Inside the Truther Mind

[JihadJane]

????

How could anyone "notice" such a thing?

Where do you get your information from? Movies? Because movies aren't real.

ETA: Stundied.

By educating themselves on the subject.

Thanks for entering my wisdom into JREF 911 gossip gutter. I hope it wins this time...

How does it show such a thing? Please be specific.

Well, for one thing it never seems to have crossed your mind that al Qaeda being plausible culprits also makes them prime candidates for Intelligence manipulation.

US and other countries' Intelligence agencies have had a long and fruitful relationship with Islamic fundamentalists.

How does it demonstrate this? It doesn't become true just because you say it. Please provide support for your statements.

You appear to have come to believe your story without any reference to a wider, global context.

You made the claim, YOU provide the evidence.

Tell you what, Mr/Ms 911 Expert, I'll come back to this thread in two weeks (let's say, the 1st July - I've written it in my diary) and post some relevant material on the subject. Meanwhile I think it would be much more educational if you did your own research on the matter.

It's not my "claim". This information has been publicly available ever since the 911 Commission Report was published and padded out thereafter with additional revelations about the US torture program.

Actually, what I would do is formulate a null hypothesis to determine if the theory is falsifiable. I would ask myself the question: "If the attacks were not carried out by al Qaeda, but instead the US government, then what would that look like?" Since the situation is so complex, that is not an easy question to answer. However, we have a number of instances in history where covert conspiracies were set in motion, and what appears to happen universally is that the attempts to keep it secret tend to unravel with time. I don't see any of that happening with 9/11. Instead, the more evidence is uncovered, the more the original narrative makes sense. With conspiracies of silence, the opposite is true.

What if the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda as well as elements within the US government (and/or elsewhere). Why would you limit yourself to either/or, black and white thinking ?

Perhaps you have unwittingly fallen victim to the "Truther Mind" syndrome yourself.

Thanks for the old secret conspiracy argument. Such child-like thinking from grown-ups always makes me laugh. If there are conspiracies that have been successfully kept secret how would we know about them?

It is also early days. Well-protected State secrets can typically take decades to emerge.

Could be! But it was hardly necessary. The "official story" describes a plot that could be carried out very economically. It is only the conspiracy theories that require a huge, tangled web of secret alliances and sheeplike accomplices.

There are hypothetical scenarios that have been put forward requiring no more than a couple of dozen people in-the-know to successfully orchestrate events leading up to the attacks' remarkable success.

However, that's beside the point. Does my theory sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic? If so, why?

As I have said many times: Just about any alternative explanation describes an attempt to orchestrate a complex set of tasks that would be far more difficult than simply hijacking some planes and crashing them into buildings.

Al Qaeda can do the dirty work. Enabling their success would be well within the skill of powerful people within a large Miitary-Intelligence organization.

As I said before, forget about the buildings. Think further back and deeper into how such an act could be enabled.

Am I sounding like a paranoid shizophrenic yet?

Actions such as blocking pre-attack investigations into supposed al Qaeda operatives are not complex. They simply require a few corrupt people in powerful positions.

What makes you come to that conclusion?

Who else could do it?

Actually, it was some Russian who came to that conclusion (General Ivashov).

You don't have to worry about sounding like a paranoid schizophrenic if you don't think like one. And I don't.

Your use of "paranoid schizophrenia" as your chosen insult suggests, to me, that you could be afraid of it and certainly would avoid any thought process that could be conceivably be attributed to it, such as entertaining the possibility that people you think are protecting you actually think nothing of harming you.

If your ideas are impossible to substantiate, or even articulate in any coherent manner, then why do you believe in them so passionately?

My ideas are easily articulated (and have been, by many people) but I'm not going to do it now for the benefit of psycho-babbling trolls with a tragic Stundie nomination habit!

I aim higher.

I've given you plenty enough information should you ever feel curious enough to explore the possibility that your story isn't the whole truth.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well, for one thing it never seems to have crossed your mind that al Qaeda being plausible culprits also makes them prime candidates for Intelligence manipulation.

US and other countries' Intelligence agencies have had a long and fruitful relationship with Islamic fundamentalists.

There is no precedent for a US government intelligence agency using a fruitful relationship with Islamic fundamentalists to attack US citizens and/or property. Neither is there any evidence for such a thing.

As for other countries...it would not surprise me at all if countries unfriendly to the US were involved somehow. In fact, we invaded two of them under the assumption that they were indirectly involved somehow, using exactly the kind of logic truthers employ on a regular basis.

