Truther Thread

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: whatsup86

First, note that the demolitions could have been controlled using wireless detonators, which have been commercially available for decades.

That's funny as I have found an ad for the worlds 'first wireless detonator'.
It's dated Feb 2011.
Here

Can you show wireless systems in use back in 2001 that could handle 2 buildings, 70+ floors each?

First of all it is obvious you lack the overall imagination you need for thinking like criminals that can execute such an operation. This is such a smart operation, it fooled the world on live television. Compared to the attack itself making a remote detonation system must have been a walk in the park if they even had too.

Secondly were talking about the possibility of the technology, not the availability. Because the only criminals who couldve execute an operation like this are also able to develop a system like that in secret, without buying it from a third party. What I mean is that even if you cant find a system for commercial use doesnt mean it didnt exist or hasnt been used.

Thirdly the link i gave links to this device: hiex.bc.ca...
So I guess yes i can?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Basically with the attitude of the OP you are willingly dismissing everything that revokes your theories just to maintain the illusion of the grand false flag conspiracy.

I don't believe that's what he's doing at all. He just want's a thread where like minded people come together and share and discuss their ideas together. Like in politics, people join the party that enforces their beliefs. Same for religion. That's why people that embrace Judaism don't go to Christian churches etc. and why in civil circles they join clubs or fraternities that go along with their beliefs and interest etc. All Wildb is doing here is trying to have a thread where like minded people come together and talk about their common beliefs and ideas without being attacked and criticized for them. As large a community as this is I don't understand why that's so hard to do. There's plenty of room here for those that want to debate and argue these issues too. I don't see where he's dismissing anything both sides are trying to bring the other side around to their way of thinking so actually both are trying to revoke each others theories. This is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. OSers don't want people challenging their ideas either. Lies and corruption on both sides. If he was...

dismissing everything that revokes your theories

He wouldn't watch TV, read news papers or magazines or spend time on the internet cause they're all full of both sides. Come on lets all find some middle ground and just get along. Based on your chosen user name you'd think you would especially be willing to see the other side of the coin.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Am I saying "OMG FALSE FLAG!!!", though?

I refuse to accept the OS, and there are also many other factors that I think are incredibly strange. However, NIST releasing all their data could allay those factors, and I would be willing to accept them as mere coincidences or oddities.

As I said, what actually happened is, I think, irrelevant to this point. For all I know it may simply be the government hiding embarrassment over some construction flaw we are unaware of. I do not know. that too, is something I am willing to consider a possibility.

a reply to: bjarneorn

I'm not even going to REMARK on the racist crap, that a passport with the name "ABDULLAH" on it, is used as proof of the ISLAMIC connection within hours of the incident.

No the calls from the flight attendants giving the seat assignments of the people involved gave the connection.
But facts mean nothing to those who just 'want to believe' in a conspiracy.
It has become a religion for them.

a reply to: samkent

No, actually. Conspiracies tend to have at least[ i]some basis in reality, if occasionally quite tenuous ones. Religions are pulled from the ether.

originally posted by: tsctsc

I think that truthers are not really seeking for the "how", truthers are really looking for the "why" and "who".
The how is unnimportant. If it were really airplanes or nanothermites it makes no difference for the result is exactly the same: thousands of people dead, buildings destroyed, sense of security gone, trust vanished.

It's when it comes to the "who" that it really gets scary: was it the US gov? Was it the terrorists, who found a breach in our system? Was it the jews? Now analyse carefully: why would you want to know who did it?
Because you want to know whether you've been sleeping with the enemy or you are depositing your trust in the wrong people. Maybe you'll seek revenge. Maybe you think you can get rid of them.

Nevertheless, the answer of "who" will hurt badly. It will likely destroy all your previous believes and everything/everybody you relied on.
Now, let's assume for a second you found out "who", regardless you are not the same person any longer, the next thing you want to know is "why".

"Why" is also, technically, unnimportant, however, you want to learn, for your personal satisfaction, why you had to change your self, your habits, your behaviour, why did people died, who can you trust, could you have prevented it, can you keep from happening again.

