Supporters of 911-Official Story: Explain your method of rationalizing those things that are ignored

I firmly believe that to accept something to be true you must explain all aspects of it.
That even if one detail cannot be resolved you cannot be certain. Also, I consider refusal to answer to something as an admission of guilt. Denial of acknowledging a question is equal, if not more, telling to the truth. This is about 911, but the concept is universal. Rather than debate a claims truth I want to debate the relevance of things repudiated. Nat Geo's 911-Science and Conspiracy documentary attempted to demonstrate how jet fuel fed fires could create temperatures capable of weakening the steel structure in Trade Centers 1&2 causing their total collapse. Despite the possibility of this theory being accurate, it makes no difference since it accounts for only buildings struck by airplanes. This excludes explaining building 7's collapse at all? This mattered little to Nat Geo since their entire program ignored building 7 anyway. This can only be considered suspicious. How do you support Nat Geo's claims knowing this fact?

This lack of thoroughness and denial of building 7 is also found in the investigation done by the 911 Commission has left too many questions unanswered, therefore leaving little choice what to think of its credibility. Likewise, the various findings and reports by the NIST have not only failed to conclusively explain all aspects of 911, but they have even retracted and altered their findings that were proven false when scrutinized.

What's disturbing about the OS is that all these individual explanations share numerous errors and their disregard for specific questions. The OS, 911 Commission, NIST and Nat Geo have all failed to logically explain things like the absence of airplane debris, failed military response and other questions they've at least acknowledged. While their answers may be controversial they aren't nearly as telling as their unanimous decision to repudiate some questions all together.

I'm curious to hear what supporters of the OS on the 911 attacks have to say about the questions ignored? I see many threads on 911 debating OS claims like disintegrated airplanes and pancake collapses, but what about building 7? Even if you believe everything in the OS, how do you rationalize ignoring building 7? How can you support the claims made by Nat Geo knowing they completely failed to mention building 7's collapse? Does the fact that no supporting viewpoint of the OS acknowledges the collapse of building 7 provide sufficient reason to at least delay deciding on it?

I could not make myself believe the OS until it provides an answer for everything. I certainly will not support something that consciously ignores vital aspects entirely. How can you do it? Do you pretend it's unimportant? Could you think that explaining everything and answering every question is redundant?

Help me understand the process of accepting the OS? Explain to me how you deal with errors found, retracted statements, unanswered questions and ignoring compatible events? If you support the OS, how does it feel when you view something like 911-Science and Conspiracy, or groups like NIST exposed of errors?

Basically, where do you keep the various things that logically would prohibit the decision to support the OS? I'm not saying these things should necessarily cause you to oppose it, just refrain from that conclusion. Supporting the OS would force some method of rational acceptance to these things. I'm curious of the mechanics regarding that method?

reply to post by impressme


I'm not trying to add another 911 argument. I seriously want to know how somebody can support the OS at this point? You would think by the evidence that most would still be undecided? It's also logical that more are opposing the OP for simply not solving it. But supporting it at this point is almost impossible to me?

Man, I don't think I can help you. John Farmer, the General Council for the 9/11 commission says he doesn't believe the 9/11 report and he helped write it. In his book, out last year, he doesn't point any fingers except to say the testimony and evidence given turned out to be 90% false. I always say "follow the Benjamins".
Of the people I talk with who believe the report, they cannot deal with thinking otherwise.

reply to post by Doctor G


That's my conclusion, also. To support it would be impossible to rationalize if truth were the goal. I cannot see it possible to get passed undecided? Unless you flat out refuse to think otherwise.

Thanks for the input!

It's the same thing with aliens, ghosts, and anything else weird that actually apparently exists. (I've encountered both).

For them to admit to the very possible reality around them, would mean they have to change their entire viewpoint of the Universe.

Admission of these things has a lot of implications for their world view. We humans have great fear of these unknowns.

Like 9-11 shows that they simply cannot trust anyone in Gov't anymore.

Aliens mean they simply cannot consider themselves the "best" anymore.

Ghosts means that when you "die", your not dead, and that what you do in this lifetime has a direct impact on what happens to you after death.

Of course all of these things mean much much more, but this is simply my reasoning for why they live in denial of obvious realities and continue pounding their head on the wall of lies.

They refuse to handle the implications. This works for just about everything "taboo" or "weird". Bigfoot, Tesla, MK Ultra, what have you.

reply to post by Zerbst


I appreciate your thread here, just FYI. But with anything, conspiracy based or not including what I believe happened no one can be 100% certain without an investigation based in unbiased intentions. To me, thats the first crucial step towards the truth. Whatever it may be.

reply to post by Zerbst


I don’t understand how anyone can support the OS, most of it has been proven false.
Anyone can do an hour of Googling on any part of the OS to see it is mostly a lie.

I have to wonder about the same posters who defend the OS religiously and been caught making up one lie behind another trying to convince people its true.

The truth does not need to be fabricated. When you have a story built on lies it cannot support itself. We all know 911 is a very sensitive subject but when we apply science to the OS it is proven to be a lie.

So I have been wondering why there are some who believe in the OS. Are they in complete denial, or are they too blind with patriotism, or are they trolls who enjoy upsetting people? Maybe they are disinformationists hired by corporations, government, or military firms to deliberately disrupt and derail the truth.

Anything is possible.











[edit on 5-2-2010 by impressme]

Cognitive Dissonance.


Then there are some who don't want to understand(You know who you are.)

reply to post by muzzleflash


So, what you're saying is the subject and facts are irrelevant. Peoples conclusions are determined more on their personal implications and matter little about truth. If this is true it would explain so many things.

Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by Zerbst
Nat Geo's 911-Science and Conspiracy documentary attempted to demonstrate how jet fuel fed fires could create temperatures capable of weakening the steel structure in Trade Centers 1&2 causing their total collapse.

Assuming what you say here is true, this is already contradicted for at least 2 reasons by NIST's own report (1 - jet fuel mostly burned up within 10-15 minutes, 2- they said it was deflection caused by trusses sagging, not steel weakening and failing due to heating), which is supposed to be authoritative yet everyone who is aware of its methodology already knows that it was not.

That is another problem I don't understand how people get around: the fact that so many "credible" sources for the "official story" contradict each other outright on all the technical details of how these things could be possible, yet they are all assumed to be correct somehow anyway, just because they reach the same ultimate conclusion, exact technical details be damned.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Zerbst



Upon reading this site, I find more times than not, most "Debunking" comment's are full of satire and aimed at undermining the person's character with.

"How dare you suggest such" Statements.


Funny that you would mention this Impressme

"I have to wonder about the same posters who defend the OS religiously and been caught making up one lie behind anther trying to convince people its true."


For a group of people who seem to believe it's so ridiculously crazy that the OS is false in anyway, there is a specific group of them who spend a GREAT Deal of time on this site.

But better yet.... They never post in any other section but this one......

Where are the OS believer? Why aren’t they posting in this thread, this is a good opportunity for them to talk about their side of the OS and why we are all wrong.

Here is their chance and they don’t want it.
This tells me they are in here to just spread disinformation and railroad the truth.

I know the OS is a lie, I do not have the answers to what really happened, but common sense, and science, tells me our government lied about 911.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It's the same thing with aliens, ghosts, and anything else weird that actually apparently exists. (I've encountered both).

For them to admit to the very possible reality around them, would mean they have to change their entire viewpoint of the Universe.

Admission of these things has a lot of implications for their world view. We humans have great fear of these unknowns.

Fear of the unknown is possibly the greatest human fear of all, right up there with the fear that your open and truth-loving government might not be so open and truth-loving after all... and on purpose.

If nothing else, a lot of people just like to feel sure of themselves and derive a lot of their personal confidence from that. Without their constant self-assurance, they would feel confused by and therefore afraid of the world around them, and that is especially bad for them if they have also learned to depend on that same external world for all of their own ideas about reality in the first place.


Consider animal populations that have no complex communication to exchange ideas about reality with each other, like cats or dogs or bears. Each individual animal has to figure everything about reality out on its own based ONLY on its own personal experiences. I believe it's for that reason alone that most psychological diseases humans suffer from are simply impossible for animals. Because humans have this common disease of learning to blindly accept anything a certain perceived authority will tell them from an early age. And the potential problems that can result from this, rather than being independent-minded and learning to draw solely from your own personal experiences, are enormous. Especially when these authorities lie, and they do, all the time, and it is not even intentional most of the time but simply stemming from collective human ignorance on a wide range of issues.


The healthiest thing I have learned to do when it comes to messy controversies is to start with the fact that you don't really know anything for sure. And then the next healthiest step (though it already introduces the possibility of fallacy) is to then draw from your own first-hand experiences of reality first before accepting anything anyone else tells you about it, no matter who they are or claim to be. But to admit you know nothing for certain in the first place, for some people, is so difficult, they would consider it a psychological problem in itself, because they crave that security of feeling confident that they know exactly what is going on.


I still have no idea what exactly happened on 9/11, just like everyone else, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Even the people who were there have no way of knowing every thing that every other person was doing that contributed to the entire event.

Starting with that, and reading the official reports and investigations, I am confident ONLY in the fact that I STILL have no idea what happened. And I am perfectly comfortable with the scientific method, what constitutes logical evidence, all of that stuff. I've known all of that since elementary school and passed uncounted tests and quizzes from these same authorities so much that I am confident that I know how their own system for deriving facts and evidence works. I was so good at understanding what they told me that they even put me in the "gifted" classes, and that just served to further my own self-confidence in my ability to interpret these ideas. None of my understanding changed when 9/11 happened. I still know what I know, what "they" even told me that I understood; I have no doubt that I know what constitutes their deduction process. And they sure as hell have not consistently and accurately applied it to the events of 9/11, to this day.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by LordBucket



You actually believe this?




[edit on 5-2-2010 by impressme]



[Mod Edit - quote]

[edit on 6/2/2010 by Sauron]

reply to post by impressme

You actually believe this?

Thank you. You've just made my day.

reply to post by impressme


I think it's pretty clear he was being sarcastic.

Facts:
1) The events of 9-11 were committed by evil muslim terrorists who hate us because of our freedoms
2) Our government is good and loves us and would never do anything subversive or sneaky unless it were for our benefit
3) The two towers collapsed as a result of planes colliding into them

...


Truth: In all of recorded history, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire.
Snip

This is called "circular logic."

That's why the person arguing with "truth" is labeled "IDIOT" by the poster.



[Mod Edit - snip quote]

[edit on 6/2/2010 by Sauron]

reply to post by LordBucket

You actually believe this?

Thank you. You've just made my day.

Come on, I am kidding, I am glad it made you laugh.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by bsbray11

I think it's pretty clear he was being sarcastic.

More or less, but I think we did illustrate two points:

1) By starting with a different set of facts, it's easy to come to a different set of conclusions. I set up straw men in my examples...but I really think there are people who believe "government is good" and such as basic, irrefutable facts from which they proceed to exaine the world.

2) Not everyone pays much attention to detail. As demonstrated by "impressme."

Put the two together, and I think it's no huge surprise that some people see things the way they do. There are still a lot of people who don't even know about building 7. It's not part of their thoughts when they discuss 9-11 with people. And when people bring it up...it doesn't match everything else in their previously established set of beliefs...so it's very easy for them to ignore.