Supporters of 911-Official Story: Explain your method of rationalizing those things that are ignored

Originally posted by Hmmm101
reply to post by Alfie1

 

We are not seeking a Detailed explanation of every event


Just what REALLY happened at every event. There is a subtle difference.

OK, what really happened at the WTC regarding controlled demolition please ?

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Zerbst

 

This excludes explaining building 7's collapse at all?

7 didn't collapse as quickly as the twin towers. The falling columns caused the damage that led to fire and subsequent collapse, and has been shown many times if you google it.

Why on earth would you need explosives to destroy a building that was on fire and severely damaged ?

Please don't post photos of the side of 7 that wasn't damaged and use that as evidence that none of the building was damaged, because that would just be silly. You can google for photos of building 7 showing the damage if you want (or not?), as this would be the best way to learn for yourself rather than quickly glancing at a posted link and then probably dismissing it because you don't like it.

Rather than anticipating what I may or may not do, why not just address the topic? You understand that these building collapses were unprecedented and arguably not even possible from fire?

How do you rationalize the only time fire caused a building collapse happened three times in one day? This is amazing and highly unlikely, yet you don't appear to agree? All I'm asking is how you process things like this?

How do you rationalize the only time fire caused a building collapse happened three times in one day? This is amazing and highly unlikely, yet you don't appear to agree? All I'm asking is how you process things like this?

How do you rationalize that the 3 biggest buildings ever to be demolished were demolished unconventionally, even prepped for demolition while the building was occupied, with magical thermite that burns sideways and can cut through columns. All while nobody sees anything or even mentions anything, and trick 99% of experts in the relevant fields that fire did it. Oh, don't forget no evidence of demolition being left behind that would tip off the experts to the conspiracy. Heh, don't forget the only "scientists" that can find proof of this conspiracy are less than sane.

So I'm asking how you process things like this, if this is your idea of the conspiracy, remember, there are other conspiracy theorists saying your in on the conspiracy trying to cover up the truth, how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Zerbst

 

The truth does not need to be fabricated. When you have a story built on lies it cannot support itself. We all know 911 is a very sensitive subject but when we apply science to the OS it is proven to be a lie.

So I have been wondering why there are some who believe in the OS. Are they in complete denial, or are they too blind with patriotism, or are they trolls who enjoy upsetting people? Maybe they are disinformationists hired by corporations, government, or military firms to deliberately disrupt and derail the truth.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by impressme]

This is unrelated to the thread, But why is it that there is a completely different "legal language" that they use? I mean most people can't even follow when these ass-clowns talk in circles. Simply what I'm trying to say is that you don't need to talk in circles if your telling the truth.

It's pretty obvious to me that someone that actually does a little research will discover the truth. Os believers have taken the info as fact without scrutinizing it themselves. Most people here have discovered the truth, I mean I'm about halfway down the first page of comments and haven't yet read a believer reply.

reply to post by Alfie1

If you are seeking a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events which happened at multiple locations and involved tens of thousands of people you are just not being realistic.

Where have I implied wanting "a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events"?

In any event, you appear to be a truther so it is pretty hypocritical to complain about some absence of detail. For example, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were rigged for controlled demolition right ? Apart from this bare assertion and comments like " I knew it was a cd right away " truthers have come up with nothing but Prof. Jones dubious "therm*te" in dust. Jones currently seems to be back-tracking and suggesting that therm*te may just have been used as some sort of fuse to conventional explosives.

Judging me contributes nothing to the discussion. I have not made any claims of my knowledge of events, nor does that info relate to this thread.

Truthers have conspicuously failed to provide any explanation as to how the buildings were rigged while thousands worked there. Why the towers plainly fell from the point of plane impact. Why there were not the flashes and loud detonations to be expected from cd. Why absolutely no cd detritus was found in the rubble. These are not details but gaping holes which truthers are not even making a realistic stab at.

Let me make this real simple. The topic of the thread is about explaining the process of dealing with unanswered and unexplainable evidence of 911 and still supporting the OS? I do not need to explain anything to support NOT believing the OS. That's the whole point of the thread. The things that cannot be logically explained are precisely what stops me from supporting the OS. How can you support the OS despite of these things?

