Looking For 911 Truths? You Will Not Likely Find It on These Websites

www.911myths.com...
www.debunking911.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.answers.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
www.debunk911myths.org...
www.slate.com...
www.amazon.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.sciam.com...
www.sfgate.com.../gate/archive/2006/04/...
www.2spare.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.carpenoctem.tv...

You will not find much truth in these websites. These websites are mostly opinions by the owners and supporters who apparently have their own agendas and the Truth is not one of them in my opinion. I have not seen these websites show credible sources of science debunking anything.
Here are some examples:

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

I recently kept track of NY911truth’s statements at Ground Zero over a 3 ½ hour period. During that time I didn’t hear any of the 10 of them make a single true claim to the public. Recently they spent an hour arguing with an Air Force morgue technician who processed the remains from the Pentagon. Remember, this group claims that there were no remains of flight 77 passengers at the Pentagon, because that plane never crashed there. It takes a special kind of person to make that argument to the face of someone who personally handled those charred remains.
Abby Scott and Ray Rivera made a funny video based on some of these encounters, which captures a bit of the lunacy of the “Truthers:” /jrhk8. When I’m around the Truthers I often have the refrain of the old song “She’s More to be Pitied Than Censured” running around in my head:
She is more to be pitied than censured,
She is more to be helped than despised.
She is only a lassie who ventured
On life's stormy path, ill-advised.
Then I snap out of it and remember that these people give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence. And they do this at Ground Zero. They are the most delusional people I have ever met, and their delusions are dangerous.
Below is a scanned and reduced reproduction of the pamphlet that NY911truth hands out by the thousand to tourists from Mexico, Sweden, and Nebraska. I’ve highlighted all the false statements in red, and all the misleading statements and photos in purple.

www.jod911.com...
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths
www.debunking911.com...

Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Volume 1, Issue 2 Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Sept 2006/Volume 1, Issue 2 P a g e | 1
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers

The context in which these quotes are given is important in this case. In the context of a conspiracy theory web site or paper, the quotes seem ominous. So many people using the word “explosion”… But in the context of a terrorist attack, and especially in the first few hours, it becomes understandable. All anyone knew at the time was that terrorists were attacking. Terrorists usually blow things up. They had already flown two planes into two buildings; it would not be unreasonable to expect the people on the scene to think of “bombs” when hearing loud sounds. Did they fly planes into the buildings AND blow them up? They had no way of knowing at that chaotic time.

www.jod911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

It is plain as day, the author gives his “opinions” as facts, yet they are not true.

The author of the paper goes on to make misleading statements about pancaking and the role of the 9/11 commission report. Here, the author says the NIST report doesn‟t mention pancaking, suggesting that pancaking did not occur. The NIST was not charged with putting conspiracy theorists‟ fears to rest so they never followed the collapse to the ground. The NIST report was for recommending future building codes to try and prevent future collapses and give people time to escape.5

www.jod911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

This is a joke, why didn’t NIST help past laws that any natural "office fires" could bring down buildings, do to their findings, and demand Congress to past stricter laws in fire prevention and safty in all high-rises.

Yes, one of the leading hypotheses for the collapse initiation in the beginning was pancaking but the NIST never held this view. This hypothesis took the lead in some papers and documentaries until all the evidence was examined by the NIST. [color=gold]Many of those papers and documentaries had nothing to do with the government but they are typically conflated by the conspiracy theorists as part of an “official story”. The word “story” is injected as a propaganda tool to cast doubt on the NIST report.

www.jod911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

Had nothing to do with the government? Is he kidding or what? This author thinks he can fool you by out right lying.

The NIST Report that explained the buildings collapses and was proclaimed by many Physicists, Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Professors, around the world to literally re-write physics.

I can post MANY well documented, verifiable statements from those people too.

The NIST Report was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend Frank Gayle who wrote the final report. The NIST investigation was told to explain the collapses without looking at the possibility of explosives. There were people who adamantly told Frank Gayle the NIST Report was flat out wrong and the Twin Towers should have easily stood.

Here is a simple comprehensive example that depicts how the NIST investigation went when Bush appointed his personal friend to head the NIST Report and collapse investigation.

The NIST investigation did NOT look at the possibility in explosives in the collapses....even though there are countless witnesses live on the news who heard many explosions.
www.usmessageboard.com...

4.) What is the NIST? Like FEMA, it has been turned to the “war on terror”:
en.wikipedia.org...
Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly known as The National Bureau of Standards) is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration.
… In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, NIST is playing a key role in enhancing the nation’s homeland security. Through projects spanning a wide range of research areas, NIST is helping the millions of individuals in law enforcement, the military, emergency services, information technology, airport and building security, and other areas protect the American public from terrorist threats. For example, NIST is currently developing government-wide identification card standards for federal employees and contractors to prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems….
———
5.) Payoff #2 – Who ran the NIST at the time of its famed $26-million study?”
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
NIST Director, 2001-2004
www.nsf.gov...
/bement/bement_bio.jsp
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Director
National Science Foundation
… Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously served as head of that agency’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s primary private-sector policy adviser; as head of the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced Technology Program… [He] was a member of the Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory… positions included: vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980-1992); deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979-1980); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976-1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976); manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and senior research associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
————
6.) Dr. Bement left the NIST in 2005, and currently directs the National Science Foundation (NSF). It has also received a whopping budget increase – at at time of severe fiscal constraints – and this has not passed unnoticed in the District of Columbia:
chronicle.com...
2005021801n.htm
2/18/2005 Senators Lay Into Bush’s Proposed
Budget for National Science Foundation
By JEFFREY BRAINARD

www.antifascistencyclopedia.com...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by impressme]

Shell I say anymore? This is why I posted this little tid-bit, just to show the distortion and outright lies these websites publish. This is only to persuade readers to believe in the OS.
Either these websites are government funded or they are run by people who are in such denial that they make up lies to justify their beliefs. In my opinion, this is the only way one can support the OS of 911. I have noticed many OS believers using many of these websites as their main source to back their ridiculous claims.

I have confronted many of these debunkers that continue to rely on these fraudulent websites as their facts. 911 Myths, is just one of the websites I seen used on most of the 911 topics on ATS fourms.
My advices: websites that promote mostly “opinions” as their facts and bashes Truthers are not credible websites.
Read some of these sites that I have presented and tell me if you support them and why.

Those of you who are really looking for 911 Truth will find credible scientific answers by real professionals.
Here is a small list of websites that many OS believers avoid.

[color=gold]Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth
cms.ae911truth.org...

[color=gold]Pilots for 9/11 Truth
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

[color=gold]Firefighters For 9-11 Truth
firefightersfor911truth.org...

[color=gold]911 Truth.org
911truth.org...

[color=gold]Patriots question 911.com
www.patriotsquestion911.com...


[edit on 11-5-2010 by impressme]

I love how people say when you research 9/11 only research the websites that say that the buildings collapsed via controlled demolition and the websites that say that the buildings collapsed becuase they were hit with 110-150 ton airplanes and set on fire are lies.

Originally posted by iamcpc
I love how people say when you research 9/11 only research the websites that say that the buildings collapsed via controlled demolition and the websites that say that the buildings collapsed becuase they were hit with 110-150 ton airplanes and set on fire are lies.

Truthers have to say that to try to shift the burden of proof from their shoulders and avoid having to support their claims with actual evidence. It hasn't worked in 9 years and we will keep reminding them that the burden of proof remains with them.

Nothing will happen until and unless they recognize that in order to get a new investigation, Truthers are going to have to demonstrate why.

Originally posted by impressme
Here are some examples:

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

I recently kept track of NY911truth’s statements at Ground Zero over a 3 ½ hour period. During that time I didn’t hear any of the 10 of them make a single true claim to the public. Recently they spent an hour arguing with an ... I’ve highlighted all the false statements in red, and all the misleading statements and photos in purple.

What is this an example of? If you're using it as proof that websites occasionally contain "opinions" and colour pieces as opposed to continuous raw fact then I suppose you're proved your point. But I'm not sure you would have found many people disagreeing with you in the first place.

If, on the other hand, you're using it to suggest that these websites are ALL opinion, then it's a woefully inadequate proof.

Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Volume 1, Issue 2 Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Sept 2006/Volume 1, Issue 2 P a g e | 1
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers

The context in which these quotes are given is important in this case. In the context of a conspiracy theory web site or paper, the quotes seem ominous. ...
www.jod911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

It is plain as day, the author gives his “opinions” as facts, yet they are not true.

And yet you don't refute them. You just tell us from on high that these are opinions. It's not "plain as day" to me, I must say.

The author of the paper goes on to make misleading statements about pancaking and the role of the 9/11 commission report. Here, the author says the NIST report doesn‟t mention pancaking, suggesting that pancaking did not occur...
www.jod911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

This is a joke, why didn’t NIST help past laws that any natural "office fires" could bring down buildings, do to their findings, and demand Congress to past stricter laws in fire prevention and safty in all high-rises.

