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

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?

Although oddly enough the overwhelming testimony of firefighters remains that they are unsurprised by 7's collapse. Indeed they expected it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?

Although oddly enough the overwhelming testimony of firefighters remains that they are unsurprised by 7's collapse. Indeed they expected it.

A lot of that is probably because of their loyalty to the government (being firefighters).

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Two of those aren't arguments in the sense that I think you mean. They are statements of opinion that are admittedly weak when applied to the truth about 9/11. But they're not designed to prove or disprove the facts of the case.

The other - your second - is a good argument, at least in essence. True, you distort it slightly by using a hyperbolic figure ("a million") but it remains substantially true that if people as low down the food chain as British TV journalists are to be involved the conspiracy must be enormous. And the chances of it remaining watertight are basically nil.

I'd add a similar "argument" to your first two - one often made by Truthers: the notion that in order to support a traditional view of 9/11 one must be some sort of government loyalist or worse a paid informant. It's of exactly the same character as the gambits you're mentioning and one sees it far more often.

Think about it. If a journalist went out and said they thought 9/11 was an inside job, they would be fired immediately. Also, it's the 21st century, things don't have to remain watertight, they can hide in plain sight.

I wouldn't say that, I'd just say they are either misinformed or don't understand that such an idea is not as crazy as it sounds.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by deadmessiah

 

They are trained to recognize different types of explosions in their training.

Huh? Really? They are trained to identify explosions by their sound? Where did you pick up that little tidbit of "information"? Please provide some kind of evidence for this assertion. That is a good one though.

Tell me about it. My nephew is a firefighter, and my brother is a former firefighter. I'll have to ask them what their expertise is in explosives and how they can recognize the types of explosives from their detonation, because they neglected to tell me they knew how to do that. I'm sure their knowing how to do that will come as a surprise to them, as well.

Which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites is going around telling people firefighters are also explosives experts? These people can't have invented this bit on their own.

An explosives expert and someone trained merely to recognize an explosion, or types of explosions when they see and/or hear one are two totally different subjects, and you know that. Don't manipulate my statements.

Here's another aspect. I think the majority of us know an explosion when we see or hear one. So the fact that one must be an "expert" in every matter when it comes to being an eyewitness is stupid. If I see a shooting star and tell you I saw it, am I not a credible eyewitness unless I have a degree in astronomy? Crack heads from the ghetto are given more credibility as eyewitnesses than those firemen were. So I ask, are you an expert on 9/11? Have you read the 9/11 Commission at least? Have you researched all the other alternative theories as well?

By the way, FoxNews gave a crack head from the ghetto credibility as an eyewitness: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by m1991

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?

Although oddly enough the overwhelming testimony of firefighters remains that they are unsurprised by 7's collapse. Indeed they expected it.

A lot of that is probably because of their loyalty to the government (being firefighters).

OMG!!! That is laughable!!! Loyalty to government by FDNY!! I can attest from personal experience that these guys were no govt shills.

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by m1991

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?

Although oddly enough the overwhelming testimony of firefighters remains that they are unsurprised by 7's collapse. Indeed they expected it.

A lot of that is probably because of their loyalty to the government (being firefighters).

OMG!!! That is laughable!!! Loyalty to government by FDNY!! I can attest from personal experience that these guys were no govt shills.

Fair enough, like I said though, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job because of Building 7. IMO it's more because of the sinister way the Bush Admin acted and also the fact Bin Laden never admitted to the attacks (aside from in a 2004 video that was probably a fabrication by the CIA).

Originally posted by micmerci
OMG!!! That is laughable!!! Loyalty to government by FDNY!! I can attest from personal experience that these guys were no govt shills.

I don't know, I've seen a few episodes of Rescue Me and I can definitely see Tommy Gavin and the rest of his crew being highly-trusted government agents, all of them read in on the most staggeringly complex and sensitive covert op in history. Maybe that's why he drinks so much. He wishes the Illuminated Lizardmen who planned the whole thing had chosen him to run into the towers and die instead of his brother.

reply to post by m1991


I didn't want to come off as rude but I have heard these guys (firemen) in Brooklyn bars a million times bitching about the govt. so it kind of struck me as funny.

I honestly believe it was not an inside job. In 1993, they failed to topple WTC and said that they would have to come back with planes. These radicals have killed all over the globe both before and after 9/11. What makes us any different from the other victims? Is it because we think we are "big, bad Americans" and it could never happen to us, so it had to be an inside job? That just doesn't sit right with me. I strongly believe this was possible because of inadequacies within our govt. They should have been more diligent in addressing potential threats.

Originally posted by micmerci
I honestly believe it was not an inside job. In 1993, they failed to topple WTC and said that they would have to come back with planes. These radicals have killed all over the globe both before and after 9/11. What makes us any different from the other victims? Is it because we think we are "big, bad Americans" and it could never happen to us, so it had to be an inside job? That just doesn't sit right with me. I strongly believe this was possible because of inadequacies within our govt. They should have been more diligent in addressing potential threats.

When did they say they would come back with planes? I would be curious to see a quote.

Originally posted by Vardoger
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.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)

1300 = thousands?? Really?
That site is a great joke!

I agree with number 1 so much and have always thought it was a ridiculous argument.

If WTC7 fell because of fires they wouldn't have found thermite in the dust, the presence of thermite indicates that explosives were used, blowing the official story out of the water. People forget this.

