theoretical evidence against?

Talk9/11 Truth

Join LibraryThing to post.

theoretical evidence against?

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

Nov 25, 2006, 12:54 pm

Hi folks,

I am have been reading about critical thinking and the philosophy of science lately and I wonder if you could answer the following question for me;

What theoretical evidence might you imagine, which could possibly be produced, which would persuade you that there is no conspiracy. I am not asking you to give up your views and I am not planning on springing any fancy new evidence but I am genuinely interested in your answers to this question.

To give you an example of what I mean - I view evolution as being a valid theory but I can give you a list of things which if they were found would persuade me it was false. For instance evidence that DNA does not impact on development.

I repeat I am not disputing or challenging your opinions. I am asking you to do a thought experiment for me and think about what possible, theoretical future evidence might be found that would persuade you that there is no conspiracy - anything at all.

I realise this is a strange sounding question - please let me know if you have any questions.


2worldsend31 First Message
Dec 28, 2006, 8:30 pm

For one thing, the full video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. We've seen about seven seconds of a white smoke approaching the building and then exploding. That's hardly evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Dec 28, 2006, 9:24 pm

At this point, it's hard for me to imagine any kind of evidence - physical, testimonial or otherwise - that could possibly overcome five years (and counting) of lies, avoidance, arrogance, and the self-interested twisting of the facts.

What could possibly be presented, this late in the game, that could not easily have been fabricated?

Dec 30, 2006, 9:10 am

Worldsend31 said "For one thing the video . . ."

Hi there and thanks for your answer. Unfortunately this wasn't what I was asking for - sorry for not making it clearer. What I am asking is - can you imagine some evidence which when discovered would prove to you that this isn't a conspiracy?


Dec 30, 2006, 9:11 am

Godwulf said;

"At this point, it's hard for me to imagine any kind of evidence - physical, testimonial or otherwise - that could possibly overcome five years (and counting) of lies, avoidance, arrogance, and the self-interested twisting of the facts.

What could possibly be presented, this late in the game, that could not easily have been fabricated?"

So are you inferring that there is nothing which would or could change your mind at all?


Dec 30, 2006, 8:02 pm

First, let's be clear about something. There WAS a conspiracy - no one denies it. It involved Osama bin Laden, no doubt some of his top deputies, and at least the hijackers themselves.

The controversy is not about whether a conspiracy exists...but about who was and was not involved.

Are you asking, then, what would prove to me that no AMERICAN, and no one outside of bin Laden's inner circle, was involved in the (very real) conspiracy?

7ghenricks First Message
Dec 30, 2006, 8:56 pm

Thanks for your question. I'd be curious what you might say in response to your own, assuming you have done your due diligence on many unanswered questions regarding what happened on 9/11.

To echo post 6, whatever theory you support regarding 9/11, it was a conspiracy, so re: that question of conspiracy, no - there is no evidence that could be adduced that could persuade me it was not a conspiracy. But I suspect you meant whether it was a conspiracy by insiders in our own government.

A good theory is one that accounts for all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none. It is also falsifiable. An "outrageous conspiracy theory" is one that is contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.

To echo godwulf, I have studied 9/11 for the last three years - all the publicly available evidence and the best research, and not just the pre-selected evidence that the 9/11 Commission adduces to support the official theory.

What dawns on me after studying this for so long is that insiders MUST have enabled 9/11 to happen. The voluminous and cumulative evidence-physical, videographic, testimonial; and the fact that the 9/11 Commission lied about, omitted and distorted much of the evidence--strongly supports this conclusion while consistently contradicting the official theory.

Also, the supporters of the official theory have not been willing or able to falsify some of the best alternative theories regarding the various aspects of 9/11. For example, I think there has been no one that has come forward to seriously address all of the 11 or so claims for controlled demolition set forth by physicist Steven Jones. So, at this point no, there is no evidence that could possibly be adduced that would contradict my view that this was a conspiracy that included insiders in our government. Theres such a preponderance of evidence that supports the alternative theory.

The problem with your question is that the accumulated evidence for insider involvement is so large that no one particular piece of evidence contradicting the alternative theory can render the general theory false. For example, if the bleedin' government decided to release all video records they confiscated of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, and it turned out that indeed it was Flight 77, a Boeing 757, still leaves unaddressed the facts that the hijacked plane was allowed to fly for over an hour without being intercepted, that it was even allowed to approach the Pentagon, and that it was expertly piloted by an unexpert - by all accounts - hijacker into the least populated, least strategically critical part of the Pentagon.

Dec 31, 2006, 6:06 am

Thanks Godwulf that's a great suggestion and clarifies the position for me. There are of course a large number of widely differing 9/11 conspiracy theories out there so it helps to know which one we are talking about.

Can you imagine any form of evidence which would prove to you that no Americans were involved?

Dec 31, 2006, 6:20 am

Thanks also to ghenricks;

You said;

"A good theory is one that accounts for all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none. It is also falsifiable. An "outrageous conspiracy theory" is one that is contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts."

Yes I agree -I am looking at this issue with a background of reading about and an interest in belief systems. If whatever theory we talk about is not falsifiable then it becomes a closed belief system - like a religion I suppose.

Falsifiability is vital for logical thought and discussion IMO.

Your position is clearly that it could be falsified but that you view the evidence so far as coming down on the side of a conspiracy.

My problem with this is a general one that I have come across in many other fields. To try to summarise it goes something like this;

There are some anomalies here, some people dispute the possible explanations for them but they are there - there must be a conspiracy.

I have read down to earth, run of the mill, boring, unexciting and uninteresting explanations for all the anomalies you list. Neither of us can prove our opinion of these is correct.

I suppose I am simply saying that when confronted with anomalies I tend to favour prosaic explanations not IMO complicated conspiracy theories.

If you look at the history of conspiracy theories i.e. JFK and also Lincoln we see a very similar pattern in terms of what kinds of evidence are held to support what kinds of conclusions.

Without trying to insult - honestly I am not - ghost hunters point to EM readings in houses as proof that "somethings happening" but make no attempt to rule out more prosaic possible causes.

Alien abduction theories link into UFO conspiracy theories with many of the same kinds of leap from anomoly to conspiracy.

I am reading Demon Haunted World at the moment and it would appear that many of the issues covered in there may apply to some of the aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy "movement".

I am genuinely interested in how you view this. Has anyone read this book. How, if at all do you feel it applies here?

I do of course respect your right to your opinions and don't wish to belittle them by disagreeing - I just disagree.



Jan 1, 2007, 9:44 pm

"Can you imagine any form of evidence which would prove to you that no Americans were involved?"

No, I can't. It's not a matter of being cynical and/or pig-headed, either...I just cannot imagine what the "evidence" could conceivably consist of.

Jan 2, 2007, 8:40 am

Ok - I think I see an issue here for us both to ponder - it is usually accepted that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something e.g. God or the Celestial Teapot etc. etc.

The 7/7 bombings were carried out by Brits - from just down the road from where I live actually - so what exactly do you mean by Americans - I am assuming you mean some part of the establishment or law/security agencies - but is my assumption wrong?

Anyway to turn it around what is your "best evidence" that American's were involved?



Jan 5, 2007, 9:18 am

Much of the technical/scientific "evidence" is, quite frankly, outside of my realm of personal knowledge or expertise; the videos that I've seen seem pretty convincing - to me - when they present "evidence" of explosive charges in the Towers, for instance...but then you have folks who ARE experts coming 'round with alternative explanations that seem just as plausible to a non-expert like me, so at the end of the day it's mainly a matter, I suppose, of which expert one WANTS to believe.

Best evidence? For me, it lies less in the realm of missing surveillance video, uncanny coincidences and official lies and obfuscation, than in the PNAC/neocon writings made long before 9-11, where reference is made to the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". George W. Bush has never made any secret of his determination - expressed long before he took office - to be "a war-time President", and the events of 9-11 were tailor-made both for that end, and for the fulfillment of the PNAC's larger, long-term agenda.

Jan 6, 2007, 2:10 am

This member has been suspended from the site.