There are lots of examples of buildings whose design and build have been altered because of what happened on 9/11.

Yes, one of the leading hypotheses for the collapse initiation in the beginning was pancaking but the NIST never held this view. This hypothesis took the lead in some papers and documentaries until all the evidence was examined by the NIST. [color=gold]Many of those papers and documentaries had nothing to do with the government but they are typically conflated by the conspiracy theorists...

Had nothing to do with the government? Is he kidding or what? This author thinks he can fool you by out right lying.

Hang on. He says that the initial reports were not government sponsored. You're calling him a liar. But you provide no substantiation. Instead you just go on to talk about NIST.

The NIST Report that explained the buildings collapses and was proclaimed by many Physicists, Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Professors, around the world to literally re-write physics...

Have you just misunderstood what the piece claims, or do you just not have the requisite information to prove it false?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by iamcpc
I love how people say when you research 9/11 only research the websites that say that the buildings collapsed via controlled demolition and the websites that say that the buildings collapsed becuase they were hit with 110-150 ton airplanes and set on fire are lies.

Truthers have to say that to try to shift the burden of proof from their shoulders and avoid having to support their claims with actual evidence. It hasn't worked in 9 years and we will keep reminding them that the burden of proof remains with them.

Nothing will happen until and unless they recognize that in order to get a new investigation, Truthers are going to have to demonstrate why.

It won't matter. Every major event has a conspiracy theroy. There will always be people who don't believe that man walked on the moon unless they go to the moon and see the human footprints with their own two eyes.

Who would do the new investigation? How could anyone be 100% sure that the people doing the new investigation were not in the pocket of the powers that be? It will never happen.

reply to post by iamcpc


You might find this interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's full of germane quotes, but I'm often reminded of this bit when I visit this board:

A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed.

Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence.”

The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.

You can throw Study of 911 on there also, The site has an extensive image gallery for alot of photos dealing with the towers and a few articles on the site that are unbiased and dont direct you to think this way or that way regardless of our thoughts on the subject.. We try to leave people come up with their own idea on what happened that day..

The site is www.studyof911.com...

And yes I agree the above sites are just garbage in most cases, Do a search on here of Popular Mechanics and you will see its own by some big name place, cant remember who off hand and well I had a run in with the one guy from 911myths in nyc in 06, needless to say he didnt have any answers to simple common sense questions i asked him.

Anyway My thoughts on this are either way you decide to fall on this issue let ur own brain think on what happened, dont like some idiots on the internet sway your opinion 1 way or the other. If you feel what you are reading is the truth then chances are it probably is. at least to you anyway.

reply to post by impressme


So every website that doesn't support the view that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were behind 9/11 is lying, and every conspiracy website is telling the truth?
Surely it can't be as simple as that.

And why are the pro-conspiracy sources to be trusted impicitly? If 9/11 was in fact perpetrated by some secret group, you'd have to assume that, for example, the Architects for 9/11 Truth must have at least half a dozen infiltrators on board. It's inconceivable that the conspirators would permit an organization that is on the way to uncovering the plot to operate unchecked.

The same applies to all information about 9/11. The believer in conspiracy boos and hisses at the NIST report, and cheers the latest youtube video that mocks the notion of an Al Qaeda attack. The blindingly obvious question is, why trust the youtube video? We have no idea who made it. He claims to be some 16 year old, but he could be anybody.

I love it, there are ignorant people who really do not get it.

My advices: websites that promote mostly “opinions” as their facts and bashes Truthers are not credible websites.
Read some of these sites that I have presented and tell me if you support them and why.

I have notices, the “OS believers” will not answer my OP but to only ridicule it. It would be nice to know why some of you “OS believers” support 911 Myths? Some of the OS believers use these website some times, yet their website is nothing but “opinions” little to no facts, and no sciences to support anything.

I knew some of you would say these conspiracy theorists that are looking for Truth, only pick websites that support their insane myths. This is a typical denial argument.

Most people who have really done their research and I mean years of it into 911
and have read “911 Myths” website, can see it is full of opinions, distortions, and out right lies.

I set up this thread to give an example of how disinformation works on some websites, pertaining to 911 and that there are well known websites set up against the Truth movement and the Truth. Not only will you read their garbage, but the websites gives people tools on how to attack Truthers and how to evade answering simple questions. I call these websites “Trolling strategies,” Some of these websites are good at giving advice on how to disrupt civil conversations and railroad topics. Not only do they do all of those things, they have no problems in speaking their hatred towards the Truth movement; they also put ideas in the minds of those who are ignorant to the facts.

