The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

The 9/11 Truth Movement goes on convinced of its hold on the truth but having made no progress in convincing others in six years of trying.

Here is an excellent example of 9/11 Truth's current state. Giulietto Chiesa, member of the European Parliament, organized a 9/11 truth "event" on Feb 26, with speakers, including DRG promoting yet another book on 9/11, at the Parliament and invited 1,000 journalists to attend.

ZERO attended. Not one journalist showed up. Zero.

Is it lack of interest? I and others would most certainly say so. Nothing has surfaced in years from the 9/11 Truth Movement - it's all rehash, yet its members are convinced it is growing and succeeding day by day. And how does Giulietto Chiesa explain this? Just watch:

www.youtube.com...

Yes, that is the state of 9/11 Truth, and it's not pretty for the 9/11 Truth Movement.






[edit on 11-3-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 11-3-2008 by jthomas]

Hi JThomas,

Your link does not appear to work.

I think this is the video you intended to embed:



All the best,

Isaac

9/11 Truthers share one thing in common. Flawed scientific method with regards to what constitutes evidence to support a theory. They all share at least the belief that the official story couldn't be true. Some believe that it was an inside job. Some believe Bush wasn't directly involved but let us get attacked. Some believe other variations on those themes. None can come to an agreement on what happened, or how. Why is this? Because they first established a theory, and then have tried to work backwards to find evidence, to support their theory. If they can't find evidence, or evidence disproves their theory, they don't change their mind. They simply start working a different angle. They also share another trait- any attempt to discredit them is obviously the work of government disinfo agents, or by uninformed/unenlightened sheeple.
They turn a blind eye to huge logical flaws in some of the various theories, yet say it's up to non CTers to prove that what appeared to happen, did in fact happen, while refusing to prove what they're claiming to have happened, did in fact happen.

reply to post by BlueRaja

You're right that most of us who question the official version of events don't subscribe to the same theory. There's a painfully simple explanation for this: no single theory has been developed that satisfies the various questions we have.

Those who do believe the official version, however, have a nicely packaged theory to subscribe to, as set out largely by the government. Are there, for example, any mainstreamers who fundamentally disagree with any of the findings set out in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST's report? Do you know anyone who robustly defends the official account yet is prepared to cast doubt on either report?

So the question is: what is the basis of a mainstreamer's belief in these reports, because there's plenty enough reason to doubt them?

[edit on 11-3-2008 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
None can come to an agreement on what happened, or how. Why is this?

Because the evidence and truth have been hidden from us?

They turn a blind eye to huge logical flaws in some of the various theories, yet say it's up to non CTers to prove that what appeared to happen, did in fact happen, while refusing to prove what they're claiming to have happened, did in fact happen.

In fact, you and jthomas have it all wrong. "9/11 truth" is just that. Asking for the truth of the matter. And if you think we've heard everything truthful, you are naive.

Bottom line:

Anyone oppossed to the truth about 9/11 is NOT working for the best interest for the American people.

Now, would this include 'truthers" who are just asking for the truth or would it include the government who has been trying to cover things up since day one?

Why aren't you people on the government (who has been shown time and time again to not be telling the whole truth) as much as you are the "9/11 truth movement"? One needs to ask that question.

reply to post by coughymachine


Indeed. Mainstream science has all kinds of various different theories, whether its cosmology, biology, or even anthropology. The fact that truth movement has competeing theories does not cast doubt on its validity.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by chromatico]

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by coughymachine

 

Indeed. Mainstream science has all kinds of various different theories, whether its cosmology, biology, or even anthropology. The fact that truth movement has competeing theories does not cast doubt on its validity.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by chromatico]

In science you conduct experiments. When you get the same results each time, then you can feel confident in claiming a proof. In law you use evidence to arrive at innocence or guilt. The Truth movement has come to a conclusion first, and then tried to find supporting evidence. This is poor scientific or legal methodology. The fact that I don't have all the answers doesn't make me disbelieve that hijackers crashed planes into the WTC. It's not a matter of blindly accepting the government's story. It's a matter of no alternate theory has adequately explained a more plausible story, with hard facts and supporting evidence.

reply to post by BlueRaja


I have a theory that I believe covers all the bases but I have no reason to believe you'd believe, so I won't waste my time by posting. It's not Directed Energy Weapons or anything crazy like that but something just tells me you're never going to change your mind.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I have a theory that I believe covers all the bases but I have no reason to believe you'd believe, so I won't waste my time by posting. It's not Directed Energy Weapons or anything crazy like that but something just tells me you're never going to change your mind.

It'd have to be pretty bulletproof evidence for me to change my mind. I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong, but we haven't gotten there yet.

reply to post by BlueRaja

No, this silly generalisation is disingenuous.

We haven't all come to a conclusion and then backwards engineered an argument. For the vast majority of us, the evidence presented in support of the official version was profoundly inadequate. We are thus entitled to question its validity. The fact that you don't is curious given your stance re: proper legal methodology.

You have seen no raw evidence to support the 9/11 Commission's findings, for example, yet you doubtless agree with them (if you don't agree with them, sorry for being presumptious. Stop reading and let me know what you disagree with). And this despite the fact that even the Chair and Vice Chair have little faith in some of the testimony they received from the White House and the Pentagon.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

No, this silly generalisation is disingenuous.

We haven't all come to a conclusion and then backwards engineered an argument. For the vast majority of us, the evidence presented in support of the official version was profoundly inadequate. We are thus entitled to question its validity. The fact that you don't is curious given your stance re: proper legal methodology.

You have seen no raw evidence to support the 9/11 Commission's findings, for example, yet you doubtless agree with them (if you don't agree with them, sorry for being presumptious. Stop reading and let me know what you disagree with). And this despite the fact that even the Chair and Vice Chair have little faith in some of the testimony they received from the White House and the Pentagon.

I already said I didn't have all the answers, and neither does anyone else.
That's not disproof of hijackers crashing planes into the WTC. It was never the government's responsibility to prove that we were attacked. It merely tried to find out what happened, and there are gaps in info. This doesn't mean that you throw out the idea of terrorists crashing planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I already said I didn't have all the answers, and neither does anyone else.

You're either missing the point or else deliberately obfuscating.

I don't have all the answers; the vast majority of so-called 'truthers' don't have all the answers; indeed, as you rightly pointed out, no one has all the answers. The simple fact that this is so means there are unanswered questions. Ergo, we're entitled to ask questions.

Or are you of the opinion that, if the government says it happened thus, then it must surely have happened thus? Because I'm not.

We all know governments have a nasty habit of lying - they commit vast sums to the mechanisms that deliver these lies. You might be interested in a thread I started in the Deconstructing Disinformation & Deflection board entitled Government use of media for disinformation and propaganda, which gives a bit of an insight into this.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I have a theory that I believe covers all the bases but I have no reason to believe you'd believe, so I won't waste my time by posting. It's not Directed Energy Weapons or anything crazy like that but something just tells me you're never going to change your mind.

chroma, somehow your post was overlooked, so here it is again...you have a theory that covers all bases, but don't want to waste your time because of ONE other member? Maybe a thousand others would like to know what your theory is!

You've made a point that believers in DEW believe in a crazy theory (the dear departed JL comes to mind), and maybe you won't change their minds. But, why should you change anyone's mind at all? Just present your theory, see how the discussion flows....

Originally posted by coughymachine
You're either missing the point or else deliberately obfuscating.


Or are you of the opinion that, if the government says it happened thus, then it must surely have happened thus? Because I'm not.

Pointing out that nobody has all the answers is obfuscation? The only answers truthers seem to have is that the official story doesn't have all the answers. I'd love to see what answers truthers do in fact have.

As I said before- it was never the responsibility of the government to prove that we were attacked. Their failure to adequately explain to you, the reasons how we were attacked is not evidence that we weren't attacked. I didn't wait for the 9/11 commission report to decide that I believed "the official story." Until I'm presented with compelling evidence that we were not in fact attacked, I will go with what was observed to have happened that day.

reply to post by BlueRaja

No. You do actually appear to be missing the point. And this after I set it out so clearly too.

You accept no one has the answers. You must, by definition, accept there are unanswered questions. These questions stem principally from the fact that the official account as set out by the 9/11 Commission was based in part on lies and half-truths; and also the fact that NIST's models have not satisfied everyone given that - to cite just one example - the parameters were manipulated in order to ensure the model matched the observed events.

It's funny that you should accuse the 'truthers' of reverse engineering a theory in order to fit a preconceived conclusion when this is exactly what NIST appears to have done.

And as for claiming that it was 'never the responsibility of the government to prove that we were attacked', you're right. I had a pretty good idea that happened all by myself. It absolutely is the responsibility of the government to support the claims they make about who perpetrated the attack and how they did it, however.

Wars have been fought as a consequence; countries invaded; tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed; and billions of taxpayer dollars spent. If you don't believe the events that precipitated these actions require a thorough examination, then good luck to you.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by coughymachine]

What I find amusing is how many truthers will make scientific claims with regards to science, engineering, aeronautics, demolitions, etc.. without having any background in these disciplines. They will discount people's assertions that are in these disciplines, if they disagree with the findings, because other people in the field have different ideas. The hard truth is that the vast majority of scientists, engineers, demo experts, aeronautics experts don't make conspiratorial claims, yet their opinions are discarded as being shills, whereas the minority view is taken as gospel truth.
I don't know your background, but I will assume that you, like myself are not an expert in these fields, and rely on those that are, for informed opinions. I don't find it plausible that the majority are lying.

reply to post by BlueRaja

You're right about my expertise - or lack thereof. I have no background in engineering or any discipline suited to a technical discussion about the events of 9/11.

But I can read, and I just cited two clear cut examples of where that skill is sufficient to be able to recognise there are problems with the official version of events.

As for the rest of your post, perhaps I could respond with a question to help you see my point.

If a forensic scientist were brought up on charges of murder and, in court, produced his own analysis of the crime scene as proof of his innocence, would you feel it right and proper to let him go free without some independent corroboration?

Originally posted by coughymachine


If a forensic scientist were brought up on charges of murder and, in court, produced his own analysis of the crime scene as proof of his innocence, would you feel it right and proper to let him go free without some independent corroboration?

In your scenario, then I'd say no. I don't see that as being analogous to what happened though. Firstly, I don't view the government as a monolithic entity, where every Federal employee is of the same mindset, or tainted with lack of objectivity. Secondly, not every expert that agrees with the "official story" was part of the 9/11 Commission(assuming you believe they had motive to cover up for Bush).
I see far too many truthers simply spouting off the same talking points as Rosie O'Donnell, when they simply are not qualified subject matter experts on the topics that they are speaking authoritatively on.

reply to post by BlueRaja

Look, with the best will in the world, we're going nowhere.

It would be impossible to construct a scenario that was analogous simply because the government and issues involved are so extraordinarily complex. I just wanted to demonstrate that, when one of the entities suspected of a crime develops and controls the evidence, clearly there is a conflict of interest.

Anyway, I've lost count of the number of times you refer to 'too many truthers', or words to that effect.

You're not talking to 'too many truthers', you're talking to me. You have precious little knowledge of what I believe other than that I feel the official account is flawed. Further, by virtue of the fact you acknowledge no one has all the answers, you have even accepted that there are unanswered questions.

Your reaction to this is to criticise those who press for answers to those unanswered questions rather than remain critical yourself. I profoundly disagree with this approach but that's your prerogative.

Could I respecfully suggest you say what you have to say in response and then bring this exchange to an end?

Maybe we shouldn't bring up all those in the military (or retired military) that are asking for an INDEPENDANT investigation. You know, those retired fighter pilots, that question the flying of the alleged hijackers, yes those professional pilots, but then they probably aren't qualified to make any judgment as to how 9/11 went off without a hitch. The 9/11 hijackers just didn't cover their tracks as well as they should have, otherwise there would be no question as to how everything went down, unfortunately, too many questions remain.

I was one of those that believed the official story til last winter, when I started to look into 9/11, my stance changed, and will continue to be very very skeptical of the governments theory, until the official version can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Until then, no dice to the official theory. Yea, I know you believers will say the, burden of proof is on me, but for them to be guilty, I only have to put doubt in the jurors minds, that is, how was every wayward plane intercepted in the years prior and every plane since intercepted, but on 9/11 not one of the 4 jets were intercepted? I want an answer to that. You see, having drills won't do, unless you blindly follow the governments theory.

Do any of you believers have the slightest question or slightest doubt as to the governments claim? If you do, then you too, are a "truther" You can't have it both ways.