How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
It amazes me how "debunkers" keep saying provide proof. First off, do these same people ask those who believe in God or Jesus to provide proof of their existence? Do any of them believe in God themselves? If so, prove to me that the God you pray to exists. Exactly, you can't, but you believe it, and that's enough for you, so why can't people believe that what we have been told happened on 9/11 is not the truth?


Thanks for admitting that "9/11 Truth" is nothing more than a belief system that needs no proof. Perhaps you can tell your fellow truthers that no new investigation is needed since, according to you, it's just a belief system, a religion that needs no challenge.

BTW, proof to us that you exist and that you are not just a computer bot.


Secondly, can someone please explain how, in all or recorded history, no steel structured building has ever fallen due to fire damage. EVER. Then, on 9/11 not 1, but 3 steel structured buildings collapse due to fire damage. Such a thing had never happened at anytime before, and then it suddenly happens 3 times on the same day?


So, now you have reversed yourself and demand evidence?

OK. Your claim has been debunked repeatedly for years. Why don't you know that?


Never before in recorded history has a plane been totally vaporised in a crash. NEVER. Then on the same day, 4 separate planes in 3 separate locations crash and vaporize? And this miraculous event happens on the same day that steel structured buildings collapse due to fire for the first time in history as well. Wow.


False claim. The term "vaporize" can apply to the aluminum skin. Wreckage of all four planes was found and acknowledged. Why do you insist on believing and repeating falsehoods?


Not only that, but the official report into the Pentagon crash claims, in writing, that the plane was vaporized. When this is brought into question, photos suddenly appear of pieces of the plane being collected by government agents. So which is it, did the plane vaporize or didn't it vaporize?


False. The term, as stated above, applied to the aluminum skin, not the heavier parts. And, obviously, photos showed skin that had not "vaporized." Again, you relied on what Truthers told you and never bothered to research the facts and evidence yourself.


Finally, we pay billions of tax dollars to fund the military and the defence of this country. NORAD has all the latest gadgetry, and practices constantly on how to defend the country from air attack. They even practice protecting us from hijacked planes, as official documents show. How then does this system fail us not once, bu 4 times on the same day. Not fail in the sense that the fighter jets didn't get scrambled quick enough, but didn't get scrambled AT ALL. Now, if we were at war, our enemies wouldn;t let us know that they were attacking, they would surprise us, so you could understand. But on this day, NORAD had over 40 mins to respond to warnings, and yet seemed incapable of responding? NORAD seemed to be incapable of functioning on the same day that 3 steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire for the first time in history, and that 4 planes vaporized on impact for the first time in history.


I feel embarrassed for you. You bought that nonsense hook, line, and sinker. You know nothing of what NORAD's role was, much less any of the facts.


1 of these acts alone can be considered an accident, 2 of these acts together can be considered a coincidence, but 3 or more is considered a trend and the trend is that 4 planes, 3 buildings and 1 air defence system all did things that have never been seen or done before or since on the same day within hours of each other. That deserves some major attention and some decent answers and to date we have neither.


When you ask "questions" and don't listen to the answers you are considered a true 9/11 Truther. I can't believe that you are here repeating debunked nonsense, but you are not alone. That is why the 9/11 Truth Movement is getting nowhere - they can't even get their facts correct.

I think you've illustrated the my case very well.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
You are dead wrong.

I never questioned 9/11 or the government until I came across this website, and watched a few of the documentaries posted in this forum. The thought that 9/11 was an inside job never even crossed my mind until I started looking around this forum and other internet sites.

After seeing hundreds of coincidences pop-up regarding that day, my entire opinion of the attacks changed. There is absolutely no possible way all those coincidences, are merely...coincidences. Yes, the "truthers" don't have any hard evidence, like a signed document from Bush saying he did it, but they do have ample amounts of circumstantial evidence that should be enough to warrant a new investigation. However, our leaders will not pursue this investigation, thus sparking even more doubt in the official story.

