Backing up the Govt Story vs. Debunking Alt. Theories

Why is it so common for there to be only two camps of posters on here?

1. "Ct"ers, or alternetive theory seekers.

Or:

2. "Debunkers", posters trying to discredt any alternative theory.

Where is the THIRD group of posters that SUPPORT the gov't theory instead of "debunking" alternative theory?

Where are all of the posts that say:

"Clarifying the errors in the NIST report."
"Clearing up the Gov't Contradictions."
"Names and Qualifications of the NIST Peer Reviewers"
"Cheney explains odd quote that the "Orders Stand"
"Evidence chain of Custody Rules WERE followed"

Why do very few defend the official line but are so quick to DEMAND IMMUTABLE evidence of any other theory presented here knowing full well no one is privy to such evidence except for the gov't?

I know someone is losing a debate/argument/fight when they stop endorsing or focusing on the merits of their own theory and simply try to attack the theories of others.

I'll hang up and listen.

"Names and Qualifications of the NIST Peer Reviewers"

You can find these on the NIST site on the "Public Comments" page.

"Clarifying the errors in the NIST report."

State the errors.

"Clearing up the Gov't Contradictions."

State the contradictions.

What is bad at showing holes in the CT's?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Where is the THIRD group of posters that SUPPORT the gov't theory instead of "debunking" alternative theory?

Where are all of the posts that say:

"Clarifying the errors in the NIST report."
"Clearing up the Gov't Contradictions."
"Names and Qualifications of the NIST Peer Reviewers"
"Cheney explains odd quote that the "Orders Stand"
"Evidence chain of Custody Rules WERE followed"

Why do very few defend the official line but are so quick to DEMAND IMMUTABLE evidence of any other theory presented here knowing full well no one is privy to such evidence except for the gov't?

I know someone is losing a debate/argument/fight when they stop endorsing or focusing on the merits of their own theory and simply try to attack the theories of others.

I'll hang up and listen.

The first thing I have to ask is "Are there any errors in NIST's report?" Without having access to the samples for further testing how can any errors be determined? All we can come up with is theoriesmspeculation and conjecture. If ANYBODY had any documented evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion because the cause would be known. Was there a cover up? I don't know. I do know that the NIST report doesn't take a stand on anything and dances around alot of things, like most government documents.

Originally posted by Vushta

"Clearing up the Gov't Contradictions."

State the contradictions.

There are verifiable contradictions in the time lines given by the 9/11 Commission, and by various other agencies/reports, such as NORAD.

Edit: Here's a link that illustrates them clearly for you:

911research.wtc7.net...

The response timeline according to NORAD is based on its September 18, 2001 press release which contradicted earlier statements by officials that there had been no scrambles of interceptors to chase the commandeered jetliners. The response timeline according to the 9/11 Commission provides a third version of the events, contradicting both of the earlier versions.

There are other contradictions, like FEMA's report suggesting (simultaneously!) that the towers fell from truss problems relating to inward sagging and outward expansion. So they literally showed diagrams of bowing outwards and bowing inwards, consecutively, pinning the collapse vaguely between them somewhere.



I would love to see more people trying to back up the official story though. Just as this thread points out, people that subscribe to the official conspiracy theory only come on here to attack the alternative theories.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Re NORAD, isn't it normal there was a lot of confusion in the first days after 0911 which got cleared later? For example "there were no intercepts made" may have two meanings - aither that the scramble fighters failed to make an intercept or that they weren't launched.
If I may make a comparation, it took about the same time to clear up confusion concerning the flooding of Prague subway in 2002 and first reports were later proven to be errorneous as well.
Yet, nobody thinks there was a conspiracy.

Come on, freaking geeez. Let's see how many straws we can clutch to in our all-or-nothing bashing of one school of thought.

Originally posted by tuccy
For example "there were no intercepts made" may have two meanings - aither that the scramble fighters failed to make an intercept or that they weren't launched.

