Question from a 9/11 fence sitter

JamesB said:
That actually gives me a good idea for a contest. We should see which truther can actually come up with the best narrative. They have to describe exactly how they think it was done and who was involved. It should be entertaining at least.
Click to expand...
I bet we could do it better. We'd be open to suggestions for improvement.
 
offchops said:
I believe LIHOP is not something that can be "debunked", more of a case of what you are prepared to believe and matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

In other words you have no facts or evidence to back your beliefs. That's called religion.

The few issues that keep me sitting on the fence in regards to MIHOP, would be issues that you guys probably have claimed to have "debunked", but in reality, are issues that the best debunking is only a strong opinion.
Click to expand...

These are issues which have little, if any, supporting evidence and are peripheral to the actual matter at hand. When a mountain of evidence is presented that thoroughly debunks the central tenets of the conspiracy theorists, and all they can come up with are fringe "What about's..." then continuing to believe in the conspiracy is bordering on lunacy. You're like the creationists who try to pick away at the evidence for evolution. No amount of asking "What about.." will undermine the mountain of evidence.




Of course, none of the above proves anything,
Click to expand...

Exactly. You've got nothing.

Steve S.
 
offchops,
The NIST answers everything. The 9/11 Commission Report answers everything.
There's no cover-up. Only nuts believe in a conspiracy.
Go back to sleep.
D:<
I'm a MIHOPer btw :(
 
Yurebiz said:
offchops,
The NIST answers everything. The 9/11 Commission Report answers everything.
There's no cover-up. Only nuts believe in a conspiracy.
Go back to sleep.
D:<
I'm a MIHOPer btw :(
Click to expand...

Offchops,

The above post consists of ALL the research, proof, evidence and facts Yurebiz has done and compiled to prove to you that 9/11 was an inside job. Convinced?

Yeah...me neither.
 
Yurebiz said:
offchops,
The NIST answers everything. The 9/11 Commission Report answers everything.
There's no cover-up. Only nuts believe in a conspiracy.
Go back to sleep.
D:<
I'm a MIHOPer btw :(
Click to expand...
d00d, you totally pwned us!

We'll never be able to debunk your mad troofer skillz!
 
Yurebiz said:
offchops,
The NIST answers everything. The 9/11 Commission Report answers everything.
There's no cover-up. Only nuts believe in a conspiracy.
Go back to sleep.
D:<
I'm a MIHOPer btw :(
Click to expand...

Yurebiz is incorrect, but he is being sarcastic. There use to be hope for him, but now it is fading.

The NIST is clearly the best, most comprehensive report on the impacts and pre-collapse/collapse initiation of the WTCs that we have. It is also the most comprehensive and detailed explanation of what happened to WTC7.

The 9/11 Commission report, while having some minor errors, and ommissions of truther mantra questions, is extremely detailed, and recants the entire attack sequence in incredible detail. It also gives an excellent history of Al-Qaeda, as well as the lack of communication and collaboration between aspects of the USG authorities and investigative bodies in the pre-9/11 era.

I'm not an MIHOPer btw.

TAM:)
 
There really isn't any hope left for me...
Each new month in here adds another 5% for MIHOP, bwahah.
 
Yurebiz said:
There really isn't any hope left for me...
Each new month in here adds another 5% for MIHOP, bwahah.
Click to expand...

That is sad. Says alot to either (A) our inability to display the facts for you properly, or (B) your inability to seperate facts from opinion, proof from speculation.

I am sure you will have some cute little rebuttal to this to, but in the end, your slipping to the silly side of the argument is your loss...

TAM:(
 
I'll address this small part of the OP for now.

offchops said:
If recent polls are correct, and their is a significant number of people with distrust in the Govt over 9/11.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the other polls? The ones that show Bush's approval ratings? They're quite low. If LIHOP is correct, wouldn't it have been better for Bush and Co to be Hero's that day, instead of sitting motionless in a grade school while the US was under attack?
I don't understand how LIHOP increases government support, when in reality the events have done just the opposite. Yes, after 9/11 patriotism in the US was everywhere, but pride for and love of one's country does not equal support for the administration. As a matter of fact, many truthers will argue that it's becuase of their patriotism that they hate the government.

