Proof of 9/11 and who was responsible

Many here on this site who believe the official Goverment enquiry call people out when they say 9/11 was an inside job but what proofs/evidence would be needed for these people to change their minds on the official story. Are some incapable of facing said evidence, is it the crime was so great that they cannot admit that there own people may have been behind the attacks.

Just what evidence would be needed to make them believe it was an inside job.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Many here on this site who believe the official Goverment enquiry call people out when they say 9/11 was an inside job but what proofs/evidence would be needed for these people to change their minds on the official story. Are some incapable of facing said evidence, is it the crime was so great that they cannot admit that there own people may have been behind the attacks.

Just what evidence would be needed to make them believe it was an inside job.

The problem 9/11 Truthers have is actually supporting their own claims about 9/11. A post today on JREF makes clear what 9/11 Truthers face with promoting their Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT):

forums.randi.org...

I doubt any 9/11 Truther here has thought of the implications of the OTMCT. They certainly can't deny those enumerated.



[edit on 5-12-2007 by jthomas]

[The "Official Story"

--Send some dudes to the US
--Learn to fly planes
--Train in hijacking techniques
--Locate targets of economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and political (White House) importance.
--Coordinate a date and time
--Bring boxcutters (which were legal at the time) onto planes
--Hijack planes
--Crash planes

I think this may be a little bit of a oversimplification!

[edit on 12/5/2007 by QuasiShaman]

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
I think this may be a little bit of a oversimplification!

and that's a bit of an understatement

the first post in that thread linked above is ridiculous (the one "debunking").

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
I think this may be a little bit of a oversimplification!
[edit on 12/5/2007 by QuasiShaman]

Which part?

The debunking of the "official story" lies almost entirely in how the towers collapsed...not so much in the ability of the terrorists to actually hijack planes (something that's been done numerous times before) and fly them into prominent buildings with a 75% success rate.

Originally posted by QuasiShaman

I think this may be a little bit of a oversimplification!

Actually it illustrates the extreme problem 9/11 Truthers have in making any case at all!

Not to speak of the inability of the 9/11 Truth Movement to refute the scientific and forensic evidence against them after six years of abortive attempts.

It's gotten to the point that 9/11 Truthers can only make ad hominem arguments like this one from Kevin Ryan yesterday:

www.journalof911studies.com...

Originally posted by jthomas
9/11 Truthers...Truthers...Conspiracy Theory...Truther

Man, how absolutelty and utterly nauseating!
How does it feel to take part in the creation of a new stereotype?
Only in America could the word truth be spun to mean something derogatory.
At least you aren't calling us terrorists like the Wiesenthal Center, which is pretty interesting in and of itself.

Edit:

Originally posted by jthomas
9/11 Truthers... 9/11 Truthers... ad hominem arguments

And then you have the gall to accuse them of ad hominems LOL

[edit on 5-12-2007 by twitchy]

YOu will find that the Fourth Reich has taken power in Washington with the Bush Administration. His daddy was fourth Reich too. You know not what you are dealing with.
Propagandized Americans who think they have a handle on what's going on and refused to listen and consider the warnings they got from people they call radicals and fringe elements will Rue the day they depended on their own understanding.
The 2000 election was rigged to let these hawks in power. Not that Gore was any prize mind you. He was vice President when they murdered men,women and children at WACO..And I'm sure each of you know all the facts because you heard it on TV. Janet Reno and the Clintons have a lot of innocent blood on their hands. Google the Clintons concerning murders and so-called suicides of people in and around their lives. Bush is no more Christian than my dog.
He came riding in on a cross then wrapped himself in the American flag, claiming to be a Christian and then turns right around and does the most unchristian things I have ever seen. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing!
Judgement is coming to America because of these things and because they are dividing God' land over there.(that is the real blow that kills us) this "Roadmap to peace"
Lord. please show mercy to those of us who tried to warn and teach. Those of us who the reproach of it is a burden. cantyousee

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by jthomas
9/11 Truthers...Truthers...Conspiracy Theory...Truther

Man, how absolutelty and utterly nauseating!

How does it feel to take part in the creation of a new stereotype?

The term "9/11 Truthers" was coined by themselves. This is what they wish to be called.

