I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this post, I've been busy and only been able to pop on for a few minutes at a time.
Originally posted by airspoon
You should speak for yourself, as just about everyone I know, evaluates each piece of evidence for what it is. Are there some people who believe in a
conpsiracy just to believe in a conspiracy, especially one without evidence? Absolutely, as is often evident in the UFO field. As is also evident with
the OS. Baasically, almost the entire OS is the government saying "trust us".
This is not accurate, while you are correct about what some people will believe in, you can't categorise the 'official story' as a narrative put
out soley by the government. It is the cumulative impact of hundreds of different investigations, experiments, videos and photographs etc.
Regardless, that is somebody else and irrlevant to the discussion here. I can't speak for everyone, nor can I speak for the "truth
movement", though I think that the term "truth movement" is often confused (and sometimes intentionally) with people who come up with either wild
or unsubstantiated claims and theories as to what happened. This often leads the media or even official conspiracy theorists to claim that they have
debunked the "truth movement" when they have only debunked one of these wild and unsubstantiated theories.
The biggest problem with this section is that there is no non-'wild and unsubstantiated' theory to fall back on. The only coherent theories that
exist are incredibly sparse, essentially consisting of little more than 'There was thermite and it kept metal molten and it also destroyed the
The "truth movement" does not advocate a theory as to what happened, as the movement only advocates that the official conspiracy theory is
wrong, therefore a real, independent and transparent investigation is needed. Now some people in the "truth movement" like to theorize about what
could have happened but they are certainly not speaking for the "truth movement". So, if you are looking for one thing that "truthers" have in
common, it's that they want the truth and believe that the OS or official conspiracy theory is wrong. As the quote in my signature suggests, it's
not that truthers have the truth, it's that they want the truth.
In principle and in many cases in reality, this is true, so I won't argue with it.
Furthermore, to believe the OS, you basically have to trust the word of the government, the same government who brought us Iraq, which is a
whole package of lies in of itself. First that Al Qeada was affiliated with Saddam, then with the WMD and even with the financing of the war. This is
the same government that lied to us about the air quality in New York after the attacks.
You really don't have to believe everything the US government says to understand the 'official story'. However, if you believe some conspiracy
you believe that organisations like NIST were part of the cover up, you do have to believe in some pretty bizarre ulterior motives.
Why would people from NIST lie? They can't be prosecuted for making information about such a horrific crime public.
I don't know about you, but I'm not simply going to trust them that they are telling us the truth, especially when the motive is there, as is
a precedent (actually, many), as is also a ton of red flags with the story that they feed us.
Neither am I, that's not why I believe the 'official story'.
I'll tell you, most of the "truthers" that I know, would simply go away if there was a real and independent investiagtion, whatever the
findings of that investigation reveal. In fact, I personally would be extremely happy if a real investigation was done and the evidence revealed that
certain elements within government were shown to be nothing more than unintentionally negligent.
The problem with NIST and why people may not hold them as credible as other experts who have come out against NIST and their findings, is the
response of NIST itself. For instance, take this exchange between a Hartford Advocate reporter, Jennifer Abel and a NIST
spokesperson, Michael Neuman:
Except that isn't really the whole exchange is it? Before that it was pointed out that the debris had been inspected and it seems clear enough to me
from the part that was cut off that he was saying they did not look for explosive residue because they could not find any evidence to support
explosives in their inspection.
It would be like a homicide detective coming upon a mutilated body and ruling out murder right away (because it implicates their boss). Instead
of saying "well, this could be murder so lets investigate it", they simply say "spontaneous combustion" without even considering that it may have
been a homicide. Then when asked why they didn't look for evidence of foul play, they simply respond "there is no need to because it didn't
happen". Do you think people are going to take that homicide detective seriously, especially when it is his boss that is implicated?
More exactly it's like a homicide detective having a quick look over a body, finding no evidence of gunshot wounds and investigating the other
possibilities. There's no need to look for gunshot residue because there were no obvious signs of gunshot wounds, and the subsequent investigation
found a cause of death that did not require a gunshot.
Furthermore, we have all seen what happens to people who even merely question the OS, they lose their careers and livelihoods and they become
Such as? Dylan Avery has made his career off questioning the OS. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, William Rodriguez, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and more
literally tour the world giving presentations about their questions of the 'official story'. Does that really count as losing their careers and life
Finally, it's not just this one piece of evidence [Jones' paper], rather it is everything, to include the circumstantial evidence. When you
add everything up, it certainly doesn't look for the official conspiracy theory.
This is entirely inaccurate. There is no competing hypothesis that has any more detail than I illustrated above. If you really believe you have a good
and reasonably complete hypothesis, feel free to start a thread about it and I will participate in the debate.
Remember, we shouldn't have to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official conspiracy theory is wrong, though that criteria
has been met in my opinion, rather we should only have to prove that it could be wrong, thus warranting an investigation.
That doesn't warrant an investigation. You have to have evidence that it is wrong, not just suspicion that it might
The people of the world, especially Americans and even the British, deserve to know what happened and why it happened.
As long as there are valid question, there should be an attempt to answer those questions, instead of just ignoring them. There really is no viable
reason that we should ignore them or not investigate them.
Hey, I do what I can!
Seriously though, if you want such an investigation, tell me who it would be conducted by, and how. The only attempts I've seen at planning this gave
people who already believe in some controlled demolition hypothesis a controlling vote, and a salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars etc.
I am not in principle opposed to a new investigation, and as I wouldn't be paying for it I am not fiscally opposed to it either. My only opposition
is that I think it would literally be a huge waste of time and money to achieve nothing other than people claiming that the 'independent'
investigation wasn't independent enough.
PS. I still have pretty much an outstanding challenge to anyone who believes their theories can pass scrutiny to debate me in the formal debate forum.
I'll pretty much accept any topic at this point.