9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

State how the NIST conclusions are wrong if the official account is just a theory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

State how the NIST conclusions are wrong if the official account is just a theory.

I wasn't the one stating that it was a theory.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Then your point in repeating was what? That its not a theory, but factual based on testimony and evidence.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Nothin

One of the reasons, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory is because that particular theory is contradicted by all the known facts. No airliners in 2 locations, wrong airplanes or unknown airplanes at other locations, admissions by Kean and Hamilton that their commission was set up to fail, calls for perjury charges against some witnesses, other important witnesses' testimony not included in the final report, Senator Mark Dayton saying NORAD lied, and on and on.

The preponderance of the evidence works against the official story. That is why there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory.

Hi Salander. If you permit: may we please try and use some common language.
You have introduced a new term with your post: "official conspiracy theory".
Is that a new term that you want to introduce? If so: please give it a definition.
This is just a request for clarity, and not rebuking any of the ideas you posted.

This thread has been about the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy-theory debunkers.

Yes, sorry if I offered a confusing term. Really, it's just plain language with standard definitions.

Some background: if we accept the standard definition of conspire and conspiracy--two or more individuals planning to accomplish a (nefarious) goal--then clearly what happened on 911 was very much a conspiracy because 2 or more people planned and executed the attacks.

The only thing in question really is just exactly who the conspirators were. 19 arabs with box cutters, or somebody else?

The official story as defined by the 911 Commission, by the NIST report and several others is that 19 hijackers with box cutters hijacked 4 different flights, etc, etc. For brevity I will assume you are familiar with the official story.

I call it an official theory because that's all it is. And that official conspiracy theory cannot be validated, it cannot be proved. Endless repetition of any given theory does not necessarily make it true and correct and valid.

And of course there are many OTHER theories regarding the events of the day. Thus, between the official theory and all the others advanced by many, there are dozens of other theories. LIHOP, MIHOP and so forth, if you are familiar with those other conspiracy theories.

a reply to: Nothin

That is why I tend to ask someone to bring forth what they do not believe about the official story. Most times it is a belief based on something they have read on a website and not something backed up by facts.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

A shorter list would be what they do believe, what can be proved. A very short list indeed.

a reply to: Salander

And that official conspiracy theory cannot be validated, it cannot be proved.

No it has been proven.
You refuse to accept the conclusions.
You would rather latch on to some faith based theory.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Nothin

One of the reasons, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory is because that particular theory is contradicted by all the known facts. No airliners in 2 locations, wrong airplanes or unknown airplanes at other locations, admissions by Kean and Hamilton that their commission was set up to fail, calls for perjury charges against some witnesses, other important witnesses' testimony not included in the final report, Senator Mark Dayton saying NORAD lied, and on and on.

The preponderance of the evidence works against the official story. That is why there are so many debunkers of the official conspiracy theory.

Hi Salander. If you permit: may we please try and use some common language.
You have introduced a new term with your post: "official conspiracy theory".
Is that a new term that you want to introduce? If so: please give it a definition.
This is just a request for clarity, and not rebuking any of the ideas you posted.

This thread has been about the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy-theory debunkers.

Yes, sorry if I offered a confusing term. Really, it's just plain language with standard definitions.

Some background: if we accept the standard definition of conspire and conspiracy--two or more individuals planning to accomplish a (nefarious) goal--then clearly what happened on 911 was very much a conspiracy because 2 or more people planned and executed the attacks.

The only thing in question really is just exactly who the conspirators were. 19 arabs with box cutters, or somebody else?

The official story as defined by the 911 Commission, by the NIST report and several others is that 19 hijackers with box cutters hijacked 4 different flights, etc, etc. For brevity I will assume you are familiar with the official story.

I call it an official theory because that's all it is. And that official conspiracy theory cannot be validated, it cannot be proved. Endless repetition of any given theory does not necessarily make it true and correct and valid.

And of course there are many OTHER theories regarding the events of the day. Thus, between the official theory and all the others advanced by many, there are dozens of other theories. LIHOP, MIHOP and so forth, if you are familiar with those other conspiracy theories.

Maybe that's one thing that everyone can agree on: Events happened on 9/11, that were conspired-of, beforehand.

As soon as we start pointing to perceived details: we get differing opinions.
We believe in one detail, and holding that belief, forcibly excludes other details.
Attachment to details, may be a mind-game.

Perhaps if get attached to certain details, and this bring us into conflict with other folks, holding other details: we are just like kittens trying to catch the reflection, or the point of a laser-pointer, while the manipulator stands-back and is amused.

