Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

I not sure how any of what you just posted has anything to do with my questions posted above.

I'm not even going to entertain your little scernario because it doesn't have any relevance in what we are discussing.

So was it as simple as 19-20 hijackers acting alone in the US(micro level)? Or was it complex, did they have help in the US by some other source that we don't know about(macro level)?

Remember. It's simple and complex right????? Just like you told me.

The problem as I see it for the 'truth movement' is the factionalisation with so many theories that are mutually exclusive which will prevent them ever being taken seriously. It will take lots of evidence (real evidence) and a co-ordinated cumulative effort that the whole movement agrees on before anything changes.

I'm not suggesting the 'official story' doesn't have strange aspects but as to claims of never before (or since) seen technology being involved ... well ... it's not helping, quite the contrary

reply to post by AshleyD


One thing, one thing can end this NOW. Release the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Why not? Hmm---------------------PC

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

For the most part, communities of 'skeptics' who consider science to be the only valid rule - are denying the scientific evidence presented by experts that 9/11 was controlled. This leads me to believe that they are either incapable of accepting the evidence mentally, or emotionally.

Yours is a tired and worn-out claim. There isyet to be anyone, scientist or otherwise, who has presented a single piece of evidence for "controlled demolition", much less satisfy all of the conditions and implications for that hypothesis to be true. They are simply unsupported claims.

True skeptics like me do not accept any unsupported claim or hypothesis including yours. We have no political ax to grind as the 9/11 Truth Movement admits it does.

The massive accumulated evidence simply does not demonstrate controlled demolition, inside-jobs, remote controlled planes, and the whole gamut of variations of the Official Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT). It doesn't matter how much you claim so, it won't make it true until and unless you can demonstrate it.

You simply haven't. Yet you will continue to claim that the rest of the world just can't see it.

The Emperor wears no clothes.

reply to post by jthomas


I would like to hear from family members of deceased from;

1. the crashed planes

2. the collapsed towers

3. firefighters

4. Pentagon

Do they believe the 9/11 commission?

I think the majority of people don't want to even think about their own govt attacking their own country,think about it some are under the guise that the US can do no wrong,I too was sceptical till about 7 yrs ago came by this site,some very interesting scenario's that have happened in the past,such as bombing of SF,'___' tests done on unsuspecting people,and when I watched the twin towers fall,my 1st thought was that the building was dropped by a pro right there I knew it was a set up,plus the fact of my family's background,was a rude awakening,there is no way in the world that wasn't a staged act

The major problem, is that to voice opinion against the "official story", you need to present facts, do research, make claims, formulate hypothesis, etc. Despite that most of the evidence was trucked and carted away, or is still being held by the government.

This is not a problem, and many people do.

However, as in the case of UFOlogy, there is a general policy of ridicule in place in the MSM to majorly discredit anyone looking into the "facts", which has a knock-on effect to the general public. People should exercise extreme caution when "fighting" for a side that wants to silence and gag it's opponent. Sometimes people forget what "free speech" is.

Once enough background research has been done, it all falls into place, but most people don't have the energy or inclination to bother embarking on this journey, finding it easier to launch the "terrorist groups" tirades, forgetting the CIA created Al Qaeda (the database of names), and denying 9/11 history in general.

A few points to the above posts.

1. The 9/11 Commission was not responsible for investigating the evidence of the physical attacks. FEMA, then NIST for the WTC attacks and ASCE for the Pentagon. Each of these investigations resulted in a huge amount of forensic and scientific evidence, interviewed thousands of witnesses, and produced fully detailed reports fully open to the world's scientists and structural engineers. The NIST investigation was made up of a majority of independent, non-government, researchers.

To date, only a handful of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have claimed none of the conclusions are valid or possible, but have never produced the evidence to refute the reports. They include Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, and the usual crowd.

2. It is a fallacy to claim that what the government could do is evidence of them doing anything.

The 9/11 Truth Movement's history is one of evading the necessity of producing evidence to refute the existing huge evidence against it's theories. That's why we still hear the same claims, virtually all of them refuted, but see no action six years after the fact.