And yes, after six full years 9/11 Truthers have never been able to support their claims.

jref is a joke. there is no room for possibility, if probability is not 100%.
absolutists trying to explain sociology with mathematical formulas.
foundation and empire?

truther is easier to say than lie-exposer. a 'good' truther is a lie-exposer, more than an alternative 'truth' theory pusher.

it is the lies that are obvious, and irrefutable.

lies like, 'the air is safe to breathe.'.
or, 'i saw the first plane hit the tower on television'. (-bush)
or, '[the terrorists] used planes AND MISSILES'. (-rumsfeld)
or, 'on september 11th, both of the twin towers collapsed'. (-the media lying by omission)
and, my favorite, 'I DID IT!!'. (-fatty 'bin laden')

etc.

billybob,

Could you articulate a little better what you are trying to say?

reply to post by jthomas

The post a jref is so comprehensively botched and disingenuous that I don't have time to set it all out now.

But to give you a clue as to why:

• Not eveyone who suspects an inside job believes in all theories;
  
• The author has egregiously over-simplified the components of the official story and, at the same time, wildly over-complicated the conspiracy theories; and
  
• Some elements - like faked passports - are actually parts of both sides of the debate, or else are/were ongoing programmes that were taking place independently of 9/11, like the development of remote-controlled technology.

I'll come back to this later perhaps, but it should be obvious to anyone that it's nonsense.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jthomas

]

Not eveyone who suspects an inside job believes in all theories;

The point is that no mater what version of the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT) one believes, there are numerous implications that 9/11 Truthers have never considered, or have ignored, or do not want to discuss. In all cases, OTMCT requires hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would have to either be complicit or know about a conspiracy and have kept quiet.

No OTMCT advanced in the last six years since 9/11 has overcome those implausibilities. Every one yet advanced is unreasonable and without foundation.

Originally posted by jthomas
The point is that no mater what version of the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT) one believes, there are numerous implications that 9/11 Truthers have never considered, or have ignored, or do not want to discuss.

No, that's not 'the point'. The point of the jref post was to grossly distort the comparison in order to ridicule those who doubt the official version.

Who in their right mind would enter into a serious discussion about the merits of any theory - official or not - when one participant draws up a list of elements required to pull off either scenario and gives a single statement to the rather complex business if hijacking four airplanes and another single statement to the rather more straightforward act of dropping a passport? This alone should show you how ill-considered and lop-sided the jref post is.

In all cases, OTMCT requires hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would have to either be complicit or know about a conspiracy and have kept quiet.

Flat wrong. Maybe those that seek to incorporate every wild theory into one grand scheme might require thousands of people, but that is not so for "all cases".

No OTMCT advanced in the last six years since 9/11 has overcome those implausibilities. Every one yet advanced is unreasonable and without foundation.

Again, this is a sweeping and unfounded generalisation.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by coughymachine]

9/11 was a zionist/mossad job.

Originally posted by jthomas
billybob,

Could you articulate a little better what you are trying to say?

He is saying in plain english that there are more lies and clues to this puzzle than people really care to look at.

He gave a few good examples.

lies like, 'the air is safe to breathe.'.

In fact it isnt. there is alot of contaminats in the air.

'i saw the first plane hit the tower on television'. (-bush)

He stated more than 1 time

'[the terrorists] used planes AND MISSILES'. (-rumsfeld)

There is a video somewhere of this. So straight lie/proof.

'on september 11th, both of the twin towers collapsed'. (-the media lying by omission)

??? Not sure on this one..... Help???

'I DID IT!!'. (-fatty 'bin laden')

In other words he is saying "Will the real Bin Laden please stand up"

See simple yet easy.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

He is saying in plain english that there are more lies and clues to this puzzle than people really care to look at.


'on september 11th, both of the twin towers collapsed'. (-the media lying by omission)

??? Not sure on this one..... Help???

no mention of wtc7. lying by omission.

Only a person in deepest denial, or simply uneducated as to the facts, could possible believe the official story. No way. HOW on earth do the official story believers explain the HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with the event? How? They mus ignore them or accept refutations so barren of value that they are laughable.If you pin down an official story believer, and start recitring a litany of the ' anomalies ' at some point they will have to crumble and give way..no sensible human can believe that the odds can be so drastic yet believable.

