Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/positions/2013/9-11"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Further Comments: consolidated questions with the main "unanswered questions" page)
m (Woozle moved page User:Woozle/positions/9-11 to User:Woozle/positions/2013/9-11 without leaving a redirect)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Position Quiz Answers==
+
==Pages==
−
My answers to the [[9-11/disagreement/quiz|position quiz]] (as of 2009-12-05):
+
* [[/quiz]]: my answers to the [[9-11/disagreement/quiz|9/11 position quiz]]
−
* '''A1'''. Is the official story essentially true and complete? '''NO'''
+
* [[/Bayesian]]: my inexpert attempt at Bayesian analysis of a weakly-believed 9/11 hypothesis
−
* '''A2'''. Was the official investigation conducted in a reasonable way?  '''NO'''
+
==Meta==
−
* '''A3'''. Is any further (re-)investigation a waste of time? '''NO'''
+
I don't mind people having their own opinions.
−
* '''A4'''. Have all the questions surrounding the events of 9/11 been answered satisfactorily? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''A5'''. In the days prior to 9/11, did the Bush administration respond appropriately to any warnings they might have received? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''A6'''. On the day of 9/11, were the Bush administration's actions reasonable, under the circumstances? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''A7'''. On the day of 9/11, did the military act appropriately? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''A7a'''. If not, was this an understandable lapse under the circumstances? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''A8'''. Is it reasonable to think that men carrying no weapon other than box cutters could overcome trained professional pilots and seize control of four commercial jets? <s>NO</s> '''MAYBE'''
 
−
** revised to MAYBE 2010-02-28: Prior to 9/11, airlines allegedly had an explicit policy of not resisting hijackers, ''even if said hijackers were armed only lightly''. This is partially confirmed by {{wikipedia|Aircraft hijacking}}, but it's not clear if pilots would have ''relinquished control'' under the "Common Strategy".
 
−
*** [http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html#hijacking 911 Research] does not address this question.
 
−
*** [http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html Pilots for 9/11 Truth] says ''"I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. ... The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11."'' Any rational refutations of this?
 
−
**** This would seem to imply that "cooperation" was limited to "piloting the plane to any destination requested", ''not'' "leaving the control cabin and letting the hijackers take over"; this matches my understanding as well.
 
−
*** [http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405 There is also evidence] that on one of the flights ([[AA11]]), the flight deck door ''was never opened'' during the flight. Faulty switch? Maybe.
 
−
* '''B1'''. Is there any reason to distrust the accuracy and even-handedness of mainstream news reporting, as it has existed for the past decade or so? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''B2'''. If available evidence points strongly towards a particular set of circumstances, is it reasonable to be skeptical of any conclusion which states that those circumstances did not occur? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''B2a'''. Is it necessary to explain how those circumstances could have arisen in order to successfully argue that ''the evidence indicates'' they did? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''B2b'''. If so, does that explanation need to be just as rigorous as the evidence pointing towards the circumstances? '''NO'''
 
−
* '''B3'''. Is there any reason to distrust statements made by the Bush administration? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''B4'''. Is there any reason to distrust conclusions reached by federal commissions? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''B5.''' As an explanation for the level of governmental incompetence displayed regarding [[Hurricane Katrina]], do you think that malice ''might'' be a better explanation than stupidity/incompetence? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''B5a.''' If YES to B5, why do you believe this (what is the evidence)? '''the incompetence displayed by Bushco has been so ''systematically'' destructive that is difficult to explain as coincidence or accident, although this is still possible'''. David Brin, for example, [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/08/listen-to-me-live-on-air-america.html has argued] that said incompetence was a by-product of a "[[war on professionalism]]" waged by the Bush administration.
 
−
* '''B5b.''' If YES to B5, what do you think the motive might have been? '''two possible scenarios''': (1) destruction/dismantling of the Federal Government, in accordance with neocon philosophy ([[wikipedia:Starve the beast|Starve the beast]]); (2) less likely but still consistent with evidence is that Bush himself or key members of his administration were in the pay of foreign powers interested in limiting and manipulating democracy so as to neutralize threats to their existing power.
 
−
* '''B5c.''' Regardless of your answer to B5, do you believe that the levels of government malice OR stupidity/incompetence displayed regarding Katrina are consistent with whatever levels of government malice or stupidity/incompetence you believe were at work on 9/11? '''YES''', the former is consistent with a range of possibilities for the latter. I would even say that this (the issue of consistency) argues ''against'' the idea that Bushco were "just doing the best they could" on 9/11, since they clearly ''didn't'' do this for Katrina.
 
−
* '''B5d.''' If the evidence pointed to a significantly different level of Administration competence on 9/11 than it does for Katrina, would this be grounds for (a) rejecting the evidence, (b) trying to determine what might have changed, (c) not worth worrying about, or (d) other? '''worth trying to reconcile, but not a show-stopper'''
 
−
* '''C1'''. Is it likely that WTC1 was hit by American Airlines flight 11? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''C2'''. Is it likely that WTC2 was hit by United Airlines flight 175? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''C3'''. Is it likely that the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines flight 77? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''C4'''. Is it likely that the source of the wreckage seen in Pennsylvania was United Airlines flight 175? '''YES'''
 
−
* '''C5'''. Is it likely that all of these were essentially normal civilian aircraft without any equipment having been installed specifically to aid their use as weapons of terror? '''YES'''
 
  
−
==Further Comments==
+
I can deal with coming to separate conclusions about the same evidence, though I [[Aumann's agreement theorem|dislike it]].
−
The official story of [[9/11]] is a mixed bag at best. It is also a cover-up of monstrous proportions, regardless of who the bad guys actually were: evidence was destroyed, evidence was ignored, explanations were non-explanations, and some things (e.g. [[WTC7]]) were just ignored altogether.
 
  
−
If you hide or destroy evidence making it difficult or impossible to solve a crime, you are culpable for some portion of the crime committed. On 9/11, nearly 3000 lives and billions of dollars were lost; the parties responsible for the cover-up are therefore complicit in those crimes, [[accessories after the fact]] at best. There may be some mitigating factors, but we need to know what those factors are before the mitigation can happen. Until then, ''if you concealed or destroyed evidence related to 9/11, that makes you complicit.''
+
But when you can't even suggest an hypothesis without being branded a loonie, something is Wrong.
  
−
When I started investigating 9/11 back in 2005 or so, I believed the official story. The more I looked, however, the more I kept finding (among the chaff) consistent, sane, carefully-considered objections which provided evidence and held up under scrutiny -- and on the other side, a lot of glib counter-arguments which either addressed only [[straw man|the weakest and furthest-out theories]] or else gave quick [[non-explanation]]s and considered their work done. There was definitely a core of "[[9/11 truth|9/11 objectionists]]" who tended to make sense, and no consistent or believable rebuttals from the "9/11 party-liners".
+
And when otherwise rational people [[2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers/woozle|seem]] to [[User:Woozle/Facebook/2011-05-04 9-11|believe]] they have free license for the use of logical fallacies to attack an idea... something is Wrong.
  
−
A consolidated list of unanswered (and answered) questions is [[9-11/anomalies/questions|here]].
+
This is the situation we have now.
 +
==Why It Matters==
 +
For a decade, the official account of 9/11 has set the tone for foreign policy and domestic security. It has greatly reduced the degree to which one is allowed to question official statements without being ridiculed. Belief in that account enabled [[Gitmo]] and [[Abu Ghraib]], excused many of Bush's (and now Obama's) criminal actions, and enabled the wars which helped destroy our economy and international reputation. It also enabled the creation of the [[Transportation Security Administration|TSA]], the [[US Department of Homeland Security|Department of Homeland Security]], the [[Patriot Act]], the [[Military Commissions Act]], and accompanying leaps of [[authoritarianism]]. It has enabled a stifling new atmosphere of secrecy and non-accountability in government. It has caused us to be in a state of "[[US/national emergency|national emergency]]" for nearly 10 years now, when no emergency exists.
 +
 
 +
It bothers me a great deal that it is very difficult to even argue in favor of questioning the official account of 9/11 without being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", and the matter left at that -- as if that proved anything.
 +
 
 +
Even if I turn out to be completely wrong about this, I should be able to talk about it and discuss it rationally with others.
 +
 
 +
That's how we overcome our biases and preconceptions, and become less wrong, is it not?
 +
==How an Investigation Would Help==
 +
I think it would be a large step in the right direction. Obama refused to prosecute any of the Bush administration wrongdoers, and that is why many of them are still in charge. With proper investigation of 9/11, part of the tangled web of lies that led to the Patriot Act etc. would start to unravel, and some of those who benefited from those lies might finally be brought to some form of justice.
 +
 
