While I agree with you in principle, what guests who read these threads will see is brothers and sisters in Yeshua who are disagreeing agreeably. Think of it as a virtual Thanksgiving table with lots of opinion, but lots of love.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Thoughts regarding 9/11
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
I pity the boy who's parents name him Obadiah in this age...
ב"ה
As someone who studied Engineering at a competitive University, and who consumes media in a few different languages; I feel I've got most the bases covered on this and there's not a lot of assuming going on and I haven't seen a single new point in this discussion. I've already investigated this stuff and feel solid intellectually in my conclusions. I really don't want to have to spend the time typing all this online... to believers.
I'd rather we do biblical stuff where I can learn something from the digging if we have a disagreement.
Folks can have their pet theories; I really don''t want to put more time into this. I'm used to debating this kind of thing with non-believers or Russians where Michael Moore's movie was on every street corner. I don't want to get in the trenches on this issue with believers.
Also based on some of the history on this site; I don't think promoting conspiracy theories about 911 is constructive. If we were all in another country maybe; but maybe not on Thanksgiving among several Americans.
If this post annoyed anyone feel free to get it out of your system. I think both sides put their best feet forward: an article by 4 scientists and an article by Popular Mechanics / snopes. Let's discuss Bib. Family or bible stuff now...
@FollowingHim my bad if I hacked you off calling these theories "goofy". When I wrote that I didn't think anyone here would believe in these conspiracy theories. Now I know better.
I flew to NYC as soon as flights were resumed. Went on American Airlines, went as close to ground zero as possible, talked to folks, prayed with people, saw a horrible broadway show.
I just hope those remaining can avoid truisms like "all evidence points to" when clearly from the posts I shared from engineers shows the pro-conspiracy points are anything but uncontested within the engineering community. You don't have to agree, but there's clearly expert opinion on both sides so appeal to authority isn't gonna work here.
shalom... back to bible stuff now for me.
Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow Americans (and the same sentiment to foreigners)!
*************** EDIT *********************
I see a new thread was started...
In accordance with the new site rules as explained by @andrew as the thread OP (I started this firestorm accidentally with my "goofy" theories comment which should be the root of this new thread; I would like to close this thread as the thread op before people get serious angry/hurt).
Last edited:
Building 7 has always been claimed to be part of the attack, both in the media and in official documents. It is reported on officially by the NIST as part of their analysis of the incident, scroll to the bottom of this page to see links to the detailed reports they specifically wrote on this building. It has never been considered a controlled demolition - officially.
However since the evidence all points towards a controlled demolition, in particular the video of the collapse is a by-the-book example of perfect controlled implosion of a building to minimise damage to surrounding structures, people have been hypothesising that it was actually a controlled demolition for years. At some point I think this has filtered in to your thinking.
If this was a controlled demolition, the entire story is thrown wide open.
Wait, the Russians?
Now you've opened up another conspiracy lane!
Ha ha!
Shalom:cross:
You're right, I was confusing it with another building on 9/11. Wasn't there another building on Manhattan that was demolished that same day? Again, ancient history for me.
But to what purpose were any of the buildings destroyed intentionally? What's the need?
Just curious, but was tower 7 designed by the same architect?
@IshChayil, I'm not trying to drag you into further discussion if you're not interested. This comment is for other readers information, providing further background on the sources you have pointed people towards, feel free to ignore it if you see no value in the topic.
Snopes raises the straw-man claim that this was a peer-reviewed journal article in a different journal (which some people did mistakenly believe, but is irrelevant), then knocks down that straw man to show that it is simply a serious paper written by concerned scientists to prompt discussion. Which it always was. Snopes also points out that the authors have been talking about this stuff for years. Snopes twists that by predetermining that anyone with such views is a "conspiracy theorist", and all "conspiracy theorists" are wrong, therefore these people are wrong and have been wrong for many years - which is nonsensical circular reasoning. Again, it's a straw-man argument. All it really means is that these men have held very serious concerns for many years and these concerns have not been allayed but rather strengthened the more they look into it. Snopes is a politically biased preacher of their own authors opinions, disguised as a fact-checking website.
Anyway, it's not an issue I care to debate at great length, it's off topic for the forum. I am also very aware that the audience of this forum is strongly tilted towards American men, many who are ex-military, and who have lost close buddies fighting wars that were held partly in response to these events. There are thus extremely strong emotions involved in this issue, very understandably, and I am very keen not to go down that road too far. I am simply pointing out that there are serious scientific reasons to question elements of 9/11, I am not promoting any particular alternative explanation for the events and certainly not claiming it's all a big government conspiracy.