So far as your complaints about the Nat. Geo. documentary I think you should take that up with them.

Again, you are dismissing a failed attempt to prove support of the OS? How can you rationalize this?

style="height: 344px; width: 425px"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/XYJzIs_-BF0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344">





Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion



[edit on 6/2/2010 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Whyhi

How do you rationalize the only time fire caused a building collapse happened three times in one day? This is amazing and highly unlikely, yet you don't appear to agree? All I'm asking is how you process things like this?

How do you rationalize that the 3 biggest buildings ever to be demolished were demolished unconventionally, even prepped for demolition while the building was occupied, with magical thermite that burns sideways and can cut through columns. All while nobody sees anything or even mentions anything, and trick 99% of experts in the relevant fields that fire did it. Oh, don't forget no evidence of demolition being left behind that would tip off the experts to the conspiracy. Heh, don't forget the only "scientists" that can find proof of this conspiracy are less than sane.

So I'm asking how you process things like this, if this is your idea of the conspiracy, remember, there are other conspiracy theorists saying your in on the conspiracy trying to cover up the truth, how deep does the rabbit hole go?

How can you be so utterly ignorant to boastfully declare what I believe? All these assumptions are coming from your empty head. I have not claimed any of this, nor does it relate to the thread? Rather than answer the simple questions asked, you spout off your delusions of my opinions that do not contribute anything but the evidence of your simple mind!

Sorry, watch this video
www.youtube.com...



Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion



[edit on 6/2/2010 by Sauron]

Well, it's not too hard to understand why some people stick by the OS. How do you live in a country where your own government commits mass murder against it's own citizens? how do you deal with that reality day to day?

some people can't. It's easier to just buy the lie. I don't, and it drives me nuts, knowing that the US gov had a hand in this. I know they did. I was saying they did when it was very unpopular to say. I lost a lot of friends for saying it. I said it publicly, I wrote a damn poem about it, and read it in front of a room full of "industry" people. That did not help my life or career one bit The people who believe in the OS believe in it the same way people believe in god. tell an evangelical christian that god does not exist, see how well the conversation goes So what do you expect, OP? the good news is, a lot LESS people believe the OS than ever before. the bad news is, the vast majority of us americans don't have the balls to do anything about it. dunno how to fix that..

"Os believers have taken the info as fact without scrutinizing it themselves."

In defense of OS believers, since these official reports are not filled with insults and personal attacks, they would have little interest in reading them.

In regards to Building 7:

1) Insurance fraud
2) Destruction of key evidence
3) Like WTC 1 & 2, it was also a Larry "Pull It" Silverstein property. Notice how the non-Silverstein properties did not collapse on 9/11?

These are the three main reasons why Building 7 has been swept under the rug, so to speak. Out of sight out of mind. Quite easy to accomplish, especially when you're dealing with a general public made up of mostly imbeciles.

A Physics lecturer who I spoke to believes that there were Muslims with Nukes inside the towers, though he understands why a lot of people go along with the 'controlled demolition' story. He believes the truth about the Muslims with nukes is being kept quiet to avoid embarrassing the Bush Administration

I would like to bring up something. As anyone who is an astute observer of history knows, the citizens of a nation never know the true story of a war or big events, until decades later. That is the case with the Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, Pearl Harbor/WWII, etc etc. However, that being said, many people here take the lack of truth at this exact moment to mean the govt was behind 9/11 or there is a big govt conspiracy.

Lets step back and be logical. In the past when the govt has withheld the truth for decades, it was for one very simple reason; sensitive information that would threaten national security or the wars. For instance, lets say there were some explosives planted in the WTC (which I am not saying there actually was).... but lets say the truth was that this operation was much larger and conducted with Saudi Arabia's assistance. I am not saying that is the case either, but what you have to think about is that there are legitimate reason for withholding info from the public. May not be a convenient or popular truth, but it is the case.

Just because a govt withholds the complete story from the public during the time period of the event does not mean the govt was behind the attacks and evil. So someone can not support the official story, but also not go to the insane lengths many people have about the US govt therefore being behind it and evil.

Although the OS is full of holes, like so many other government reports on serious topics, (Warren Commision, Challenger Report, etc) there is a problem here. As a retired firefighter I've been to National Fire Academy classes where I learned how quickly steel structures lose strength from heat, and how serious impact like from being hit by a large object like an aircraft can dislodge the foam protection from these steel components. A large number of fire managers have tried to push for better protection for this type of structure because it can be demonstrated that this is not the best way to protect the structure and the lives inside them. But, alas, there is money involved in better protection and it never seems to become a requirement.

So, the problem. There is not enough brain power in the political managers who control the results of reports like this to actually comprehend all the details in the OS and of course no one can say that they don't have their own adgenda.

But, based on the "total proof" requirement of the original poster on this thread there is no way either side is going to convince the public to join up with them. It will always be a two sided argument. A very frustrating one.

I would love to see an OS that could be believed by all but in my career there have been many that simply don't hold up to the light of truth and never get revised.

But we do need to keep digging for "total proof"

jtp

reply to post by Zerbst


That's why I said:

this is your idea of the conspiracy

As in if what I was talking about is your idea of what happened. As in if you don't believe in the official story of why they fell from fire, that kind of narrows it down that you believe something other than fire brought them down.

Nat Geo's 911-Science and Conspiracy documentary attempted to demonstrate how jet fuel fed fires could create temperatures capable of weakening the steel structure in Trade Centers 1&2 causing their total collapse. Despite the possibility of this theory being accurate, it makes no difference since it accounts for only buildings struck by airplanes. This excludes explaining building 7's collapse at all?

The National Geographic's episode says "The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes", as it wasn't just "jet fuel fed fires", it was fires, started by jet fuel, as you mention, the fuel would have burned off pretty quickly. It also doesn't mention WTC7 because WTC7 wasn't attacked. Why were you expecting to shown how WTC7 fell by watching a show about the twin towers?

the various findings and reports by the NIST have not only failed to conclusively explain all aspects of 911, but they have even retracted and altered their findings that were proven false when scrutinized.

I'm pretty sure they explained the collapse pretty well. They didn't alter their findings, they discovered a more conclusive example and model of why it failed. That's what you do when you are brought additional evidence and or ideas. Any source to back them being "proven false when scrutinized"? Any questions that you felt are being left unanswered is just you ignoring what you don't want to hear. If you feel NIST isn't explaining the entire collapse conclusively, why don't you or someone in the truther herd write their own report on the matter? All I've ever heard is them bashing everything that doesn't agree with them, never telling you what actually happened, only very bad speculation.

The OS, 911 Commission, NIST and Nat Geo have all failed to logically explain things like the absence of airplane debris, failed military response and other questions they've at least acknowledged. While their answers may be controversial they aren't nearly as telling as their unanimous decision to repudiate some questions all together.

As fun as failing to mention any specific examples in order to remain vague may be, in order to dance around anything a debunker may say is, all of those questions you listed there were answered.

Even if you believe everything in the OS, how do you rationalize ignoring building 7? How can you support the claims made by Nat Geo knowing they completely failed to mention building 7's collapse? Does the fact that no supporting viewpoint of the OS acknowledges the collapse of building 7 provide sufficient reason to at least delay deciding on it?

Building 7 was ignored? NIST would have to disagree, same with the "official story". Again, National Geographic's episode only dealt with like 3 or 4 theories, I can't just say because they forget to test the plausibility of a space lazer demolishing the building that they are knowingly ignoring my evidence.

I could not make myself believe the OS until it provides an answer for everything. I certainly will not support something that consciously ignores vital aspects entirely. How can you do it?

I do it by reading from legitimate and reputable sources, which answers probably any and all questions you may have, unless of course you would rather not see the actual facts.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by dragonseeker



Good for you, dragon!

I regard the truth as the utmost important thing of all. Never deny truth for something more comfortable. Respecting the power and importance of truth is something to be proud of. Keep it up!

Originally posted by Zerbst
reply to post by Alfie1

 

If you are seeking a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events which happened at multiple locations and involved tens of thousands of people you are just not being realistic.

Where have I implied wanting "a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events"?

In any event, you appear to be a truther so it is pretty hypocritical to complain about some absence of detail. For example, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were rigged for controlled demolition right ? Apart from this bare assertion and comments like " I knew it was a cd right away " truthers have come up with nothing but Prof. Jones dubious "therm*te" in dust. Jones currently seems to be back-tracking and suggesting that therm*te may just have been used as some sort of fuse to conventional explosives.

Judging me contributes nothing to the discussion. I have not made any claims of my knowledge of events, nor does that info relate to this thread.

Truthers have conspicuously failed to provide any explanation as to how the buildings were rigged while thousands worked there. Why the towers plainly fell from the point of plane impact. Why there were not the flashes and loud detonations to be expected from cd. Why absolutely no cd detritus was found in the rubble. These are not details but gaping holes which truthers are not even making a realistic stab at.

Let me make this real simple. The topic of the thread is about explaining the process of dealing with unanswered and unexplainable evidence of 911 and still supporting the OS? I do not need to explain anything to support NOT believing the OS. That's the whole point of the thread. The things that cannot be logically explained are precisely what stops me from supporting the OS. How can you support the OS despite of these things?

So far as your complaints about the Nat. Geo. documentary I think you should take that up with them.

Again, you are dismissing a failed attempt to prove support of the OS? How can you rationalize this?

Did you not say in your op, it is only a few posts back, that " I firmly believe that to accept something to be true you must explain all aspects of it. That even if one detail cannot be resolved you cannot be certain ".

How is that not seeking " a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events " ?

When I point out that truther stories about controlled demolition at the WTC don't even begin to address how it could have happened, let alone detail, you get all defensive and say well this just about the OS.

I note that, having complained that WTC 7 has been ignored, you ignore my point that the collapse of that building was the subject of a three year NIST investigation.

Originally posted by jameshawkings
A Physics lecturer who I spoke to believes that there were Muslims with Nukes inside the towers, though he understands why a lot of people go along with the 'controlled demolition' story. He believes the truth about the Muslims with nukes is being kept quiet to avoid embarrassing the Bush Administration

I've tried to make this point many times. Right away the labels are implied that you're a "truther" despite the absence of evidence to believing this. The OS people seem to think proof is required to not believe something? This is disturbing and also discounts the possibility of an alternate technology insisting "truthers" must prove CD? If only they could see?

I said I wouldn't do this anymore, but damn I can't help myself.

That's it, I'm convinced! Until the fantastic arguments brought up in this thread I was an OS denier. But I have found it much more convenient to believe blindly without need of proof or use of my own common sense. All of those "contradictions" to the official story by guys like Rumsfeld, Bush, and Silverstein didn't actually happen. It is your subconcious that has made up all of this resistance, there is not a multitude of military personnel, scientists, pilots, and eyewitnesses who think the OS is crap!

The best argument ever is this one, "Truthers have conspicuously failed to provide any explanation as to how the buildings were rigged while thousands worked there". So by that rationale, if one cannot explain exactly how something occured then it simply could not have happened. Funny how that only applies to one side of the story, hmmm. Can't explain how there is no wreckage at the Pentagon, but no need, it was definitely a 757. Can't explain how buildings defied the known laws of physics on only one day in history, no problem, just accept it as reality. Can't explain how a building falls conspicuously like a CD without jets, fuel, major damage; hell no need anyways. After all, how could the best funded, best trained, most technologically advanced clandastine organization in the history of the world rig a building with explosives without us knowing? Duh, only those who deny don't know!

[edit on 2/6/2010 by budaruskie]

reply to post by Zerbst


Well what the bloody hell do you want to be called if you're not a believer of the official story or a truther, should we start calling everyone "alternative thinkers" to fit your fancy? Oh you patronize defenders of the official story but as soon as we mention truther everything we say is just nullified? Are you some kind of elaborate troll?

reply to post by johnny2127


To conclude something true without solid evidence is reckless, regardless of their reasoning to suppress it. There seems to be confusion in the logic of this? To support something as a belief you need proof. To not support a theoretical explanation requires nothing but absence of confirmation.

The point is that you do not have to pick one or the other. This is the position proven most valid.