The Problem with Most Non-Truthers.

One thing I have come to notice about most of those who constantly defend the Official 911 story. They have no idea what the story is.

Most of them can not explain the simple physics of what the commission report said happened to the towers. They have never heard the words pancake theory.

They blindly defend a story they dont even know by throwing out insults and lumping together great minds with some youtube videos a teenager made.

I have come here in search of the few true Original Story Defenders. There has to be one of you out there that knows and actually wants to defend the original story instead of attacking the facts presented by the truth community and I am interested in hearing your side.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by readytorevolt

I have come here in search of the few true Original Story Defenders.

OK, here I am! And what do you mean "original"? There is only one.

There has to be one of you out there that knows and actually wants to defend the original story....

Yeah, no problem but first we have to know what YOU think the "original" story is. I am not here to defend your interpretation or point of view.

....instead of attacking the facts presented by the truth community and I am interested in hearing your side.

First, there must be facts and they must be relevant.

I am not going to sit here and re-iterate the entire library of information. Read the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, the ASCE reports, the Mossaoui trial transcripts and then we can start.

I guess it does not even take an Original Story defender to lump truthers together.

Hate to break it to you buddy but you are either on one side of the fence or the other. You may not be making youtube videos about lizard people but you do not deserve to be at your own Xmas party.

reply to post by Six6Six

I DO NOT believ the OS one bit. I just do not believe the truthers have the right substance and personnel to represent the normal people. To me truthers are the types who you don't want to invite to your christmas party. Or have around you children for that matter.

So you discount any of the information presented because you don't like the people who moan the loudest? Let me tell you something buddy, the bulk of us "truthers" are not represented by most of the vocal peabrains you are referring to.

I DO NOT believ the OS one bit.

guess what that makes you. Yup, you guessed it. I agree with you friend, the ones given the attention are not really doing any good (this is of course by design) and making it harder to gain support for an investigation.

I simply want honest answers. If that means the official story is 100% accurate, great, then we can start working at fixing the errors that allowed all of this to happen.

In all honesty, I would much rather have the official story be true, because then I can at least sleep at night instead of feeling the need to question everything I'm fed via the media and government. Questioning is good, but as many posters here will show you, once you go down that hole plenty of people can't stop. For them, everything is conspiracy, there are agents following them right now.

Most people are hypnotized by the media and most TV programs they watch daily. Constant repetition of the same details become embedded into people's minds, hence becoming their "facts."

What exactly is hypnosis? While definitions can vary, the American Psychological Association describes hypnosis as a cooperative interaction in which the participant responds to the suggestions of the hypnotist.

According to John Kihlstrom, "The hypnotist does not hypnotize the individual. Rather, the hypnotist serves as a sort of coach or tutor whose job is to help the person become hypnotized"2 While hypnosis is often described as a sleep-like trance state, it is better expressed as a state characterized by focused attention, heightened suggestibility and vivid fantasies.

These people who are susceptible to hypnosis are seeing what they are hypnotized to see, and hear. The only way to get to them is by using reverse psychology, or the same door the hypnotist used to get into their minds... the TV.

Hoops I am most interested in seeing you defend the pancake theory that was used to explain the towers falling in the Commission Report.

I find it quite impossible that the top of the buildings came down at free fall speed while pulverizing everything below them and I would like to know what makes you believe this story.

It doesnt add up one bit and Im having trouble finding anybody who even knows what that theory is let alone is willing to defend it

reply to post by hooper


Are you still droning on about the 9/11 commision Report? The report that we know is so full of holes, many members of the commision are embaressed by it?

I'm still waiting for YOU to provide video evidence of a commercial airliner being slammed into the Pentagon, that I requested in another thread. I guess I will keep on waiting and waiting and waiting.

If we all saw this on 9-11, I don't think there would be so many "truthers" out there trying to find out WHY this didn't happen....

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

I'm still waiting for YOU to provide video evidence of a commercial airliner being slammed into the Pentagon, that I requested in another thread. I guess I will keep on waiting and waiting and waiting.

