Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?

[Mark F]

I like the concept you posted there Mark.

I wonder where I got the idea

I won't get an answer of course, which is fine since I am already swaying dangerously close to coming out of retirement with this current line of discussion.

 

[WilliamSeger]

And actually, I would say that the 9/11 CT includes so many parts it's hard to label as a single conspiracy.

Using the logic of anomaly => hoax => conspiracy almost unavoidably arrives at different, sometime contradictory, conclusions. The "truth movement" has manifestly failed to arrive at any consensus because they are manifestly using bad logic.

 

[AClark]

How old were you in 2001-2003 and what were you reading by way of media at the time?

I was around 30 at the time. Mainstream I was reading the BBC online, but I was also looking at other online sources as well, as I have done for many years. I don't want to name specific names, in case I mess up the dates and that gets jumped on.

As said earlier, my definition of a conspiracy theory is something that can include leaks and/or media and public discussion, which is denied by the agency accused. It's not a far flung CT if the only people discussing it are two blokes in a pub and no-one else knows or cares.

I also marched in London, and this was completely dismissed by Blairs government, and despite the leaks, the govt stuck to its story and we went to war. The fringe, who had done some research were dismissed as CTers at the time, including the individual journalists. It was a lot easier to dismiss single crazies.

 

[Myriad]

I am not an expert, but you already knew that, and I have said it numerous times.

So what? Investigate away.

Are you afraid people will disregard your findings because of your lack of expertise? Well, now, I suppose that's a reasonable concern, considering that you are willing to disregard NIST's findings despite their having world class expertise.

But then, what can be done about it? Who's going to do that new investigation, whose findings you will not simply disregard?

You want it to be independent. Independent from what, exactly?

 

[tinribmancer]

Cool story. Is any of it true?

In Conspiritia, everything is true!

The reason why I asked, is because I've seen 3 documentaries on TV (2 around 2003 and the 3rd one in 2014) about this.

The first twoofer was blaming the american government and the FBI.

The second twoofer said that the FBI was behind it and that they planted dynamite in a parking area under WTC2 (no joke).

The third twoofer blamed the CIA and the FBI.

Nr. 4 blamed Bush and Cheney. Why? "They needed an excuse to go into war with Afghanistan and Bush wanted to finish off what his Father never did". He was refering to the Gulf War. So, basically Bush jr. wanted revenge on Hussein, because his Daddy never caught him or something like that.

the fifth one didn't believe that a bunch of extremistic Arabian were capable of hijacking those planes. Thus someone else must've hijacked them. This guy thought that someone from the FBI Hijacked the planes and jumped out of them right before they crashed into the towers.

None of them mention the Illuminati or some secret NWO plan or I don't know what.

And yes, the amount of woo was strong, very strong.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

The cover-up is part of what makes it a CT.

And I always thought it was the irrational thinking behind said CT that qualified it.

From my perspective, a Conspiracy Theory is an irrational story based upon flawed methodology, ignorance and large helpings of confirmation bias. A conspiracy is authentic.

Controlled demolition on 9/11 is a Conspiracy Theory because it is irrational, impractical and was politically unnecessary in light of the reasons given by the University of YOOTOOB, as opposed to Watergate which was a genuine conspiracy.

Many like to blur the lines in order to legitimise their whacky stories, but that tactic is quite transparent.

 

[tinribmancer]

Using the logic of anomaly => hoax => conspiracy almost unavoidably arrives at different, sometime contradictory, conclusions. The "truth movement" has manifestly failed to arrive at any consensus because they are manifestly using bad logic.

You'd think that after almost 15 years they'd finally realize that 9/11 isn't an inside-job...

 

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by AClark:

The cover-up is part of what makes it a CT.

This is ass about logic... It assumes that there was a plot to cover up..

Why do truthers resist some of the most basic elements of 9/11:

AQ was hell bent on "scoring points" against the "great satan"... They wanted to inspire Muslims to resist US actions/occupations/allegiances in the ME... To do this they needed more than anti US words... they needed to score some hits... the more dramatic the better. Their suicide hi jack plan was pretty clever. US defenses were not set up to take down commercial flights. Hijacking was remarkably easy at the time... very low tech. Hitting HUGE highly visible targets on a day with unlimited visibility was a piece of cake. Flying a plane once in the air at altitude in not terribly difficult. The hijackers' piloting skills were good enough to descend and turn as needed to hit the huge targets.

There certainly was an established motive for AQ... OH I forgot... AQ was a CIA front and they controlled everything AQ did. hahahahahahahaha Did CIA use OBL and the various rebels fighting the soviet backed regime in Afghanistan? Yes they did... proxy battles are as American as apple pie. Dumb move of course because CIA flooded these rebels with weapons and training... and it came back to haunt is big time.

The collapses were "firsts"!

No highrises have been hit by wide bodied fully loaded with fuel commercial flights.

No high rise fires were in OOS designed towers w/ truss joist no stone aggregate 4" thick floors.

No high rises with fires burned uncontrolled with NO functioning fire suppression in addition to the fuel load of jet fuel and major structural damage from the planes.

Not other high rises were built over a major power sub station supported on massive transfer structures... and had tens of thousands of diesel fuel on site and stored in the building.

If you can cite other buildings which were directly analogous and survived... these would be notable as worthy of detailed study.

++++

NIST coulda shoulda perhaps focused more of its report on the differences between the wtc buildings and other high rises which had fires. NIST coulda shoulda maybe explained the vulnerability of steel frames which are light and strong but subject to runaway collapses... NIST coulda shoulda explained it lacked data to model the collapses but it was showing perhaps the best in their judgment, hypothical initiation scenarios... one among several. NIST coulda shoulda explained to the public how a progressive failure "works" instead of calling it... global collapse.

Hindsight is close to 20-20.

I think NIST coulda shoulda done the after report differently... profiled different hypothesis... some of which came to the attention of the public in the dismissed lawsuit.

There is no evidence of any conspiracy other than the official narrative... there is no evidence that CD was used to destroy the buildings. There is ample evidence that 7wtc's collapse was a consequence of the collapse of the twin towers and the plane strikes which caused them to collapse.