Are you a "Debunker" that denies the existence of an Official Story? Here's your sign

reply to post by pteridine


In other words, the "official story" (as the phrase is defined by the dictionary) contradicts itself variously. I'm aware.

You're not trying to actually say this is another reason to eat it all up, hook, line and sinker are you? Because the government has basically been flinging poop in all directions since 2001 to see where it sticks best? If anything it only hurts your case.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Where would you draw the line on official, as opposed to semi-official, officially sanctioned, MSM produced, etc.? My guess would be that there are as many OS definitions in the minds of all as there are conspiracy theories.
Given that there is not a single, referenceable, "Official Story," it would seem reasonable that when referring to such, one should state what report or article one is referring to. The amorphous term "Official Story" is imprecise and is not well defined when it comes to 9/11 events.

reply to post by pteridine


The "line" is drawn where the dictionary puts the words. The definition is in the OP.

You're just trying to combat the fact that these separate government groups couldn't come to a common conclusion. Yet they are all still government reports. It's something you're going to have to learn to accept.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by pteridine

 

The "line" is drawn where the dictionary puts the words. The definition is in the OP.

You're just trying to combat the fact that these separate government groups couldn't come to a common conclusion. Yet they are all still government reports. It's something you're going to have to learn to accept.

The words are imprecise and subject to interpretation. I was asking you for your interpretation rather than a cut-and-paste job. If you can't answer, just say so.

As to me "trying to combat" anything, what gave you that idea? I don't care that groups with completely different charters have completely different goals and conclusions. Maybe you are projecting again. An hour or two of classical variations on "Dixie" should set you straight.

reply to post by pteridine


Alright, after this post will be time for me to stop feeding the trolls again because your convolution of the topic is already totally outweighing any substance in your post.

The definitions are open to interpretation like Bill Clinton's word "is", is open to interpretation. Unless you are denying that government agencies are authorities, or denying that they have described a series of events in their reports, either of which would be so asinine that it wouldn't even deserve a serious response. Just go ahead and say that government agencies aren't authorities, or that the reports don't describe a series of events. I'll let those statements stand without a rebuttal. That's fine. They don't even need one.

And with that, like I said, I'm going to have to starve the troll again.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain



What a refreshing thread. I love it. S&F.

I feel like the words from this thread should be nail gained on a post-it note to their colthes...errr...uniforms....errr....straight jackets.....errr....costumes.

Yep, I too have read recently that 'there is no official story', which usually leaves me dizzy, so I can't respond correctly. It's the perfect out isn't it?

No official stance, we can't debate anything. It's like cartoon world where skunks play baseball and cats drive taxis through rainbows. Let's just make stuff up as we go.

As well as the obvious good content in the first post by the OP I think one of the reasons this thread has so many flags is because members are seeing it as a great example of how 9-11 threads are derailed. In this case the derailers are making their behaviour so obvious bybehaving like a bull in a china shop...

A great 'live' example of how these threads are destroyed - well I say great, the derailers are doing a poor job today.

Good thread OP.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by and14263]

Interesting topic I guess.. Where to start?

Basic Historical background - Contrary to what people want to believe, this is not the first attempt to bring the World Trade Center down. It was tried in 1993 using a truck bomb in the parking garage. The group who claimed responsibility for that would be the same one who merged with Al-queida.

Between the 1st and 2nd World Trade Center incidents we had the embassies’ in Africa hit, the USS Cole and some other incidents.'

Now - 9/11

First off I have seen all the arguments that it could not have been airplanes that hit the WTC, but a secret Government missile. Then it was suggested that the planes were unmanned and being piloted by remote control. Then the argument was there is no way armature pilots could have maneuvered the aircraft into position with their level of training and actually hit the towers (has to do with speed, turning etc).

When professional airline pilots tried this in simulator, a good 2/3 were unable to do it. The rest succeeded in different ways, but still hit the tower. So the conclusion by people who believe in the conspiracy theories are that the pilots must have been militarily trained.

I refer people to the incident with Aloha Flight #223. A 20 foot section of the planes roof sheared off at 24k feet. The pilots were able to keep the plane airborne, landing it safely with the loss of 1 life, a flight stewardess who was sucked out of the aircraft.

All attempts to recreate a successful landing in the simulator has failed. Since professional pilots cant reproduce it, does this mean the government is covering anything up? Did they swap out the regular pilots for military trained one?