I just don't like to see very seriously held scientific concerns being dismissed off-hand as "goofy", and would prefer to consider such matters calmly and rationally.
That Popular Mechanics article (which was not peer reviewed either, Popular Mechanics just like Europhysics News is a magazine not a journal) was written years before the release of the official NIST reports, based on discussions with one of the people involved in writing those reports since they were not yet available. It can be considered a draft preview of the NIST conclusions. The article that I linked to, from last year, is much more up-to-date, as it takes the NIST conclusions and subjects them to critical mathematical analysis, finding serious flaws with them.
Snopes raises the straw-man claim that this was a peer-reviewed journal article in a different journal (which some people did mistakenly believe, but is irrelevant), then knocks down that straw man to show that it is simply a serious paper written by concerned scientists to prompt discussion. Which it always was. Snopes also points out that the authors have been talking about this stuff for years. Snopes twists that by predetermining that anyone with such views is a "conspiracy theorist", and all "conspiracy theorists" are wrong, therefore these people are wrong and have been wrong for many years - which is nonsensical circular reasoning. Again, it's a straw-man argument. All it really means is that these men have held very serious concerns for many years and these concerns have not been allayed but rather strengthened the more they look into it. Snopes is a politically biased preacher of their own authors opinions, disguised as a fact-checking website.
Anyway, it's not an issue I care to debate at great length, it's off topic for the forum. I am also very aware that the audience of this forum is strongly tilted towards American men, many who are ex-military, and who have lost close buddies fighting wars that were held partly in response to these events. There are thus extremely strong emotions involved in this issue, very understandably, and I am very keen not to go down that road too far. I am simply pointing out that there are serious scientific reasons to question elements of 9/11, I am not promoting any particular alternative explanation for the events and certainly not claiming it's all a big government conspiracy.
I just don't like to see very seriously held scientific concerns being dismissed off-hand as "goofy", and would prefer to consider such matters calmly and rationally.
Peer review is absolutely necessary when you put forth a counter-claim to the status.
I submitted the Popular Mechanics article because it's readable for non-specialists; better than intimidation with "these guys are scientists".
Yes, like I said I love the Brigham young guy, he's my favorite scientist (tongue in cheek).
If you're gonna put forward an article basically disavowed by the editors, where the 4 authors have ALL been members of conspiracy groups, then yeah, you need to peer review that. Especially if you wanna impose such evidence on non-specialists and particularly if you want other scientists to take your counter-claims seriously. You often say you are a scientist so I'm a bit surprised you would accept such a source as credible.
When I make linguistic arguments here I don't point people to Ugaritic-Hebrew Philological papers. Sure I could scare them into thinking I'm right just because a linguist wrote it doesn't make it right. However, if I'm challenging the currently accepted belief of something, then you bet your a** you need to back that up with peer reviewed credentials especially if your gonna bang on the whole "hey guys they are scientists" argument.
I find it a bit funny that while on the one hand we can trust government in it's reporting but on the other hand we can't trust government not to destroy thousands of our own citizens. But the government final report says .. but it says..
The 911 committee had their say as well. We could get into the gov't report but I'd first need you to concede the fishy-factor that the editors
of that article you promoted wanted to be so clear to point out how tainted it was with guess work and creativity.
Also I'd like a concession that it's a bit odd to have all 4 scientists as long term members of various conspiracy groups, ie. can we say "agenda driven" and then not to peer review the article. That's precisely why it needs peer review. If we are to trust their analysis of gov't data, and their presentaiton those serious questions need to be answered.
Why was it so important for these guys to believe conspiracies BEFORE they had any "new" data?
Why would you want to make that your primary source?
I really regret that I called the 911 conspiracies "goofy" and this firestorm got started.
Last edited:
Now that, I have no idea about. There we're getting into the realm of speculation. Various possible scenarios have been proposed, ranging from a big government conspiracy (the ruling class intended to go to war for their own reasons but needed an emotive reason to get people to enlist and pay for it), to simply private-sector insurance fraud (a very high value insurance policy having been purchased for the buildings soon before the incident), or that it really was Muslim terrorists - but they used more than just planes (only the planes are acknowledged in order to hide the involvement of other conspirators on the ground), and everything in-between. I don't intend to get into the purpose behind it - the possibilities are many.
My point was simply that people have serious scientific concerns, that are worth listening to. We should not dismiss such concerns by bringing in speculations over "why", dismissing those speculations, and then assuming the original scientific concerns have been dismissed also.
To put it another way: The baby's crying. You look in the room, see the dog wandering around, assume the dog stood on the baby and send the dog outside. Then Johnny comes to you and says "The baby is actually crying because Frank took away his toy, I can see his toy is now in Frank's room". And you respond "Frank has no reason to take a baby toy, Frank's 13, don't be daft, I can see no reason for Frank to do that, therefore it didn't happen - the dog did it and I'm sticking with that explanation". Johnny continues to pester you "but Dad, the evidence is clear, the toy was with the baby and now it's in Frank's room". And now Johnny is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist because he can't clearly explain why Frank would do that.
I don't see what relevance somebody's religion has to this particular discussion.
It wasn't peer reviewed because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed publication. None of the articles in that publication are subject to peer review. That's normal. However all articles (including this one) are reviewed by an expert editorial board prior to publication.
Because the "old" data is still sound and has not been adequately explained. This article does not speculate as to the reason for the towers destruction, it does not get into any conspiracy theory at all. It just discusses the data.
This is why I referred to it. Most discussions of 9/11 are agenda-driven, from one side or the other, and discuss the alleged reasons for the attack (either the accepted reason, or alternative potential reasons), either in order to bolster their own position or criticise the alternative position of others. This article ignores all that and just sticks to the physics, concluding simply that more investigation is needed. It is one of the calmest, most rational articles available on the topic.
But the editors of the article you shared said it's "speculative"... so we are already in the rhealm of speculation.
It doesn't but if we're gonna bang their chest and say "HE's a scientist!" we are entitled to know where he was educated.
I thought Brigham Young was cute. Not his religion, his funny alma mater
That site does feature peer reviewed articles. This one was so dastardly speculative that the editors warned us. Obviously some lefty board member pushing his agenda
sure it was, just not if someone is bent on conspiracy like the 4 authors of your article ... all long time members of conspiracy clans (chose the wording for alliteration. Is it alliteration or consonation I always get those mixed up).
Right which is why if we are gonna oppose the status quo position of the 911 committe, the WTC chief architect's opinion, etc., we need peer reviewed stuff. Not stuff from guys with a CLEAR agenda as longtime conspiracy buffs. That's why the snopes report was so useful as it exposes this kind of agenda driven reporting.
I could add more detail to fix my parable @Mojo, but I think you get my point! 
@IshChayil, I'm very familiar with the peer review process. It's not all its cracked up to be. It certainly has value in ensuring that studies with no merit don't get published. However, it also has the problem of maintaining the status quo - Copernicus could never have published in a peer-reviewed journal as his peers wouldn't have approved his views on the earth and sun. And it can still let really bad studies be published if the 2 peer reviewers just happen to miss something critical, it's not flawless. So there is a place for both peer-reviewed publications, and publications where the authors have the freedom to present their perspective unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by peer review. Both are important and have their place. It is not appropriate to dismiss something just because it was not peer reviewed. There are many peripheral reasons that can be used to dismiss something - peer review, religious affiliation, conspiracy theories, you name it. Snopes is a master at smearing people for such peripheral reasons.
Ultimately it is the content that matters, not these distractions. There are scientific reasons to be concerned that there may be more here than is officially acknowledged. That is all I am saying.
@IshChayil, I'm very familiar with the peer review process. It's not all its cracked up to be. It certainly has value in ensuring that studies with no merit don't get published. However, it also has the problem of maintaining the status quo - Copernicus could never have published in a peer-reviewed journal as his peers wouldn't have approved his views on the earth and sun. And it can still let really bad studies be published if the 2 peer reviewers just happen to miss something critical, it's not flawless. So there is a place for both peer-reviewed publications, and publications where the authors have the freedom to present their perspective unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by peer review. Both are important and have their place. It is not appropriate to dismiss something just because it was not peer reviewed. There are many peripheral reasons that can be used to dismiss something - peer review, religious affiliation, conspiracy theories, you name it. Snopes is a master at smearing people for such peripheral reasons.
Ultimately it is the content that matters, not these distractions. There are scientific reasons to be concerned that there may be more here than is officially acknowledged. That is all I am saying.
I could add more detail to fix my parable @Mojo, but I think you get my point!
