Debunking the Truthers.

I am tired of posting the same links over and over again in various threads, so i've decided to put a post together collecting all the sites dedicated to debunking the Truthers. I will start with my favorites and add more as I come across them. Please do not flame me for this. In order to really form an opinion about 9/11 I think it is important to look at ALL sides of the story. I have looked at your side and now maybe you can look at mine.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com...

and my favorite Dylan Avery smasher
www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...
Edit: and here is another "loose change is BS" article from one of my favorite bloggers, Maddox.
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...


[edit on 25-2-2007 by lizziex3]

What do you consider the most convincing peices of evidence from any of those sites, or each of those sites?

Well I think the most compelling piece of evidence is that Dylan Avery first wrote his documentary as a fictional movie and only turned it into truth because the person who funded the movie is a conspiracy buff who thinks the holocaust never happened. There are of course other people in this besides Dylan and Loose Change, but I think it all pretty much stemmed from that.

Originally posted by lizziex3
and my favorite Dylan Avery smasher
www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...

Wow, that's pretty damning. I bet there's a whole hell of a lot more truth in that page than all the 9/11 "truth" sites put together!

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by lizziex3
and my favorite Dylan Avery smasher
www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...

Wow, that's pretty damning. I bet there's a whole hell of a lot more truth in that page than all the 9/11 "truth" sites put together!

Well, I don't exactly like the way the article is written. The author could have done without calling people retards. But it's the most complete article. i've seen on the subject, so I couldn't ignore it.

Originally posted by lizziex3
Well I think the most compelling piece of evidence is that Dylan Avery first wrote his documentary as a fictional movie and only turned it into truth because the person who funded the movie is a conspiracy buff who thinks the holocaust never happened. There are of course other people in this besides Dylan and Loose Change, but I think it all pretty much stemmed from that.

So your most compelling piece of evidence is that Dylan Avery is a schmoe??


My most compelling pieces of evidence are:

* The 9/11 Commission determined that the Pentagon was able to be attacked because fighters were scrambled over the Atlantic chasing a "phantom" Flight 11 that was reported to NEADS by the FAA. The 9/11 C didn't bother to figure out why this misinformation was passed on to NEADS, or who passed it on. They simply conlcuded that the NEADS and NORAD officers were mistaken in their testimony, and that the people at the FAA were confused.

It's a bad sign when you have to decide all the witnesses were "confused" to make your story fit.

* The FAA ordered the control towers at Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Johnstown evacuated at 9:49 am, just before Flight 93 allegedly crashed. This same FAA then called central command in Washington and when asked where Flight 93 was, told them controllers lost Flight 93 from radar. They just didn't tell them it was because the controllers were in the parking lot instead of in the ATC towers.

* The FAA ordered the Cleveland control tower evacuated, then called the Johnstown airport control tower and told them Flight 93 was heading towards Johnstown from 20 miles to the SOUTH, not the North. Then, they told Johnstown that the plane turned back around and headed south again. The Johnstown controllers kept looking in the southern skies for Flight 93 but they didn't see it because they were looking in the wrong direction.

* Flight 77 was lost from radar for over 30 minutes after the FAA knew it was a hijacking, and after the FAA knew that Flights 11 and 175 were terrorist attacks. The FAA didn't notify NEADS that Flight 77 was a hijacking until just before it crashed into the Pentagon.

* Intelligence officers from Able Danger tried to tell the FBI about al-Qaeda in NY, including Atta, but the DoD wouldn't let them talk. They then tried telling the 9/11 Commission what happened but the 9/11 Commission wouldn't even schedule them to testify (then they lied about it). The Senate Judiciary Committe wanted to hear from Able Danger and scheduled hearings, but Rumsfeld ordered that the officers were not permitted to testify.

* Jamie Gorelick wrote the law that was known as "the wall" that kept the CIA from sharing information with the FBI, yet Gorelick was appointed to the 9/11 Commission to determine what failures caused 9/11. Not surprisingly, the Commission didn't mention "the wall" in their final report.