Don't blame me, or any other truther, for believing the government is lying...blame the government. They repeatedly lie about everything, and try to squelch any type of accurate and thorough investigation into 9/11....what the hell are we supposed to think?


The fact that you believe there are hundreds of coincidences that can't be coincidences says nothing about the evidence from thousands of different sources that converges on the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks happened as you say they can't.

You are in the position of having to demonstrate that your claims are valid. As long as the 9/11 Truth Movement denies that the onus of proof is on it to demonstrate its claims, it will go nowhere in the future just as it has gone nowhere since 9/11.

Don't wonder why we skeptics of the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Story" keep yawning.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   


Secondly, can someone please explain how, in all or recorded history, no steel structured building has ever fallen due to fire damage. EVER. Then, on 9/11 not 1, but 3 steel structured buildings collapse due to fire damage.


How come people continue to parrot this belief? A truthful statement would be, three buildings that had suffered severe structural damage AND uncontrolled fires that led to their collapse.......



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
1. Why was the Patriot Act written before 9/11?
2. Why were members of the Bush Administration taking Cipro before the actual anthrax attacks?
3. Why was anthrax sent to individuals who did not support the Patriot Act?
4. Why was the anthrax from a US Military Base in Maryland?
5. Why was there insider trading right before 9/11, on the airlines used in the attacks?
6. Why, in the first time United States history, were the Generals not in charge of NORAD on 9/11?
7. Why was command of NORAD given to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and/or Bush?
8. Why did NORAD not respond when four airliners were hijacked, especially considering there were 40 minutes in between knowing an airliner was hijacked and when it crashed?
9. Why did Dick Cheney tell NORAD to stand down when a plane was headed to the Pentagon?
10. Why was Mohammad Atta seen in Florida the day before 9/11, yet we are told he was in Portland Maine?
11. How was Mohammad Atta and his 3 buddies allowed to fly on 9/11, the days leading up to 9/11, and even after 9/11 (Atta, and maybe others, had plane tickets for future flights after 9/11), while they were known to be terrorists and on the Able Danger list?
12. Why did the government ignore Harry Sammit and John O'Neil, and even go so far as to tell O'Neil to stop investigation Osama?
13. Why does Sibel Edmonds continue to get a gag order when she has evidence that high-ranking officials sold nuclear secrets to Pakistan and Turkey (who then sold secrets to Iran and North Korea), as well as evidence that FBI officials sabotaged an investigation into Osama Bin Laden leading up to 9/11?
14. Why was a CIA contact training the hijackers in Venice Florida?
15. Why are their hundreds of eye-witness reports of explosions before the plane hit, after the plane hit, before the tower collapsed, before the tower collapsed?
16. Why are there witness reports of bombs going off in the basement of the WTC?
17. Why does the FBI itself claim it has no hard evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11?

If you can answer every single one of these questions, then you will have proved to me 9/11 was not an inside job.
* Also note that these are just a fraction of the questions that need to be answered. *



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I see how it works, lol. When it becomes the most obvious that you are wrong, just write an article about how right you are.


More people question 9/11 now than ever. Great job, "skeptics."



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You have tunnel vision my man. The point is that everyone has a belief, your vision of 9/11 is a belief, you can't prove it happened that way. Prove to me the government didn't do it. You ask everybody else for proof but have none of your own. What evidence do you have of how NORAD works? Prove it to me. What evidence do you have that you're not a computer bot? Prove it to me. Why is it everyone else has to provide the answers but you don't?

You want everyone to come over to your way of thinking, but provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just ask others to prove what you're saying isn't true.

Don't tell me you put your evidence down to a book called the 9/11 Comission report, ha ha ha. That's the same as proving God & Jesus because it's written in a book called the Bible. Do you see, the point being made is that having something written in a book doesn't make it so. You believe your version because of a book, and a book is nothing but something to help you believe, it's not the proof.

