• 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.

Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

RedIbis said:
I think they existed. I think AQ is a terrorist organization that plotted attacks on the US and its interests. That doesn't resolve whether or not the US gov't was aware of its operations, took advantage of its operations or even infiltrated and manipulated it.
Click to expand...
How does that fit into your belief that Flight 77 didn't actually hit the Pentagon, faking plane parts, blowing the hole in the C-Ring, Silverstein was involved in blowing up WTC7, etc etc?

RedIbis, you really should try to keep your story straight. You can't switch from MIHOP to LIHOP depending on your mood. The 2 are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
This, once again, leads us down that familiar road of "What does it take" to convince. I am not saying, one way or the other, whether they have provided enough proof that the confession is real. So far it is, as you have said, reported. But is not ALL OF THE 9/11 EVIDENCE, to the non-investigative googler, REPORTED? Is it all not second hand.

So the question, for you Red, is what would it take to prove the confession real as opposed to "reported". DO you have to actually have to see it? You see, even if someone provided an image of said confession, how do you know it has not been photoshopped? So do you need to see, IN PERSON, the actual confession, for it to be "real"?

ditto the DNA evidence and the plane parts, correct???

TAM:)
Click to expand...

It might take you some real research but you might not want to put all your confession eggs into Fouda's basket.
 
WildCat said:
How does that fit into your belief that Flight 77 didn't actually hit the Pentagon, faking plane parts, blowing the hole in the C-Ring, Silverstein was involved in blowing up WTC7, etc etc?

RedIbis, you really should try to keep your story straight. You can't switch from MIHOP to LIHOP depending on your mood. The 2 are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about?
 
RedIbis said:
What in the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...
It's what you are talking about. Do I need to quote you from the C-Ring thread where you claim there is no evidence of Flight 77 in the Pentagon? And that the hole in the C-Ring was made with a "wall breaching kit"? The "pull it" thread where you claim Silverstein was talking about demolishing WTC7?

How do those claims mesh with:
RedIbis said:
I think they existed. I think AQ is a terrorist organization that plotted attacks on the US and its interests. That doesn't resolve whether or not the US gov't was aware of its operations, took advantage of its operations or even infiltrated and manipulated it.
Click to expand...
Are you really so thick you can't see the inherent contradictions in your stated beliefs?
 
WildCat said:
It's what you are talking about. Do I need to quote you from the C-Ring thread where you claim there is no evidence of Flight 77 in the Pentagon? And that the hole in the C-Ring was made with a "wall breaching kit"? The "pull it" thread where you claim Silverstein was talking about demolishing WTC7?

How do those claims mesh with:

Are you really so thick you can't see the inherent contradictions in your stated beliefs?
Click to expand...

Go ahead and quote me saying that the hole in the C Ring was made with a "wall breaching kit". Other than that, you are rambling incoherently.
 
WildCat said:
It's what you are talking about. Do I need to quote you from the C-Ring thread where you claim there is no evidence of Flight 77 in the Pentagon? And that the hole in the C-Ring was made with a "wall breaching kit"? The "pull it" thread where you claim Silverstein was talking about demolishing WTC7?

How do those claims mesh with:

Are you really so thick you can't see the inherent contradictions in your stated beliefs?
Click to expand...
You spent time to figure what RedIbis posted to find out he does not know what he posted. 9/11 truth is not logical, it is open loop crazy.

The truth movement waste no time understanding what they say, or what it means. It is what I call open loop nut case idea spewing excellence.

You can’t ask them about their ideas; they don’t know what their ideas mean, or what they are (their ideas; as in 9/11 truth) in the fist place.

Don't waste time understanding the posts of 9/11 truth, 9/11 truth spent zero time making up their posts and ideas of woo, save typing.
 
RedIbis said:
Regardless, calling the report of a confession an actual confession is not a small matter.
Click to expand...
You act as though a "report of a confession" is a small thing. But it's not - that can be admissable and major evidence in a court of law, at least here in the UK (and UK forum members might remember how Karen Matthews was convicted as a result just before Christmas).

Of course, as I said, for people to evaluate this they have to know about it, something most unlikely to discover from truther sites, books and movies as they virtually all ignore the reports.

In David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Contradictions", for instance, he says the 9/11 Commissions input from KSM couldn't be trusted because they were unable to have direct access to him. This would have been a perfect place to point out that KSM was reported to have confessed before his arrest, except that, well, Griffin "forgot" to mention it. At all. And I think that's a very big matter.

Still, back to me. It's a shame that I've disappointed you with my sloppy phrasing. Thanks for your input, and I'll try to do better in future.
 
Excuse me for a little side step (only a little, since Mike has done his share to ensure the TM failure).

Mike, how are things going with the newer site? Any news to come? :)
 
ref said:
Mike, how are things going with the newer site? Any news to come? :)
Click to expand...
It's been v. quiet recently, I know! Too much work before Christmas, then just unwinding a little. But it's time to get back to 911myths.com, so I'll be doing so today. Expect daily updates from around Friday for a little while. Mostly they're relatively small things, although I do have FOIA's in for:

  • Mineta's visitor records showing his arrival time at the White House
  • A previously unreleased video of Atta and al-Omari checking in on 9/11
  • The transcript of the air threat conference call on 9/11
  • A previously unpublicised record confirming the crash time of all four hijacked planes

...so there's the potential for more interesting items to appear at any time. Oh, and I have been examining the results of someone else's FOIA request to the FAA, and there's a LOT of interesting material there. That's probably going to be the highlight for the next few weeks or so - FAA documentation telling us more about exactly what happened on 9/11.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
How do Britons get to file a FOIA?
Click to expand...
Anyone can file an FOIA, doesn't matter where you are. They don't even charge for postage, so there's no distance penalty.

If you're interested, try to figure out who would have the records you're after first: FBI, CIA or whoever. Then do a Google search for that agency and FOIA, like this. There's usually a page that explains what you need to do so send in a request, whether you can email it or you have to send it by regular mail.

After making the request you should get an acknowledgement within a month, though not all agencies bother. And in theory you should get your records, or an explanation of why you're not going to get them, within another month. But in practice it can take years unless you sue them.

What is it you're after? Maybe someone can point you in the right direction.
 
RedIbis said:
It might take you some real research but you might not want to put all your confession eggs into Fouda's basket.
Click to expand...

Personally, it does not interest me enough, especially this time of the year to do some "real" research on it. That was not my point. My point was to point out that the standards for evidence that most truthers hold (needing to physically hold, see, and touch the evidence/document/plane part to believe it real) is insanely ridiculous, so it is pointless to even discuss evidence with most of them.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Go ahead and quote me saying that the hole in the C Ring was made with a "wall breaching kit". Other than that, you are rambling incoherently.
Click to expand...
Did an airplane crash into the Pentagon Red? Was that airplane Flight 77? Was the DNA of passengers, crew, and hijackers found in the debris?

If your answer to any of these questions is not "yes" you are firmly in the MIHOP camp. In which case, your attempt to morph into a LIHOP guy in this thread reeveals to all (well, those who are unfamiliar with you) your intellectual dishonesty.
 
WildCat said:
Did an airplane crash into the Pentagon Red? Was that airplane Flight 77? Was the DNA of passengers, crew, and hijackers found in the debris?

If your answer to any of these questions is not "yes" you are firmly in the MIHOP camp. In which case, your attempt to morph into a LIHOP guy in this thread reeveals to all (well, those who are unfamiliar with you) your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

You should thank AWSmith for cleaning up your mess.
 
T.A.M. said:
Personally, it does not interest me enough, especially this time of the year to do some "real" research on it. That was not my point. My point was to point out that the standards for evidence that most truthers hold (needing to physically hold, see, and touch the evidence/document/plane part to believe it real) is insanely ridiculous, so it is pointless to even discuss evidence with most of them.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Yes, the need for authenticated evidence is such a drag!
 
Dr Adequate said:
You could say the same of Hitler's ravings about Jews; or about Creationism, which is exactly the same as the TM apart from their choice of subject. Heck, astrology has a zillion times more suckers than the Truth Movement. Homeopathy is a billion-dollar industry, unlike, for example, the sale of Loose Change CDs.

So there is an interesting question here: why didn't they fool more people? It's not just that they're wrong, it's something else.
Click to expand...

I gave this some thought, and came up with a fairly depressing answer:

The only reason homeopathy and creationism get more traction than 9/11 TM is that more people are comfortable with them. People believe whatever makes them comfortable. The set of people who are comforted by 9/11 TM (aka "losers with overactive imagination and conviction of being treated unfairly") is relatively small. Far more people are comforted by creationism, and even more by homeopathy. Relative merits of logic have nothing to do with it.

That's all -- depressing as it is.
 
jaydeehess said:
Who specifically and what evidence? Also explain how this would have affected the official story since I fail to see how this would cover up the evidence of bombs in the buildings or no-planes.

Who was tortured in NIST to come up with a report(s) that illustrate how the WTC towers and #7 succumbed?

Finally of course, how does any of this prove or refute the contention in the OP?
Click to expand...

I must have missed the post where JJ answers this question.

I also seem to have missed Tweeter and SCG commenting on post 54, which actually is on-topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom