Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

My point is, I wouldn't listen to an Arab talking of Israeli things, nor an Israeli talking of Arab things.

Seems you don't listen to an Arab talking of Arab things either.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Conundrum04

 

Couldn't the same be said about the Truth movement in general? What if it is your side that is conforming to the peer pressure of believing 9/11 to be an inside job? I call it the Mulder "I want to believe" theory. I've seen how your side quickly dumps someone who once was on their side but then questions a certain theory. Your side readily disowns them and starts going after them personally.

Neither side is immune or exempt from peer pressure.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by pavil]

I completely agree. However, the official theory is still the line the government uses whenever the discussion of 9/11 comes up. They have all the power and all the control of the media. The ones that won't buy into the OT have very little power or influence right now.

I'll put it like this: Let's say the experimenter(in that clip) would actually be a participant. After each question he tells them what the correct answer is. The one participant who isn't in on it, but defiant, answers the question the correct way going against what the others answered. But the experimenter agrees with the others instead of the guy not in on it. If said guy tries to argue back saying "no, no, no, that can't be right.", and the experimenter says "you're a fool and an idiot if you think you're answer is correct!" The only thing the guy can do is shut his mouth, continue with the experiment and answer the way the others do in order not to be ridiculed any more. Not only is the guy up against his peers, he is going up against an authoritarian figure of power.

I don't believe it's right to force what you believe down someone else's throat, but the official story is what these authoritarian government figures are backing. No one in the truth movement has any kind of power right now to make a OTer believe what they believe. But the "truthers" have to be careful because it is them that can be outcasted away by friends, family, even work environments if they openly speak out against the OT.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

My point is, I wouldn't listen to an Arab talking of Israeli things, nor an Israeli talking of Arab things.

Seems you don't listen to an Arab talking of Arab things either.

Quite right, I'm not about to pay to listen to a reformed, born again Arab that's in prison, writing a book that proclaims his innocence in the hopes he might get out a bit quicker. Looking at his past I don't think he'd have anything interesting to say, and I definitely wouldn't trust someone like that. You can feel free too though, it's a free world as they say.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320271/pg7#pid3797396]post by Pavil/url]

 

Couldn't the same be said about the Truth movement in general? What if it is your side that is conforming to the peer pressure of believing 9/11 to be an inside job? I call it the Mulder "I want to believe" theory. I've seen how your side quickly dumps someone who once was on their side but then questions a certain theory. Your side readily disowns them and starts going after them personally.

What makes you assume everyone investigating 9/11, while not automatically buying into the "official" version, has been peer pressured to do so?

I didn't believe what would become the "official" version from the moment WTC 1 received a gaping hole in an external wall. There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version.

I have spent years investigating 9/11 on my own. Therefore, no peers to pressure me into investigating because of peer pressure to continue to investigate. I feel relatively certain I am not the only person continuing to investigate, having done so with no peer pressure. The majority peer pressure, of acceptance of the "official" version, is the only peer pressure I have felt. That is negative peer pressure urging me to also blindly accept the "official" version into which I refuse to cave.

I have stated the following in other forums. If peers desire me to accept the "official" version, then give me enough valid scientific and logical reason to do so. Or I will never accept it. The "official" version lacks credibility via lack of validity due to defying science laws and theories, plus, logic.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by OrionStars]

[edit on 14-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by OrionStars
What makes you assume everyone investigating 9/11, while not automatically buying into the "official" version, has been peer pressured to do so?

Assuming is a dangerous thing to do. I never said what you imply. Some in the truth movement, not all, are peer pressured, that you seem to deny that merely confirms that to me all the more. I am of the opinion that many in the "Truth" movement have been conditioned by other "Truthers" to oppose anything in the "Original Story" to the point of some of them claiming that planes didn't even hit the buildings. They seem to deny every aspect of "official story", as if believing one part of it makes them not part of the "Truth" community. You as well as I have seen what happens to those here on this website who are Truthers who question some others in the Truth community. They are called name such as sell outs, ect just for questioning some pretty out theories. To me that smacks of mob mentality. I find that especially amusing, as some of the truthers are the ones who call their opposition "sheep". Who really is following the herd?

Much of the "evidence" the truth side dishes out is a circle of websites and movies that have the sum effect of being a mobius strip, with one site referring to another site which in turn is quoted by a third site which takes the first sites points as truth because the middle site referred to it. My head just hurts typing that last sentence yet that is what I see. Repeating accusations as truth often enough tends to result in people thinking the accusation is true.

There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version.

I agree, not all reports of the 9/11 events turned out to be accurate, such is the nature of breaking news. However to state such a thing in absolutes like you did, confirms that you are not willing to address or accept evidence that is contrary to your beliefs about the matter. To merely throw out evidence that does not support your theory is hardly a scientific method.

Nor is there any reason to dispute ALL or ANY media reports that support the "official" story, especially when there is factual evidence to support them in many instances. For example the CD WTC 7 theory seemingly ignores the fires that were occuring and the creaking, moaning noises of WTC 7, as documented by the NYFD and ignores the damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1&2 by repeatedly showing photos of a side of WTC 7 that didn't sustain much damage, but ignoring photo evidence of another side of WTC 7 that did sustain substaintial damage. Dismissing evidence like that outright is disturbing to me. Do you not think the NYFD is able to ascertain if a building on fire is becoming unstable? Are they not qualified to make that judgement in your opinion?

I have spent years investigating 9/11 on my own. Therefore, no peers to pressure me into investigating because of peer pressure to continue to investigate.

Uh huh. Not quite sure I follow that sentence, please elaborate. Let's put your claim to the test. Please give the 3 most important websites for information that you have used to gather your personal fact finding.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by pavil]

[edit on 15-12-2007 by pavil]

Originally posted by pavil

Assuming is a dangerous thing to do. I never said what you imply. Some in the truth movement, not all, are peer pressured, that you seem to deny that merely confirms that to me all the more. I am of the opinion that many in the "Truth" movement have been conditioned by other "Truthers" to oppose anything in the "Original Story" to the point of some of them claiming that planes didn't even hit the buildings. They seem to deny every aspect of "official story", as if believing one part of it makes them not part of the "Truth" community. You as well as I have seen what happens to those here on this website who are Truthers who question some others in the Truth community. They are called name such as sell outs, ect just for questioning some pretty out theories. To me that smacks of mob mentality. I find that especially amusing, as some of the truthers are the ones who call their opposition "sheep". Who really is following the herd?

The following are your own words:

"Couldn't the same be said about the Truth movement in general? What if it is your side that is conforming to the peer pressure of believing 9/11 to be an inside job? I call it the Mulder "I want to believe" theory. I've seen how your side quickly dumps someone who once was on their side but then questions a certain theory. Your side readily disowns them and starts going after them personally."

When you use the words "people in general", you are painting a broad brush over many people. I have encountered a large number of people who are quite adept at logically explaining why they reject the "official" version of 9/11. I view that as critically thinking their way through their own views. I do not consider that peer pressure. Nor do I consider it peer pressure if debating why the “official” report should be rejected changes anyone’s view. I fully expect when people hold views or change them that they are logically capable of explaining why they hold the views they do or change their views. If it requires validation to fully explain, I expect to see the validation as well.

Exactly how many people have you witnessed rejecting the “official” report are not capable of explaining why?

Much of the "evidence" the truth side dishes out is a circle of websites and movies that have the sum effect of being a mobius strip, with one site referring to another site which in turn is quoted by a third site which takes the first sites points as truth because the middle site referred to it. My head just hurts typing that last sentence yet that is what I see. Repeating accusations as truth often enough tends to result in people thinking the accusation is true.

What appears to make you believe people are not making logical comparisons between what others present? For people only reading websites and going to movies as you contend, there are a multitude of well researched and scientifically presented 9/11 non-fiction books being written and sold, by various authors of pertinent expertise giving very sound reasons why the “official” report cannot be accepted as presented.