At some point, people have to accept the possibility that seeing is believing. "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock

Twin Towers -
South Tower - Boeing 767-223ER
North Tower - 767-300ER

Both planes fully loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. Both hitting the respective towers at over 500mph. Engineering reports have stated that the impact stripped the fire proofing off the steal. Check the design of the WTC buildings themselves. The design was unique in that it didn’t utilize many support columns in order to create as much open / free space on each floor.

The fire - In a controlled setting anyone can prove that jet fuel alone would not have caused the structural burning / failure issue. However, I point out that the rashes were not controlled tests. There are variables involved that cannot possibly be taken into account.

The collapse - This portion has been debated over and over again, with the poufs’ of smoke coming out floors below where the collapse was occurring. Again, the design of the floors would have created a pancake affect going down as the structure was compromised. When this starts, you will get a high air pressure below the collapse, as its being caused by the collapse itself.

Both buildings are 110 floors. Both were hit mid high and mid-mid by the planes. When the structural damage occurred, it completely weakened the portion above the impact, and partially below it. Common sense would tell you that when a structure is designed and built, they use the structure as a complete whole to keep the building up and structurally sound. When that structure is compromised by impact, fire, explosion etc, it weakens the structure, meaning the building at those levels i being supported by beams / etc that were now carrying way more of a load than they were designed for. Add gravity into that and you can get a collapse.

Factor in fuel leaking into other floors, electrical wires, now compromised behind walls, and on other floors. No amount of controlled testing will ever be able to reproduce what occurred that day. People can try as much as they want it’s not going to happen. Steel and Aluminum will have different expanding / contracting points based on the temperature.

People have put out videos showing people talking about hearing secondary explosions... I don’t doubt them, but I do take exception to the spin. The next time you are in downtown New York city.. Next chance you get, point out the power lines to me. There are power generating stations, along with transformer, etc built into the larger buildings. A transformer does not have to get hit back anything to cause it to explode (documented). Factor in a sudden shock to the system from explosions, cut power lines, etc and its possible these things will go boom.


WT7 - Was hit by falling debris from the Trade Center collapse. Included on several floors of building 7 there were massive fuel storage containers to help run that building on the off chance something happened (we all know it’s the command center for NYC and houses a lot of federal agencies). The building was ignored by fire crews while they dealt with the collapsed buildings.

Again, factor in explosions from debris hitting the building, fires starting, structural integrity compromised, and fires burning out of control. You can get a collapse out of it.

Pentagon - 1 camera showing a few blurred frames before it hit the Pentagon. Eyewitness reports, who are not affiliated with the military, stated they heard and saw a plane fly over before impacting the pentagon. It flew so low that as it passed over the highway it took out some lamp posts.

Next argument is where is the wreckage? There was wreckage on the outside, and pictures were taken on the inside. This link Eyewitness accounts inside the Pentagon contains eyewitness accounts of people who were inside the building, and what they found.

As far as collapse goes, again look into gravity.. 110 floors opposed to 5 floors above ground with an additional 2 floors below. The Pentagon was designed to withstand direct hits from conventional as well near nuke misses. Lower to the ground, completely different design of the building that would allow the impact to be spread out instead of being concentrated (the force generated from impact).

The theory that this was an inside job and that the Government is covering it up is laughable to me for the simple fact they could never keep it a secret. There is no way to control foreign intelligence agencies, let alone any political foes you might have.

In addition to the Fed reports, check NYPD, and the Port Authority of NY/NJ who also did their investigation.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Interesting topic I guess.. Where to start?

Basic Historical background - Contrary to what people want to believe, this is not the first attempt to bring the World Trade Center down. It was tried in 1993 using a truck bomb in the parking garage.

Contrary to what?

In 1993 the FBI was involved with that bombing by their own admission. They said they were trying to set up a sting operation with the alleged terror cell, give them a dummy bomb and then arrest them, but "somehow" they got a real one instead. The FBI also gave them the idea to bomb the WTC. This is also according to the FBI's informant to the alleged cell, Emad Salem, who grew suspicious of the FBI and started taping their phone calls, which was presented at the trial for this bombing. Without their informant taping their phone calls they might never have even admitted this.

Convenient that you left out all that isn't it? And there's more to the '93 bombing but it's off topic and people can look it up for themselves.

