How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

Ok, where to start?
Let me say that this is my first post on ATS. I am a "truther" and joined specifically to respond to this thread. I hope to bring some thought provoking arguements to this thread that are not used by many in my "camp". I must also say that what I am about to present are exerpts of my original work, although I posted it on another forum which I will provide links for (I hope this is within the rules, as I am unclear about it).
Here we go...
I've done large amounts of my own research on the subject of 9/11. Those who completely strike down cover-up theories are usually not fully informed about the topic, mostly by choice, some by circumstance. The only conclusion I can come to is this: Bottom line, the WHOLE truth is not being told, period. Whether it was put into action by our own government, allowed to happen, or was the fault of simple incompetence. Either way the truth is not being told by a long shot.
Lets look at some facts:

WWI

The US population was heavily against any involvement in this war. A cruise ship, the RMS Lusitania was loaded with 1,989 people, mostly US citizens, and a large stash of explosives and ammunition. It was then sent into hostile German controlled waters flying a British flag, and sunk. The public was outraged and in turn we entered the war. Also note that the Rockefeller family made an estimated $200 million from WWI. Today the equivalent of more than $1 trillion.

WWII

Again the US population was strongly against any involvement in the war, with numbers as high as 85% opposed. FDR in turn, cut off all imports and exports from Japan, and froze all Japanese assets in the US. He also gave support both financial and political to Japan's enemies, which was against international law, and was clearly baiting Japan. Three days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Australian intelligence informed FDR of an approaching Japanese fleet. He did nothing, and just as planned Japan attacked, killing 2,350 American troops. The public was outraged and one week after Pearl Harbor more than 1 million men volunteered for military service.

Vietnam

On August 2, and August 4, 1964 two US destroyers were supposedly attacked by two Vietnamese PT boats while on patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin. This incident was the catalyst for the Vietnam War. Officers who were stationed aboard USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy, have since come forward to say that this attack never happened. Robert McNamara (Sec. of Defense) himself has said it was a "mistake".

If this war did not start under false pretenses, it would be the only major war in 100 years that the US has been involved in, that didn't. That in itself speaks enormously about the validity of a possible cover up, in one way shape or form.
Waves of people, including fire fighters, police, pilots, physicists, structural engineers, explosives experts, families of victims and so on, that have come forward to say "Something is not right here". These people are labeled "nuts", "unpatriotic", "crazy", and the like. They are given no fair mainstream coverage, and are buried without a chance to even present their case.
How does a 747 skip across a lawn, hit the Pentagon and leave no marks and minimal wreckage(enough to be carried off by hand). How does a man, who could barely fly a single engine propeller plane, execute a turn with a 747, that would have been difficult for an experienced pilot in a fighter jet to pull off, and to hit the Pentagon. There was also lack of significant wreckage in the crash of Flight 93. Even the smallest plane, when it crashes, leaves a large field of debris.
Continued.....

Cont...
The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 appears to be far more symmetrical than any other natural "collapse" of a building, and generally when a building collapses it doesn't break into pieces that are mostly just right for the flatbed of a truck. Imploded buildings do. WTC 1, 2 & 7 did. Not to mention the fact that for a natural collapse like that to take place, would require uniform heating on the levels effected in order to create such a uniform collapse. Otherwise, there would have been a detectable lean in one direction or another from the weakening steel before either tower gave way. They didn't do that, they both instantly(at time of collapse) & symmetrically buckled and fell at free fall speeds (speeds ,not exact speed, meaning very close to), shattering an average of 10 floors a second. If you were to have dropped a billiard ball from the top at the exact moment WTC 1 or 2 started to collapse, they would have hit the ground within seconds of each other. Thats an astounding fact if you ask me. 400 million tons of steel and concrete shatters like glass and comes down at free fall speeds, from fire? A fire so hot it can supposedly weaken steel, yet people can be clearly seen standing in the holes created by the planes, leaning on pieces of the broken building? Oh yeah, remember the thick black smoke pouring out of the buildings pre-collapse? Anyone who knows anything about fire will tell you, thick smoke usually indicates a fire struggling to breath, not a raging inferno.