You appear to have come to believe your story without any reference to a wider, global context.

No amount of wider global context can make nonsense into something intelligible. This reminds me of the comment from truther a number of years ago who said that we can't understand the physics of the building collapses without taking into consideration the political ramifications....

Tell you what, Mr/Ms 911 Expert, I'll come back to this thread in two weeks (let's say, the 1st July - I've written it in my diary) and post some relevant material on the subject. Meanwhile I think it would be much more educational if you did your own research on the matter.

More educational for whom? YOU are the one who wants me to accept a claim without providing any evidence. Why should I accommodate you in gathering that evidence myself? I'd prefer simply to reject your claim summarily until you come up with something better.

It's not my "claim". This information has been publicly available ever since the 911 Commission Report was published and padded out thereafter with additional revelations about the US torture program.

Then you should have no problem presenting the information. A summary will do.

What if the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda as well as elements within the US government (and/or elsewhere). Why would you limit yourself to either/or, black and white thinking ?

What if there were evidence to support this? Then I would consider it.

I'm not limiting myself at all. I am simply using a heuristic that I find very helpful in life: If you already have everything you need to explain something, don't waste your time searching for some additional explanation unless you have a compelling reason to do so.

I got the idea from a guy named Occam.

Perhaps you have unwittingly fallen victim to the "Truther Mind" syndrome yourself.

Thanks for the old secret conspiracy argument. Such child-like thinking from grown-ups always makes me laugh. If there are conspiracies that have been successfully kept secret how would we know about them?

You're absolutely right. There is no reason at all to believe that such conspiracies exist. That's why I don't waste a moment of my life wondering if some secret cabal might have been involved in the attacks, in addition to the perpretrators we already know.

It is also early days. Well-protected State secrets can typically take decades to emerge.

Not in this day and age. Anything that took decades to emerge happened long before the Internet made sharing of information so ubiquitous that it's almost impossible to keep a piece of juicy gossip secret for long.

There are hypothetical scenarios that have been put forward requiring no more than a couple of dozen people in-the-know to successfully orchestrate events leading up to the attacks' remarkable success.

However, that's beside the point. Does my theory sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic? If so, why?

You haven't stated a theory. At least, nothing with any sort of explanatory power.

Al Qaeda can do the dirty work. Enabling their success would be well within the skill of powerful people within a large Miitary-Intelligence organization.

Certainly, but it doesn't follow that any large Military-Intelligence organization actually did this, nor is there any evidence that they did.

As I said before, forget about the buildings. Think further back and deeper into how such an act could be enabled.

Am I sounding like a paranoid shizophrenic yet?

A little.

Actions such as blocking pre-attack investigations into supposed al Qaeda operatives are not complex. They simply require a few corrupt people in powerful positions.

Did this happen? Can you provide examples?

Yes, yes, I know. "Do your own research".

Who else could do it?

Actually, it was some Russian who came to that conclusion (General Ivashov).

Well! If some Russian said it, then it MUST be true!

Your use of "paranoid schizophrenia" as your chosen insult suggests, to me, that you could be afraid of it and certainly would avoid any thought process that could be conceivably be attributed to it, such as entertaining the possibility that people you think are protecting you actually think nothing of harming you.

Yes, that would be pretty paranoid. I do like to believe that people in positions of authority have my best interests at heart, just like I like to believe I will never get cancer. Life is just easier that way.

If it turns out my beliefs are wrong, then I will just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

My ideas are easily articulated (and have been, by many people)

Of course they are. But you know they will sound crazy if you state them out loud. That's why you are so evasive.

At least you're staying on topic.

but I'm not going to do it now for the benefit of psycho-babbling trolls with a tragic Stundie nomination habit!

I aim higher.

I've given you plenty enough information should you ever feel curious enough to explore the possibility that your story isn't the whole truth.

I am almost certain it's not the whole truth. There are many nuances to every historical event that don't become apparent until you spend a lot of time digging into it.

Before I become curious enough to do that, I need a reason. Can you give me one?

No? I didn't think so.

 

[Tippit]

Notice how 'the building' comes after 'pull it'. Why would anyone use the direct object pronoun first--without setting the precedent?

I don't know. But what I find odd about that quote is the relationship expressed between "pull it" and "and we watched the building collapse". The diction used implies a cause and effect relationship, or at the very least, an immediate temporal relationship. He didn't say "and a few hours later, the building collapsed", which is what I would expect.