And your most compelling evidence is that Dylan Avery is a goof? Have you read any articles on the debunking sites that even address Able Danger?



[edit on 25-2-2007 by nick7261]

I have not read much into Able Danger, but I have heard things about it. I guess that I said that wrong saying that Dylan Avery was the most compelling piece of evidence. What I ment was that his claims have no merit because they were written as fiction and then changed to truth only when he got funding from a conspiracy buff. I can't honestly say what my most compelling evidence regarding 9/11 is. it would depend on the specific subject regarding it, like bombs at WTC, missle into the Pentagon, ect. I will try to find a link that talks about the Able Danger subject. At the moment I cannot find anything but I will keep looking as I know i've seen something somewhere.

Originally posted by lizziex3
I have not read much into Able Danger, but I have heard things about it. I guess that I said that wrong saying that Dylan Avery was the most compelling piece of evidence. What I ment was that his claims have no merit because they were written as fiction and then changed to truth only when he got funding from a conspiracy buff. I can't honestly say what my most compelling evidence regarding 9/11 is. it would depend on the specific subject regarding it, like bombs at WTC, missle into the Pentagon, ect. I will try to find a link that talks about the Able Danger subject. At the moment I cannot find anything but I will keep looking as I know i've seen something somewhere.

I personally think there was a lot of misinformation put out there to distract attention from the real issues. LC was a joke, imo.

While you're looking into Able Danger, look into Curt Weldon and Cynthia McKinney, two representatives at complete opposite sides of the political spectrum who were demonized by the media and the Washington political machine. What did they have in common? They were turning up the heat re 9/11 and the DoD.

Ask yourself why the 9/11 C had Patrick Fitzgerald, then just an unknown U.S. Attorney from Chicago, testify about al-Qaeda instead of the officers from Able Danger.

lizziex3

I've been through all those sites, 911 myths etc. In some cases there are some valid points brought up and that is good. In other cases there are truly un-answered questions.

You know I never got much into the Pentagon thing, I believe it is a bit of a trap, I believe a Plane hit the building. Skeptics made a good case. But there is a crapload of stuff on the other side that just raises so many questions.

The first thing I would say is stay away from Loose Change. Read more Hoffman.

But, in terms of a docu watch 911 Press for Truth
video.google.com...

In it you will see the Bush admin, plainly LIE and try and cover up something. It is obvious and can't be denied, especially when you compare statements. The film is powerful.

The question would be, why would they have to Cover Up something when there would be nothing to hide, *IF* the official account is true?

Think of it this way.

If Bin Laden really did what they say he did, don't you think there would be a force of a MILLION soldiers looking for him with all the power of RFID chips and Satelites?

How many men are looking for him now? Did more go after Sadam or Bin Laden?

Do you really think they could find a VIDEO OF HIM CONFESSING IN A MONTH and not find him? Ask yourself that seriously. Even when I believed the official story that one fact never sat with me well.

Or if there was nothing to hide, why is it that we have never seen a Good Shot of what happened at the Pentagon?

I mean, I do believe a plane struck but why not just release a good quality cam of it? What's there to hide?

But each will be convinced. I suggest watching that docu I linked to and slowly lookin at this and some of the evidence that are not on sites like 911 myths etc.





[edit on 25-2-2007 by talisman]

I do not believe the government is telling us the whole truth. I do believe that planes were hijacked. 2 of them went into WTC and caused them to collapse. One plane went into the pentagon, and one plane crashed in PA. I believe it was done by Al-queda/OBL. with or without our own governments OK I am not sure. And about the pentagon attack. I believe we have already seen the highest quality video there is, which is the one taken from the security booth. I am going to bed now but I will look at that ducumentary tomorrow.

oh, and i do believe that the US hasn't cought Bin Laden because they don't need him right now.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by lizziex3]

Lizzie please point out to me in your collection of government sponsored info where it explains the physics of the 'South Tower Tilt'.

this thread explains what I'm talking about

I look fwd to seeing it, thanx...

