9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

[TheQuietRiot]

Why is it so hard to believe our government would do this? They tried before in 1993 but Emad Ali Salem, there operative for the FBI taped, and recorded conversations with his handlers because the he was being forced to use a real bomb instead of fake 'powder'. Just scratch the surface a little and you will find both documentation, and news reports supporting this claim

I find hard to believe that the Bush administration who pretty much failed miserably at everything they tried their hand at could orchestrate and pull off the largest terrorist attack in US history without a hitch.

I mean, aside from a small minority who think they hold the "truth" they fooled everyone*

*The NYC firefighters
The NYC police department
All the people in the pentagon
The media
Photographers
Popular mechanics
PBS Novo
NIST
NYC scrap yards
Virtually every structural engineer in the world
Structure Magazine
The Silverstein group
The FFA
FBI
CIA
Norad

The list goes on..

What about the Oklahoma City bombing? You do know two other bombs were found in the building.... right? So, how dose that happen with a truck bomb?

Evidence?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Probably the same vault that contains the footage of the bomb, ERmm, I mean plane that hit the pentagon.

What about the hundreds of eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon?

To quote you..

Nah.... the reporters and eye witnesses were all lying for attention

Ironic, huh?

 

[Zanting]

The controversy surrounding 9/11 has nothing to do with crazy conspiracy theorists, or a truth movement...it has to do with people not wanting anyone to question what THEY say happened...it's that simple. Whether what THEY said made sense, or were outright lies...don't question what THEY said happened.

And there are those who will do everything in their power to discredit, ridicule, demean, devalue etc. anyone who won't accept and believe what they were told. Whistleblowers, witnesses, surviving family members, engineers, scientists, architects, demolition crews, etc. and the millions world wide who do/did not believe what they were told...it doesn't matter who you are...if you question anything about that day...you are under the same umbrella as the rest of the "crazy" conspiracy theorist, truther movement, nut cases.

It is very unlikely anyone will ever be told the truth about what happened that day, but what is clearly evident is that we were not told what did happen.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

The controversy surrounding 9/11 has nothing to do with crazy conspiracy theorists, or a truth movement...it has to do with people not wanting anyone to question what THEY say happened...it's that simple. Whether what THEY said made sense, or were outright lies...don't question what THEY said happened.

Who is "they" and how are they stopping people from questioning what happened?

And there are those who will do everything in their power to discredit, ridicule, demean, devalue etc. anyone who won't accept and believe what they were told. Whistleblowers, witnesses, surviving family members, engineers, scientists, architects, demolition crews, etc. and the millions world wide who do/did not believe what they were told...it doesn't matter who you are...if you question anything about that day...you are under the same umbrella as the rest of the "crazy" conspiracy theorist, truther movement, nut cases.

Well clearly not everyone generalizes to that degree.

 

[Btodd]

The controversy surrounding 9/11 has nothing to do with crazy conspiracy theorists, or a truth movement...it has to do with people not wanting anyone to question what THEY say happened...it's that simple. Whether what THEY said made sense, or were outright lies...don't question what THEY said happened.

And there are those who will do everything in their power to discredit, ridicule, demean, devalue etc. anyone who won't accept and believe what they were told. Whistleblowers, witnesses, surviving family members, engineers, scientists, architects, demolition crews, etc. and the millions world wide who do/did not believe what they were told...it doesn't matter who you are...if you question anything about that day...you are under the same umbrella as the rest of the "crazy" conspiracy theorist, truther movement, nut cases.

It is very unlikely anyone will ever be told the truth about what happened that day, but what is clearly evident is that we were not told what did happen.

I don't have any problem with someone who questions things, even what happened that day. I have a problem with people who are unwilling to accept reasonable answers, and perpetually speculate on unnecessarily complex, convoluted scenarios that would involve thousands of people to accomplish, when it would have been a very simple thing to set up if the government had wanted to.

And those 'questioners' never, ever want to answer any questions put to THEM. Like, 'Were the people on those flights in the planes, and if not, who was flying the planes, and where did all those people go?' The questioning only goes one direction, but voice morphing, silent demolitions charges combined with thermite, remote-controlled planes? Yeah, no need to question that stuff.

