What is a 9/11 "truther"? Our Truth, and Theirs

What is a 9/11 "truther"? Our Truth, and Theirs

www.informationclearinghouse.info

A New York Times op-ed revealing the extent of the Bush administration’s extraordinary indifference to early warnings of 9/11 motivated former administration spokesman Ari Fleischer to tweet.

(visit the link for the full news article)

While I have questions about 9/11, as I'm sure you do too, I believe that's where "truthers" should stop.

At asking questions.

When we begin to make accusations we move from being mere truth seekers, to a position that forces us to have to defend our position.

When we start pointing the finger, chanting 'inside job' etc, it removes attention away from the unanswered questions - because we are implying we know who was responsible for the attacks, when really, it should be left to individuals to make up their own mind - based on the unanswered questions.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see things.

www.informationclearinghouse.info
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here's the real truth (from your link):

“But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.”

And then you read this:

Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran.

Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.

www.thenation.com...#

reply to post by newsaddict

I'm sure everybody sees things differently than everyone else, so I hope you don't mind if I ask what you saw in the article.

I took two things from it; one, that the CIA and the Pentagon were pitching different interpretations of the intelligence, and Bush chose to go with the Pentagon's, and, two,

Eichenwald describes two previously unknown briefs issued to the White House in May and June of 2001. The former described “a group presently in the United States” intent on carrying out a major terrorist attack: the latter forecast the strike as “imminent.”

that the CIA was teelling him, four months in advance, that somebody in the US, was going to do domething big, sometime soon.

But, as I said, you probably saw stuff in it that I missed.

Oh, I noticed a point made by another poster, that 70% of Romney's foreign policy advisors worked for Bush. Maybe I'm missing something here as well, but where is he going to get foreign policy advisors with real world experience from, if not from a previous Republican administration? I don't happen to see any terrible conspiracy in that.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by newsaddict

 

I'm sure everybody sees things differently than everyone else, so I hope you don't mind if I ask what you saw in the article.

I took two things from it; one, that the CIA and the Pentagon were pitching different interpretations of the intelligence, and Bush chose to go with the Pentagon's, and, two,

Eichenwald describes two previously unknown briefs issued to the White House in May and June of 2001. The former described “a group presently in the United States” intent on carrying out a major terrorist attack: the latter forecast the strike as “imminent.”

that the CIA was teelling him, four months in advance, that somebody in the US, was going to do domething big, sometime soon.

But, as I said, you probably saw stuff in it that I missed.

Oh, I noticed a point made by another poster, that 70% of Romney's foreign policy advisors worked for Bush. Maybe I'm missing something here as well, but where is he going to get foreign policy advisors with real world experience from, if not from a previous Republican administration? I don't happen to see any terrible conspiracy in that.

There's tons of people with experience in "foreign policy" that aren't tied into Bush or neoconservativism. Bush, famously, turned a cold shoulder to many long term "experts" and replaced them with neo-cons. So, Romney has a lot of options out there that aren't ex-Bush.

Or neocons.

reply to post by newsaddict

When we start pointing the finger, chanting 'inside job' etc, it removes attention away from the unanswered questions - because we are implying we know who was responsible for the attacks, when really, it should be left to individuals to make up their own mind - based on the unanswered questions.

Perhaps one of the most reasonable standpoints I've seen in regards to the issue.

I'll add that no explanation of a past event can ever be 100% proven. Every explanation is an inference - gained from limited ability to review the past event through what was recorded at the time.

Flukes can be difficult to reconstruct and demonstrate possible (even more difficult to demonstrate probable). Standards can be subject to flukes.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Here's the real truth (from your link):

The problem is that these types of reports come in quite frequently. There's always "some group" plotting "something big."

There are about 400 million people in America (by time you add foreign nationals and others working here under visa) with millions of square miles.

"Some group" and "something big" is not very useful.

Though it's hard to tell what Bush was being told as far as his policy advisers versus his intel advisers - and who he was listening to on any given topic.

However, I'd like to point out something rather interesting. As a result of the attacks on 9/11 - the "terror threat level" was created - going from green (low) to red (imminent). If there was a lot of buzz about "people are planning something" in the intel wing - yellow or orange would be assigned in an attempt to alert people to suspicious activity and as a guide for security personnel around the country (whether government sponsored or private).

A system that is treated with a lot of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek comments on this site, and in general.