 +
As it is, many people who buy the official story naturally see the whole package (Patriot, Military Commissions, multiple wars, torture, offshore detention...) as at least somewhat justifiable by the (fabricated) circumstances.
 +
 
 +
Take away the justification, and some people will rethink their conclusions on those issues. Not all, maybe not a majority, but some.
 +
 
 +
The "[[conspiracy theory]]" accusation also casts doubt on the whole idea of revisiting popular conclusions about history. Was Kennedy shot by a lone gunman? Was Pearl Harbor really a total surprise to the White House? Was the Maine destroyed by Spanish saboteurs? Did the North Vietnamese fire first in the Gulf of Tonkin? Maybe so. but we should be able to ask and examine the evidence without being accused of "conspiracy theorizing". What we think we know about history profoundly affects how we act in the present. If "what we think we know" is actually wrong, we may take actions which are very harmful and unjustified, without knowing it.
 +
 
 +
We need to make sure that "what we think we know" about history is as accurate as we can possibly make it. If there are significant doubts, they should be examined in all possible detail. They should certainly not be dismissed as crazy until sufficient evidence is produced to banish them.
 +
 
 +
To some extent, though, I would really just like to know the truth and have the matter settled. If the official story turns out to be essentially true, great -- then I can be less worried. If it is proven false, then people will have to stop making fun of "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists".

Latest revision as of 19:04, 8 November 2020

Pages

Meta

I don't mind people having their own opinions.

I can deal with coming to separate conclusions about the same evidence, though I dislike it.

But when you can't even suggest an hypothesis without being branded a loonie, something is Wrong.

And when otherwise rational people seem to believe they have free license for the use of logical fallacies to attack an idea... something is Wrong.

This is the situation we have now.

Why It Matters

For a decade, the official account of 9/11 has set the tone for foreign policy and domestic security. It has greatly reduced the degree to which one is allowed to question official statements without being ridiculed. Belief in that account enabled Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, excused many of Bush's (and now Obama's) criminal actions, and enabled the wars which helped destroy our economy and international reputation. It also enabled the creation of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and accompanying leaps of authoritarianism. It has enabled a stifling new atmosphere of secrecy and non-accountability in government. It has caused us to be in a state of "national emergency" for nearly 10 years now, when no emergency exists.

It bothers me a great deal that it is very difficult to even argue in favor of questioning the official account of 9/11 without being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", and the matter left at that -- as if that proved anything.

Even if I turn out to be completely wrong about this, I should be able to talk about it and discuss it rationally with others.

That's how we overcome our biases and preconceptions, and become less wrong, is it not?

How an Investigation Would Help

I think it would be a large step in the right direction. Obama refused to prosecute any of the Bush administration wrongdoers, and that is why many of them are still in charge. With proper investigation of 9/11, part of the tangled web of lies that led to the Patriot Act etc. would start to unravel, and some of those who benefited from those lies might finally be brought to some form of justice.

As it is, many people who buy the official story naturally see the whole package (Patriot, Military Commissions, multiple wars, torture, offshore detention...) as at least somewhat justifiable by the (fabricated) circumstances.

Take away the justification, and some people will rethink their conclusions on those issues. Not all, maybe not a majority, but some.

The "conspiracy theory" accusation also casts doubt on the whole idea of revisiting popular conclusions about history. Was Kennedy shot by a lone gunman? Was Pearl Harbor really a total surprise to the White House? Was the Maine destroyed by Spanish saboteurs? Did the North Vietnamese fire first in the Gulf of Tonkin? Maybe so. but we should be able to ask and examine the evidence without being accused of "conspiracy theorizing". What we think we know about history profoundly affects how we act in the present. If "what we think we know" is actually wrong, we may take actions which are very harmful and unjustified, without knowing it.

We need to make sure that "what we think we know" about history is as accurate as we can possibly make it. If there are significant doubts, they should be examined in all possible detail. They should certainly not be dismissed as crazy until sufficient evidence is produced to banish them.

To some extent, though, I would really just like to know the truth and have the matter settled. If the official story turns out to be essentially true, great -- then I can be less worried. If it is proven false, then people will have to stop making fun of "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists".

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/positions/2013/9-11&oldid=67945"