The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

reply to post by percievedreality


Enlightened? Well we're all allowed to try to fit the pieces together and come up with a rational reason why and how 911 happened, and studenofhistory's version is close to the one in my head as well, so 3 independent minds agree.

Now "inside job" is not part of my vision. Were there insiders, almost assuredly, but I have to believe this was the doing of some very powerful multinational entity(ies) and/or private military contractor(s).

Originally posted by jthomas
The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.

You gonna stand by this statement? "The government has no obligation to "prove" anything".

Man I just trying wrap my mind around this and it baffles me. No critical thinking needed, no more asking for evidence that should already be public knowledge.

Thanks for clearing everything up for me jthomas.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Cheney and the NeoCons needed an excuse to strike pre-emptively at Afganistan,

Why? Did Clinton need an excuse to send over 100 cruise missles into Afghanistan? Were there not strict UN sanctions ALREADY in place against the civil rights atrocities committed by the Taliban? Did we need an excuse to depose Noriega in Panama? We deployed MORE troops in Panama, flew MORE sortees in Panama-- all WITHOUT U.N sanctions or approval. Where was the crazy-eyed false flag for that? There was none-- Why? Because it is not neccessary--AT ALL.

Irag

IraQ -- WMD's - That were never found! NOT 9/11 Do you realize how BAD not finding WMD's in Iraq made our intelligence community look? How ANY momentum from 9/11 (if indeed as your dreamworld were true) was lost completely-- The Administration's approval ratings NOSE-DIVED, basically castrating any power that might have been.

An all-powerful killing machine would NEVER make that kind of ridiculous mistake. ( Incompetents might though)

Ask yourself this: If the Goverment just "made all of this up" Why wouldn't they just "make-up" the hijackers being from Iraq? Simple, and they don't look like bumbling baffoons a couple of years down the road.

Don't tell me.. "It's all a part of some complex plan that takes decades if not CENTURIES to carry out."

The plans for invading Afganistan were in place, ready to go BEFORE 911(this has been documented).

Gurm, ya think? The US blasting Afghanistan in 1998 with tons of cruise missles is pretty well documented too. Ya see, the WORLD and the Taliban were NOT exactly seeing eye-to-eye back round the turn of the century. Partly because they harbored known terrorists, and partly because of stark civil rights atrocities.

Bin Laden was a made to order patsy (and there is some evidence that he is in fact a willing accomplice of the CIA resulting from the CIA funded war against the Soviet occupation of Afganistan).

Don't mistake the Pashtun Afghani rebels with Sunni Arab militia (later Al Queda). Think about when the US invaded Afghanistan-- WHO ON THE GROUND were our ALLIES? TO FIGHT *AGAINST* the Taliban and Al Queda? The Northern Alliance-- Pashtun fighters we had long lasting connections with from-- you guessed it... The Soviet-Afghani conflict in the 80's.

The US military/intelligence community recruited and trained Mohamed Atta and the others (substantial evidence of training at US military bases) and may have told them that they would be participating in military exercises involving simulated hijackings on 911.

Link? Proof?

Rumsfeld has to admit infront of Congress on September 10th, that 2.3 trillion $ of military spending can't be accounted for. Congress tells him to find out what happened to the money. That task is assigned to a group of civilian analysts working for the Pentagon, who just happened to be working in that part of the pentagon that was destroyed, thereby killing all of the analysts.

WOW--Wrong, and the 2.3 trillion story was NOT breaking news on 9/10/2001 it had been discussed PUBLICLY several times prior to 9/10/2001.

[snip tha chaff]

The twin towers were NOT brought down by the government. They were brought down by Henry Silverstein,

Are you sure it wasn't Henry Kissenger?

who had leased them several months previously and faced a mandatory billion $ bill to have all asbetos removed. The Mossad, who were filming the event as it happened, had warned Silverstein that the towers would be hit by planes. Silverstein then insured both building for billions against a terrorist attack,

You Do know he tried to AVOID paying for that insurance policy, but the underwriters insisted he have it.

then arranged to have the buildings wired with thermite, which burns hot enough to cause the pools of molten metal found weeks later, and proceeded to cash in on the event.

