911 Truth Movement

[bullus_hit]

Fair point, it has been suggested the theorists are just winding the realists up!

Of course it isn't helped when the theorists keep throwing out myths then back away from them when they're debunked

Part of the theorists line of thinking is to bamboozle the audience with anomalies and then attempt to build a case around that using a patchwork of other anomalies. It's a tough ask to counter but one in which is best served with a heavy line of questioning and harping back to the bigger picture. Once you get bogged down in trivial facts and details you're probably playing to a theorists greatest strengths, and it's often a battle which cannot be won, by either side for that matter.

Having thrust myself into the role of theorist, I have to say that no theory really holds up to closer scrutiny and the only way I would survive as a fulltime 'truther' would be to pick smaller battles and hone in on inconsistencies. And no doubt, with a tragedy on this scale, there will be an endless supply to choose from. This is probably why 9/11 conspiracies have morphed into a movement, and have managed to manufacture a faux sense of credibility in the process.

So all things said and done, well played boys and keep fighting the good fight.

 

[AngryAnt]

Why would he need to go back in time?

You reckon you could organise a conspiracy of that magnitude in two months?

 

[Disco08]

Of what magnitude?

 

[Rosy]

What honestly baffles me is why all you guys are so dead set against a proper investigation. All it costs is money.

Most of the responses on this thread have been to opinions and claims posted here. I don't think many have indicated they are dead set against a proper investigation but if this thread is typical of how it might work then it would be understandable. I haven't noticed too many say they are dead set against a proper investigation actually. Who are they? I certainly won't lose any sleep whether they have one or not.

I haven't seen any evidence put across on here that has convinced me a report is justified or would be successful. The Govt aren't going to reveal sensitive information in regard to national security and I don't necessarily think they should. Some people believe in missiles and holographs and that the Govt deliberately murdering their own citizens and orchestrated cover-ups and accomplices of massive proportions and some don't. I don't.

As for the point of questioning the OR - surely that's obvious. 3000 people died. For a start their friends and families deserve a proper inquiry into how their government failed to notice the flood of specific warnings given to them from other countries. They haven't ever been given that and that's wrong.

I don't think that would be the point of a new investigation. You seem to be assuming a bit about those involved. 3000 victims' friends and families might not want old wounds to be opened. They aren't satisfied with the reports that have already been done. They might believe they were victims of a terrorist attack. I for one don't feel informed enough to demand an enquiry based on what I think others might deserve. It could just as easily bring more heartache and prolong suffering rather than any kind of closure.

 

[AngryAnt]

Of what magnitude?

Disco, either you think Larry was involved or he wasn't. Which is it?

 

[Disco08]

Why so black and white? I don't know for sure but I think some facts surrounding his part in 9/11 are suspicious. No surprise there though. Just about every aspect of 9/11 is suspicious. See if you can name one that doesn't have a really bizarre coincidence attached to it.

 

[poppa x]

4 pages to go to hit 100.
at this rate it will overtake the tambling and jacko threads.

 

[tigertim]

Why so black and white? I don't know for sure but I think some facts surrounding his part in 9/11 are suspicious. No surprise there though. Just about every aspect of 9/11 is suspicious. See if you can name one that doesn't have a really bizarre coincidence attached to it.

why do you always back away when questioned? and then you trot out the "I don't know" and "why does it have to be black or white" lines. Either you think Larry was involved or you think he wasn't. I know you don't "know" for sure but you quite clearly infer Larry was involved.
So just say!

You claim to be open minded about but clearly think Larry, Jeb & George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were involved.

It appears as though you are walking this tightrope claiming and wanting to appear open minded about this but only trotting out theorist theories.

 

[Rosy]

Why so black and white? I don't know for sure but I think some facts surrounding his part in 9/11 are suspicious. No surprise there though. Just about every aspect of 9/11 is suspicious. See if you can name one that doesn't have a really bizarre coincidence attached to it.

Of course there are coincidences. People even make them up, as evidenced in this thread, and pass them as the truth. Plenty doesn't add up and plenty want to put their two bob's worth in.

If we go back to the very basics, and forgetting any conspiracies or counter-claims or links or clips or he said-she saids or fibs in official reports, can you tell us what you actually think happened, based on the suspicions you mention? Do you think the 9/11 tragedy was the result of a terrorist attack? Do you think the USA Govt orchestrated it, and in the process murdered their own citizens, to look like a terrorist attack? Do you think it was a terrorist attack but the Govt haven't released the nitty, gritty sensitive details?

 

[Disco08]

Most of the responses on this thread have been to opinions and claims posted here. I don't think many have indicated they are dead set against a proper investigation but if this thread is typical of how it might work then it would be understandable. I haven't noticed too many say they are dead set against a proper investigation actually. Who are they? I certainly won't lose any sleep whether they have one or not.

I haven't seen any evidence put across on here that has convinced me a report is justified or would be successful. The Govt aren't going to reveal sensitive information in regard to national security and I don't necessarily think they should. Some people believe in missiles and holographs and that the Govt deliberately murdering their own citizens and orchestrated cover-ups and accomplices of massive proportions and some don't. I don't.

Fair enough. I don't agree with theories of missiles, holographs and "accomplices of massive proportions" either but I certainly think there's evidence suggesting foreknowledge of the events within certain parts of the US administration.

I've given what I feel to be good reasons for a proper investigation and none of the defenders has even as much as said there's even the slightest merit in it. The same feeble excuses are offered but there appears to be no middle ground at all. Maybe "dead set" was too emphatic but I don't think so going on the opinions offered here.

If you've watched the commission doco and still see no reason a new inquiry is justified then nothing will ever convince you. That seems cold hearted to me but I can accept we all have dfferent ways of looking at things.

I don't think that would be the point of a new investigation. You seem to be assuming a bit about those involved. 3000 victims' friends and families might not want old wounds to be opened. They aren't satisfied with the reports that have already been done. They might believe they were victims of a terrorist attack. I for one don't feel informed enough to demand an enquiry based on what I think others might deserve. It could just as easily bring more heartache and prolong suffering rather than any kind of closure.

Of course not all victims want a new report. Many do though. It's through their websites and that doco that feel I'm getting a real understanding of how poorly these people were treated after 9/11. Some of them have spent years researching why their loved ones died and don't have answers because their questions weren't even asked by the commission despite assurances they would be.

 

[Disco08]

why do you always back away when questioned? and then you trot out the "I don't know" and "why does it have to be black or white" lines. Either you think Larry was involved or you think he wasn't. I know you don't "know" for sure but you quite clearly infer Larry was involved.
So just say!

You claim to be open minded about but clearly think Larry, Jeb & George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were involved.

It appears as though you are walking this tightrope claiming and wanting to appear open minded about this but only trotting out theorist theories.

I suspect that they knew the attacks were coming. If I had to bet on it that's the way I'd go. However I try to never look at things as black and white or plain right or wrong and I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

Also I've done more than "trotting out theorist theories". I've given you my honest opinions on the evidence and tried hard to show reasonably why I think there needs to be a new and proper inquiry.

You already know which way I lean on this so why are you getting worked up about it? I'm not backing away from anything. That's my honest opinion, like it or not.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I've given what I feel to be good reasons for a proper investigation and none of the defenders has even as much as said there's even the slightest merit in it. The same feeble excuses are offered but there appears to be no middle ground at all. Maybe "dead set" was too emphatic but I don't think so going on the opinions offered here.

If you've watched the commission doco and still see no reason a new inquiry is justified then nothing will ever convince you. That seems cold hearted to me but I can accept we all have dfferent ways of looking at things.

The problem is not that there aren't things that were glossed over or holes in the investigation, it is that those who oppose the idea that the obvious and apparent terrorist attack was the cause of the buildings' collapse do so using suspect information. My call from the beginning was for evidence that these ideas had been debated in the pages of respected journals, respected current affairs news programs or other respected news outlets. To date none of those things have been produced. Most of the information provided has been self-published. The most respected journal in science is "Science", are you aware of any published theories that expound the view that there was a controlled demolition of buildings on Sept 11 2001?

 

[Rosy]

I haven't watched all the links and docos on this thread. Not really that interested and I get the impression it could easily do one's head in and bring on a severe case of paranoia. I don't have the spare time or concentration span to look at the computer screen for that long anyway.

I've read plenty here on regard to the building collapses and how they couldn't have happened without explosives. Mention of experts claiming it was a controlled demolition even though may not even have had access to the sites. . Has anyone supporting that explosives theory given any balanced discussion that the buildings could collapse without explosives planted everywhere and considered the explanations in the National Institute of Standards and Technology report were quite possible?

One example
The aircraft enters the tower intact. It plows to the building core, severing all three gypsum-encased stairwells, dragging combustibles with it. A powerful shock wave travels down to the ground and up again. The combustibles and the remnants of the aircraft are ignited by the burning fuel. As the building lacks a traditional full cage frame and depends almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center, fire at the center of the impact zone is in a position to compromise the integrity of all internal columns. People below the severed stairwells start to evacuate—no one above the impact zone is able to do so.

 

[Disco08]

Of course there are coincidences. People even make them up, as evidenced in this thread, and pass them as the truth. Plenty doesn't add up and plenty want to put their two bob's worth in.

If we go back to the very basics, and forgetting any conspiracies or counter-claims or links or clips or he said-she saids or fibs in official reports, can you tell us what you actually think happened, based on the suspicions you mention? Do you think the 9/11 tragedy was the result of a terrorist attack? Do you think the USA Govt orchestrated it, and in the process murdered their own citizens, to look like a terrorist attack? Do you think it was a terrorist attack but the Govt haven't released the nitty, gritty sensitive details?

I think the US knew that the attacks were coming and let them happen. I also think they destroyed so much evidence and suppressed so much information because they knew there was a good chance they'd be found out. I think these actions alone are serious enough that they should be independently investigated.

I don't have an opinion on the building collapses other than to say the official reports were obviously inadequate and a proper report needs to be carried out the way it would be after every other building collapse. Wherever multiple genuine experts make supported objections to the OR I feel they need to be properly tested.

 

[Disco08]

The problem is not that there aren't things that were glossed over or holes in the investigation

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM[/youtube]

it is that those who oppose the idea that the obvious and apparent terrorist attack was the cause of the buildings' collapse do so using suspect information. My call from the beginning was for evidence that these ideas had been debated in the pages of respected journals, respected current affairs news programs or other respected news outlets. To date none of those things have been produced. Most of the information provided has been self-published. The most respected journal in science is "Science", are you aware of any published theories that expound the view that there was a controlled demolition of buildings on Sept 11 2001?

Pure deflection. The mass media has an absolute bias against anything or anyone who questions the OR. You only need to see how they treated some of the victims to realise that.

Peer reviewed articles are generally fully formed hypotheses. Objectors to the NIST reports don't have fully formed hypotheses. They only point out glaring ommissions and errors.

Also you realise the inquiry and the NIST reports are different things. Those that oppose the OR do so on the grounds that it was terribly inadequate, not on any scientific thoery. The NIST reports are opposed by experts. Not sure where you get the authority to say these experts are using suspect information.

 

[Rosy]

I don't have an opinion on the building collapses other than to say the official reports were obviously inadequate and a proper report needs to be carried out the way it would be after every other building collapse.

How were the reports obviously inadequate? Does anything discussed here support that claim?

 

[Disco08]

I haven't watched all the links and docos on this thread. Not really that interested and I get the impression it could easily do one's head in and bring on a severe case of paranoia. I don't have the spare time or concentration span to look at the computer screen for that long anyway.

I've read plenty here on regard to the building collapses and how they couldn't have happened without explosives. Mention of experts claiming it was a controlled demolition even though may not even have had access to the sites. . Has anyone supporting that explosives theory given any balanced discussion that the buildings could collapse without explosives planted everywhere and considered the explanations in the National Institute of Standards and Technology report were quite possible?

One example
The aircraft enters the tower intact. It plows to the building core, severing all three gypsum-encased stairwells, dragging combustibles with it. A powerful shock wave travels down to the ground and up again. The combustibles and the remnants of the aircraft are ignited by the burning fuel. As the building lacks a traditional full cage frame and depends almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center, fire at the center of the impact zone is in a position to compromise the integrity of all internal columns. People below the severed stairwells start to evacuate—no one above the impact zone is able to do so.

The core of the arguments centre on the temperatures needed to weaen steel (the support columns in the twin towers were massive) and the rate at which the buildings collpased. Both these factors have demonstrated laws of physics that must be obeyed and this is where many experts seem to object to the NIST reports.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Pure deflection. The mass media has an absolute bias against anything or anyone who questions the OR. You only need to see how they treated some of the victims to realise that.

Peer reviewed articles are generally fully formed hypotheses. Objectors to the NIST reports don't have fully formed hypotheses. They only point out glaring ommissions and errors.

I don't accept that. Lists your arm long of "experts", scientists, engineers, psychologists are only really adding to opinion, not knowledge.If the science is as clear cut as you claim and all these experts agree then why isn't it published and tested? Because it is conjecture and they know it. It reminds me of the AWU scandal last year. The Australian and the opposition just kept saying "there are questions to answer". Sure there are, but every time a question is answered another question is asked, it isn't about getting answers it is about prolonging the debate. Knowledge isn't the objective, doubt is.

 

[Disco08]

Rubbish. You watched the AE doco. What motive do any of the experts in it have to be creating doubt? Who are you to say they're not genuinely concerned about the NIST report based soley on their knowledge?

How were the reports obviously inadequate? Does anything discussed here support that claim?

The AE doco outlines many problems with NIST's WTC7 report.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/07/comm-j24.html

For starters. Search a bit and you can find a lot more. Better still watch the doco I posted.

 

[Rosy]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Had a quick squiz through that thanks. Seems to be a bit of guess work and assumption happening there. Terms like apparently, may be, not apparent, seems plausible etc don't convince me the original reports were obviously inadequate.