How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

Please review the thread i started a while back which discusses brainwashing.

Invastion of Two Innocent Nations! Government Brainwashing!

Brainwashing has two similar definitions. The first is "to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs", and the second, "to induce somebody to believe or do something, for example, to buy a new product, especially by constant repetition or advertising". The small, corrupt group at the head of our government most definitely attempted and succeeded in imposing its set of political beliefs on most American citizens after its creation of September 11, 2001.

Psychological Warfare to control people's minds is actually considered a science.

When the World Trade Center Buildings were demolished, all Americans had questions, and demanded answers. The government had its story ready beforehand, and successfully fed it to the American public and the world. For example, the BBC announced that WTC Building 7 collapsed eighteen minutes before it actually did! How did they know that was going to happen?

I can promise you if you were only to investigate 9/11 you will find how silly you guys are making yourself look with your illogic. Right now, I can name a hand full of things about 9/11 which are "publically proven" but I know you will deny and fail to believe. Doing just what the government has programmed you to do; believe what they say, and flat out deny anything contrary to they're word which is taken as..."The Gospel".

And just to make sure you "the walking dead" actually wake up to the truth, I along with others, spread this information around, fore we cannot knowingly let innocent people believe a widely held lie. A lie can have 1 million people believe it, but yet it is still a lie.

And dont claim this is an "anarchistic" view of the country, its not that we want chaos or disorder, thats what the government wants, what we people want in investigating 9/11 is the truth about all of what happened that day AND new people put within our government who will preserve our freedoms rather than abolish them away after every new so called "terrorist" attack, and people who will actually let the people's choice matter.

Read up on: "The Patriot Act, The Patriot Act 2, The Millitary Commissions Act, PD511, Executive Order 199i, The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive." And there is more! Hell with that last one its too serious, Bush is denying Congressman the ability to review his new directive which states how the government will operate after the event of the next "inevitable" terrorist attack! Can you say....Martial Law? I hope you like Germany.......

I leave you with a quote:

"Reverend Martin Niemoeller-

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."


I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a knob called "brightness", but it doesn't work; damn.


Peace

CR

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]

SlightlyAbovePar posted,

"Did the various Intel agencies “fall down” on the job beforehand? In my opinion, absolutely. Could there be conspiracies to cover up blame for the Intel failures? Absolutely. And that is where, IMO, the real possible conspiracies end and the woo-woo begins."

So you admit that another investigation is needed? I'm assuming you would like those who perhaps failed and had conspiracies to cover it up to be held responsible, for the sake of the victims.

Also, on just a general note, if NIST works for the government, and I can provide example after example of the government lying, then why should I trust their report if the won't release their evidence? I mean, obviously you skeptics are fed up with the lunacy of the truthers, and according to reports over 60% of people want a new investigation, so why won't they just release the evidence that proves their reports. I would happily be on the governments side if they would do this and the evidence backed up their claims.

Lastly, why don't you skeptics go after the government for its lying about WMD's. To my knowledge, not one thing any truther has said has led to the death of anybody, yet the WMD lie led to the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqis.

Originally posted by Grambler

SlightlyAbovePar posted,

"Did the various Intel agencies “fall down” on the job beforehand? In my opinion, absolutely. Could there be conspiracies to cover up blame for the Intel failures? Absolutely. And that is where, IMO, the real possible conspiracies end and the woo-woo begins."

So you admit that another investigation is needed? I'm assuming you would like those who perhaps failed and had conspiracies to cover it up to be held responsible, for the sake of the victims.

Also, on just a general note, if NIST works for the government, and I can provide example after example of the government lying, then why should I trust their report if the won't release their evidence? I mean, obviously you skeptics are fed up with the lunacy of the truthers, and according to reports over 60% of people want a new investigation, so why won't they just release the evidence that proves their reports. I would happily be on the governments side if they would do this and the evidence backed up their claims.

Lastly, why don't you skeptics go after the government for its lying about WMD's. To my knowledge, not one thing any truther has said has led to the death of anybody, yet the WMD lie led to the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqis.

Exactly.

NIST REPORT:

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

We definately need a new investigation as NIST did not complete a FULL intensive investigation, since it did not test for eplosive residue blatantly denying what numerous witness's including firefighters, police and EMT's stated numerous times they heard explosions before and after the planes hit the building.

Peace

CR

Dec 7 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked. On Jan 23 1942 the blame for the attack was declared to be the fault of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.