Stop asking others to prove something, if you're so strong in your conviction, provide the irrefutable proof that it happened the way you describe. Prove that, and then the 9/11 truth movement will go away. Come on hot shot, you must have something?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


Would love to hear a response to my post above. Why do you continue to parrot the false notion that it was only fire that doomed those three buildings?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Alethia
 


Would love to hear a response to my post above. Why do you continue to parrot the false notion that it was only fire that doomed those three buildings?


Pardon my language, but # THE BUILDINGS!

Stop talking about buildings, no planes, holograms, aliens, controlled demolitions, pods, and all the other speculation theories.

I am talking about cold hard facts. Facts that show the government had foreknowledge of not only the 9/11 attacks, but also the anthrax attacks. Explain to me how the government knew about the attacks, and failed to stop 9/11, and failed to let the public know about anthrax (our own anthrax from maryland). Explain to me my questions and convince me the government was no involved.

You can't explain those questions me, and you know why, because there is no explanation other than "government involvement." Face the facts.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Indeed. The whole claim falls apart if truthers would just read the relevant parts of the NIST report.

NIST estimates that the fires were the main factor in 1's collapse.

But that the structural damage from the plane strikes were the main factor for 2.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I would love for you to tell me how all 3 buildings fell at free fall speed, in contravention of the laws of physics. You answer that, and I'll answer your question, deal?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Parroting is exactly what I hear too. It's always the "steel-framed structures".

I wonder if any of them have even considered the unique construction difference of at least WTC 1 & 2 compared to the other steel-framed buildings they bring up as examples.

WTC 1 & 2 had no vertical supports between the outer columns and in core columns in order to maximize the real estate inside to building (so that the maximum dollar could be obtained for the floor space). All the other buildings these "parrots" bring up had vertical supports distributed throughout the floors, adding strength to the structure as a whole.

This huge expanse of empty volume (structural-wise) and many horizontal load-bearing beams of the WTC towers leads to some truth as to the official agencies reports on why the buildings collapsed.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   


5. Why was there insider trading right before 9/11, on the airlines used in the attacks?


There were put options placed on both airlines that is true. However, if you bother to research the issue, the options placed the first-second week of September of 2001 were not the only times options were placed that year, nor were the total options placed the highest for that year. Further research would show you that BOTH airlines had made quite a few press releases in August/early September about poor performance. IF you were an options trader, you would have been silly NOT to place options on the airlines in August/early September.




6. Why, in the first time United States history, were the Generals not in charge of NORAD on 9/11?


This is not even a internet rumor, it is an internet LIE. The generals in charge of NORAD were still there on 9/11 doing their jobs.




7. Why was command of NORAD given to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and/or Bush


Here we go with yet another internet falsehood. Cheney was never in "command" of NORAD, neither were Rumsfeld or Bush except as in their roles as SecDef and Commander-in-chief.

However, this press release is part of what gave rise to this falsehood.

www.whitehouse.gov...

This statement of the President speaks about establishing the Office of National Preparedness, under the auspices of FEMA. The office was charged with coordinating various government agencies in their responses to WMD attacks. Nowhere in the document is NORAD mentioned. In addtion there is this

www.house.gov...




The ONP has as its mission the task of providing “…leadership in the coordination and facilitation of all federal efforts to assist state and local emergency management and emergency response organizations with planning, training, equipment and exercises necessary to build and sustain capability to respond to any emergency or disaster. In carrying out this mission statement, the ONP is focusing on three general areas that include equipping first responders, improving coordination, and increased accountability of the agencies involved. Each of these areas represents an important key in the nation’s ability to respond, and the ONP is working to develop an initiative to address each of these concerns.


Once again, nowhere is NORAD mentioned and in no case is the Vice President put in command of NORAD.




8. Why did NORAD not respond when four airliners were hijacked, especially considering there were 40 minutes in between knowing an airliner was hijacked and when it crashed?


No, NORAD was responding. In keeping with procedures, the jets that launched in response proceded to their assigned ADIZ zones.....off the East Coast.




9. Why did Dick Cheney tell NORAD to stand down when a plane was headed to the Pentagon?


NORAD never "stands down", its another falsehood.




10. Why was Mohammad Atta seen in Florida the day before 9/11, yet we are told he was in Portland Maine?


This ranks up there with I saw Elvis the other day.




11. How was Mohammad Atta and his 3 buddies allowed to fly on 9/11, the days leading up to 9/11, and even after 9/11 (Atta, and maybe others, had plane tickets for future flights after 9/11), while they were known to be terrorists and on the Able Danger list?


Get back to the posts about federal laws preventing agencies from sharing information.




15. Why are their hundreds of eye-witness reports of explosions before the plane hit, after the plane hit, before the tower collapsed, before the tower collapsed?


Where are the valid reports of explosions prior to the jets hitting? As for after the planes hit, do you have any clue how many items that you find in office buildings will explode in the presence of heat/fire? Aerosols, cleaning fluids, certain copier fluids, gas lines, oxygen tanks in first aid rooms etc....all of them when subjected to heat/fire, will explode and you will hear "BOOM". Not to mention the bank of UPS in the one tower, ever wonder why your batteries say keep out of heat/direct flame???? Somehow, there is this mistaken belief that only explosives can cause explosions. Not true.




16. Why are there witness reports of bombs going off in the basement of the WTC?


Did anyone actually see a bomb go off...or maybe were they hearing the noises from the impacts travelling the elevator shafts?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


Oh thats easy, they did not fall at free fall speeds, that one has been disproven on ATS numerous times.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Where's the links on that? I could point you to a link that says different.

You're very good at playing tit for tat, everything you say I can provide a different perspective on and vice versa. You and jtthomas seem to only think in terms of irrefutable proof, so I want irrefutable proof they didn't fall at free fall speed.

Seriously, you're not very good at spreading your truth are you.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
You know I always believed the official story. I never thought that there was something fishy going on with 9/11, then guess what? I came to this site and it completely blew my mind.

So score one for the truthers because they have a convert right here.


Us truthers have it pretty hard. The only stuff we have to go off of is what the government releases to the public. It's pretty hard to give your side of a story when all you have to go off of is the enemies side of it.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


It's like the end of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report where the bed in the hotel room that the planned victim was staying in, was covered with evidence to show why Cruise's character would have motive to kill him.
The detective looks at it and says, "Never in my career have I seen this much evidence for a case."
The point was ,it was an obvious frame up.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia


Where's the links on that? I could point you to a link that says different.



Judge for yourself.

Let us know what you think.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I wonder if any of them have even considered the unique construction difference of at least WTC 1 & 2 compared to the other steel-framed buildings they bring up as examples.


Well since you wonder it: yes, we have considered how "unique" they are. Which is not very. Really the most unusual thing about them, was just how tall they were. And how much redundancy was built in, because the engineers were actively trying to avoid doing anything too daring or risky with such a large structure (largest in the world at the time).

The First Interstate Bank building had the exact same inner core/exterior column arrangement, except it was a lot smaller in most respects, suffered a much worse fire for a much longer period of time, but no real structural damage resulted. And so have a lot of other steel buildings with similar designs, called a "tube" design amount other things (which is also an inaccurate way of thinking of the structure).

I don't know where the idea came from that it's a "unique" design, unless you want to view every single building on the face of the Earth as "unique," which you certainly can if you want to be ridiculous enough.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


What do I think, I think it's quite ridiculous that you use a video which not only provides 2 different timings for the destruction of the south tower, but uses video footage which pans away from the collapse of the south tower on 2 separate occasions, so you have no idea what's happening behind because you can't see it, and a sound recording which in no way can determine the exact time the tower stopped falling and sound generated by debris flying around and settling. You're taking a total stab at what point the sound of the tower falling stops. Also your video evidence jumps from one camera to another (and is therefore open to editing mis-haps or disinformation) for the north tower.

Seriously, this is your irrefutable proof? Do you understand what irrefutable means? It means no one can question it, it is in plain sight. And your evidence is video that doesn't even show the entire collapse?

Excuse me while I gut laugh for the next 30 minutes thanks to you....





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join