I've put together some facts here; let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.
Some that I can think of off the top of my head:
1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.
Being literally true doesn't mean being true in spirit. You are correct in the literal sense of "hard evidence". But you're wrong in the picture painted that they don't have any. What they do have is circumstantial evidence. Things like the videos of him admitting to the crime may not be admissible since the chain of custody cannot be clearly established, but it's ridiculous to ignore those video's information entirely.
The way you phrase the charge, it's as if the FBI doesn't consider him a suspect, so why does anyone else? You're painting a false picture; they most obviously do believe he's involved.
2. Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.
That's a misstatement of what the realists have been saying all along. The jet fuel burnt out very quickly, and the building contents were the items aflame during most of the event. This has led to some conspiracy fantasists arguing from incredulity that the contents can lead to such a hot fire, but from the beginning, no one's singled out jet fuel as being the sole combustible involved.
No one but the truthers, that is. Again, re: "Jet fuel and steel melting" myth.
On top of that, the first people crying "jet fuel" were the truthers saying it doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Don't pin that argument on the believers in reality; it's the conspiracy fantasists who brought it up first.
And, "never really backs it up": What specifically do you mean? Are you referring to the debate about whether the fire contents can get hot enough to lead to such structural failures? You should debate that with NYCEMT86, one of the posters here. He did a thread on basic fire behavior here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87587
Or do you mean something else?
3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.
And who also claims that WTC 1 & 2 were not. And who also admits to not having done anything more than view videos and blueprints.
And who's opinion also flies in the face of not just one industry opinion (building demolitions), but three (add structural engineering and fire and structural safety engineering). To start searching for examples of this, begin with the links at the bottom of this page:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
On top of all that, what keeps bothering us about the conspiracy fantasist argument is that they'll all the time claim demolitions use for towers 1 & 2, but they'll point to Jowenko as a professional source,
in spite of the fact that he directly says he doesn't believe those towers were brought down by demolitions. It's the fact that you all keep citing him as an expert supporting your contentions, but refuse to admit that he actively denies it where the main towers are concerned.
4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.
They are not the only sources. Ignoring the ridiculous familial relationship charge - as if that somehow falsifies the argument - the writers did not create the information in the PopMech article and book out of thin air. They leaned on many, many professional sources for their work. You cannot attack the PopMech literature by simply attacking them, you must prove that everyone listed here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9
... is either not credible or actually wrong. Chertoff and Meigs merely assembled the information; the experts linked above actually originated it. Attacking Chertoff and Meigs is like attacking
Herbert Morrison (
"Oh the humanity!") for the Hindenburg disaster. Morrison is not responsible for anything more than reporting that tragedy. Chertoff and Meigs is not responsible for anything more than assembling the information from the above linked experts into something readable by the general public.
And: Cherry picked? More like 'highlighted the central claims' to debunk. Funny you should accuse them of this when one of those "cherry picked" topics is at the center of your 2nd and 3rd points.
5. The book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton chairs of the 9/11 committee where they reveal NORAD and the FAA lied and how they felt they were setup to fail by the administration and were under funded. The same administration that never wanted an investigation in the first place.
Regarding NORAD: They were caught in a falsification - a lie, or a mistake, I'm not sure which - about timeline details. It was a very specific misrepresentation (or mistake) on a single issue, not a general lie about everything they were involved in on 9/11/01. That is a very serious issue; NORAD's leadership failed in that regard, and deserved reprimand. Uniformed officers should not play loose with information like that. BUT, that's far from suggesting a conspiracy. In fact, the truth is far from your own picure of it, saying that "NORAD... lied". The way you phrase it, they lied about everything they were involved in. That's a misrepresentation.
I'll leave further comment to others here. Knowledge of specific details about the 9/11 Commission's report are not my strong suit.
6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.
Logical fallacy:
Inflation of conflict
Unless there's another "insider" whom I'm not familar with, this is a reference to
Dr. Quintiere's comments, summarized
here.
To make a long story short, he does have serious and valid charges regarding the NIST investigation. And he does indeed call for an independent peer review (
not a brand new investigation from the beginning, as some claim). But:
- His criticisms are very clear and specific and pertain to NIST procedures and some of their conclusions. Here's one example:
"I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different..."
Here's another:
"Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?"
Here's a third:
"Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?"
Note what he considers is an example of an "alternative collapse hypothesis". And take note of that throughout his commentary at that link above. None of his criticisms open the door to such alternate explanations as "controlled demolition". All of them are very specific to the actual NIST findings, none of them suggest any conspiracy on the level that the fantasists charge.
- He very clearly states that he does not believe explosive demolitions were involved:
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Frank Greening (Apollo20 here in this forum) is also very strongly critical of the NIST investigation, but his criticisms, too, are based on rational thought, not conspiracy fantasy.
7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.
I agree with you there, and that angers me too. But not to the point to where I'm accepting fallacious arguments in order to stoke my anger. I'd rather that the intelligence agencies are streamlined with the law enforcement agencies to better share information. I'd rather that the government be less 'kit gloved' about killing - yes, killing - known terrorists who carry out operations to kill others. I'd rather that the airport security firms in the US be better trained in order to stop such terrorists from boarding, and that airlines have at least several security or law enforcement staffers on every flight in order to stop hijackings. But I'm not going to accept unsupported and, frankly, ignorant claims that demolitions were used or that the government actively made 9/11 happen. Anger shouldn't be the gateway emotion for credulity or scientific and engineering ignorance.
