The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave, please don't start this in this thread. Nobody has said 'melt' other than you so far, and I really want to keep this thread soley dedicated to finding the best questions to focus on.

Whether or not you disagree with the ideas put across, the discussion of them should stick to a specific thread. It's pointless me going to the moderators and suggesting a format change unless we have a good list of questions to focus on.

That's what I want to do here. No offence intended.

All right, if that's the game you want to play, fine by me, because your'e the one painting youralf into the corner by posting propaganda, not me. YOU said the five biggest issues with the official story are:

■How hot were the fires?
■Was the fireproofing damaged or defective?
■Could the fires have affected the steel?
■What would heating the steel have resulted in?
■Can trusses cause the exterior colum bowing?

Where in the "official story" does it say any of these have anything to do with "the official story", becuase nowhere in the 9/11 commission report does it discuss how the towers collapsed and all the reports that did discuss how the towers collapsed opely admitted they were educated guesses. It's a legitimate question that deserves a legitimate answer, so if there are things about what you're claiming tha don't sound quite right then how the heck is that my fault?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, you've been asked respectfully to back off this one thread, and my guess is, you wont. I will.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, if that's the game you want to play, fine by me, because your'e the one painting youralf into the corner by posting propaganda, not me. YOU said the five biggest issues with the official story are:
...
Where in the "official story" does it say any of these have anything to do with "the official story", becuase nowhere in the 9/11 commission report does it discuss how the towers collapsed and all the reports that did discuss how the towers collapsed opely admitted they were educated guesses. It's a legitimate question that deserves a legitimate answer, so if there are things about what you're claiming tha don't sound quite right then how the heck is that my fault?

I'm not suggesting anything is your fault, and I'm not suggesting that I think these are issues with the 'official story'.

I'm trying to get a list of around 5 questions which all of the 'non-believers' (hard to find a neutral term) in this forum can agree on. That way we can start a thread to focus on each question and ask the mods to remove any posts which go off-topic.

I'm trying to think of ways to improve the quality of posts in this forum, as every topic quickly veers away from what is supposed to be discussed. I'm not accusing you or anyone of anything, just asking people to post what they think are the biggest problems with the official story in a concise list.

edit: Thanks dillweed, I really want to keep this thread clean as it's clear the current 911 forum format is not working out amazingly well.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave, you've been asked respectfully to back off this one thread, and my guess is, you wont. I will.

Well now, this is a first. Up until now the truthers have religiously stood fast upon the ideology that all they're doing is asking honest questions. Now, all I'm doing is asking honest questions and the truthers are insisting that asking honest questions is bad for some reason, like I'm only supposed to ask specific politically correct questions from a list you approve of. How is this even remotely "denying ignorance"?

I will ask again- why are these the biggest issues with the "official story" when they aren't even part of the "official story"?

reply to post by exponent


While your intentions are good, this will never succeed.

You have 2 sets of people that define facts differently. They also employ very different logic and their world views are opposites. One side can logically construct a rational argument while the other side jumps from "fact" to "fact" while not making any sort of coherent argument.

As Good Ole Dave has pointed out, this discussion is starting from a flawed premise. There is no official story. There are the facts and then there are a variety of logically disjointed conspiracy theories.

reply to post by huh2142


I don't disagree at all, but what fools we are if we accept a task is impossible. Better to try and fail than to give up without hope.

Originally posted by exponent

I'm not suggesting anything is your fault, and I'm not suggesting that I think these are issues with the 'official story'.

I'm trying to get a list of around 5 questions which all of the 'non-believers' (hard to find a neutral term) in this forum can agree on. That way we can start a thread to focus on each question and ask the mods to remove any posts which go off-topic.

If that's the case then you will want to keep your questions relevent to what the actual "official story" is, namely, nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes and used them as suicide weapons, two of them successful, a third questionable since we can't know whether the Pentagon was the intended target or not, and a fourth a failure. The technical details on how the towers collapsed isn't even remotely part of any "official story" because there is no "official story" for how the towers collapsed.

