The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Jthomas, I'd like to clear up a misconception you have of me and I think most if not all other 911 Truthers. I didn't wake up one day and say 'I think I feel like suspecting the Government of instigating 911' just for the hell of it. At first I was skeptical of the 'inside job' theory. Then I did what everyone should do. I LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE!!!!! HAVE YOU????? I'm not even going to try to list it all here. Suffice it to say that I RELUCTANTLY came to the conclusion that rogue elements within the Executive Branch, Military and Intelligence communities conspired to make sure that people died on 911. I understand that this conclusion may be so horrible that some decent, honest citizens will refuse to accept the possibility. IF you have honestly looked at all the evidence that's available on the various 911 Truth websites, and you still think there's nothing fishy going on with the Official Version, then you are part of a VERY tiny minority!

I've looked at the actual evidence and the the claims and assertions made by 9/11 Truthers about the evidence.

What is clear to the vast majority of us that claims by all factions of the 9/11 Truth Movement have not, and do not, stand up to logical and rational scrutiny. The 9/11 Truth Movement's reliance on faulty premises, fallacious reasoning, misrepresented data, and debunked claims is transparent and, frankly, silly and embarrassing.

And since I didn't fall for the canard of the "Official Version", but you have, then you are admitting to me that you haven't examined all the evidence.

Sorry, I can't help you. I'll just continue to wait for you all to actually do something.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I've asked for suggestions on how to get mainstream media attention so here is a suggestion. Someone should organize a 'million man march' type of demonstration in (at the very least) Washington DC

Good luck with that. Your lucky to get a couple hundred truthers to protest with you. Look at the past 911 at GZ.
Millions? Just not going to happen.

reply to post by jthomas

What's 'too bad' is that the evidence is incomplete and the official account unconvincing.

And what is clear is that there is an official account. How is your campaign to persuade the world's media that this is not so coming along?

reply to post by jthomas

When the official account is built upon reports such as the 9/11 Commission's - which relies in part upon lies and half-truths - and NIST's - which backwards engineers a theory to fit a predetermined conclusion - then what exactly would you have anyone refute? The lies? The flawed methods?

How can one refute the 'evidence' when one isn't clear what is and what isn't genuine 'evidence'?

They are self-refuting.

reply to post by coughymachine


Coughy... your havent formed an opinion? Yet the 911 report is filled with 1/2 truths and lies.

Just for fun. Can you point out some lies in the 911 report?

Im curious.

Thanks

reply to post by CaptainObvious

I have formed an opinion: the official account is inadequate. But, prey tell, how am I expected to move from that position unless verifiable evidence either in support of it or else an alternative emerges?

A more interesting question is how you, who cannot possibly have had sight of all the evidence and who has, in the past, confessed to not understanding some of it, be 100% certain of anything?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


My fear is that you're probably right. On the other hand, so far as I know, no one's tried organizing something like that. I just hope that someone tries.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Could I respectfully ask you to direct that question towards Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.

I believe they also stated the Commission was set up to fail, or words to that effect. You might want to ask them about the implications of that too.

Originally posted by jthomas
Too bad the evidence is not a "story", isn't it?

I don't know if I've ever referred to the official account as a 'story', but one thing is for sure - the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission did. On several occasions too.

Source: CBC

Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

Looks like you're going to be busy. First, you have to write to the government letting them know that, despite their own description of the report as 'official', it's not actually an 'official' report. Then you need to let Popular Mechanics know they got it wrong too. Then there's the rest of the world's media, which constantly refers to an official something or other. And now you need to write to the Vice Chair of the Commission and let him know he was wrong to call the report a 'story'.

When you've done all that and got their acceptance of your assertions, let me know and I'll drop the label too.

Okay?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas


The CIA is a murderous organization that has overthrown democratically elected gov's and killed many, the Joint Chiefs in the past plotted to commit crimes against innocent Cubans and Americans and US military.

They automatically becomes suspect, as any murderer would in a crime that he is near to.

Good luck "selling" that reasoning.

So if a murderer is present during a crime I guess you wouldn't suspect them.

reply to post by jthomas


So if you've looked at the evidence, then you'll have read the dozens (hundreds by now?) reports by experts in the fields of engineering, physics, chemistry to name just a few, on the Scholarsfor911truth.org website and you've concluded that they are ALL wrong. Remind us all again of how many Phds you have after your name? Oh, that's right. NONE!

But you ARE entitled to your opinion, so I'll tell you what I'll do. I will give your opinions all the attention and respect they deserve...which is exactly ZERO!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by coughymachine

 

Stop with the silly simantics and please provide us all with evidence that proves once and for all that the government LIHOP or MIHOP.

It's been almost 6 1/2 years. So far all you guy got is a guy pulling it and Liars like Alex Jones, Judy Woods, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan...... and my favorite Dick Gage. (see link below)

The fact is, the truthers have added nothing to support their claims in the 6 years or so that they have been around.

you please do the same on the other side of the fence and provide the evidence that supports the media claims post 911. Ive asked for that many times on these forums but have never been supplied either.

Thats the problem, when you have an issue that is at a stalemate and has spawned 2 wars, you have a problem with anyone in the world who requires a legitimate reason for such wars.

The post fallout effect can be seen as plain as day. we invaded afghanistan, who was allegedly responsible for 90% of the heroin on the streets. The heroin is still on the streets which proves one of the following statements:

1: the intel was false and the heroin was never coming from afghanistan.

2: our invasion accomplished little.

3: we're in on the heroin dealing.

none of those are acceptable. The invasion was a direct result of 911 (so we are told).

That makes our country a criminal entity to most people in the world's eyes. Sorry to say it but its true.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by saturnsrings

 

Saturn... you realize your entire post is filled with old recycled bunk? (besides the gas prices)

Please provide eveidence to your claims.

If it's old bunk, I need not post links then should I? I know you've seen/read all of the "old bunk" I'm speaking of, haven't you? Yet you still believe the official story. Sorry, it matters not, what links I provide you, you still wouldn't believe them, so why waste my time.

Thanks for playing though.

reply to post by jthomas


I don't use the any "911 truth movement" viewpoints, man. I use my own mind to form my own opinions based on what I deem logical and plausible. This has nothing to do with jumping on some bandwagon or blindly following some popular new trend. On that very day, while watching this happen, I looked at my friend and said, "I dont know, seems fishy." This was long before some "911 truth movement" which in itself is an absurd label. You want me to instead, "think" ? OK. Let me think. Yea, a bunch of bad guys who hated America so much somehow stole airliners using razorblades then used them to knock down two massive skyscrapers like a villian in a Diehard blockbuster. Hmm. Thinking. Yea, no. Still don't buy it totally. Hey, it's possible. That could have been how it went down. But is it really that absurd for me to question that explanation, even the slightest bit? Come on.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

Could I respectfully ask you to direct that question towards Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.

I believe they also stated the Commission was set up to fail, or words to that effect. You might want to ask them about the implications of that too.

The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission that 19 Arab hijackers under the direction of Osama bin Laden hijacked 4 different airliners and crashed them into WTC 1, 2 and The Pentagon, with the fourth failing to reach a target are not in dispute by Commission members.

You might want to ask yourself the implications of that.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
Too bad the evidence is not a "story", isn't it?

I don't know if I've ever referred to the official account as a 'story', but one thing is for sure - the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission did. On several occasions too.

Source: CBC

Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

You forgot one key point. We are talking about the definition of "story" the way 9/11 Truthers use it.

Ooops. Another inconvenient fact intrudes on your "story."

In the meantime, the evidence and conclusions of the different reports have remained unassailable by the dying 9/11 Truth Movement.

It looks like you'd better get off your butts, doesn't it, coughmachine?

reply to post by jthomas

You just carry on stumbling blindly about, don't you?

Read these two extracts from an interview with Lee Hamilton.

Solomon: In retrospect, one of the criticisms that you level in this book "Without Precedent" is aimed at both the FAA and NORAD, both of whom representatives testified before the Commission, and both of whom gave what to me - and I'm allowed to be much more impolite than you - sounded to me like lies. They told you testimony that simply... the tapes that were subsequently.. that have subsequently been revealed, were simply not true.

Hamilton: That's correct.

Solomon: And it wasn't just lies by ommission, in some senses lies of commission, they told you things that basically didn’t happen. What do you make of that?

Hamilton: Well, I think you’re right. They gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them.

Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here.

Solomon: Now what happens when you get on to these [talk radio] shows, and you talk about that, and you get every - because you understand that the landscape is now littered with that stuff. What do you say to all these reports that are coming in - constantly?

Hamilton: I think people do not sufficiently understand how complicated conducting a major investigation is, and how difficult it is, in an event of this kind, to chase down every answer to every question, and... Look, I can go before any audience in America today and I can raise so many questions about 9/11 - raise questions, not answer questions, raise questions - about the investigation. And everbody in the audience will walk out saying 'the government misled us or lied to us.' It’s a very easy thing to do! I can raise questions about our own report!

Solomon: Like what? What would you raise?

Hamilton: Well, like I just said, about the 19 hijackers, we didn’t answer that question.

We had to tell that story as best we could, and we did, and we made a lot of judgments about the credibility of evidence. Were we right in every case? I suspect not. Were we right in most cases? I think so.

I do not know at this point of any factual error in our report, that I would absolutely say 'we just plain missed it.' Now, maybe I need to review it more carefully, but I cannot recall right now at this instance any fact that we just plain missed.

Solomon: Not that you got wrong, but the fact that was omitted?

Hamilton: Well, I know there were a lot of questions that we could not answer, with regard to FAA and NORAD and White House activity, and a lot of other things, we just can’t answer 'em.

Solomon: Is there anything in retrospect.. I mean, your deadline was so tight, and you say that forced you to make some very tough decisions as to how far ranging the investigation could be. In retrospect, if you'd had more time, what would you have investigated more thoroughly?

Hamilton: I would have, I think we spent - if I were critiquing the work of the Commission - I think we spent too much time on the question of access. And I would have liked to have gotten that over with, say, in the first half of the Commission's work, so that we could have spent more time in putting the story together, maybe trying to answer some of the questions you raise that I can’t answer - and polishing the recommendations.

But you don’t... everything doesn’t go like you want it to go, and we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission's work.

At the risk of appearing unoriginal, you might want to ask yourself the implications of that.

Originally posted by jthomas
You forgot one key point. We are talking about the definition of "story" the way 9/11 Truthers use it.

This is so lame, it's worth responding simply to point out how lame it is.

Are you so lacking in ideas at this point that you must resort to this nit-picking?

By the way, how is the government and the world's media responding to your call to drop the term 'official' when referring to the official account?

"fighting the question of access right up to the end"

Doesn't sound like the FAA and NORAD, as well as the White House, were very helpful with the 911 Commission. My question to you jthomas would be why?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by jthomas

 

So if you've looked at the evidence, then you'll have read the dozens (hundreds by now?) reports by experts in the fields of engineering, physics, chemistry to name just a few, on the Scholarsfor911truth.org website and you've concluded that they are ALL wrong. Remind us all again of how many Phds you have after your name? Oh, that's right. NONE!

Evidence, methodologies of investigations, and conclusions do not depend on my qualifications, now do they? Neither do they depend on your qualifications.

I will depend on the knowledge, qualifications, and evidence produced by those who are qualified and can support their case WITH evidence.

What we have, as a result, is those at Scholarsfor911truth.org whose theories and calculations have been consistently refuted (as you would know if you bothered), you have yet to produce one single piece of conclusive evidence to support their claims.

Not only that, they are transparently dishonest, starting their OWN Journal and then claiming, dishonestly, that it is a scientifically "peer-reviewed" journal, when the "reviews" are NOT submitted for outside peer review. Not only that, they never bother to discuss the preconditions and implications of their particular claims, e.g., as in how it would be possible to plant explosives or keep a whole plot secret, or discuss ALL of the evidence, etc. And, of course, Scholars, like the rest of 9/11 Truth Movement are politically motivated.

In the meantime, we have the most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken that are fully open to the world's structural engineers, forensic scientists, and other qualified people to question, contest, or affirm.

I'm sorry you don't understand that skeptics like me with no political agenda will accept wherever the evidence leads and that means if you can prove your case and refute all of the evidence against you, we all would accept that.

However, the 9/11 Truth Movement has made it QUITE clear that it will accept only a new investigation that produces a guilty outcome. As architect, Richard Gage, member of Scholarsfor911truth.org, made it clear, it's settled:

"Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7"
Response to NIST's Invitation for Written Comments
Documentation of spoken remarks presented on December 18 conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee
Emailed to NIST on January 3, 2008

Richard Gage, AIA – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

"How much longer must we endure NIST's cover-up of how Building 7 was actually destroyed? Millions of Americans, including the 230+ architects and engineers and 600 others of AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully resourced and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7."

So, how do YOU judge evidence?