Why aren't the Govt running big campaigns to combat this distrust?
Click to expand...

As others have said, you'd first have to show that this enormous distrust exists. You say a "significant number of people" distrust the government over 9/11, but I do not agree. Yes, there are people with valid questions about 9/11, but only a small (insignificant) number of people believe LIHOP or MIHOP.

Why aren't their official Govt "debunkers"?
Click to expand...

Why aren't there Govt debunkers for JFK? or any other conspiracy for that matter? Becuase there is nothing to debunk. The truthers' questions have been answered... they just don't like the answers. And of course, Govt debunkers would just lend credibility to the truthers' arguements. The reason the Govt doesn't bother with truthers is the same reason most scientists don't bother with creationists.

Besides, if the govt ever does decide to debunk the crazy 9/11 theories, the truthers will immediately use it as evidence that there is a conspiracy. As it stands, they already call most of the posters who argue against them "government shills".

Like most questions asked by truthers, yours is used as evidence for a conspiracy either way:
How come there aren't gvt debunkers? Because it's a conspiracy!
How come there are govt debunkers? Because it's a conspiracy!
See how that works?

Why aren't we seeing Govt scientists debating these alternate theories in public domain?
Click to expand...

See above RE: Creationists.

If nothing to hide, and if it would help boost his admin, why not be an open book to 9/11 concerns?
Click to expand...

You haven't spent a lot of time around truthers have you? How do you suppose the govt could prove to truthers that it was not an inside job?

What if the govt provides video of the Pentagon attack? Nope... truthers will say it's fake.
What about a confession from Bin Laden himself?! Actually, we already have that. Truthers say it's fake.
What about truther 'experts' doing research and revising their opinion?! That happened to. Guess what? Truthers say the govt got to them.

Nothing the government could ever do will make truthers stop believing in their fairytale, so why exactly should they bother with the fringe CTs and lend them any credibility?
 
I was at... 70% I think, 6 months ago.
But that's irrelevant. Please proceed pushing that guy to the LIHOI camp. If you can.

T.A.M. said:
That is sad. Says alot to either (A) our inability to display the facts for you properly, or (B) your inability to seperate facts from opinion, proof from speculation.

I am sure you will have some cute little rebuttal to this to, but in the end, your slipping to the silly side of the argument is your loss...

TAM:(
Click to expand...
Sorry TAM :(
 
Yurebiz said:
I was at... 70% I think, 6 months ago.
But that's irrelevant. Please proceed pushing that guy to the LIHOI camp. If you can.
Click to expand...
And that's why T.A.M. made the post he did, "Says alot to either (A) our inability to display the facts for you properly, or (B) your inability to seperate facts from opinion, proof from speculation." All we can do is lay out the logically consistent, empirical evidence. If you, or anyone else, chooses to not evaluate that evidence; evaluate that evidence in an irrational manner; or utilize logically fallacious thinking in their reasoning then they will come to some other answer than the one that the evidence supports. Go read Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer, and make sure to get the 2 ed. that covers "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things".

Unlike Dylan, Lyte, Killtown, et al all we have is facts and solid methodology. We're not relying on playing to peoples emotions, preconceptions, or odd fascination with electronica to make our point. That people are fooled by such tactics as used by the aforementioned speaks critically of our educational system; not of secret cabals.
 
JamesB said:
This idea that the ISI is somehow under the direct control of the CIA is laughable to anyone with any knowledge of the area. Hell, the ISI is barely under the direct control of the Pakistani government. There are parts of Pakistan where even the Army is not allowed to go. If they were, we would probably have Osama in custody already.
Click to expand...


I get the impression the ISI is barely even under control of itself...

-Gumboot
 
Yurebiz said:
offchops,
The NIST answers everything. The 9/11 Commission Report answers everything.
There's no cover-up. Only nuts believe in a conspiracy.
Go back to sleep.
D:<
I'm a MIHOPer btw :(
Click to expand...
Why not give up a list of facts to support that MIHOP stuff?
 
