Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[240-185]

Lack of evidence at Shanksville
Lack of evidence at the Pentagon
Lack of evidence for a gravity driven collapse of the Towers

We presented many evidences, but all troofers like you did

 

[RedIbis]

I always get a giggle on how truthers just hand wave at the reports of NIST and the 911 Commission Report. These reports were throughly researched; the 911 Commission report used hundreds of references, yet rarely is there attempt by truthers to impeach any of the evidence in any type of coherent, rational, or logical way.

Have you read The Commission Report? If so, answer this simple question: Out of the 600 or so pages, how many actually cover the day of 9/11?

 

[T.A.M.]

.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I would agree that WTC 7 is not a widely known aspect of the attacks. I completely disagree that it's tangential and not part of the attacks. You would do better to retract that statement than attempt to defend it.



Utter crap. Sorry for the incivility, but I can't think of a more precise way to express my disagreement. Many people living in or around NYC were aware of Giuliani's saga with the OEM and placing it exactly where it was suggested he does not. It was with further research after 9/11, that many people came to realize the bizarre nature of WTC 7's occupants and its collapse.



Take your pick:
Lack of evidence at Shanksville
Lack of evidence at the Pentagon
Lack of evidence for a gravity driven collapse of the Towers
The military's lack of rapid response
The hijackers operating in the US and even pulling off the hijackings
The Bush administrations resistance to any investigation

1. This is a place where I would prefer to keep any incivility, so forget about it.

2. I guess I am not making myself clear. For me, as a debunker, i guess WTC7 is relevent in the sense that it gets brought up by the truth movement. However, Those who are not truthers or debunkers, I do not believe they feel it is relevent at all. It was a bistandard so to speak. It was destroyed as a result of the destruction that occurred from the attacks.

Like I said, pick someone off the street who does not post at JREF, or who does not watch Loose Change or Alex Jones, and ask them what is the relevence of WTC7, and they will likely say "WTC7?"

3. by many people, if you mean the few thousand people, out of 6 Billion in the world, then ok. I would venture to guess that 99.99995% of NYC residents consider nothing nefarious about the collapse of WTC7...it is irrelivent to them. This is only my guess of course.

4. Lack of evidence at Shanksville? You mean besides the recovered debris, the recovered DNA, the recovered FDR and CVR, the phone calls, the communications that ATC overheard?

5. Lack of evidence at the pentagon? You mean besides the hundreds of eye witnesses to the crash, besides the plane parts, besides the DNA, besides the phone calls, besides the ATC reports?

I could go on, but you have thrown so much out there.

The NIST report MORE THAN ADEQUATELY supports a gravity driven collapse.
The NORAD response was perhaps not as well co-ordinated as we would have liked, with 20/20 hindsight, but if you ACTUALLY READ what happened, they did the best they could...NORAD, FAA, ATC...etc...

There is a tonne of evidence that the hijackers operated in the USA. If your comment is about why they were not caught, well you can blame that on a lack of communication and sharing of info between the intelligence agencies.

The Bush Resistance to the investigation was likely to protect themselves from looking incompetent.

Each one of these items has been gone over numerous times. If after all that you still feel it is inadequate, well that is an opinion I must simply disagree with, but that you are entitled to...of course.

TAM

 

[TexasJack]

Have you read The Commission Report? If so, answer this simple question: Out of the 600 or so pages, how many actually cover the day of 9/11?

Yes, I have read it and provides a sound narrative of the what and why of that day. It is well-sourced and researched; I have also read many books that support the report. Your question is irrelevant.

 

[RedIbis]

In a way you are correct, but this can be stated more clearly.

Debunking is challenging the sufficiency of evidence for a claim. No more and no less.

Ok, so debunking is the challenging of claims. Science is the investigation of these claims by evaluation of evidence. To debunk is to begin with a preconceived notion that what you are challenging is bunk.

[...]
In the case of 9/11, the truthers' evidence that 9/11 was any kind of inside job is insufficient to the point of nonexistence, and debunkers merely point that out.

Pure opinion. The official explanations lack evidence and yet that doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

It helps their case that they can show evidence that it was not an inside job (such as the lack of any plausible motive or means), and that they can show substantial evidence of who did it, but in the end the key point is that the evidence for an inside job is itself lacking.

I'm waiting on the substantial evidence which supports the official story.

The truthers, of course, when they're not whining about what a terrible nasty negative thing it is to be a debunker, want to be debunkers themselves. They want to show that the evidence for "the official story" (that is, the consensus arrived at by scientists, the press, historians, the businesses directly involved, law enforcement personnel, and intelligence services at all levels worldwide) is insufficient.