I agree, not all reports of the 9/11 events turned out to be accurate, such is the nature of breaking news. However to state such a thing in absolutes like you did, confirms that you are not willing to address or accept evidence that is contrary to your beliefs about the matter. To merely throw out evidence that does not support your theory is hardly a scientific method.

Since you accuse me of this, “However to state such a thing in absolutes like you did…” would you care to cite the “….such a thing in absolutes…” I was supposed to have stated?

Exactly what scientific evidence for you arguments have you presented when countering my arguments ? Since I have seen none, exactly what “evidence” do you think people should accept without validation of actual evidence from you. Personal opinion is not validation. Scientific validation is validation. Did I miss you presenting me with valid scientific evidence for anything? If so, would you please kindly point out what may I have missed?

Nor is there any reason to dispute ALL or ANY media reports that support the "official" story, especially when there is factual evidence to support them in many instances. For example the CD WTC 7 theory seemingly ignores the fires that were occuring and the creaking, moaning noises of WTC 7, as documented by the NYFD and ignores the damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1&2 by repeatedly showing photos of a side of WTC 7 that didn't sustain much damage, but ignoring photo evidence of another side of WTC 7 that did sustain substaintial damage. Dismissing evidence like that outright is disturbing to me. Do you not think the NYFD is able to ascertain if a building on fire is becoming unstable? Are they not qualified to make that judgement in your opinion?

However, you are not presenting scientific validation to prove WTC 7 collapsed as you hypothesize the reason it collapsed. You are doing exactly what you accuse so many unnamed others, in opposition to your arguments, of doing. You can’t expect people to simply agree with you based on what little unproved argument you presented. If you wish people to agree with you, then study the structure of WTC 7 and the specs of the materials used. Then explain how your hypothesized collapse agrees with physics laws and theories as you interpret physics laws and theories. Use what you believe to be evidence based on sound scientific validation.

There is bona fide proof that inferno fires have burn for many hours in non-redundantly built concrete and steel buildings, without the much higher material specifications required in the WTC buildings. Yet, the steel and concrete structures remained standing after the fires were extinguished many hours later. I would be amazed to learn that no one ever gave an example of such occurrence. It case it was not done , below is but one prime example as described above which occurred in Madrid, Spain:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Below are two articles on the 1975 fire in WTC 1 (North Tower):

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Uh huh. Not quite sure I follow that sentence, please elaborate. Let's put your claim to the test. Please give the 3 most important websites for information that you have used to gather your personal fact finding.

There is no “..most important 3.…..” However, I will list 3 pertinent topics I still use for research from the many available .edu websites: classic physics, quantum physics, and chemistry websites when I use the Internet for research. I don’t completely rely on the Internet. The Internet is simply more convenient and available to use. If you note above, I listed even more topics of study using a variety of sources and topics, in order to evaluate what took place on 9/11. What I listed was not by any stretch a complete list of what I have researched and studied. For over 6 years.

How do you conduct your research, and what research on 9/11 have you done?

Originally posted by AshleyD
However, Occam's razor does apply in my opinion. If we can believe terrorists performed the attacks, as the majority of hard evidence points to, then to begin to assume others were involved becomes a complex conclusion and not the most obvious conclusion that Occam's razor mandates.

Occam's Razor is a complete crock. It does not take into account ANY unusual circumstances or illogical human motives.

I prefer to use "truth is stranger than fiction" which often contradicts Occam's Razor.

Blind acceptance of Occam's Razor with regards to 9/11 ignores the possible truth that the government conspired to murder thousands of innocent civillians to further its agenda.

Originally posted by last time here
studied and agree with neworldover.
i am over 50 and lived through vietnam. i am well
aware of what government will and has done.
just as concern over mia's has been purposely
forgotten, so will 911 truth. there are still guys
there and there is 911 truth. i feel disgust when
i see the o'reillys, hannitys, limbaughs, carlsons
and the other parrots. the disgust is because i
am aware a segment of america believes them.
conspiracy or simply idiots??? i will never know.

