3 common (and weak) arguments defenders of the official story make

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by m1991

 

So everyone is more worried about being fired than the truth? Firefighters who risk their lives and journalists, at least some of whom do their job because of principle, are all - every single one of them - more worried about a paycheck than revealing a monumentally venal conspiracy?

I can't buy that. Even if you are more worried about money than morals I have personal experience of individuals who are not. And history is full of examples of selflessness and conscience of that kind.

Firefighters would have no connection to the origin of 9/11, so whether they are truthers or OSers it doesn't really matter.

Journalists, you have to remember, they have families to feed and stuff. Most people don't really care about people who aren't genetically related to them. It's understandable they don't want to lose their jobs. Besides, there are journalists who question the OS.

Originally posted by nake13

A lot of that is probably because of their loyalty to the government (being firefighters).

Why would you assume that firefighters would demonstrate loyalty to the government in that fashion? really those guys give a professional opinion and it becomes part of the larger conspiracy? what about the firefighters for truth network?
To accuse these firefighters who lost so many of their own during 9/11 does seem to be clutching at straws,unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

Yes some firefighters do indeed question the OS (and bless them for that!), but most of them are just like the military and make fun of people who question things like that.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by sir_slide

 

Here is the rebuttal to the alleged thermite theory.

www.debunking911.com...

I'd still like to see that quote where terrorists said they would come back with planes.

My pet hate is the line that goes something like: "People just can't accept that random things can occur and there can be a group of people out there trying to kill you. Its easier for people to believe their government could be out to hurt them than for there to be crazy irrational terrorists out there". Same for JFK i.e. hard to believe one lone nutjob could kill the President.

Complete and utter BS. No one story is easier to believe than the other. Both rely on trusting various sources for good information. Its just that people seem to default to "Trust the government" because that's what we are supposed to do.

The stupid thing about lines like this about 9/11 is that its a conspiracy either way you look at it. If it really was Terrorists, then those Terrorists formed a conspiracy to carry out 9/11. Its just as much a leap of faith to believe terrorists could have done it as the government.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I invite you to provide even ONE example where any controlled demolition in all of history ever demolished a building from the inside out, in the way that building 7 actually fell

Im not a scientist, but isn't that called an implosion, and isn't that standard practice in an area where they don't want to damage surrounding structures?

Originally posted by hooper

Really? Prove it. Thats a pretty big assumption, I take it you have something to back it up. Besides, its based on the faulty notion that the media is this one big entangled conglomerate that is under the control of a few evil doers. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

They made a pretty large section of the population freak out over an alien invasion that didnt happen with War of the Worlds. So, It isnt exactly unheard of for the media to be able to whip people into a frenzy based on a lie.

Originally posted by m1991


Firefighters would have no connection to the origin of 9/11, so whether they are truthers or OSers it doesn't really matter.

I don't understand. There are several firefighters on record saying that what happened to Building 7 was expected. They would have to be lying. And the ones who don't come forward airing what you say must be their ocncerns - they are at least guilty of a cover-up, surely?

Journalists, you have to remember, they have families to feed and stuff. Most people don't really care about people who aren't genetically related to them.

To the extent that all of them are happy to see others murdered? Just for a paycheck? I don't see any evidence for that. Indeed I see lots of evidence for the opposite.

It's understandable they don't want to lose their jobs. Besides, there are journalists who question the OS.

We're discussing the journalists who must be in on it. The scores of BBC journalists. The hundreds in the US who would have to be complicit. None of them raised the alarm?

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you blow the whistle? I know I would.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't understand. There are several firefighters on record saying that what happened to Building 7 was expected.

No they didn't.

Find me one firefighter who said building 7 was going to completely collapse into its own footprint.

There is a huge difference between saying a building is going to collapse, and a building is going to collapse into its own footprint in a way normally only possible with a controlled 'implosion' demolition.

