The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

Americans are dumb. some are not.

935+ lies later and you still believe your government.

It's like "Hey, they didn't lie about Iraq, why would they lie about 9/11?"

Seriously America, the world is laughing at you.

P.S. It wasn't The government who committed the massacre on 9/11 it was the Bush administration, following the PNAC doctrine to the letter.

They told you what was gonna happen when you elected them, but American's don't read anymore. (not you)


[edit on 12-3-2008 by doctormcauley]

Originally posted by KMFNWO
OK, now I'm calling obfuscation. I don't know of any truther who has ever doubted there was an attack. Some do doubt who carried out the attack - true

My personal question is Why? Why was there a total failure in a system that successfully defended our skies for over 56 years. Why did Cheney not give a contrary order when the plane (flight 77) was 10 miles out? Why did Bush finish the story about the little goat and not get torn out of that room as if he were on fire. (the whole damn world knew his exact location). Why were 86 pages of text removed from the original 9/11 commission report. Why the record "put" options on American and United (which is now being investigated by Kucinich). Why are the windows intact where the 6 ton engines impacted the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour after this relative pilot "retard" executed a 270 degree turn?

These are "a few" of the questions that I as "one" American have and I deserve answers to them especially given the absolute decimation of the Constitution that I swore to defend as a result of this very questionable event.

Two points:

1. Your "questions" have been addressed ad infinitum for years. Yet you chose not to listen to the answers. This is a characteristic of the 9/11 Truth Movement that is endemic and weird.

2. When someone like me asks questions of 9/11 Truthers, offense is taken, the questions ignored and never addressed. Period.

One such question is one I have asked since 2002 of those who claim no 757 hit the Pentagon. It has yet to be answered. Why not? Anyone reading the Craig Ranke threads knows what that question is, that Ranke cannot answer it, just like Dick Eastman, Gerard Holmgren, Muhammad Columbo, and dozens of other Truthers before him.

For those of us who keep reminding Truthers that there is no "Official Story", but only the independent evidence from thousands of different sources, we cannot help but wonder why Truthers are just chasing their tails, repeating false premises and already-answered questions, and not getting anywhere.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
I would just like to share a general public point of view on this discussion.

Opinion:

First you have to acknowledge that not everyone knows that there is a problem with the official story.

The problem is that there is no "Official Story." There is only the independent evidence from thousands of sources, never originating with nor controlled by the government.

When 9/11 Truthers start acknowledging that reality, they'll start understanding what the real problems are with premises and conclusions 9/11 Truthers believe.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

We want our questions answered and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that!!

They were.

You just didn't like the answers.

Originally posted by doctormcauley
Americans are dumb. some are not.

935+ lies later and you still believe your government.

It's like "Hey, they didn't lie about Iraq, why would they lie about 9/11?"

You just have to prove it. In case you didn't know, we're still waiting for your evidence six years later.

One of the major problems here is the very evident lack of exposure to formal and informal logic by the vast majority of Truthers. This is not unusual, the vast majority of Americans have never had a course in logic and critical thinking in either high school or college. It is too bad because that lack of the ability to think critically plays the largest part in the proliferation of conspiracy theories on 9/11 - an why I and others believe 9/11 Truthers are just going around in circles and not getting anywhere.

Aristotle was responsible for the beginnings of formal logic. He developed laws of thinking that form the foundation of both formal and informal logic. What he did was to study the form of logic that was independent of the content of any particular statement.

I think we can use this thread to examine how logic and critical reasoning apply to the arguments over 9/11 that will help illustrate what is valid reasoning from fallacious reasoning.

If you are interested in doing this, say so, and we can start a mini course in critical thinking using claims about 9/11 to illuminate what is valid from what is invalid.

Anyone game to try?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

We want our questions answered and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that!!

They were.

You just didn't like the answers.

Here's a sample of one of your "answers": " I don't think anyone expected that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings."

Pfft.

reply to post by jthomas


"I think we can use this thread to examine how logic and critical reasoning apply to the arguments over 9/11 that will help illustrate what is valid reasoning from fallacious reasoning."
"Anyone game to try?" -- jthomas

Sure thing, pal....

"The 9/11 Truth Movement goes on convinced of its hold on the truth..."
That statement is a faulty generalization; an error of inductive reasoning.

"but having made no progress in convincing others in six years of trying. "
Were this true, this would be a very lonely thread indeed.
Also, this isn't a good sentence, grammatically speaking.
The sentence as a whole, constitutes a fallacy of composition.

The main problem with the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" is simple. It is not a cohesive movement about truth, it is a fractured and splintered series of increasingly more unrealistic theories that start someplace rational, and then spiral out of control into realm of the crackpots.

Especially on the internet where ego and argumentativeness reign supreme, the "9/11 Truth Movement" is less of a quest for justice than it is a "9/11 ImRightAndYoureWrong! Movement".

Unfortunate, but true.




[edit on 12-3-2008 by Reality Hurts]

I can't wait for us "truthers" to get together with our millions and millions of dollars, to investigate 9/11. Hell, Bush and his cronies didn't want an investigation of 9/11 Why? Bush wouldn't testify without his good buddy Cheney at his side, why? off the record no less. Can't Bush think for himself?

411 days, wow. 50 million dollars, wow. 3 million dollars wow. The republicans on this forum are obvious. The oil we went to war for is at record highs, but go figure, Bush and Cheney are oil men, whoda thunk it?