As soon as you start to try and actually build a case for some government conspiracy, it will get so completely ridiculous, and I think most people who even believe in such a thing know it...so they refuse to answer, and blame the rest of us, who DO actually answer questions and put forth a narrative...of just blindly believing things. I think not having any reasonable explanation for such simple questions as 'where did all those people go?' is the definition of blindness. Willful blindness.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Probably the same vault that contains the footage of the bomb, ERmm, I mean plane that hit the pentagon.

So where'd the plane, passengers and crew of the real plane go?

Evidence please.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The controversy surrounding 9/11 has nothing to do with crazy conspiracy theorists, or a truth movement...it has to do with people not wanting anyone to question what THEY say happened...it's that simple.

Got no issue with people asking sensible questions about what happened on the day. Sensible questions are good. People posting reams of stuff from youtube and ignoring physics and engineering knowledge isn't.

Speaking of questions, I keep trying to have the following questions answered. So far, I've had someone post an attempt (didn't really answer it though) at number 1. All the others - nothing.

• If the WTC was a controlled demolition, how did the conspirators get all the explosives, wiring and control gear into a building used 24x7, sight unseen?
• Why use a controlled demolition at all when a large explosion would have a similar effect propaganda-wise?
• If the WTC was a controlled demolition, why the need for hijackers to fly the planes into the building at all?
• If there were no hijackers (a common assertion), who flew the planes? (This goes for the Pentagon as well)
• How did the airliner debris get onto the Pentagon lawn if there was no plane? And where did the passengers, plane and crew from the “real” flight go?
• If the hijacker from the Pentagon flight "couldn't fly a large jet", then who flew it, and why were they happy to die?
• If the passengers from flight 93 did not make any phone calls and instead they were faked, where did the "real" plane, crew and passengers go?

 

[Zanting]

quote=TheQuietRiot;64181958]Who is "they" and how are they stopping people from questioning what happened?

Really? You don't know who they are...???

Well clearly not everyone generalizes to that degree.[/quote]

Don't they?

If you look at videos, or blogs, or forums etc. and read them or the comments...when at any time the topic relates to anything that goes against, or even just questions any part of the "official" (THEY) story...no matter what the information is...out come the personal attacks or the vicious circular arguments. Very rarely will there be any kind of rational discussion once that begins and totally derails the topic at hand. It's a pattern that gets repeated over and over again. It happens on this forum all the time and it is tiresome.

And if you haven`t seen that pattern, then clearly you have not looked at much surrounding the 911 controversy.
It is absolutely amazing to me just how much hostility is expressed when someone questions or speaks against the official report. Why is that? What have any of these people done to anyone to warrant that kind of reaction?

 

[Sayen]

It is absolutely amazing to me just how much hostility is expressed when someone questions or speaks against the official report. Why is that? What have any of these people done to anyone to warrant that kind of reaction?

Umm, the opening title is "9/11 Truth for Dummies". I don't think the opposition has the market cornered on hostility or condescension. Skim through the other 9/11-truth threads and they aren't a whole lot different.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Really? You don't know who they are...???

If I knew, why would I ask you?

Are you going to explain who "they" are?

Don't they?

No, they don't.

If you look at videos, or blogs, or forums etc. and read them or the comments...when at any time the topic relates to anything that goes against, or even just questions any part of the "official" (THEY) story...no matter what the information is...out come the personal attacks or the vicious circular arguments. Very rarely will there be any kind of rational discussion once that begins and totally derails the topic at hand. It's a pattern that gets repeated over and over again. It happens on this forum all the time and it is tiresome.

And if you haven`t seen that pattern, then clearly you have not looked at much surrounding the 911 controversy.
It is absolutely amazing to me just how much hostility is expressed when someone questions or speaks against the official report. Why is that? What have any of these people done to anyone to warrant that kind of reaction?

From my own perspective it is the "truthers" who cannot engage in rational discourse.

 

[Zanting]

Umm, the opening title is "9/11 Truth for Dummies". I don't think the opposition has the market cornered on hostility or condescension. Skim through the other 9/11-truth threads and they aren't a whole lot different.

Oh please...go back a few pages...this has already been pursued.

