Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?

What we know in regards to NY on 9/11:
1. Three seperate high-rise buildings recognized by architects wolrd-wide for their structural stability due to world-class engineering were destroyed on 9/11/01. (the first failed bombing of one building in 1993 is proof of their quality)
2. It is clear that many people believe the destruction of one (WTC7) if not all three buildings mimicked a controlled demolition to an extremely high degree based solely upon the visual evidence. (Peter Jennings said as much on 9/11)
3. Only someone with technical knowledge and experience with these buildings, airplanes, controlled demolitions, or the actual evidence is in a position to prove that they were not controlled demolitions by investigative techniques.
4. In all three cases it is the first time in the history of mankind that buildings of this magnitude were destroyed in the manner in which we are told to believe they have been destroyed.
5. The scientific and professional communities along with our own military have people with excellent credentials, impressive experience, with seemingly no motive other than their own conscience disagreeing with the validity of the gov't's explantation.
6. There has never since been anything similar in which to compare any of these cases to, in regards to total collapses of equal structures or terrorist events.
7. This doubt cast upon the gov't's explanation is a world-wide phenomenon.
8. The American gov't has no interest whatsoever in any further investigation regardless of the will of its citizens.
9. The mainstream media in America also has no interest whatsoever in promoting investigation of anykind in regards to the core issues presented by the experts who question the gov't's findings.
10. These events were purposefully used to justify the passing of new laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of Americans, the inception of at least one war that has devestated entire countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people, and a massive increase in gov't spending and beauracracy in America.

Notice that I did not propose an alternative theory of any kind, I merely explained reality as it exists today. My goal is to find out what, if anything, can be agreed upon by those both defending the official story and those denying its validiy in order to create a common ground between the two. I'd like to know if my list is acceptable and if not why, also please feel free to add to it. Please keep it civilized and if you are asked specifically to answer a question, do so.

reply to post by budaruskie


Good idea but I don't think so..
I have noticed a few of the regular trusters are starting to sprout the theme that a lot that happened was due to incompetence on the part of Goverment and the many agencies involved..
But then a lot of the heads of those departments were promoted..

All we can agree on is that 3 buildings came down due to being hit by 2 planes.
Another crashed in a field.
And something hit the pentagon..

Ohh, and it lead to wars and loss of liberty..

reply to post by backinblack

Ohh, and it lead to wars and loss of liberty..

Now THIS we (me being a 'truster' and you being a truther) can agree on.

Just not the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

reply to post by backinblack


I don't suppose everyone can even agree there. There are those who do not see the loss of liberty happening.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Fantastic! Is that the only item on my list that is agreeable?

Originally posted by recycled
reply to post by backinblack

 

I don't suppose everyone can even agree there. There are those who do not see the loss of liberty happening.

Maybe but it's an easily proved fact..Patriot act, body scanners, water frikin boarding...
If anyone argued that is..

Edit: We also agree on the date...9/11, except here in Australia we would say 11/9

Originally posted by budaruskie
4. In all three cases it is the first time in the history of mankind that buildings of this magnitude were destroyed in the manner in which we are told to believe they have been destroyed.

It's a bit ridiculous to say, "in the history of mankind" when buildings like this have only existed for less than 100 years. It is like people saying "fully loaded" about the fuel in the planes when they were only 40% full.

psik

Originally posted by budaruskie
What we know in regards to NY on 9/11:
1. Three seperate high-rise buildings recognized by architects wolrd-wide for their structural stability due to world-class engineering were destroyed on 9/11/01. (the first failed bombing of one building in 1993 is proof of their quality)
2. It is clear that many people believe the destruction of one (WTC7) if not all three buildings mimicked a controlled demolition to an extremely high degree based solely upon the visual evidence. (Peter Jennings said as much on 9/11)
3. Only someone with technical knowledge and experience with these buildings, airplanes, controlled demolitions, or the actual evidence is in a position to prove that they were not controlled demolitions by investigative techniques.
4. In all three cases it is the first time in the history of mankind that buildings of this magnitude were destroyed in the manner in which we are told to believe they have been destroyed.
5. The scientific and professional communities along with our own military have people with excellent credentials, impressive experience, with seemingly no motive other than their own conscience disagreeing with the validity of the gov't's explantation.
6. There has never since been anything similar in which to compare any of these cases to, in regards to total collapses of equal structures or terrorist events.
7. This doubt cast upon the gov't's explanation is a world-wide phenomenon.
8. The American gov't has no interest whatsoever in any further investigation regardless of the will of its citizens.
9. The mainstream media in America also has no interest whatsoever in promoting investigation of anykind in regards to the core issues presented by the experts who question the gov't's findings.
10. These events were purposefully used to justify the passing of new laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of Americans, the inception of at least one war that has devestated entire countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people, and a massive increase in gov't spending and beauracracy in America.