Well I see this question was already answered in your thread, and it seems to me that you're not going to believe any other explaination than the one you already believe. I have never heard anything about this before and i'm defininetely not an expert in building rotations. So please tell me if you don't think the plane impact is what caused the rotation what did? I think that Nova video someone posted on your thread while doesn't cover your specific question, still gives some answers. Also as stated in your thread you should read the book 102 Minutes. That is all I can give you as I've never seen this subject come up before.

(from your post)
Pop mechanics did not cover the questions I'm asking, all they did was support the official story, and like the official story they conveniently ignored anything that didn't fit the story they want us to believe

Your story does the same thing. You nitpick until theres one tiny thing that doesn't quite make sense, and then blow it out of porportion.

The problem w/ many conspiracy theorists is that THEY, as the ones proposing a a theory that is contrary to established belief, are required to come up with empirical, tangible, and demonstrable proof. They have not succeeded in doing so to this point. Now, I can already hear your blood boiling and you're thinking, "How can you say that there is not proof!!!???!!!". Relax, and read on.

Tangible proof is not an idea, a theory, or a feeling. It needs to be solid, viewable, and its existence and relation to the event need to be verified. "Loose Change" is not a proof, nor are Dylan Avery's conclusions. They are all theories, without merit, i.e. proof.

Proof is a memo from Dick Cheney to the owner of the WTC. Proof is an internal DoD document linking the government to the attack. Proof is a piece of Tomahawk wreckage from the Pentagon. Proof is a Sidewinder tailsection embedded in the ground someplace near Shanksville. Proof is a undetonated demolition charge found in the WTC debris. Proof is one senior Bush Administration official going on camera and saying, "We did this, and my conscience can't take it anymore".

Thus far, not one of those things has happened. conspiracy theorists have not one single tangible piece of evidence to back up their claims.

Before you go ballistic on me, understand that I personally believe that there was some form of 911 related conspiracy. However, I can say that it is a belief and theory, it is not fact. It is the responsibility of people like me to obtain and present empirical, tangible, and demonstrable proof, which has not happened yet.

Sorry to break it to you folks, you can believe all you want, but without something solid in your hand, you have absolutely nothing.

The debunking sites seem to rely on mostly reports or quotes, and people's personal views. There are many things that the debunking sites simply cannot explain: Rummy talking about the plane shot down over Penn, the fight 93 debris "spread over 9 sq miles and nothing bigger than a phone book", etc. Although some things can be debunked effectively, I find that the sites gloss over much of the critical physical evidence presented and attempt to debunk solid theories with weak testimonials.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
The problem w/ many conspiracy theorists is that THEY, as the ones proposing a a theory that is contrary to established belief, are required to come up with empirical, tangible, and demonstrable proof. They have not succeeded in doing so to this point. Now, I can already hear your blood boiling and you're thinking, "How can you say that there is not proof!!!???!!!". Relax, and read on.

Tangible proof is not an idea, a theory, or a feeling. It needs to be solid, viewable, and its existence and relation to the event need to be verified. "Loose Change" is not a proof, nor are Dylan Avery's conclusions. They are all theories, without merit, i.e. proof.

Proof is a memo from Dick Cheney to the owner of the WTC. Proof is an internal DoD document linking the government to the attack. Proof is a piece of Tomahawk wreckage from the Pentagon. Proof is a Sidewinder tailsection embedded in the ground someplace near Shanksville. Proof is a undetonated demolition charge found in the WTC debris. Proof is one senior Bush Administration official going on camera and saying, "We did this, and my conscience can't take it anymore".

Thus far, not one of those things has happened. conspiracy theorists have not one single tangible piece of evidence to back up their claims.

Before you go ballistic on me, understand that I personally believe that there was some form of 911 related conspiracy. However, I can say that it is a belief and theory, it is not fact. It is the responsibility of people like me to obtain and present empirical, tangible, and demonstrable proof, which has not happened yet.

Sorry to break it to you folks, you can believe all you want, but without something solid in your hand, you have absolutely nothing.

I completely agree, and you say it much better than I can.