Both planes fully loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. Both hitting the respective towers at over 500mph. Engineering reports have stated that the impact stripped the fire proofing off the steal.

Steel. Yes, this was part of NIST's hypothesis, which was based on speculation and a "test" where they shot spray-on fireproofing on a truss with a shot gun. No joke. And they totally ignored all other forms of fireproofing in the building besides the spray-on. There were at least 4 kinds of fireproofing in the buildings if I recall correctly.

Check the design of the WTC buildings themselves. The design was unique in that it didn’t utilize many support columns in order to create as much open / free space on each floor.

47 large box columns in the core structure and a few hundred perimeter columns on the exterior of the building. The buildings were redundantly strong as are all skyscrapers, and as is required by law (building code).

The fire - In a controlled setting anyone can prove that jet fuel alone would not have caused the structural burning / failure issue. However, I point out that the rashes were not controlled tests. There are variables involved that cannot possibly be taken into account.

This is a bunch of sensationalism. The impacts severed less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors, including both perimeter and core columns separately. There is debate as to whether or not the planes would have been able to take out a single core column. NIST said the engines were the only things dense enough to still damage columns once that far in the building.

Again, the design of the floors would have created a pancake affect going down as the structure was compromised. When this starts, you will get a high air pressure below the collapse, as its being caused by the collapse itself.

The explosive outbursts were not just air but solid debris and dust. And you are assuming pressure could build up within the towers, from air being forced down. The opposite is true. Survivors inside the buildings said there was an upward suction while the buildings were collapsing. All of the air pressure was exiting through the path of least resistance -- the increasingly giant holes in the tops of the buildings as they were being destroyed. That's the thing about air pressure: it needs an air-tight container. The WTC were air-tight as they were being destroyed, and even SOLID debris was flying out? Don't think so.

No amount of controlled testing will ever be able to reproduce what occurred that day. People can try as much as they want it’s not going to happen

This is equivalent to admitting you can't possibly scientifically prove your theory. Sounds like a cop-out to me.

People have put out videos showing people talking about hearing secondary explosions... I don’t doubt them, but I do take exception to the spin. The next time you are in downtown New York city.. Next chance you get, point out the power lines to me. There are power generating stations, along with transformer, etc built into the larger buildings. A transformer does not have to get hit back anything to cause it to explode (documented).

This BS again. Transformers explode from extreme current overloads. Current overloading does not occur from lines being severed by impacts or fire. They are also extremely noticeable as they continue gushing vast amounts of smoke and sparks.

WT7 - Was hit by falling debris from the Trade Center collapse. Included on several floors of building 7 there were massive fuel storage containers

Which were said by both NIST and FEMA to be unrelated to the collapse. FEMA said most of that fuel was even recovered from the building afterward.

Again, factor in explosions from debris hitting the building

NIST did, and they said it wasn't a significant factor in the collapse.

fires burning out of control.

The fires were pathetic by comparison to many other documented skyscraper fires.

You can get a collapse out of it.

And this is based on nothing but speculative theory at best. The only thing known to bring skyscrapers down like that is controlled demolition. There are no other examples for you to point to, to justify this.

The theory that this was an inside job and that the Government is covering it up is laughable to me for the simple fact they could never keep it a secret.

And this is laughable to me because it's classic military strategy to make your potential adversary think you are incompetent. You want proof? Read Sun Tzu's ancient "Art of War." In the very opening it describes how all operations should be based on deception. Really, go read it. That makes you a few hundred years late to this party.

They act incompetent for plausible deniability. Our military industrial complex employs some of the most capable people and advanced technology in the world. You have no possible way of telling what is being kept from you to this very day. Politicians are incompetent, and politicians get busted, but politicians didn't do this themselves in any case.

In addition to the Fed reports, check NYPD, and the Port Authority of NY/NJ who also did their investigation.

FDNY and NYPD members who were there that disagree with these reports. Want names?

Next time someone denies that an official story exists, show them the definition of those words, or redirect them to this thread.

I don't suspect the "debunkers" are going to be very motivated to argue with a dictionary, but it's not like I haven't been baffled by their obtuseness before.

S&F Great topic, I am glad you have address this matter, because I was reading a debunkers post to me early today who made that very same claim.

His cop- out, excuse of not having to prove anything regarding to 911, because he believes the OS. The poster made it very clear to me that “only Truthers” have to provide evidence in debating 911 topics. The poster believes this gets him off the hook in defending the OS. You can imagine my surprise. I had to let the poster know that debating 911 is not a “one sided” event as many debunkers believe. Now I am amused as to see some of these same debunkers responding to your OP as to say there are many OS from our government. Perhaps so, “but” they are all the OS. We can select any one of them and tear them to pieces by exposing the lies, the inconsistencies, the pseudo science, the lack of real evidence, and the list goes on.

One of the many things I have witnessed in many of the 911 threads are angry debunkers stuck in their patriotic beliefs of ignorance, most of them will tell you our government would not harm a hair on our heads, that to me just shows how ignorant many debunkers are.

We strive ourselves to get to the truth to many of these OS fairytales, yet many debunkers believe their opinions are the facts.
People looking for Truths are not interested in “debunkers opinions” which many try to enforce on the posters in many of these 911 threads and they need to understand that’s wrong. That also goes for many truthers, however most truthers that I have seen on many of the 911 threads tend to show their sources to back their claims.

Opinions are not the facts. If we have something to say on the contrary then show your sources or credible evidence.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Very astute responses. I was going to address the holes in and leaps of logic in that long post, but you did a fantastic job yourself. The most common thing for rational people to do, is apply Occam's Razor. That's what he did, however - in the case of 9/11, it is very often abused.

There is SO much information on this subject - official and unofficial reports, eye-witness testimony, physicists, engineers, architects, pilots, ex-CIA agents, all giving their opinions, you have links to several different intelligence agencies among at least 3 different countries, claims that some of the hijackers are still alive - all in all, a huge melting pot of information both supporting and refuting the official story.

My point is, even someone who takes a dedicated interest in the subject will inevitably forget a great deal of what they take in. As they come across new information, they may not realize that it contradicts something they earlier read or heard. This is the place where confirmation bias slips in. What *feels* right can over time manifest falsely as the product of reason.

That's how even intelligent people can rationalize and accept the notion that the official story says that someone who couldn't even fly a Cessna, negotiated flight maneuvers that seasoned airline veterans couldn't do, just by lady luck! Keep in mind that when the airline pilots tried to re-create the flight maneuvers of 9/11, one third of them just managed to hit the target - none of them matched the precision of the alleged hijackers.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Son of Will]

I want to advocate "debunkers" in this thread, not that i fall into the believer or debunker group, i am botht dependinc on the subject, but come on, this 9/11 story is getting old. I totally agree that the goverment was responsible for it, but if the debunkers are so desperate to disprove it, then why are the conspiracist so desperate to proove it? What is the diference between them?
It is like religious-atheist endless debate, one group desperately trying to prove the existence of god, and on group trying to desperately disprove his existence.
What is with everybody from both sides having this uncontrolable obsession to convince the others for their beliefs.
I couldn't care less if someone does not believe or want to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy or any other conspiracy for that matter, why should i care?
Don't you think these discussions are just pointless?

I was once in a restaurant with a couple of my friends and we begun talking about 9/11 the conversation got very heated as I am convinced without doubt after years of research that there is more to 9/11 than what we were 'oficially' told.

Anyway, my friends started by ganging up on me and were spouting out words like terrorists,al quaeda,iraq e.t.c e.t.c pretty much everything they had learnt from the MSM. After an hour of taking verbal abuse from my 'friends' I started laying it on thick, I recited fact after fact after fact, to which my friend automatically went on the internet (via his phone) to check if any of what I was saying could be verified, after another hour of going through factual anomolies with them, they ended the conversation with So what if its true, what can we do about it. I will never forget those words, because they brought it all home to me.

The fact that people vehemently deny that 9/11 was an inside job is not because they want to start an argument, its simply because, to think any different would mean them having to face up that maybe, just maybe, the people that they confide and trust in are indeed not who they make out to be and in fact the world in which they live in isn't as cut and dry as they think it is.

To question anything out of their comfort zone is terrfying and its much easier to stay confined in the bubble of ignorance than to act for themselves.

Many years have passed since that day with my friends and the ironic thing is that my friends, who were once such staunch government supporters, through their own research, time and understanding, now view not only 9/11, but many other 'conspiracies' with an open mind and have a greater awareness of how large governmental groups now operate around the world and who benefits from them.

Originally posted by ProdigalSon

then why are the conspiracist so desperate to proove it? What is the diference between them?

