Has 9/11 truth had its day ?

It's not a huge issue. What is a slightly-more-than-minor issue is the fact that a group of people who demand complete, unwavering accuracy from any "official" mouthpiece, and pick up on any tiny aberration as evidence of mass murder, can't even be bothered to get the name of their star witness correct.

This is only exacerbated when someone like impressme makes such an obvious mistake as he did above, and then huffily pretends not to have done. It hardly increases the credibility of 9/11 "Truth".

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'd like to apologize to the thread for introducing the misspelling of Sibel. I hate to give the debunkers something legitimate to talk about, even if inadvertently.

In debunkernation a spelling mistake is a huge issue. Sorry truthers.

Attention to detail and specificity begets credibility. Lacking the former renders the latter nonexistent. I have seen very little attention to detail - datign back years and years - in the Truther world, not to mention an incredible lack of specificity in the Truther claims.

Claim: A nano-nuke was what brought down the towers

Specifics lacking: how? where? where is the proof? where is the evidence? where did it come from? who made it? where is the radiological signature of a nuclear device?

Claim: Controlled demolition is what brought down the towers.

Specifics lacking: where are the series of extremely loud explosions that are characteristic of a controlled demolition?

Claim: Super secret nano-thermite/thermate ids what brought the towers down.

Specifics lacking: What is this "super secret nano-thermite/thermate"? Where did it come from? Create some and provide us with a demonstration how it could bring down a 1,200 foot tall skyscraper.

Claim: The aircraft that impacted the towers were structurally enhanced and not stock run-of-the-mill 767s.

Specifics lacking: Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?

I could go on and on and on. The excuses given by the Truthers for their lack of specifics are "That's not up to me to prove" or "I don't have the answer to that but it still happened that way" or "That doesn't matter".

Truthers don't like what they hear about something and they make up their own reality - they create their own story about how something happened because they cannot handle reality. They lack specifics and attention to detail because their thought processes are not logical, are not rational, are not based on reality and serve only to make their own minds happy.

Truthers subscribe to the self-licking ice-cream cone philosophy of life - they believe something is so, so that makes it so. Hardly a scientific or reality-based or logical approach to the questions of this world.

We will never know all there is to know about 9/11 just like we will never know all there is to know about the JFK assassination (nearly 50 years of theory and still a daily topic of question). 50 years from now 9/11 theorists will still be throwing around the same stories and theses.

Time to focus on the present state of our nation because it is declining faster than you think. We have an administration that refuses to refer to our enemies as Islamic Radicals. In all of the attacks and attempted attacks since 9/11 on US soil and abroad, radical islam and the jihad has been the common denominator linking these attacks and attempts regardless of the perpetrator's language, nationality, age or race. According to our Leader these hate filled folks are simply a "loose network of violent extremists". No worries....

trebor ....

"Attention to detail and specificity begets credibility. Lacking the former renders the latter nonexistent. I have seen very little attention to detail - datign back years and years - in the Truther world, not to mention an incredible lack of specificity in the Truther claims. "

The irony!!

I raised 4 very easy to understand issues on page 4 that defy ALL logic, and are so improbable that I, for one, would feel extremely childish to even attempt to defend...

Does that apply to you too or would you care to have a go????

I call them debunkernation but they should be called tabula rasa nation because lately they seem to come into every discussion with an absolutely clean mental slate, devoid of information.

It's not even worth responding to worthless arguments.

Here is a typical statement made in the debunker style, but from the truther point of view.

The US government demonstrated conclusively that they are responsible for 9/11 when they refused to authorize a search of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop until it was too late. No more need be said.

That's a typical debunker style post.

reply to post by benoni


You raised "4 issues" back on Page 4 that are "defying logic"??

You mean these?:

Buildings dont just explode then turn to dust....

Planes dont get swallowed up by the ground, leaving hardly a trace....

47 storey buildings dont just collapse....

Boeing 757's dont crash into the Pentagon causing 18 ft. holes....

And, you're wondering why no one has addressed them?

Because they are NOT "clear" and "easy to understand" issues, as you think --- since they are based on principle misunderstandings and false memes that keep being repeated on the Interwebs -- from those nutty "conspiracy" web sites.

Sigh....

Buildings dont just explode then turn to dust....

Time and again, this has been shown to NOT be the case (I assume you're referring to the WTC Towers in NYC?) A little bit of actual research on valid internet sites will show this to be a false claim...its genesis is, probably, from the "Space Laser/Directed Energy Weapons and Hologram Airplanes" crowd. That is where this notion of "dustification" comes from...and it is baloney. The large amount of "dust' came from sources within the buildings themselves.

