The state of 9/11 Truth: not pretty

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Maxmars
Or do you believe that if you can't prove something with a written confession or a government certified document it just isn't so?

Speaking for most of em and what I've seen from jthomas' posts. Yes, that would be their stance.

So far, you've not got much right. Remember, Griff, you stated quite clearly that the "accused" (the government) has to prove its innocence and the accuser (you) does not have to support its claims against the accuser.

That is exactly contrary to the Constitution.

Originally posted by jthomas
What "official story"?

Try looking into the NIST report. For starters.

reply to post by Griff


There's a pretty big difference between an interest group and a shadow government. You're implying that the government officials have shadow bosses, that they have to obey. What I'm saying is you have advocacy groups representing some cause or industry that try to get politicians to vote in ways that will help benefit them. In my scenario, the politician can still vote however they want, as opposed to having to vote the will of the groups.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
An "investigation" is not a court case. The government does NOT have to "prove" anything in conducting an investigation. Do you understand the difference?

Since they don't have to prove anything, how can they state what happened? With any certainty?

Any investigation" reports on evidence found and conclusions drawn from the evidence. Any investigation may come up with inconclusive results. NIST's investigation came up with results that are more than sufficient to demonstrate with a high probability what was already suspected on the morning of 9/11: that the crashes of two 767s and the resulting unfought fires were sufficient to cause the collapses AND no evidence of any explosives of any nature were ever found.

The government has absolutely no obligation to "prove" anything. It didn't even have to sponsor an investigation but the benefits of what structural engineers and architects learned from the NIST investigation reaped an enormous benefit from learning how to better construct skyscrapers in the future.

You are perfectly welcome to demonstrate that the conclusions are wrong. Just like the world's other tens of thousands of other structural engineers and forensic scientists are.

But the government is not on trial nor a suspect in a crime. Of course, if you suspect the government is a suspect in the attacks of 9/11, you'll have to provide evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
but the benefits of what structural engineers and architects learned from the NIST investigation reaped an enormous benefit from learning how to better construct skyscrapers in the future.

What benefits would those be? So far, all I've read pertaining to codes being changed deals with fire exits, ingress and egress, and widening of stairs making it easier for people to escape in case of fire.

What exactly did we learn from this wonderful investigation on how to construct skyscrapers in the future? Because according to you all, the next fire in a steel framed building will cause the building to collapse, corrode, and burn for months in the rubble. Since NOTHING has changed as far as the actual design standards and construction materials.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
What "official story"?

Try looking into the NIST report. For starters.

The NIST Report is a report of its investigation. It is not a "story."

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
but the benefits of what structural engineers and architects learned from the NIST investigation reaped an enormous benefit from learning how to better construct skyscrapers in the future.

What benefits would those be? So far, all I've read pertaining to codes being changed deals with fire exits, ingress and egress, and widening of stairs making it easier for people to escape in case of fire.

What exactly did we learn from this wonderful investigation on how to construct skyscrapers in the future? Because according to you all, the next fire in a steel framed building will cause the building to collapse, corrode, and burn for months in the rubble. Since NOTHING has changed as far as the actual design standards and construction materials.

Stick to the subject matter. NIST was not obligated to "prove" anything, correct?

Very interesting thread! If I may;

You are very correct that the onus of proof is not on the government, but I would add YET to the end of that statement.

Much of the official reports have been examined and found wanting - even by those who issued the reports themselves, but this is not in and of itself an indication of guilt.

Until such time as the venue to accuse becomes available to formally accuse a person or group relating to these events, this is a lame duck. The state of affairs for the 9/11 truthers is weak - but not because the case is weak.

They have no support from the system because its locked down by the very people we counted on to explore the matter.

Sad but true.

When and from where did the term "Official Story" originate in relation to 9/11?

The earliest use of the term I found was from an article on the website "Emperor's New Clothes" (then called just "Emperor's Clothes") by site owner, Jared Israel, on 09/13/2001.

Jared Israel had stated his website in May 2000 as a pro-Serbian, pro-Milosevich, anti-NATO, anti-American, protest to the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 onwards. He went on to adopt pro-Leftist, anti-American positions, including 9/11.