Technically I don't think anyone could argue with any point based on the way you have composed them..
I'd guess your aim is to debate each point, one at a time..

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by budaruskie
4. In all three cases it is the first time in the history of mankind that buildings of this magnitude were destroyed in the manner in which we are told to believe they have been destroyed.

It's a bit ridiculous to say, "in the history of mankind" when buildings like this have only existed for less than 100 years. It is like people saying "fully loaded" about the fuel in the planes when they were only 40% full.

psik

How about just say if it's true or not??
In your mind, change History of mankind to last 200 years if it helps..

reply to post by budaruskie


I wish there was, but no. And I really have to give you credit here (not facetiously) because every single one of your points were strategically worded in order to give credence to the truther stance. So, I am sure you will have a lot of your truther allies agreeing with you, but very few (if any) "trusters" siding with any of your points.

What I can agree on is that the Bush Administration handled these attacks with incompetence and borderline criminal negligence (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq, increased military spending, etc). I think the only point I can come CLOSE to agreeing with you on is that the government took the opportunity to pass legislation that infringed upon our liberties, but I do not believe they would murder 3,000 fellow Americans in order to do that (or to invade Iraq, for that matter). I believe that, in all honesty, members of the house and the senate, as well as the Bush administration, honestly felt that the laws they passed would help in protecting Americans... This can be attributed to the widespread fear and paranoia that spread across the nation following these ruthless attacks, and it only makes logical sense that members within our government would feel that same fear.

Much of this post-9/11 fear remains... that is why you see so many complacent Americans willfully supporting the ridiculous TSA body scans, and why so many individuals still believe that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks on September 11.

I don't want to derail the thread. Let's see what everyone else has to say.

reply to post by backinblack

I'd guess your aim is to debate each point, one at a time..

Honestly, I thought they were conspicuous observations that we would agree upon, not debate. But, if something is not agreeable, then it would be nice to know why so it can be refined or excluded.

I can only think of one thing that everybody would agree on.

1. A lot of innocent people died for no apparent reason.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I can say with complete integrity that I did not purposefully craft any statement to give either side credence, I was only describing what I thought was considered obvious. I'm not trying to be technical or slick, I want to know what the scenario you experience is in order to recognize its similarity with others.

What I can agree on is that the Bush Administration handled these attacks with incompetence and borderline criminal negligence (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq, increased military spending, etc).

Should we make this #11, because I can certainly agree with that. Anyone else think this is acceptable?

I think the only point I can come CLOSE to agreeing with you on is that the government took the opportunity to pass legislation that infringed upon our liberties, but I do not believe they would murder 3,000 fellow Americans in order to do that (or to invade Iraq, for that matter).

Notice that I did not say that the gov't killed Americans planned or executed the events of 9/11, only that they used the events to accomplish certain goals. Isn't that agreeable? So, does that mean we have 2 agreeable points now?

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I think it would be good if you and other trusters/truthers could say what is wrong with them points..
Rather than just saying you don't agree..

reply to post by budaruskie


Yes, let's make that number 11. Sounds like something most of us can agree on. I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth, I was just attempting to distance myself from truthers, since a lot of them believe it was an inside job either carried out/ or allowed to happen by the government; I do not believe either of these (MIHOP, LIHOP) to be the case. I believe (am convinced, actually) that it was carried out by religious extremists in an attempt to "pay us back" for certain injustices they believed our government to responsible for. In other words, this attack was the most extreme example of "blowback" imaginable.

Let's continue this tomorrow, eh? Time for me to hit the sack.

Good start, though

I don't believe that "agreement on a list of things" will make any difference. We have to agree to take action, each in our own way.

reply to post by budaruskie


Actually, the only thing in there that was only partially accurate was the idea that 3 buildings were destroyed.