If anyone said it was going to completely collapse beforehand they must have known it was set up to collapse, because there is no precedence for such a claim, no past history of steel framed buildings collapsing from fire to base that claim on.

Details man, pay attention to the details.

reply to post by micmerci

I think argument #2 should be that too many people need to make a coordinated effort to pull off such a huge monumental undertaking. I mean our government can't make a simple decision without an act of Congress let alone commit the acts of 911.

And how many years before the official Government Disclosure of the Stealth Fighter did you hear the leaked story about this new stealth jet?

The F-117 Nighthawk was developed and designed in the mid 70's... and knowledge of it's existence was officially disclosed in the Gulf War Conflict in 1984.

That's 10 years of secrecy right there.

The SR-71 Blackbird was first flown in 1962... and it was disclosed in 1965... that's 3 years of total secrecy.

The U-2 Spy-plane was first flown in 1955, and information was released in 1960... that's 5 years.

"Government Can't Keep Secrets"

HA

and DOUBLE HA.

They have been doing it for Decades.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't understand. There are several firefighters on record saying that what happened to Building 7 was expected.

No they didn't.

Find me one firefighter who said building 7 was going to completely collapse into its own footprint.

There is a huge difference between saying a building is going to collapse, and a building is going to collapse into its own footprint in a way normally only possible with a controlled 'implosion' demolition.

If anyone said it was going to completely collapse beforehand they must have known it was set up to collapse, because there is no precedence for such a claim, no past history of steel framed buildings collapsing from fire to base that claim on.

Details man, pay attention to the details.

edit on 9/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Ah yes, because a firefighter knows exactly how a building will collapse or react during a fire. ANOK, you are getting more and more irrational with this line of thinking.

Did you forget the times I and others have posted what firefighters are trained to spot in a burning building, regarding the condition of structure involved in the fire and sure warning signs a collapse is imminent? Do I have to repost them and then have a checklist of what was reported by the firefighters regarding the condition of the WTC7? Boy you make it seem as if firefighters are idiots and uneducated to the point where they dont know what they are doing regarding a heavily damaged and fire engulfed building. But hey, tell them that. Tell them how they dont know their job, and their observations regarding burning buildings mean squat, because YOU know better than they do.

Why was a surveyor transit placed on WTC7? Answer me that question first. If there was no danger of it collapsing, or signs of danger, then why on earth did they bother putting up a transit?

I very rarely get involved in 9/11 posts because like "Groundhog day" its just a run on the same info with the usual suspects saying the usual things and playing the usual games.

If I could get a bookie to lay me odds on who will say this and that, when they will join a thread and what tactics they will use to derail, evade the issues and stick to the "Official Story" I would be worth a fortune.

Like it or not people we have all the evidence we need to know everything was scripted that day in the form of the female BBC reporter that became a mystic, looked into the future and told us WTC7 had fallen as we watched it still erect on screen.

I rest my case.
Respects

Originally posted by ANOK


No they didn't.

Find me one firefighter who said building 7 was going to completely collapse into its own footprint.

There is a huge difference between saying a building is going to collapse, and a building is going to collapse into its own footprint in a way normally only possible with a controlled 'implosion' demolition.

If anyone said it was going to completely collapse beforehand they must have known it was set up to collapse, because there is no precedence for such a claim, no past history of steel framed buildings collapsing from fire to base that claim on.

Details man, pay attention to the details.

edit on 9/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo

So they said the building would collapse and it subsequently collapsed. What you find odd is the manner of that destruction.

As far as I can see you base this on a continued assertion that it fell "completely" into its own footprint - although I can't find conclusive evidence for that; for example what percentage ended up in the footprint? - and that such a collapse is impossible without explosives. Again that seems to be just an assertion.

Originally posted by captiva
I very rarely get involved in 9/11 posts because like "Groundhog day" its just a run on the same info with the usual suspects saying the usual things and playing the usual games.

If I could get a bookie to lay me odds on who will say this and that, when they will join a thread and what tactics they will use to derail, evade the issues and stick to the "Official Story" I would be worth a fortune.

Like it or not people we have all the evidence we need to know everything was scripted that day in the form of the female BBC reporter that became a mystic, looked into the future and told us WTC7 had fallen as we watched it still erect on screen.

I rest my case.
Respects

Unless of course she was just reporting what the firefighters were telling everyone was about to happen. By mistake.

So let's see. Vast criminal conspiracy or mistake based on easily misinterpreted reports? I know which I find more likely.

Originally posted by Cecilofs
The stupid thing about lines like this about 9/11 is that its a conspiracy either way you look at it. If it really was Terrorists, then those Terrorists formed a conspiracy to carry out 9/11. Its just as much a leap of faith to believe terrorists could have done it as the government.

It's not right to say that just because something occupies the same category it is equally plausible. For example, I'm a person, and so is Bill Clinton, but that doesn't mean that it is equally arguable that we were both presidents of the United States.

One can argue that the "OS" is a conspiracy theory because it involves a conspiracy but that ignores the connotations of the term and the massively different quality of evidence that supports a traditional view of events.

On your first point I could only speculate. But I think a lot of conspiracy theorists - I use the term in the traditional sense - are quite keen to impose a palatable narrative on a series of events that they find disquieting.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShadeOn your first point I could only speculate. But I think a lot of conspiracy theorists - I use the term in the traditional sense - are quite keen to impose a palatable narrative on a series of events that they find disquieting.

The point is, neither version of events is palatable. Both are disquieting. So why is one automatically more believable than the other? Either way 3000 people died. Either way its horrible. Either way it involves large-scale plans by powerful entities.

The point is that this is exactly what happens with any official story as well - you come up with an explanation that seems to fit and then release it to the masses. All explanations after the fact are based on inductive reasoning, testing evidence, science, talking to witnesses etc. etc. All of which comes down to fitting an event into a model of how it happened. Sometimes people all agree the model is accurate, sometimes not. At the end of the day, its a model, not the real event.

Unless you were actually there on that day then everything you know about it is second hand one way or the other. Even if you were there that day, you only witnessed it from one perspective and with your own limited knowledge.

Therefore, believing any OS is as much a faith-based excercise as beliving any conspiracy theory.

Therefore that argument against conspiracy theories is bull#.

Originally posted by Cecilofs


The point is, neither version of events is palatable. Both are disquieting. So why is one automatically more believable than the other? Either way 3000 people died. Either way its horrible. Either way it involves large-scale plans by powerful entities.

That doesn't make them in any way equivalently likely. Introduce a third theory - for example that the towers were destroyed by aliens. It would be equally horrible, but not equally well evidenced. And not equally probable.

The point is that this is exactly what happens with any official story as well - you come up with an explanation that seems to fit and then release it to the masses. All explanations after the fact are based on inductive reasoning, testing evidence, science, talking to witnesses etc. etc. All of which comes down to fitting an event into a model of how it happened. Sometimes people all agree the model is accurate, sometimes not. At the end of the day, its a model, not the real event.

Therefore, believing any OS is as much a faith-based excercise as beliving any conspiracy theory.

Therefore that argument against conspiracy theories is bull#.

But some models are self-evidently based on better reasoning and evidence than others. For example, your understanding that Bull Clinton and not I was President is based on the same second-hand information. Would you say it was "faith based"? Would you admit that it was equally likely that I used to be president of the US?

Hulocoast denigeher has beeen thrown in my face , even not mentioning the dancing Israelis. Just merly bringing the subject up that the official storry is hogwash .
One argument is "Oh Come`on every one in the mdeia, millitary and goverment that would have taken 10s of thousands of people "[

One that even I paused to ask myself "If the Government is so evil and has some much advance tech and if the 911 plot was some kind of NWO attack why hasn`t people like Alex jones and popular 911 truthers .
been silance.