iwant8inches,
"I just want to know how we got past the plausbility of the terrorists pulling off what they supposedly did by themselves."
I hear this all the time with the conspiracy stuff, something basically along the lines of "how could a bunch of Arab terrorists lead by a guy living in a cave come over here and pull this off?" Think about what this statement really means. That because they're not Americans that they're too stupid to do something like this? Frankly I just don't understand this. The hijackers were educated and sophisitcated individuals who were well prepared for the attack, and Al Qaeda was a well funded multinational operation at the time of 9/11. Osama Bin Laden (who didn't necessarily engineer the whole plot himself, he was the de facto leader of a loosely allied Jiihadist organization, not the grand tachtitian of all their dealings) was operating with complete freedom and significat funding in Afghanistan while there were planned and carried out. Look at the satellite photos of Al Qaeda bases before 9/11 - there were huge complexes, and the organization counted numerous well educated and highly trained individuals among its members (as it still does today).
I'm not accusing you of holding this viewpoint, but when you break down the whole "they couldn't have pulled this off" argument, it's basically saying that a bunch of poor, stupid Arabs couldn't possibly have fooled us Americans. Well, they did, and lots of people died.
"they had to have received sensitive information along the way"
What information? Where the trade centers and Pentagon were located? Basically all they had to do was get on the planes, take them over, and point them towards the targets. That's obviously a simplification, but really, those are the nuts and bolts of what happened. A lot of what I read on the conspiracy sites make 9/11 sound impossibly complex, but the very reason it succeeded was the diabolical simplicity. Nobody ever really imagined a scenario where terrorists used the planes as missiles. Too busy worry about chemical attacks and dirty bombs . . .
"It is something unparalleled what they were able to learn how to do in terms of maneuvering the planes with such limited training and overall experience."
Unparalleled? I disagree. If you watch that video or go to the debunking sites, you'll find quotes from plenty of aviation experts that state that what the hijackers did wouldn't actually be all that difficult for an amatuer pilot to pull off. One of these quotes comes directly from a guy that did some flight training with one of the hijackers, who said that he had little doubt that once in the air he could easily point that thing towards a target and hit it. This, to me, is more of the self-sustaining logic from the conspiracy which suggests that they couldn't possibly learn to fly well enough to hit anything with the plane. They could, and they did.
"Another question is how can we honestly believe that this rag-tag group of extremists actually could get anywhere near the Pentagon let alone pull off what would need to be done to crash into it."
If you go back through some of the links I have, there's a detailed walkthrough of why fighter jets weren't scrambled in time to bring down the jetliner. As I mentioned, this wasn't an attack they were expecting, and nobody at the Pentagon was alerted that there was jetliner bearing down on them. You have to go back and look at this stuff closely instead of just taking the typical line on it. There are rational explanations for everything, but a lot of the conspiracy information presents the case is if it soley composed of completely impossible events. As usual, please at least watch the Screw Loose Change video - it contains both sides of the argument - and it clears up a lot of these conventions.
Took a look at the links - some of them didn't appear to be directly addressing conspiracy stuff, and that's all well and good. I've never argued against skepticism, just bad science and false information. Once I got to physics911.com and that sort of thing, I didn't read too closely. Those are all blatantly pro-conspiracy websites, and I've browsed through most of them. I understand your reluctance to go with more mainstream news sources, but I think you'll understand if I don't find the conspiracy headquarters sites to be particularly more credible. Publications like the "Arctic Beacon" are also just conspiracy oriented - for instance I noticed in the archives that any public figure who doesn't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy is automatically a "tool of Bush," including poor little Dennis Kucinitch. And of course they had the requisite links about the evil doing at Bohemian Grove (I guess Clinto Eastwood is part of the evil conspiracy, because he's a regular, along with many ultra liberal professors and artists from the bay area, but I digress - The Arctic Beacon says it's evil so it's evil). Anyway, I just can't take that stuff seriously, they're pandering to the paranoid conspiracy culture, not practicing legit investigation adn reporting.
"Is your background in journalism?"
Nope, I said what it was in. When I was a student I did take some journalism and communications classes as electives, and I know several professional journalists that write for national publications, including my sister.
"You have to understand how much of our news is filtered what with so few independent sources of news."
I wouldn't deny that there external pressures on the news media - anybody that watches the Daily Show will see the occassional hilarious skewering of this from time to time. But information is information, and just because information isn't totally impervious, that isn't evidence of some ogranized and sinister agenda. And, you don't have to take everything you hear or read as cut and dry. I'd think that an informed person looks to a more gestalt understanding of current events to shape their opinions. Plus, with so many publications like the Atlantic, The Conomist, The Nation, National Review, etc - there's a plethora of information out there. It doesn't have to be FoxNews or Prison Planet. Information is information, and not all of it (save for conspiracy centered sites) is completely beholden to some clandestine corporate scheme.
"In the leadup to the Iraq invasion how much objectivity and factual information could you find in the papers?"
Uh, I found lots actually. There was a rather heated debate about the invasion at the time as I recall - many people disagreed with our foreign policy. Perhaps you'll recall the editorial by Joe Wilson that resulted in the scandal with his wife, now being played out in Scooter Libby's trial? There were voices against the war in the mainstream, and the country was far from in lockstep with the Bush agenda at the time.
