9/11 was an inside job!

That title should get some attention. In my ambition to develop skill as a writer, beside the occasional posting on this blog, I have also been posting on forums and threads and such Internet discussions. One of my favourites has been the skepticblog. If anyone has been following my blog so far, you would have seen my links to a thread on the topic of climate change. (somewhere in November)

Today, I posted again on the skepticblog. The link is here.

To save you the trouble of following the link, I will take the liberty to paste most of the text from Michael Shermer, and my response.

First, from Michael Shermer on Skepticblog:

..."Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:
1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections — or to randomness — the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
3.The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
4.Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
5.The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
7.The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
9.The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns."

After reading this post, I thought that I would apply the same criteria to the contemporary version of the 9/11 story. The following is the reply that I posted on the Skepticblog;

"Mr Shermer,

I will attempt to dissect the "Osama Bin Laden is totally responsible for 9/11" conspiracy theory using the points on your list.

1. 'allegation of the conspiracy or when the the evidence fits equally well to other casual connections...' 
It is alleged that a mad Arab living in a cave is totally responsibility for the events of 9/11. There is a casual connection that most Americans have Islamophobia. That is to say, it is 'connecting the dots' that all Muslims are scary, all Muslims are trying to destroy America, most Muslims are in cohoots with that conspiracy.

2. "The agents...would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off."
The Osama Bin Laden conspiracy suggests that this angry man in a cave and his suicidal followers were able to perfectly plan and execute 9/11. Osama Bin Laden continues to evade detection, even though the majority of the world security forces have been looking for him. Definitely super-human.

3. The conspiracy is complex,... a large number of elements.
The O.B.L. con has several dozen fundamentalists maintaining deep cover in America, being controlled by a puppet master living in a cave, far far away, funded through elaborate channels, former CIA trained mujahideen... not at all complex, simple really.

4. '...the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent...'
As you say, this is similiar, almost identical to the previous point. Thus, a non-point.

5. 'a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system...If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely..."
It seems that many who believe the current O.B.L. conspiracy would suggest that radical Islam is engaged in exactly that action. The O.B.L. conspiracy would have you believe that Islam is trying to start a massive war with 'us', and their goal is world domination. Not at all similiar to the 'New World Order' that the secret sheik of America declared a few years previous. How is one to interpret N.W.O. ? According to your logic here, Bush senior never said that.

6. "ratchets up from small events...to much larger, much less probable events."
Although the collapse of some buildings seems far from a small event, achieving the very large event of two, multi-trillion dollar, multi-nation wars that have no end in sight fits exactly into your denial criteria. It seems so unlikely that the current conflict in that region of the world is the result of a man hunt. Yeah, I know, we had to get rid of the Taliban, we had to get rid of Saddam, we had to be in position to destroy Iran...

7. "...what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events."
My first reaction when I read this was one word; 'Haliburton!'. Apparently insignificant that previous to his role as vice president, Dick Cheney was the boss at Haliburton, the same business that became a lead contractor in Iraq. No big deal, no conflict of interest possible.

8. "The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations... without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality."
The official Osama Bin Laden conspiracy would have one believe that because those airplanes were hijacked, we thus need to invade Afghanistan; apparently it was very probable that we would find the one guy responsible. In fact, Osama Bin Laden has evaded capture. (see point 2).
As for speculations; 'Cheney continued to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Queda, even though President Bush received a classified President's Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." Furthermore, in 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.' (from wikipedia, Dick Cheney)
Does this sound like the hawks started a war with low probability or perhaps speculations? Yes it does, indeed it does...

9. '...suspicious of all government agencies... an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.'
Michael, it is your nation that has been running around the world, invading nations in the name of freedom and democracy, et al, for years. Although it may be difficult to understand this, many people in the world Hate You for it. It is only the people of the U.S.A. that believe they have a manifest destiny to rule the world based on some insane interpretations of Christianity. 'Manifest Destiny' and 'In God We Trust' is not some wack-job conspiracy. The U.S.A. is scaring the literal crap out of people around the world. This is 'true'.
Nuance the following statement -why does America have the right to be the world policeman?
Here is another conspiracy theory - Michael Shermer has been duped. You are indiscriminately non-suspicious, which allows one to question your status as a skeptic.

10. 'The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.'
The 9/11 conspiracy theorist will typically allege that not all is what it seems. Certainly there are kooks out there who have gone off the deep end, and have unsustainable claims. What is so troublesome, is not necessarily the details of the events of 9/11, is how those events achieved exactly the alleged terrorists agenda. Now there is a holy war, the world economy is volatile, and people are turning in even greater numbers toward superstition and bigotry.
Accepting the official story about 9/11 has resulted in a world that is much more frightening than ever. The basic paradigms of power and force have retarded the populaces ability to think properly.

It may be irrelevant who is responsible for 9/11. How have we responded? The military build-up, the continued environmental devastation, the dominance of Christianity and related insanity, the literal attacks on science and rational thought.
By using your own criteria for analysing the official 9/11 story, it would be parsimonious to conclude that the people of the U.S.A. are being manipulated.

Why you let it happen is beyond me. Or are you letting it happen at all?

By the way, happy anniversary of the Florida decision."


That is the end of my post. In no way does this mean I think I know the truth. Based on the evidence, it is my opinion that the truth is not generally known. That is my main point. We don't know the truth. Neither does Michael Shermer, nor does his list prove a thing.

Tom Flanagan

To Tom Flanagan;


If you are the man who wished death upon another ( Julian Assange) then I hope you suffer in this life.

You are pathetic and you shame this country.


Tim Robinson, resident of Banff Alberta.



My first hate mail!

Asbestos mining in Canada.

I receive updates from the Prime Ministers office. Here is a recent link;

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=3842&featureId=6&pageId=26

"Construction of natural gas pipeline in Thetford Mines;

The Harper Government is committed to building and modernizing infrastructure to help create jobs and economic growth in Canada’s communities and regions.
To that end, the Harper Government will invest up to $18.1 million over two years toward the construction of a pipeline between Vallée-Jonction and Thetford Mines, Quebec. This investment will ensure a source of safe, inexpensive energy, thereby spurring the economic development of Thetford Mines and of the surrounding communities.
Construction of the pipeline will help diversify the municipal economy as well as help create jobs and economic growth by making local businesses more competitive, attracting investment and encouraging other businesses to set up shop in the region.
Gaz Métro, the leading natural gas distributor in Quebec, could spend $6.6 million on this project. The total cost is expected to be $24.7 million."

So my first reaction is to google Thetford Mines. Here is what Wikipedia says about the place;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetford_Mines

Thetford Mines has held the dubious distiction of being the worlds largest producer of Asbestos, until health concerns virtually shut the industry down.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/855643--quebec-offers-lifeline-to-a-deadly-industry

Then I find the tidbit above, which confirms that the PQ is supporting expansion of the industry again. This in total contrast to the fact that in Canada we have determined that in no way is Asbestos safe, and thus we don't use it anymore.

Apparently various levels of government in Canada think that although we have banned Asbestos use because it is very dangerous to human health, it's O.K. to keep mining it for export to developing nations.

How nice of us to be like that.

Harper is an ass. He is using our taxes to subsidise an industry that is proven to be dangerous. Did you notice that this infrastructure money is to the riding of his Minister of Natural Resources, Christian Paradis?

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/christian-paradis/

Yeah, that Chris Paradis. Blocking access to information, under investigation by the RCMP for receiving bribes, that Conservative hack Chris Paradis. Minister of Natural Resources from a small town in Quebec that is an environmental disaster. A man who apparently lacks ethics, and yet Harper is desperate to hold on to, so much so that he gives him another portfolio.

No wonder the Bloc is so popular in the rest of the province. If this is an example of how the Conservatives regard the people of Quebec, no wonder.

Climate change and free markets.

Here is my most recent posting on the skepticblog. It has been a fun challenge so far. The first quote is what I am replying to.

"‘Nuclear power as an alternative to burning coal would reduce carbon emissions, no?’


In a very strict sense, yes, it is understood that using uranium as fuel would not produce carbon.

The logic fail is that there are too many assumptions.

Extraction and refining of Uranium should also be carbon free and energy efficient. How do we ensure that? Non-market government regulations I suspect. The free markets guys will love that I am so sure.

Construction of new sites that are safe for the surrounding human population, natural systems, and secure from threats is not easy. Safe and efficient disposal of waste must also be accounted for. Making a mess with that stuff is orders of magnitude worse than the situation we have with carbon.

How does nuclear power reduce demand for energy? There is an assumption that if we build more nuclear power stations, that the hydrocarbon industry is just going to go away? It seems most likely that some may replace their old coal burners with nuclear, however it is just as likely that there will still be markets for hydrocarbons. I appreciate that this line of thought seriously challenges the paradigms of free market advocates, et al. It would be my assumption that this could be analysed within the context of cognitive dissonance theory:

‘My beliefs say that markets rule the day’
‘the market dictates supply and demand’
‘more supply of energy will reduce the demand for energy’

Snap crackle pop, goes the sound of logic fail.

Nature is not a Walmart world where ‘the more you spend the more you save’. More more more is the dogmatic mantra of the econo-cons that is so threatening to life on earth. If we get more energy from nuclear power, that also means we will run out of uranium sooner. Sure, investors in the mining industry will die rich, however those beautiful children of the future that some pretend to care about will be left in an even worse situation than we have today. That situation will be a world with many more people much more dependant upon massive consumption of energy to sustain itself. By looking at the current populations trends, that is not so far away.

The critics of ‘environmental scare mongering’ tend to gloss over what is parsimonious. We greens are the voice of reason. We like fresh air, clean water, safe neighbourhoods. Greens do not like being held hostage by the nuclear technocracy. We do not like being lied to by an industry that claims it is our only hope for a brighter and better tomorrow. We tend to be skeptical.

The world was just great before the human myths of progress and growth. More is not ‘better’. "

(this next bit was in reply to a kook on the thread who summoned a version of Godwins law on me.)

"Final question: How do we avoid a totalitarian/scientific dictatorship if we become increasingly dependant on nuclear power? Last time I checked, it requires a rather high quotient of scientists to make everything work. Nuclear energy is not a matter of public opinion. We don’t vote on stuff like that even in Pollyanna land."

My words.


I you want to gain a perspective on the state of the climate change debate, please follow the link I post below. By the way, this is a shameless plug for my opinion.

http://skepticblog.org/2010/11/16/throwing-cold-water-on-a-hot-topic/#comment-32348

Please read all of the thread, it is very useful for your own discussions on climate change. I will without shame admit that I was a bit pedantic at times. Please let me know what you think.

Yes, that's me posting as 'Tim'.

Thanks to the horde at Pharyngula for the advice on HTML. I will get the hang of it soon I hope.

PLEASE COMMENT ON MY BLOG! If you linked here from facebook, a comment there would be nice as well.