Originally posted by SiliconJon

How is this post not a violation of the site rules? Does that red box around you give you special rules?

Actually, my point is that for some reason, Truthers will attach themselves to anyone or anything that even remotely confirms or supports their beliefs, without even questioning it or even giving it much thought. Never any critical thinking is done, never any back up research of it done, and never any study is done to see if it is true, or not. As long as it sounds like something they believe, its good enough. But at the same time, they will question and nit-pick down to the comma placement, context, one word, or millisecond, anything that goes against their belief, or counters their argument. How is this healthy and good for the discussion?

9/11 Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

That aside, it's a massive buffet of fallacy. While the general does make a valid point in that some of the theories brought into discussion in the search for truth on that day's events are extreme one cannot generalize "truthers" for the analysis and speculation vary widly if you spend enough time searching for variations. As mentioned to you general, your behavior would imply it to be equal to then put you into that same group for seeking the truth and ad hominem you and your stance for daring to seek the truth.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is a conspiracy site and many topics that are "taboo" or scandals, and so on and it is important to discuss and learn and even correct certain flawed ideas or theories. However, it also vitally important to scrutinize evidence and question ideas that are brought up that do not make sense, or have no basis on facts. Also, sources. Sources are very important. Back up what you are going to say if you are bringing something questionable to the table. Just like this video from YT. Sure does say a lot of damning ideas and thoughts, but whats the sources? If I cannot find anything to support this video's accusations, well then, how can I take it seriously? Don't believe everything you read or see or hear online. That includes YT. This video made some outlandish claims, yet I find nothing anywhere to back it up. So I have to take the word of this YT video creator,who could have just as well pulled it all out of his backside. And what happens when one accepts it word for word, without questioning its sources or claims? Now that person is poisoned by garbage. What am I seeing here on this thread? People swallowing it hook, line, and sinker, without question. Again, they dont question it because it stimulates their preconceived notions and beliefs, and anything that sounds like it, it must be true. I'm trying to prevent "embracing ignorance". ATS's motto is to deny ignorance.

I'm all for searching the truth. But not in the manner so many are doing in the "Truther" movement. My stance is that in order to find the truth, one must be open to both sides of the argument and listen to answers from both sides. You then research and go over what was said, and see who is telling the truth and in what manner it is being presented. Not this nonsense of automatically agreeing with something, without so much as cracking it open and looking in to see if it is true or not. And then when shown to not true, to not ignore and ridicule the person that burst the bubble.

See also: guilt by association, red herring, straw man (and more I'm sure, when being so fallacious as the general was the fallacies tend to overlap due to the monstrous puddle of logic that spills upon the floor)

Hey, I did have a crazy bum yelling things about how someone stole my soul. Just because he said it, does it make it true? Same as those that blindly accept what this video says, without so much as doing any research to see if it is even true. Sorry you cannot see it chief. I've been in this game for a long time to see when someone is swallowing BS and spewing ignorance. I sure do hope you learn to do the same, and then catch them on it.

Originally posted by SiliconJon

So what airplanes did you see hit the towers? Where they greyish blue, or UA & AA? Even if you had seen commercial craft, identifiable by markings and design, would that give you any insight beyond what you immediately saw, such as knowing who was on the plane / in control of the plane? How would seeing planes hit the tower negate the possibility of explosives planted within the building as an additional component of that day's terrorism?

The first was an AA 767. Its silver. The second was a UA 767, Blue and grey paint job. The people on board were all killed in the impact. The passengers existed. Ask their families, friends, coworkers. Where are they now? Don't start this game of casting doubt on what happened to those people. There is ample evidence of what happened. Not my fault you do not wish to understand or believe.

I have been in this game far longer than you have. I first started on YT, debunking the same nonsense that I see here. How I came to understand what happened on 9/11 with regards to the direct attack is based on the actual evidence and a lot of critical thinking and reading comprehension. I am not going to sit here and retype why there weren't any explosives in the Towers, or why it would have been impossible to do without a soul noticing, unless you are ready to explain the thousands that must have "been in on it". To me, the Truth Movement is turning the entire 9/11 terrorist attack, into a super-complicated Rube Goldberg machine with thousands upon thousands of complicit individuals that helped murder 3000 fellow Americans. it gets more and more complicated every day.

You do know there's a great deal of (likely majority) support that planes hit the buildings AND explosives where the Coup de grâce that brought them down, no?

Nope. First off, you have to give me a rational, believable method of rigging the WTC Towers without a soul noticing. This includes police, fire, Port Authority, building engineers, bomb squads, office workers, maintenance workers, elevator workers, window washers. Unless you are implying they are all in on it. Now we almost have a thousand already alone that would be in on it. I have yet to hear a believable method of doing this. And I've been doing this since 2007.

Are you able to tell what the debris at the Pentagon belonged to? Would you be able to tell the difference between debris from: a passenger jet, a reaper drone, a Boeing 757-223, a B-52, etc?

edit on 14-10-2011 by SiliconJon because: (no reason given)

Well for starters, I believe the many eyewitnesses that actually SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. Then I look at the wreckage and see that the engines were from a 757 and there was debris that actually had 757 AA paint scheme on it. Landing gear is from a 757. And oh yeah, the multitudes of eyewitnesses that saw a 757 AA fly over them and into the Pentagon. Oh yes and the fact that those passengers are all dead. Ask their families, friends, coworkers. They have ceased to be.

Have you been by the Pentagon, especially around the morning hour when the events took place? I recommend you go there and take a good look around. You will see just how ridiculous the notion is to claim no planes hit the Pentagon, or that so many would have been fooled by a missile or tiny plane. Or even the "fly over" nonsense pushed by CIT. To fake a plane crash in the midst of literally thousands of eyewitnesses? No way. that would be like trying to fake a plane crash in the middle of the Super Bowl.

maybe they put the drives in fireproof safes everyday. Maybe the recovered some of those safes. I cannot find any info on safe recovery. There were many things recovered that were only slightly melted.