Maybe because it set the tone for American policy over the past ten years, got us into trillions of dollars of war spending, created massive division globally, is bascially the FOUNDATION of all political rhetoric heard today considering the Mid East and Domestic policy??????????????????????

It is like religious-atheist endless debate, one group desperately trying to prove the existence of god, and on group trying to desperately disprove his existence.
What is with everybody from both sides having this uncontrolable obsession to convince the others for their beliefs.

Because unlike the things you stated above, the whole issue of 9/11 involves REAL and TANGIBLE evidence that you can see, hear, and dissect. "God" is a concept of imagination or belief.

Belief and FACT = Two different things...but I thought that was obvious.

I couldn't care less if someone does not believe or want to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy or any other conspiracy for that matter, why should i care?
Don't you think these discussions are just pointless?

If it's all "pointless" to you, why are you even chiming in? To hear yourself talk? Or to practice your internet skills?

reply to post by franspeakfree



And lately the Government and media is hyping up "terrorism" again. The whole Mosque thing is fueling it, and the fact that 9/11 is coming up they need to once again trot out the Boogieman.


What's ASTOUNDING to me is that after all we have learned still roughly 50% of New Yorkers oppose a Mosque being built. It's like the EMPIRICAL evidence that 9/11 was done from the inside is a distant idea and everyone has amnesia.

It's not old, it's past old. It's come into a point where it is INSANE if you support the story that sole Arabs did this from a mystical group called "Al Qaeda" led by a mythical Shaman named Bin Laden.

Our nation is STUPID. We are fools who have ingested to many drugs, television, fluoride, junk food, and high fructose corn syrup to even think straight anymore. You can't fight massive forces of STUPID. Even if a select few of those stupid refer to themselves as "debunkers".

And seriously, most of them I've spoken to are the densest most OBTUSE people I have ever had the luck of knowing in my entire life. It's like having discussion with zombies...

Personally I am APPALLED at the fact that a good percentage of our country STILL believes that the Official Story is on the up and up. It's like our growth has been stunted since that day and we just got dumber and no memory is retained....

Sometimes I think that the fact it was a LIE hit the collective conscious of everyone to the point they sought to escape because the thought was just too much. So we flick on football, American Idol, Lady Gaga, Twilight or zone out on Justin Bieber crap till we feel numb. Which means we're more cowardly than I thought.

For me 9/11 is where the true dumbing down of our nation started. The biggest hoax of the last century that led to many other similar hoaxes. And it keeps going. I wake up sometimes feeling like I'm trapped in this strange dream where my country is full of shell shocked refugees.

I have to say that I'm disappointed that anyone could believe that the american government is unable to cover up something even of this magnitude as things like the goings on of area 51 have been hidden for years that its the politicians that get caught in there scandals, military ones have a habit of staying in the dark and we don't become privvy to alot of foreign intel with it been foreign and all, but feelfalling steel reinforced building with the cause been a mere office fire regardless if jet fuel was present wouldn be able to produce the 1300 degrees c to create molten steel as seen by rescue workers on the seen unlikely it reached anymore then 650 as the fuel would of burn't up quickly only leaving normal office furniture i found some interesting maths for this site 911research.wtc7.net... something that does burn that hot is termite which some scientists said they found at the site 911research.wtc7.net... so i will still firmly believe there is something more sinister at work behind the scenes regardless of 'debunkers' my opinion remains the same.

I know the Official Story/stories were bunk... HOW?

Because Donald Rumpypumpsfeld told me!!



Yes, there were Official Stories and they were full of holes. Just like the debunkers arguments.

Great post OP .

It really does boil down to something this simple........... There is no finer way of proving your point than providing 100% evidence to back your case = case closed, done and dusted. Not once in all the years I have visited these forums seen a post from any of the 4%`ers tag team with irrefutable evidence proving beyond doubt any single aspect of 9/11. But then again, is it not to their advantage having an `Open` OS that can be twisted to suit new arisings as they appear?, `pancake affect squibs` is a great example here, as it was deemed that pancaking was not how the towers collapsed (kinda hard when 80% of the building debris was reduced to dust and ejected outside of the towers footprints) still waiting to hear what caused the now self debunked compressed air squibs.

In the nutshell - 100% factual events prove themselves, if there is no supporting evidence that it happened this way, then it didn`t, plain and simple.