Moot point and needs no mention here, the no plane crap is beyond a fringe belief, it's actually a planted disinfo honeypot to make it much easier for people like Hooper there to completely Pwn you, and rightfully so.

Much easier to tear apart the NIST report that ignored WTC7, and the NIST report the determined what happened with WTC7, as well as the commission report that the very people tasked with creating it said it was nothing more than a whitewash and they were obstructed by the government from the very start.

I'd like Hooper to explain why the laws of physics didn't apply to 3 skyscrapers in New york city on 911. Hell, I'll even give you the twins, but you've GOT to explain WTC7 and how the entire building came down, at once, into it's basement. You can watch the videos and clearly side the side of the building (right side in the video) come down from the bottom in a single piece.

no plane hit that building, so there's no structural damage to the steel core, and only limited fires as evidenced in countless videos as well as FDNY audio recordings.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

If we all saw this on 9-11, I don't think there would be so many "truthers" out there trying to find out WHY this didn't happen....

lol where to start with that video. Design doesn't even come close to the construction of any of the WTC buildings, the floor the explosion takes place on isn't correct, so many issues with that.

Is this made by popular mechanics like their inherently flawed pancake collapse video?

also you forgot this one (still really really bad but you can't post part 1 without part 2)

OSers like to dismiss the legitimate claims because someone, somewhere mentioned reptilians firing laser beams from space, and so the usual line is "you truthers always lie, talking about reptoids." It just shows their selective reasoning.

As for the official story, the argument usually ends with Bush-love, and they say "So, you think Bush, who is my hero, was responsible for 9/11?" And then when you say yes, they throw their hands up in the air and say, "see, stupid truthers, how could you blame Bush, my hero, for 9/11."

They use emotion when they should use reason, and reason when they should use emotion.

Truther: the towers were taken down by controlled demolition
Oser: Show some respect for the victim's families

Truther: The victim's families started the 9/11 truth movement
Oser: big deal, a few New Yorkers are angry at something, New Yorkers are always angry at something. There's a lot more people in New York than just a few "truthers."

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

If we all saw this on 9-11, I don't think there would be so many "truthers" out there trying to find out WHY this didn't happen....

lol where to start with that video. Design doesn't even come close to the construction of any of the WTC buildings, the floor the explosion takes place on isn't correct, so many issues with that.

Is this made by popular mechanics like their inherently flawed pancake collapse video?

No idea, I found it while looking at impossible collapse videos.
I thought it was a good "example" of showing what SHOULD have happened to at least tower 1. It's not meant to be an exact example, just to point out that the buildings were built strong, and the floors below would have stopped the above floors from falling "all the way to the ground", which is ridiculous.

reply to post by filosophia

OSers like to dismiss the legitimate claims because someone, somewhere mentioned reptilians firing laser beams from space, and so the usual line is "you truthers always lie, talking about reptoids." It just shows their selective reasoning.

you've almost figured it out. But you have to ask WHY those morons are saying crap like that. Exactly, to discredit the very real work being done. And it totally works. Hell, in talking about how the laws of physics didn't apply to WTC7 I was asked "then what happened to the people on the planes" as if I had suggested no planes were used, or were swapped out or some other Alex Jones, David Icke created FARCE

reply to post by JibbyJedi

It's not meant to be an exact example, just to point out that the buildings were built strong, and the floors below would have stopped the above floors from falling "all the way to the ground", which is ridiculous.

yes but when dealing with these cats, specifically people like Hooper, a simple typo will totally ruin your case. It's a basic physics grade 8 assignment in my mind, but it doesn't matter because the building doesn't match.

That said, that's basically exactly what should have happened, and indeed if you watch the first tower come down, that's exactly what started to happen.

BUT, as the resistance should have slowed this down leaving the lower segment mostly intact, instead, the resistance just completely disappeared. This is much more apparent with building 7 as you have a clearer view of the collapse.

reply to post by readytorevolt


Good luck OP!

I don't see this going the way you hoped though. I think that those who believe the original story only argue from a point of emotion.

I don't think anyone who actually believes the official story has ever actually done any amount of critical thinking on the subject so they will be unable to logically break down how the official story makes sense. If they had done any amount of critical thinking on the subject, they would have questions because the official story is quite lacking in evidence.

I would love to see a person who believes the "official story" actually type out what they think that story is, in it's entirety and then explain how it makes any sense, step by step. This will never happen. Anyone who believes that crap has no idea what flimsy evidence and BS the official story is based on.

They believe the official story because they want to believe it, not because they can prove it or because they have any evidence that it is true. Maybe this is what you want them to see by trying but I don't see any of them trying.

You will just get a lot of "read this" or "read that". I would guess those who say such things haven't bothered to "read this" or "read that" themselves.

reply to post by readytorevolt

Hoops I am most interested in seeing you defend the pancake theory that was used to explain the towers falling in the Commission Report.

The term "pancake collapse" appears only once in that report in a narrative about FDNY personnel's experience at the North Tower. The mission of the 9/11 Commission did not include explaining in detail about the physical collapse mechanisms. Ergo, your proposition that the 9/11 Commission explained the towers is wrong.

I find it quite impossible that the top of the buildings came down at free fall speed while pulverizing everything below them and I would like to know what makes you believe this story.

Since neither of those descriptions is factual I could see why you find it impossible. I am not here to defend your rhetoric, semantics or word usage.

It doesnt add up one bit and Im having trouble finding anybody who even knows what that theory is let alone is willing to defend it

Try reading the reports. Couple of 1000 pages.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by filosophia

 

OSers like to dismiss the legitimate claims because someone, somewhere mentioned reptilians firing laser beams from space, and so the usual line is "you truthers always lie, talking about reptoids." It just shows their selective reasoning.

you've almost figured it out. But you have to ask WHY those morons are saying crap like that. Exactly, to discredit the very real work being done. And it totally works. Hell, in talking about how the laws of physics didn't apply to WTC7 I was asked "then what happened to the people on the planes" as if I had suggested no planes were used, or were swapped out or some other Alex Jones, David Icke created FARCE

Of course, it's poison in the punch bowl. Most people know the no plane theory is a distraction, and so when OSers cite this as a legitimate theory they are only showing their ignorance.

However, there is good reason why the planes were not passenger planes. So the no-plane theory is just a distraction from the no commercial plane theory

Pentagon - unlikely that a large plane of any size crashed into it, most likely a missile, so no plane there
Shanksville - possibly a passenger plane getting blown up, or switched off with a dummy remote controlled plane, this is perhaps the biggest mystery

Two towers - obviously planes were recorded, but were they passenger planes? The first plane shows a flash of light and an object underneath the base of the plane, not typical of a passenger plane. And the second plane has a beam of light guiding it into the building

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by readytorevolt

 

I would love to see a person who believes the "official story" actually type out what they think that story is, in it's entirety and then explain how it makes any sense, step by step. This will never happen. Anyone who believes that crap has no idea what flimsy evidence and BS the official story is based on.



You will just get a lot of "read this" or "read that". I would guess those who say such things haven't bothered to read it themselves.

thats most likely what I am expecting to happen. I am really hoping a guy like hoops will give me his complete thoughts on the original story tho. I have yet to read from anybody who will. From past experience I doubt its going to happen but if it is going to happen it would most likely happen at this forum. so I had to try

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Are you still droning on about the 9/11 commision Report? The report that we know is so full of holes, many members of the commision are embaressed by it?

You can keep saying that, still won't make it true.

I'm still waiting for YOU to provide video evidence of a commercial airliner being slammed into the Pentagon, that I requested in another thread. I guess I will keep on waiting and waiting and waiting.

Yes you will. And I am still waiting for videotape of my birth. But there doesn't seem to be any, therefore by your string of twisted logic....I don't exist! (Don't you wish)