If their case is so strong.....

[T.A.M.]

Excuse me, but truthers are not bound to a single story. Individual truthers may exploit and distort facts on their own, intentionally or by mistake.

So the truthers are either intentionally deceptive or incompetent...I agree.

If there's anyone who has to struggle to make their hypothesis seem concrete, it's the OCTists.

Noone had to struggle with any aspect of the "offical" 9/11 account until paranoid morons started asking stupid pointless questions, and making evidenceless, factless accusations.

I turn that question right back at you: If your evidence is so overwhelming that Al Quaeda/19 Hijackers did it, why does the 9/11 Commission report has to go over limitless extents in omitting evidence?

Omission is a passive event, so they didnt have to "go over limitless extents" to do anything (what ever it is that your sentence means).

The omissions are irrelevent to all but the paranoid individuals who are convinced of an inside job. I don't see joe public claiming the commission was full crucial omissions.

My word is that both instances are to blame for this attitude. If you think either side is flawlessly right, then you're not being honest to yourself.

I will agree that there are problems in this area on both sides...nothing more.

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.

You got that right. Welcome to truther tactics 101.

Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.

1. For the ten thousanth time, The "evidence" from GZ took months to tow away to the landfills, and remained there for sometime as well. The only ones complaining about the length of time the "evidence" was left at GZ are the truthers.

2. Explain to me the mentality the truthers have, that makes them think they are entitled to the investigative evidence from a criminal investigation?

Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.

please explain to me how the commission DISTORTS FACTS through OMISSION.

Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

Who said the Commission was "great"? As far as "unbias" goes, I am not sure how you could make a committee any less bias. They were 5 REPs, 5 DEMs, approved by congress.

What bothers me is the arrogance of the truth movement that they are somehow in a better position, or more entitled to choose who should have been on the commission. Get over yourselves.

TAM

 

[MG1962]

I find the biggest problem is the lack of data. They try to take each incident in isolation rather than look for interconnection to build their case. Exampe the pyramids at Giza. Taken in isloation they are an inexplicable engineering feat. Taken in the context of 500 years of successes and failures shows they are the ultimate in their craft.

I am actually toying with Killtown over Shankesville, specificlly his disapearing tail. It is easy to say the lack of tail is a smoking gun. But taken as a whole, research must occure to show how often a tail section is recovered from a high speed nose first large body plane crash.

 

[Brainache]

....
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

Yeah, but could Spiderman kick Batman's butt?

You first have to refute the science of the variuos reports before you can call BS. It isn't a matter of opinion. Read Stellafane's excellent "doink doink doink" post.

 

[pagan]

Why do 9/11 deniers have to distort the facts or outright ignore them?

Why can they never admit they might be wrong about something?

If their case is so strong, why do they fight tooth and nail over little things as if should they admit that they are wrong there, their whole movement will implode?

Take WTC for example. Repeatedly we are told that no steel framed buildings have ever falled due to fire. If this is so true, why does it matter how big the fire was, or where the fires were? If as the Deniers claim, fire can't make a steel building fall down, then why do they have to so verhemently deny that there was a big fire? It shouldn't matter if the fire was one room of 30 floors, if their argument that fire can make a steel building was true, big fire, little fire wouldn't make a difference, the argument should still hold. Do they argue that it was a small fire because they know in their heart of hearts that a big fire could have caused the collapse and so thus have to limit it to a small fire to keep their case?

Another point that is treated this way. If WTC 7 was still stable and unlikely to fall as they claim, why deny that the structural damge existed. They claim that the building can't have fallen by itself, so why argue tooth and nail over the damage that it had sustained? Again is it that they know that if it sustained that sort of damage then it could really have just collapsed and so refuse to admit that possiblity?

It's not just WTC 7 either. Time and time again they refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong about any single point, regardless of the evidence and regardless of how minor the point. Why do they do it? Why do they make themselves look stupid by refusing to move on from points that have been repeatedly shown to be flat out wrong? Surely they must realise that just make their arguments weaker. Are they scared to let anything go because without it they don't have a case? Do they really realise that they're wrong in their claims but just won't admit it?

Why? I just don't get it.

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

My 2 cents: They believe what they want to believe and are content to maintain their belief as long as they can cite anything to support it. Contrary evidence is meaningless because the existence of some evidence that supports them (no matter how small or dubious) proves that they must be right. This attitude, unfortunately, is quite common and is not confined to CT'ers.

 

[stateofgrace]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Really ?

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826003602500.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/july/6/newsid_3036000/3036510.stm

Fuel, heat and oxygen,when combined,will bring down steel framed structures, so you have the following three options to argue your case.

1. The fires were not hot enough.
2. They were oxygen starved.
3. They had no fuel.

Take your pick, which one of the three above applies to your argument and please continue.

 

[Mince]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Despite being wrong about previous buildings not collapsing due to fire, as stateofgrace elucidated above, the WTC buildings did not collapse due to fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Please restate your falsehood, with corrections that make it, at least for the most part correct...here, I will do it for you...

"Prior to 9/11, there is no written record of a steel framed skyscraper having ever completely collapsed solely due to fire."

Now that we have your little lie corrected, lets look at what NIST said caused the collapses (paraphrasing)...

(1) Severing of steel support columns secondary to impacts
(2) Removal of a majority (>60% estimated) of the "spray on" Fire Proofing from the steel via impacts.
(3) Intense multifloor fires initiated by the jet fuel, and intensified and prolonged via the office contents causing a decreased load bearing capacity of remaining structure.

Now Pagan, does that look like NIST is saying the WTCs collapsed solely due to fire? Has anyone here said the WTCs collapsed SOLELY due to fire?

Do you want to begin again?

TAM

 

[Architect]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

I can't decide if this is sarcasm or not. I hope it is. But if it's not, then please feel free to tell me whether or not you believe that failure of steel due to normal fire loadings is a recognised structural problem.

And since I am actually a qualified architect, registered in the UK with the ARB and a chartered member of the RIBA, I'm afraid that my professional opinion does count for more than yours.

 

[Architect]

I think a good percentage of CT'ers are stuck in "doink...doink...doink" mode. They think reality is governed by opinions and points of view. Under such a system, the opinion of a well-informed expert who has studied all the facts bears no more weight than that of a 15 year old boy who's basing his views on wishful thinking and fantasy. It's like we're all debating some topic where facts and reality play no part, like whether Batman could kick Spiderman's ass. To twoofers, it's all indistiguishable from comic books and role-playing games.

I think that's a very good viewpoint, and one I'd probably agree with.

Those of us who are qualified specialists in whatever field (and we know from another thread that a good proportion of us are degree qualified in various fairly complex subjects) recognise (a) the level of knowledge required to meaningfully understand technical issues and (b) the need to seek input from said people in a professional context.

Put it an easier way. I'd like to think that, as an architect who had to study some structures at university level, I have a reasonable grasp of structural issues. However I also know that the input of a structural engineer is required, in particular for highly complex work such as tall structures.

So why would a troofer.....or anyone else for that matter....think that it's possible to exercise the same level of understanding as the engineer without the need to carry out the 5 years of university study normally required?!?

I sometimes wonder if they're autistic or something similar, you know.

 

[fuelair]

I find the biggest problem is the lack of data. They try to take each incident in isolation rather than look for interconnection to build their case. Exampe the pyramids at Giza. Taken in isloation they are an inexplicable engineering feat. Taken in the context of 500 years of successes and failures shows they are the ultimate in their craft.

I am actually toying with Killtown over Shankesville, specificlly his disapearing tail. It is easy to say the lack of tail is a smoking gun. But taken as a whole, research must occure to show how often a tail section is recovered from a high speed nose first large body plane crash.

If kc had any honor, his tail would be hidden way up between his legs!

 

[Yurebiz]

TAM you are well aware of the contradictions and omissions yourself I'm sure. I'm not going to debate any of them because I'm tired of debating in this forum.

If you want to yet again go through some contradictions yourself or anyone else for that matter, I'd ask to go here http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and check out some quotes... of course theres many other truther sites which have similar resources against the 9/11 Comission Report but I find that one to be the most "neutral", if there even is such a thing...

Again what I'm saying is that the CTs may hold no water, but I find it dishonest to say that while defending such a flawed report by the appointed officials. If everyone here was really looking for the truth, the first step would be for each one to admit the discrepancies. But almost no one here ever went that far. Actually I have never seen anyone admit anything at all, in about roughly 6 months of lurking, except maybe you TAM, and oliver. Either you people are really the demi-gods of truth and perfectness, or you're completely biased and not skeptic at all. Clearly defending the one and only official story.

 

[pomeroo]

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.
Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.
Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

But, don't you see that this is exactly what rationalists complain about? If the fantasist critique of the mainstream account is valid, why tell so many lies? There are no fireproof passports, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

A random object that survived a plane crash wouldn't be random if its survival was expected. I'm saying that it never occurred to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to plant a passport because they would have considered it improbable that any such object would remain intact after all the things that happened to the plane Atta was on. Most of the personal items of the passengers on that flight were destroyed. Atta's passport was one of the few that survived. An unpredictable outcome, but it happened--deal with it.

 

[pomeroo]

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.
Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.
Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

But, don't you see that this is exactly what rationalists complain about? If the fantasist critique of the mainstream account is valid, why tell so many lies? There are no fireproof passports, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

A random object that survived a plane crash wouldn't be random if its survival was expected. I'm saying that it never occurred to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to plant a passport because they would have considered it improbable that any such object would remain intact after all the things that happened to the plane Atta was on. Most of the personal items of the passengers on that flight were destroyed. Atta's passport was one of the few that survived. An unpredictable outcome, but it happened--deal with it.

 

[gumboot]

Again what I'm saying is that the CTs may hold no water, but I find it dishonest to say that while defending such a flawed report by the appointed officials.

And herein lies the problem with the "official story" arguments.

It's all about the 9/11 commission report.

My "version" of what happened doesn't come from there. It comes from a wide variety of different sources.

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Conspiracy Theorists have NEVER READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Thus they cheerfully and blindly lump any story they don't like in with the "flawed report".

Ignorance at its best.

I don't defend the 9/11 Commission Report. I defend the real tangible evidence of what actually happened that day.

-Gumboot

 

[Dave Rogers]

I sometimes wonder if they're autistic or something similar, you know.

I know lots of autistic people, including one of my sons, and I've never heard any of them supporting conspiracy theories. It's a heck of a lot easier to get a new idea into most of their heads than, say, truthseeker1234's or christophera's. Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

 

[humingbrd]

Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

Never truer words spoken. The Aspergers variety of austistic young people I know are frighteningly bright. Some of them might obsess on Startrek characters or Euler numbers, but they aren't gullible.

 

[munki?]

I would say that it has much to do with Confirmation Bias. Many of the truthers I've engaged in discussion also adhere to many other conspiracy theories: the US didn't land on the Moon, the JFK assassination, chem-trails, a far reaching clandestine influence associated with the Illuminati/Freemasons, etc. The notion of a conspiracy orchestrated by the US government is reasonable within their world view. And perhaps it's a little easier to deal with than the reality of very angry Islamic extremists waging war on the US. Fighting some imaginary online battle against the vaunted NWO with no real consequence (aside from a good thrashing in a forum debate) is perhaps an easier "reality" to deal with. It's like an mmorpg, without a subscription fee.

 

[T.A.M.]

I know lots of autistic people, including one of my sons, and I've never heard any of them supporting conspiracy theories. It's a heck of a lot easier to get a new idea into most of their heads than, say, truthseeker1234's or christophera's. Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

Never truer words spoken. The Aspergers variety of austistic young people I know are frighteningly bright. Some of them might obsess on Startrek characters or Euler numbers, but they aren't gullible.

I agree. Aspergers is a very mild form of the disorder, and most with it are quite high functioning individuals. Autism does not reflect intelligence, or even wisdom, but is an illness that, to varying degrees, limits the persons ability to communicate by standard methods, to the rest of the world.

TAM

 

[PhantomWolf]

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Conspiracy Theorists have NEVER READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Thus they cheerfully and blindly lump any story they don't like in with the "flawed report".

The other problem I have with this is that a lot of the things the CT mob complain about and say the report didn't cover, or omitted were actual irrelevant to the report itself. They seem to think the the 9/11 Comission was charged with explaining everything about 9/11 and that the NIST reports were charged with explaining everything about the collapse so if something thwy deem important isn't in there they must have deliberately omitted it. This isn't so.

The 9/11 Commission merely brought together the vast number of inquires from all the other agencies, such as NORAD, the FAA, the FBI and so forth in a way in which those results could be collated so as to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again. It wasn't to determine who did it, the FBI report had that bit. It wasn't to figure out whether the planes really existed, if bombs went off in the basement, or if NORAD was stood down, it was to determine how the response to the events of 9/11 could have been improved and what things lead to those charged with the country's security being unable to react in time, then to offer suggestions on how that could all be improved.

In the same way the NIST report is not a report dealing with every little thing that occured doing the crashes and collapses. It is a report that deals with locating the cause of the collapse, and then figuring out probable ways to prevent it occuring in the future. They weren't there to deal with the collapse itself, or what happened in the pile afterwards, just to figure out why the building collapsed and how to stop it reaccuring in the future.