3 common (and weak) arguments defenders of the official story make

I've never heard a truly valid argument defending the official 9/11 story, which is why I tend towards the truther side. On the other hand, while I have heard some bad truther arguments (such as Building 7, which imo, is explainable in other ways though may be true also), I have heard some very good ones as well.

Bad argument #1: 9/11 truth is insulting to the victims' families

This is imo the most ridiculous argument believers in the official story make. For one it's fallacious, as it appeals to emotion. The actual effect is the opposite - rather than making me want to shut up about 9/11 truth like they intend, it actually makes me angry because I feel like they are insulting not only the victim's families but also everyone, American and otherwise, who has died in the wars 9/11 caused. What can be more honorable to the fallen and their loved ones than wanting to know the truth? Certainly, it's a much better way of honoring the lost and theirs than getting revenge on probably the wrong people (revenge is wrong anyways but yeah) and waving a flag. We're not denying 9/11 happened. We just think someone else did it.

Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret

This is a common argument made against all conspiracy theories actually. It's actually a pretty good argument, but in my opinion, it's incorrect, and here is why.

The media today is so large and so fragmented it's impossible to really know what to believe. Every news source has some kind of agenda. People argue if 9/11 was an inside job somebody from the inside would have admitted it already, and they haven't.

The only thing is, they have. There have been many whistleblowers for 9/11. The thing is, with 24 hour news networks, the pundits can dismiss them on TV and people will just figure they are liars or that it's only a possibility. The 9/11 truth movement is not made up primarily of crackpots, there are many very skeptical people who believe in it and in my opinion the only reason it's not a common opinion in academia is because people with unpopular opinions tend to lose funding and credibility among their peers.

Bad argument #3: 9/11 truthers are anti-American

This of course is totally bogus. 9/11 truthers generally are the most patriotic, Constitution-obsessed people on Earth. They are far more patriotic than the people who simply agree with whatever the government says. I wouldn't consider myself very patriotic because I care about the whole world, but most 9/11 truthers are extremely red-blooded American.

I think argument #2 should be that too many people need to make a coordinated effort to pull off such a huge monumental undertaking. I mean our government can't make a simple decision without an act of Congress let alone commit the acts of 911. I am not a truther or supporter of the official story. I think it was the result of inadequacies more than conspiracy. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

Originally posted by micmerci
I think argument #2 should be that too many people need to make a coordinated effort to pull off such a huge monumental undertaking. I mean our government can't make a simple decision without an act of Congress let alone commit the acts of 911. I am not a truther or supporter of the official story. I think it was the result of inadequacies more than conspiracy. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

I think they used Islamists as the patsies to commit the kamikaze aspect, since of course the Powers that Be are far too arrogant and self serving to self-sacrifice even to their own cause, but I think Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it. Personally I don't think the US government did either, I think the shadow government (with its plants in the feds including the Bush dynasty) were the people truly behind 9/11.

Originally posted by micmerci
I think it was the result of inadequacies more than conspiracy.

Wouldn't the fact that all the inadequate people recieving promotions be a conspiracy in and of itself?

I.E. no one got even a slap on the wrist for the inadequacies that killed 3000 people but yet got promoted? I wish I could have THAT job.

reply to post by m1991


I could see your point. I honestly do not think Dubya had anything to do with it. Maybe his daddy or other family members, but I truly do not think he could be trusted by the people who really run this country not to screw up their plans.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by m1991

 

I could see your point. I honestly do not think Dubya had anything to do with it. Maybe his daddy or other family members, but I truly do not think he could be trusted by the people who really run this country not to screw up their plans.

That's true. Though sometimes I wonder if Dubya's stupidity was an act. You know, kind of like Idi Amin. Though I think Idi Amin actually was goofy and jolly, he was just absolutely insane and bloodthirsty as well. Anyways.

reply to post by m1991


IMO you can't fake dumbness that well!!

reply to post by m1991


Nice post. I also have a few problems with the official story. I also think you're right, it's hardly anti American nor an insult to the victims families, if anything you are honoring the families by seeking the truth to what happened and who put these events into play. It also wouldn't be that hard to pull off if you ask me, keep most people in the dark, use some kind of black operations personnel to do some of the trickier stuff and off you go. With all at stake I certainly believe that the US and all of its vast resources are capable of pulling it off, easily.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by m1991

 

IMO you can't fake dumbness that well!!

I'm not so sure. Take a look at GWB when he was running for governor of Texas. Especially the debates. He was articulate, intellegent, and well spoken. What happened?

reply to post by sir_slide


The only thing I respectfully disagree with is the ease with which you think our govt. could pull it off with.

Let me tell a personal story to illustrate... My wife worked on the 95th floor of WTC1 and was there for the bomb in 1993. After it was all said and done and people were finally returning to work, several of the companies decided to have "welcome back to work" parties. With all the heightened security that one would expect after such an event, I was able to walk right past security with a large box (sheet cake inside). I was not questioned, stopped, asked to look in the box, nothing!!! Just walked right on to express elevator.

My point is, I think you underestimate the ineptitude present in this country. Granted, this is a small example but if people could screw up on that level, how much more on a grander scale?

Originally posted by m1991
Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret

This is a common argument made against all conspiracy theories actually. It's actually a pretty good argument, but in my opinion, it's incorrect, and here is why.

The media today is so large and so fragmented it's impossible to really know what to believe. Every news source has some kind of agenda. People argue if 9/11 was an inside job somebody from the inside would have admitted it already, and they haven't.

The only thing is, they have. There have been many whistleblowers for 9/11. The thing is, with 24 hour news networks, the pundits can dismiss them on TV and people will just figure they are liars or that it's only a possibility. The 9/11 truth movement is not made up primarily of crackpots, there are many very skeptical people who believe in it and in my opinion the only reason it's not a common opinion in academia is because people with unpopular opinions tend to lose funding and credibility among their peers.

The problem for your side is, no, there hasn't been any whistleblowers showing there was any conspiracy. Not a single person came forward to say they smuggled explosives into the towers, or had timetables of who was going to do when, or even one single reliable witness who found traces of sabotage at ground zero. All you truthers have is meaningless "witnesses heard explosions", which you are interpreting all on your own to be explosives, childish "witnesses saw a gov't plane over the Pentagon" innuendo dropping, and ridiculous "Bush knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Hitler" five degrees of separation "Kevin Bacon" games. That doesn't even incluse the outright lies the truthers are passing around I.E. "Does the order still stand" really means "stand down order". The rare time a whistleblower like Sybel Edmonds comes along, you're tell us she's a whistleblower but you never actually tell us she blowing the whistle on government incompetence, not on any conspiracy.

I do agree with you that the 9/11 conspiracy movement isn't primarily made up of crackpots. They're primarily made up of gullible people who'd believe any paranoid sounding thing those damned fool conspiracy web sites say up to and including the towers being destroyed by laser beams from outer space...and I'm NOT making that one up, either. Why then should any of us believe you when you truthers have all the credibility of a used car salesman?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I agree. Where the official story strays from the truth is by not disclosing the government incompetence, not conspiracy. I think where the truther story errs is in replacing the incompetence with conspiracy. So I stand at the truth lies somewhere in between.

Oh yeah- great signature quote!!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Yep, Thousands of engineers/architects/PhD's are all extremely gullible people that believe what physics tells us.

Damn those physics.......if only we could make up our own law bending physics to explain it....oh wait, the officals did.

If you haven't been to ae911truth.org and your an offical story zombie you have NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to the towers falling.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by sir_slide

 

The only thing I respectfully disagree with is the ease with which you think our govt. could pull it off with.

Let me tell a personal story to illustrate... My wife worked on the 95th floor of WTC1 and was there for the bomb in 1993. After it was all said and done and people were finally returning to work, several of the companies decided to have "welcome back to work" parties. With all the heightened security that one would expect after such an event, I was able to walk right past security with a large box (sheet cake inside). I was not questioned, stopped, asked to look in the box, nothing!!! Just walked right on to express elevator.

My point is, I think you underestimate the ineptitude present in this country. Granted, this is a small example but if people could screw up on that level, how much more on a grander scale?

That's why I think our shadow government, not our elected government did it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All you truthers have is meaningless "witnesses heard explosions", which you are interpreting all on your own to be explosives, childish "witnesses saw a gov't plane over the Pentagon" innuendo dropping, and ridiculous "Bush knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Hitler" five degrees of separation "Kevin Bacon" games. That doesn't even incluse the outright lies the truthers are passing around I.E. "Does the order still stand" really means "stand down order". The rare time a whistleblower like Sybel Edmonds comes along, you're tell us she's a whistleblower but you never actually tell us she blowing the whistle on government incompetence, not on any conspiracy.

All we have? What about the fact Bin Laden DENIED being behind the attacks until a 2004 video that shows clear signs of being fake? What about the fact Cheney would not swear under oath about 9/11? What about all the other whistleblowers?

www.corbettreport.com...

reply to post by m1991

I've never heard a truly valid argument defending the official 9/11 story, which is why I tend towards the truther side. On the other hand, while I have heard some bad truther arguments (such as Building 7, which imo, is explainable in other ways though may be true also), I have heard some very good ones as well.

Other than your first statement I agree with your OP, but I must take serious issue with the above, and I will explain why.

On 9/11 I was a Field Engineer for WorldCom and I was headed that morning from Sioux Falls SD to Minneapolis MN to do some work, I had two other guys following me. When I heard about the first building I called My Team Lead in Iowa City IA and let him know what was going on. We all thought it was a really bad DJs idea of a joke.

When the second building was struck I called him back. We all now knew this was not a joke. As I got close to Minneapolis I received a call from him. Management of WorldCom had decided that we should all get out of major metropolitan areas and stay out. I was told to return to Sioux Falls and take the day off.

When I got back to the Hotel and saw the film for the first time of WTC 1 and 2 falling, I knew something was wrong. You see as a history buff I knew that never before in the history of the planet had steel framed skyscrapers ever fallen due to fire or even collision. This sort of thing just did not happen, until 9/11 that is. Even the firebombing of Dresden, which resulted in a firestorm which actually pulled people into the fire did not cause one steel framed building to fall.

However, when I saw a building 7 go, without a plane even hitting it, there was no longer any doubt at all. These were planned demolitions and any one with any sense and any education could see this. I mean after all it takes lots and lots of demolition charges planted and a computer to time the explosions to accomplish something like what we were seeing.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Interesting. Yeah Building 7 probably is a good argument then.

reply to post by m1991

Bad argument #1: 9/11 truth is insulting to the victims' families

Thats not an argument - just a simple fact. Particularly the brand of "truth" that says the victims don't exist.

Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret

Again, just a simple fact of life. History constantly reifnorces this fact as does everyday life.

Bad argument #3: 9/11 truthers are anti-American

I don't know how this is actually an "argument"; its more of a personal observation. Most patriots don't run around calling their fellow citizens "sheeple" and "morons" and talk about revolution and overthrow of the government and constant generalized claims that basically state that if you happen to work for the government, wear a uniform or were elected to office then you are guilty to proven innocent.

reply to post by Vardoger


Engineers, architects, PHd's etc. these physics tests are made under perfect conditions. In the real world there are margins of error, short cuts, improperly made things, etc.

The Titanic was so well built that "Not even God" could sink it. I guess no one told the iceberg.