9/11 Truthers

[Tiberius]

I also love 9/11 truthers, it's funny that a few of you admitted to being a truther and then not. Hard to decide? I have supported 9/11 truth movements since 2001, and never changed my stance, as it is an opinion formed on my very best logic. But alas, that is a very different topic.

Just though it might be interesting to discuss this issue given that some of us are ex-"truthers" and some of us probably are still.

In response to Pippy, no, the decision wasn't "hard". 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.

[Rockthatpiano06]

Could you explain what the 9/11 truth movement is? I know the basic points of it, that it was an inside job and such but I don't really know any specifics.

[Tiberius]

That's the problem; there are so many different conflicting theories that the only thing they can agree on is that the government story isn't the right one.

I've heard things like there we no people on the planes, that the passengers are being kept hidden by the government, that the plane that flew into the Pentagon was actually a missile. None of it is supported by any facts other than the assumption that the government is hiding something.

[Meatball]

I think it's obvious that the official report isn't the full story. But to suggest anything other than the idea that a bunch of crazy religious extremists highjacked airplanes full of people and flew them into buildings, is definitely in the tin-foil hat zone, as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: Exactly, Kyu's got the idea.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think it's obvious that the official report isn't the full story.

I don't think they're hiding anything more than governments usually hide (inasmuch as they only thing they typically care about is their status) ... outside of that I find it laughable that Bush's government (the one generally regarded as one of the most inept in recent years) could be considered to have been behind such a conspiracy.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In response to Pippy, no, the decision wasn't "hard". 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.

Me too. I found information from architects and structural engineers most informative.


I'm not at all surprised some of the conspiracy nutjobs still cling to their nonsense. They live in a closed logic system. Any evidence contradicting their mindset reinforces their paranoia..

A close look at the people making the claims is also useful in assessing credibility.

What's "obvious" to me: Two planes crashed into the twin towers,which then collapsed. What is so hard to grasp about that? I've also read explanations from engineers who have explained clearly WHY the collapses occurred.

If you believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy within the US; PROVE IT.

Tangent:

I was convinced for about 20 years that the JFK assassination [at least] was the result of a conspiracy.

I made that conclusion based on the following;

The Zapruder tapes,which I've looked at frame by frame. Seemed to me that one of the shots came a different direction.

From the Jim Morrison examination the "magic bullet theory".


The assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby made no sense to me,it still doesn't, I don't understand his motive.

Finally there was the rifle and the mechanics of the shots. I was rated marksman with a 7.62mm SLR (semi automatic) rifle. The weapon Oswald allegedly used was 6.5mm a bolt action Carcano ,with a scope. I simply could not have made those shots (especially a head shot) with that weapon and seriously doubt I could have with an SLR with scope,within that time frame.In my opinion, the marksman would have to have been a trained sniper to have a chance.. I've seen no evidence that Oswald was so trained.

BUT BUT BUT

I finally realised my conclusion was based on classic conspiracy theory logic. On supposition and argument from personal incredulity,a form of argument from ignorance.Those are the basic flaws I've noticed in most conspiracy theories I've seen,from The Da Vinci Code to 9/11 and the [often hilarious] arguments against the moon landing...

As Freud famously did NOT say " Sometimes a cigars is only a cigar"

[Faith Tester]

I think the US government might be hiding a few minor details (even that is unlikely but let us assume it is true).

What could be the possible motivation for having a self-staged 9/11 for the US Government?

1) To wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
2) To gain support on the international Arena against Muslim extremism?


1) 9/11 did trigger the war in Afghanistan and then later expanded the war to Iraq. But I find it highly illogical to believe that a government will stage a disastrous drama of this scale to merely attack Afghanistan (which is a shit hole anyway). They wanted to go after the Al-Qaeda terrorists. But the attempts to take down Osama Bin Laden had begun long before 9/11 (See Clinton's interview given Fox News)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJ...re=related

There was no need to stage a 9/11 drama to start the GWOT.

2) The west has already established the threat of Muslim extremism long ago. Prior to 9/11 there have been numerous terrorist attacks through Europe. They did not need a 9/11 to realize that a Muslim extremist threat exists.

My Conclusion:

9/11 was an unfortunate incident and was planned and executed by Muslim terrorists, who drove those planes in to the World Trade Center, killing many innocent people.

[LEDO]

Bin Laden took credit for the destruction of the towers. There is film footage of planes crashing into the towers with recordings of the cockpit. I just have a hard time getting past the hard evidence to dwell on circumstancial nonsense.

Monte Python claims it was a tiger that killed Kennedy.

[Pippy]

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 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

[Tiberius]

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...

This is just another example of the "truth" movement distorting the actual event. Yes, the debris from the tower (i.e. the cloud of dust and bits of metal ejected when the tower started to collapse) fell to the ground in 9 seconds.

The actual towers took much longer, and video of the event can show this very effectively:

[youtube]qLShZOvxVe4[/youtube]

Perhaps you shouldn't base logic on 9th grade science, but actual science? Further calculations: http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...peeds.html

It's just ridiculous that people can say they are being "scientific" and that it is "obvious" when they haven't even bothered to time the collapse themselves. They just do the calculation and say that the figure they calculated is the actual collapse time.