There is no such thing as a "9/11 truth community"...

I was originally intending to post this in an existing thread, but after reading it again, I think it warrants being in it's own thread...

Someone mentioned in another thread that a certain alternative conspiracy theory isn't supported by "the 9/11 truth community", and the statement really puzzled me. The problem for the 9/11 truth community, and the whole reason why noone is taking the 9/11 truth community seriously, is becuase there IS no "9/11 community". All you have is a huge assortment of individuals who believe in their own individual conspiracy stories, and that's because they're all introducing their own individual paranoias and outlook into the mix.

This person thinks it's controlled demolitions. That person thinks it's lasers from outer space. Someone else thinks it's mini-nukes. It's obvious the specific conspiracy they subscribe to is directly dependent on which one of those damned fool conspiracy websites they came across first. Even if two people happen to agree on some of the details, few if any are going to agree on all the details. If two people believe the buildings were brought down by thermite, person A will think the gov't planted them while person B thinks it's the work of the Jews...so how can you say you're carefully analyzing the facts when the careful analysis of the facts leads you to separate and distinct conclusions?

This has absolutely nothing to do with any disinformation campaign against you because the sources of the claims you're quoting are always easily identifiable- Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Rob Balsamo, Richard Gage, and so on. It's entirely becuase you're all seeing what you yourselves want to see. Case in point- if there were any actual lasers from outer space that vaporized the steel they would certainly have vaporised all the people in the vicinity as well. The same goes for mini-nukes turning Manhattan into molten slag. BUT, it doesn't matter. That's what they want to believe so they simply don't care, so in the end, all the "9/11 truth community" is, is a bunch of people getting into fist fights with each other over who has the best alternative scenario.

I invite you to explain exactly why this is happening...and please don't say "this is why we need an investigation" because this has nothing to do with a lack of available information either. if someone wants to think the 9/11 attack was staged by the Jews, that's what they're going to believe regardless of what anyone tells them. You know that and so do I.

You must have gotten inspiration for this thread from your bible!

link

This person thinks it's controlled demolitions. That person thinks it's lasers from outer space. Someone else thinks it's mini-nukes. It's obvious the specific conspiracy they subscribe to is directly dependent on which one of those damned fool conspiracy websites they came across first.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The whole official story of 9/11 is bunk. I don't know what the hell happened on that day
but it sure as hell didn't go down the way they said it did. You've got to take a serious
amount of blue pills to believe that bunk.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any disinformation campaign against you
because the sources of the claims you're quoting are always easily identifiable-
Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Rob Balsamo, Richard Gage

1600 Architects and Engineers dispute the evidence from the official investigation.
Just wondering...what source do you think they used? Alex Jones? Judy Wood?
Rob Balsamo? Richard Gage? WHO??????
Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dave , what is this need you and other OS subscribers have to haunt the 9/11 forums pushing agenda? As you and others have said,no one takes the movement seriously so why continue? I really don't understand what compels you and others? Serious question.

I am curious what percentage 1,600 architects and engineers is of all the world's (or just U.S.) architects and engineers?

Originally posted by orbitbaby
1600 Architects and Engineers dispute the evidence from the official investigation.
Just wondering...what source do you think they used? Alex Jones? Judy Wood?
Rob Balsamo? Richard Gage? WHO??????
Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

At my university, there is access to academic papers on almost anything. On Google, it is easy to find out how many architects and engineers there are in America. The funny thing about claiming that having 1600 followers, is that the majority of them aren't even real architects or engineers in the sense that you are using them. As far as I know, none of them are posting papers to academic journals. So why should I listen to their criticisms? Especially when their criticisms are always verbatim with the criticisms by non-professionals.

One of the things that always gets my knickers in a twist is when they use the word pyroclastic to describe the dust clouds on 9/11. I'll clue you in on some useful information. Pyroclastic is made up of two parts:

Pyro - fire

Clastic - rock

So, a pyroclastic cloud is a fire-rock cloud. This tends to only happen in volcanic eruptions, because volcanos emit rocks and dust that are extremely hot like fire. To my knowledge, the dust on 9/11 did not burn or kill anyone directly, so it's reasonable to say that it's not pyroclastic. The fact that the 1600 architects and engineers can't even accept that is an interesting look at their academic truthfulness.

Don't trust authority, but understand that there's a reason academic journals are respected by the scientific community. It's called PEER REVIEW. Peer review is when a dozen other scientists in the field check a paper to make sure its reasoning is sound and that it is not using false information. Often-times, a paper will be sent back to the person writing it 5-10 times before it is fit to be published. The only 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has published a paper, did so in a journal that does not peer review.