On this there may be some agreement. Since the first responsibility is to prove the inital claim, Twoofie Truthers are challenging the official story, calling it bunk and attempting to debunk it. So perhaps the labels should be switched since you, TAM, and many others here feel they know the Twoof.

But that just can't be done, if the evidence is in fact overwhelmingly sufficient.

Really? Like Column 79?

[...]

Often on this forum members ask, "Even if [some truther claim] were true, how would that make any difference in our understanding of the events of 9/11?" Truthers rarely if ever answer that question. And yet that is the key question that truthers must always answer in order to have any hope of debunking "the official story."

Maybe you don't get an answer to the question because it's somewhat ridiculous if you don't understand that if NIST cannot provide evidence for their hypothesis this changes our understanding of 9/11.

 

[T.A.M.]

Have you read The Commission Report? If so, answer this simple question: Out of the 600 or so pages, how many actually cover the day of 9/11?

Well their mandate was a broader than "what happened that day"...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/index.htm

Here are the parts of the report (which I have read about 5 times now or more), that cover the day of 9/11:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

There is also a large portion of the report dedicated to the circumstances that lead up to the attacks, and a good portion dedicated on what went wrong, and how it can be fixed.

Seems like a pretty good idea to cover all these aspects, given their mandate...right?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Each one of these items has been gone over numerous times. If after all that you still feel it is inadequate, well that is an opinion I must simply disagree with, but that you are entitled to...of course.

TAM

Agreed. I don't think either one of us has the time nor energy to go back and debate each of these points again. I think the main squabble is that those who accept the official account accept the evidence as sufficient and conclusive, and those who do not accept the official account, find it lacking.

If I boil this down any further, the pot will scorch.

 

[T.A.M.]

Agreed. I don't think either one of us has the time nor energy to go back and debate each of these points again. I think the main squabble is that those who accept the official account accept the evidence as sufficient and conclusive, and those who do not accept the official account, find it lacking.

If I boil this down any further, the pot will scorch.

yes. And in the end, this probably the biggest reason why I participate in very little here any more. The topics have been covered. Both sides have presented their cases, their "evidence", and it is now up to the individual to decide what side they fall on. It is in the hands of the 6 Billion Jurors.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Seems like a pretty good idea to cover all these aspects, given their mandate...right?

TAM

Nope. 110-120 pages (depending on which copy you have) to explain arguably, the most complex day in American history hardly appears sufficient or conclusive.

Again, where we disagree is in the standard of evidence. This is why so many jref debunkers get frustrated with me and anyone else who does not argue CD, remote controlled planes, NWO, space beams or any of that. I'm only interested in holding the official explanations up for scrutiny.

 

[TexasJack]

Nope. 110-120 pages (depending on which copy you have) to explain arguably, the most complex day in American history hardly appears sufficient or conclusive.

Again, where we disagree is in the standard of evidence. This is why so many jref debunkers get frustrated with me and anyone else who does not argue CD, remote controlled planes, NWO, space beams or any of that. I'm only interested in holding the official explanations up for scrutiny.

Well, by that logic, the NIST report must be accurate since it was 10,000 pages.

 

[RedIbis]

yes. And in the end, this probably the biggest reason why I participate in very little here any more. The topics have been covered. Both sides have presented their cases, their "evidence", and it is now up to the individual to decide what side they fall on. It is in the hands of the 6 Billion Jurors.

TAM

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

 

[applecorped]

In a way you are correct, but this can be stated more clearly.

Debunking is challenging the sufficiency of evidence for a claim. No more and no less.

An example I've used before (so my apologies if you've read it before) is a person claiming to have evidence of the existence of alien visitors to earth, in the form of photographs of a saucer-shaped flying metal disk.

A debunker examines the photograph and points out that the metal disk is the photographs is identical to a hubcap from a 1986 Buick LeSabre.

What has the debunker accomplished? Not, certainly, disproving that aliens visit the earth. In fact, the debunker has not even proved that the particular photograph in question doesn't depict an alien spacecraft. After all, there is no physical law that would prevent aliens from shaping their spacecraft in the exact shape of 1986 Buick LeSabre hubcaps if they wanted to.

All the debunker has done is give a very good reason why those particular photographs are not significant evidence of the existence of aliens visiting earth.

Debunking is not equivalent to research, just as deleting is not equivalent to writing. But debunking is a legitimate component of research, just as the delete key on a keyboard is a legitimate tool of great benefit to practically all effective writers. In order to reject propositions having insufficient evidence, it's necessary to assess the sufficiency of evidence. That is by nature an adversarial process, since people have many reasons for wanting other people to accept claims for which they cannot provide sufficient evidence. For instance, every prosecutor wants to win every case.