I'm trying to think of ways to improve the quality of posts in this forum, as every topic quickly veers away from what is supposed to be discussed. I'm not accusing you or anyone of anything, just asking people to post what they think are the biggest problems with the official story in a concise list.

That has nothing to do with me. That always always always is becuase of the truthers coming by and demanding to know technical details of how the fires brought down the buildings. Sometimes they demand to know technical details on how the plane created the hole in the Pentagon or how the plane made the hole in Shanksville, and one guy keeps popping up demanding to know the mass of the concrete in each of the floors of the towers. Regardless, it always always always drags the discussion down a rat hole of arguments over junk science and accusing everyone and their grandmother of being sinister secret agents.

How can you get a concise list when the conspiracy theorists can't even agree amongst themselves on what the conspiracy actually is? From the way the OP was worded it doesn't even sound like the truthers even know what the "official story" actually is.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If that's the case then you will want to keep your questions relevent to what the actual "official story" is, namely, nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes and used them as suicide weapons, two of them successful, a third questionable since we can't know whether the Pentagon was the intended target or not, and a fourth a failure. The technical details on how the towers collapsed isn't even remotely part of any "official story" because there is no "official story" for how the towers collapsed.

I appreciate your point, but I used 'official story' in quotes to mean what truthers use it for, to cover the whole events of that day as laid out in the commission report, the NIST report, the BPE etc. I'm aware it's not strictly accurate but I couldn't really summarise it and nobody on the conspiracy side seems to distinguish between them.

That has nothing to do with me. That always always always is becuase of the truthers coming by and demanding to know technical details of how the fires brought down the buildings. Sometimes they demand to know technical details on how the plane created the hole in the Pentagon or how the plane made the hole in Shanksville, and one guy keeps popping up demanding to know the mass of the concrete in each of the floors of the towers. Regardless, it always always always drags the discussion down a rat hole of arguments over junk science and accusing everyone and their grandmother of being sinister secret agents.

Sure, that's exactly why I am asking for people not to start debates in this thread, if we ignore people trying to take it off topic, we can get together a list of these important questions from the conspiracy point of view. That way we can then have threads specifically for these topics where there is no excuse for anyone posting off-topic.

How can you get a concise list when the conspiracy theorists can't even agree amongst themselves on what the conspiracy actually is? From the way the OP was worded it doesn't even sound like the truthers even know what the "official story" actually is.

That was my OP and I'm not a truther, and yeah I don't think most truthers do but I figure the best way to come up with a list of questions is to have an open topic where people are encouraged to post their 5. That's why I'm trying to avoid any actual debate over the issues here, we can save that for later.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If that's the case then you will want to keep your questions relevent to what the actual "official story" is, namely, nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes and used them as suicide weapons, two of them successful, a third questionable since we can't know whether the Pentagon was the intended target or not, and a fourth a failure. The technical details on how the towers collapsed isn't even remotely part of any "official story" because there is no "official story" for how the towers collapsed.

I appreciate your point, but I used 'official story' in quotes to mean what truthers use it for, to cover the whole events of that day as laid out in the commission report, the NIST report, the BPE etc. I'm aware it's not strictly accurate but I couldn't really summarise it and nobody on the conspiracy side seems to distinguish between them.

Ah, I get it, So questioning whether the gov't was on the ball and acted appropriately during the 9/11 attack vs. slipping on banana peels and running around in circles in panic is a legitimate problem with the "Official Story" becuase it directly relates to what the gov't says happened, while arguing over the temperatures of the fires in WTC 7 is not a legitimate problem with the "Official Story" becuase there is no official statement about that anywhere. Is that correct?

Sure, that's exactly why I am asking for people not to start debates in this thread, if we ignore people trying to take it off topic, we can get together a list of these important questions from the conspiracy point of view. That way we can then have threads specifically for these topics where there is no excuse for anyone posting off-topic.