The nice thing about peer review is also that you can review the sources that a person uses and see what criticisms other scientists are giving to it.

The 9/11 conspiracy will not gain respect until it is capable of being scientific. Right now, it is not. Not even a little.

There has been a number of contradictory "official " theories as well, so I don't see your point.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
There has been a number of contradictory "official " theories as well, so I don't see your point.

Really? You have some official government source stating that it was something other than 19 men hijacking four commercial jetliners and purposely crashing them?

reply to post by crawdad1914

As you and others have said,no one takes the movement seriously so why continue?

So no one in the future takes it seriously either.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

As you and others have said,no one takes the movement seriously so why continue?

So no one in the future takes it seriously either.

I hope I'm not the only one thinking that your last comment is very telling on why you and others are really here!

Originally posted by orbitbaby
1600 Architects and Engineers dispute the evidence from the official investigation.
Just wondering...what source do you think they used? Alex Jones? Judy Wood?
Rob Balsamo? Richard Gage? WHO??????

Richard Gage, actually. He's the one claiming he has 1600 architects and engineers (who really aren't architects OR engineers) backing him.

Now how about answering the question. Why are people like Judy Wood using their physicist backgrounds and calculations to analyze the collapse and arriving at a completely different result than what Gage is coming up with? They can't both be right.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm starting to think that many truthers that post here are actually shills just trying to push books and DVDs supporting the movement.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Flatcoat
There has been a number of contradictory "official " theories as well, so I don't see your point.

Really? You have some official government source stating that it was something other than 19 men hijacking four commercial jetliners and purposely crashing them?

Well, you can play dumb if you like, but you know I'm talking about the collapse of the buildings.

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Dave , what is this need you and other OS subscribers have to haunt the 9/11 forums pushing agenda? As you and others have said,no one takes the movement seriously so why continue? I really don't understand what compels you and others? Serious question.

(Sigh) and I will tell you YET AGAIN...I'm not "pushing the official story agenda" because I don't believe the "official story", so if I don't believe the "official story" then it's deliberately misleading to base a question on the assumption I believe the "official story. It's as if you don't even care anymore that you're lying.

Now how about answering the question- why does person A look at the towers collapsing and thinks "controlled demolitions" and yet person B looks at the towers collapsing and thinks "lasers from outer space"?

I somewhat agree with you. I think there is a truth community, but the problem is that it isn't very united. People think it is one thing or the other, however, they DO all realize the OS is BS.

Originally posted by Flatcoat

Well, you can play dumb if you like, but you know I'm talking about the collapse of the buildings.

Well you can play dumb if you like, but you know Hooper was referring to all parties agreeing the collapse was caused by fire induced loss of structural integrity, and none of the myriad scenarios differ from each other's explanations as radicially as "lasers from outer space" vs "Mini-nukes" vs "hologram planes" do.

So why such radically different explanations?

Originally posted by jaws1975

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

As you and others have said,no one takes the movement seriously so why continue?

So no one in the future takes it seriously either.

I hope I'm not the only one thinking that your last comment is very telling on why you and others are really here!

Uh.....its "telling" because that is what I am telling you. ?????

Thread alerted to staff. This is the last thing ATS needs. Another thread meant as an insult, which discusses no 9/11 evidence whatsoever, is purely political, and meant to cause more 9/11 madness. WE'RE SICK OF IT.

Get rid of this stupid ass piece of junk.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There is no such thing as a "9/11 truth community"...

then i'd say you've performed the ultimate feat of debunking
you've only gone and debunked/discredited yourself
as one who seems dedicated to debunking something non existent

lol you're like Don Quixote:

DQ; lo! there be giants before us
Sancho Panza: um no, those be windmills m'lord
DQ: They are Giants, not windmills! CHAAAARGE!!!!

i'm gonna flag this one as it really takes the cake
continue to tilt at windmills

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Thread alerted to staff. This is the last thing ATS needs. Another thread meant as an insult, which discusses no 9/11 evidence whatsoever, is purely political, and meant to cause more 9/11 madness. WE'RE SICK OF IT.

Get rid of this stupid ass piece of junk.

now, now that's not nice
and smacks of censorship
not something one seeking truth should indulge in
as it provides ammo for the falsers to label folk

now, those troll and baiting threads posted by the "it's just contrails" crowd [Con-Trollers] in geo-engineering...