His article on 9/13/2001 is entitled: "Interview With Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on Official Story".

The article is here:
emperors-clothes.com...

Jared Israel, as part as his overtly anti-American, anti-Bush camapign, went on to author and publish other's 9/11 Truth Movement claims which are still repeated today.







[edit on 13-3-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Maxmars
Very interesting thread! If I may;

You are very correct that the onus of proof is not on the government, but I would add YET to the end of that statement.

Much of the official reports have been examined and found wanting - even by those who issued the reports themselves, but this is not in and of itself an indication of guilt.

Neither have the conclusions been shown to be wrong.

Until such time as the venue to accuse becomes available to formally accuse a person or group relating to these events, this is a lame duck. The state of affairs for the 9/11 truthers is weak - but not because the case is weak.

I contend that 9/11 Truthers have never made a case consistent with their various claims. I also contend that their various arguments are logically flawed with invalid premises.

They have no support from the system because its locked down by the very people we counted on to explore the matter.

Sad but true.

I disagree. The evidence related to Truther claims about the attacks on WTC 1, 2, and the Pentagon is available to them and everyone else. The methodology is transparent. The ability for experts in the required fields to question, challenge, or affirm the conclusions of NIST and ASCE is fully available. (We should take notice that we have never seen much opposition to the reports, their evidence, methodologies, or conclusions.)

Truthers have every ability to challenge AND file cases against the government based on their own claims and challenges to the evidence. But unless their claims and challenges can demonstrate validity they are not going to get too much more than large yawns.

reply to post by jthomas


I am not sure I can accept this as weighty in terms of validity.

Those conclusions which you say haven't been disproven were, to my understanding were (although not in all cases). Also, it does not necessarily follow that their conclusions need to be disproven to merit a reinvestigation. Several people sharing authorship of the report have directly contradicted the official 'findings' (based on the same experience and training that caused them to be consulted in the first place.) Why these counter claims of having their opinions repressed or ignored has not been challenged is unknown to me.

Also, several highly regarded academicians and engineers have disputed numerous 'official findings' as outlandishly contrived. Yet they seem unable to have their arguments heard, at least enough to evoke an official rebuttal. Again, I can't say why.

Several citizens and citizen groups have brought inquiries to our elected officials (including congressional and senatorial bodies), and had their actions tabled or dismissed outright with no compulsion to address an answer. Why?

Other Nations have requested an official accounting of numerous aspects of the events and have been met with either no response, or no response that was made public.

I disagree that the opportunity to publicly present a case and extract meaningful responses has been provided. I am of the opinion that, officially anyway, it is being avoided.

Maybe you feel that illogical claims have been made because that's all you have heard. I suspect you may be lacking some info here, or are you closed to the possibility that there is more to the 'story'? If so, why? Why do you contend that the account we've been spoon fed by the corporate government and its media machine is the final word on the event?

I apologize, that wasn't fair. Forget the corporate government and their media machine comment. It presupposes an agenda within the argument that you have indicated must be proved. Since your opening volley leaves little room for debate I must ask, what would you consider proof of malfeasance?

I mean this is just a website and all I can convey are words.

the 9/11 truth movement is falling apart.

Too much internal drama, not enough facts

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Did we need an excuse to depose Noriega in Panama? We deployed MORE troops in Panama, flew MORE sortees in Panama-- all WITHOUT U.N sanctions or approval. Where was the crazy-eyed false flag for that? There was none-- Why? Because it is not neccessary--AT ALL.

Taxi-Driver - we hear that argument time and again from the deniers - 9/11 couldn't have been a false flag event because some other occurrence wasn't. Not only is it illogical but the occurrence cited (terrorist event/military operation) usually did involve false flag activity.
The U.S. invasion of Panama was no exception. The Academy Award winning documentary The Panama Deception covers this pretty well.

Of course you miss the point. Which is: We established a precident in 1998 with regards to Afghanistan, in the form of extensive missle attack, the UN had sanctions against the Taliban in place and the disposition of the situation was not improving. IN THIS CASE (Afghani invasion) there was NO NEED FOR AMERICA TO RANSACK OUR LARGEST CITY-- As a matter of fact it is just a ridiculous idea-- think about it. We already had support, or at the very least indifference from the UN and American public to take action against the Taliban regime. NEEDLESS RISK

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
An "investigation" is not a court case. The government does NOT have to "prove" anything in conducting an investigation. Do you understand the difference?

Since they don't have to prove anything, how can they state what happened? With any certainty?

It is left for you to decide. That is what makes America great, that you can even accuse the Government workers, and public servants of cold blooded murder, should tell you you have certain freedoms many in this world do not enjoy.

Believe what you want, no big whoop. This 9/11 conspiracy stuff is a tiny fraction of the public... heck, there are people who don't accept that the world is round.. So it is obvious there are a certain percentage of people that will allow themselves to believe anything. And that is OK.

Originally posted by Griff

NIST used their most severe scenarios because they had a certain conclusion to come to and reverse engineered all data to fit it.

My gosh, what a pathetic argument.

NIST did indeed use the most severe scenario, because in their modeling attempts, the other scenarios didn't match the OBSERVABLE events - exterior damage from the plane hits and engine parts/landing gear flying out the far side. All their other scenarios didn't match what was seen. There was no curve fitting in that regard.

They then used this scenario and energy available to estimate damage done to the core columns.

You want to say that they used the more severe scenario in order to make sure it collapsed. No, this is wrong. Pathetic.

Originally posted by Whodunnit
You want to say that they used the more severe scenario in order to make sure it collapsed. No, this is wrong. Pathetic.

The argument is valid. Or NIST would have investigated ALL possible scenarios until each and every one was narrowed down to the best fit.

This certainly DID NOT happen. We have NIST spokemen telling us there was no molten metal. When people who were there saw it. He is calling these heroes liars.

And I really don't blame NIST at all. Just ask them how many samples they had access to to do their investigation. They'll tell you point blank. NOT MANY.

Right there should tell you people something. But, it won't and I grow weary of talking to brick walls.

[edit on 3/13/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by jthomas
When and from where did the term "Official Story" originate in relation to 9/11?

The earliest use of the term I found was from an article on the website "Emperor's New Clothes" (then called just "Emperor's Clothes") by site owner, Jared Israel, on 09/13/2001.
...
Jared Israel, as part as his overtly anti-American, anti-Bush camapign, went on to author and publish other's 9/11 Truth Movement claims which are still repeated today.

How fascinating that the phrase "the official story" was coined only two days after 9/11!

Thanks for posting this jt, very interesting factoid. Perhaps more than you intended.

You see it as some "anti-American, anti-Bush camapign," but really, how prescient on this guy's part to call-out the media campaign from the outset.

And of course you know that OBL is not wanted by the FBI for perpetrating 9/11, lending credence to your contention.

BTW, I'd be very interested to know what sort of political deviant coined the phrase "ground zero." Any links would be appreciated.

The fact that there is no hard evidence to link Osama Bin Laden legally to 9/11 doesn't change the fact that he admitted to doing it.

reply to post by Holygamer


That's a fact? Do you understand what a 'fact' is? Just because something comes from an 'official' source it doesn't mean it should be automaticly excepted. You really should learn to question more, it's your patriotic duty to protect your country from rogue government, like these folks..

The only evidence we have that Osama bin Laden knew about 9/11 is a video "confession" which turns out to contain a fake Osama (in other words, a poor double)!

Source

Not saying this is all true, he maaay have done it, but just pointing out your facts are not facts and you are really doing yourself and your country a disfavour by blindly repeating lies to protect a rogue government.

reply to post by ANOK


Meh. I question enough when its within reason.

The more and more I hear people say "its a conspiracy" about anything, the more they often get proven wrong.

I heard the same thing about "one bullet couldn't have done all that damage to both JFK and connelly."

Anybody that disagreed was ignorant.

Till it was proven possible.


So sir, I say to you, maybe you should step back, and breathe in the intoxicating air of reality for a moment, and stop living in "Aliens attacked the WTC so they could get the jewish gold underneath of it to fund John titors new time machine to go back in time and fix the philadelphia experiment so they can use Montauk to go to the paleolithic and train dinosaurs to be ridden by nazis whom will help aide Bush and rockefeller take over the US in a giant coup in the 30s to stop the reptillians" land.