Now we can debate on whether FDR was spoiling for the war all along. However the point is that the American public, at that time, demanded accountability from its elected officials and soldiers.

The best case for the government regarding 9/11 is incompentence...incompetence which resulted in the deaths of nearly 4000 citizens. That is one end on the spectrum of accountability. On the other end of the spectrum is treason.

So far not one, not one single official of the current administration or military has been held accountable for the events of 9/11. That fact, in and of itself, should arouse great suspicion regarding the governments story.

No real investigation was ever conducted nor any real consequences meted out for failures or crimes committed by our own officials. Nothing has been demanded by our citizens. That is a disgrace to our country and to those who perished that day.

So go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for giving shelter to criminals.
Myself and many many others share no sympathy with those that allowed or perpetrated these terrible crimes.

reply to post by Grambler


Sure, I would love to see investigations into who knew what and where the failings were - absolutely.

STOP.

I didn't say 9-11 was an a inside job. I didn't say anyone knew about the attacks before hand and failed to act. I didn't say beam weapons brought down the WTCs. I didn't say thermite brought the WTC down. I didn't say holograms or Doppler sound effects were used. I didn't say the Vice President allowed FLT 77 to hit the Pentagon. I did not say the Pentagon had evidence planted and a bomb set off as the plane flew past/over/around it. I did not say there was mass hysteria thereby leading to a mass memory that didn't really happen. I did not say there were military planes painted to look like airliners. I did not say airliners had been specially retrofitted with explosive pods. I did not say all Jewish people were forwarned on 9-10 or the morning of 9-11. I did not claim the WTC rubble pile(s) was only 1 story high. I did not say mini-nukes were used. I did not say focused sun beams were used. I did not say orbital, space-going weapons stations fired on and destroyed the WTCs.

What I am saying is that the various Intel agencies )in so much as structure, communication and which threat(s) they were looking for ) were broken.

To directly answer your question: to prove a connection between what I just said and the GIGANTIC leap to any of the conspiracies floating around require..........proof. Not questions. Not hear-say. Not 'testimony' from dubious individuals, not some clown with a bull horn making an ass of himself, not protest......the link requires proof.

It's been more than six years and the entire world is able to see the evidence that is available. What have "they" produced? Innuendo. Experts who really aren't. The same fear pimps who have been on the lecture/Coast to Coast circuit for years talking about the now, “them”, etc.

But, not a single shred of proof.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's been more than six years and the entire world is able to see the evidence that is available. What have "they" produced? Innuendo. Experts who really aren't. The same fear pimps who have been on the lecture/Coast to Coast circuit for years talking about the now, “them”, etc.

But, not a single shred of proof.

Just because you spout the same BS over and over and over doesn't make it true.

There's WAY more than enough evidence to EASILY win in a court of law.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it is irrelevant.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Fair enough. I myself lean towards the fact that I think it was an inside job, but I'm not sure. But I do have QUESTIONS that I would like answered. Obviously, you have questions, albeit of a different nature, about 9-11. So we both agree that there should be another investigation. Presumably if this investigation is done correctly, it will answer both of our questions. If your gut feeling tells you their was some sort of cover up (and again, I know you are no where near believing it was an inside job), then why can't you understand that other people don't trust some of the governments claims, particularly because they refuse to release their evidence? And why argue so vehemently with people who just want an independent investigation?

On a side note, do you care to answer the point as to why you aren't using you wisdom as a skeptic to help save lives by discussing the lies of our government about WMD's in Iraq, and looking into their claims about Iran, instead of rehashing arguments that you are claiming have been the same for nearly 7 years? As far as I know, even if you prove your point here no lives are saved, but info on Iran particularly could potentially save tens of thousands of lives.

Not going after Bush and the rest is true Illuminati action.

They go after Clinton, with Monica from the Pentagon who was illegally
monitored by her boss, to bomb Iraq to make loans to Russia fault and
own Russian natural resources like they own us.
The Rockefeller's import oil and didn't like Russia sending us Iraq oil.

The FED is Illuminati owned by the Bank of England.

Was 911 Bush's Monica?

Who is getting oil money may have reached a point of questioning
at long last. We should be getting cheap gas for saving the
Saudis from the terrorists.

Rocky is piling up the dough to invest in Tesla's science at long last.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
This forum has nothing to do with issues of structural engineering, after all, it's about failed 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theories. So, just why do you bother to discuss structural engineering issues in an irrelevant forum?