We are more alike: than we are not alike.

a reply to: Nothin

we get differing opinions.
We believe in one detail, and holding that belief

I'm not interested in beliefs or dogma. I'm here to discuss facts and evidence, you've hit the nail on the head.

a reply to: Salander

Nope. You have been shown proof on many occasions and you wave your hand every time.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

That is why I tend to ask someone to bring forth what they do not believe about the official story. Most times it is a belief based on something they have read on a website and not something backed up by facts.

OK: so if someone commits to a certain belief, or a particular detail, at large, or within the context of a specific conspiracy theory; then you can shine a light on that, and attempt to see if it is right or wrong.

Do you think it's mostly about belief in the official story, vs non-belief in the official story?
Do you think it's ok for people to question, and/or doubt the official story?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin

we get differing opinions.
We believe in one detail, and holding that belief

I'm not interested in beliefs or dogma. I'm here to discuss facts and evidence, you've hit the nail on the head.

Thanks D8Tee. Gave you a star for that post, for speaking with clarity and honesty.
Hopefully the discussion can continue thusly.

Now: you see; we are discussing the op, and we are not debating details. Fantastic!
When other threads get into details, then there seems to be sort of emotional attachment, from both sides of the discussion. That leads to the disrespect, and name-calling, that we are attempting to rise-above here.

a reply to: Nothin

To be honest, it is so easy to debunk the 911 conpiracy theories it's like stealing candy from a baby.

Humans evolved to be lazy, reaching for the lowest hanging fruit on the tree.

About the only thing easier to debunk is flat earth.

a reply to: Nothin

Start by showing what you think is false in the NIST reports and conclusions...... actual rebuttals to the scientific account of the official evidence and fact based and peer reviewed conclusions.

Show if there is any falsehoods in the Aegis vs WTC 7 Owners lawsuit in that both sides gave testimony on the validity of the NIST conclusions.

Then start supporting or ruling out nukes, thermite ceiling tiles, fire extinguisher bombs, lasers, missiles, holograms, dustification, buildings built to self destruct, c-4 covered rebar, fizzle no flash bombs?

Correct those that claim WTC steel was sent to China with no inspection and those who ignore the hand searching of WTC debris for evidence, remains, and personal effects.

Root out those that come up with sensational 9-11 theories to exploit 9-11....

a reply to: Nothin

What turned me off to 9/11 conspiracies? Conspiracists that don't know the facts. Then when you state the facts, conspiracists change their tune to it's a lie or it's a fabrication.

The photos out of context, the quotes out of context.

Saying the NIST conclusions are pseudoscience with never an example.

The straw man argument if your believe a jet hit the pentagon and cite the Scientists for 9/11 Truth, your a government apologists?

Then when you stand up for yourself, then you are conducting personal attacks.

And the hypocrisy....

a reply to: Nothin

It's not believed because its "official". It's believed because the claims of NIST pseudoscience are false. It's believed because as facts were revealed, the conspiracy theories splintered and changed until the only claims left were "it's all a lie" or "that was fabricated".

The official account is believed because their were lies that the WTC steel was not inspected, their were lies the WTC was not investigated for evidence, their were lies the NIST scientific findings were not peer reviewed and published, there were quotes taken out of context at the WTC / Pentagon / Shanksville......

Why would I trust the truth movement more than first responders and civilian eyewitnesses that were part of the tragedy on 9/11?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin

To be honest, it is so easy to debunk the 911 conpiracy theories it's like stealing candy from a baby.

Humans evolved to be lazy, reaching for the lowest hanging fruit on the tree.

About the only thing easier to debunk is flat earth.

OK: thanks for stating your motivations, to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

So: along with finding them easy to debunk, and your interest in sticking to facts and evidence, you also are not interested in wasting your time and energies, on beliefs and dogma. Is this correct?

It would be understandable then, if: perhaps, you may soon tire of it?

We tend to think that the majority of people that come to ATS, have interest in Conspiracy theories.

Are you interested in any CTs, from the potential conspiracy side, or is your interest always in the backing-it-up to the facts and evidence aspect of the story?

a reply to: Nothin

You should be interested in the truth and exposing those who exploit tragedy, ufology, cryptozoology, flat earth, mandela effect, 9/11 for personal notoriety.

Not conspiracies.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

You should be interested in the truth and exposing those who exploit tragedy, ufology, cryptozoology, flat earth, mandela effect, 9/11 for personal notoriety.

Not conspiracies.....

I hate the personal gain part, I always think of some old person who is gullible being suckered into giving these scammers money to join an organization like A & E for 911 truth. What if it was your own relative who doesn't have good reasoning skills that ends up financing Gages cross country trips selling BS?