I see your point, but my point is that sometimes the most obvious explanation is usually a good one, even if it isn't exactly as we assumed...the dog was still the culprit
Peace my brothers!
mazel tov
To compare the peer review process in the age of Copernicus is at best completely misleading and at worst something else. When the evidence is there, it can pass.
There are even Intelligent design papers which have passed peer review due to the very rigor of their process. If those guys can get their papers through peer review, there's a lot more sympathy among atheists (i.e. much of the scientific community) for 911 conspiracies than there is for a G-d designing things.
You complain of the burden of peer review as making it hard to overturn the status quo but I say that the status quo SHOULD be hard to overturn. It SHOULD be hard to say "hey this was an inside job" without a heavy burden of evidence.
You can't bang your chest "I'm a scientist" and I believe in the method, etc. in one breath and then say "well the method doesn't really work" in the other when it doesn't suit your cause.
The peer review process helps ensure that agenda-driven people like the 4 who wrote the analysis in your article, don't get taken seriously.
All 4 guys, long term conspiracy club members, the peer review process is a way for them to put their money where their collective, highly educated Brigham Young scientific mouths are.
You can say snopes smears but you haven't refuted the conspiracy theory organizations all 4 of your authors are listed in. The process is a way to remove the stench of their association, hopes, and aspirations that the 911 conspiracies could some day be true. We can pretend that everyone is a super scientist or a super journalist and their personal hopes / aspirations / conspiracy hobbies won't influence their judgement but they do.
No posturing gets us past the embarrassing statement by the editors of the very journal your article was published in...the editors call the work you shared speculative and not meeting the normal scientific standards they have there. Not even talking peer review issue; the editors just want to flee from that article. This speaks volumes.
The continued 911 conspiracy theory mongering here *******
Why on Earth would a moderator wish to push such a hot button and painful topic which the op requested to close?
Maybe you don't get how personal this can be for Americans because nobody really hates New Zealanders (other than maybe the natives? I'm not sure on that one just guessing)
I get it. You're not an American so probably you don't understand the pain these crackpot 911 theories cause families who endured it and on soldiers who fought as a result of it. I also understand how countries which don't do a lot to influence the world can get caught up in conspiracies about America.
I've lived in enough places and seen the envy develop.
I know that's not you.
So unless you have something more than half-baked articles by a group of hobby conspiracy theorists, why don't we just let this one go.
Do we really want "911 conspiracy" searches on google to be what brings people to Biblical Families forums? I sure don't.
All things may be permisssible but they aren't all profitable...
May G-d bless America and save us from divisive conspiracy theories; may the Islamo-fascists be filled with shame and their plans brought to null affect, and may we win the culture war ravaging the nation as the Satan tries to divide us. May we be again a light to the world as we have been for centuries.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Last edited:
Conspiracies are a fact of life. And the Bible contains a record of at least 90 conspiracies. Anyone who allows themselves to be manipulated into action, or inaction, based on a "conspiracy theorist" label loosely thrown around needs to grow a backbone.
Here people can choose to participate, or ignore a conversation, if they deem it unprofitable, but to try and shut down a thread for everyone, just because you don't like it, or don't want it to happen without you (I can only guess what motivates another) seems like bad form to me. If you started a conversation in a room full of people, you have no right to tell them they cannot continue to talk about it without you, or that they must stop because you want to leave. As I read this thread FollowingHim is the original poster, and it is hardly an "abuse of power" to discuss something, even if another member brought it up.
Read the synonyms for debatable, hot, and controversial are two. The more significant the issue, the more emotive responses tend to be. This doesn't mean the issue should be burried, or avoided, it only means people need to be honest, and fair in their treatment of others, other's opinions and perspectives, and especially facts.
Building seven has never been explained, and if it was a planned demolition, the media, and authorities should have set the record straight then. It has from the beginning been linked to the twin towers falling, though that explanation is not plausible.
Without honesty on this one aspect of 911, why would anyone just accept the official story?
Governments, and politicians always have an agenda, and you can bet it is self serving. They lie all the time, and their number one priority is re-election, or if they are ineligible, getting as much out of their time in office as possible. In the case of shady deals, they will do just about anything to cover their own backsides.
The only thing sadder then that truth, is people who want to mock others for believing it.
Prove ALL things and hold fast to that which is good. Still outstanding advice.
