If their case is so strong.....

[gumboot]

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.

Excellent summary...

That is indeed one aspect of the problem with these reports - the CTers seem to think they were intentionally and specifically established to address all of their theories. They weren't. They had very specific mandates.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

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

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.

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.
It is not one out of many other interpretations given by the government.
It is the one and only document, produced by the request of many 9/11 victim's families, that was supposed to explain all surrounding events in that day...

To say that it's nothing is such a lie. It's such a lie, because, along with the NIST, it's all you have to defend the hypothesis of 19 hijackers.

When truthers come here and ask you for evidence supporting the official story, what do you say?
"Well, go read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports... lawl"

Then, when it's time for accountability, and to admit that the USG hasn't
fulfilled the requests, yo go around with sidestepping and say "Oh, but why, they didn't need to investigate the money trail..."
"Oh but why, they didn't need to investigate the wargames..."
"Or Cheney's timeline..."
"Or Norad's timeline..."
Or anything relevant, for that matter.

This is simply ridiculous. Will you people ever stand up like men and admit that "My congress has failed me", or at least "They were really wrong in a couple instances". Even if it means you still believing it WAS those 19 terrorists, when are you at least going to admit the 9/11 Commission was a WHITEWASH? Having their own commission members saying it was biased is not enough for you, is it?

(On a side note, 'Having Greening saying NIST is impartial isn't enough for you, is it?')

I bet that even if Congress itself someday vote for a new investigation, you'll say it wasn't necessary, and will rise against it. As my poll suggests...

 

[Pardalis]

 

[gumboot]

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.

So how come I know so much about 9/11? None of my information has come from the 9/11 Commission Report.

It is not one out of many other interpretations given by the government.
It is the one and only document, produced by the request of many 9/11 victim's families, that was supposed to explain all surrounding events in that day...

The purpose of the commission was to determine what, if any, security failures allowed 9/11 to occur, and what could be done to address those failings.

To say that it's nothing is such a lie. It's such a lie, because, along with the NIST, it's all you have to defend the hypothesis of 19 hijackers.

Nonsense. My evidence is the actual tangible evidence of what happened. Not a report. Eyewitness testimony. Video. Audio recordings. Agency reports from the NTSB, FEMA and NIST. Criminal investigations involving thousands of people. DNA testing... the list goes on. The 9/11 Commission Report does not appear in that list.

When truthers come here and ask you for evidence supporting the official story, what do you say?
"Well, go read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports... lawl"

I have never once directed a Conspiracy Theorist to read the 9/11 Commission Report as evidence of the "official story". Retract your lie or provide evidence.

Then, when it's time for accountability, and to admit that the USG hasn't
fulfilled the requests

What requests?

, yo go around with sidestepping and say "Oh, but why, they didn't need to investigate the money trail..."
"Oh but why, they didn't need to investigate the wargames..."
"Or Cheney's timeline..."
"Or Norad's timeline..."
Or anything relevant, for that matter.

Everything I know about the above topics, I know independent of the Commission Report. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant.

This is simply ridiculous. Will you people ever stand up like men and admit that "My congress has failed me"

Not my congress.

or at least "They were really wrong in a couple instances". Even if it means you still believing it WAS those 19 terrorists, when are you at least going to admit the 9/11 Commission was a WHITEWASH? Having their own commission members saying it was biased is not enough for you, is it?

Like I said, the Commission Report is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my understanding of what happened on 9/11.

I bet that even if Congress itself someday vote for a new investigation, you'll say it wasn't necessary, and will rise against it. As my poll suggests...

I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can go put the entire federal budget on Lucky Jack to win, at 12:1 for all I care.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

Heh, about all I can add is a "what he said" as Gumbooty pretty much covered everything I would have, except I don't think I would have thought of the Lucky Jack comment, I'd have said something like "I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can blow the entire federal budget buying Taco Bell for all I care."

 

[gumboot]

Heh, about all I can add is a "what he said" as Gumbooty pretty much covered everything I would have, except I don't think I would have thought of the Lucky Jack comment, I'd have said something like "I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can blow the entire federal budget buying Taco Bell for all I care."

There's just something that appeals about the idea of the entire Federal Budget being placed as a bet on a horse...

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

There's just something that appeals about the idea of the entire Federal Budget being placed as a bet on a horse...

Hehe. I can just see it, including Bush cheering on the wrong one!

 

[gumboot]

Hehe. I can just see it, including Bush cheering on the wrong one!

I am just imagining a hugely convoluted film plot with gangsters and drugged horses and all sorts... and Bush the admin patsy, bets on the wrong horse.

There is also a gal in a red dress.

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

I could also add that whenever people tell twoofers to go read the NIST Report and 9/11 Commission, it's more about everyone being on the same page and knowing what we are talking about.

Most twoofers haven't read any of the official reports and claim they're whitewash. Reading them is the least they could do to engage in a conversation about 9/11.

 

[332nd]

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,

Ok IMO this is the most bizzare of truther arguments. Why do they think the only damage came from fire? Do they think that the Planes hitting WTC 1&2 and tons of debris hitting WTC7 will be forgotten if they ignore it?

 

[gumboot]

Ok IMO this is the truther argument that get's me. Why do they think the only damage came from fire? Do they think that the Planes hitting WTC 1&2 and tons of debris hitting WTC7 will be forgotten if they ignore it?

The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

 

[332nd]

The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

I know. It's just that they act as if the buildings caught on fire by some mysterious... fire breathing chipmunks.

 

[gumboot]

Their theories are full of things like that, where they totally ignore huge gaping aspects of reality and present a cardboard cut out version, then present their claims against this fake backdrop.

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

That's because they don't mean "no steel framed building". They mean (or will when they have to move the goalposts) "no modern steel framed building built in a country that cares about building codes with the steel protected by modern fire protection methods".

 

[gumboot]

That's because they don't mean "no steel framed building". They mean (or will when they have to move the goalposts) "no modern steel framed building built in a country that cares about building codes with the steel protected by modern fire protection methods".

Don't forget they usually move the goal posts to "steel framed high rise office building". One must ask, how many steel framed high rise office buildings fires have there actually EVER been? I'd imagine they're exceedingly rare.

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

Don't forget they usually move the goal posts to "steel framed high rise office building". One must ask, how many steel framed high rise office buildings fires have there actually EVER been? I'd imagine they're exceedingly rare.

-Gumboot

There have probably been more than you think. Let's clarify what a "high rise" is, first. IIRC the codes demarcate high rises from other buildings by the height of the highest occupied floor - if it is above 75', the building is a "high rise". Fires occur pretty frequently, but the strongest determiner of severity is whether the building has a fire sprinkler system. Most high rises built prior to 1975 don't have them, while most (if not all) built after 1975 do.

To partially answer your question, the USA racked up 7,300 fires in high rise buildings in 2002, with 15 associated civilian deaths (per John Hall at the NFPA). I'll get better statistics when I'm at work tomorrow.

 

[gumboot]

To partially answer your question, the USA racked up 7,300 fires in high rise buildings in 2002, with 15 associated civilian deaths (per John Hall at the NFPA). I'll get better statistics when I'm at work tomorrow.

Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot

I don't know - I'll look tomorrow at work. I may not be able to find out about the structures of the buildings or the heights but I will be able to find out the various occupancy types and the number of fires for each.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Such logic is, of course, absurd, but if you're working under the illusion that any theory is a house of cards, where each little piece is dependent on all the others to keep itself up, then the idea of conceding even minor arguments might seem very threatening.

Actually this seems to come pretty close to how they act. I wonder if you don't have something here, that they do view all theories as just based on a number of single points and if you remove one, everything will just tumble down, not only for any "official story", but also their own.

I tend to agree with Chipmunk that Twoofers have a defective view about what theories are and how they are constructed/revised. Twoofers believe that a theory is constructed of a series of points of evidence and if any of these points are removed, the entire theory is invalid. It doesn't occur to them to modify their theory to not include the discredited piece of evidence.

Of course, it could also be that they realize that if they modify their theory to remove all the discredited pieces of evidence, they will have no theory. Maybe they don't want to start down that slippery slope.

Great points, chipmunk PhantomWolf and jhunter.

Also, bear in mind that the quality of their 'evidence' is terribly poor (it being based on assumptions, speculation, bad science, outright error or lies, etc). If they admit that one piece of evidence is based on faulty logic, the similar standards of the other pieces are shown to be so low that their 'massive evidence, total evidence' instantly drops to zero.

Thus they keep evading admission of errors, and changing the subject, and grasping at any straw they can grab, until hopefully they see they are backed into a corner made of their own fallacious reasoning, where reality is the only way out.

... As a consequence, they're still playing "doink...doink...doink" on the mental xylophone, while the rest of us are riffing on Mozart.

Very nice analogy, Stellafane.

 

[Architect]

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.

Really? What's your response to the Sheffield and Edinburgh University papers? Or the Arup report?

And I mean a proper technical response.