Offchops read Gumboots reply RE the ISI stuff. But just on that, If someone makes a claim its not up to others to disprove it. That is not how things get done. If I claim that you assaulted someone and you did not, would you think it crazy that you had to prove your innocence while I could continue to make the baseless allegation?

Next time you read some articles, try to remove the emotion and look for qualitative arguements. Arguements within the paragraphs that are not just emotional words but something that is factual or physical, verifyable...proovable

Start of with a netural slant too, try to remove your own Bias.
A statement such as:

'The cost of owning a house has soared in recent times and people are angry at the government.'

is useless.

try:
'The cost of living has increased on average 2% per year for the last 8 years. Local council meetings are filling up with residents concerned at the increase'

See what I mean? The second statement relies less on your own judgement and predisposition to meanings of words and more on the actual facts to convey an understanding of the sentence.

Anyway, good luck in your readings
 
slyjoe said:
LIHOP vs MIHOP? Why are those the only two positions you are considering?

"If recent polls are correct, and their is a significant number of people with distrust in the Govt over 9/11. Why aren't the Govt running big campaigns to combat this distrust? Why aren't their official Govt "debunkers"?"

Which polls? I haven't seen any evidence that a significant number of people distrust the explanations of 9/11.

C'mon, are you really a fence sitter? If the fence is between LIHOP and MIHOP, either way you fall you have a good chance of missing reality.
Click to expand...


The 84% myth is so absurd it's laughable. Have any of you noticed that if you don't visit SLC, LCF, or this place for a few days, you almost forget this stuff is in existance? Save for Rosie making a stink on the view, which I would not even have heard about if it wasn't for the sites mentioned above, you don't have exposure like this.

Im a college student, and in 2 years of this school thing, I have heard 9/11 inside job ONE time in any class. This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but I think it shows how small the "movement" is.

In reality, it's a bunch of people who sit around on their computers and spew the same none sense over and over again. Sure many have probably seen Loose Change, especially on our campus. But most think of it as interesting for about a week, then move on.
 
gumboot said:
The Pakistani ISI allegation is meaningless, even assuming it is true.

It is a well known fact that a high number of ISI staff are supportive of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic Terrorist groups. However it is a large jump to move from the individual backing of individuals to any sort of official backing with approval of the Pakistani government.

Of course moving from official ISI sanctioned funding to US involvement is simply illogical. The ISI is not an American organisation, and is not answerable to the US Government. Nor is it directed by the US Government.

Were there evidence that the ISI officially backed the 9/11 attacks this would in no way indicate US government involvement, be it LIHOP or MIHOP.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Exactly, if we accept that the ISI were partially behind 9/11 this does not lend any weight to a (US government) conspiracy theory, and more than the fact that the Taliban gave shelter and support to A-Q when they planned and carried out the attacks supports a (US government) conspiracy theory.
 
Example..
India Times runs Pakistan ISI funded Atta story.
Counter...
The article gives no sources, India is hardly unbiased.

To me that isn't "debunked"...
Click to expand...
Except that it is entirely debunked. It seems you don't understand the meaning of the word.

It's not the debunkers job to disprove every unsubstantiated rumor in the world to the satisifation of everyone around. It's the job of the claimaint to fulfill his burden. The ISI connection claim has failed gloriously to give us any proof, whatsoever, of the claim.

Again, the burden rests on the claimant. It's a waste of time (and bordering on logical fallacy) to try to "disprove" every single claim that anyone has ever made. It's a waste of time to take them seriously, as well. It's simply silly to take an unsubstantiated claim and say "prove it wrong". Skeptical people assume every claim w/o proof is equally specious until you can provide some evidence.

Your ISI connection has just about as much proof as my claim that I heard from a guy that a coven of witches from Des Moines brought down the tower. Have you debunked my theory yet? Feel free to explain to me why the ISI claim has any more validity then my witchcraft argument?
 
JamesB said:
That actually gives me a good idea for a contest. We should see which truther can actually come up with the best narrative. They have to describe exactly how they think it was done and who was involved. It should be entertaining at least.
Click to expand...

The only problem is:

1. You can't get a troofer to put himself out there and actually SAY what he believes happened, and
2. Most troofers wouldn't know a logical, coherent narrative if it walked up and bit them in the @ss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom