Why Truthers have to decide on a story

[rsalinger]

I think that you're missing the point. Most of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement are asking for a further investigation. They point out a lot of things about the events (stoked by people who act from self interest) which they want to know more about. Furthermore, you have a second problem in that the movement contains people with ideas that are easy to rebut (space deployed beam weapons) to people with more subtle arguments which require advanced mathematical knowledge to understand. I doubt that the NIST, et.al. will ever have the funding or the inclination to investigate every claim, so this is just going to go on. They don't have to answer any questions, they are just pointing out things which they find fishy and asking for an investigation.

 

[CHF]

I think that you're missing the point. Most of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement are asking for a further investigation.

And this new investigation should be carried out and funded by....who exactly?

Unknown to most twoofers is the fact that most, if not all, of their "questions" have all been answered multiple times by qualified people. They're either not willing to accept those answers or they're too dumb to understand them.

That's their problem.

 

[nicepants]

I think that you're missing the point. Most of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement are asking for a further investigation.

And this new investigation should be carried out and funded by....who exactly?

CHF makes a good point. You can't have a new investigation if no one knows what the new investigation would look like. While most truthers are quick to say "we need a new investigation", none of them will say who should conduct this investigation, who should pay for it, or how it should be conducted. How can you want something if you don't even know what you want?

 

[eromitlab]

That in itself is another contradiction that tr00thers don't want to face. If they think about what they're saying instead of just repeating the fallback talking point by rote, they just might realize that they're basically demanding that the same government that pulled off 9/11 investigate its own crimes and be honest about their involvement, when this is a government that hasn't shown they can do that and which they admit can't do that, since a lot of their claims are based in the belief that the government is full of lying evil murderous scumwads. (But of course, there isn't anything greater than, potentially, a cover-up of incompetence for that government to admit to.) They just might have to admit to themselves that basically, they're asking for the government to investigate its own role in 9/11, so they can come back with no evidence of wrongdoing, so the tr00thers can continue to claim that the government is lying to protect itself and demand another investigation, and so on and so on.

 

[1337m4n]

It's the same reason why double jeopardy is unconstitutional. Let's say the Truthers get their new investigation. Let's say that it finds all of their "questions" to be rubbish and the "official story" to be completely correct.

Are the Truthers likely to accept that? Are they just gonna say "Well, the new investigation said we were wrong, so I guess that's that"? Heck no. Not with everything they have invested in their fantasy. They'd find something wrong with the investigation. Even the investigation had been perfect, they'd make up an issue to take with it. One of the guys was biased. He had already believed the official story for too long, so of course he wasn't going to go against it. They missed a crucial piece of evidence. The results of the investigation could have been faked. That's it. All they have to do is say that the investigation "could have been" bad, and they can demand ANOTHER one. And if that one still finds the official story correct, they'll demand another. And another, and another, and another, and another.

In the end, the Truthers would continue to demand new investigations until one of them found (or made up) evidence of a conspiracy. And then suddenly, THAT investigation would be perfect and have nothing wrong with it, and be accepted.

That is EXACTLY the reason double jeopardy is unconstitutional: an overly zealous prosecutor could otherwise continue to demand retrials until the defendant was found guilty by sheer dumb luck. And the whole problem with the Truth Movement's demands for a new investigation is that it is precisely that: double jeopardy.

 

[LastChild]

Why Truthers have to decide on a story?

I don't know but I'll take a shot.

Is it so debunkers can pretend to have a purpose in life?

 

[Pardalis]

Why don't you try addressing the topic of the thread for a change LC?

ETA: incoming snide remark and evasion in three, two, one:

 

[MikeyMetz]

Why Truthers have to decide on a story?

I don't know but I'll take a shot.

Is it so debunkers can pretend to have a purpose in life?

LC, why are debunkers such a thorn in your side? You believe the US government killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen specifically to kill thousands more throughout the world and destroy our liberties. Yet, your posts constantly revolve around debunkers.

If you really believe what you believe, why not work on actually doing something productive about it, rather than immaturely berating those that have a different opinion than your's? Come on, if there's so much "evidence" and "proof," then why are you so concerned with debunkers?

 

[1337m4n]

LC, why are debunkers such a thorn in your side? You believe the US government killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen specifically to kill thousands more throughout the world and destroy our liberties. Yet, your posts constantly revolve around debunkers.

If you really believe what you believe, why not work on actually doing something productive about it, rather than immaturely berating those that have a different opinion than your's? Come on, if there's so much "evidence" and "proof," then why are you so concerned with debunkers?

Actually, LastChild (allegedly ) has no opinion about 9/11 one way or the other, so it's even dumber: he's devoting incredible amounts of energy to harassing people whose opinions should mean absolutely nothing to him.

If debunking is pointless, investing so much energy into arguing with debunkers is even more pointless still.

 

[MikeyMetz]

Actually, LastChild (allegedly ) has no opinion about 9/11 one way or the other, so it's even dumber: he's devoting incredible amounts of energy to harassing people whose opinions should mean absolutely nothing to him.

Hmm... Sounds a lot like "just asking questions."

 

[beachnut]

I think that you're missing the point. Most of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement are asking for a further investigation. They point out a lot of things about the events (stoked by people who act from self interest) which they want to know more about. Furthermore, you have a second problem in that the movement contains people with ideas that are easy to rebut (space deployed beam weapons) to people with more subtle arguments which require advanced mathematical knowledge to understand. I doubt that the NIST, et.al. will ever have the funding or the inclination to investigate every claim, so this is just going to go on. They don't have to answer any questions, they are just pointing out things which they find fishy and asking for an investigation.

The followers in 9/11 truth are not able to answer questions because they leave the thinking for others in 9/11 truth. Yes they need to have a story. All of the real answers are out there. I have yet to find any facts from the 9/11 truth movement to justify the questions. Just like bigfoot, chemtrails and other CT, 9/11 truth is a movement of ignorance making a few frauds some money off of those of us who fit the definition of fools who are born every second. Shallow research and lack of knowledge lead to belief in 9/11 truth; but the cure for this terminal stupidity is knowledge.

 

[portlandatheist]

Why Truthers have to decide on a story?

I don't know but I'll take a shot.

Is it so debunkers can pretend to have a purpose in life?

I think "story" is the wrong word to use. How about a plausible scenario? If you put forth "evidence", it should fit into the context of a plausible scenario even if you don't know if that scenario is correct or not. Is the evidence of thermite compelling? Can it be put into the context of plausible scenario (how much thermite would be needed to collapse the building?, how long would it take to rig, etc.) It's not unreasonable to ask for a plausible scenario that fits your so called evidence.

 

[gumboot]

Conspiracy Theorists, for all their claims of seeking "the truth" are not about "what happened", have never been about "what happened" and never will be about "what happened". Their sole aim, desire, goal, and intention is to try prove (pathetically, thus far) that the accepted account of 9/11 did not happen.

That's why they have no story, and that's why they never will. The best way to combat their stupidity is to educate the population on what did happen. The reality is the average person knows very little about 9/11, making them good targets for Conspiracy Theorists.

-Gumboot

 

[twinstead]

That's why they have no story, and that's why they never will. The best way to combat their stupidity is to educate the population on what did happen. The reality is the average person knows very little about 9/11, making them good targets for Conspiracy Theorists.

Yup. In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.