So... we warn people (in an attempt to address the criticisms of how 9/11 was handled) - and they roll their eyes and say: "Oh god! another terrorist attack!" before laughing and walking right by the unattended bag.

We don't warn people - and then they say "what? The government knew something might happen, and didn't say anything!?"

So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

From the link:

Slowly but surely, the real story will be declassified, leaked, or otherwise revealed. The truth will come out in time: until then, anyone who dares question the Official Narrative is derided, ironically, as a “truther.” To which the only possible response is to note that the opposite of a “truther” is a liar.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

reply to post by newsaddict


You can't blow up building 7 in one day. Even a moron like me knows that. It takes months of planning. That shows without any doubt whatsoever, pre-planning.

End of discussion and a thread killer I believe

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by newsaddict

 

You can't blow up building 7 in one day. Even a moron like me knows that. It takes months of planning. That shows without any doubt whatsoever, pre-planning.

End of discussion and a thread killer I believe

You make a point here but you have to prove there was a plan to 'blow it up' and that it was carried out.

You have to prove how it was demolished, that it was etc.

Had no debris fallen from tower 1 and caused any damage or fire would building 7 have fallen? If flight 93 was heading for D.C. and not building 7, and didn't make it what then?

It begs the question, was the plan all along to have debris fall onto building 7 and cause extensive damage and fires and so when it did fall it would be no big surprise? Only there wasn't enough damage? Not enough fire right away? So there was like some debate and some delay? Flight 93 didn't make it and the amount of damage wasn't that extensive so let the fires burn then finish it off?

Had there been no flight 93 into building 7 nor any debris or fires caused by tower one's collapse would 7 still be standing on 9/12?


Cheers

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by newsaddict

 

You can't blow up building 7 in one day. Even a moron like me knows that. It takes months of planning. That shows without any doubt whatsoever, pre-planning.

End of discussion and a thread killer I believe

Nah... there's plenty of real evidence that it wasn't demolished and huge holes in the "demolition" story.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Baloney. A "truther" is someone who derives his own favored alternative version of the events of 9/11 and then tries to get others into accepting his alternative version as "the truth". It's essentially a theorist who's too arrorant to acknowledge his opinions are a theory rather than a fact.

The proof is in the pudding- the "controlled demolitions" crowd, the "nukes in the basement" crowd, the "no planes hit the Pentagon" crowd, even the "lasers from outer space" crowd are about as opposite to each other in their beliefs as it gets, and yet they all consider themselves truthers. I daresay it's a given the towers weren't destroyed by demolitions AS WELL AS laser from outer space AS WELL AS nukes in the basement, so by definition, one or more of the "truthers" are wrong in their assertions. How can that be if they're all basing their positions on the truth rather than theory?

Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.

Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.

So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.

"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.

Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.

So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.

"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

The planes didn't destroy the buildings, the way a gunshot victim isn't killed by the trigger of the gun.

Yet, without the trigger, good luck firing the gun.

On top of that, the physics community HAS explained the collapses, repeatedly; you just choose to not believe their explanations.

To me a truther is a person that rejects the official explanation for emotional reasons, and makes up or searches the web for an explanation that fits his ideas better. People that are skeptic about certain parts of the official explanations are not truthers is my book, but just skeptics. (or else I would be a truther too).

Originally posted by newsaddict


While I have questions about 9/11, as I'm sure you do too, I believe that's where "truthers" should stop.

At asking questions.

Honestly that is probably the biggest mistake truthers have made. The problem with truthers asking questions is that it is really just a cloaked accusation most of the time. I could probably post to 100s of threads here on ATS and show that there is probably not a single "truther" question that has not been answered at least 100 times but the questions persist. Why? Because they are not genuinely asking questions they are just trying to be clever with their accusations. That is why the truthers are not picked up by the mainstream media and taken seriously, because their questions are really no better than the chanting of "inside job".

When we begin to make accusations we move from being mere truth seekers, to a position that forces us to have to defend our position.

This is a common line of reasoning within the truth movement and does not make sense at all when you think about it. If you really are a "truth seeker" than there is no position to defend as you are just "seeking the truth". But its not aobut truth seeking is it? No, it is about accusations. And since you used the word "we" I take it you are part of this "truther" group, no? If that is so what is so incredibly terrible about defending your position? If I was part of anything and could not defend the position I was taking on a subject that was the very reason for the group's existence I would have take a good look at what I believe in and how well educated on the subject I really am. The problem is if all you do is just ask questions (which have been answered) over and over again while not making any definitive statements nor defending the position you will be ignored. Which is kind of what happened with the truth movement.

When we start pointing the finger, chanting 'inside job' etc, it removes attention away from the unanswered questions - because we are implying we know who was responsible for the attacks, when really, it should be left to individuals to make up their own mind - based on the unanswered questions.
www.informationclearinghouse.info
(visit the link for the full news article)

Im lost on this one, I just don't see how people would choose to believe anything based on "unanswered questions". I mean the question of who did 9/11 has been answered but truthers don't believe it so to me the truth movement as a whole is not really seeking truth but rather a set of answers to their "questions" that they find agreeable.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The planes didn't destroy the buildings, the way a gunshot victim isn't killed by the trigger of the gun.

Yet, without the trigger, good luck firing the gun.

On top of that, the physics community HAS explained the collapses, repeatedly; you just choose to not believe their explanations.

Now that is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

The trigger of a gun almost never comes in contact with a person killed by the bullet from the gun unless it is a suicide.

The planes did come in contact with the buildings. This is the kind of verbal sophist bullsh!t that drags this trivial problem on ad infinitum.

If the planes had not hit the buildings then the fuel would not have been there to ignite the fires.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The planes didn't destroy the buildings, the way a gunshot victim isn't killed by the trigger of the gun.

Yet, without the trigger, good luck firing the gun.

On top of that, the physics community HAS explained the collapses, repeatedly; you just choose to not believe their explanations.

Now that is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

The trigger of a gun almost never comes in contact with a person killed by the bullet from the gun unless it is a suicide.

The planes did come in contact with the buildings. This is the kind of verbal sophist bullsh!t that drags this trivial problem on ad infinitum.

If the planes had not hit the buildings then the fuel would not have been there to ignite the fires.

psik

No.

It's not bull# at all.

You made the claim that the size of the planes was somehow related to the size of the buildings, which is pure sophistry.

The buildings collapsed, starting at the point of impact, and the weight of the buildings above the point of impact was more than enough to crush the building, one floor at a time initially, underneath it.

The planes were the trigger for not just fires, but massive structural damage.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Now that is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

The trigger of a gun almost never comes in contact with a person killed by the bullet from the gun unless it is a suicide.

The planes did come in contact with the buildings. This is the kind of verbal sophist bullsh!t that drags this trivial problem on ad infinitum.

If the planes had not hit the buildings then the fuel would not have been there to ignite the fires.

psik

You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, Psikey. The truth is that noone has any definitive idea what caused the towers to collapse. Yes, the planes impacted the towers, and yes, there were fires, and yes, the towers had unique designs which would cause them to react differently from traditional designs, but noone knows...and noone will probably ever know...what percentage was from the impact damage vs what percentage was from the fires vs what percentage was from how that specific design reacted to the damage inflicted on it. "They don't know" doesn't necessarily mean "they're hiding something." It ALSO means "they really and truly don't know".

This is neither here nor there. What that poster was saying is that it isn't questions the truthers are asking, but rhetorical questions which are really veiled attempts at making accusations. From their own pattern of behavior (cough cough Pilots for 9/11 Truth cough) they're not here to learn the facts, but to get people to believe what they themselves want to believe. You have not shown his position to be wrong.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by newsaddict

 

You can't blow up building 7 in one day. Even a moron like me knows that. It takes months of planning. That shows without any doubt whatsoever, pre-planning.

End of discussion and a thread killer I believe

This "moron" could not help but grin when he read this.

Building 7 came down "really fast" the same day that NIST says one key column failed due to thermal expansion.

I don't think it took more than a day, if it were blown up or just fell down.

As I see the main point of arguement about building 7, is the questions about "why" , if only one or a few key colomns failed, did it not lean over toward the direction of the lost structural members rather than falling straight down as though all the supporting structures had fail simultaniously.

I think it would be a rare occation indeed for a tree to fall straight down because someone cut deeply into one side. Have you never seen a tower lean and fall to one side after one leg is damaged or removed. This is the way any other structure should act if only a few supports are lost. The remaining should hold up a part of the building for a few moments allowing it to lean over.

Since the clearly did not appear to happen, the only other speculation left is for some force other than gravity to be at work.