No problem. I'll let you get back to stroking your ego and leave you alone. As I said, I'm done with fools and trolls.

You just got stuck in the corner you put yourself in, Griff.

Why don't you try PhysOrg, for instance?

I wasn't aware they had a 9/11 section on there?

You're not arguing about 9/11. You're arguing about structural engineering. Get it straight.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, Griff, just how is it possible for Dr. Quintierre to comment on the conclusions of the NIST report if he, like ALL of the other world's qualified people, does not have the data you claim he needs?

Are you going to sit there and continue to claim Quintierre has magical powers and is "special," or are you going to fess up that Quintierre is in the exact same position as everyone else according to YOUR own criteria.

One last thing before I leave you to stroke yourself.

That's an interesting evasion.

I believe Dr. Quintiere isn't able to comment on the conclusions because, like you said, he doesn't have the data.

Really?

Now, if we go back to your original question of me proving that there are unanswered questions. Then, yes, Dr. Quintiere can comment on that.

Sorry, Griff, the thread moved on and you made contradictory claims. THAT is what we are discussing.

Did you notice what I highlighted from the man? Did you also notice it has nothing to do with NIST's conclusion other than he says they are "questionable"?

I sure did notice. Once again, you want your cake and eat it to. You really are having trouble with this, Griff. Those that have followed your confused and evasive responses immediately note your latest tactic. This time, you are claiming that Qunitiere cannot comment on the conclusions. But, lo and behold, you then claim he CAN comment on them. You claim he can call the conclusions "questionable."

Gosh. You're just doing the same old dance:

"Well, not one of the worlds' structural engineers can comment on the NIST report because supposedly the "data" is not available. But Quintiere CAN," you claim!

"Well, er.... no, Qunitierre can't because he doesn't have the data either, but he CAN comment on the conclusions and call them "questionable", because, er..., well, uh...., he just CAN!"

Talk about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Griff. Your contradictions, story-changing, and favoritism are now fully on record and demonstrate why skeptics don't take your kind of "argument" seriously. Despite your effort to give Quintierre's views "special" treatment, it doesn't work. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.

So we are back to the same point I keep making. The many tens of thousands of the world's structural engineers, forensics scientists and other qualified people have just as much ability and information to question the evidence, methodology, and conclusions as Quintierre does.

And they haven't. Thousands upon thousands of them. And you want us to believe Quintierre is special? Sorry, it didn't work.

Case closed.

reply to post by jthomas


Your argument is flawed. Look, people can criticize the story based on observation of what little evidence there is, but can't 100% prove anything without all of the evidence.

For example, you show me a picture of a blue rock and say, "I've tested this, and its gold". I, using the picture as visual evidence and my knowledge of what gold looks like to say, "No, its not" This is perfectly legitimate. Then you say, "Oh yeah, then tell me what it is" and a say, "well I can't because I would need to analyze the rock" You see how that works? The hilarious thing is you are basically making the claim that if I can't prove what the rock is, I have to accept that it is gold.

I also like how gleeful you seem to be in your posts that only NIST has the evidence, so no one can comment. Yeah, way to be a skeptic and seek truth. For the 20th time in a week I'll ask, if they got nothing to hide, why won't they release the evidence (don't worry, I know just like every time I ask this, no one will have an answer)

You also speak of evasion, so I was wondering if you'll answer my point from a previous post that I have asked 20 times and have got no answers for:
Do you care to answer the point as to why you aren't using you wisdom as a skeptic to help save lives by discussing the lies of our government about WMD's in Iraq, and looking into their claims about Iran, instead of rehashing arguments that you are claiming have been the same for nearly 7 years? As far as I know, even if you prove your point here no lives are saved, but info on Iran particularly could potentially save tens of thousands of lives.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by Grambler]

Originally posted by jthomas
You just got stuck in the corner you put yourself in, Griff.

What corner would that be? You asked me to stop talking structural engineering in your thread and get back on-topic of bashing the "truth movement". I agreed to let you get back to your stroke session.

You're not arguing about 9/11. You're arguing about structural engineering. Get it straight.

If I was talking structural engineering, you'd be hearing things like Euler's buckling, slenderness ratios, forces, moments, moments of inertia, centroids, weak axis, strong axis, etc., etc.

Originally posted by jthomas
Those that have followed your confused and evasive responses immediately note your latest tactic.

It's good to know that I have a following over at JREF. Could you tell them to KISS MY ASS for me? Thanks.

Your contradictions, story-changing, and favoritism are now fully on record

I wasn't aware we were in a court of law? You're too funny.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Griff]

We have another Fox News Announcement by JTHOMAS:

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, Griff, just how is it possible for Dr. Quintierre to comment on the conclusions of the NIST report if he, like ALL of the other world's qualified people, does not have the data you claim he needs?

Are you going to sit there and continue to claim Quintierre has magical powers and is "special," or are you going to fess up that Quintierre is in the exact same position as everyone else according to YOUR own criteria.

One last thing before I leave you to stroke yourself.

That's an interesting evasion.

I believe Dr. Quintiere isn't able to comment on the conclusions because, like you said, he doesn't have the data.

Really?

Now, if we go back to your original question of me proving that there are unanswered questions. Then, yes, Dr. Quintiere can comment on that.

Sorry, Griff, the thread moved on and you made contradictory claims. THAT is what we are discussing.

Did you notice what I highlighted from the man? Did you also notice it has nothing to do with NIST's conclusion other than he says they are "questionable"?

I sure did notice. Once again, you want your cake and eat it to. You really are having trouble with this, Griff. Those that have followed your confused and evasive responses immediately note your latest tactic. This time, you are claiming that Qunitiere cannot comment on the conclusions. But, lo and behold, you then claim he CAN comment on them. You claim he can call the conclusions "questionable."

Gosh. You're just doing the same old dance:

"Well, not one of the worlds' structural engineers can comment on the NIST report because supposedly the "data" is not available. But Quintiere CAN," you claim!

"Well, er.... no, Qunitierre can't because he doesn't have the data either, but he CAN comment on the conclusions and call them "questionable", because, er..., well, uh...., he just CAN!"

Talk about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Griff. Your contradictions, story-changing, and favoritism are now fully on record and demonstrate why skeptics don't take your kind of "argument" seriously. Despite your effort to give Quintierre's views "special" treatment, it doesn't work. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.

So we are back to the same point I keep making. The many tens of thousands of the world's structural engineers, forensics scientists and other qualified people have just as much ability and information to question the evidence, methodology, and conclusions as Quintierre does.

And they haven't. Thousands upon thousands of them. And you want us to believe Quintierre is special? Sorry, it didn't work.

Case closed.

Typical Fox News mindset in the above post.

How about answering a few important questions from people who are trying to reveal the truth about 9/11.

#1 - Why didnt NIST test for explosive residue from the steel recovered despite numerous evidence physically and witness hearing loud explosions and flashes of light, all characteristics of a controlled demolition, BEFORE and AFTER the plane hit?

#2 - Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Surely to put the nail on the coffin they could release some footage showing a Boeing hitting the Pentagon from one of the numerous camera's that would have captured the carnage.

#3 - How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera? (Hint: The 5 Dancing Israeli's who had fixed camera's aimed at the Towers. My opinion this footage was linked directly to key figures of the people involved including Bush.)

#4 - Why was a security meeting scheduled for 9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?

#5 - Why did Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001? Then just after 9/11 were taken away on private jets when all other planes were grounded. Should the families not have been investigated for the whereabouts of Osama?

#6 - Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?

#7 - Why did Atta leave his bag at the airport and the employees didn't put it on board?

#8 - Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam both on Flight 11 survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

#9 - Given such HIGH LEVEL of warnings why didn't the Bush Administration take measures such as placing air defenses on alert and informing airports, airlines and law enforcement authorities of the need to be especially vigilant?

#10 - How could Dubya Bush and his side kick Rice have failed to connect the August 6th warning of hijackings in the US by Bin Laden operatives to the late July warnings of Bin Laden's intent to stage an aerial kamikaze attack on Bush in Genoa? Are we seriously supposed to believe that within 3 weeks Bush had forgotten the night he spent on an aircraft carrier out of fear that Osama Bin Laden wanted to crash an a plane into his hotel? In light of this combination Rice's claim that "no one could have imagined" aerial suicide attacks strains all credibility.

Should i need name more? I mean i could fill up pages and pages of questions.

Peace

CR

reply to post by jthomas


How come every time we ask for something like the evidence on which you supposedly base your opinions, the discussion with you somehow comes back to you playing with semantics in our posts and talking crap about "truthers"? When did we sign up to become "truthers"? Do we even get a say about it in your thick-headed world?

It's like the labels you put on us are your 'argument.' You never post a damned thing of scientific substance. Too blind to notice your own posts?

"Case closed."

[edit on 12-6-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11



Yes, but don't you know that it's been 6 1/2 years of the government hiding, obfuscating, and twisting the evidence and the "twoofers" haven't come up with any evidence yet. I mean come on. Can't you see the reasoning? /sarcasm

I know I sure can't.

911 was Bush's Monica.
There can't be any doubt about it now.
Bush was inactive at his ranch and had nothing to do.
Calvin Coolidge got the Depression as his reward.
911 was Bush's Depression.

JFK went after the power busters and he got busted.
Letterman thinks Brush will get paid plenty for speeches in retirement.

Just let the Illuminati play their games.
Unbreakable so far, from Aliens to 911, a big success story.

ED: Check it out, bet if you yell out to Bush "Hows Monica";
you get Tased. If you can; yell out " Don't use that Tesla weapon on me Bro."
It will help the Tesla conspiracy cause.



[edit on 6/12/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

It's instructive when I demonstrate the fallacy of Griff's argument, you all get upset and totally ignore reason, critical thinking, and evidence.

Not one of you has bothered to address the argument on the table, why Griff has contradicted himself, and why his argument does not hold up logically.

Your responses have served to illustrate the subject matter of this thread, the nature and methodology of your 9/11 Denial.

You all forget that YOU have to prove your case and you won't ever get anywhere when your premises, claims, beliefs, and evidence are illogical and irrational and your bury your heads in the sand in full denial.

You forget that no matter how many of you believe what you claim, you are still obligated to support your own claims. As I illustrated with Griff's illogical, contradictory claims - typical of the arguments and claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 6 1/2 years - your "movement" is going nowhere but to the ash heap of history.

We skeptics are just illustrating for you why your arguments are faulty. Take it or leave it.

We have nothing to prove. YOU do.

reply to post by jthomas


First, I don't see my claims as illogical.

1. Dr. Quintiere can (like all the other engineers) discuss the methodology, etc. as put forth by NIST.

But.

2. Dr. Quintiere cannot (like all other engineers) discuss the fine details of the NIST report because the fine details aren't available to any of us.

This is not a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy would be someone who claims that the official reports are 100% correct, without verifying they are correct by seeing the "ghost in the details".

And to say that we are the ones who have to prove anything before the government has to prove anything is the biggest logical fallacy. Especially when they hold all the evidence.

reply to post by jthomas


Hi! I'm one person who explained how Griff didn't contradict himself, and how his position is not logical. You can read my post again if you like. You didn't bother to address it, but as I stated in that post, I knew you wouldn't.

You say we need to prove our case, but you are 100% wrong. This is flawed for several reasons. First, we can hardly prove anything 100% when the government has destroyed or is witholding all of the evidence. Also, our social contract with the government entails that they should have to keep us safe. Because they failed in this, they are obligated to tell we the people what went wrong, and then fix the mistakes. That means the Burden of proof is on the government, and if we can point out flaws in their story, then they should have to continue to investigate to find answers to those problems.

Let me put this clearly. We were attacked on 9-11. Our government is supposed to protect us. The government has the responsibility to the people of the US to find out what happened. If there story has flaws, then they need to continue to investigate. Therefore, all one must do is prove the governments story is flawed to warrant a new investigation. We try to prove theories using what little evidence we have, but we will never have 100% proof until the government lets us see the evidence. You'll say the government is innocent until proven guilty, but the government making up a conspiracy and going to war over it. I say, the people we attacked should have been innocent until proven guilty. If there are holes in the story, then further investigation is needed.

Now, lets go for a laugh here. I'm going to pose two questions that you won't answer. This will be around the 25th time I've asked them without an answer, but here goes:

If the government has nothing to hide, why not release the evidence, and if you truly are a skeptic for the good of the people, why don't you look into the governments claims about Iran. You know they lied to us about Iraq, so they may try it again. You say your tired of the same old claims from truthers, but debunking us saves no lives, investigating Iran could save millions.

Look forward to your next post where you'll pick out one nebulous line in one of our posts and yell about it, then call us all delusional, say we don't have evidence (which you think is important for us to release but not the government), then you'll say people are making attacks at you.

One last note. I would like to thank most of the debunkers here (not all) for your argumentative style, contradictory statements, and refusal to answer questions. You have manage to convince two of my friends that I have been trying to for years that something is fishy with 9-11, and there needs to be another investigation. I can't wait to show the rest of my friends how debunkers argue!