We all know it was an "independent" investigation too.

If there is just one lie told during the past six and a half years about 9/11 the whole thing is a lie, and there have been many many lies.

reply to post by BlueRaja



Do you believe the official story BlueRaja?

There is an "Official Story", its the one that the administration accepts. There are tons of differing eyewitness testimony, such as "Sibel Edmonds" another Craig Bartmer, or the literally dozens upon dozens of Fire-Fighters who heard explosions on the day, just prior to collapse.

There is no film footage of the pentagon strike so who does everyone think we *OFFICIALLY* go that from??
We are expected to believe that the Pentagon camera's was only prepared for a Brinks Heist>>??

So the Pentagon was only prepared for security if you were trying to "get into their front door"??

There is also the official story on how they happened to find Bin Ladens video tape soon after but couldn't find him!!!

We all know what we mean by "OFFICIAL STORY" and to deny that is to deny the obvious. Its just that the "OFFICIAL STORY" is "OFFICIALLY DEAD".



[edit on 12-3-2008 by talisman]

jthomas - if your impeccable use of logic forces you to conclude the reason no journalist attended the European Parliament was "lack of interest" I won't be enrolling in your class.

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga is frequently quoted in the media but when he asserts that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies his statement suffers from "lack of interest" and is not covered.

When the Japanese Prime Minister is challenged for 30 minutes in a session of the defence and foreign affairs committee about the lies of 9/11 every single mainstream journalist shares the same "lack of interest".

Was it through "lack of interest" that Bush & Co didn't want an investigation into 9/11 in the first place?

In the U.K. only a tiny minority of people are aware of the 9/11 truth movement. Although many use the internet, most still get their news from mainstream broadcasting and papers. U.K. TV has given zero coverage to the truth movement (unless you count the single documentary the BBC made to discredit it). I doubt the situation is very different in the Netherlands. Yet, I've never found anyone who's not interested in the subject when introduced to it.

So, 1,000 journalists are invited to attend the European Parliament's 9/11 Independent Commission of Enquiry - and, as you say, "ZERO attended. Not one journalist showed up. Zero." If that doesn't convince you that the mainstream media is monolithic and state controlled, nothing will.

I should put aside your logic textbooks for a moment and learn a little about how intelligence agencies control the media and orchestrate mass delusion: William Schaap - (Part 1 of 8) - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo.

I don't follow some of the threads of logic here.

OK - the generalization that '9/11' truthers are self-deceived and basing their contentions on stubborn faith-like argument rather than scientific facts. Or at least, that's how I understood it.

Then the opposite and complimentary argument was made about those who believe just as steadfastly that the truth is known and acceptable as disclosed.

Having established that, where are we?

This thread doesn't seem to be about anything but the conflict between the two and not the subject itself (9/11).

Am I missing something here?

How can anyone not see the disparate nature of facts and the pablum the media propagates? And why should I be disinterested in it just because the media isn't?

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by jthomas
The problem is that there is no "Official Story." There is only the independent evidence from thousands of sources, never originating with nor controlled by the government.

This is total BS and you know you're lying.

Please provide these thousands of sources that independently investigated 9/11. Also, please show that these sources have had ALL the evidence presented to them.

I bet you can't.

"Never originating from the government"? How in the hell can you claim this and not be banned for posting knowingly false information, I have no idea.

Please provide ONE source that didn't originate from the government.

Again. YOU CAN"T.

Edit: I'm sure I'll hear about the Silverstein investigation.

Like that was independent.

[edit on 3/12/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

your signature is CREEPING me out!!!!


I guess I would expect at least one to show because even if no one believes in this stuff, SOMEONE could use the story for SOME reason. whether its to humiliate the guy, put into a weekly world news type thing, or for a brief internet article to fill space...
I would just think out of 100, at least 1 would show...
but i totally understand what you mean with the been there, done that attitude these reporters might have...
but due to the lack of coverage in main stream media this subject has attained, I would imagine that they all haven't been there or done that...
just my 2 cents...
well, i guess 4 cents all together since I posted once before...

If you were there..., this thread must be infuriating.

The fact that most of the engaged world is aware only by virtue of corporate controlled mass media must figure into this.

If you can believe that it is possible that 1,000 journalists looked at their invitations and said something to the effect of; "Yawn. I don't feel like going." perhaps this is telling of your own reliance on something less than logical.

The evidence which has been provided is lacking, the testimonies questionable, the motivation and opportunities disclosed are weak to the point of near fantasy. If we were to enter a debate formally on this matter we could easily destroy any argument without ever making a single statement of fact, all we have to do is ask relevant questions. Of course, that assumes that the answers would be truth.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by tha stillz
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Do you believe the official story BlueRaja?

If you mean that I believe planes were hijacked by terrorists who crashed them into the WTC/Pentagon, then yes.

Originally posted by jcavs88
9/11 people should get a life, get over this stuff. Go to the gym loose some weight, get out of your parents basement, and try to live your lives. this is always the same old sh#t. MOVE ON PEOPLE. For the love of god. Go outside and try to not see an UFO, this world is not falling about. Don';t keep trying to throw stuff againest the wall and hope something sticks. YOU PEOPLE ARE SAD, BUT I ALWAYS GET A GOOD LAUGH

Says the poster on a conspiracy site.