Government officials had said none were SCRAMBLED. Very specific meaning, that has. It means none were sent up -- period.

Then NORAD, the international military agency responsible for the interceptions, said they were intercepts, and gave times.

Then the 9/11 Comission comes along and changes those times, and gives new ones, much later.


It goes without saying that the 9/11 Comission didn't bother to give any reason for changing the times. No justification, no evidence, etc. This is the same report that doesn't even mention Building 7, though, so what could one expect?

Originally posted by Vushta

"Clarifying the errors in the NIST report."

State the errors.

"Clearing up the Gov't Contradictions."

State the contradictions.

This is precisely the point of my post.

"Give me something to poke holes in..."

Why take this post off topic?

The EXAMPLES are not the point of the post.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
"Names and Qualifications of the NIST Peer Reviewers"

You can find these on the NIST site on the "Public Comments" page.

Again, this is not the question posed in the original post.

Here, the "debunkers" attack some simple examples used to make a point instead of answering a simple question.

To be more CLEAR, I am NOT looking for response to the simple examples.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


This is precisely the point of my post.

"Give me something to poke holes in..."

Why take this post off topic?

The EXAMPLES are not the point of the post.

That doesn't make any sense at all.



[edit on 6-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Again, this is not the question posed in the original post.

Here, the "debunkers" attack some simple examples used to make a point instead of answering a simple question.

To be more CLEAR, I am NOT looking for response to the simple examples.

Still doesn't make sense.

Why not add--'Wheres the FORTH type of poster who SUPPORT the alternative ideas?"

Why did you only point out Howard and my VERY short responses yet didn't mention the much longer posts? Just cerious.

Vushta -

I am of the belief that you "do not get it" on purpose.

Look at the list of post titles. The VAST majority present some sort of alternative theory. The question I am posing is simple and has been repeated twice now.

Why do the posters who have 100% faith in the government story fail to post PRO OFFICIAL THEORY threads (for the most part) and instead focus on ANTI ALTERNATIVE THEORY posting?

If your (gov't) theory is sound, I feel "you" would be PROACTIVE and should be presenting as much supporting evidence as possible to solidify your stance.

Instead "you" are reactive, attacking and convoluting any alternative theory with vigor and endurance.

Psychologically speaking, when a debater stops presenting evidence supporting their position and does not respond to questions regarding the case they are presenting they are showing that their position is unsupportable. So, what to do??? Go on the attack.

Why constantly attack any alternative theory instead of convincing others with evidence and sound rebuttal that the gov't story is in fact sound?

"You" have millions of dollars worth of research on your side, tens of thousands of pages of documents... MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POSITION instead of using simpleton tactics to attack/defuse/confuse/convolute the theories of others.



[edit on 6-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Why do the posters who have 100% faith in the government story fail to post PRO OFFICIAL THEORY threads (for the most part) and instead focus on ANTI ALTERNATIVE THEORY posting?

Is it possible that you are making broad assumptions about the posters?

I for one do not have 100% faith in "the governments" story.

My faith is in the science and the expertise of the trained scientists who using the state of the art facilities have come to a conclusion based on the available evidence.

The rest of that statement is a bit out of context.
You're mixing "starting threads" with simply replying to posts with information presumably asked for in the posts being responded to.
The absence of threads started actually speaks to the disinterest in mixing the science of the investigation with a possible rambling mish-mash of that could be misstaken for supporting "the governments lies".

If your (gov't) theory is sound, I feel "you" would be PROACTIVE and should be presenting as much supporting evidence as possible to solidify your stance.

Again..its not 'the governments' story to me..its the conclusion of scientific method based on the evidence.

Instead "you" are reactive, attacking and convoluting any alternative theory with vigor and endurance.

This is an insightful statement.

Could you give me some examples of me 'attacking' and more importantly 'convoluting' any alternative theory. This is an important point. How do you tell the difference between someone simply addressing the post and someone 'convoluting'?

