Is anyone keeping score?

I have read countless threads making and breaking facts about what happened on September 11th. I want to know if there is some kind of thread, website, or even person (perhaps all 3!) that has the list of claims the truther movement debates with the debunkers and who has actually been right.

I think either side has much to gain by keeping track of which side couldn't contradict the other.


I respect both sides, provided they are looking for the truth, not spreading what they think happened.



my personal, not factual or usable in argument opinion is that people wouldn't be asking so many damn questions or debating this endlessly if everything about what happened was really so.



piddles out.

There is a HUGE amount of back n forth; I think it's due to the emotionality of the event rather than the facts.

Scientific, peer reviewed studies have shown that high-tech nano-thermite explosives were found in the dust of all three major buildings that fell that day. They found pieces of unexploded thermite and the chemical "footprint" for exploded thermite. It's fact.

The problem is that so many people refuse to accept other than what they emotionally and tearfully, or angrily, felt while watching 9/11 on TV that day. Looking at the facts means they need to now dig up old feelings, recognize that their media lies to them, and know that members of the government and elite people in our society sacrificed lives to go to war.

So, do we need to keep score? If so, it's 1 to 0... what we saw on TV was a lie.

I don't know about keeping score and I wish you wouldn't use the word truther honestly, but I think you will find most of the meatier discussions in the archives of ATS history. I think alot of us old schoolers just got tired of fighting the infowar, we battled for years, but for a time the 9-11 forum here was the focal point of some great minds and alot of these older threads are in dire need of a thorough re-examination. I'm working on a thread to do just that, here.

Also,

www.ae911truth.org... is an amazing site started by engineers, architects, and experts in the fields pertinent to building collapse. They currently have over 800 professionals and nearly 5,000 other supporters, who proclaim the original story is false. The buildings fell due to explosives. Check out the site for a list of factual, scientifically proven data and video tapes.

Yeah, you are really interested in the truth from both sides, that is why you used the derogatory "Truther" right off the bat. Here is a score card for you. Over 3000 people died that day and 60% of the investigation team said they were either lied to or denied information.

HOW BOUT THEM APPLES

Originally posted by endisnighe
....that is why you used the derogatory "Truther" right off the bat.

I always use the term "truther" and I don't really see why it's derogatory. To my mind it defines a person seeking the truth.

What is the correct term for future reference?

reply to post by Mark_Amy


There is no "correct term" to lump us all together, because there are many different and diverse people with many different questions about 9/11.

The most correct thing to do is to treat us each as the individuals we are, since there is no formal movement or organization of all of us. Labeling us as if there is such a formal organization just tends to lead to a lot of negative stereotyping anyway, such as associated any/all of us with theories that we don't support.

Hope that clears up why so many of us take offense to being labeled with a term we never had any part in, and wish to have no part in.

Double post?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by piddles


OP, this issue is still so controversial and often complicated, I don't think anyone could agree upon what you are asking. For example, there is a paper (by Bazant et al) concluding that the WTC Towers had enough PE/KE to collapse to the ground without arresting, but the same paper is forced to assume, among other things, that at least 50% of the total buildings' mass remained in their footprints the entire time, which is equivalent to seeing about 55 floors' worth of mass still piled in the footprints when it was over, which is a blatant contradiction to Ground Zero photos. But the authors defend this baseless assumption on the basis that when they don't assume these inaccurate variables, the math proving their paper doesn't work anymore. So basically it comes down to, "Since we already know we are right, we can use inaccurate variables to justify our case, because there is apparently no other way to make the math work out for us."

You mostly just have to wade through this stuff yourself and see where the logical points are and how they are being treated. There are some atrocious abuses of logic and scientific reasoning just for the sake of reaching a conclusion when so much relevant technical data is still missing. And of course tons of bias and vitriol.

Originally posted by piddles
I have read countless threads making and breaking facts about what happened on September 11th. I want to know if there is some kind of thread, website, or even person (perhaps all 3!) that has the list of claims the truther movement debates with the debunkers and who has actually been right.

Yeah, I'd say the score was ZERO-ZERO. The truthers simply will not believe anything that contradicts their beloved conspiracy websites, while the rest of us have had it up to our eyeballs listening to goofball stories about secret New World Order cults, cruise missiles, "no planes", and lasers from outer space, that can only work as a plot in a comic book.

Only the American government can stretch a word like Truth and make it derogatory, hell I bet if there was profit in it they would declare war on peace.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Yeah, you are really interested in the truth from both sides, that is why you used the derogatory "Truther" right off the bat. Here is a score card for you. Over 3000 people died that day and 60% of the investigation team said they were either lied to or denied information.

HOW BOUT THEM APPLES

if you have read my past posts, I am for the movement. I may have misused the term (I admit, hash is a helluva drug) but I absolutely meant no disrespect by use of the word "truther".

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by piddles

 

OP, this issue is still so controversial and often complicated, I don't think anyone could agree upon what you are asking. For example, there is a paper (by Bazant et al) concluding that the WTC Towers had enough PE/KE to collapse to the ground without arresting, but the same paper is forced to assume, among other things, that at least 50% of the total buildings' mass remained in their footprints the entire time, which is equivalent to seeing about 55 floors' worth of mass still piled in the footprints when it was over, which is a blatant contradiction to Ground Zero photos. But the authors defend this baseless assumption on the basis that when they don't assume these inaccurate variables, the math proving their paper doesn't work anymore. So basically it comes down to, "Since we already know we are right, we can use inaccurate variables to justify our case, because there is apparently no other way to make the math work out for us."

You mostly just have to wade through this stuff yourself and see where the logical points are and how they are being treated. There are some atrocious abuses of logic and scientific reasoning just for the sake of reaching a conclusion when so much relevant technical data is still missing. And of course tons of bias and vitriol.

of course, I've been doing so for a while. I was honestly just wondering.

Originally posted by twitchy
I don't know about keeping score and I wish you wouldn't use the word truther honestly.

I have apologized to someone else but you were very polite and informative in your reply so I must personally say sorry for saying it.

I kinda forgot about the disdain that comes with it.