I will agree the 'how' is not so important. The fact is, if 9/11 was a financial crime perpetrated by people in the highest levels of government -- and I believe it was -- then they had the means and opportunity no matter the specifics of the 'how.'

It is the 'who' and 'why' that speaks to motive -- they are both very important and usually the very first things considered in a criminal investigation. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming regarding the 'who' and 'why.'

Brokers were targeted. Banking regulations were lifted. The vaults were destroyed. Intelligence offices were destroyed along with evidence. The plane 'intended' for the White House failed in its mission. There are many circumstances regarding lapses of security that day and leading up to it which suggest government involvement.

Those circumstances tell a story...unless you are an OSer, in which case those circumstances are just 'random' and unfortunate.

I don't believe for a second they are random and can't imagine any scenario, at this point, that could convince me otherwise. It's been nearly 15 years, I don't need to bicker about the 'how' with OSers. The circumstantial evidence has satisfied, for me, the important questions.

originally posted by: InconspicuousObserver
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Basically with the attitude of the OP you are willingly dismissing everything that revokes your theories just to maintain the illusion of the grand false flag conspiracy.

I don't believe that's what he's doing at all. He just want's a thread where like minded people come together and share and discuss their ideas together. Like in politics, people join the party that enforces their beliefs. Same for religion. That's why people that embrace Judaism don't go to Christian churches etc. and why in civil circles they join clubs or fraternities that go along with their beliefs and interest etc. All Wildb is doing here is trying to have a thread where like minded people come together and talk about their common beliefs and ideas without being attacked and criticized for them. As large a community as this is I don't understand why that's so hard to do. There's plenty of room here for those that want to debate and argue these issues too. I don't see where he's dismissing anything both sides are trying to bring the other side around to their way of thinking so actually both are trying to revoke each others theories. This is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. OSers don't want people challenging their ideas either. Lies and corruption on both sides. If he was...

dismissing everything that revokes your theories

He wouldn't watch TV, read news papers or magazines or spend time on the internet cause they're all full of both sides. Come on lets all find some middle ground and just get along. Based on your chosen user name you'd think you would especially be willing to see the other side of the coin.

wildb is a young kid and this is his first thread. He doesn't have any life experience and is trying out his wings. He tries to twist arguments but doesn't know how. There are a lot of reversals and attempts to deflect when he talks himself into a corner, but this is to be expected.
He may hope for some clarification and confirmation of his beliefs. The splintered truthers are all over the map, conspiracywise, and it is doubtful there will be a resultant theory everyone can agree on. This would actually be bad for the truthers as their "moving target" technique ["Something doesn't feel right. This had to be an inside job. I don't know how they did it. Unorthodox/super secret/never-before-seen methods"] would allow for embarrassing questions to be asked of them. As an earlier poster said, no conspiracy theory explains everything. All they can come up with would be that the Government was warned and let it happen or that the Bush Administration covered up its incompetence after the fact. Those do not provide any grist as there are no traces of any such, although I believe that there were a lot of weasels heading for cover after the events.
Most of the theories are a result of misunderstanding of the building construction, how demolitions work, and the burning desire to find a conspiracy. I welcome this truther conference thread to see if anyone can find common ground and a grand unified theory, but doubt that this will be anything more than a mutual admiration society that will end up just as diverse as when it started.

can find common ground and a grand unified theory

Impossible. You're setting up an automatic failure state for the people who deny the OS. If I had access to ALL evidence, I probably could come up with a grand unified theory. But I don't, and I can't, so anything I do come up with will have little frayed edges where the evidence was hidden, obfuscated, locked away, or never existed in the first place. (For example, a truck may have delivered explosive devices to the WTC, but that trip was not recorded, or any pictures of it destroyed. It is impossible to prove.) You will then pick at those edges, and "debunk" the theory as a whole while ignoring all the more important points it makes.

You are also missing something: You can claim something is incorrect without having an alternative explanation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It is the 'who' and 'why' that speaks to motive -- they are both very important and usually the very first things considered in a criminal investigation.

No the first thing is to find out if there was a crime.

Example:
Dead body on the street.
Your way of thinking is the police start asking family and friends where they were and can they prove it.
In the real world they look for the cause of death first.

Example:
Building fire.
Your was is the fire investigator starts looking for arsonists.
In the real world they look for the cause of the fire first.

a reply to: samkent
Oh, geez. It wasn't apparent to you that the events of 9/11 were criminal acts.

well, it was apparent to everyone else. Next up, why and who had the motive.


ETA: I really thought the one fact Truthers and OSers could agree on is that crimes were committed.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It is the 'who' and 'why' that speaks to motive -- they are both very important and usually the very first things considered in a criminal investigation.

No the first thing is to find out if there was a crime.

Example:
Dead body on the street.
Your way of thinking is the police start asking family and friends where they were and can they prove it.
In the real world they look for the cause of death first.

Example:
Building fire.
Your was is the fire investigator starts looking for arsonists.
In the real world they look for the cause of the fire first.

Honestly, go back and read the portion of my comment you quoted:

"It is the 'who' and 'why' that speaks to motive -- they are both very important and usually the very first things considered in a criminal investigation."

There would be no criminal investigation if a crime has not been established.

a reply to: wildb

Just out of interest, would I be correct in assuming you are under 20? Or at least in your early 20s

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: wildb

Just out of interest, would I be correct in assuming you are under 20? Or at least in your early 20s

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: wildb

Just out of interest, would I be correct in assuming you are under 20? Or at least in your early 20s

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

I think it has quite a lot to do with it!

For me personally i can vividly recall the events of 9/11 as they unfolded live on TV, I can remember watching the towers crashing down, I can even remember the TV program i was watching cutting to the news and then watching nothing but the news for the next month.

Does this mean I know more about 9/11, of course not!

It does however mean that i can put that day into context much better than a 20 year old who is bashing away on a keyboard.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: wildb

Just out of interest, would I be correct in assuming you are under 20? Or at least in your early 20s

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

I think it has quite a lot to do with it!

For me personally i can vividly recall the events of 9/11 as they unfolded live on TV, I can remember watching the towers crashing down, I can even remember the TV program i was watching cutting to the news and then watching nothing but the news for the next month.

Does this mean I know more about 9/11, of course not!

It does however mean that i can put that day into context much better than a 20 year old who is bashing away on a keyboard.

Why not ask if he witnessed the events unfold live on television?

Asking if he is 20 years old or younger and "bashing away on his keyboard" is just a passive aggressive way of attacking the poster and you know it.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

can find common ground and a grand unified theory

Impossible. You're setting up an automatic failure state for the people who deny the OS. If I had access to ALL evidence, I probably could come up with a grand unified theory. But I don't, and I can't, so anything I do come up with will have little frayed edges where the evidence was hidden, obfuscated, locked away, or never existed in the first place. (For example, a truck may have delivered explosive devices to the WTC, but that trip was not recorded, or any pictures of it destroyed. It is impossible to prove.) You will then pick at those edges, and "debunk" the theory as a whole while ignoring all the more important points it makes.

You are also missing something: You can claim something is incorrect without having an alternative explanation.

Claiming something is incorrect is easy; proving it is incorrect is the stumbling block. Not having an alternate explanation that fits the physical facts makes the "didn't feel/look right" claim a hollow one.

I didn't start the thread so I'm not setting anybody up for failure. I don't expect anything to come out of it because of the splintered set of opinions based on misunderstanding of building construction, physics, and explosives. Those that want rays from space have already rejected thermitic paint and missiles disguised as planes. Truthers just want a conspiracy; each wants his/her own version of reality.

This is a harmless pursuit except for the dirtballs like Gage that are bilking money from the true believers. Many of the charlatans, like Steven Jones, have disappeared, but their legacy of incompetence lingers on the internet and seduces newly arrived 911 investigators, still. Below in an excerpt from a psychology paper that I found interesting. wildb led me to it:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Endorsement of conspiracies, therefore, results from deference to higher-order beliefs and the failure to thoroughly appraise evidence. Thus, it would appear that elements of conspiracist ideation are adversative to conventional reasoning and scientific thinking."