Psychologically speaking, when a debater stops presenting evidence supporting their position and does not respond to questions regarding the case they are presenting they are showing that their position is unsupportable. So, what to do??? Go on the attack.

Again please discribe the difference between addressing the point and 'going on the attack'?..(which it seems is exactly what you're doing)

This...is..exactly..what..the.. ct's..do.

In that vein, heres a question for you.
Why do CTs refuse to answer direct questions that are asked?

"You" have millions of dollars worth of research on your side, tens of thousands of pages of documents... MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POSITION instead of using simpleton tactics to attack/defuse/confuse/convolute the theories of others.

Its not a 'side' thing at all. It the result of scientic process.

The rest of that statement is exactly what you claim others do.

Originally posted by Vushta
Is it possible that you are making broad assumptions about the posters?

It is a simple task to read all of the posts posted by a particular username. I am not going to bother to enumerate each of your posts and point out how you use degrading language, subversion and other dodgy tactics in almost every altrnative theory thread. It is a waste of good keystrokes.

Originally posted by Vushta
My faith is in the science and the expertise of the trained scientists who using the state of the art facilities have come to a conclusion based on the available evidence.

I also believe in TRAINED SCIENTISTS with a pile of questions and theories that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your government paid scientists conclusions. The problem is, the government will not allow access to the evidence. In some cases DESTROYED it.

How do you know ANYTHING about the processes used by the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 comission? Were you in the room? I WAS NOT, sot he only thing I know is that their reports are filled with "magical" calculations, pre-drawn conclusions and guess work.

Originally posted by Vushta
The absence of threads started actually speaks to the disinterest in mixing the science of the investigation with a possible rambling mish-mash of that could be misstaken for supporting "the governments lies".

IT is rare to see the "debunkers" reply with DIRECT, POINTED, evidence backed rebuttals. Why? Because YOU have no evidence either. You simply belive that because the gov't paid for the study that it IS EVIDENCE. In this matter we disagree. I look at the 9/11 comission/FEMA/NIST reports as a VERY poorly put together theories with little or no evidence availbe to back them up. They are all BACKWARDS science... conclusions that lead to "evidence". In many cases the evidence is manufactured, numbers are distorted, there are even direct contradictions between them.

Originally posted by Vushta
Again..its not 'the governments' story to me..its the conclusion of scientific method based on the evidence.

Scientific method starts with observations and ENDS with conclusions... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Originally posted by Vushta
Why do CTs refuse to answer direct questions that are asked?

Who is making generalizations now? Ask me questions. When I respond to you in most threads you AVOID MY POSTS LIKE THE PLAUGE and attack the "weaker" posts.

Originally posted by Vushta
It the result of scientic process.

You are obviously in no way involved in any sort of 'science'.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I also believe in TRAINED SCIENTISTS with a pile of questions and theories that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your government paid scientists conclusions.

Would you go to a podiatrist for a second opinion on whether to have a brain tumor operated on?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
[Would you go to a podiatrist for a second opinion on whether to have a brain tumor operated on?

Since podiatrists went to medical school why not? Yes, it's not a specialty of theirs but they would have the knowledge to refute someone if they felt it was a wrong decision.

Let's put it this way. Would you trust a doctor who prescribes you a medicine that his company owns without questioning him/her? Or would you listen to this podiatrist that says "no, you don't need that"?

edit: I have a feeling that you'd be taking the medicine without even thinking about it.

[edit on 7/6/2006 by Griff]

It is a simple task to read all of the posts posted by a particular username. I am not going to bother to enumerate each of your posts and point out how you use degrading language, subversion and other dodgy tactics in almost every altrnative theory thread. It is a waste of good keystrokes.

I'll take that as a No..you can't support your accusation.

I also believe in TRAINED SCIENTISTS with a pile of questions and theories that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your government paid scientists conclusions. The problem is, the government will not allow access to the evidence. In some cases DESTROYED it.

