What has the truth movement actually gotten right?

[Edx]

Steven Jones pointed out that the WTC concrete was not pulverised into dust (something we already knew, but which he used to argue against explosives).

Ooh where did he say that?

And how did he try argue against explosives? I remember him saying they had to use conventional explosives. Plus he hangs out with Gage a lot which loves the idea of crap loads of explosives.

And yet, somehow, there's a disconnect of some sort still there; a classic example is Jim Hoffman, who argued that flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon, yet also argued that a missile was fired from beneath the Pentagon lawn so as to blow the tail off the plane just before impact

haha not seen that one. Wow.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think that the one that recently shot up Fort Hood set off more red flags before hand than some people that have been tortured.

I think the same is probably true for the one who killed the agents at the CIA base.

So it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to suggest that some of the 9/11 hijackers might have been US intelligence assets at one time. It seems even less far fetched to suggest that OBL was a CIA asset at one time.

THAT's where you say truthers were right?

Lame.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ooh where did he say that?

And how did he try argue against explosives? I remember him saying they had to use conventional explosives. Plus he hangs out with Gage a lot which loves the idea of crap loads of explosives.

I waded through the stupid to find the original quote, and in fact found that he was arguing against mini-nukes.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

So Steven Jones thinks that nuclear bombs didn't go off in the middle of downtown Manhattan without anybody noticing. The truth movement can chalk that up as another painfully obvious thing they've got right, if they're that desperate.

haha not seen that one. Wow.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Which I assume is Jim Hoffman - 911research is one of his sites.

As Flight 77 swoops toward the Pentagon after a spectacular spiral dive, the program switches its transponder on, this time with a code identifying itself as a friendly F-16. Flying within 500 feet of the ground for the last mile of its approach, and at a speed of over 500 mph (three times as fast as jetliners normally fly so close to the ground) makes it appear to be a much smaller plane from a distance, with nearby witnesses being impressed by its size and sudden presence. Its friendly transponder allows it to avoid triggering the missile batteries on the lawn's perimeter. However, a specially-programmed surface-to air system, located less than 100 feet from the Pentagon's facade, fires a missile at the Flight 77 just as its nose begins to impact the facade. The explosion of the warhead shatters the plane's tail section, preventing the rudder from leaving an imprint on the facade. The speed of the crash prevents the explosions from greatly altering the trajectory of the plane's contents, which enter the building, mostly reduced to small pieces.

The aerobatic approach maneuver, the alteration of the impact damage shape by the missile strikes, the surprisingly and deceptively small appearance of the debris field, the immediate seizure of video capturing the attack, and the initial broadcast of a report of a commuter plane, would seed the notion that a 757 was not involved in the attack -- a notion later fed by releasing forged video frames from a Pentagon security camera. The idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is seized upon by many 9-11 skeptics and is used to discredit all 9-11 skepticism.

It's so simple, how could anyone have missed it?

Scenario 404 makes fascinating reading. It's the one of the very few attempts by a truther to put together a complete hypothesis. The level of paranoia, poor mathematical skills, misrepresentation of evidence and outright delusional thinking required to do so is quite illuminating as to why there are so few.

Dave

 

[Edx]

Thanks Dave.

Wow.

 

[Meed]

I would still like to see the FBI Most Wanted list issue cleared up. Did Bush actually change the law in a way that prevented the FBI from adding OBL to the most wanted list? Or was that a mistake on the part of us debunkers?

I've made that claim to truthers before, but they weren't competent enough to catch me on it if in fact it's not true.

 

[BigAl]

I would still like to see the FBI Most Wanted list issue cleared up. Did Bush actually change the law in a way that prevented the FBI from adding OBL to the most wanted list? Or was that a mistake on the part of us debunkers?

I've made that claim to truthers before, but they weren't competent enough to catch me on it if in fact it's not true.

People can make **** up faster than fact-based people can debunk it.

If "bush changed the law", it's a matter of public record and finding the record is a good job for someone that wants to "investigate 9/11" to do some of their own damn research.

Edited breach of Rule 10; do not curse in your posts, or mask curse words in an attempt to avoid the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[sheeplesnshills]

People can make **** up faster than fact-based people can debunk it.

If "bush changed the law", it's a matter of public record and finding the record is a good job for someone that wants to "investigate 9/11" to do some of their own damn research.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

And in any case Bush didn't make any laws.....its the Congress and senate that do that.......didn't Truthers do Civics at school?

 

[Brainache]

I would still like to see the FBI Most Wanted list issue cleared up. Did Bush actually change the law in a way that prevented the FBI from adding OBL to the most wanted list? Or was that a mistake on the part of us debunkers?

I've made that claim to truthers before, but they weren't competent enough to catch me on it if in fact it's not true.

He is on the most wanted list isn't he? Isn't there a huge bounty on his head?
They don't specifically list 9/11 on his poster, but he is already facing enough charges for other things to warrant a death penalty.

Either way, if it was just an inside job conspiracy, why wouldn't the FBI add 9/11 to his list of crimes?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would still like to see the FBI Most Wanted list issue cleared up. Did Bush actually change the law in a way that prevented the FBI from adding OBL to the most wanted list?

Osama bin Laden has been on the FBI top ten most wanted list since June 7, 1999. What did the truthers want the FBI to do, promote him to a negative number?

Dave

 

[Meed]

People can make **** up faster than fact-based people can debunk it.

If "bush changed the law", it's a matter of public record and finding the record is a good job for someone that wants to "investigate 9/11" to do some of their own damn research.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Sure... but it's kind of hard to prove a negative. And it has been attemptedly debunked. I want to know if the debunking is accurate.

And in any case Bush didn't make any laws.....its the Congress and senate that do that.......didn't Truthers do Civics at school?

Um, it's a debunker claim that Bush changed the law. Call it "the administration" if you want to be less literal.

He is on the most wanted list isn't he? Isn't there a huge bounty on his head?
They don't specifically list 9/11 on his poster, but he is already facing enough charges for other things to warrant a death penalty.

Yes, he's on the list for other crimes.

Either way, if it was just an inside job conspiracy, why wouldn't the FBI add 9/11 to his list of crimes?

Because it wasn't an inside job conspiracy. This thread is "what has the truth movement actually gotten right?" not "what has the truth movement gotten right that proves 9/11 was an inside job?".

Osama bin Laden has been on the FBI top ten most wanted list since June 7, 1999. What did the truthers want the FBI to do, promote him to a negative number?

No, the question is why 9/11 wasn't listed as one of his crimes.

All these responses miss the point...

I've heard various debunkers claim that the reason Bin Laden isn't on the watchlist for 9/11 is because the law was changed to make terrorism a military rather than a domestic issue, the FBI could no longer add crimes to the list without indictments and so on.

I want to know if these debunker claims are true or not. The FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list was constructed after 9/11. It was already based on indictments and still is. The FBI website says: "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." The source I've seen for the law being changed is about being able to try terrorists militarily. It also expands the FBI's capabilities for the sake of fighting terrorism.

I don't want to hear "who cares, he's on the list anyway", "that isn't evidence that 9/11 was an inside job", "I hate truthers", etc. I just want to know if the debunker response is accurate or not. So far I'm leaning toward not. Kinda helpful to know an argument is incorrect if you ever get into a debate/argument with a truther so you can avoid using it? I know the sheer amount of trivial stuff truthers get wrong quickly destroyed their credibility with me when I first looked into the 9/11 inside job theory.

 

[funk de fino]

Some time ago someone noted that there was a twenty minute error in one of the time lines. I don't recall if that was an observant truther or realist.

I think this was Russell Pickering with the Pentagon collapse? There was a discrepancy in some reports on the actual timing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't want to hear "who cares, he's on the list anyway", "that isn't evidence that 9/11 was an inside job", "I hate truthers", etc. I just want to know if the debunker response is accurate or not. So far I'm leaning toward not. Kinda helpful to know an argument is incorrect if you ever get into a debate/argument with a truther so you can avoid using it?

Personally, I would avoid using that line of argument. It seems to me a no-brainer that, if OBL was already on the Most Wanted list and if pointless paperwork was involved in changing the reason for him being on the list, nobody would bother. Trying to explain no-brainer decisions to someone with no brains, though...

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would still like to see the FBI Most Wanted list issue cleared up.

The FBI doesn't indite anyone and only adds things to a wanted poster when there has been an inditement. The DoJ holds the Grand Juries for inditement proceedings. In OBL's case, he hasn't been indited for 9/11 because he's already been indited for other things. You don't go through the huge expense of a Grand Jury to get an arrest warrent for someone that already has one, you use the existing one and then add the rest of the charges when you have them under arrest.

 

[Meed]

Thanks for the response, PhantomWolf.

That does seem to make a lot of sense... Browsing through the FBI's list I'm noticing that there is generally only one indictment per fugitive, which is consistent with that answer. I'm guessing the FBI has that "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." quote on their is just so people will stop harassing them with "Why isn't 9/11 listed there?!"

With that reasonable explanation in mind, can we all agree that "it's because the law was changed" is inaccurate or no?

 

[TruthersLie]

Thanks for the response, PhantomWolf.

That does seem to make a lot of sense... Browsing through the FBI's list I'm noticing that there is generally only one indictment per fugitive, which is consistent with that answer. I'm guessing the FBI has that "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." quote on their is just so people will stop harassing them with "Why isn't 9/11 listed there?!"

With that reasonable explanation in mind, can we all agree that "it's because the law was changed" is inaccurate or no?

I agree with your last premise.

But the truther claims about UBL not being wanted for 9/11 are not correct.

 

[Meed]

But the truther claims about UBL not being wanted for 9/11 are not correct.

Agreed.

It's a silly argument at face, but I've been over-selling my case a bit for the sake of putting my fellow "debunkers" to the test. I also wanted to see if I was right about the law-change reasoning being off. I was debating some truthers in another form back in the day and I remember searching JREF for a response to the FBI Most Wanted argument and just winding up frustrated...

Got some very solid replies by ElMondoHummus, dtugg, PhantomWolf and others here. Also props to TruthersLie for the great thread concept. My only annoyance is the seeming reluctance for anyone (except TL so far) to admit that a debunker counter-argument might be a little inaccurate.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My only annoyance is the seeming reluctance for anyone (except TL so far) to admit that a debunker counter-argument might be a little inaccurate.

To be honest I'd never heard it used till you claimed it.

 

[Brainache]

To be honest I'd never heard it used till you claimed it.

Me neither.

[pedant mode] Its "indictment"[/pedant mode]

 

[TruthersLie]

Agreed.

It's a silly argument at face, but I've been over-selling my case a bit for the sake of putting my fellow "debunkers" to the test. I also wanted to see if I was right about the law-change reasoning being off. I was debating some truthers in another form back in the day and I remember searching JREF for a response to the FBI Most Wanted argument and just winding up frustrated...

Got some very solid replies by ElMondoHummus, dtugg, PhantomWolf and others here. Also props to TruthersLie for the great thread concept. My only annoyance is the seeming reluctance for anyone (except TL so far) to admit that a debunker counter-argument might be a little inaccurate.

CS.

I have no problem acknowledging where truthers make claims which are correct.

There are parts of the common narrative which are a bit "fishy" or which do not fully explain the events which happened. Yet, none of them (AFAIK) affect the narrative of 19 hijackers taking over 4 jets, crashing 3 into buildings and 1 into a field.

I have always been bothered by the UBL isn't indicted for 9/11, not "wanted for 9/11" and the "we have no concrete evidence which points to UBL" claims.

Part of it for me is that because it hasn't been laid out very well it doesn't help debunk the UBL is innocent twoof.

Usually those claims come from the personal ignorance of how law enforcement and the justice system actually works. But because it hasn't been laid out very clearly, that personal ignorance and incredulity often is hard to point out.

 

[Meed]

To be honest I'd never heard it used till you claimed it.

Well "annoyance" not justified probably, but:

It's claimed in the source BigAl gave in post #48 (and subsequent responses). I've also seen Edx (who is an awesome debunker) make the claim recently. And I recall it being in "Resources for Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies" page awhile back, although I can't find it there now.