe everything in that official version to be true.

If your view points are based on beliefs only then it is my belief that it would be pointless debating 9/11 with you any further.

However, if your view has been formed based upon your research and / or experience of every aspect of the 9/11 story then it would be logical to expect you to have expertise in numerous disciplines.

For the record you are the first person I have spoken with who accepts the official version of 9/11 completely, without any doubts whatsoever.

Conversely, I have yet to meet a single person who holds doubts about the official account of 9/11 who also admits to having doubts about each and every aspect of the event.

In my experience of this subject you are therefore unique.

Would it also be a fair assumption that you have applied "critical thinking" to each and every aspect of the 9/11 story, arriving at your conclusions as a result of that critical thinking ?

If so, I for one and many others I am sure, would benefit from an insight into the critical thinking process that you have used to analyse the events of 9/11 and the susbsequent 9/11 Comission Report, so that we too may be able to exercise our minds in a similar fashion.

I admit to having difficulty in finding my biggest single problem with the official story, simply because the majority of my issues are all so very big and so very fundamental.

I would start by asking for evidential proof, supported by evidence of your critical thinking about these questions regarding the alleged 19 hijackers:

1. Were they on any of the planes on 9/11 ?

2. How did they get onto the planes ?

3. Do they appear on any of the published passenger lists ?

4. Did they have tickets ?

5. Where did they buy the tickets ?

6. When did they buy the tickets ?

7. How did they pay for the tickets ?

8. What were their seat numbers ?

9. Did they hijack the planes ?

10. Did they fly the planes ?

11. Could they fly the planes ?

12. Did they kill anyone on the planes before the flights ended ?

13. Are any of them still alive ?

14. Did they use false identities ?

15. What identities did they use ?

16. Did they have false passports ?

17. Did they also carry their real passports during their mission ?

18. Who financed them ?

19. Where did they live ?

20. Were they at any time under suspicion prior to 9/11 ?

21. Did the authorities have any warnings about these men ?

22. If so were any of these warnings acted upon ?

23. Did anybody or any agency obstruct their investigation ?

24. Why did they leave flight manuals in thier cars ?

25. Why did they leave copies of the Koran in their cars ?

26. What organisation were they working for ?

27. How were they subsequently identified as the hijackers ?

28. What was the source of their published photographs ?

29. How were they identified so quickly ?

30. Has anyone reported them missing ?

Cheers.

[DeFecToR]

If you're looking for examples of critical thinking by the 'critics' on 911, i wouldnt hold your breath. Take a look at the Northwoods topic in critics corner for an example of how these chaps think.

[Wokeman]

Mark,
Get hold of a copy of Who Killed John O'Neil, a DVD produced by Ty Rauber. It will answer most of those questions. It will explain the extent of the corporate involvement in the activities of 9/11. I do not believe that any "arab terrorists" were involved. They were, as in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald (Oh, by the way there were two of those - one to incriminate the other) patsies.

[Jay Ref]

[DeFecToR]

If i might voice my own response.

My 'moment' was (after years of looking 911) when Steven Jones confirmed the presence of Thermite (super-thermite to be precise) in remnants of the WTC.
Small detail i know, and highly irrelivant.

[Abandoned Ego]

Jay Ref.

Ive seen a lot of your posts, and it is obvious to me as an honest impartial observer of your responses, logic and overall behaviour that you are way out of your depth.

But then again I believe theres a chimpanzee playing in the world series of poker this year.

I have far more respect for a few of your colleagues.

At least they appear to understand that the official 19 Arabs conspiracy theory certainly leaves even them with a few questions.

Hoping, nonetheless that you do well in the World Series of 9/11 debates.

[scubadiver]

Jay Ref:

The Commissioners had plenty of chances to ask why the US Govt couldn't catch OBL when they did because they had plenty of chances.

And what did Bush say? "I don't have much time for him any more".

[Snowygrouch]

All,
I`ve been researching 9.11 and its associated events (iraq, us foreign policy, military history & arms privatization) for a long time. Well beyond the point where I have any doubts that some complicity is undeniable.

If you want an easy starter for 10 turn to page 342 of the 9.11 commission report para 2.

"the 1997 estimate was the last national estimate on the terrorism danger completed before 9.11"

WRONG the FBI according to its own website does one EVERY YEAR as one would expect. Explain

Next turn to page 341 para 3.

"the intelligence community did not describe this organization (al qaeda) at least in documents we have seen until 1999"

WRONG there are SEVERAL intelligence doucments availiable to anyone with GOOGLE from the FBI and CIA YEARS before this (1996 & 1998 principally). Available from the NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES.