Who are these scientists trained in failure analysis, finite element analysis, forensic investigations of structural collapses etc.?
Care to name a few..and more importantly list their qualifications? Its the least you could do to support your claim. Seems reasonable to me.

Destroyed evidence? Thats a serious charge. If you have any evidence you SHOULD bring it forth.

How do you know ANYTHING about the processes used by the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 comission? Were you in the room? I WAS NOT, sot he only thing I know is that their reports are filled with "magical" calculations, pre-drawn conclusions and guess work.

How do YOU know? YOU'RE the one making the claims of everything from mishandling evidence to outright fraud in a case involving mass murder.

What are you basing these serious accusations on?

only thing I know is that their reports are filled with "magical" calculations, pre-drawn conclusions and guess work.

Hogwash. Thats a serious "attack". Back it up with...with...well.with SOMETHING!

IT is rare to see the "debunkers" reply with DIRECT, POINTED, evidence backed rebuttals. Why? Because YOU have no evidence either. You simply belive that because the gov't paid for the study that it IS EVIDENCE. In this matter we disagree. I look at the 9/11 comission/FEMA/NIST reports as a VERY poorly put together theories with little or no evidence availbe to back them up. They are all BACKWARDS science... conclusions that lead to "evidence". In many cases the evidence is manufactured, numbers are distorted, there are even direct contradictions between them.

While you're at it..and I know you WILL address these points or be exactly what you accused the supporters of the official report of being.
In case you forgot..they avoid answering questions..they provide no evidence to support their accusations..they dodge and deflect and change the subject..etc....Hey you know....you posted it.

Scientific method starts with observations and ENDS with conclusions... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Whats your evidence that it was 'the other way around'? Please provide examples.

Who is making generalizations now? Ask me questions. When I respond to you in most threads you AVOID MY POSTS LIKE THE PLAUGE and attack the "weaker" posts.

Its not a generanization. Its simply stating consistant and demonstrable fact.

HEY!..speaking of demonstratable fact..could you repost thos tough points you made that I've supposedly avoided? I don't remember avoiding ANY of your posts.

You are obviously in no way involved in any sort of 'science'.

Point??

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
[Would you go to a podiatrist for a second opinion on whether to have a brain tumor operated on?

Since podiatrists went to medical school why not? Yes, it's not a specialty of theirs but they would have the knowledge to refute someone if they felt it was a wrong decision.

Griff!...Come on man...you're feakin' me out with that one.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Vushta -

I am of the belief that you "do not get it" on purpose.

I think it's more of a "I shall single-handedly and instantly debunk everything (even when I'm not completely sure of what I'm saying) and never be wrong (...or at least not admit it)!" kind of trip, a second cousin to outright trolling.


The problem is that structural engineers don't professionally deal with bodies in motion and pretty much everything that had to do with either collapse. They simply design buildings to stand.

When someone asks why the buildings fell with so little resistance, or why the buildings didn't slow down the whole time they fell, even though the so-called driving mass was decreasing, and the opposing mass increasing... a structural engineer isn't going to be the relevant expert.

A physicist would be a lot closer to the mark.

If we wanted to talk about squibs and whether or not enough pressure could have possibly accumulated across so many floors, we would contact a physicist.

If we wanted to discuss why the angular momentum of WTC2 might have disappeared, we would contact a physicist.

If we wanted to discuss why the buildings didn't slow down, the whole way down, even while the driving forces should have been, by all accounts, rapidly diminishing, then we would contact a physicist.

If we wanted to discuss thermodynamics issues with both (a) the falling of bodies in the direction of least resistance, or (b) energy (heat) transfer in systems, we would contact a physicist.

If we wanted to debate the structural engineering aspects of truss failure theory, ie, "how might this truss, theoretically, have failed?" we would want to get in touch with a structural engineer.