Teh Official Alternative 9/11 "Theory"

[stilicho]

Hi All:

I am really starting to lose track of the cohesion of the "alternative theory" to the "official theory". Just recently, I finally found the original critique of the FEMA "interference" in the FDNY investigation, written by an authority in the fire prevention business, where one line explains that they felt hindered by the removal of steel and debris from the scene. But the context is very different from the way I've seen the quote employed in "alternative theory" sites. The whole story is about collapsing floors, smoke-filled stairways, bending floor components, and radios not working. There isn't even the faintest implication that the debris removal was part of some sort of diabolical plan. It's simply that the many many agencies involved in cleaning up the aftermath of 9/11 weren't really working together.

Given that (and other things I've replied to here in my own way) what is the "official alternative theory"?

Did planes hit the towers?

Does Al-Qaeda exist?

Was there a "bumble plane"?

Did Flight 93 land in Cleveland?

Was the whole scenario engineered by Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, George Tenet, or William Kristol?

What are thermate "cutting charges" exactly?

Why is "Buzzy" Krongard more likely a conspirator in killing his fellow Americans than this guy?:

William R. Howell
Age: 71
Chairman Emeritus of J. C. Penney Company Inc., a major retailer, since 1997. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of J. C. Penney Company from 1983 to 1997. Director of American Electric Power Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Halliburton Company and The Williams Companies, Inc. He is also a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, the non-public wholly-owned subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank A.G. Our Director since June 2000. Chairman of our Audit Committee.

http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/mn_investors_corporate_board.jsp

I mean, look at him: pharmaceutical company executive (killing Americans with Viagra); Halliburton (just plain evil); Exxon Mobil (blood for oil-blah blah blah); Deutsche Bank--same place as "Buzzy" but he's still there plotting away to murder Americans.

Those are just examples. Is there a single solitary "alternative theory" that has ever been presented (pdf format would be fine) that answers every contradiction between my version of reality and that of the "alternatives"? I've read Mike Ruppert's book but I feel that most of the latest "alternative theorists" don't really buy it. Why is that? His is the most complete so far.

Carry on.

[R.Mackey]

No, there is not.

Example, as I slowly nibble away at the indigestible monolith that is David Ray Griffin's latest book, is his "succinct" Controlled Demolitions theory, where he says the Towers were leveled by explosives... but then says this:

I am using the term “explosives” very broadly to refer not only to explosives in the technical sense, such as RDX, but also to incendiary mixtures, such as thermite and thermate, and any other substances or devices that can be used to produce explosions.

Add that to the fact that half of the "Truth Movement" thinks he's a government agent, and you have the makings of a horrifically combinatorically complex theory.

[stilicho]

Why don't they just stick with Ruppert then? I mean, the guy is batshitinsane and all, and his sources are relentlessly unreliable, but he actually does have a "full theory".

Latest I've seen, too, is that Hufschmid is "out" because he's a Nazi and a moon-landing-hoax nut.

Who else have the "twoofers" generally counted out? (Sorry: Might seem redundant, but I still deal with people who are vaguely aware of the Gore Vidal stuff and perhaps saw something-or-other on YouTube).

[jhunter1163]

If you come up with one, Stilicho, you'll instantly be catapulted to the top rank of Twoofers. Even if it's debunked, there'll no doubt be people willing to believe you. I've come to the conclusion that there is a fair percentage of the population in America that hates Bush so much that they'll believe ANYTHING that makes him look bad.

So go for it. Your destiny awaits.

[Dave Rogers]

Since every leading member of the truth movement has at some time been accused of being a government disinformation agent by another leading member of the truth movement, how could there possibly be a single "official" theory?

Dave

[DGM]

The single theory scheme would not work in todays market.
Todays consumer wants variety. It would be like having only one type of pizza.

Unless of course you want to go with the "real cause" idea then it would be good.

[stilicho]

If you come up with one, Stilicho, you'll instantly be catapulted to the top rank of Twoofers. Even if it's debunked, there'll no doubt be people willing to believe you. I've come to the conclusion that there is a fair percentage of the population in America that hates Bush so much that they'll believe ANYTHING that makes him look bad.

So go for it. Your destiny awaits.

I was actually thinking of writing one that pinned the whole thing on that William R Howell fellow I posted above. Adding the completeness of pharmaceutical companies and JC Penney would simply be icing on the cake.

I need a Bertrand Russell type to help me write it, though.

[MaGZ]

I think the "official" alternative theory to 9/11 is going to be whatever those two guys at Loose Change put in there Final Cut movie. A movie will have a lasting effect over any book written on 9/11.

[slyjoe]

I think the "official" alternative theory to 9/11 is going to be whatever those two guys at Loose Change put in there Final Cut movie. A movie will have a lasting effect over any book written on 9/11.

Only in truther land. Science and engineering, let alone any kind of reliable evidence, are NOT proven through movies. You need math and science, something the LC nuts are exemplary at ignoring.

[stilicho]

I finally had the "opportunity" to read both DRG's "Debunking 911 Debunking" and R Mackey's "first draft" of the response to it.

The first thing I noticed, too, is that Griffin doesn't propose any coherent "theory" to what we agree happened and is rightly called out by Mackey for being too vague. If you want to say it was thermite/thermate then just say that. Don't bring up a handful of speculations and throw them at the wall to see what sticks.

Second, I was reminded of something when I saw the idle speculation about thermite/thermate. Who? Remember Rumsfeld's infamous "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? That's exactly what I was reminded about while reading Jones' speculations discussed in each book. Thermite/thermate residue wasn't found but that doesn't necessarily prove that it wasn't used. I think I am not alone when I sit in stunned amazement when "researchers" suggest obliquely that your tax dollars ought to be spent looking for imaginary "devices" when there is nothing there to investigate. Flight of the bumble planes all over again.

Last, and this is my favourite, is DRG's apparent rejection of modelling to determine the causes of the collapses. But he actually isn't rejecting the use of models. He wants to erect models of the WTC and crash old jets into them.

This fascinates me. Here's a guy making his profession in the philosophy of religion and myth-making but he rejects computer modelling because it's not "real enough". This whole idea of constructing WTC's all over the place and flying Boeings into them could become a quasi-religious cult. The modern equivalent of Pyramid-building. Civilisations, thousands of years in the future, could sift through the relics of ours and marvel at our fascination with faithfully recreating tragedies over and over again on remote testing ranges. "They had computers," would the archeologists intone, "yet employed their resources building vacant skyscrapers and crashing airplanes into them over and over and over, repeatedly, as though they were looking for something that wasn't there."

Between that and Steven Jones trying to mix old rugs in with melted aluminum in his garage, I am trying to figure out how these people expect normal readers to take them seriously.

--- --- ---

PS: Griffin continually mocks the idea of al-Qaeda attacking America because they hate the West and its freedoms. Even I don't think al-Qaeda attacked the USA because they hate their freedoms. They were and are pursuing political and military goals in an uncoventional manner. That's it, period. Adding the part about "our freedoms" is an attempt to equate those who think Griffin is a quack with Americans who support Bush or are Republicans. I think Griffin's a nut (and a potentially dangerous one) and I am neither an American nor do I think Bush is a particularly memorable president.

[Dr Adequate]

I think the "official" alternative theory to 9/11 is going to be whatever those two guys at Loose Change put in there Final Cut movie. A movie will have a lasting effect over any book written on 9/11. No $1,000,000 for you then.