Here people can choose to participate, or ignore a conversation, if they deem it unprofitable, but to try and shut down a thread for everyone, just because you don't like it, or don't want it to happen without you (I can only guess what motivates another) seems like bad form to me. If you started a conversation in a room full of people, you have no right to tell them they cannot continue to talk about it without you, or that they must stop because you want to leave. As I read this thread FollowingHim is the original poster, and it is hardly an "abuse of power" to discuss something, even if another member brought it up.
Read the synonyms for debatable, hot, and controversial are two. The more significant the issue, the more emotive responses tend to be. This doesn't mean the issue should be burried, or avoided, it only means people need to be honest, and fair in their treatment of others, other's opinions and perspectives, and especially facts.
Building seven has never been explained, and if it was a planned demolition, the media, and authorities should have set the record straight then. It has from the beginning been linked to the twin towers falling, though that explanation is not plausible.
Without honesty on this one aspect of 911, why would anyone just accept the official story?
Governments, and politicians always have an agenda, and you can bet it is self serving. They lie all the time, and their number one priority is re-election, or if they are ineligible, getting as much out of their time in office as possible. In the case of shady deals, they will do just about anything to cover their own backsides.
The only thing sadder then that truth, is people who want to mock others for believing it.
Prove ALL things and hold fast to that which is good. Still outstanding advice.
Last edited:
I totally believe that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by a mastermind.
The mastermind is the enemy of our souls. He may or may not have used elements of our government in his carrying it out, but they were his dupes, they weren’t the originators. He is attempting to bring one world government prior to the Millennium and YHWH’s one world government. He is the grand manipulator.
The mastermind is the enemy of our souls. He may or may not have used elements of our government in his carrying it out, but they were his dupes, they weren’t the originators. He is attempting to bring one world government prior to the Millennium and YHWH’s one world government. He is the grand manipulator.
Arguments about things we encounter in the current environment of Internet, cable and broadcast media tend to overlook the mechanisms by which the underlying communication technologies themselves undermine social structure in ways that make conflict and mistrust virtually inevitable.
The story here for me is not that there's discussion about what happened (whether the topic is the 9/11 attacks or anything else) but that we're occupying realities that appear to not even overlap and we don't understand how that came about.
We can't see eye-to-eye when we're not even standing in the same place.
A fellow did cover this pretty well, however, and I think pointing to his book — No Sense of Place — may still be the best I can do here.
The story here for me is not that there's discussion about what happened (whether the topic is the 9/11 attacks or anything else) but that we're occupying realities that appear to not even overlap and we don't understand how that came about.
We can't see eye-to-eye when we're not even standing in the same place.
A fellow did cover this pretty well, however, and I think pointing to his book — No Sense of Place — may still be the best I can do here.
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly agree that electronic media has engendered a sort of "soullessness" in its participants. I was watching a news clip of a college football rivalry event. Rather than just participating in the event, countless students were holding phones and recording the event while looking through the screen....soulless and virtual is the only reality these college kids have grown up with.
But, I disagree that there is no overlap in this issue. There is. I don't believe any of us here believe that our government, or other powers are pure and innocent. I believe we all agree that conspiracies do happen, and we are often victims in the ploys of those more powerful than us. It would be foolish for us not to believe that. Just ask the men subjected to the Tuskegee medical experiments to know how pawns are used. Every 4 years, we are pawns to the electoral system...yuck!
But, just because I don't willingly trust my government to be competent in most things, and benevolent in others, nobody has given me a credible reason why this whole event needed to be staged!
It would really prove major incompetence to plant demolition charges in a building, have thousands watch it in plain sight, and hundreds of millions on recordings, when you could get any random radical Muslim to drive a truck bomb up to the location. Better yet, go to the basement and load it up with TNT! There was already a lot of damage, who cares if the surrounding buildings were damaged?
Where are the men who planted the charges? None of them have come forward? Oh wait, the forces of evil killed them off as part of the plot?
Again, to what end would this be done?
The theorists in this matter begin with the assumption that dark forces within our own country conspired to make this happen, then work backwards to fill in fanciful reasons why. Unless a person is just plain bat**** crazy, most criminals have a...motive. What reasonable motive existed to plant demolition charges?
Again, I may be naive, but I think that once a person begins to ascribe each and every major event up to machinations of dark, governmental forces for manipulation is when that person begins to allow themselves to be subject to the defeatist mindset of "see, I can't get ahead, cuz the Man is out to get me...its out to get us all."
I agree with Steve that if any power is responsible, it is spirit antichrist using any and all means to accomplish the deeds of the evil one.