Jet fuel has an extremely high octane level. Much higher than the petro we use in our cars. If you have ever poured regular gasoline on a fire, you know that the fire goes "POOF" and almost all of the petro is burned off within barely a minute. The only way to make it burn for any length of time, is to let it soak in before you light it. We are talking about a fuel that is far more combustible, and would certainly burn off faster than normal gasoline. "POOF" just like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Now, in order for any hydro-carbon (jet fuel included) to achieve temperatures hot enough to effect the high grade steel used in the WTC, it would have to be concentrated, like through tip of a torch, and there would have to be a steady supply. Neither is a possibility in the WTC disaster.
This is what collapsed buildings look like:

Notice how all these examples leaned before falling, as one side gave out before the other. Not a uniform failure, and not many pieces small enough to fit easily on a truck. This is not consistent with the WTC disaster.
Lets look at rubble piles of imploded buildings:


Now lets look at "Ground Zero":


Ah, now we see some consistency. Even similarity.
Some pancake effect examples:


Again, not consistent with the WTC disaster. Also, the only time a pancake effect has ever happened was due to earthquake, not fire. People will say "Well the planes hitting would be similar to an earthquake". That may be true, but this is not included in the official story. Fire was the official explanation. Fire has NEVER caused a pancake effect, EVER.

Cont...

Originally posted by jthomas

How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

by John Ray

Skeptics today bemoan the overwhelming proportion of people who claim to believe in all manner of conspiracy theories from the JFK assassination to the origins of HIV-AIDS. For that reason, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to stop and celebrate one area in which skeptical advocacy has been overwhelming successful: the world of 9/11 conspiracies. Through the work of scholars like Michael Shermer and James Meigs, along with everyday skeptics on the grassroots level, critical inquiry has been overwhelmingly successful in calling these conspiracy theorists to task.

Read the whole thing:

www.skeptic.com...

what a joke this thread is.......

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

you can spew your propaganda till you are blue in the face..

3/4 of the world already knows that the official story is BUNK.

You sir are either a moron or a paid shill.
there is no in-between.
and no, I will not be polite when faced with such sheer
ignorance or deliberate propaganda.
there is no more time to be coy and polite
when you and your monsters are destroying us and our planet.

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Cont...The tallest building ever to officially be imploded, was the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit,MI USA at 439 ft. WTC was over 1300 ft. by far surpassing that mark. Any imperfection in the fall of the towers could be attributed to that. As a matter of fact, I found a video of the second tallest building ever officially imploded and I think the way it falls is eerily similar to the WTC 1&2. Notice how it is rather tall, thin, and very square in shape. It also goes down quite sloppily and falls to one side a bit. Also note in this video the enormous poof of light gray/white dust that seems to just envelope the area, look familiar?
WTC 7 was a totally different shape, a more standard rectangular shape, making the fall much easier to control. It stood 571 ft. tall. A bit taller than the Hudson building I mentioned earlier. Lets compare photos of these implosions:
Hudson Building

WTC7

Notice the similar fault near the middle, pre-collapse.
You also might want to ask yourself why no other explanation has ever been fairly looked at by a major media outlet, at least in the US. Why can't we see the video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, seeing as something like 94 videos showing the event were confiscated by federal authorities within hours of the event. To date only one choppy video that does not clearly show what hit the Pentagon, has been released. Why? Why was most of the rubble from the WTC immediately sent out of the country to be recycled over seas, without any forensic analysis. Anyone who knows anything about a crime scene knows its illegal to dispose of crime scene evidence before its been thoroughly investigated and gone over with a fine tooth comb. Yet most of the evidence from the biggest crime scene ever in US history was immediately disposed of? Over seas? Something is wrong with that picture. Why are there countless important facts omitted in the 9/11 Commission Report, like the collapse of building 7, and the molten metal reported under all 3 buildings? How did amature pilots/hijackers manage to infiltrate the most secure airspace in the world (Washington D.C.) and crash a plane into the most secure building in the world? Why was it that 80 minutes after the attacks the first fighter jets finally got in the air, yet when doing random drills for hijacking incidents it took an average of less then 10 minutes for fighters to be airborne? Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission, like everyone else who spoke to them, and insisted they be questioned together? They also would not allow any press to be present, or recording of any kind including transcripts. Why was there no middle eastern names in any of the flight logs of the passengers of the four planes involved? The unanswered questions go on and on as you can see, and could be easily answered with even the slightest bit cooperation from the White House.
With all this evidence placed in front of me, its hard to believe that the truth is really being told in any capacity about 9/11. Was it an inside job? I don't know. Was it spooky, scary Muslim extremists who want to "kill all Americans"? I don't know. Has 9/11 given Bush and his administration more power than any President in US history? Yes, definitely. Has it caused our rights and civil liberties to be drastically diminished? Yes. Has it given the authorities the power to spy on us without a court order, conduct warrentless searches, imprison people without a trial or charges, and violate the Geneva Conventions worldwide? Yes. Has it made the Bush family richer due to investments in the defense industry? Yes. Has the war in Iraq caused the oil prices to triple since it started? Yes, and the Bushes have been in the oil business since the '30s.

wrestlingforum.com/5135202-post56.html

reply to post by Leo Strauss


I sure am.

We don't think in those terms. Concerning 9-11, We don't get derailed talking about the big guy. Of course, if you really believe in the big guy, then you know God made us exactly the way we are and loves those things about us you hate. In addition, following the logic in your argument, if God makes us this way, then obviously there is truth in what we say, correct?

Course, that's a high-end fallacy: appealing to a higher power to win your argument for you.

I guess the bottom line is, leaving Jesus out of the equation, no......we still need credible, real evidence of a conspiracy. Almost seven years so-called “research” and we have now dumped the steam pile of the truth club on Jesus's door step for validation?

If I were you, I wouldn't hinge my trip to the higher nether region based on 9-11 “truth”. At any rate, this thread is delving into some real "woo woo" stuff at this point.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Leo Strauss
I guess the bottom line is, leaving Jesus out of the equation, no......we still need credible, real evidence of a conspiracy. Almost seven years so-called “research” and we have now dumped the steam pile of the truth club on Jesus's door step for validation?

Thank you Reverend SAP.

I keep hearing this sermon. Perhaps you've missed this thread?

Regards,

A Parishoner

reply to post by Icdeadppl


Thank you for taking the time to post a really large body of text. I know you spent quite some time putting that together.

We are going to go back to the original position we had in the beginning of the post. ]The "issues" you raise have been talked about, and throughly debunked for the better part of a decade. This is the Internet age and as such, the questions you ask, and more importantly the answers have been around for an equal amount of time.

The truth club loves to ask questions and aren't really concerned with the answers. If they were, the collective truth club would stop making allegations in Internet forums, stop making slick propaganda pieces and start getting these "new investigations" done. Then again, if any new investigations were done, and didn't find any evidence of soul collectors, holographic planes and thermite CDs, the truth club would ignore it.

That's the thing: the truth club is interested in neither 9-11, nor the truth. It's a political movement at it's core and they use 9-11 as a rallying cry to bound together disparate political groups under one unifying banner, If you are bored, search the more vocal truthers posts' here. What you will find is their inability to separate their political views with the so-called conspiracy. Political hate speech runs rampant through their posts. If you want a real laugh, actually attend one of their 'truth rallies' and look who's in attendance. The socialist part. The Communism Now! People, etc, etc.

Skeptics filter their biases out and look at all of the evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from it. Truthers see this as but one issue, of many, that falls under the far left, paranoia based, Bush-hating, group think. This facist, IMO, politically correct mindset means 9-11 being an inside job is a foregone conclusion. The say tings like “...of course 9-11 was an inside job and if you weren't one of Bush's cronies, you could see it to...” Can you see the fallacy of their position and how this forever taints them from any hope of actually uncovering the truth?

Just one final point on this: Truthers hate the JREF forums. Mostly because they are treated appropriately and people posting some of the things that get posted over here get ripped to shreds. The number of slurs against JREF posters can be overwhelming at times. The main complaint? The are “right-wing”, “Neo-cons”, “disinfo agents”, etc etc. Actually, a fair number of skeptics over there are die hard leftists. The difference, they are able to separate their political leanings from real science and deal with the evidence,as it actually is.