I also appreciate how the video pointed out that "pull" is a specific term used for cable demolition. However, I can also see how a real estate developer, being perhaps somewhat familiar with demolition jargon, could confuse a term used for cable demolition with explosive demolition. None of this explains why Silverstein would confess on camera to such a thing, and I admit nothing he said is indictable. I only find what he said odd in the context of how the building collapsed, and given how I would expect someone to have described the evacuation of firefighters using "them" as plural instead of objectifying a group of people with "it".

 

[Tippit]

Of course, if you state it this way, it sounds perfectly reasonable. Where it starts to sound crazy is when you begin to scratch the surface a little. WHY was the building pre-wired? How was it done without anyone working there noticing it? How did all the wiring survive the fires? How does the destruction of a building that most people had never heard of serve the nefarious purposes of the New World Order, or whoever you suppose is behind the 9/11 attacks?

I don't know, I can only speculate.

If you step back and think about it clearly, it becomes obvious that the only utility in destroying WTC 7 is to provide conspiracy theorists with a smoking gun. Which, of course, makes the whole thing seem all the more insane.

There is a reason, but you will undoubtedly label me a loon for even considering it. I'm comfortable with that. The reason, to quote Georges Danton, is audacity, more audacity, always audacity. The power to destroy the twin towers, and then demolish building 7 in a controlled demolition, and watch so many rational people rationalize it away, is intoxicating. It's the thrill in forcing so many people to submit. It's the joy a magician feels when he dumbfounds the audience. It's the serial killer who taunts the police and society-at-large, it's pure vanity. 9/11 was a masterpiece of mass murder, a giant spectacle, an audacious undertaking, no matter who you believe was responsible.

 

[Tippit]

This is extremely peculiar reasoning. I'll never fully understand truthers but I appreciate the OP trying to. Please answer the following questions seriously. This is not a joke.

Were you privvy to the contruction of the following buildings and did you have 24 hour building surveillance? Are you omniscient? If you answered no to all, please tell me how did the following structures collapse. Fire or "controlled demolition"

Are those my only two choices? I don't know what happened to the first building. It looked like it had been hit with a wrecking ball, and it was on fire.

The second building's collapse appears to be the result of a controlled demolition.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There is a reason, but you will undoubtedly label me a loon for even considering it. I'm comfortable with that. The reason, to quote Georges Danton, is audacity, more audacity, always audacity. The power to destroy the twin towers, and then demolish building 7 in a controlled demolition, and watch so many rational people rationalize it away, is intoxicating. It's the thrill in forcing so many people to submit. It's the joy a magician feels when he dumbfounds the audience. It's the serial killer who taunts the police and society-at-large, it's pure vanity. 9/11 was a masterpiece of mass murder, a giant spectacle, an audacious undertaking, no matter who you believe was responsible.

Okay. Good luck with all that.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't know. But what I find odd about that quote is the relationship expressed between "pull it" and "and we watched the building collapse". The diction used implies a cause and effect relationship, or at the very least, an immediate temporal relationship.

It was a cause and effect relationship. Instead of trying to save the building, the firefighters were pulled out of the collapse zone. As a result, the fires raged out of control until the structure was too compromised to continue standing.

Now consider the relationship between the two phrases, "there's been such a loss of life already", and "perhaps we should just pull it". How could that possibly make sense in the context of controlled demolition?

 

[Tippit]

Here is an example of what I am talking about with respect to internal consistency. In what twisted universe does it make sense to say, "There's already been such a great loss of life, so let's BLOW THIS PUPPY UP!!!"

I don't know, the same twisted universe where people mass murder other people? There are a lot of possibilities. Maybe Silverstein thought for a moment as I do, that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 was so obvious that he better spin it, or at least make his comments cryptic and ambiguous enough to give him some wiggle room.

If you watch the video, he pauses for a moment before he says "pull it", as if he's searching for the right word. Slips of the tongue don't work that way. They occur when someone DOESN'T pause to think about what he is going to say.

Which makes the objectification of those firefighters, by the use of the term "it" even more odd, to me.

Finally, even if everything you say is true, why keep it a secret? So Larry Silverstein blew up his own building, at great personal cost to himself. So what?

The only thing he could possibly be indicted for is unauthorized implosion. It's illegal to demolish buildings with explosives in New York City because of the underground infrastructure.

Probably would have paid a hefty fine, almost 1% of the money he has lost in lease revenue at the WTC.