Physicist Steven Jones, one of the scientists who discovered thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center, explains in detail the scientific method at the base of his discovery. He discusses the origin of the dust samples of the WTC and the nanothermite.
tv.globalresearch.ca...

Explosives dudes, explosives......

reply to post by sir_slide


Here is the rebuttal to the alleged thermite theory.

www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by m1991


So everyone is more worried about being fired than the truth? Firefighters who risk their lives and journalists, at least some of whom do their job because of principle, are all - every single one of them - more worried about a paycheck than revealing a monumentally venal conspiracy?

I can't buy that. Even if you are more worried about money than morals I have personal experience of individuals who are not. And history is full of examples of selflessness and conscience of that kind.

Originally posted by sir_slide
the presence of thermite indicates that explosives were used,

What makes you claim that? no thermite was found, nor is thermite an explosive....

Originally posted by m1991

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?

Although oddly enough the overwhelming testimony of firefighters remains that they are unsurprised by 7's collapse. Indeed they expected it.

A lot of that is probably because of their loyalty to the government (being firefighters).

Why would you assume that firefighters would demonstrate loyalty to the government in that fashion? really those guys give a professional opinion and it becomes part of the larger conspiracy? what about the firefighters for truth network?
To accuse these firefighters who lost so many of their own during 9/11 does seem to be clutching at straws,unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

I agree about the three points not being good argument points, though #2 does hold a little bit of weight. It is increasingly more difficult to keep a secret the more people are involved with a conspiracy. In the case of the common 9/11 conspiracy theory, you would have to have demolitions experts (at least 2 or more, because one would not be reliable enough to get the job done covertly). Then, you would have to have experts in planting explosives covertly, a lot of extremely complex work that would probably be very easy to screw up. After the fact, you would have to somehow obscure all evidence of the explosives. Now, there is the possibility of no explosives being used. It is possible to weaken an infrastructure before the fact, though these buildings were used fairly thoroughly. The extent to which the buildings would seem to need to be weakened would take months of covert work, and would leave the building in danger of collapsing during a bad windy day. In my opinion, this would be a very difficult operation to pull off and would not be worth it. After that, you have to work out the logistics of the planes and covering up any details in-between.

Honestly, it just starts to become so complex that the implications are of a massively unnecessary conspiracy in order to convince people that planes crashed and then caused collapses.

Now, a more likely conspiracy that would take far fewer people would be if a small component of the government comprised of only a few people "enabled" the terrorists who were planning the attack. Opened the channels, if you will, to make it so that the attack would not only be imminent, but succeed. Most likely, to me, the collapses were not expected by either party, but increased the impact of the attack by a ton. This could be due to cheap building measures and faulty fireproofing within the tower. These are the details that are difficult to work out. It is interesting that the Pentagon was fortified before the attacks. It made the structure far more resilient, and most people tend to forget about it as a result. You could say that the Pentagon attack was the unexpected one, and the crashed plane was simply a result of the terrorists not having a backup plan in case of civilians rising up. When it looked like they wouldn't make it to their destination, the obvious choice was to kill everyone on-board and still become a martyr for the cause.

If the military was slowed for any reason, it was probably where the inside job lay. It would be a little easier to mess with computers and make people chase ghosts than it would be to plant explosives everywhere and tamper with all of the media.

But that's just me. Maybe I'm reasonable, and maybe I'm not seeing something. That's why I always read the posts by conspiracy theorists, because I wonder if there is good science to back up their assertions about the towers being rigged. Unfortunately, most of the time there is only rhetoric about it being "unbelievable" or "not likely" or "never seen before." I mean, of course what happened on 9/11 had never been seen before. It was a pretty unique day. Two old towers were hit by airliners and then collapsed. Then, a building built on top of a consolidated edison power plant was hit by chunks of one of the towers, and it too collapsed later in the day.

I just don't think that's evidence in and of itself for a conspiracy. Many other buildings in the surrounding area were severely damaged and did not collapse, like the buildings on either side of WTC 7 and many other buildings in the surrounding complex.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by sir_slide
the presence of thermite indicates that explosives were used,

What makes you claim that? no thermite was found, nor is thermite an explosive....

Sir_slide posted a link to back the claims of the thermite they discovered in the wtc dust and you claim none was found? No surprise. I've had a debunker lie outright on ATS before, and when shown proof of his lie, he acknowledged he had lied, yet then said he would stand by his lie! Unbelievable. Here's more proof nano thermite was found in the dust:
911research.wtc7.net...
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This video is for you debunkers. Note how the debunker contradicts himself concerning the video footage, then changes subjects when he can't win on the physics aspects of the tower collapses. I find it comical that he's a "debunker director" on his forums.
www.youtube.com...

Its hard to defend the OS when all you can do is mouth word for word what the government said. Us "truthers" tend to use research, independent analysis, and our coveted 7th grade science books.

And one last one of NIST lying
youtu.be...

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)

This is astounding to me, because the MOST compelling argument that the OS is nonsense is Tower 7.

Originally posted by Abney

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)

This is astounding to me, because the MOST compelling argument that the OS is nonsense is Tower 7.

What about WTC 7 is most compelling for you? I know a decent amount about it and might be able to help correct any issues (or open up to new problems if you have them).

If the compelling bit is falling into its footprint, that isn't a compelling argument at all. If a building collapses, it tends to collapse down due to gravity. Please don't say footprint and then claim that blows a hole in every possible explanation. Thanks.