That makes "debunker" a perfect description of a defense attorney, in the U.S. court system at least. The defense in a trial is not required to prove who did do if the defendant didn't (though it certainly helps their case if they can). They're not even required to prove the defendant didn't do it (though it certainly helps their case if they can). Their key task is to show that the evidence that the defendant did do it is insufficient.

In the case of 9/11, the truthers' evidence that 9/11 was any kind of inside job is insufficient to the point of nonexistence, and debunkers merely point that out. It helps their case that they can show evidence that it was not an inside job (such as the lack of any plausible motive or means), and that they can show substantial evidence of who did it, but in the end the key point is that the evidence for an inside job is itself lacking.

The truthers, of course, when they're not whining about what a terrible nasty negative thing it is to be a debunker, want to be debunkers themselves. They want to show that the evidence for "the official story" (that is, the consensus arrived at by scientists, the press, historians, the businesses directly involved, law enforcement personnel, and intelligence services at all levels worldwide) is insufficient.

But that just can't be done, if the evidence is in fact overwhelmingly sufficient. (Similarly, a defense attorney's task can become impossible if the defendant not only did it, but left clear evidence of that fact in the process). Often on this forum members ask, "Even if [some truther claim] were true, how would that make any difference in our understanding of the events of 9/11?" Truthers rarely if ever answer that question. And yet that is the key question that truthers must always answer in order to have any hope of debunking "the official story."

It's understandable, then, that truthers object to "debunking," when actually debunking is exactly what they aspire to do but cannot do successfully.

A guy named Aesop (or whoever wrote the stories attributed to him) understood the psychology of this over 2,500 years ago, as told in the story of The Fox and the Grapes. The part that people are prone to forget is that the grapes are not really sour. They are sweet, juicy, and delicious.

Mmm. Grapes.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated

 

[applecorped]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

How much is "widespread"?

 

[JihadJane]

I always get a giggle on how truthers just hand wave at the reports of NIST and the 911 Commission Report. These reports were throughly researched; the 911 Commission report used hundreds of references, yet rarely is there attempt by truthers to impeach any of the evidence in any type of coherent, rational, or logical way.

Follow much of the supporting evidence for the Commission's al Qaeda story and it leads you to the unsubstantiated, second and third-hand utterances of one man, a torture victim of the Bush regime.

- - - - - - - - -

(such as the lack of any plausible motive or means)

Considering what followed 911 how can you claim a "lack of plausible motive" and, considering the resources at the disposal of international intelligence agencies and the military, how can you seriously question the "means"?

The truthers, of course, when they're not whining about what a terrible nasty negative thing it is to be a debunker, want to be debunkers themselves.

I find the word "whining" interesting. It commonly appears on this subforum.

It has been applied to me when I've highlighted posters' bullying tactics. It has been immediately assumed that I am hurt by these tactics and must therefore be "whining". In fact I associate bullying with insecurity. It reassures me that the bullies' arguments are probably weak and fear-driven. Why, if 911 "debunkers" are so confident of their rectitude, do they so often need the support of school-yard bullying methods and infantile name-calling?

 

[TexasJack]

Follow much of the supporting evidence for the Commission's al Qaeda story and it leads you to the unsubstantiated, second and third-hand utterances of one man, a torture victim of the Bush regime.?

You mean the guy who confessed to planning 911 before he was captured, that guy?

And thanks for proving my point of hand-waving evidence away.

 

[SDC]

Talk about omens... Credit card company just re-upped my Visa account. Next expiration date: 09/11.

Uh oh.

 

[WildCat]

Talk about omens... Credit card company just re-upped my Visa account. Next expiration date: 09/11.

Uh oh.

You now know what to do Agent SDC.

 

[MarkyX]

No one will be shocked if we disagree on this but I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there is widespread skepticism of the official story outside of North America.

Maybe in Middle Eastern countries where people think the Protocols of Zion are real, otherwise I doubt the vast majority of the world believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Hell, look at Canada: The 9/11 deniers can't even get 100 people in front of Parliament hill. Instead they harass some random person, accuse him of being part of the coverup, and talk about the Jewish mafia controlling everything.

 

[SDC]

Actually I've read that Russia has a lot of 9/11 inside job believers. Which is not really surprising; for generations, maybe for centuries, Russia's political circumstances have encouraged that kind of conspiratorial view. And there have been plausible accusations that some bombings in Russia in recent years have been "inside jobs."

 

[RedIbis]

Maybe in Middle Eastern countries where people think the Protocols of Zion are real, otherwise I doubt the vast majority of the world believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Hell, look at Canada: The 9/11 deniers can't even get 100 people in front of Parliament hill. Instead they harass some random person, accuse him of being part of the coverup, and talk about the Jewish mafia controlling everything.

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll


REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service

Sep 10, 2008 08:28 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.p...&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281