Hey,
I would love to discuss 'truthers', and hope to be able to explain what little I can.
You ask a good question Rockthepiano, and I think I can give a very simple and concise answer. For myself, the handle "9/11 truther" means someone who believes that there was some (usually at least substantial) amount of lies, of misinformation, about the details of what really happened. That is the chord that ties us together. But apart form that, someone can believe some very, very crazy stuff, or just that a few details were misrepresented for some reason. It is a large and diverse group, that's for sure. I cna only really speak for myself as well, right? Adrian described it well himself.
I think it is all propaganda, on both sides. I commend your wish to ignore what is obviously false or fallacious, whether or not we agree on what is and is not so. I learned as much as I could, but base my choice, my stance, on my own deductions. I forward no ones "theory" as correct. Other than, I am led to think, my own. I find the "9 second problem" very, very logical. Almost irrefutably so. Remember though, that the only claim I wish to make true is that the official story is fabricated and impossible. I think it is mostly lies, but I only wish to show that there are ANY lies. Not mistakes either, but intended coercion of the truth...
The logic goes as follows. The buildings fell to the ground in a little over 9 seconds each. For something to fall at that speed it has to have almost no resistance, as is mathematically based on Gravitational law. That strongly, to me, contradicts the "pancake collapse" theory, since such a theory involves a lot of resistance as the floors make contact with one another. To see, as we all did, the building disappear into dust in such a very small time frame makes it almost impossible that a short burning kerosene fire could have had the observed effect on the structure. So I feel that it is a piece of logic, based on grade 9 science class, that shows that it literally could not have happened the way we are told it happened. See how I think I am trying to base my opinion on my best argument, not just rehashing the conspiracy videos. The best thing I read was about remember what you saw and how you felt on that day. And that reminded me of the awe I felt in watching the buildings fall. That I did not expect for that to happen at all, and that something about the event did not add up. Mostly the speed and level of destruction during collapse.
Just one strong example, in my mind...
Have you read The 9/11 Commission Report? That is what I refer to when I say 'official story', as it kind of it. There are many, many huge holes (pun?) in that story. The government clearly did about as poor a job as possible in investigating what went on that day. Some jems are the regarding of the funding of the attack as "of little importance", and the omission of the building 7 collapse (in any mention whatsoever). 3 Buildings went down, and the official government criminal investigation only discussed 2 of them... I get mad when I read those things, because it seems like they are not even trying to make it believable... The greatest crime in history, as they called it, and the worst criminal investigation I have ever seen (including on TV shows).
I hope this long rant was able to shed some light on why someone would question 9/11, although I am just a crazy person, so...
Thanks, feel free to pick it apart, or ask or share something else.
The,
-Pip
I would love to discuss 'truthers', and hope to be able to explain what little I can.
You ask a good question Rockthepiano, and I think I can give a very simple and concise answer. For myself, the handle "9/11 truther" means someone who believes that there was some (usually at least substantial) amount of lies, of misinformation, about the details of what really happened. That is the chord that ties us together. But apart form that, someone can believe some very, very crazy stuff, or just that a few details were misrepresented for some reason. It is a large and diverse group, that's for sure. I cna only really speak for myself as well, right? Adrian described it well himself.
Quote:I simply stopped listening to the propaganda of people who had no actual expertise in the field, and started listening to the rebuttals made by people in the field.
I'd like to hear what you find "logical" about the 9/11 truth movement.
I think it is all propaganda, on both sides. I commend your wish to ignore what is obviously false or fallacious, whether or not we agree on what is and is not so. I learned as much as I could, but base my choice, my stance, on my own deductions. I forward no ones "theory" as correct. Other than, I am led to think, my own. I find the "9 second problem" very, very logical. Almost irrefutably so. Remember though, that the only claim I wish to make true is that the official story is fabricated and impossible. I think it is mostly lies, but I only wish to show that there are ANY lies. Not mistakes either, but intended coercion of the truth...
The logic goes as follows. The buildings fell to the ground in a little over 9 seconds each. For something to fall at that speed it has to have almost no resistance, as is mathematically based on Gravitational law. That strongly, to me, contradicts the "pancake collapse" theory, since such a theory involves a lot of resistance as the floors make contact with one another. To see, as we all did, the building disappear into dust in such a very small time frame makes it almost impossible that a short burning kerosene fire could have had the observed effect on the structure. So I feel that it is a piece of logic, based on grade 9 science class, that shows that it literally could not have happened the way we are told it happened. See how I think I am trying to base my opinion on my best argument, not just rehashing the conspiracy videos. The best thing I read was about remember what you saw and how you felt on that day. And that reminded me of the awe I felt in watching the buildings fall. That I did not expect for that to happen at all, and that something about the event did not add up. Mostly the speed and level of destruction during collapse.
Just one strong example, in my mind...
Have you read The 9/11 Commission Report? That is what I refer to when I say 'official story', as it kind of it. There are many, many huge holes (pun?) in that story. The government clearly did about as poor a job as possible in investigating what went on that day. Some jems are the regarding of the funding of the attack as "of little importance", and the omission of the building 7 collapse (in any mention whatsoever). 3 Buildings went down, and the official government criminal investigation only discussed 2 of them... I get mad when I read those things, because it seems like they are not even trying to make it believable... The greatest crime in history, as they called it, and the worst criminal investigation I have ever seen (including on TV shows).
I hope this long rant was able to shed some light on why someone would question 9/11, although I am just a crazy person, so...
Thanks, feel free to pick it apart, or ask or share something else.
The,
-Pip
