• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Research for yourself.

qarnos

Cold-hearted skeptic
qarnos
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,084
If I could count how many times I have seen a truther demand that we "research for ourselves", well... I could count past 20 or so. But it seems to happen a lot.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that most of those demanding that we "research" 9/11 have done no more than watch Loose Change or some other crappy 9/11 flick. Take Mikey Metz, for example. Sure, he has come around now, but initially he swallowed all their crap without question. Unlike most truthers, he has the balls to admit he was wrong. But I am curious how many of us/them have actually done their own research.

By "research", I don't mean watching Loose Change or just reading the NIST reports. I mean actually going through information and cross referencing data, etc. You know - actually taking notes.

I don't expect much of a response from the truthers, in general, on this one, although our resident truthers will probably respond in the affirmative, as they may well be entitled to do so. I am not asking if your research is correct - just if you have done any at all.

I will put my hand up and say I have have done absolutely none. Well, almost none. A few little bits here and there but nothing worth mentioning. My opinion on 9/11 was originally formed out of common sense. Loose Change motivated me to search for a rebuttal, which I found. After viewing both sides I came to the only conclusion a rational mind could - that 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk. But I have not actually done any real research. What about you?
 
A non-believer may become a believer from a Bible falling open on a page that seems to be calling to the former persona.
It's the same amount of research that goes into that new found 'belief' in God as goes into theirs.
 
Last edited:
I personally have read:

1. Commission Report (6 times in full now).
2. NIST Executive Summaries (all), and NISTNCSTAR 1
3. FEMA Report on WTCs
4. Bazant & Zhou
5. Bazant & Greening
6. Steven Jones Paper
7. PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
8. Firefighter/EMT Testimonies
9. MIT Papers - Kausel et al
10. Hundreds of news articles from 9/11/2001 to about December 2001

I have watched:
1. Loose Change 2nd edition
2. Terrorstorm
3. 9/11 Mysteries
4. 9/11 Press for Truth
5. Videos from the 9/11 Commission Hearings
6. The National Geographic - "Zero Hour" series (2 Parts)
7. Conspiracy Files - 9/11
8. Pentacon

I have listened to:

1. 911 Calls from 9/11
2. NORAD Tapes (about 1/2 way through them)
3. ATC Audio Files from 9/11

That is a list from the top of my head, but given how much I do read, I am sure there are lots of other papers and videos I could add if I took the time.

TAM:)
 
I have done my own share of research. As have many others I would think. But I bet no-one can beat the dynamic duo of Mike Williams/Mark Roberts when it comes to research.
 
qarnos said:
I will put my hand up and say I have have done absolutely none. Well, almost none. A few little bits here and there but nothing worth mentioning. My opinion on 9/11 was originally formed out of common sense. Loose Change motivated me to search for a rebuttal, which I found. After viewing both sides I came to the only conclusion a rational mind could - that 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk. But I have not actually done any real research. What about you?
Click to expand...

I'm much the same way. My common sense didn't scream out that there was anything wrong about "the official version" of the events of 9/11, and I didn't even really know this conspiracy BS was out there. Guess what... a whole lot of normal people with normal lives don't either. Went from Maddox, to a viewing of Loose Change which was just laughable in its implausibility, to the Mark Roberts Loose Change viewers' guide.

I've read through some but not all of the 9/11 Commission report, read the Popular Mechanics piece, consulted debunking sites like 9/11 Myths and Debunking 9/11 and watched a few 9/11 docs, most notably the Naudet brothers' film and the History Channel piece. As they've popped up on sites like digg and reddit, I've checked out some claims from the other side on their sites like prisonplanet and whatreallyhappened, and remained thoroughly unconvinced. The conduct of the people that post the stories to those sites makes it even clearer that they're full of it. I haven't watched Terrorstorm all the way through... I could only take a few minutes of that nonsense.
 
The only research i did on the attacks and the resulting damage, initially, was to watch most of it live on television. I saw nothing unusual. Everything that happened was within predictable parameters of the events.

And what research need one have done to see that W was going off half-cocked in the aftermath?