Edited: Jan 6, 2007, 5:21 am

>1 psiloiordinary: Try rephrasing the question:

Without certain improper acts of commission or omission by some Americans, the hijackers' conspiracy would have had much less chance, perhaps even no chance, of succeeding. It is asked, "Were any of those acts done in the knowledge that the conspiracy existed, with the aim of furthering its success?" Now, what sort of evidence would you require to make your answer negative?

Jan 7, 2007, 5:25 pm

To try to shed light on that I would like to mention another conspiracy theory. UFO's - Roswell in particular.

Despite the fact it is well documented as a weather balloon adapted to act as an early spy plane to help detect Russian nuclear test blasts it is still held up as proof of UFO's in part because there was of course an actual cover up i.e. the US government didn't want the Russian's knowing what it was.

Now these conspiracy theorists actually had some direct evidence of a cover up - docs I think - with a proper history and provenance - not just things that don't look right.

With the video - ask yourself - what should it look like when a plane hits of those towers - I think that we have to be honest and say we don't know what it should look like - so claiming its not what we expect is not really saying much after all.

The old joke about it looking like the sun went round the earth - and the question - well what would it look like if the earth went round the sun? springs to mind.

Are there simple and straightforward explanations for the various anomalies - and yes I think you can compare experts yourself - look into their qualifications and experience read debates and responses between them. I think it was the BBC web site for the Horizon programme who have the guy who designed and built the towers explaining how they went down.

If the main answer to him and his testimony is - he must be in on it - then I feel you start to leave reality behind.

Fogies states that in many respects the terrorists were lucky not to be stopped by any of many possible acts which the various services failed to do. To use this as an argument we really have to look at how often cock ups like this happen all the time but don't get remarked upon.

If they never have happened before or since then the odds of it being a coincidence do reduce, but without that data then we cannot use this as evidence in favour or against - it is an unknown.

Wow what are the odds of me winning the lottery? - 13 mill to 1? - but somebody wins every week.

How about I ask folks to describe their strongest single piece of evidence supporting a govt type conspiracy and we can bat that around?



Jan 12, 2007, 11:42 pm

I think it's sad when someone like oakesspalding devalues the conversation by injecting the false Left/ Right paradigm into it. Read Machievelli and you will begin to understand the need for enemies of all ilk and how it plays into leadership of humans. It's not conservatives vs. liberals or left vs. right or Hannity vs. Olbermann (but keith would whoop his butt for sure :-). Frankly, it's us vs. them and the "them" isn't a terrorist or a Muslim or someone who is brown or whatever other boogiemen you feel the need to generate to scare yourself. The fight, quite simply, is Patriots vs. Traitors. There are men in power today that wish to see the dissolution of the Constitution. The New World Order isn't a grand ideal any longer it's the successful resolution of this nightmare we are living in today. W has gone so far as to suggest a North American Union that would dissolve our borders with Mexico and Canada and that would require the dissolution of the Constitution for sure.

To clarify my opening point above, since it wasn't accepted, by inference, I was saying that seeing the actual video from any of the cameras that were pointed at the Pentagon on that fateful day showing a giant plane slamming into that building would sure be a nice start. Here we have the most secure building in Washington and we get 7 frames of crappy video showing some white smoke? Hardly worthwhile.

I'd also like full explanations of all the coincidences that surround 911 including Marvin Bush and his sweet gig at the WTC security and airports involved, Cheney's taking control of NORAD that day specifically for no apparent reason (and that's in writing folks), Cheney's "orders" that "still stood" as the plane "approached" Washington while he watched from a command bunker and maybe, just maybe, a nice neat explanation for the molten metals in the basement when the fires where 100 stories up and when everyone said they weren't hot enough to melt steel.

So many questions and they all have such simple answers if you really allow yourself to answer them.

Jan 13, 2007, 8:33 am

Worldsend31 said "I think it's sad when someone like oakesspalding devalues the conversation by injecting the false Left/ Right paradigm into it."

Yes I agree - his review of the god delusion is quite sad/funny in the same kind of way. I comment on it in my own review of that book.

Lets get back to the topic at hand then.

Why not get down to your best bit of evidence - is it the film? is it one of the other things? - please let me know because I would like to do some digging of my own but would like a clearly agreed first item for discussion if that's ok.

I am doing this simply because I am interested - hopefully if you follow my own views on the evidence you point me to we can learn from each other.



Edited: Mar 6, 2007, 3:25 am

This member has been suspended from the site.

Edited: Mar 6, 2007, 3:53 am

Hi Oakes,

Off topic;

Yes the compliment was intended.

I am well aware that I am biased, I am not a believer or attracted to a particular faith.

I recently met with a political supporter of Bush (I'm from the UK) and was astounded by just how little he understood of the feeling in the UK about W's policies and the US foreign adventures in recent years. There were four of us from widely different political shades so this wasn't just me.

I know we are separated by a common language and all that but he really had no idea and when we made remarks he really didn't have a clue as to why anyone would possibly think that. In fact he struggled to get what we were saying it was so far off his radar.

Your review seemed to be partly a product of this kind of environment (yes of course mine are as well).

Wouldn't the garden be boring if all the flowers were the same colour?

Keep on honing - I know I need to.



On topic;

No response to a line of evidence to examine.

Conspiracy Files TV programme shown here in the UK a couple of weeks ago which debunked many of the common things I have heard.

Trying to keep open minded and looking for a discussion around a line of evidence anyone would care to bring up.



20slpeterson First Message
Edited: Dec 4, 2007, 4:21 pm

When I look at how the towers came down, it is obvious to me that explosives are being used. However, I'm no expert, and I don't really rely on the physical evidence of this or the other crashes to hold my position on 9/11, so it's hard to think of evidence that could get me to change my position. Unlike some, I do believe that a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

I thought hard about this question and sincerely tried to imagine some scenarios that would shake my position on 9/11.

Scenario 1: Several key members of the Project for a New American Century and/or the Bush cabinet, or high-up employees in Richard Cheney's office, turn out to be plants or spies working on behalf of a Muslim nation or terrorist group. For them to describe the plan of a "catalyzing Pearl Harbor event" followed by war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria and then for it to happen as scripted within a few years is like Nostradamus. Also, I've known people in the military, and I know that the build-up to Afghanistan was taking place before 9/11.

Scenario 2: Bush, Cheney, or any of the Neocon cheerleaders are killed or injured in a terrorist attack. (will never happen)

I don't know, I'm really reaching here. Anyway, I find the speculative stuff about physics and planes and demolitions will start a lot of arguments but looking at the big picture is enough evidence for me. Even Michael Moore, far from "conspiracy theory," reveals in his movie that Al Queda was a CIA creation, that the Bushes and the Bin Ladens have been intermarried in business together for a long time (Carlysle Group, James Bath, probably Arbusto too), that the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country after 9/11 while air-space was locked down. Other intelligence agencies knew, and were warning us hand over fist. Mossad warned their citizens beforehand, at least one Israeli company picked up stakes and left prior to the attack.

The Bushes and the Bin Ladens are billionaire business partners, oil tycoons, war profiteers, they have much more in common with each other than either of them does to their own population.

The strongest evidence in Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert is the documentation which describes the powers and authority given to the office of the Vice President earlier in 2001. His office had the authority to coordinate the multiple "plane hijack wargames" (5 or more) happening at NORAD concurrent to the actual hijacking. Also, earlier that year he was granted the authority to coordinate the FEMA bio-terror drill set up the night before in New York, which became Guiliani's and the 9/11 response team's command post, which was handy as his command post in WTC7 collapsed later that day after he had evacuated. Cheney's office also apparently was given the authority (previously standard operating procedure) to authorize plane intercepts in the event of a hijacking or unidentified plane. If I was convinced that this documentation was falsified, I would no longer point the finger directly at Cheney.

I bring up this evidence to show you that I'm not looking for a less grainy clip of the pentagon blast or anything like that.

The difference between "normal" people and "conspiracy theorists" is that the latter don't trust the authorities coming out the gate. It is a bias, but so then is the bias to trust authority to be honest and investigate itself thoroughly. Of course there is a large part of the "conspiracy" movement that is pure groupthink, driven by fear. I became wary when all of a sudden all this 9/11 research and questions became something called the "9/11 truth movement," because a movement implies centralization and organization, and movements are generally led right off a cliff (look at anti-war groups in the 60s and how they were infiltrated and thwarted).

That being said, a good portion of the people I know who talk about this kind of stuff are quite intelligent and well-read. They have studied propaganda techniques and recognize them. They understand how consensus reality works and how the credibility and image of "expert" is controlled largely by jobs and titles that can be stripped under social/political pressure, and how the media regards them, and take that into consideration. They know how military and intelligence agencies do their dirty work, especially ours, by studying the historical record and declassified internal documentation. There is an MO that you start to recognize after studying it for a while. They know how counterintelligence works, that you infiltrate or start up the big groups on the other side, fund the most popular films/books/websites/conspiracy theories into existence, fill them with the truth that is going to come out anyway, but combined with enough nonsense to make most people discredit the whole thing. Then, on the other side, you coordinate the debunking campaign that picks up on the most speculative (and sometimes ridiculous) claims and tears them apart by consensus reality experts. Sophisticated knowledge of group psychology.

There is also a history of the Bushes and their allies that has dominated the last 50+ years of American and European politics. Those who have followed this history and have followed the Bushes might not find the idea of 9/11 complicity quite as hard to swallow.

All the people screaming how the media duped them and lied about the war, I'm really of two minds about them. On one hand, I agree that it isn't right. On the other hand, it is public knowledge that most broadcast television is owned by defense contractors (General Electric, Westinghouse, etc) who make obscene profits when the bombs drop. Most people now feel the media was complicit on the buildup to the war, which has killed over 100 times more people than 9/11. Why do we think we can trust them on anything else? And shame on us for expecting them to just tell us the whole truth about everything. That is part of our guilt in this whole thing.

Edited: Dec 6, 2007, 2:07 pm

I forgot to add, my girlfriend and her father both remember a clip from TV news at the time of the assault where bin Laden and Al-Queda were cornered in Tora Bora. A sniper had bin Laden in his sights and was told to stand down, not to take the shot.

If you examine the news from that day, the military forces left an escape route for the VIPs. While the Al-Queda foot soldiers were massacred, the leaders of Al-Queda and the Taliban fled through a route that the coalition did not defend. Clearly the elite of Taliban and Al-Queda are very special people.

Dec 6, 2007, 2:33 am

This member has been suspended from the site.

Dec 6, 2007, 2:36 am

This member has been suspended from the site.

Edited: Dec 6, 2007, 2:18 pm

The only reference I have to the sniper's statement is the memory of my girlfriend and her father, which is good enough for me personally but I understand if it wouldn't be for you. It certainly fits in with everything else I know.

I know there is a bunch of literature on the web about the battle in Tora Bora (both "conspiracy" media and non-). It is not a secret. I watched a show on PBS about it a few nights ago which confirms some of what I said but doesn't cast it in as nefarious a light.. it was just bad planning of course that there was an easy escape route, a British military guy said when he saw the plan after the fact he was just taken aback by the fact that they heavily defended all the escape routes through the mountains but one (OOPS) -- which of course is the one route that Taliban and Al-Queda leaders, bin Laden, etc, were "lucky" enough to pick and get away to their (our) buddies in Pakistan.

The worst job is to be anybody's foot soldier, especially if you've been duped to die for the benefit of great men, to serve a cause those same great men don't actually even believe themselves. This is the same whether it's bin Laden or the USMC recruiter at Wal*Mart. As for myself, the closer I get to age 30, the less appealing 72 virgins sounds to me. Two or three would be more than enough to keep me busy on all fronts.

Edited: Dec 6, 2007, 11:55 am

Here's a couple mainstream links (CS Monitor, UK Guardian) to the official "Keystone Kops" version of the battle of Tora Bora.


Remember that this is the same guy who was visited in a Dubai hospital before the fact by the CIA. He always seems to walk away unscathed.

* (this link has a wealth of "coincidences" between AQ, CIA, and Unocal/oil barons)

This Dubai story has been bunked, debunked, and rebunked more times than I can count, so you really have to make up your own mind on this one. It comes from a legit news source in France, that much is true.

Join to post