The truth about the Pentagon attack and 9/11

[milestogo]

This isn't new but I just watched an incredible talk by Barbara Honegger on the Pentagon attack:

She's done some very careful and in depth research on the Pentagon and the politics behind 911.

[nationalize the fed]

1. k/r Honneger has done excellent work

this might be the explosion that caused the clocks to stop 5 minutes before the official impact time of 9:37

Clip from National Geographic "Witness DC 9/11"

Many people haven't seen this Nat Geo program, it might have aired in the UK only.

[milestogo]

3. On 911 the first news I heard about the attacks

was that there had been some kind of crash at the helioport at the Pentagon... a small plane or a helicopter crashed and started a fire. I never heard about this again until this presentation. The powers that be quickly buried the fact that there was more than one event at the Pentagon on 911.

The first news is often the most accurate news.

[William Seger]

4. "The powers that be ..."

> ... quickly buried the fact that there was more than one event at the Pentagon on 911.

I'm sitting here trying to imagine how paranoid one would need to be to believe that, but not having much luck. But at the same time, I'm reminded of why I believe that the truth really does matter, and why bullshit peddlers like Honneger are an intellectual plague on society.

[William Seger]

5. Really?

I watched a few minutes of the Honneger Show. She starts her presentation by claiming that PNAC "actually called in one of their publications for a new Pearl Harbor" and then she reads the infamous quote that definitely does mention Pearl Harbor. But as evil as the neocons are -- and they are -- that quote certainly doesn't "call for a new Pearl Harbor," which would be a rather stupid thing to do in a policy paper published on their website, anyway. The neocons are evil because they didn't hesitate to exploit 9/11 for their own ends (and I take the quote as implying they're okay with that), but here Honneger tries to pass off her paranoid and unsubstantiated interpretation of that quote as "actually" a fact and evidence that they planned the attack. Strike one.

Next, Honneger informs us that a year before 9/11, Aaron Russo was told by Nicolas Rockefeller "of the Rockefeller family" that an attack was going to happen. One serious problem with the story is that there isn't any Nicholas Rockefeller among the descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the railroad robber baron, and Russo seems to be the only person who knows this guy. It's also hard to imagine why a Rockefeller would reveal the "family" plans to control the world to a wingnut Libertarian tax resister and conspiracy nut like Aaron Russo, anyway, and why Russo would wait five years to "reveal" this damning information -- and to reveal it to Alex Jones, no less, rather than a legitimate news source (or at least a sane person). Sorry, but Russo's story has no credibility whatsoever, except among those who really, really wish they could find some evidence of a conspiracy and bullshit is good enough for them -- which apparently includes Honneger, so strike two for her credibility.

Next up, Honneger claims that PNAC had Rumsfeld "prepare the ground for seeing 9/11 as a 'surprise attack'" by handing out copies of a 1962 book on Pearl Harbor "pushing the false 'surprise attack' and 'intelligence failures' line" -- Honneger is a Pearl Harbor conspiracy nut too -- written by the wife of a "Zionist war hawk." Furthermore, Hollywood abetted this scheme by releasing the movie Pearl Harbor in early 2001.

We're only three claims into Honneger's talk and we're already knee-deep in bullshit. I pulled the plug on that video at that point, but I have read about other nonsense that Honneger peddles, like claiming that Rumsfeld was trying to cover up a "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars, and the astounding logic that a few minutes difference in the time shown on wall clocks found in the Pentagon debris proves that there was more than one "event." Apparently this crackerjack researcher didn't look very far into that "missing" claim, and perhaps she should investigate how wall clocks know what time it is.

[milestogo]

6. 2.3 trillion

Yes, the truth really does matter and you won't get there with an attention span of 3 minutes.

[William Seger]

7. Why don't you take a few minutes...

... to read something other than "truther" propaganda about the $2.3 trillion? Here's a site that's pretty useful when shoveling "truther" bullshit: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

Here's what Rumsfeld was really talking about:

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199

The idea that this is why Rumsfeld attacked the Pentagon is Grade A Bullshit. And this is the typical pattern found when you look into claims made by the "truth movement": The claims that have some basis in fact don't really prove anything, and the claims that seem to prove an "inside job" aren't factual. That's what typically happens if you start with a conclusion and sift through the evidence trying to cobble together an argument that sounds like you've reached a logical conclusion, but your conclusion is simply wrong.

And, by the way, your "attention span of 3 minutes" comment displays a typical "woo woo" behavior of convincing yourself that your opponents just don't know enough to reach the same conclusion as you, when in fact your real adversaries are people who know more than you.

[wildbilln864]

8. who runs that horseshit site william?

who's speculation is it? do you even know? Guess everyone's got their opinions...

[William Seger]

9. The sources of all the information on that site are very carefully cited

... and I have no use for the post-modern anti-science philosophy that reality is just a matter of opinion. Figuring out what is true is very often not easy, and sometimes not even possible because of a lack of information, but maybe you will find this advice helpful: "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" from Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World.

Excerpt:

The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
   
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
   
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
   
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
   
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
   
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
   
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
   
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
   
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

[wildbilln864]

2. k & r & thanks! n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

10. K&R n/t