"Today, Chavez right now is a good example for the South American fly in U.S.'s ointment. Say what you want about his contempt for privatization and jailing people who either supported or outright participated in the coup, but he is helping build a stable and self sustaining economy through nationalizing. His country and region in general will go through the pains of escaping the kind of corrupt/puppet and oppressive leadership, but if they ever make good on the promise of creating an upward shift in class mobility it'll be because of Chavez and Rodriguez."
There is plenty written about Chavez from both sides, I suggest that you go and read some more. I'll come right out and say that what I do professionally is related to the oil industry, and I deal with people have been around Chavez. From what I've read and been told he practices strong-arm politics, doesn't respect human rights, and is practicing political strategy of constant unrest to keep opinions split up. This guy does not tolerate dissent, and there are a lot of Venezuelan ex-pats here because they were afraid to live under Chavez. I don't have a problem with socialist ideals and nationalization at all, believe it or not, but to me Chavez is a another Che type character. Falsely celebrated by those without all the facts. Che personallyy executed a lot of people (including some of the homosexuals that he hated so much) and didn't give a damn about the people he was supposedly trying to uplift. Ultimately Chavez is a power player, socialism is just his ticket to public opinion. If something good comes out it I won't deny the success, but guys like Chavez undermine the concepts of liberty that real democracies are founded on.
"How about Iran? Does the President of Iran actually have any real power other than to rile up support of whatever crazy notion he decides to spout? Not really, but you'd think it was up to him to actually wipe Israel off the map. I MEAN RIGHT NOW ON THE FUCKING TV (CNN) IS TARGET IRAN...WHY NOW? AS IF THAT IS BALANCING THE LEGITIMIZATION of even discussing taking military action against Iran."
Part of this is a function of the way news works. AHydromaxadinjoud (sic?) is the public face and vocal leader of the right-wing Iranian leadership. He's the interesting and controversial figure, and he's taken the role as the public face of his contingent. I don't think you'll actually find a mainstream news source reporting that he has the power to wipe Israel off the map - but you can hardly blame them for giving him coverage when referring to the Iranian agenda. You're reading your own ideas into the news story. As many others have noted over the years, network cable news is all about sensationalism and excitement in order to draw in viewers and keep the 24 hour cycle running. They puff up the drama of our diplomacy (or lack thereof) with Iran because it's a story that catches the public interest and contains elements of excitement and danger. This doesn't have anything to do with a foreign policy agenda or the actual discussion about where we're headed with Iran, it's about MSNBC and other networks getting people to stop clicking through channels for five minutes so they can keep the sponsors happy.
"This is the time if ever for the punditry to tell the people how INSANE this would be to strike Iran."
The pundits aren't really news, they're entertainment, or info-tainment at best. Don't look to them for leadership, they're in the same game as everybody else - get people to watch their shows. Some are better than others, but we shouldn't even have them on the table if we're discussing serious media here.
"So Iran is our next enemy on the list? I guess their people deserve to die. Perhaps we'll get the folks who want to liberate Iran(ians) to chime in and then a few months from now they can justify why hundreds of thousands of people are dying."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The problem with Iran is their non-compliance with nuclear development rules in the international community. Nobody is talking about liberation (don't expect to hear that line again anytime soon after the Iraq disaster). Most people are well aware that the majority of Iranians are moderate and don't agree with their extremist government, and the idea that we're rushing to war over there isn't in the mainstream news because there's nothing substantial to support it. What you do here in the news is buzz about the situation because, as we've seen, it's dangerous and interesting. If you want to read about Iran and US policy, utalize your school's resources and get some real examinations from experts. I suggest using JSTOR to browse in the political science and international relations journals.
"Anyway, the best example of how the giant U.S. News networks are corrupt just because the fact they are for immensely for profit."
Agreed, but how else would they exist? Very few things are done for nothing - even conspiracy websites.
"listen to a hack like Glenn Beck the other night discussing Global Warming on CNN"
Glenn Beck is an idiot. He's entertainment, don't worry about him. If people are too stupid ot make that distinction on their own, they're likely not too engaged in the political process and current events in the first place.
"Money is a highly corruptable force. I guess then the only thing left to do is establish what "evil" means to you."
Like I said, I've never taken the position that corporate ethics are always clean, we all know how damaging they can be and that they have influence. What I hear from you, and I give my disclaimer of no offense intended because I think you're intelligent and engaged, is the same stuff that I and many of my friends fealt really passionately around those first few years of college as well. It's a fairly standard position to be riled about corporate politics and the corruption of greed in society, but the whole debate is a little more complicated than money=evil (I realize you're probably well aware of this). This is off topic so I won't devle into it, but it's something that I don't come down on 100%. There's truth in what you say, but the position oversimplifies the world we live in to a great degree. I'd call the current state of the mainstream media shoddy and sensationalized, but not wholly corrupt or without merit. Here's a site you may already be aware of but I'll link it anway:
www.mediamatters.com
Media watchdogs, they cover the real screw ups often inflicted by the news. Nobody's perfect, and our system isn't perfect, but I don't call that evil.
More and more I am understanding that people who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy are integrating the belief with a larger worldview, or maybe the other way around, but I wouldn't say it's a coincidence that most of the people arguing for the conspiracy also believe in other conspiracies and feel that government and commerce have a sinister agenda.