I welcome your opinions on this topic.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by vicen
So every website that doesn't support the view that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were behind 9/11 is lying, and every conspiracy website is telling the truth?
Surely it can't be as simple as that.

But yet it's so simple and okay when "debunkers" do the exact opposite and continuously claim that all 9/11 truth sites are lying and every debunker site is telling the truth.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by vicen
So every website that doesn't support the view that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were behind 9/11 is lying, and every conspiracy website is telling the truth?
Surely it can't be as simple as that.

But yet it's so simple and okay when "debunkers" do the exact opposite and continuously claim that all 9/11 truth sites are lying and every debunker site is telling the truth.

Give me a break.

The burden of proof remains on your shoulders -- and on those of every other Truther -- to support your claims with evidence. You do not want to accept that burden. You avoid it at all costs. You are satisfied to make claims without evidence and are offended that you should have to support your claims when challenged and/or presented evidence inconvenient to your deeply-held beliefs.

So no, no one will give you a break from your responsibility, nor should they. And no one will give the 9/11 Truth Movement special privileges to do so either. Denying that burden of proof is fundamental to why the 9/11 Truth Movement has made absolutely no progress in getting a new investigation.




[edit on 11-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

The burden of proof remains on your shoulders -- and on those of every other Truther -- to support your claims with evidence. You do not want to accept that burden. You avoid it at all costs. You are satisfied to make claims without evidence and are offended that you should have to support your claims when challenged and/or presented evidence inconvenient to your deeply-held beliefs.

Who told you that you that you do not have to prove the OS? You support it don’t you?
I got news for you, the burden of proof lies on “both parties”! 911 is not one sided and you have never proved the OS true. The Truth movement has proved the OS is mostly lies and that is a proven fact.

You do not want to accept that burden. You avoid it at all costs.

This is unbelievable, Bones is a credible poster on ATS he always backs his sources, and everyone who reads these 911 threads know this. In fact I have never seen Bones avoid anything.

You are satisfied to make claims without evidence

If there was any truth to this you would have been delighted to demonstrated it, yet you didn’t because its not true.

are offended that you should have to support your claims when challenged

You are joking right? Bones? I think not.

when challenged and/or presented evidence inconvenient to your deeply-held beliefs.

This is not about beliefs, this is about Truths and supporting the credible facts. It is the OS believers who have a belief system, because many cannot handle the shocking truth.

Originally posted by impressme

I have notices, the “OS believers” will not answer my OP but to only ridicule it.

Hang on. I made specific points about your post. I didn't ridicule it at all.

And you've just ignored them. Why?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

I would like to point out one other thing about these sites that cliam to debunk the people who question the events of 911. You can't put a name or face to many of these sites. I know there is one guy who has a website and youtube channel who claims he's debunker who blaims the attacks on US and Israel relations.

I also want to give a special shout-out to a special debunker who likes to continually ask "Where's your evidence for a new investigation." The people who have questions have NEVER been given the power to subpoena! Only the 911 commission and NIST were given these powers and guess how many people NIST subpoenaed?

I'm just beginning to read the 911 commission report and from someone who's job is to read legeal descriptions and write reports i couldn't hardly get through the introductions, preface and the first few pages of the report without going WTF!

The preface is nothing but a cleverly designed disclaimer and the first page of the actual report reads like something from Charles Dickens. I can't imagine what i would come up if i was to actually critically review and fact check this report. It wouldn't matter anyhow because it's clear in the preface of this report that noone can be held responsible for this piece of work. The same thing goes for the NIST report which clearly states their disclaimers.

I would REALLY like for one of you debunkers to start a thread and tell me exactly what the "Facts or Evidence" is and let people who have questions about 911 play the role of debunker. It's a complete insult to the people who obviously take a lot of time to put these posts together that show inconsistencies with theses reports for a debunker to do one of the following...

1-Take one word or words and twist the meanning that has nothing to do with the topic which leads to a derailment of the whole thread.

2-Introduce ideas of your own that is backed by no factual evidence, only speculation. The very same thing you accuse people with questions for doing.

3-Continually throwing the word "Truther" around or "Truther mentallity", like that adds ANY credence to your arguement.