"Clearly, delusional ideation, and belief in conspiracies share important cognitive characteristics (i.e., unusual beliefs, magical thinking, fear of external agencies and persecutions). This is evident when typical features of conspiratorial thinking (worldview) are considered. Particularly, the conviction that unorthodox theories/explanations are true, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, and the presumption of deception are prominent features of conspiracist thinking."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

Life experience.
You change as you grow older.
You see a lot of things go back and forth.
You view the world differently.
This is why the president must be at least 35 years old.

In youth you see things as black and white.


As you grow older you see more shades of grey.
Kids don't say S#it happens. Older people do because it has happened to them.
Just when you think you have something figured out you get another slap in the face.
Kids don't believe in Murphy's law. But adults do.
As you grow older you realize how little control you really have.
You are damn happy if you can control half the events in your own home.
Adults realize you can't keep a conspiracy secret.

Who was it that said two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead?
But then he will write a book about it.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

Life experience.
You change as you grow older.
You see a lot of things go back and forth.
You view the world differently.
This is why the president must be at least 35 years old.

In youth you see things as black and white.


As you grow older you see more shades of grey.
Kids don't say S#it happens. Older people do because it has happened to them.
Just when you think you have something figured out you get another slap in the face.
Kids don't believe in Murphy's law. But adults do.
As you grow older you realize how little control you really have.
You are damn happy if you can control half the events in your own home.
Adults realize you can't keep a conspiracy secret.

Who was it that said two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead?
But then he will write a book about it.

You've been around long enough to have seen this a thousand times:

"**Attention**

Discuss the topic, not each other."

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: wildb

Just out of interest, would I be correct in assuming you are under 20? Or at least in your early 20s

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

I think it has quite a lot to do with it!

For me personally i can vividly recall the events of 9/11 as they unfolded live on TV, I can remember watching the towers crashing down, I can even remember the TV program i was watching cutting to the news and then watching nothing but the news for the next month.

Does this mean I know more about 9/11, of course not!

It does however mean that i can put that day into context much better than a 20 year old who is bashing away on a keyboard.

Why not ask if he witnessed the events unfold live on television?

Asking if he is 20 years old or younger and "bashing away on his keyboard" is just a passive aggressive way of attacking the poster and you know it.

I am not attacking anyone I am just saying anyone who is say around 30ish who witnessed these events on tv live as they unfolded has a better frame of context than a person who has just been watching selected highlights from Youtube.

This goes both ways for those who believe the OS and those who dispute it.

a reply to: wildb

People would be more willing and less fearful of adopting the views of 911 Truth activists if they felt they were calling for forgiveness rather than retribution and punishment.

The peace movement should call for granting amnesty from prosecution and guarantee of an ample, lifetime pension to anyone who agrees to testify on their roles in the events of 9/11, extending this offer to any members of the US government, foreign governments and/or terrorist groups involved in the planning or execution of the attacks of that day.

Additionally, individuals should step forward and volunteer to spend time working with those who give testimony on crimes they have committed so that they might be reintegrated into society.

Instead of executing Nazi war criminals we should have devoted all the human resources available to us to rehabilitating them, awakening in them awareness of the nature of their actions so that they could have come to understand that they must make amends. If they had remained alive they would have been a living testament to the transformative powers of forgiveness.

Historians and psychologists especially should come out in favor of preserving invaluable study material in the form of the opportunity to converse with the authors of unfortunate historical deeds.

We must find a solution to the existing state of affairs that would be acceptable to both the accusers and the accused. It should solve the problem it sets out to solve without creating additional problems. It should present itself as an ethical means to an ethical end.

In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu said never to surround an enemy. If you do not leave him an out, he will fight to the last man.

For an interesting discussion of these ideas please see (and expand the comments) three posts by “John Stan” here:
www.opednews.com...