BWAHA-- Thermite reaction is quick and doesn't last weeks-- It would have taken TONS of thermite to sever all the columns-- how would anyone know PRECISELY where the planes would hit, and what kind of catostophic damage to ANY "staged" demolition devices would occur? They wouldn't..

End result?
Silverstein gets a huge multi-billion $ insurance windfall.

Only to lose all of it due to not having three buildings at 95% occupanct anymore, but still has the 100 yr lease he has to pay.. every month that goes by he loses money.

The pentagon no longer has to explain where the missing trillions went.

It is poor accounting practice over the course of decades, not missing-as in stolen. (incompetence? there is that word again)

The NeoCons get their 'New Pearl Harbour'.

Only to squander the momentum less than two years later--

Atta and the other patsies make convenient scapegoats.

But better martyrs apparently, since you have decided your own nation would just up and destroy the heart of her largest city.

Here is a good video from YouTube that reminds me of some folks, sometimes:




I wonder: If Al Queda were a bunch of net-savvy people, do you think they would disguise themselves as truthers in attempt to further divide America?- since it is one of their primary goals, and plays on the power that martyrdom can yeild-- fear and uncertanty, disbelief, doubt.......

reply to post by NGC2736


I myself am not trying to insult anyone.

What I am trying to say is if not explosives what is it that I heard and felt?

I heard them and so did many others.

Its documented on video.

Why is this still being addressed as speculation in light of all the eyewitness accounts, in light of the issues and anomalies with the official report?




To call someone a sheep or is a lot different than calling someone crazy.

Originally posted by SButlerv2
reply to post by NGC2736

 

I myself am not trying to insult anyone.

What I am trying to say is if not explosives what is it that I heard and felt?

I heard them and so did many others.

You heard explosions-- I believe you.
BUT-- the question is: Were those explosions caused by detonation charges? Perhaps they were caused by buring debris hitting cars, exploding transformers, severed gas/steam lines...all the stuff that breaks during a disaster. Just a suggestion. thats all.

One question though, did the sounds you hear sound anything like this:



It isn't just an explosion here, and then an explosion there-- It is an undeniable synchronized series of explosions-- which video evidence does not support. Further had high explosives been used in the video below you would see debris being ejected at the point of collapse the instant the supports were "blown." Instead you see the outter colums buckle under the stress of the load above.




It is footage like this that forced the truth movement to drop High explosives as a cause of collapse and focus on thermate. This happened in about 2005. Since that time thermate/mite has been pretty much evicerated as a legitimate theory, but better still than the death ray from outter space, or mini-nuke theories.

There is no better example of people trying to reverse engineer a theory to fit their predetermined conclusion. And this is simply not how logic or science works.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver



While I agree that what you speak of can account for much of what was heard by many there that day but I dont think it convinces me because of the following.


The blasts were uniform and extremely loud and had a
deliberate quality to them

The vibrations were intense from blocks away.

They reverberated.

I have seen flash overs and propane fires and building fires where things crack snap pop and even blow up but this had your ears ringing.

Now I know for a fact that in the NC-STAR there is speak of a "high speed oxidation "
of a sample and that "further investigation was needed"

Can you tell me what the outcome of that was?, because I cant find it.

Why was what is commonly referred to as the pryoclastic flow so hot?

You speak of gas, steam and electric but the gas would have been shut down A.S.A.P ,electric was lost when the South tower went down and I have heard transformers go and although its loud I don't feel the shaking and vibration that was felt Prior to the collapse of the North Tower.

Steam would go and that would be more than likely a single event not dozens upon dozens.


I felt similar vibrations when I observed a claymore going off while I was active duty and is something you feel hit your feet and there is a rumble to it.

Also even if you were right how do we explain the following?

Red hot steel as documented by video and images?

Molten steel that I heard about from men I would trust with my life.

The antenna on the North Tower drops 11-12 feet before the"collapse" starts
how does this reconcile with the official report?

Why is this characteristic also found with WTC7 when the penthouse or highest point of the internal structure seems to go?

If you can give me a reasonable explanation on what could be in an area that would explode by the dozens if not hundreds and create that reverberation and vibration?

The uniformity of the blasts is what makes me think there were explosives present as do many others.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jthomas
The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.