4-Completely decide not to post in threads where a point that has been made that does not supports the OS. If a post is made by a debunker in a thread such as this it's usually in reply to a particular post where both sides would disagree that the poster was wrong.

I haven't seen ONE thread started from a debunker who wants to stand behind behind the 911 commission or NIST report. I find this odd considering this is what you want all of us to believe.

I know i have got off topic and i apologize, but i would just like a level playing field for both debunkers and people who have questions since in my opinion there are no "Facts or Evidence" for the OS either since noone can be held legeally responsible for either of these reports, as of yet. This would atleast provide a common ground of "Facts or Evidence" that both sides could agree with.

I haven't read the full reports and i'm just starting to read them, if time allows, so i usually stay away from these topics. I will admit that on a scale of believing the OS and not believing the OS i'm biased towards the side of disbelief, mainly because there appears to be more written word or video against the OS. I can't possibley fact check all the info on the inernet, but i know who could.(Congress)

Originally posted by curious_soul

I also want to give a special shout-out to a special debunker who likes to continually ask "Where's your evidence for a new investigation." The people who have questions have NEVER been given the power to subpoena! Only the 911 commission and NIST were given these powers and guess how many people NIST subpoenaed?

The question is how are you going to get a new investigation?

I'm just beginning to read the 911 commission report and from someone who's job is to read legeal descriptions and write reports i couldn't hardly get through the introductions, preface and the first few pages of the report without going WTF!

Who do you intend to convince of that?

I would REALLY like for one of you debunkers to start a thread and tell me exactly what the "Facts or Evidence" is and let people who have questions about 911 play the role of debunker.

That's been done for the last 9 years. The NIST and ASCE reports are available to you. Those remain what you are challenging and what you have to debunk. The facts, evidence, methodology, and conclusions are completely open to anyone -- in particular those whose expertise are in the relevant fields -- to affirm, correct, or refute. They are open to you to do the same.

In the meantime, we also have the right to question your claims, data, evidence, methodology, and conclusions, and we do. You have the same rights but you also have the obligation to acknowledge when your claims have been shown to be erroneous, illogical, not based on actual facts and evidence, and do not refute the NIST and ASCE investigations.

As we see, the same topics and subject matter is being discussed now that were dealt with up to 8 years ago. Why should we rehash that just because some will not accept the answers?

I've asked many how they would go about trying to get a new investigation, which appears to be the true intent of those challenging the NIST and ASCE investigations. I have not yet received an answer.

You are welcome to let us know how you expect to achieve that?

reply to post by jthomas


How am "I" going to get a new investigation?

"I" will probably never get a new investigation. "I" am not President. I beleive he is the only "I" you talk about who could demand a new investigation."

"I" would ask "you" are you ready to accept the 911 Commission Report and the NIST Report as a leagally complete and factual based set of docuements explaining the events of 911? Would you legally testify in a court of law under oath and accept the possible penalty of perjury that both of these reports were done to the best of their ability?

Who do i intend to covince of that?

Exactly what convincing do you or anyone else need? But since you asked i'm a level III Land Surveying Technician accredited by the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping who has been in the field of Civil Engineering and Land Surveying for 20 yrs who is now trying to meet the educational requirements to become a LS.

My experience in reading legal documents comes from court house research relating to property deeds. I'm no lawyer or even a legal assistant who looks up actual case law or previous court decisions, but i do have experience in writing and reading legal descriptions(Deeds) and know how and why they are worded the way they are.

I also have to preform field reports on any survey i may perform that can be used in a court of law in the case of a Surveying dispute. I may even be called as a wittness, even though that is not standard and the LS usually is the one who would attend such a meeting. He would still use my notes in the field on observations i made or calculations i made in the field or office and the final plat of the survey that i or someone else produced and my final report of the survey.

If i was to word a Preface in one of my "Reports" like is worded in the Preface of this 911 Commission Report, i'm sure any first year lawyer would rake me or the LS i may work for across the coals in a court of law.

reply to post by impressme


No, you shall not say anymore.

It is incredibly amusing, as many have already pointed out, that your biases are so firmly fixed. BUT, trashing the good sites, merely with a wave of your hand, and a flick of the keyboard?

Not gonna cut it, matey.

Of course, in usual '911 truth' tactic, the scatter-shot "throw the kitchen sink at 'em" effect in your OP will require a thorough, and lengthy examination of EVERY site you mentioned; not only the ones you bashed, but the ones you "claim" are so high-and-mighty. I don't have the time.

However, there is ONE site that is lovingly portrayed, and that one I DO have an opinion on, and SURPRISE! it differs from yours:

Originally posted by impressme
Here is a small list of websites that many OS believers avoid.

[color=gold]Pilots for 9/11 Truth
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

Oh...and to claim that, in your mockingly disparaging way, that "OS "believers" avoid? (As if using science and logic is somehow relegated to the same standards as beliefs in fairies, reptilians, lasers on orbiting space platforms, and magical red paint that cuts steel???) (I almost forgot "nukes in the basement" too...)


Rather than provide a rather LENGTHY littany of thread links, I could invite readers to simply search ATS on their own to discover the ineptitude of the "pilots"....

Check out, just as [color=gold]one example, the "Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened" (or some variation) thread titles for some of those key words.

"Pf911T" were soundly thrashed, there. Their crediblity (such as there was before) sank well below the horizon.

OH...and just for the record...before you believe "they" to be some wonderful, and well-meaning 'group' dedicated to seeking the 'truth'....you should talk to the dozens of people...REAL pilots...who aren't allowed to post over there.

The only people who are allowed in to THAT forum are those who nod vigorously at everything the admins say (that would be Bob Balsamo....he is about the ONLY thing at "Pf911T" anymore, except for his accolytes, who don't know any better). No dissension is allowed AT ALL.

Thus, no seeking of "truth"...

OH, and last I checked, even though SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT, the "Flight Deck Door" disinfo is still prominantly displayed, along with all the other junk.

Speaking of junk...I still get emails, touting their latest "discovery", and pumping (begging) for bucks....most disgusting was the shameless campaign to "Buy My [color=gold]DVD for Your Mom on Mother's Day" advertisment, via email.

Yeah....they certainly are the "Go To Guys" for 9/11 'truth'! (sarcasm, anyone?)




[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by curious_soul
reply to post by jthomas

 

How am "I" going to get a new investigation?

I don't mean "you" personally. It's the intent of your 9/11 Truth Movement to do so, no?

"I" would ask "you" are you ready to accept the 911 Commission Report and the NIST Report as a leagally complete and factual based set of docuements explaining the events of 911?

I've seen nothing to change anything about the NIST and ASCE investigations. The claims made against them do not stand up to the evidence. We skeptics have pointed out the problems with the (constantly repeated) claims for up to 8 years. Nothing has changed.

The 9/11 Commission Investigation was a different type of investigation, not a forensic investigation. It started off with the accepted premise, unrefuted, that we were attacked by Arab hijackers under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Nothing changed that.

Would you legally testify in a court of law under oath and accept the possible penalty of perjury that both of these reports were done to the best of their ability?

No one would have to. The reports and investigations speak for themselves. Someone or some group would have to demonstrate a reason for why anyone would have to testify on such a basis.

Exactly what convincing do you or anyone else need?

Actual evidence to support your claims and refute the entire body of evidence in the NIST, ASCE, and 9/11 Commission reports. No small task. And, of course, you would need sufficient evidence to convince the correct people that a new investigation was needed.

If i was to word a Preface in one of my "Reports" like is worded in the Preface of this 911 Commission Report, i'm sure any first year lawyer would rake me or the LS i may work for across the coals in a court of law.

Your opinion really has nothing to do with refuting the evidence and justifying a new investigation, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by impressme
I love it, there are ignorant people who really do not get it.

[

I set up this thread to give an example of how disinformation works on some websites, pertaining to 911 and that there are well known websites set up against the Truth movement and the Truth. Not only will you read their garbage, but the websites gives people tools on how to attack Truthers and how to evade answering simple questions. I call these websites “Trolling strategies,” Some of these websites are good at giving advice on how to disrupt civil conversations and railroad topics. Not only do they do all of those things, they have no problems in speaking their hatred towards the Truth movement; they also put ideas in the minds of those who are ignorant to the facts.

I welcome your opinions on this topic.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by impressme]

People are not open minded enough to realize the science and expert testimony and expert opinions about 9/11 fire both directions. In order to believe one story over the other you have to somehow convince yourself that all of the contradicting evidence and expert testimony is a lie.

How do you do that? I can't ignore the science and expert testimony. I just can't do it.

If I was going to give sites to review when researching 9/11 I would say a lot of the sites you linked have opinion. Both truther and debunker sites. I go by what experts present as scientific evidence and expert testimony. To tell people that the truth can only be found at sites that say the WTC were demolished is like saying "ignore all the evidence and expert testimony that contradicts my viewpoint".