I get a chuckle out of SlightlyAbovePar's name. Because, I am sure that this poster ment that they are slightly above average. But, being as par is average in golf and actually being above par would make you lower than average. I just have to laugh.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I think you might have missed something: I was responding to another posters' invoking of the big guy. I was trying to explain that the big guy plays no part on our search for evidence.

In addition, using that tactic is argumentative fallacy called 'appealing to a higher power' (literally). That is, they (truthers in this case) can't make their case, so he was saying God knows it's true and you should too.

That's all.

Originally posted by Griff
I get a chuckle out of SlightlyAbovePar's name. Because, I am sure that this poster ment that they are slightly above average. But, being as par is average in golf and actually being above par would make you lower than average. I just have to laugh.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Griff]

You should be chuckling! As a member of the "gang who can not only shoot straight but, shoots themselves in the foot" you're in correct form.

Par is one of the most common terms in the game of golf. Par is what every golfer’s score revolves around – it’s the number of strokes that a skilled golfer should need in order to complete each hole or golf course. You’ll hear “this hole is a par 3” or “this course is a par 70”. That means it should take you just 3 strokes to make that hole, or if you are very good, 70 strokes to complete the course ‘at par’. Par (which is the abbreviation for Professional Average Result) is usually determined by the distance from the tee to the green. A typical length of a par 3 hole is between 100 and 250 yards, where a par 5 hole is, obviously, harder and longer and is between 475 and 700 yards from tee to green. Most 18 hole golf courses have four par 3 holes, ten par 4 holes, and four par 5 holes. A regulation golf course is par 72.

Stay with me.....shooting par is considered very good, not average. In self-deprecating humor I claim I am not infallible, no tiger woods when it comes to refuting 9-11 fantasies, not the end all be all, but good.

The fact that you would make an ad hom based on this lets me know I am being quite effective - thank you! After all, in the end, this is what your left with.

Being completely honest here: I thought you were above that. I don't agree with you but I don't call your intelligence or person into question. I do call your theories into question, but I don't directly insult you.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


you still don't get do you? Being above par makes you below average.

A golfer's score is determined by how many shots have been taken by the golfer relative to par. If a course has a par of 72 and a golfer takes 75 strokes to complete the course, the golfer's reported score is +3, or "three-over-par". This means that the golfer has taken three shots more than par to complete the course. If a golfer takes 70 strokes, their reported score is -2, or "two-under-par".

en.wikipedia.org...(score)

Definition: Any score, whether on an individual hole or for a completed round, that is above the given par for that hole or round. If a hole is a par-4, "above par" would be any score greater than 4 for that hole.

golf.about.com...

I don't see how calling yourself above par would in any way make you look good. As you are calling yourself below average.

Still laughing.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Being completely honest here: I thought you were above that. I don't agree with you but I don't call your intelligence or person into question. I do call your theories into question, but I dont directly insult you.

Not insulting you. Just wondering why you would want to call yourself above par when being above par is actually a bad thing in golf.

reply to post by Griff


Sigh, again. You don't quite understand but have no issue 'standing and delivering'.

Par is not average. A par golfer is very good. Professionals win tournaments shooting 2 below par. I am no tiger woods when it comes to debunker truthers. I wouldn't even say I am very good (which is PAR!)

I would say I am Slightly Above Par, meaning I am better than most, not nearly as good as some.

Cheap shot and if that's all you have at this point......thanks for conceding the argument. I suggest you start a new thread with the topic of discussion s my screen name.

You can continue to laugh at this point, but you're like those slow kids working at the public pool making Bevis and Butthead sounds while drool runs down your face thinking you have the answer while missing the point entirely.

The again, you are in the truth club; that kind of critical thinking "skill" is common place.

Again, thank you for the Ad hom argument. It's nice to know I am far enough under your skin that you are now throwing tomatoes.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, thank you for the Ad hom argument. It's nice to know I afar enough under your skin that you are now throwing tomatoes.

Well, maybe you should take your own advice and stop with ad hom attacks on everyone in this thread. "Woo-woo", "truth-club" etc. are all demeaning in nature and you'd be more than slightly above par if you don't know this.

So, let's get back to the thread and stop with all the woo-woo crap....k?

Or take it to JREF where it's allowed.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Cheap shot and if that's all you have at this point

Not all I have. Please explain why one of NIST's own engineers is calling for an independent review. Or is he just another woo-woo?

I will say SlightlyAbovePar, I do apologize for bringing it up. It was a bit childish and off topic. I was curious though. And now that you've explained it, it isn't as funny as I assumed. Peace?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


SAP, you still haven't shown me where you saw that figure that you spent an entire post ranting on.

It's very easy to be convinced of the opinions you already have. You refuse to see any differently, but that does not mean that you are right. It just means you're stubborn. I'm tired of the ranting. You haven't proven anything, except what you have faith in. Yes, faith. Because there is no proof of NIST's hypothesis, they didn't even test it in the lab (trusses sagging and pulling in exterior columns? Hello? Where is the experiment that establishes this mechanism?).

What has been proven? Tell me exactly. Do you really think NIST's hypothesis has been proven? Do you think FEMA had proof of their hypothesis? Where is it? Can you post it? (No.) Why not? Because you only think it exists; it doesn't really. This is what we're trying to get across to you!!


Griff has asked before, where is the structural documentation that NIST would have had to have used? No one else is allowed to see it. Why? That is NOT typical for a transparent investigation, it's typical of something that someone feels needs to be covered up and kept from people. NIST was not peer reviewed. A NIST engineer is speaking out, calling for a new investigation because he doubts their conclusions. A member of the original FEMA BPAT investigation team has come out against the original ASCE report, saying it was basically fabricated and that he was never able to verify their results, but actually to contradict them.

Are you reading this? Hello? Can you let it sink in? Can you rant on these things for a change, instead of how right you are and how everything is already proven for you and how you think there are no questions? Because that is YOUR OPINION. And opinions are MEANINGLESS.

Where is the real investigation? Where is the freaking PROOF, for any of the critical issues? Not rants, but references. Citations. Excerpts from NIST. Etc., etc. You know, the stuff that would actually exist if you knew what you were talking about! Where is it? Post it! I dare you!

If and when you ever realize that you can't, then think about your position. You don't have support for it. You have faith. Ultimately, you are also wrong. But let's start with the official reports that you think have proven everything. I've already made clear what I would like to see, and I'm sure it's the same thing everyone else here wants to see, too: the evidence that makes you feel so confident. I've been looking for it, seriously. Hello?

[edit on 9-6-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?

OK. I'll try a different tactic with you. All of them. If and only if, NIST reveals all of its data. Actually, the structural documentation from the PA and Robertson would help also as it applies to how NIST got its data. Now, until this is accomplished the NIST report has not and can not be peer reviewed. Got it yet?

You continue to evade the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not the NIST report has or has not been peer reviewed. You have yet to demonstrate that the world's structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects have no ability to comment and judge that the methodology is sound, the evidence is sufficient, and the conclusions are justified from the NIST report.

You have yet to demonstrate with any evidence whatsoever that those people cannot do so.

So, please, would you stop the evasion and demonstrate that the NIST report is not valid and all those qualified people don't think ithe NIST report is valid and sound.

I have no idea why you keep evading addressing your claims. Got it yet?

reply to post by jthomas


I'm going to try your tactic now. Ignore.

reply to post by jthomas


A lot of people (including engineers) have already come forward, jthomas. Hell, Griff is one of them. I don't know what you are waiting for. There are non-profit organizations full of professional engineers, even a NIST engineer and a former member of the FEMA BPAT team have gone to the press to voice their concern.

Reminds me of the allegory of the man that drowns waiting for god because he refuses to be saved on a boat, only to find later that the boat was what god had sent.

You deny all these people just by slapping a label on them: "truthers." And you are in denial. Really these are everyday people just like you, except a little smarter, if you ask me.