Then turn to page 5 para 2.

"we do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and LOCKED"

So to surmise; the full investigative power of the 9.11 commission could not find CRUCIAL intelligence documents that state when Bin Laden was FIRST made aware to the government that I can find in 5 minuites from any internet connection.

Also they cant even explain how they got into ALL 4 COCKPITS even thought FAA regs state they MUST BE LOCKED.

Now I`m just getting STARTED here and could go on for HOURS on blatant fudging and plain lies in the official report.

Of course this means you will all have to go and GET the 9.11 commission report now doesnt it!

I wonder how many of us (on both sides) have given it a going over.

Although to be fair David Ray Griffin did such a bloody good job for us already on that count.

So if the Gov have nothing to hide why the utter piffling nonsence report that is about as contiguous as a 3rd form plagarised student essay.

Maybe the fact that the Exectutive Director of the 9/11 Commission worked for Bush's DAD and Bush personally as well as being part of the Aspen group which contained all the top members of the PNAC.

Imparcial and disinterested? Doesn't sound like it to me.

Also explain why Bush refused to testify ALONE to the 9/11 commission but ONLY with Cheney sitting next to him at all times.

Police ALWAYS inteview separately as this exposes different stories that arrise from the fallout of telling complex lies.

The commission ASKED them to testify SEPARATELY. They refused.

WHY?

[TimmyG]

cirlces. round and round we go.

we don't have a 100% proven solid story precisely detailing what happened. why should we have to piece together EXACTLY what happened? we are the public!. there are unanswered questions concerning 9/11. and the most logical explanation for the collapse of wtc7, the planes not being intercepted, the fbi reporting $100,000 to atta, able danger knowing about the hijackers before hand but isolating the info, the response of the mainstream media to our questions and NIST's refusal to EVER discuss their self admitted 'low probability of occurance' theories on wtc7 with the st911.org guys... is that someone connected to the american government is responsible. some are 'in on it' and the rest of the government are either not interested, being silienced or are turning a blind eye.

you can't prove anything 100% other than the existance of your own conscienceness. everything else is probablities. and there is a high probability that we are right here. given the seriousness of the evidence we are demanding a new independent investigation into 9/11

[Mal Jones]

Jay Ref

You said:
You tell me what 1 aspect of 9/11 CT that you believe to be the best evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job"

That’s quite a gauntlet to throw down – you’re going to be a busy chap so I thought I’d better get in first before I’m squashed in the rush! Oh-oh…too late!

I’ve never been too sure of all the ‘background’ circumstances pertaining to 9/11 (passenger lists, stand-downs, put options, etc) because the only available information seems to be on websites and forums, all of which have a particular (and very polarised) agenda. Certainly the original unfiltered source information is unlikely to be available to the likes of us. To subscribe to a particular viewpoint based on these ‘un-knowables’ involves either a leap of faith or a predisposition to believe in one thing or another.

The collapse of the towers on the other hand is very much in the public domain but even so it is difficult to form an opinion on the nature of the collapse because there is nothing against which to compare it (and hopefully there never will be). I am sure everyone who saw the towers come down on 9/11 subconsciously thought, “wow, so that’s what a skyscraper looks like when it comes down”. Having already seen the unprecedented sight of two planes flown into the towers it is virtually impossible to mentally disassociate the cause and effect link between the two events. For me it took five years.

Anyway, to my ‘evidence’. As an engineer with a civil and structural background I am uncomfortable with the way in which the towers fell (speed aside) to virtual ground level and the central support members ended up in such short sections. Of the pictures I have seen of the debris field there are plenty that show sizeable sections of the lightweight exoskeleton but there do not appear to be any long sections of the much heavier central support members.

As I understand it the upper sections of the towers were primarily supported by relatively lightweight ‘I’ section central members. Lower down (in order to support the increased weight) the central supports are in the order of 36”x12” while at the bottom these central supports were a hefty 54”x22”. The central core member served the two functions of supporting the mass of the building and resisting the wind load transmitted from the exoskeleton. The floors were lightweight trusses with very little mass of concrete – the design of the towers was apparently notable in this aspect. The exoskeleton – slenderness ratio notwithstanding – was virtually self-supporting.

Now when the relatively lightweight top bit collapsed (for whatever reason) into the next floors down having built up a momentum over a couple of floors it is reasonable to suppose that the next few floors would have suffered compression damage resulting in collapse. However, the structure below the plane impact site was completely undamaged before the collapse and would quickly have absorbed the momentum of the falling upper (lightweight) section and it would have decelerated. As the upper section fell it was shedding weight in the form of all that debris that can be seen falling away. So we have a diminishing load impacting on a progressively stronger structure. The lower third of the buildings had supported the upper two-thirds for thirty years yet suddenly they could not support a fraction of that load.

In previous posts you have referred to torsional (twisting) and lateral (I assume you mean shear) forces at work during the collapse. During the initial collapse there might briefly have been torsional and shear forces at work but once the collapse was established, apart from some symmetrical compression induced pressure on the exoskeleton, there was only a vertically downward force. There were certainly no forces to shear the central support members into short lengths. The only force acting on the central columns was a steadily decreasing compressive force and in this respect such members are hugely strong. Although, due to slenderness ratio, the columns could never have stood alone they would not have snapped into short sections and instead would have fallen like parboiled spaghetti across the neighbouring buildings.

Now I’m not going to stray outwith the bounds of my own knowledge and indulge in speculation as to precisely how the towers did collapse but I cannot swallow the official version so I am obliged to infer that the collapses were designed and, moreover, that elements within the US Government planned and executed it.

If you have information that can put me straight on the above I would be grateful. I honestly and sincerely hope you can so that I can go back to my cosy little world where the worst I thought of the Bush administration was that they are crass, bungling bullies. To find myself believing that they have the will and wherewithal to indulge their most obscene and murderous ambitions is frankly a place where I don’t wish to be.

Thanks for your time,
Mal

[PaulStott]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

I chose to ask you some questions about my issues with the alleged hijackers.

You kindly pointed me to the 911myths.com website so that my questions can be answered.

I have read all of the points raised on that site regarding the alleged hijackers and this is my response to the 911myths.com opinion on the alleged hijackers identity.

The alleged 9/11 Hijackers

A response to http://www.911myths.com/html/doubts_over_hijackers_identity.html

Doubts Over Hijackers Identity

911myths.com states the following:

The story…

On September 20th and 27th, Mueller admitted on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers"

911myths.com provides this link http://www.loosechange911.com/ in support.

I have searched the web and CNN but cannot find any article containing Mueller’s statement either on CNN itself or any site carrying a link to CNN.

There are plenty of sites that carry this quote but I cannot find one main stream media source on the web for this statement.

911myths.com continues…

Our take...

There’s no doubt that the FBI expressed considerably uncertainty, early in the investigation. Here’s a BBC quote from around the same time:

21st September 2001

The FBI has said that the identities of some of its list of 19 hijackers behind last week's devastating attacks are in doubt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stm

But then again, that was only ten days after the attack. After reporting that they had investigated the questions that had been raised, the FBI also announced in November 2001 that all doubts had been resolved.

The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday.

Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered.

"We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml

Of course we can’t prove that Mueller really believed that, however the point is clear: the first quote is long out of date, and people or sites who still use it, without mentioning what they said next, are not telling the whole story.

End of 911myths.com opinion.

So a straightforward point is made here by 911myths.com that anyone quoting Mueller’s original statements made to CNN on 21 & 27 September 2001 about there being "no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers" should also include his subsequent statement sourced from AP and reported by CBS on 2nd November 2001 that "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible." otherwise they are not telling the whole story.

Case closed ? Well, maybe, maybe not.

Is Mueller saying in November that the FBI did have legal proof of the hijackers identities ?

Here is an article about the alleged hijackers from 911review.com that does include the subsequent Mueller statement made in November 2001.

http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml

(so many links to MSM & DoJ therein lie broken ?)

So does this result from a simple google search nullify that particular entry in the 911myths.com Hijackers Identity section ?

Does 911myths.com inform it’s readers that some sites do exist that quote the subsequent Mueller statement ?

Where does this leave the 911myths.com sites integrity vis-à-vis telling the whole story ?

As a footnote this interested me, lots.

No paper Trail

..we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.

This is an excerpt from a speech given by Mueller to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, CA on April 19, 2002


..These attacks were not just an act of terror. They were an act of war. The most pressing issue for the FBI and for the nation was to find out who we were at war with, and more importantly, to make sure we were not attacked again.

To do that, the FBI began working in concert with its many partners to find out everything we could about the hijackers and how they pulled off their attacks. We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts.

What emerged from our massive investigation was a sobering portrait of 19 hijackers who carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy, and extensive knowledge of how America works.

The plans were hatched and financed overseas, beginning as long as five years ago. Each of the hijackers came from abroad: fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. All 19 entered our country legally, and only three had overstayed the legal limits of their visas on the day of the attacks.