Here's a smaller example: Only a few storeys high, this block of flats in Lisbon, Portugal, collapses ALL BY ITSELF with NO explosives or controlled demolitions. LOOK how much dust it creates:

Planes don't get swallowed up by the ground, leaving hardly a trace....

Oh, man...this one is obviously about United 93 at Shanksville, right??

How many times must people be referred to OTHER high-velocity impact events involving large airplanes??? A little research, please, for comparisons. They've been offered again and again, here at ATS...if one reads the threads.

And, here's yet MORE research, and personal descriptions of the scene:

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.
~~

The ensuing firestorm lasted five or 10 minutes and reached several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who also lives a quarter-mile from the crash site. "Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa." The Washington Post September 12, 2001
~~

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it.
~~

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”

Recommend you read THIS source.

47 storey buildings dont just collapse....

Seems you're talking about WTC 7?

No...of course, buildings don't "just collapse" ( except the block of flats in Lisbon... ) ---unless something OCCURS to them, such as collateral damage, fires, etc. Plenty of threads HERE on ATS about that, too....

Boeing 757's dont crash into the Pentagon causing 18 ft. holes....

Please...firstly, tell us how many other Boeing 757s have crashed into the Pentagon, so we can compare.

Secondly --- WHERE did you get the business about the so-called "18 ft. holes"??

Oh, I know...those ever-so-reliable (sarcasm) "conspiracy" sites, right?

"Nuf said.....



[edit on 6 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by jibeho
We will never know all there is to know about 9/11 just like we will never know all there is to know about the JFK assassination (nearly 50 years of theory and still a daily topic of question). 50 years from now 9/11 theorists will still be throwing around the same stories and theses.

Time to focus on the present state of our nation because it is declining faster than you think. We have an administration that refuses to refer to our enemies as Islamic Radicals. In all of the attacks and attempted attacks since 9/11 on US soil and abroad, radical islam and the jihad has been the common denominator linking these attacks and attempts regardless of the perpetrator's language, nationality, age or race. According to our Leader these hate filled folks are simply a "loose network of violent extremists". No worries....

Refreshing and novel on here to see someone facing the real enemy. Most of the "truthers" would maintain that Islamic terrorists are good-natured, kindly but gullible folk , only too easily set up as patsies by an evil US administration.

reply to post by Alfie1


And they are four foot tall and live in caves. Despite having engineering degrees.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I call them debunkernation but they should be called tabula rasa nation because lately they seem to come into every discussion with an absolutely clean mental slate, devoid of information.

It's not even worth responding to worthless arguments.

Here is a typical statement made in the debunker style, but from the truther point of view.

The US government demonstrated conclusively that they are responsible for 9/11 when they refused to authorize a search of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop until it was too late. No more need be said.

That's a typical debunker style post.

So a truther would never make that point?

Why not? It looks quite compelling.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

It's not a huge issue. What is a slightly-more-than-minor issue is the fact that a group of people who demand complete, unwavering accuracy from any "official" mouthpiece, and pick up on any tiny aberration as evidence of mass murder, can't even be bothered to get the name of their star witness correct.

The fact is you didn’t know who Sibel Edmonds was, says it all.

This is only exacerbated when someone like impressme makes such an obvious mistake as he did above, and then huffily pretends not to have done.

I never made any mistake, and anyone reading these posts can clearly see that. It is you who has exposed yourself as being ignorant of the said topic, and then you made up some ridiculous excuse as to using the messenger mis-spelled name of the person in question, and then you spun this topic and accuse me of making a mistake in reading your drivel.

If that is getting to the truth of the matter in your book, then you will never get the truth.
Again, if you want to make a thread all about me and how I type and misspell words against your OS then please do so, because that is not about getting to the truth to 911 in here.

It hardly increases the credibility of 9/11 "Truth".

I agree with you this is not getting to the truth when you constantly turn the topic on “all about me.” I am not the topic here.

It dose werk for me fine.

Lair

So, this is what you do, you come in here to goad and bait Truthers on an emotional level and hope they will stoop to your level, this is very immature and so off topic.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by roboe

 

I credit Loose Change for getting people thinking about 9/11, but that is the extent of its value.

What I cannot understand is why "truthers" don't see that the most obvious truth could be the right one: the government knew and let it happen. It's pretty darn simple. Even though I suppose I could be called a truther, I have no desire to engage with others under that label, because some of the arguments are silly beyond belief.

Pretty much my sentiments.

"Attention to detail and specificity begets credibility. Lacking the former renders the latter nonexistent. I have seen very little attention to detail - datign back years and years - in the Truther world, not to mention an incredible lack of specificity in the Truther claims."

You say attention to detail and specificity begets credibility? Attention to detail like spelling a first grade word (dating) correctly? According to your own words, I guess you just rendered your credibility nonexistent.

"Specifics lacking: how? where? where is the proof? where is the evidence? where did it come from? who made it? where is the radiological signature of a nuclear device?"

While we're at it, how about some more attention to detail? Is there any particular reason why you do not bother to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence? Unless, of course, you do not consider a group of words which asks a question a sentence. Again, these are "details" which most people learn in the first grade to advance their credibility.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Attention to detail and specificity begets credibility. Lacking the former renders the latter nonexistent. I have seen very little attention to detail - datign back years and years - in the Truther world, not to mention an incredible lack of specificity in the Truther claims."

You say attention to detail and specificity begets credibility? Attention to detail like spelling a first grade word (dating) correctly? According to your own words, I guess you just rendered your credibility nonexistent.

"Specifics lacking: how? where? where is the proof? where is the evidence? where did it come from? who made it? where is the radiological signature of a nuclear device?"

While we're at it, how about some more attention to detail? Is there any particular reason why you do not bother to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence? Unless, of course, you do not consider a group of words which asks a question a sentence. Again, these are "details" which most people learn in the first grade to advance their credibility.

While you are at it, learn to use the quote tags provided by ATS.

Thank you and have a lovely day!

weedy

You are comparing a 200 year old building built of clay bricks that collapses because of chemical erosion to the concrete and steel World Trade Centres that explode???

You need to show me where your comparison is..!!

Why does the 200 year old block of flats on your YOUTUBE VIDEO( I thought youtube demeaned an argument, or is that only applicable when used by people questioning the Official BS ??) have no connection to 9/11??

I'll tell you....

See the photo below??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/25bb8fe2bd09.jpg[/atsimg]

and...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bbc4c23d8308.jpg[/atsimg]
See how the top of the building is exploding??

See how all those tonnes of steel are not falling with gravity but somehow, miraculously, they are being ejected, not vertically but horizontally, all the way round the building, upwards of 400 feet away from their original position??

See how the concrete is being pulverised mid-air weedy???

Your youtube video doesnt have that explosion....theres no comparison, and you know it...

Your YOUTUBE video falls vertically downwards, as would be expected, as would be expected.....WTC 1 and 2 explode outwards, turning the concrete, not 200 year old clay bricks, miraculously in mid air, to dust....

*sigh* weedy weedy weedy..your a pilot arent you??Surely some intellect is required to fly planes??

Hopefully you stay within US boundaries when you "fly"...

I'll leave it at that mate....perhaps when you next "land" you could find the time (lets face it, pilots lead busy lives, not much time for the Net and "ridiculous"conspiracies surely??) to explain,as I am sure you will attempt to do....

But...

Remember...

The Rules state you arent allowed to put it down to some "dumb" truther sites pathetic excuse and not worthy of a response...
What happened to the concrete to cause it to turn to dust??
NOT on impact with the ground either..... mid-air, weedy

Look at the picture.....youll see what I mean.

And for the record, your lame deflection tactic of Top Secret Laser Beams causing your "Dustification"is ridiculous...too many StarWars movies in "your cockpit" methinks!!
Wherever did you get the idea I said it had anything to with laserbeams?????

Get a grip!!

The dust is from sources within the building you say??

Care to elaborate what those sources were that seemed to just "ooze" dust the moment the building exploded??

Is this official NIST gobbledygook??



The rest of your justifications(read other threads, it was the fires, read THIS source etc etc blah blah)are so opinionated as to be equally as laughable as your "smaller example" from Lisbon...

Your "source" is the TRUE source..??




OooowKaaaay weedy...


...and yeah, no problem, benny is fine mate, go for it.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Hell, even the JFK conspiracies managed to bring on a second (and third, I think?) investigation. 9/11 Truth? Not so much.

I know people with the Debunker perspective never take the time to think about these types of things, but just maybe the government learned from it's mistakes. If I recall, one of the follow up JFK commissions seem to agree with the conspiracy theories.

Seems someone didn't play ball, do you really think they would take this chance again?

Especially while Cheney and Bush still walk the planet, we all know for sure that they didn't want anything to do with the 9/11 commission.

I am assuming weed wants us to believe office fires pulverized the concrete in mid air to.

There are no office fires burning below 15 floors from the airplane impact hole, so what pulverized that concrete further down?
Then we clearly see the WTC falling perfectly, every single floor joint brakes simultaneously away from the core columns this is so un-natural. Buildings just do not pulverize themselves in mid air from a natural free fall, which is impossible. Buildings always fall at their least resistance.

I cannot believe there are people on ATS that have been here for years still pushing the OS fairytales as truth, what happened to “denying ignorance.”

Science has already proven demolition, nothing else fits any other hypothesis. NIST tried to fool the American people with their “pseudo science” but it did not take long for the experts in their field of expertise using real science and basic math to uncover the lies.

The OS believers like to talk about the Truthers snake oil sales men, yet they are the ones who continue to support NIST hypothesis when it has been proven a fraud years ago.

People still using the laser beams theories from outer space against the Truthers, know that was debunked years ago and no one on ATS support such absurdity.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Okay sorry I am lair, didnt know who Sybel Edmunds was. You got me superslueth.

try and stay on topic tricky.....you need an early night I think, you seem tired and irritable.....

When do your school holidays finish???

reply to post by benoni


Hilarious stuff!! How do you come up with it?

But I'm not sure I'm off topic. The thread is about the slow death of 9/11 Truth, and one reason for that is its total intellectual bankruptcy and the less than agile minds of those involved in it. A such impressme's difficulties with irony are a small case in point.

reply to post by benoni


Sorry, but your blustering (and slighlty false-sounding) incredulity merely serve to re-emphasize the thread's topic:

"Has 9/11 truth had its day ?"

An example that CLEARLY shows the tremendous amounts of dust that can be created, even when a small building collapses...DUST and DEBRIS that billow outward --- outward --- with quite a bit of force, and WITHOUT any benefit of "explosives". There is NO NEED for "explosives" to re-create the effects... ONLY the energy of gravity at work, and the complex physics of motion and momentum, strain and release.

The continued failure to realize this, even when presented with prosaic examples to draw conclusions and inferences from, shows how intellectually bereft the "9/11 Truth Movement" has become.

This entire phenomenom reminds me of the way optical illusions play tricks on the mind/eye connection, and how people can be fooled so easily --- with a mere suggestion. But, once that suggestion has been planted, ANY evidence that subsequently shows the original idea to be incorrect tends to be rejected....when the illusion is very strong.

Now, I know the common rejoinder to the above paragraph will be to attempt to turn it back, on to me (and others) who are able to SEE the videos of the WTC Towers and recognize it for WHAT IT ACTUALLY SHOWS --- which is a progressive collapse scenario that is unprecedented in history, because the circumstances leading up to its initiation were unprecedented.

The attempts to turn it against will be to claim that it is "we" who are fooled....and this ties in quite nicely with the psychology of the typical "conspracy" buff, and especially the "9/11 Truth seeker"....it is that 'special' feeling of wanting to feel 'better' than everyone else, as if one 'knows' some deep, deep secret. Incredible hubris at its most arrogant display.

This symptom of maniacal focus cuts a wide swath through quite a few of the "9/11" topics, not JUST the WTC buildings' damage and subsequent collapses.

But, when viewed in the entirety, and with logic and reason, the disparate so-called "theories" fall apart under scrutiny. There is not ONE, solid and cohesive 'explanation' that fits all of the facts --- at least, not any coming from the so-called "Truth movement", at least.

Even in a response upthread, by another prolific "Truther" poster....the contradictions are immense, as regards the WTC Towers' collapses.

To wit: The repeated insistence of 'explosives' used in the Towers (the "evidence" that they use is the lateral movement of the building debris, during the collapses...easily explained, as above) yet there are NO loud, very loud, sequential charges and explosions heard --- those that are symptomatic of every OTHER controlled explosive demolition event in history.

This relative "silence" is then explained away by the fantastical creation of the "thermite/thermate" myth. YET, that substance does NOT explode, as can be seen quite clearly, through research. It burns, statically, quietly. It does not detonate, so it would NOT impart forces laterally (except, IF it could be proven to have been used, it WOULD show similar sideways ejection patterns, as I mentioned, from the effects of gravity, and the collapsing energies present).



So, in just (since it was brought up) ONE example of why the "9/11 Truth movement" has failed, it is quite evident to those who are willing to step away from the brain-washing they've been subjected to by the "conspiracy" websites --- those sites that are generally lacking any credibility, or science understandings as an underpinning.


Finally, it is undeniable that a generation's worth of Hollywood films and TV productions that have depicted THEIR VERSIONS of disasters, such as airplane crashes, and building failures and collapses, have woefully misinformed and misled the viewing public....who, because of those depictions, have a skewed sense of what the "real thing" should "look like".

Anyone with enough intellectual curiosity to examine ALL of the facts shold be able to reach similar conclusions.

~~~
(I began to firm up my understanding of the psychology, and disconnect, that the "9/11 Truth movement" adherents represent, and considered making a thread about it; but I'll just drop this in here to this thread, since it's pertinent. Ran across this great Scientific American special magazine yesterday, here's the online link. I recommend seing the magazine in person, if available....):

www.scientificamerican.com...

And, within the above, here's the direct link to a slide-show.




[edit on 7 July 2010 by weedwhacker]