... Right... that's why the "POW/MIA" flag is always flown in conjunction with our Ensign at any military base - because we forgot about them.

The GP is pretty lame and will forget anything over time - the government doesn't need to do anything to cause that to happen. It's part of life - we pick up and move on, then find ourselves going "Oh yeah... today is the 20th anniversary of that...." I wasn't personally involved in 9/11 - I didn't lose anyone in that attack - so the date sneaks up on me. However, I will never forget the day my mom died. It was the day I graduated from A-School and was returning home to report for reserve duty. It was also four days before my birthday. It's forever burned into my memory - but it's likely even my closest friends will almost forget completely about it in the next few years.

That sounds 'selfish' or 'cold'... but... it's reality - it's how our brains work - we shove those events back into little corners of our minds so we can think about more pertinent things. We give ourselves reminders, such as Memorial Day and Veteran's Day - to encourage us to drag those memories and history lessons out from those corners and ponder over them for a while before we shove them back in there and go on about our lives.

As for the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" ... I still have yet to see evidence. Conjecture is fine... but, still, most of what I am seeing is "I hate Bush, Corporations wanted oil, and the CIA is an omniscient being!" ... still.

Like I have said before... I have been with this whole issue since its conception and have seen many new young people, a few years younger than me, take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. It's about feeling unique, enlightened, or otherwise at an advantage when compared against your average peer-group that simply goes to work/school every day, goes home, eats, goes to sleep... and rises to meet the same thing again. It's about satisfying that mental need of purpose and importance in the world.

The average child is more educated and thinks just as broadly as most adults by the age of ten - easily. They also have unprecedented access to information, theories, etc through the internet. However, being children, they still have yet to learn how to 'take it with a grain of salt'. Their minds easily go to work and begin 'connecting the dots' in a number of various fashions to yield the results they want to see. As most of us who have experience in debates, legal proceedings, and 'gifted education' practices know - you can take any sequence of events and set up a presentations and trigger-words in an attempt to lead someone to a conclusion that may or may not be based on severely skewed logic.

And it's natural. We are manipulative creatures. We see something we want - and we don't just reach for it, we alter our surroundings to enable us to get it, despite our normal inhibitions. We engineer our world in more ways than one. We engineer it in the physical sense, and we engineer it in the mental sense - we design our perspective to see what we want to.

For instance - I believe that the universe is infinite - completely and totally, and that there exists a manner of tapping into 'perpetual energy'. Thus, I am far more likely to believe someone when they say they have discovered such a process - simply because that is what I want to see. Being a scientific person - I will always do my best to keep my ambitions/dreams from jumping ahead of what is verifiable... but the fact remains that I engineer my perspective of the world around that concept, as well as others - such as my belief that sex is an intimate behavior that should be expressed between two married individuals (in the form of the two are sworn to each other by more than just words of "Yeah, I'll be here if you get pregnant.... *crosses fingers* ..."). I denounce much of the rap culture because of this belief I have engineered my perspective around.

So, when I look at all of this, that is what I see - an engineered outlook on a course of events. I do not see anything that indicates any involvement from our own government (or intentional ignorance).

I'll tell you - our government is a pack of raving monkeys. I am honestly surprised we manage to keep from blowing up Capitol Hill because some administrative party forgot about something crucial - or a contractor decided to lay down on the job. It's downright ridiculous.

The military included. The National Call To Service program being an example. It was a program where people enlisted in the Navy and would serve in the active military for two years, or so, then be sent to the drilling reserves to finish up their tour - with the option to extend their active enlistment. Well... the Reserves thought the Active Navy was in charge of it... and vice-versa.... so the people who signed up under that program at first got severely boned.

If it weren't for the middle-level management and grunts in both the Government and the Military having something resembling a coherent status, our country would have collapsed two hundred years ago.

Originally posted by OrionStars


What makes you assume everyone investigating 9/11, while not automatically buying into the "official" version, has been peer pressured to do so?

I didn't believe what would become the "official" version from the moment WTC 1 received a gaping hole in an external wall. There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version.

I have spent years investigating 9/11 on my own.

The one huge problem here is that there is no "official version." I really find it surprising that people still fall for that.

What there is, in fact, is a huge body of evidence, scientific, physical, forensic, eyewitness, and that evidence leads to conclusions about what happened on 9/11 that have never been refuted.

The "official version" strawman was an invention of the the 9/11 Truth Movement early on to avoid having to deal with all that evidence. It was 9/11 truthers who wanted to con people into believing that all that independent evidence which it cannot refute is nothing but a "story" invented by the government.

It is really transparent to still be using the "official version" strawman after all these years. It just demonstrates the weakness of conspiracy theorist claims. Why not give it up and, instead, deal with the evidence?




[edit on 15-12-2007 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by OrionStars


The one huge problem here is that there is no "official version." I really find it surprising that people still fall for that.

I sufficiently responded to the same post you cited, in part, again, and now you tangent elsewhere. Haven't you have your fill of red herring yet? Yes, there is an "official" report. It was issued by the US bureaucrats. The reason why I deliberately place the word official in quotation marks is because it is so obvious that report is bogus. That was publicly confirmed, by the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission - Kean Hamilton - to the public media and in their book.

What there is, in fact, is a huge body of evidence, scientific, physical, forensic, eyewitness, and that evidence leads to conclusions about what happened on 9/11 that have never been refuted.

I am still waiting for you to provide all that abundant"evidence" you contend exists, and do so using the laws of physics and other sciences, plus, what you do know regarding the construction of the WTC buildings. I did my research using what I explained in the last post, and it is obvious you still fail to do the same.

So far, regardless of number of requests to use logic and science, you continue to do nothing more than make logical fallacy arguments. If you wish people to accept what you state, you will have to make some effort in presenting material that can't be refute by science. That means you have to use science to make your arguments. Building construction is based in science, primarily physics.

The "official version" strawman was an invention of the the 9/11 Truth Movement early on to avoid having to deal with all that evidence. It was 9/11 truthers who wanted to con people into believing that all that independent evidence which it cannot refute is nothing but a "story" invented by the government.

"The "official version" strawman was an invention of..." Since you make such a contention, please explain exactly why you accuse your opposition of turning the "official" version into a strawman. It is not clear in rest of what you wrote. As it stands, that appears to be your less than civil opinion and nothing more. What makes your opinion valid?

Simply because people correct something incorrect, because those people validly can, does not make your opinion a fact. First, please learn exactly the meaning of the word strawman. You are definitely using it incorrectly based on your dead set opinion and nothing more.

It is really transparent to still be using the "official version" strawman after all these years. It just demonstrates the weakness of conspiracy theorist claims. Why not give it up and, instead, deal with the evidence?

Since you have done exactly what you blanket accuse accuse of doing, without proving anyone did anything you accuse them of doing, until you can validly prove you are right and others are wrong, you are in no position to be critical toward anyone else not blindly agreeing with you. You are putting psychological peer pressure on people to conform to blindly suit you. Time and again, you blatantly imply if people do not conform to your opinion, because it is your dead set opinion and nothing more, they are blindly following the wrong path. Well, then prove it with science and logic.

Originally posted by OrionStars


The one huge problem here is that there is no "official version." I really find it surprising that people still fall for that.

Yes, there is an "official" report. It was issued by the US bureaucrats. The reason why I deliberately place the word official in quotation marks is because it is so obvious that report is bogus. That was publicly confirmed, by the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission - Kean Hamilton - to the public media and in their book.

You forgot the 9/11 Commission's mandate:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

www.9-11commission.gov...

Obviously, it's mandate did not include the scientific and forensic of the attacks themselves. It's mandate was limited in scope. You also forgot the date it was issued: July 22, 2004. The terms, "Official Version", "Official Story", Official Narrative" were being used LONG before the report was issued.

Gerard Holmgren, an early no-planer easily debunked, used it in his paper on the Pentagon of Oct 29, 2002:

"According to the official story...."
houston.indymedia.org...

Barry Zwicker used the term "official narrative" on May 11, 2003 in the Toronto Star.

I am still waiting for you to provide all that abundant"evidence" you contend exists, and do so using the laws of physics and other sciences, plus, what you do know regarding the construction of the WTC buildings.

What is interesting is that you would deny any evidence exists! If, for instance, you are unaware of the massive evidence collected by the NIST investigation, one that was made up of a majority of independent experts in various fields, then you ought to take time to read the reports.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
911-engineers.blogspot.com...

So far, regardless of number of requests to use logic and science, you continue to do nothing more than make logical fallacy arguments. If you wish people to accept what you state, you will have to make some effort in presenting material that can't be refute by science.

I'll remind you that you have still not demonstrated scientifically or with any evidence, despite being asked several times to do so, to support your claim in another thread that the top section of WTC 2 was leaning at a 23 degree angle for a full 15 minutes before global collapse ensued.

I would hope you would recognize that you are under obligation to refute the evidence of 9/11 if you don't believe it. I'm still waiting.

Cheers.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Exactly how many people have you witnessed rejecting the “official” report are not capable of explaining why?

Perhaps I should clarify, I am talking about the majority of Truthers I meet that simply parrot things from websites or movies without double checking things themselves. If you are not one of them, it does not apply to you then.

there are a multitude of well researched and scientifically presented 9/11 non-fiction books being written and sold, by various authors of pertinent expertise giving very sound reasons why the “official” report cannot be accepted as presented.

Please provide those books and authors please.

Since you accuse me of this, “However to state such a thing in absolutes like you did…” would you care to cite the “….such a thing in absolutes…” I was supposed to have stated?

Here you go, sounds pretty absolute to me.

There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version.

Did I miss you presenting me with valid scientific evidence for anything? If so, would you please kindly point out what may I have missed?

No offense, as you a relatively new here, but this has been debate ad nausem here. I respectfully ask that you sift through all the 9/11 threads here. Been there done that.

However, you are not presenting scientific validation to prove WTC 7 collapsed as you hypothesize the reason it collapsed. You are doing exactly what you accuse so many unnamed others, in opposition to your arguments, of doing. You can’t expect people to simply agree with you based on what little unproved argument you presented. If you wish people to agree with you, then study the structure of WTC 7 and the specs of the materials used. Then explain how your hypothesized collapse agrees with physics laws and theories as you interpret physics laws and theories. Use what you believe to be evidence based on sound scientific validation.

Again I will refer you to multiple threads here. Use the search function. I was not making the point for me proving how WTC 7 collapsed, I was merely using it to show how CT'er seem to ignore such compelling evidence as the vast majority of NYFD reports about WTC7 and ignoring damage to WTC 7 caused by the collapse of WTC's 1 and 2.

There is no “..most important 3.…..”

I commend you for you basis in the sciences, that is a good start for sure. So, in 6 years of your own independent study what are your conclusions.

Originally posted by jthomas

You forgot the 9/11 Commission's mandate:

Au contraire, I did not forget about the 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps you have your chronology out of order. The 9/11 Commission Report was done because people disagreed with the US bureaucratic "official" version. The 9/11 Commission Report resulted from hearings, resolved nothing, and presented far more questions, regarding the "official" report.

What is interesting is that you would deny any evidence exists! If, for instance, you are unaware of the massive evidence collected by the NIST investigation, one that was made up of a majority of independent experts in various fields, then you ought to take time to read the reports.

Where did I deny the 9/11 Commission Report exists? In fact, in one of my post I mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report and called it bogus. The co-chair's of the commission, Kean and Hamilton, stated to the media and in their book the 9/11 Commission Report created far more questions and problems than it resolved, and blatantly implied it was a bogus report.

You keep making assumptions I did no study of the "official" version, NIST report, or the 9/11 Commission Report. You are wrong. I certainly did, which is how I know how wrong they all are.

I'll remind you that you have still not demonstrated scientifically or with any evidence, despite being asked several times to do so, to support your claim in another thread that the top section of WTC 2 was leaning at a 23 degree angle for a full 15 minutes before global collapse ensued.

Then you will not mind me reminding you that you still have avoided validating your contentions in counterpoints to me, plus, have failed to answer questions I asked starting two days ago.

I did respond, in another post, to your repeated harassment above. I have now told you, at least four times, that what you keep demanding isn't available.

A reasonable person would have said something like this after being told once, "I do not agree unless I also see physical proof." At that point, I would respond, "That is your perogative not to accept what cannot be validated." That would have been the end of it. Because I refuse to blindly accept what cannot be validated, I do not expect anyone else to blindly accept anything either. What you have done is continued to prove you are not a reasonable person.

Since I am not certain you understand how to validate your points, you are in no sound position to tell me I have not validated mine. I have in many instances on many points concerning 9/11.

I would hope you would recognize that you are under obligation to refute the evidence of 9/11 if you don't believe it. I'm still waiting.

Perhaps you should follow your own reminder first, while clearly understanding what it means to validate points of argument, before criticizing anyone else.

Orion, I believe you, and many other "truthers" get the wrong idea of what the intent of an investigation into the events of 9/11 is about to begin with.

It's not about "was there a cover-up?" It's about "did everyone do the job they were supposed to do?" "Why did our defenses fail?" "What can be done to keep this type of thing from happening in the future?"

It's not about "Did someone in our government plot this!?"

It's SOP for any major event - there is always an inquiry and there are always scapegoats that get booted out of their positions. Quite simply - the culprit is pork&barrel politics, where a congressman calls in a favor for a buddy of his to take charge of an agency or organization to make his resume look a little better.

You end up with experienced command staff getting ousted and replaced on a rather routine basis. The new guys come in and make the same organization related mistakes (if they even care about the duty the job requires of them)... then, by time they learn and get everything working - someone else is brought in through the same process.... and it's rinse, lather, repeat.

The military experiences similar problems.

That is why these inquiries were formed - so that one party can accuse the other of placing incompetent fools into positions of authority "because they are buddies."

That is what it all boils down to. And that is why I say our government is a pack of raving monkeys - and incapable of pulling off any conspiracy of this magnitude.

If there was a conspiracy at all - it is highly likely that the WTC would have been condemned within the decade because of the decaying structural stability - due to the bean-counter idea to use bolted joints instead of welded joints. So, the owners of the building contracted with the terrorists to bring it down and not have to pay for the expensive deconstruction process (which, by the way, would not have been 'controlled demolition' - it would have been taken apart, piece by tiny piece and scrapped).

Perhaps I should start my own 9/11 truth movement based around that.... I'll go research potential primary, secondary, tertiary, and post-tertiary links to any terrorist network from the owners. They probably bought gasoline at a Shell station at least once in their lives... that's proof-enough they are open supporters of terrorists and have a direct method of interacting with them.

And it's a win-win situation! The owners get to avoid speculation of "poorly designed structure" stigma, don't have to pay for the deconstruction, and will forever have their structure immortalized in the memories of the world. The terrorists get to strike at their most hated enemy and get paid for doing it.

Everyone is happy!

See what I meant by connect the dots to make whatever you want to? Nothing ever said you had to include all of the dots in your artwork, did they?

Originally posted by pavil

Perhaps I should clarify, I am talking about the majority of Truthers I meet that simply parrot things from websites or movies without double checking things themselves. If you are not one of them, it does not apply to you then.

I know you are. I understood it that way when you stated it another way, in another post, using other words. Which is why I explained in another post, your contention is baselessly and unfairly painting a large number of people with a very wide brush. Unless someone can begin to prove a majority of "Truthers" (term is also quite insulting) were/are peer pressured, your contention is baseless. What evidence do you have for using the word majority and concluding what you have?

What makes you seriously believe that just because people have reasoned the same factors through, arrived at the same conclusions, and happen to agree with one another, that they are brainlessly, blindly agreeing due to peer pressure?

Please provide those books and authors please.

I have two, so far, in my personal library, and they will not be the last I will be acquiring:

9-11 Coup Against America! The Pentagon Analysis by Dr. Peter Tiradera

Debunking 9/11 An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory by David Ray Griffin

Here you go, sounds pretty absolute to me.

There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version.

That is what you consider an "absolute" statement? Why? I am entitled not to accept what I do not feel validates anyone's position. I am also entitled to change my views should I receive validation at any point in time. Therefore, taking a statement, and, without foudation, calling it absolute, simply because you arbitrarily chose to do so, is also baseless contention toward me on your part.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Orion, I believe you, and many other "truthers" get the wrong idea of what the intent of an investigation into the events of 9/11 is about to begin with.

I have no idea what a "truther" is but the word sounds insulting.

I always thought the purpose, of an investigatio into criminal activity, was to use evidence and forensically prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence validly leads to the apprehension and punishment of the correct perpetrator or perpetrators. Now you say it ain't so when it applies to 9/11.

First, the actual perpetrators of 9/11 defy the laws of physics. Now you want to circumvent the valid purpose of investigating crimes, particularly one with the magnitude, death, and damage carried out on 9/11. You will happy to know the actual perpetrators certainly agree with you.

reply to post by OrionStars

There is bona fide proof that inferno fires have burn for many hours in non-redundantly built concrete and steel buildings, without the much higher material specifications required in the WTC buildings. Yet, the steel and concrete structures remained standing after the fires were extinguished many hours later. I would be amazed to learn that no one ever gave an example of such occurrence. It case it was not done , below is but one prime example as described above which occurred in Madrid, Spain:

You cannot compare the two. The building in Spain did not have a 300,000 lb aircraft fly into it at 500+ MPH. You are comparing apples to oranges. The only similarity is the fires. Nothing else

[edit on 15-12-2007 by six]

reply to post by six


Take the planes away, leaving a WTC7 comparison there, for fairness. Structural damage caused hours before collapse initiation.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Aim64C
Orion, I believe you, and many other "truthers" get the wrong idea of what the intent of an investigation into the events of 9/11 is about to begin with.

I have no idea what a "truther" is but the word sounds insulting.

Part of being in a society is getting lumped into categories like everyone else. It makes things easier. It's part of life.

I always thought the purpose, of an investigatio into criminal activity, was to use evidence and forensically prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence validly leads to the apprehension and punishment of the correct perpetrator or perpetrators. Now you say it ain't so when it applies to 9/11.

That's the purpose of a CRIMINAL investigation. I can conduct an investigation in to why my hot water heater isn't working and find that it's because a heating element burned out. It was an investigation, but it wasn't criminal in nature. The nature of this investigation was to determine if there WAS need for a criminal investigation into the actions and/or lack of communications between our agencies.

First, the actual perpetrators of 9/11 defy the laws of physics. Now you want to circumvent the valid purpose of investigating crimes, particularly one with the magnitude, death, and damage carried out on 9/11. You will happy to know the actual perpetrators certainly agree with you.

Emotional outburst? You cannot defy the laws of physics. My chemistry instructor in high-school used to laugh when someone would ask him "Is this supposed to happen?!" His response was "Well, it's happening, isn't it? Your job as a scientist is to figure out why."

In short - we cannot let our preconceptions interfere with our ability to evaluate what is going on. "This shouldn't be happening" is not a valid response.

I think that concept applies very well to your whole statement.

Originally posted by six
reply to post by OrionStars

 

You cannot compare the two. The building in Spain did not have a 300,000 lb aircraft fly into it at 500+ MPH. You are comparing apples to oranges. The only similarity is the fires. Nothing else

It depends on what point you thought I was making. My point was fire, particularly kerosene fires, do not cause steel and concrete high rises to collapse into their own footprints. Nor does a 767 hit, in a building specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707, drop into its own footprint. Nor will a combination of the two particularly in only 56 minutes for one building (hit second), and 1 hour and 42 minutes for the other (hit first).

For any building to implode into itself, the center supports have to be released in a balanced manner. Should that not happen, a building will topple and end up in pancake effect. That is simply part of the laws physics.