 

[Zanting]

I don't have any problem with someone who questions things, even what happened that day. I have a problem with people who are unwilling to accept reasonable answers, and perpetually speculate on unnecessarily complex, convoluted scenarios that would involve thousands of people to accomplish, when it would have been a very simple thing to set up if the government had wanted to.

And those 'questioners' never, ever want to answer any questions put to THEM. Like, 'Were the people on those flights in the planes, and if not, who was flying the planes, and where did all those people go?' The questioning only goes one direction, but voice morphing, silent demolitions charges combined with thermite, remote-controlled planes? Yeah, no need to question that stuff.

As soon as you start to try and actually build a case for some government conspiracy, it will get so completely ridiculous, and I think most people who even believe in such a thing know it...so they refuse to answer, and blame the rest of us, who DO actually answer questions and put forth a narrative...of just blindly believing things. I think not having any reasonable explanation for such simple questions as 'where did all those people go?' is the definition of blindness. Willful blindness.


Btodd

Not the impression I've gotten...and this thread isn't about the planes...it's about the collapse of the buildings...and I believe it has been thoroughly discussed without changing anyone's reality.

Straying from the topic is a derailment tactic whether consciously done or not...If you want to discuss other controversies surrounding 9/11...start another thread.

As to accepting reasonable answers...there are some pretty far fetched ones on either side of the controversy, but that is always denied. And evidence is lacking all the way around regarding many common criticisms and problems with the "final" 9/11 commission report.

And I do see a willingness to answer questions happen all the time, but it quickly stops because no answer is ever accepted and is postured as just another wild theory. The circular argument part of the pattern.

As to building a case for a government conspiracy...well...history is full of them and scandals galore. And well, if it were not so...if it were not possible...then I can only assume that every American knows exactly what their government is doing, what the CIA is doing, what the FBI is doing, what the military is doing, and so on and so forth, all of the time...so they couldn't possibly have orchestrated 9/11.

 

[Btodd]

Not the impression I've gotten...and this thread isn't about the planes...it's about the collapse of the buildings...and I believe it has been thoroughly discussed without changing anyone's reality.

When comparing explanations, you don't (if you want to be reasonable) get to isolate things in a bubble like that.

Prior to collapse, regardless of whether you think it was a demolition or a structural failure...planes crashed into the buildings. My explanation of the collapse explains both the collapse, and where all the people on Flights 11 and 175 actually went. If this was an 'inside job' as you seem to think, then that deserves a plausible explanation in regard to whether or not you think those planes were hijacked, and had all the passengers on board, or whether you think it was some other scenario. If you don't have an answer to the question that you're willing to give, then only one explanation has been given (mine).

So I repeat what I said earlier...Truthers do not have a plausible narrative for what happened that day that actually explains all of the facts. The moment they start trying to provide one, it will involve an enormously convoluted, unnecessarily complex magic show that would involve thousands of people, when all that was necessary was to use a truck bomb at the base of the buildings and frame it on some Iraqis.

Straying from the topic is a derailment tactic whether consciously done or not...If you want to discuss other controversies surrounding 9/11...start another thread.

1. I already addressed the collapses and why they're implausible as a controlled demolition, and dared anyone to show me any portion of the building that was already falling below the debris line, instead of getting crushed by the mass above. No one did it. I also asked someone to point out visual and audio evidence of these supposed detonations below the point of collapse, and no one did it. The hypothesis given is a failure to anyone with an honest set of eyes.

2. Asking you to answer a basic question about the 'inside job' that is directly relevant to the collapse of the Twin Towers (the plane crashes) is not a derailment tactic on my part...rather, your refusal to answer a basic question is a derailment tactic on yours, because you don't have a plausible answer.


Btodd

 

[Zanting]

When comparing explanations, you don't (if you want to be reasonable) get to isolate things in a bubble like that.

I disagree...and do so as a researcher. You have to isolate variables.

Prior to collapse, regardless of whether you think it was a demolition or a structural failure...planes crashed into the buildings. My explanation of the collapse explains both the collapse, and where all the people on Flights 11 and 175 actually went. If this was an 'inside job' as you seem to think, then that deserves a plausible explanation in regard to whether or not you think those planes were hijacked, and had all the passengers on board, or whether you think it was some other scenario. If you don't have an answer to the question that you're willing to give, then only one explanation has been given (mine).

On the contrary...I simply haven't given you a response you're willing to accept. Start another thread with your explantion about the planes.

So I repeat what I said earlier...Truthers do not have a plausible narrative for what happened that day that actually explains all of the facts. The moment they start trying to provide one, it will involve an enormously convoluted, unnecessarily complex magic show that would involve thousands of people, when all that was necessary was to use a truck bomb at the base of the buildings and frame it on some Iraqis.

Define plausible since you only seem to entertain only one scenario.

I have yet to see an explanation that does "actually explain all of the facts" as you put it.

1. I already addressed the collapses and why they're implausible as a controlled demolition, and dared anyone to show me any portion of the building that was already falling below the debris line, instead of getting crushed by the mass above. No one did it. I also asked someone to point out visual and audio evidence of these supposed detonations below the point of collapse, and no one did it. The hypothesis given is a failure to anyone with an honest set of eyes.

There are many witnesses, some came forward right away, more and more have since...so it comes down to whether you believe the voices and videos of the people who were there that day.
I don't agree that Newton's laws of motion don't apply. It is basic high school physics. Why do you think it isn't applicable?

2. Asking you to answer a basic question about the 'inside job' that is directly relevant to the collapse of the Twin Towers (the plane crashes) is not a derailment tactic on my part...rather, your refusal to answer a basic question is a derailment tactic on yours, because you don't have a plausible answer.

No...you just didn't accept my response. It's not what you want to hear. Take the hostage/plane issue up elsewhere. It's a giant topic all on it's own.

Btodd

Quite honestly, these same arguments have been going on since 9/11 happened and will continue for years to come. There is a current world out there still reeling from the effects of that day in which we all live in. And the concerns of today are much more significant to me than continuing to argue about what did or did not happen or how on 9/11, because I really don't believe we will ever know.

Ultimately, I would really like to see people honestly and reasonable discuss their differences with out all the hostility and animosity and I do thank you Btodd for maintaining that with me.

 

[Btodd]

I disagree...and do so as a researcher. You have to isolate variables.

Nope. You can't claim to be part of a "Truth" movement if you you won't answer questions that get at the truth of the matter. The plane crashes, and where those people went, lie at the heart of the matter. Any attempt to avoid trying to explain that in a plausible framework is not a sincere attempt at going for the truth. The question I asked was very straightforward, and very simple to understand.

On the contrary...I simply haven't given you a response you're willing to accept. Start another thread with your explantion about the planes.

On the contrary, you refuse to give a response to a very simple, straightforward question that has to do with the collapse of the towers. Are you saying that if I start a new thread and ask you this question again, you will provide a direct answer to the question? Because if so...I will.

Define plausible since you only seem to entertain only one scenario.

Plausible, as in adhering to Occam's Razor. Actually explaining all of the facts of that day, in a narrative that is both rational, and has solid evidence (not supposition) to support it, that involves the least amount of assumptions.

No...you just didn't accept my response. It's not what you want to hear. Take the hostage/plane issue up elsewhere. It's a giant topic all on it's own.

Your response was, 'I'm not going to respond in this thread'. I will ask you again...if I start a new thread with that as the central topic, will you directly answer my questions, or will it again be considered 'out of bounds'?

Btodd
​

 

[Zanting]

News Anchors Shocked When Presented With 9/11 Truth - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pYlfFW-20w

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Failing to reply to someone and instead simply posting Youtube videos is not promoting rational discourse.

All the points that Richard Gage brought up in the first video have been debunked time and time again.

 

[Btodd]

Par for the course in my experiences dealing with Truthers. They only ask questions, but won't answer any. It's a one-way street.

"Hey, here's a straightforward question for you about the Inside Job."

*Truther spams board with YouTube links and completely ignores the question. Later complains about not being taken seriously and how unfair it is...*



Btodd

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I have had those same experiances actually, even in this very thread.

Zanting didn't even bother to respond to my questions but only complained about how nobody treats the seriously.

Ironic.

 

[usexpat97]

If she doesn't want to answer your questions, that is her right. You'll just have to deal with it.