The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

i hate dbl posts! damn browser...

[edit on 13/3/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by Holygamer


Well look who's come here with a preconceived notion of what I think.

You must be a genius sir. If you can find any post from me on the 9-11 forum that isn't based on known facts such as physics please share. I have no fantasies about aliens, I only bring Newton.

Now with that said did I mention anywhere in my post that 9-11 was a conspiracy? I think all I did was point out your claim of 'facts' was not fact.
Whether I agree or not was irrelevant. When you claim something as fact you better be sure. When there is doubt it is our constitutional obligation to ask questions. This government is so blatantly corrupt, yet people who claim to live by the US constitution are asleep in their American dream.

Question within reason? Your reasoning needs expanding...

reply to post by ANOK



I couldn't really be bothered to look at your "research" in your posts.

All of you (collectively) have had 7 years to prove even a proof of concept on the possibility of a US involved conspiracy. I've seen little besides anecdotal evidence of "Well 1+1=3"

so far I'm not impressed.

Obviously the world isn't impressed either.

reply to post by Holygamer


I had no research but rather a series of questions followed by video documentation to support the validity of said question.

I guess that what politicians call deflection.

It failed miserably.

If you cant be bothered with research then may I ask what the hell you are doing here?

More specifically if you cant be bothered to look at information from a witness then you must be a lousy investigator.

I wonder why someone with such a lack of rudimentary investigational ability is here commenting on 9/11?

Do you really think that silly little comments will shore up the fact that you don't know what you are talking about?



[edit on 13/3/2008 by SButlerv2]

Originally posted by Holygamer
I couldn't really be bothered to look at your "research" in your posts.

Well I'm guessing you haven't bothered to do any research on the WTC collapses either. So I'm not gonna bother debating someone who isn't even bothered to look at what's being debated....

The last thing I'll bother with is hitting the ignore button. I want debate not blind denial and stereotyping.

There are hundreds of unanswered questions, are you really satisfied in your governments post 9-11 actions? Whether they did it or not the government was irresponsible and screwed up big time and everyone involved got promoted. Unless of course everything they did was by design?
Which is it, incompetence or grand design? Either way they should be questioned until all the holes in the story are filled, and that's some big holes, and those that allowed this country to be attacked by 3 planes should be made responsible. The government is not fulfilling it's duty to the American people or the world for that matter. Why do people feel the need to try to protect these criminals?

The proof is in the physics...Can't be denied, after 5 yrs of asking no one can give me an explanation of the physics problems with the collapses, if you can do that go for it.

reply to post by SButlerv2


I said I have no care to see Anoks research.

I've extensively researched 9/11 since september 12th.

And I've come to the conclusion that almost all the conspiracies are wrong, except for possibly one.

But I won't tell you that, because your acting smug and elitist, with your backhanded insults towards me.

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, you'll want to retract that accusation.

Actually, I want to restate it: you are dishonest.

You shouldn't be permitted to quote me saying one thing and then argue I said something else.

Originally posted by jthomas
Every post of yours in this thread refers only to one "entity". I suggest you re-read what you wrote than get back to me with your retraction.

This is a rather obvious consequence of being involved in a discussion with someone about the veracity of the government's official account.

I suggest you eat a bit of humble pie and admit you were wrong to misrepresent me.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am not sure I can accept this as weighty in terms of validity.

Those conclusions which you say haven't been disproven were, to my understanding were (although not in all cases). Also, it does not necessarily follow that their conclusions need to be disproven to merit a reinvestigation.

A reinvestigation of what? That WTC 1 and 2 could not have collapsed as a result of aircraft crashes and unfought fires?

Fine. Tell us on what basis one should demonstrate that claim. What is the evidence? What are the standards you believe should be used that would be sufficient to convince anyone the claims are worth another investigation?

In the end, the burden of proof remains on those contesting the conclusions, evidence, and methodology of forensic investigations.

Several people sharing authorship of the report have directly contradicted the official 'findings' (based on the same experience and training that caused them to be consulted in the first place.) Why these counter claims of having their opinions repressed or ignored has not been challenged is unknown to me.

You must demonstrate that they have been "repressed or ignored."

Also, several highly regarded academicians and engineers have disputed numerous 'official findings' as outlandishly contrived. Yet they seem unable to have their arguments heard, at least enough to evoke an official rebuttal. Again, I can't say why.

Who might these people be, per chance? Does the fact that they made "arguments" dictate that they must be heard?

Several citizens and citizen groups have brought inquiries to our elected officials (including congressional and senatorial bodies), and had their actions tabled or dismissed outright with no compulsion to address an answer. Why?

Happens all the time. The fact that citizens make claims and arguments is irrelevant as to their validity.

I disagree that the opportunity to publicly present a case and extract meaningful responses has been provided. I am of the opinion that, officially anyway, it is being avoided.

That's you opinion. But I would question the standards upon which you make that claim. Apparently, it's simply, "I've made an argument. It's your obligation to hear it and investigate it." Standards for establishing the validity of the arguments appears to play no part, according to your opinion, only the fact that a claim is made is sufficient.

Maybe you feel that illogical claims have been made because that's all you have heard. I suspect you may be lacking some info here, or are you closed to the possibility that there is more to the 'story'? If so, why? Why do you contend that the account we've been spoon fed by the corporate government and its media machine is the final word on the event?

You just gave the weakness of your argument away. By now, you should have realized that that canard does not sell since it depends neither on the government nor the media to know what we know and what we don't know.

This goes to the heart of the weakness of 9/11 Truther claims. Ask 9/11 a question about something we know from independent sources the neither comes from the government, nor the media, nor is found on the internet, but deals directly with the evidence, 9/11 Truthers choke. Deductive and inductive logic is not 9/11 Truthers strong points.

Just go to the Graig Ranke threads on the Pentagon and see the question he has never been able to answer and avoids doing so for an example.

I apologize, that wasn't fair. Forget the corporate government and their media machine comment. It presupposes an agenda within the argument that you have indicated must be proved. Since your opening volley leaves little room for debate I must ask, what would you consider proof of malfeasance?

Evidence.

I mean this is just a website and all I can convey are words.

I believe words have meaning.

Originally posted by gottago

How fascinating that the phrase "the official story" was coined only two days after 9/11!

Thanks for posting this jt, very interesting factoid. Perhaps more than you intended.

Actually, how you interpret it is my intention.

You see it as some "anti-American, anti-Bush camapign," but really, how prescient on this guy's part to call-out the media campaign from the outset.

Your reading and comprehension ability is lacking. I only reported what Jared Israel was. I expressed no opinion on his position, did I?

And of course you know that OBL is not wanted by the FBI for perpetrating 9/11, lending credence to your contention.

Of course I know that strawman only confirms the desperation of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

BTW, I'd be very interested to know what sort of political deviant coined the phrase "ground zero." Any links would be appreciated.

So you claim Jared Isreal must be a political deviant, too. The fact that the term "official story" was used two days after 9/11 only demonstrates that people were already determined to distrust evidence on the basis of an interview of the personal opinion of the head of a small-plane flight training school. On political grounds.

Just like the overtly political 9/11 Truth Movement.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Holygamer

 

That's a fact? Do you understand what a 'fact' is? Just because something comes from an 'official' source it doesn't mean it should be automaticly excepted. You really should learn to question more, it's your patriotic duty to protect your country from rogue government, like these folks..

As skeptics, we question everyone and everything, including you. Why you can't answer our questions is just another fact that increases our skepticism of the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory."

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, you'll want to retract that accusation.

Actually, I want to restate it: you are dishonest.

You shouldn't be permitted to quote me saying one thing and then argue I said something else.

Originally posted by jthomas
Every post of yours in this thread refers only to one "entity". I suggest you re-read what you wrote than get back to me with your retraction.

This is a rather obvious consequence of being involved in a discussion with someone about the veracity of the government's official account.

I suggest you eat a bit of humble pie and admit you were wrong to misrepresent me.

You dissemble poorly. You haven't even demonstrated your claim. Your posts illustrate that you were talking of "one entity" and only "one entity."

I stand by my statement. End of subject.

Originally posted by jthomas
Just like the overtly political 9/11 Truth Movement.

I realize you guys are in a big-headed pissing match (good luck btw ), but where am I missing all the political slander on all the 9/11 threads, Mr. Thomas? Most people I see posting, I know to be anti-politics (ie left, right, up, down, diagonal, blah blah blah) because "we" are pretty anti-establishment in general. Because of things like 9/11, not the other way around. Just because you don't see it, or don't agree, doesn't change this. Why would it?

(That's not to say some posters don't have affiliations or preferences or even won't vote, but just that there is no such consistent political leaning here and has never been. It's rare that politics are even brought up here.)

Maybe if you can show me where we're all trying to shove political positions on people? Demanding a re-investigation doesn't count.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by jthomas

If only you could get away with your dishonesty that easily.

Of course, your reply is an embarrassingly poor attempt to try and back out of the cul-de-sac into which you have driven like a over-confident novice driver. You must have no pride.

And it seems appropriate, given the circumstances, to point this little gem out. Just a couple of posts up you wrote:

Originally posted by jthomas
I believe words have meaning.

Only, it appears, if they express a view with which you concur. Because it seems that if they are used in a way that doesn't suit an argument you wish to manufacture, you simply invent a whole new set of words that does.

Whilst this forum might let you get away with misrepresenting me, I won't.

Please accept you misrepresented me.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jthomas

 

If only you could get away with your dishonesty that easily.

You don't present a case. Your own posts demonstrate my case.

Therefore, case closed.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jthomas

 

If only you could get away with your dishonesty that easily.

You don't present a case. Your own posts demonstrate my case.

Therefore, case closed.

Originally posted by jthomas
You don't present a case. Your own posts demonstrate my case.

Therefore, case closed.

Do you believe that by simply spouting/repeating bollocks it acquires some legitimacy?

Of course I presented the 'case' in the form of very obvious example of your dishonesty.

Here it is again.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by coughymachine
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.

Therefore, as coughymachine eloquently states above, the government IS the suspect (because the 9/11 Truth Movement says so)...

This is a lie. I did not claim the government is the suspect but that it was a suspect. This is an important point, not only because you deliberately misrepresented me, but also because you relied upon this falsehood to pursue your agenda throughout the rest of the post.

You clearly do not 'believe words have meaning'; you are cleary dishonest; and you clearly lack the strength of character to accept you erred.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by coughymachine]

reply to post by jthomas


Sorry to have fallen behind in responding to you. After analyzing the exchange I realize that you actually have no point other than to elicit responses you can swat away with unspecified declarations of 'illogical' or other such fuzzy demerits.

You and your skeptical kin seem clearly to enjoy this sort of baiting. I thank you for teaching me never to enter a conversation which has no true constructive purpose.

You were very quick to endorse the view that 9/11 truth objectives are ill-conceived or logically flawed. But you never identify the flaw. Why is that? You imply that this weakness you point out (which I don't accept) is the reason the notion of a 9/11 cover-up lacks 'traction' so to speak. I think you're dead wrong.

By the way, you wrote;

"A reinvestigation of what? That WTC 1 and 2 could not have collapsed as a result of aircraft crashes and unfought fires?

Fine."

Are you conceding that the above question - rhetorical though you may have intended it to be - has merit in this argument? Or does the follow up:

"Tell us on what basis one should demonstrate that claim. What is the evidence? What are the standards you believe should be used that would be sufficient to convince anyone the claims are worth another investigation?"

..., indicate that in your mind there exists a set of conditions or a 'basis' that you WOULD accept? Baiting is a cheap way of arguing isn't it?

"In the end, the burden of proof remains on those contesting the conclusions, evidence, and methodology of forensic investigations."

Not so, in the end the government is not only liable for the burden of proof, they are supposed to be legally compelled to respond to the will of those citizens raising the complaint. The citizenry was the intended audience, they want to know the truth, they do NOT accept the fantasy presented them, they HAVE pointed out the inconsistencies of the report, they were the one's to whom the answer is owed - not ANY answer - they must be answered to their satisfaction. Whatever the government claims is just fine in your mind. Fine. I can't make you care, nor would I want such a responsibility.

In the justice system it takes the testimony of just 2 people to proceed with an indictment for a capital crime. Unfortunately, people like you seem to think that if hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) are dissatisfied with the answers they were given - it's just tough luck for them.

You seem to hold to the notion that unless they magically coalesce into an organized mass of collective will, no one has to answer any questions.

"You must demonstrate that they have been "repressed or ignored."

No I don't. Those who have suffered that fate have stated so publicly and made their case, if you care to endorse ignoring them that is your affair. Personally, I'm less inclined to believe the government rendition of the event because I know what I saw and heard.

"Who might these people be, per chance? Does the fact that they made "arguments" dictate that they must be heard? "

The same question can be applied to those who proffered what you so righteously call the scientific, logical explanation. Are there arguments ordained by some supreme being and therefore are unassailable? I have to be an expert in metallurgy to contest that jet fuel can melt steel?

I've run out of room here - so I'll quit - but in the end, what you wanted to say could have been said in a few sentences. I really wish you would have done so, because from the content of this thread it seems you don't want to learn or explore anything. You don't even want to be right. You just seem to want everyone else to be wrong.

I think the major issue people have with this whole "movement," besides the radical nature of many of its "researchers" (and I use the term loosely,) is in fact that in 6 years it has been unable to dig up anything substantial, and has become really akin to the UFO researchers. They point at blurry pictures, and quote SOME government officials and reports, when its convenient, and ignore the numerous other government officials and reports when its not for there cause.

And there is SOMETHING suspicious about 9/11, and there is a cover up, but I think that cover up is hiding the total incompetence of the last three administrations, and the CIA in general.

You know, the CIA has been getting a free reign to murder whomever they wanted to in other countries, all because they claimed "it'll make us safer, and be able to be more prepared when we are attacked." And after 50 years, they dropped the ball, and infact caused the instigation of the worst attack on US soil.

I'd be covering it up too.

reply to post by Holygamer


You'll get no argument from me regarding the CIA.

And I can't imagine what constitutes 'substantial' in someone else's eyes. To me the inconsistencies in protocols IS substantial; the stock market profiteering IS substantial; the ham-handed way some attempted to plant evidence at the scene IS substantial...., and so much more.

But I assume to a skeptic that's just they way things are.

Just because the media hasn't reported it doesn't change its nature, its just whether you (metaphorically speaking) choose to acknowledge the discrepancies as such. Some people won't. Some can't.

reply to post by Maxmars


Thanks for your last posts on this thread; you're a voice of rationality and clear-headed reason. Couldn't agree more with your analysis, and your view of the psychology driving so many inre 9/11.

The various flavors of denial and intellectual laziness, or simply the inability of many for rational analysis, are the great deadweights that keep 9/11 at bay.

1/3 of the population already believe 9/11 is a lie in some way, and I fear--lacking an unforeseen and indisputable smoking gun that makes it plain as the nose on your face--that it will follow the path of JFK, to become a preponderant view a generation later, but too little, too late.