You gonna stand by this statement? "The government has no obligation to "prove" anything".

You're perfectly welcome to show what the governemnt must "prove."

Man I just trying wrap my mind around this and it baffles me. No critical thinking needed, no more asking for evidence that should already be public knowledge.

In fact, it is critical thinking that is needed. You haven't given a reason why the government is obligated to "prove" anything. If you can produce a valid argument why it must, what's holding you back?

Originally posted by Smack

[You have offered to apply logic and critical thinking to the claims of others, yet you have shown none of it yourself. If you are truly interested in debate, drop this thread and create a new one, taking care to craft a solid formal argument, based upon those lofty attributes -- logic and critical thinking. Perhaps then, we might engage in an argument worth having. I am done with this thread.

But the only claims that are being discussed in the "9/11 Conspiracies" forum are the claims made by 9/11 Truthers.

Is that not the argument worth having?

Originally posted by Maxmars

This thread doesn't seem to be about anything but the conflict between the two and not the subject itself (9/11).

Am I missing something here?

How can anyone not see the disparate nature of facts and the pablum the media propagates? And why should I be disinterested in it just because the media isn't?

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Maxmars]

I entitled the thread, "The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty", and used the example of what happened at the EP. The bigger point is that after six years the 9/11 Truth Movement has made no progress in either illustrating its case or coming up with overwhelming evidence that would induce yet another investigation.

Those of us who challenge 9/11 Truthers have always seen a consistent pattern of illogical thinking and a severe lack of critical thinking within the 9/11 Truth Movement starting at the top with it's most prominent representatives. We see the rhetorical ploys that were developed at the beginning in early 2002, e.g., "we're just asking questions", "how do you explain.....?", the "Official Story", etc.) that are repeated over and over like a religious chant.

And in six years, the state of 9/11 Truth is no further along than when it started. The 9/11 Truth Movement's energy peaked in 2006, but without demonstrating any validity of its claims, it has been slowly deflating ever since, like an old balloon.

Yet 9/11 Truthers can't see why - or won't. There were no takers of my offer.

Here is a great article addressing the "how do you explain....?" mantra.

Bad Moves: How else do you explain it?

By Julian Baggini

" Down inside, we are all born apart from God, and we grow up selfish and demanding our own way. What the Psalmist said of himself is also true of us: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). And one sign of our sin is that we don't want God's way in our lives, and we are in rebellion against Him and His will. How else do you explain the evil in the world?"
Rev. Billy Graham

Is a bad explanation better than no explanation at all? If you have no idea why your mug suddenly shattered and someone suggests it had spontaneously gained consciousness, realized the futility of its existence and committed suicide, would it be wise to accept that explanation, provisionally at least, until a better one is forthcoming?

Clearly there are some explanations which are worse than no explanations at all. Yet humans don’t seem comfortable living with the unaccountable. We even talk of things themselves demanding an explanation, when really it is us doing the demanding. Perhaps then we crave explanations, and this craving sometimes leads us to accept things we really have no good reason to.

How else do you explain the rhetorical force of asking how else you explain something? Asking a question like this shifts the onus from the claim-maker to the person accepting or rejecting the claim. Instead of having to provide evidence or arguments to defend her position, the claim-maker is demanding that the person assessing her view either offers a better explanation or shuts up. But this shifting of onus is unreasonable. If you offer an explanation, it is up to you to show that it is a good one, not for me to show I have a better one. My rejection of your explanation does not require that I have a better one to hand. In the same way, if someone writes a terrible poem, it’s no defence for them to argue that you couldn’t write a better one.

So, of course, my own use of “How else do you explain” at the start of the last paragraph is itself an example of how not to argue. Whether you accept my earlier speculation that human craving for explanation in part explains the rhetorical appeal of “How else do you explain it” should not depend on whether you have a better explanation.

article continued at...

www.butterfliesandwheels.com...

reply to post by Griff


Let's put it this way- I have seen zero evidence showing that these hijackers were under orders from anyone in the US government. Do I believe that there were screwups, that in retrospect could've helped prevent this? Perhaps. There have always been turf battles with regards to info/analysis/etc... and perhaps if this weren't the case, the pieces of the puzzle could've been put together, and actionable intel could've been put together. Addtionally if better SOPs had been in place, perhaps reaction times would've been better for interceptions. What we saw was that there were a lot of things that could've been done better, but I ultimately hold the hijackers that crashed the planes responsible. Pointing fingers at intel analysts, air traffic controllers, the Air Force, etc... really isn't helpful. The takeaway is that the deficiencies that were observed that day needed to be fixed so that this couldn't happen again. Sadly until a significant motivation for changing procedure exists, convenience will override security. Nobody wants to be incovenienced, so they'll cut corners. We've seen the results of that now.

Originally posted by jthomas
The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.

How about the fact that our tax paying dollars went into funding the "investigation"? We damn well do deserve it.

reply to post by SButlerv2


I've lost quite a number of friends too, my sister lost her boss, etc... so don't try to use that excuse with me please. I do sympathize with your loss, so don't think I'm trying to be trite or disrespectful. The frustration of loss combined with feeling that there's info you don't know can be unsettling I'm sure. Not knowing certain pieces of info is not evidence of criminal acts or treachery though. That's all I'm trying to point out.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
There is no better example of people trying to reverse engineer a theory to fit their predetermined conclusion. And this is simply not how logic or science works.

No. It's more like we know that the reverse engineered official story is flawed and we are trying to fill in the gaps.

reply to post by Griff


The difference is that the investigators were trying to figure out what happened and how, without having come to a conclusion first. Truthers come to conclusions and then fill in gaps as they go, and that's the reason why many of us are skeptical of their claims.

reply to post by jthomas


Your point is well taken, the same argument applies to many topics like UFOs or Bigfoot, Ghosts, the JFK assassination, etc. But I felt that this event was somewhat different since there was so much physical evidence and yes, lot's of anecdotal evidence too.

There must be a way to collect and present the 'issues' of this event without waxing fanatical or offending those who are as steadfastly dead set against the possibility of collusion or conspiracy. I have always felt that such 'outlandish' theories usually contain at least some truth. Or do you believe that if you can't prove something with a written confession or a government certified document it just isn't so?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Not knowing certain pieces of info is not evidence of criminal acts or treachery though. That's all I'm trying to point out.

It all goes back to this:

The government wants us to give up our rights and privacy for security. They say, "well, if you've done/are doing nothing wrong, then why not".

Why doesn't the same standard hold with them in your eyes?

It's ok for them to hold onto evidence and never disclose it? For security purposes? Construction documents to buildings that will never exist again are security issues?

If the government has nothing to hide, then they should be more than willing to let all evidence come forward.

So, why are we still scratching our heads wondering where the evidence is then?

Logically, one can only come to one conclusion.

The double standard is staggering with debunkers.

It's ok for the government to hide evidence etc. But, for the normal people it's "if you've done nothing wrong, let us look into all your personal crap."

Bullocks.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Griff

 

The difference is that the investigators were trying to figure out what happened and how, without having come to a conclusion first. Truthers come to conclusions and then fill in gaps as they go, and that's the reason why many of us are skeptical of their claims.

This is blatantly false.

NIST used their most severe scenarios because they had a certain conclusion to come to and reverse engineered all data to fit it.

Again, the double standard around here is staggering.

[edit on 3/13/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Maxmars
Or do you believe that if you can't prove something with a written confession or a government certified document it just isn't so?

Speaking for most of em and what I've seen from jthomas' posts. Yes, that would be their stance.

reply to post by Maxmars


The main problem that I and many skeptics have with these theories, is that no MO on the supposed players within the government has been established showing them to be likely or capable of planning such an event. It's just absurd to us to think that someone can be a well adjusted individual one day, and then agree to participate in such activities resulting in mass murder, and treachery on a unprecedented scale. There is zero evidence showing that anyone in the administration, intel agencies, air traffic control, the military, etc.. was so maladjusted or disloyal, that they'd agree to do anything like this, or keep quiet about it if they weren't going along.

reply to post by Griff


The towers came down, so they tried to figure out why, and how. How is this coming to a conclusion before the facts are in. The facts already existed- the WTC collapsed after being hit by planes.