While here, the hijackers did all they could to stay below our radar. They contacted no known terrorist sympathizers. They committed no egregious crimes. They dressed and acted like Americans, shopping and eating at places like Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut, blending into the woodwork all the while. When four got speeding tickets in the days leading up to September 11th, they remained calm and aroused no suspicion. Since none were known terrorists, law enforcement had no reason to question or detain them.

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists had managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and to not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle.

The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes.

Ends.

So, I ask.

How is it that the FBI was able to release the names of the alleged hijackers within 48 hours of 9/11 ?

Why did they publish their photographs when they had no legal proof ?

Where is the legal proof now ?

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

Two things.

In reply to an earlier post of mine where I listed 30 questions I have regarding the alleged hijackers - you responded by saying that flooding the forum was not the right tack.

I certainly wouldn't accuse you of doing that in your post that lists all of the institutions you suggest would have been involved in a conspiracy theory.

So could you please explain the difference between you listing your assertions and me listing my questions ?

Also, how many instutions government bodies, groups, individuals would you estimate to have been involved in say the Iran Contra afair ?

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

So what are we supposed to do with your list of institutions then, ignore them ?

If so why include them ?

If not then presumably you provide them as evidence of your assertion, which would require any interested party to research them and respond.

That is exactly why I listed my questions to you, but you chose to see this as me flooding the forum.

Are you not flooding the forum with your list of institutions ?

Also, do you have an answer to my second question please ?

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

That's a very odd request to put to me.

I wonder if you have me muddled with Mal Jones to whom you posted your reply containing the MIT report extract and link ?

I'll assume you have for now.

I think it is clear for anyone to see that you operate using different rules from those you wish others to use.

It is clear that you accused me of flooding when I listed some questions that I have regarding the hijackers identities.

It is clear also that you compile a big list of institutions but you do not see that as flooding.

You attempt to justify this by saying that my list of questions are insignificant, whereas your list of institutions are not.

I do not dispute that your list is significant to your argument.

I assert that my list of questions are significant to my argument.

In response to my questions you refer me to 911myths.com and I post a reply to that.

You have not responded to my post in response to the question of Hijackers Identities on 911myths.com

You have not responded to my question to you asking for your best estimate of the number of institutions, groups, people involved in say the Iran Contra affair.

Yet you demand that I respond to a post you made to another person before you respond to me.

Is this behaviour typical of students of critical thinking ?

It is clear that the way you conduct yourself in these debates amounts to not debating at all.

I have looked at the MIT report several times and confess it is way over my head.

That does not mean I doubt it or that I believe it. Yet.

I am trying to find responses to it from the scientific community.

I would have expected a proponent of critical thinking to have done the same, so have you ?

In any case the thread was between yourself and Mal Jones so maybe he is best placed to respond to the MIT report.

In the meantime could you answer my questions please.

Cheers

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

At the risk of flooding I have found this review of a report authored by an eminent MIT Professor that you may like to read.

Now, I am no scientist so I personally cannot vouch for this guys opinions anymore that I could for any MIT authored report.

But since you said that [MIT Professors] "are the kind of unbiased experts you should be looking to..."

I took your advice and did just that.

Summary:

Dr. Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.

He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on Homeland Security.

Dr Eagar's co-authored an article, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," with MIT graduate student Christopher Musso.

The article concludes with this statement:

Thomas Eagar is employed by MIT. He blackens the good name of MIT as well as his own.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/nova.htm

Let me know what you think.

Cheers.

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

If you type the link into your browser it might work for you.

Let me know what you think of the article.

I asked you to give me your best guess of how many institutions, groups, poeple that you think were involved in the the Iran Contra affair simply because you have asserted many times in this forum that the 9/11 conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true because it requires too many people to be involved.

So, I thought how best could we prove your hypothesis.

After some consideration I thought that we could use an historic consipracy that has since been proved and then consider the numbers involved.

Therefore I think it a valid test of your premise that there can be no 9/11 consipracy.

Hence my question.

So, what is your your best guess of how many institutions, groups, poeple that you think were involved in the the Iran Contra affair ?

[ian neal]

[scar]

Aye same here.

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

Try typing the following into your browser.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/nova.htm

Let me know what you think of this critique of the eminent MIT Professor's report on Why Did the WTC Collapse.

Cheers.

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Jay Ref

Well thats very strange indeed, it works for me and others.

I don't recall attacking the author of this report. So why do you suggest that I am ?

This is the reason I am asking you for your opinion of this chaps critique of the MIT Professor's report: