Merged The "official story" meme.

[Edx]

I think that 9/11 is just something we should leave to be honest, we will never know for sure.

Um, yes, we really do know for sure there was no thermite bombs or quiet explosives or rockets or CGI planes or staged plane wrecks etc.

Still got a bit of twoof in you ZeuzzZ?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Um, yes, we really do know for sure there was no thermite bombs or quiet explosives or rockets or CGI planes or staged plane wrecks etc.

Still got a bit of twoof in you ZeuzzZ?

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times. You need to open your mind and evaluate it scientifically without reacting emotionally. Still I err on the side of it not being a conspiracy as even though some of the scientific arguments from a few engineers and scientists continues to be averagely ok, I've yet to see any coherent reason put forward that ties a motive to do such things down to a realistic conspiracy theory.

Your twoofer labelling of me is just that, a label. A stereotype. Sticks and stones may break my bones but labels never hurt me.

 

[Bell]

If it was a conspiracy the people that did it will have learnt their lesson now, what with all this 9/11 truth movement stuff anyway, I doubt they would do similar again.

lol!

The "Truth Movement" has accomplished nothing, has provided no hard evidence whatsoever. *If* 9/11 was a conspiracy, the perpetrators would be quit save from being exposed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Since there is a meme for people who question the official accout, 'truthers' [...]

"Meme" isn't the word you're looking for here. "Truther" is just a label.

 

[Clayton Moore]

"Meme" isn't the word you're looking for here. "Truther" is just a label.

Wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

A meme (play /ˈmiːm/; meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Since there is a meme for people who question the official accout, 'truthers', what's the opposing meme for people that argue against them from emotional impulse instead of clear thinking even though they can sometimes be totally wrong? The posters here that argue from ignorance and are shown to be fools by the select few 'truthers' that can actually put a coherent argument together ... rare as that may be.

I think that 9/11 is just something we should leave to be honest, we will never know for sure. If it's not a conspiracy, then that's swell, if it is, then what are we going to do? Really? Like the news would listen anyway. If it was a conspiracy the people that did it will have learnt their lesson now, what with all this 9/11 truth movement stuff anyway, I doubt they would do similar again. The internet has made such covert false flag missions next to impossible to carry out now, what with wikileaks etc.

That's why I don't really bother posting here anymore.

That apathy sounds like Chomsky's outrageous comment/view. It's over. Let's just move on.

The problem is that the perps are still in power. And the Patriot Act is still in place.

Although the Patriot Act II was never introduced in Congress, a number of its key provisions were passed as riders to other bills.

 

[Mashuna]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times. You need to open your mind and evaluate it scientifically without reacting emotionally. Still I err on the side of it not being a conspiracy as even though some of the scientific arguments from a few engineers and scientists continues to be averagely ok, I've yet to see any coherent reason put forward that ties a motive to do such things down to a realistic conspiracy theory.

Your twoofer labelling of me is just that, a label. A stereotype. Sticks and stones may break my bones but labels never hurt me.

From reading your posts in the science section of the forum, I doubt your ability to evaluate anything scientifically.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think that 9/11 is just something we should leave to be honest, we will never know for sure.

Since we do know for sure, that in itself is a conspiracy theorist position. One of the primary goals of the conspiracy theorist is to have his arguements treated as equivalent to those of serious journalists, historians and investigators, despite the fact that its methodology is nowhere near as rigorous.

If it was a conspiracy the people that did it will have learnt their lesson now, what with all this 9/11 truth movement stuff anyway, I doubt they would do similar again. The internet has made such covert false flag missions next to impossible to carry out now, what with wikileaks etc.

And this suggestion, given the total inability of the truth movement to accomplish anything significant whatsoever, is simply laughable. If, in some bizarro universe, it were possible that 9/11 had been an inside job, then the planners would look at the efforts of truthers and feel more, not less, secure as a result.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times....

I haven't seen one compelling argument from the 'truther' side.

So either:
- You have seen something which I and other members here haven't seen. (somethings since you claimed plural arguments from the truther side); OR
- Your criteria of 'compelling' is much lower than the complexity of 9/11 topics requires.

...You need to open your mind and evaluate it scientifically without reacting emotionally....

Surely a truism but with the wrong target?

...Still I err on the side of it not being a conspiracy as even though some of the scientific arguments from a few engineers and scientists continues to be averagely ok,...

The critical issue is 'Are the conspiracy claims correct?' and your ability to find some engineers or scientists who cannot frame reasoned arguments is irrelevant. Look to the scientists and engineers who got it right not the ones who cannot put forward arguments. Then see if any on the 'truther' side have put forward compelling arguments - so give us the links to the two you find most compelling so we can comment.

... I've yet to see any coherent reason put forward that ties a motive to do such things down to a realistic conspiracy theory...

Stop playing the truther trick card of pretending that the events of 9/11 are sort of one homogeneous plot. What do you mean by 'such things'? Failing to define which things you agree with and which ones you disagree with (and those where you are unsure) brands you as 'truther biased'. Rational persons can sort out the bits and classify them as 'agree', 'disagree' or 'unsure'. Truthers generally are not able to reason through complex scenarios - probably their limited thinking skills are what dooms many to becoming truthers in the first place. No matter how much evidence they are faced with they they cannot decide how the bits fit together in a coherent overall hypothesis. (And note that I said 'many' of them - not 'all'.)

...Your twoofer labelling of me is just that, a label. A stereotype. Sticks and stones may break my bones but labels never hurt me.

Sure but your comment is just another truism. Your posting behaviour matches 'truther'. Try posting in 'non truther' style. Make clear explicit and limited statements instead of vague and ambiguous statements which carry a lie by innuendo.

 

[Oystein]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times. ...

Since you have seen more than one argument that youz found compelling, you are at a luxury to pick the most compelling argument.

Zeuzzz, which is, in your opinion, the most compelling argument from the truther side? Can you clearly and concisely state
- it's premises
- it's conclusions
- how it ties in with the rest of the day's events?
- And are you sure the the premises are even factual?

Think carefully about this one! I will argue that if you can't state the (or a) best truther argument clearly and concisely, can't list its premises, aren't sure about their veracity, or have no idea what it means or how it ties into all the other evidence, then you will be unable to state any truther argument clearly and concisely, and I will conclude that, in your mind, there really is no compelling truther argument.

 

[Animal]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times.

SO name one from the troofer side.......a "compelling argument"

You need to open your mind and evaluate it scientifically without reacting emotionally.

It has been done since 9/12/01. That is why the troof movement has never advanced anywhere past its fringe core.

Still I err on the side of it not being a conspiracy

So there is hope for you

as even though some of the scientific arguments from a few engineers and scientists continues to be averagely ok,

Then you swing to the troof side

I've yet to see any coherent reason put forward that ties a motive to do such things down to a realistic conspiracy theory.

And back again

Your twoofer labelling of me is just that, a label. A stereotype. Sticks and stones may break my bones but labels never hurt me.

If the shoe fits.................

 

[dafydd]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times. .

I have asked every truther here to furnish me with their full theory regarding the events of 911 and never received an answer, Clayton included. Compelling is not the word I would use for truther ramblings.

 

[Bell]

I have asked every truther here to furnish me with their full theory regarding the events of 911 and never received an answer, Clayton included.

That's what a new investigation is for!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times.

I have asked every truther here to furnish me with their full theory regarding the events of 911 and never received an answer, Clayton included. Compelling is not the word I would use for truther ramblings.

Zeuzzz is just saying that he finds an unspecified number of undefined "arguments" compelling. He otherwise appears to agree about the lack of a "full theory":

Still I err on the side of it not being a conspiracy as [...] I've yet to see any coherent reason put forward that ties a motive to do such things down to a realistic conspiracy theory.

 

[NoahFence]

8 months to come up with this, and he says "Ha"...

Careful.. you don't want to find yourself on the receiving end of a FM whine-fest thread.

 

[NoahFence]

I've seen compelling arguments from both sides at times. You need to open your mind and evaluate it scientifically without reacting emotionally.

Unless you're talking about air, you can't see something that isn't there.

There are no compelling arguments for controlled demolition of any kind. They simply do not exist.

 

[NoahFence]

The problem is that the perps are still in power. And the Patriot Act is still in place

err....

Did you miss that? You did notice the guy in the office is a totally different dude, right?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Quick! Truther feeding frenzy in progress!

The collapse of WT7 as it was given by NIST in the recent report is merely the unscientific view of what could have happened if all conspiracy theories and controlled demolition possibilities are not considered in the probabilities. In science you can not disprove something in the negative by ignoring it or discounting it by not even considering it, you have to address it and give probabilities to each event, at the very least.

Still I have no idea how a controlled demolition of WT7, or even the twin towers, fits into any sort of conspiracy narrative. Thus why I don't think it is a conspiracy.

 

[Clayton Moore]

err....

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3mEHv2LUGWA/SXZyFylyZ6I/AAAAAAAAA74/POwJx0DgLV4/s400/obama+sworn+in.jpg[/qimg]


Did you miss that? You did notice the guy in the office is a totally different dude, right?

Which means the neocons and the CFR mothership transcend administrations and political parties.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I

 

[Zeuzzz]

Which means the neocons and the CFR mothership transcend administrations and political parties.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I

Clayton, check the like/dislike ratio for that video. Yes, youtube us generally full of idiots, but if the contents of the video transcends their idiocy level they will show this in the like/dislike ratio. That video is nearly 50/50 likes/dislikes. The general population is not swayed by the title or contents. I have no idea what you think this video proves.