If one takes each and every blatant proof..a photo or witness..and shows them to a Believer, they will simply find a way to mentally ignore the info and keep on assuming that the official stsoru MUST be true. It is TOO MUCH for a certain percentage of the population to bear: The thought of living in a nation where the very highest levels of government have been taken in a treacherous coup, by the Neocon/Aipac / intel black ops God knows what else bunch that pulled this off.

NO ONE could really believe that ALL of the ' anomalies ' can be dismissed...many of them are of such import and such a critical proof of an inside job that the Believers resort to the lamest and most ludicrous excuses to keep the fire of lies going: When they get desperate enough to claim that the Lobby blasts and damage, and the lower level explosions that DISAPPEARED a 50 ton press far underground, was caused by, of all things , " Jet furl pouring down the elevator shafts ' as a reason. Imagine that> The Towers did NOT have elevator shafts going from the lower levels all the way to the top uninterrupted by floors: It is IMPOSSIBLE for jet fuel, virtually ALL burned up in the initial blast, to ' pour 'in a liquid form down the shafts. The shafts were designed specifically to stop fire from moving from one area to another thru the elevators, and they were staggered!!

So THAT Believer excuse is impossible. So what else can they say about the total devastation of the lobby? And the destruction below the ground, way down deep? They will say that the skin of the plane contained enough aluminum to cause all the reactions we see dripping down the sides of the Towers before the take down was ordered. They will say ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous, to assuage their minds and give themselves a way to stay stable in a crazy world. It allows them to feel safe, thinking that the Bush guys are really Ok after all, decent human beings..and they are looking out for US, and not themselves..and we can believe them when they say the Towers just turned to dust from fires and gravity..just trust them..trust them..trust them..keep repeating that until you feel safe and secure and smug..and then get on a forum and reinforce the feeling by insisting that balck is white and up is down and good is bad.

But those of us not willing to forsake the truth for the warm and cuddly feeling that comes with accepting the outrageous and insulting as facts will continue to hold the line and keep insisting that facts are facts. Concrete and steel do NOT turn to dust from fire and gravity. Done. But if you can believe that, then they have you right where they want you. But never think that your arguments will be successful., as they are based on faith and hope and not the evidence and proofs. If you believers would just sit down with an OPEN mind and read...oh, say, Daiv Ray Griffens books on 9-11, you CANNOT come away from them convinved that the Bushies are innocent and that the events of that day are as the Government claims they are. You cannot. If you do, then the problem is with YOU, and not the evidence and facts.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Only a person in deepest denial, or simply uneducated as to the facts, could possible believe the official story.

I encourage you to keep telling yourself that.
It's helped your cause so much these past six years.

There are many odd inconsistencies with the official story. I would never deny that. There are many odd actions taken by certain government entities in response to 9/11. I would never deny that.

But the number of variables that comprise the SIMPLEST 9/11 conspiracy plot is so absurdly high, that the idea of a controlled execution of said plot is patently absurd. (Which, I believe, was the exact point the article linked by the OP is trying to make and...sure I'll say it...makes pretty darn well in my opinion.)

I would go ahead and say that "only a person in deepest denial, or simply uneducated as to the facts, could possible believe otherwise", but I don't think sweeping generalisations like that really help anybody.

Originally posted by coughymachine

No, that's not 'the point'. The point of the jref post was to grossly distort the comparison in order to ridicule those who doubt the official version.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by coughymachine]

Coughymachine,

The point was to illustrate the massive problems with the OTMCT. The OCTMCT, no matter how you slice it, is LIHOP or MIHOP, both of which have many implausible implications that 9/11 Truthers cannot or will not deal with. One cannot avoid the numbers of people that would necessarily have to be involved nor assume that they would all keep quiet.

It is not a "sweeping generalization" to state that the OTMCT has failed to deal with its own contradictions and implausibility. Certainly you recognize that believers in the OTMCT wouldn't be here re-hashing the same stuff dealt with and debunked as long as six years ago if there were any substance to the OTMCT. At the same time, these same believers have failed in every attempt to refute the evidence of what happened.