Originally posted by steve22
The debunking sites seem to rely on mostly reports or quotes, and people's personal views. There are many things that the debunking sites simply cannot explain: Rummy talking about the plane shot down over Penn, the fight 93 debris "spread over 9 sq miles and nothing bigger than a phone book", etc. Although some things can be debunked effectively, I find that the sites gloss over much of the critical physical evidence presented and attempt to debunk solid theories with weak testimonials.

The same is true of CTs. They look over 1000 testimonys by witnesses there and find the ONE that somehow dissagrees with all the others, and then blow that out of porportion. Or they will read a quote and if there is ONE word that doesn't seem to make sense (like with the "pull IT" thing) then automatically everything is wrong. They have no proof of anything like explosives or missles, yet there is lots of proof against it that they ignore because one tiny little thing doesn't seem to make sense to them.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Sorry to break it to you folks, you can believe all you want, but without something solid in your hand, you have absolutely nothing.

Ok, if you can arrange for the evidence from the Pentagon, WTCs, and Flight 93 to be made public, then I'll agree to show you proof.

I've heard this argument over and over, and it strikes me as totally disingenuous. How can anybody show *proof* like you suggest if the government confiscated all the evidence??

Originally posted by lizziex3


The same is true of CTs. They look over 1000 testimonys by witnesses there and find the ONE that somehow dissagrees with all the others, and then blow that out of porportion.

Lizzie, with all due respect, how would YOU know what was out of proportion and what wasn't? You seem to get all your information from reading CT and debunking sites?

How can you even comment on conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy when you've barely even heard of Able Danger. Maybe you should do some real, independent research before passing judgement on others.

And by independent research, I mean from initial sources, not from web sites that cite other sources.

For example, I spent a lot of time researching the Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume allegedly made by Flight 93, including visiting the site, and I can say with 99% certainty that Val McClatchey's photo is a fraud.

What have you done besides read debunker and CT websites? Have you read the 9/11 Commission report re why the fighters were sent away from the hijacked planes? Do you even know *who* was on the 9/11 Commission and who testified before them? Do you know who the 9/11 Commissioners are working for now? Do you who they worked for before being appointed to the 9/11 Commission?

Here are just a few things that are cold, hard, physical evidence proving at least some elements of the attacks were staged

Indisputable Evidence:

"Cell phone" calls on aircraft...this is absolutely impossible and cannot be debunked. I have tried this myself and it doesnt work.

The absence of airplane wings in the Pentagon crash...the hole in the Pentagon is not big enough to fit even one 125' wing, much less two. Wings were not found in/near the crash site, did they simply disappear?

The hijackers were not listed on a)passenger lists from American Airlines b)autopsy reports from DNA samples taken from the scene. At least 4 of the hijackers have been reported as "alive and well" by the Saudi Embassy

Source

edit: grammar

[edit on 25-2-2007 by steve22]

Originally posted by steve22
Here are just a few things that are cold, hard, physical evidence proving at least some elements of the attacks were staged

Indisputable Evidence:

"Cell phone" calls on aircraft...this is absolutely impossible and cannot be debunked. I have tried this myself and it doesnt work.

The absence of airplane wings in the Pentagon crash...the hole in the Pentagon is not big enough to fit even one 125' wing, much less two. Wings were not found in/near the crash site, did they simply disappear?

The hijackers were not listed on a)passenger lists from American Airlines b)autopsy reports from DNA samples taken from the scene. At least 4 of the hijackers have been reported as "alive and well" by the Saudi Embassy

Source

edit: grammar

[edit on 25-2-2007 by steve22]

All those things you mentioned can be debunked at 911myths.com. I remember reading an article with a pilot and he talked about how he called his wife from his cell phone all the time while flying. Unfortunetely physics can tell us why the wings of the planes disitegrated as they crashed into the wall of the pentagon. you can find that in the giant thread titled "a boeing 757 hit the pentagon" The hijackers were on the passenger lists actually...you can find that at 911myths.com as well. and the hijackers being at the embassy? I don't even know where you heard that but its BS.

I will answer Nicks question later as I have to deal with my evil cat.