You are not getting anywhere claiming you know the truth and the rest of the world doesn't want to hear it. You're only deluding yourselves to think so.

I hope people continue with the bombardment of questioning what really happened on 911. Truth is, and I challenge all who say conspiracy theorists are "nuts", to tell me what really happened. You can't, how could you know. You can only assume. Yea, some of the theories are off the wall, but so is the 441 days it took dictator Bush to put together a bipartisan commission to investigate what happened. Oh yea, and the minimal funding they were given. How much were they alloted??

Well... the Monica/Bill Scandal was around 30 million, Challeger around 50 million. How much for 911??

One good thing came out of the 911 tradgedy. At least I am aware where I stand. The murder of all those plane passengers, trade center employees, service workers and still no answers? Come on!!

Bush/Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Only in America.

And a little tid-bit of info off the path a bit...Both of the above mentioned would not even be able to become school teachers in my state because of DUI convictions, but They could be President and Vice President...LOL

reply to post by StudioGuy


Excellent post.


Truthers assume that all their science is good, and that any other science is bad, therefore anyone who shares differing views is either an idiot, a government shill, doesn't care, etc..

reply to post by BlueRaja


And like wise, officialists ignore Newtons Laws of Motion, any challenges about it are bad, therefore anyone who shares differing views is an idiot, or a terrorists, or unpatriotic, etc.

Somewhere in between lies the real truth, yet with all the bickering between both sides, it will likely never be found.

Originally posted by pursuitoffreedom
Bush/Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Only in America.

And a little tid-bit of info off the path a bit...Both of the above mentioned would not even be able to become school teachers in my state because of DUI convictions, but They could be President and Vice President...LOL

Great post.

Regarding your first point above, I feel this is an extremely important aspect that is majorly and terrifyingly overlooked by most. I think the only reason that could be put forward is they would not "disrespect" themselves by doing this, that it would only lend credence to the "conspiracy kooks", and that no matter what, innocent discrepencies would be magnified to extrapolate conviction out of thin air.

The fact remains, to refuse to testify under oath will usually land you in contempt of court, with progressive action taken until you cooperate. Typically, those who refuse to testify under oath are found to lose their case.

The second point appears to be a glaring hole in the presedential system, that I was unaware of until now. Thanks.

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

And like wise, officialists ignore Newtons Laws of Motion, any challenges about it are bad, therefore anyone who shares differing views is an idiot, or a terrorists, or unpatriotic, etc.

Somewhere in between lies the real truth, yet with all the bickering between both sides, it will likely never be found.

You're right that the REAL truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes, but I'm betting it's a long way from the tin-foil hat crowd's perception.

And I just laugh everytime I see one of these "ignore Newton's Laws of Motion" posts. Can you actually illustrate, using evidence and the mathematical formulas where the events of 9/11 were somehow in defiance of physics?

reply to post by StudioGuy


Observed collapse time of WTC7 = 6.5 seconds

Time taken to freefall from the top of WTC7 using kinematics:

D = vi * t + ½ * a * t²

Where

D = displacement = 174 metres
vi = intiial velocity = 0 m/s
a = acceleration = -9.8m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)
t = time = freefall of an object from the top of WTC7

Which gives us:

174 metres = 0 * t + ½ * -9.8 * t²

Therefore:

t = sqrt (2 * 174 / -9.8) = 5.959 seconds


Back to displacement to double check:

D = 0 x 5.959 + ½ x -9.8 * 5.959²
D = 0 x 5.959 + ½ x -9.8 * 35.509681
D = 0 x 5.959 + ½ x -347.9948738
D = 0 x 5.959 + -173.9974369
D = 0 + -173.9974369
D = -173.9974369

It's out by a slither of a fraction due to rounding my figures. Displacement is negative due to movement towards the ground, similar to acceleration due to gravity.

"Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare."

or

All bodies tend to remain at rest, or to maintain a constant direction and speed, unless forced to do otherwise, by some external force.

What this means in relation to WTC7, is that for it to have fallen at near freefall speed, there was no external force (resistance) outside of the closed system of the top of the building hitting the ground. No floors, supports, columns, nothing inhibited the top of the structure hitting the ground, unless you count the probable 0.5s maximum difference we see between a freefall object, and the top of WTC7.

If something had have managed to make the entire building structure disappear, this would be fairly normal behaviour. A good example of an external force acting upon the top of the building and inhibiting it's freefall would be the ground the building fell upon, or did WTC7 in fact continue what it was doing, according to Newton's 1st Law, and carry on freefalling through the ground?

This is nothing new, and has probably been posted before, and I apologise to the OP for posting this, but I think it's relevant to the thread.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver




In any case : this forum is overflowing with information as to WHY we believe 9/11 was allowed to happen, or even why the black-government orchestrated it. GO and read it. This thread is about how little skeptics have offered the 9/11 movement. We have not been convinced of the governments innocence, and the skeptics will NEVER be convinced of the governments guilt. I'm leaving it at that. You skeptics can continue your pointless tirade against a movement which has no need for you.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Thanks for the taking the time to reply to me, New World Over. There is no doubt in my mind that there is more to the attacks than what we have been told. I admit this field is not my area of expertise so I took the time to read up on your idea concerning the CIA's ties to Al-Qaeda. It seems there was some connection in the past but as for what remains of the connection now I am uncertain.

I like to take all things into consideration before coming to a logical conclusion and never rule anything out but instead review the evidence to see what it reveals. Having an open mind doesn't mean believing everything that comes along so this issue will remain up in the air for now regarding my personal beliefs of the attack. It is an interesting theory that will have to remain just that for the time being- a theory.

Thanks for your input but in my honest opinion, more facts will have to come to light before I accept the fact that the CIA was ultimately responsible for 9-11 (an idea that currently sounds far fetched to me).

Originally posted by Conundrum04

I'm not even going to entertain your little scernario because it doesn't have any relevance in what we are discussing.

That's pretty much how I feel. The skeptics throw out wide-open scenarios that have nothing at all to do with the 9/11, attempting to paint a picture of impossible circumstances for a controlled demolition and planned attack on the WTC.

Why is it instead of arguing the information presented, skeptics draw their own out-of-control scenarios and expect us to explain it back to them? It is an acute form of straw-manning, or setting the conversation inside a paradigm where-in their conclusion is more plausible than 'ours'.

Originally posted by adjay

However, as in the case of UFOlogy, there is a general policy of ridicule in place in the MSM to majorly discredit anyone looking into the "facts", which has a knock-on effect to the general public.

Once enough background research has been done, it all falls into place, but most people don't have the energy or inclination to bother embarking on this journey, finding it easier to launch the "terrorist groups" tirades, forgetting the CIA created Al Qaeda (the database of names), and denying 9/11 history in general.

This is exactly how I feel. The information is out there, but they refuse it. They seem somehow offended that we would even offer them the possibility that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, that people saw bombs being placed in the building, that there are actually 9/11 families STRONG with the 9/11 truth movement. These things, they don't want to hear. It is ridicule.

Leave the skeptics behind, plain and simple. It's no longer a viable option to convince the blind.

reply to post by adjay


The fact is that it didn't fall at free fall speed. Now where is the evidence of the building being rigged for demolition? Investigators typically would pick up on things like that(i.e. the way the steel was cut, residue, etc...). Has every investigator been paid off or disposed of? The fact that every piece of information is not known, isn't evidence of duplicity(or complicity).
Some things may never be known. Some things may be embarassing to tell about. Some things may reveal vulnerabilities that we don't wish to elaborate on. Then there's that whole pattern of behavior thing, where none of the folks who've been accused of this conspiracy, have backgrounds that would lead one to believe them likely to do such things.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Can you provide us with the names of the eye witnesses who saw bombs being place in the WTC?