Then how do you classify highly argumentative "problems with the official story" such as the hole in the Pentagon not looking like what a plane would look like?

The OP respectfully asked that this thread not degenerate into petty bickering and asked posters to list suggestions for some thread topics and to sticky them. But before this thread was even one page long it had already degenerated into more bickering and was already off topic. So far I have seen only two posters offer suggestions. Show a little class people.

Exponent, I think it is a great idea. This thread has already proven that your idea should be seriously taken under consideration.

For starters my idea would be for the mods. to open a sticky where suggestions on what topics to use could be suggested in one thread (delete any post that doesn't). Take about 15--20 of the most popular and put them up for a vote . Then divide them evenly between the opposing sides.

As far as the pentagon goes I would like to see something on why scores of eyewitness accounts of a airliner actually hitting the pentagon should be believed or disbelieved.

On the twin towers; why fly airliners into them if they are already rigged for demolition.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


hey Dave...don't put all truthers in to one group ok...I am interested...please ask away....ask anything you like...I am a brave soul....truth is about respecting the views of anyone....whether it is accepted by others or not.

If that's the case then you will want to keep your questions relevent to what the actual "official story" is, namely, nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes and used them as suicide weapons, two of them successful, a third questionable since we can't know whether the Pentagon was the intended target or not, and a fourth a failure. The technical details on how the towers collapsed isn't even remotely part of any "official story" because there is no "official story" for how the towers collapsed.

Well DAVE that was exceptional and i star you and i congratulate you....there has never been anything so concisely put in all my time here in the 9/11 forums....

No matter what anyone thinks that is the extent of the official story...that is it...and no more than that...and even within that statement it is all conjecture....not a single bit of fact.

It is what has been promoted...and as i said before there is nothing that the officials can even agree upon when it comes to the collapses....Bazants report was not part of the "official" story ever either...it was a referenced document.

As also as stated by the commissions own people it was set up to fail...why would they say this...well i think maybe because they realized their career misjudgment and decided they would have to distance themselves from this bogus piece of trash before they completely destroyed any kind of human decency they may have had left in their paltry little lives.

*why was the commission under funded
*Why was Dov Zakheim not questioned
*why choose to question a low brow like Mineta
*how were the commission people chosen
*why was the commission really run by Pataki

I think Dave is right again...this thread is doomed to fail.

For one thing these are valid questions on just one aspect.

*why did bazant have a report ready with 48hrs
*why did NIST not treat it as a crime scene
*why was NIST refused access to a vast amount of material
*Why differences between FEMA and NIST and Bazant
*why was Al Qaeda implicated so fast and then Iraq implicated

I could go one and on and on....but what would the point really be....there are sooo many holes that CANNOT be answer to any degree of certainty.

I do respect also what exponent is trying to do here....And it could be that maybe the right questions do need to be asked but for every question that is asked...it seems that it will just spark a series of more questions of which cannot be answered.

But hey best of luck in this.....because the more questions that come about the more research that will be sparked in me...but I have done a couple of threads to get people to look into the actual people who could have FUNDED such a operation....And even without the possible use of explosives in the buildings the operation would have cost ten times the amount of money spent on the commission...so who funded it.

now before i get my head ripped off on the ten times amount....I don't know the answer...but i do know it would not have been cheap...also planning time would have been very long....and would have had to have been very precise....could a radical group of terrorist have planned this so well without some kind of inside help...IMHO nope.

I mean just planning it to happen on a day of fake drills and mixing it into real world scenario I guess that was complete coincidence.

reply to post by Classified Info

On the twin towers; why fly airliners into them if they are already rigged for demolition.

I will venture a few things on this one...but please remember it is just thought.

If Larry was Involved...IF...then could one think that he had to have the buildings fall completely to obtain his insurance policies....I mean back in 76 they just got repaired....back in 93....they just got repaired....he knew this...he did not own them at the time...but he knew this....he also knew the building were designed to take a aircraft impact...707 at the time....just cause they were designed that way does not mean they would hold true...but he may have had his doubts...and he needed guarantees.

Or IF ....and i mean IF it was a straight forward terrorist attack similar modus operandi have been used before...set off or create a diversionary tactic to get first responders on the scene ...then set off a secondary device to cause collateral damage to the very people there to help...It has happen in many attacks where a bomb gos off ...then as help arrives....a second device goes off.

two possibilities to explain the possible use of explosives.....just thoughts...but hey I am a truther...so all logical thinking should immediately be discounted....Thank you for your time.

Ok let me put it another way 3/4's of the of the world already accept that 9/11 was an inside job. then there is America!
Just like 3/4's of the world believe oswald was the patsy in the JFK assassination, then there is America.
There is clearly a pattern here

reply to post by plube


I only offered that as an issue that could be considered for a topic as proposed by the OP not something to be discussed in this thread.

Originally posted by huh2142

As Good Ole Dave has pointed out, this discussion is starting from a flawed premise. There is no official story. There are the facts and then there are a variety of logically disjointed conspiracy theories.

Yup.

There are facts. And there are opinions on what those facts mean.

Truthers are simply unable to make good judgement calls on the facts that they read that form the basis of their opinions.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
From the way the OP was worded it doesn't even sound like the truthers even know what the "official story" actually is.

Of course they don't. They never have, nor will they ever know what is contained in either the Commission report nor the NIST report.

How many times have you read that the commission never mentioned wt 7 when in fact it did?

Or how the NIST report can say that the sagging trusses can pull in the ext columns cuz the floor connection bolts are too weak to do that, when it states clearly that the trusses are a minor factor in the column bowing - in essence, that they had little effect other than determine in which way they bowed....

It is indeed proven by these easily refuted errors that truthers get their info from those "damn fool conspiracy websites".

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Your here defending a commission where it's own people has stated the commission was set up to fail....and your saying truthers haven't a clue what they are talking about....Also your defending the NIST report whan it got called out on the free fall of Building seven and the spokesman looked like a blubbering idiot.

Shall i show you in heir own words....yes i think i shall.



I think you should read their book...it is very good.



I remember the denials for years that WTC7 even came close to freefall......but hey those darn stubborn truthers huh...can you believe the tenacity.



Now this is the failing truth movement is it.....hmmmm.
How dare us truthers do not give up and just accept the lies we are being told.

Will you even bother to acknowledge any of this with truth....or will you hide behind the lies you are claiming to be truth.....If one aspect of a paper fails...the whole papers fails...and it is then based upon false information.

reply to post by Classified Info


Sorry but i would have to disagree...it is put out there ....so it is open for discussion....it was a question asked...and i gave an answer....It is theoretical and conjecture...but it is reasonable.

I have started threads...and to try to control the flow of the thread is a tough task....I put out several questions...two groups of five...i could easily put out 50 more....but not one person will be able to answer them with fact...I think the reason will be ...because the facts cannot be argued because evidence was removed.

This was a crime scene and was not treated as such...it was quickly turned into nothing more than a clean up and discard the evidence operation.

*why did NIST not have access to the steel in WTC7
*why was the ECC(emergency control center) in building 7 not used and not even accessed during 9/11
*why did NIST just presume that fires could cause a symmetrical collapse even though there has never been a precedence for it.
*why would anyone even discuss with the owner of the building whether the operation should be pulled....That is not a decision to made by the owner...and the owner would not even be consulted on the issue.
*how did NIST decide there was a 20 story gash in the building by witness testimony...yet discard any witness testimony discussing explosions.

Do you see the conundrum here....we are to just accept things...without question....how does that work....be good little children and just belive what you are told...children should be seen and not heard...Sorry when i grew up that became something that was outdated...I encourage my kids to question everything...especially authority...If more kids questioned authority....the catholic priests may not have gotten away with so much abuse of children.