The remaninder is truther semantics and mumbo-jumbo.

Good luck with that.

reply to post by budaruskie


YES THAT ALOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED FOR NO REASON!?!?!?!?!
2ND

I'll just go over these one at a time to come up with comprehensive reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.

1. Three seperate high-rise buildings recognized by architects wolrd-wide for their structural stability due to world-class engineering were destroyed on 9/11/01. (the first failed bombing of one building in 1993 is proof of their quality)

This one I partially agree on. They were destroyed on 9/11, but different architects had different views about their stability. Naturally, the architects would never tell people they knew the towers had a flaw. It could get them arrested for criminal negligence or something. The first bombing was at the base of the towers, where the construction was much stronger.

2. It is clear that many people believe the destruction of one (WTC7) if not all three buildings mimicked a controlled demolition to an extremely high degree based solely upon the visual evidence. (Peter Jennings said as much on 9/11)

It's true that many people think WTC7 mimics a controlled demolition at first glance. Once it is explained, the number reduces drastically. I have tested this by explaining what happened inside the building to people who thought it looked like a demo. They changed their minds every time. So, again, a partial agreement.

3. Only someone with technical knowledge and experience with these buildings, airplanes, controlled demolitions, or the actual evidence is in a position to prove that they were not controlled demolitions by investigative techniques.

And NIST and others had this technical knowledge to my knowledge, so we agree here.

4. In all three cases it is the first time in the history of mankind that buildings of this magnitude were destroyed in the manner in which we are told to believe they have been destroyed.

Depends what you mean by magnitude, but yes, the events that day were entirely unique, and the results were equally abstract. We agree here.

5. The scientific and professional communities along with our own military have people with excellent credentials, impressive experience, with seemingly no motive other than their own conscience disagreeing with the validity of the gov't's explantation.

Agreed, I suppose. It is a little presumptuous that your wording makes it look like they would be disagreeing with the government's explanation of events if they had a conscience, but maybe it's just me or your tone. They also have their conscience on the line whilst agreeing with the government's explanation.

6. There has never since been anything similar in which to compare any of these cases to, in regards to total collapses of equal structures or terrorist events.

Agreed.

7. This doubt cast upon the gov't's explanation is a world-wide phenomenon.

It can be considered such. The belief in Bigfoot and world peace is also a world-wide phenomenon. We agree here.

8. The American gov't has no interest whatsoever in any further investigation regardless of the will of its citizens.

The will of some citizens is not the will of the majority. If they so desired, enough voters could elect someone who would put forth a popular bill or committee which would be able to re-investigate. The will of the majority appears to be to leave things as they are, feeling they have been thoroughly investigated. Partial agreement.

9. The mainstream media in America also has no interest whatsoever in promoting investigation of anykind in regards to the core issues presented by the experts who question the gov't's findings.

The media is actually surprisingly keen on promoting random investigations like that, though they would have a random CNN investigator expert than a real serious one done. It would be sketchy at best. Partial agreement.

10. These events were purposefully used to justify the passing of new laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of Americans, the inception of at least one war that has devastated entire countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people, and a massive increase in gov't spending and bureaucracy in America.

Agreed.

To restate these into statements that can be agreed upon, without the underlying taste of conspiracy:
1. Three long-standing and previously attacked symbolic skyscrapers were destroyed on 9/11.
2. Some people believe that one or all of the collapses were suspicious.
3. Only qualified individuals of their fields can properly investigate the various factors of 9/11.
4. It was the first time that buildings constructed like at the WTC complex had collapsed in the way they did.
5. Experts and people in power have mainly their conscience to rely on when agreeing or disagreeing with the accepted conclusion of how 9/11 happened.
6. There has never been a day with events exactly like 9/11.
7. There are people around the world who don't completely agree with the accepted conclusion of how 9/11 happened.
8. The government has no motive to launch a new investigation.
9. The media does not support the launch of a new investigation, though they will show many programs that support the conspiracy ideas.
10. The events of 9/11 were used to infringe rights and launch a horrific war.

One thing also, is that usa gov would have to have known. There is no way an operation like that could of happened without someone getting the info. Not in todays world.