I would assume he would want to keep it a secret because some people might find that suspicious next to the collapses of towers 1 and 2, earlier that day. It would explain why his comments were so cryptic and ambiguous. They were suitable whether or not a controlled demolition was determined to be the cause-of-demise of WTC 7.

You are aware that I've admitted that nothing Silverstein said is indictable, right? His comments are a road-to-nowhere, a dead-end. You are only trying to convince me that there is nothing at all odd about them, correct? In this case, we can just agree to disagree. If building 7 didn't fall the way I did, I can guarantee no one would have cared what Silverstein said anyway.

Yes, why can't people be more articulate in the face of overwhelming tragedy and (in Silverstein's case) financial disaster?

Point taken, people get flustered and say weird things sometimes.

WHAT??!? George W. Bush, expressing himself in an awkward manner?!? NOOO!!!

Stop the presses! Except, I find Bush's actions in that video to be more than awkward. I would categorize them as evasive, defensive, and guilty. What's funny about that clip, or at least as funny as mass murderers can be, is that Bush was so guilty, and so defensive, that he failed to even parse the question properly. All he heard was "prior knowledge of 9/11", and his guilty conscience shut down the rest of his brain.

Well, if you think of anything else, please keep it to yourself.

No need to be nasty. I will be around, and I will continue to post as long as we have a 1st amendment, and as long as the forum doesn't censor me.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Stop the presses! Except, I find Bush's actions in that video to be more than awkward. I would categorize them as evasive, defensive, and guilty. What's funny about that clip, or at least as funny as mass murderers can be, is that Bush was so guilty, and so defensive, that he failed to even parse the question properly. All he heard was "prior knowledge of 9/11", and his guilty conscience shut down the rest of his brain.

I don't doubt he was evasive and defensive. He was answering charges that he could have done more than he did to prevent the attacks from happening.

Have you ever seen a quarterback after a big loss becoming testy and evasive when the press asks him why he sucks so much? It has nothing to do with hiding criminal activity and everything to do with preserving one's own image.

No need to be nasty. I will be around, and I will continue to post as long as we have a 1st amendment, and as long as the forum doesn't censor me.

Fair enough. However, I am sick of people badgering Larry Silverstein based on the flimsiest of suspicions. I find it absolutely despicable. The guy has had to deal with some serious problems in the last eight years; give him a break!

 

[Tippit]

It was a cause and effect relationship. Instead of trying to save the building, the firefighters were pulled out of the collapse zone. As a result, the fires raged out of control until the structure was too compromised to continue standing.

How does the cause, pulling "it", which you contend is a contingent of firefighters, result in the effect, "and we watched the building collapse"? People evacuating buildings don't typically result in the buildings collapsing.

If Silverstein was indeed referring to a contingent of firefighters, then the way he said it sounded like they miraculously avoided the collapse just a few seconds later. Of course, If i recall correctly the firefighters evacuated at around noon, several hours before the collapse.

If by "it" Silverstein was referring to the building, then we have a clear cause and effect ie: "they made the decision to pull it (cause), and we watched the building collapse (effect)".

Now consider the relationship between the two phrases, "there's been such a loss of life already", and "perhaps we should just pull it". How could that possibly make sense in the context of controlled demolition?

It would make sense in the context of writing the building off as a safety hazard, and demolishing it so as to avoid further casualties.

 

[Tippit]

I don't doubt he was evasive and defensive. He was answering charges that he could have done more than he did to prevent the attacks from happening.

Have you ever seen a quarterback after a big loss becoming testy and evasive when the press asks him why he sucks so much? It has nothing to do with hiding criminal activity and everything to do with preserving one's own image.

Yes, I've seen this, and that could explain Bush's actions in that video. But it really depends on the definition of "prior knowledge", doesn't it? If Bush's prior knowledge involved some vague information about some attack somewhere in the US at some time, and he did nothing, then he's incompetent. If prior knowledge means a specific time, date, and location, then he is a criminal mass murderer.

Fair enough. However, I am sick of people badgering Larry Silverstein based on the flimsiest of suspicions. I find it absolutely despicable. The guy has had to deal with some serious problems in the last eight years; give him a break!

I think Silverstein is a douchebag, at the very least. I don't like the guy, and I don't have any sympathy for litigious billionaire real estate developers. Suing the insurance companies for multiple terrorist events? He can go to hell. Having said that, speculating about what he meant by the words he chose to describe WTC 7 is a gigantic waste of time.

 

[johnny karate]

It would make sense in the context of writing the building off as a safety hazard, and demolishing it so as to avoid further casualties.

But makes absolutely no sense in the context of everyone involved denying this is what happened.

Congratulations, you've presented a sterling example of the kind of illogical thought processes to which the OP was referring.

 

[Baylor]

Are those my only two choices? I don't know what happened to the first building. It looked like it had been hit with a wrecking ball, and it was on fire.

The second building's collapse appears to be the result of a controlled demolition.

Wow. How you came to the conclusion that the first building was hit by a wrecking ball is beyond me. There is no wrecking ball in the video. Why would you think it got hit with a wrecking ball?

Your wording of the second video is just as bizarre. It "appears to be the result of a controlled demolition." It was a controlled demolition. These aren't just secrets for the global elite to know. Anyone can figure it out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It would make sense in the context of writing the building off as a safety hazard, and demolishing it so as to avoid further casualties.

So they pre-wired the building with explosives, JUST IN CASE there might be a situation in the future where lives could be saved by blowing it up?

You have proved my point from the OP.

ETA, Johnny Karate beat me to it!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think Silverstein is a douchebag, at the very least. I don't like the guy, and I don't have any sympathy for litigious billionaire real estate developers. Suing the insurance companies for multiple terrorist events? He can go to hell.

If you were on the hook for billions of dollars of your own and OTHER PEOPLE'S money, wouldn't you do anything possible to try and recoup as much as you could?

Do you expect him to tell his investors, who entrusted huge quantities of their money to him, "I would try to get more from the insurance company, but I don't want people to think I'm a douchebag"?

Having said that, speculating about what he meant by the words he chose to describe WTC 7 is a gigantic waste of time.

I agree.

 

[sleahead]

But what I find odd about that quote is the relationship expressed between "pull it" and "and we watched the building collapse". The diction used implies a cause and effect relationship, or at the very least, an immediate temporal relationship. He didn't say "and a few hours later, the building collapsed", which is what I would expect.

And what if, in reality, the conversation happened and it was then few hours later that the building collapsed?

 

[Tippit]

Wow. How you came to the conclusion that the first building was hit by a wrecking ball is beyond me. There is no wrecking ball in the video. Why would you think it got hit with a wrecking ball?

So, because the building is on fire, and I see a few seconds of video where it actually collapses, you want me to make the assertion that fire caused the collapse in the first video? No can do. The building looked deformed to begin with. Maybe an earthquake hit it, causing the apparent damage and setting it on fire. Do you have a link documenting precisely what happened to the building, or did you search youtube for buildings on fire that were collapsing, and assume that fire was the cause?

Your wording of the second video is just as bizarre. It "appears to be the result of a controlled demolition." It was a controlled demolition. These aren't just secrets for the global elite to know. Anyone can figure it out.

I don't need to maintain the presumption of certainty when opining about videos on the internet, though I don't doubt the building in the 2nd video was a controlled demolition.

Just like I have little doubt that fire and damage to the facade of WTC 7 did not cause it to collapse in the manner that it did.

 

[Tippit]

And what if, in reality, the conversation happened and it was then few hours later that the building collapsed?

It would be consistent with his account, but it wouldn't be how I would have worded it, hence, I find it odd. That's it.

 

[sleahead]

So, Larry Silverstein is guilty of using (in your opinion) odd wording. I'll settle for that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

JihadJane,

I'm not going to parse that wole long post because you'll then just parse mine and that plays right into your little game. Isolate on a word, twist the meaning until it suits you, baste it in your inherent distrust of government, then.... voila... you have your conclusions.

But, still, you have no conclusions that are tenable. Apparently you're just a student of the Russell Pickering school. In brief, Russell (aka Politeness Man) was sort of a pet CTer around here. He admitted it when evidence pretty much negated whatever theory he and his buddies were peddling, but then stated that no matter what we proved it all came down to the fact that he just didn't trust the government so just knew in his heart that they did it - somehow, they did it, and that no matter what we proved he was going to still believe that.

Tippit,
Ditto. Without the delightful semantic pedantry that JJ provides, but your conclusions are pretty much the same, aren't they? You just want so badly to believe that the government did it that you'll argue angels and head of pin as long as there's a First Amendment, right?

What you're both saying, essentially, is don't bother to argue with us because we just plain know in our own illuminated minds what happened was planned by the evil government(s).