So I was a little puzzled a couple months later when people started waving inside-job BS in my face. All I had to do to write off most of that was to follow the paper trail back through the internet, usually no more than a remove of three. Well duh! Ran smack into a Nazi, Freeper, Freeman, tax resister, religious whackadoodle or obvious psychopath. Meh!
 
I have run simple energy calculations on the collapse looking at the strength of a floor and confirming the top floor would cause what I saw on 9/11. But I had no doubts on 9/11 that the impact and fires had caused the collapse; I have researched explosives by accident in my back yard, and in Desert Storm I was SCUDed almost every night. A SCUD blew out our windows from a mile away. The shock wave must of been just right! The sounds of explosives are unique, I never heard them on 9/11 videos, unless someone has doctored them.

Experience and knowledge is some of your research, pre done.

When Charlie Sheen said the pilots had done some massive maneuver on 9/11 (77), I had to check again, and sure enough, the terrorist had done what I suspected on 9/11, flown no better than kids could with no training. The 757/767 are also easy to fly compared to earlier jet. I talked to pilots who flew 757/767 they all agreed the flying and the ability of the terrorist to do it. This is research but I was in the Air Force working with Reservist who fly with the airliners. My research was free with my career as a pilot and an engineer.

I also ran spread sheets on impact energy of each jet hitting the WTC, the 707 design impact, and found the impacts on 9/11 to be 7 to 11 times greater than the design of the WTC was for. I had to research the real weights and speed of 11, 175 and 77. I have researched the design of the WTC and found the 707 impact was slow speed, low fuel, and you can use 180 mph as a target speed. But most woo sites use 600 mph which not only does not make sense but is not supported by the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC. I looked up all I could on him that I could also post with internet source to truthers, but they ignore the facts and use what ever they find on the internet.

I have found evidence there are many studies for sale, you can buy new ideas for building as you build based on studies from 9/11, you can get studies that have been done, but you have to have access. There is a lot of stuff you just will not get on the internet, but you can see it exists in the world from the internet. But holy bat crap, you have to wade through the 9/11 truth BS.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
I also ran spread sheets on impact energy of each jet hitting the WTC, the 707 design impact, and found the impacts on 9/11 to be 7 to 11 times greater than the design of the WTC was for. I had to research the real weights and speed of 11, 175 and 77. I have researched the design of the WTC and found the 707 impact was slow speed, low fuel, and you can use 180 mph as a target speed. But most woo sites use 600 mph which not only does not make sense but is not supported by the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC. I looked up all I could on him that I could also post with internet source to truthers, but they ignore the facts and use what ever they find on the internet.
Click to expand...

Erm....they say that the towers were designed to withstand a 707 at cruising speed, but shriek about its being impossible for a 757 th achieve cruising speed at that altitude, although the high-by-pass engines of the newer airliners eliminate one of the obstacles that prevented a 707 from reaching max speed at low altitude.

Oy!

You are right about experience over a wide range of real-life situations does leave you with a lot of the research already done.
 
I did most of my research through books, rather than the net, I just love reading. Forever having my nose in a book, I decided to read some of the many well researched books there are, most notably " The looming tower" and " Ghost wars". Others I have read include " The new Jackels " and " Al Qaeda". All excellent books, all well researched and they all draw the same conclusion.

I have read the 911 comissions report also. Although an engineer by trade I tend not to debate the more techical side of this attack because to be quite frank I get fed up with number crunching at work. I like to be in the know about important historical events and find it rather strange and sad really that truthers simply cannot be bothered to spend a few days reading a good history book , rather than spending countless hours, days, months even,glued to their screen watching youtube videos and coming up with countless excuses to dismiss the over whelming evidence that is available.

In my opinion if they really wanted the truth all they have to do is look, it is not hard to find.
 
stateofgrace said:
In my opinion if they really wanted the truth all they have to do is look, it is not hard to find.
Click to expand...

This is the key. For the vast majority of truthers, this has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with ideology. They don't care that the preponderance of evidence is against them; this is a battle of world views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom