I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther

reply to post by Observor


And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

As a "debunker" I came to my beliefs by studying the events of 9/11 with my intellect. I don't simply "believe" something happened, based on my cynicism, and then say things like, "I don't how it happened, but it was definitely a demolition".

Do you know how often Truthers say that kind of thing?

It's... it's symptomatic of a belief based on faith.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Observor

 

And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

As a "debunker" I came to my beliefs by studying the events of 9/11 with my intellect. I don't simply "believe" something happened, based on my cynicism, and then say things like, "I don't how it happened, but it was definitely a demolition".

Do you know how often Truthers say that kind of thing?

It's... it's symptomatic of a belief based on faith.

This is so strange, you have all that completely the wrong way round

A question to you!.....How can you doubt what Danny Jowenko say's?

Watch this clip then answer me please?

this man knew his stuff

R.I.P Danny


listen to this please!

and let me know what your thoughts on this conversation!

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Observor

 

And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

Right after you explain the anthrax attacks, I will start taking you seriously.

As a "debunker" I came to my beliefs by studying the events of 9/11 with my intellect.

Funny that is exactly how I came to my conclusions too.

I don't simply "believe" something happened, based on my cynicism, and then say things like, "I don't how it happened, but it was definitely a demolition".

Do you know how often Truthers say that kind of thing?

It's... it's symptomatic of a belief based on faith.

Since I am not saying that I don't care about it.

Originally posted by Observor
But what doesn't make sense is a demand from the "truthers" for "a full and open investigation". How many investigations should be launched and funded by the government before the "truthers" give up their demand for another? "Truthers" would declare as compromised any commission that doesn't conclude what they believe to be true. And you know as well as anyone that no commission of enquiry will conclude what the "truthers" believe to be true. So why bother?

Considering the trillions that have been spent in response to 9/11, I don't think the expense of a rigorous, transparent, and untainted investigation can even be a consideration. There are so many things wrong with the OS as it stands, for example: the eyewitness testimony of multiple credible witnesses regarding the flightpath of AA77 at the Pentagon in glaring contradiction to the OS, that I don't see how we can just pretend there is no problem.

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by Observor
But what doesn't make sense is a demand from the "truthers" for "a full and open investigation". How many investigations should be launched and funded by the government before the "truthers" give up their demand for another? "Truthers" would declare as compromised any commission that doesn't conclude what they believe to be true. And you know as well as anyone that no commission of enquiry will conclude what the "truthers" believe to be true. So why bother?

Considering the trillions that have been spent in response to 9/11, I don't think the expense of a rigorous, transparent, and untainted investigation can even be a consideration.

Cost of an enquiry is not the problem, if the enquiry can achieve anything. No enquiry instituted by a US government can come to any conclusion that is fundamentally different from what the current official position is. Any US government admitting that a previous administration launched an attack on a sovereign nation under grotesque lies (even if everyone else already knows that) is a suicide in international relations. No government or government appointed committe will do that. Simple as that. The moment US invaded Afghanistan with 9/11 as an excuse any possibility of US ever officially admitting it was ruled out. Yeah, if there is a revolution in the US and the entire structure revamped, the new structure can admit to it, but not a government of the current structure.

There are so many things wrong with the OS as it stands, for example: the eyewitness testimony of multiple credible witnesses regarding the flightpath of AA77 at the Pentagon in glaring contradiction to the OS, that I don't see how we can just pretend there is no problem.

You think this is the only conspiracy by a government of the US? Every generation has one or two. The official explanation is always BS and obviously so, just to let people know nothing changed. US governments like to brag about their conspiracies without actually admitting them.

As for pretending there is no problem, that shouldn't be a problem either. Americans have been doing it for a few hundred years now. If you have people who can pretend that those who voted George W Bush in 2004 (I am not referring to 9/11, but Iraq) are something other than the most despicable psychopaths, sure they can pretend to anything.

By the way, the official story about 9/11 is absolutely logic defying and meaningless, not by accident or inefficiency. It was meant to demonstrate to the world governments exactly what the US is. A nation of psychopaths that can pretend to believe anything as long as it offers them an opportunity to do what they do best, going around murdering people. The anthrax attacks and everything that followed regarding it were meant to announce the same even to the dumbest. Entire US including the "truthers" lost interest once the US officially announced the Anthrax came from within US. Care to tell me why?

I can't get even a pathological liar like a typical "debunker" to even hint that (s)he buys the official explanation of the anthrax attacks and yet the "truthers" are not even interested in bringing it up. And they claim to be interested in "truth" about 9/11?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Observor

 

And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

As a "debunker" I came to my beliefs by studying the events of 9/11 with my intellect. I don't simply "believe" something happened, based on my cynicism, and then say things like, "I don't how it happened, but it was definitely a demolition".

Do you know how often Truthers say that kind of thing?

It's... it's symptomatic of a belief based on faith.

Obvious Troll is Obvious!

I can answer those questions... shoot away troll

herp de derp

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Observor

 

And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

As a "debunker" I came to my beliefs by studying the events of 9/11 with my intellect. I don't simply "believe" something happened, based on my cynicism, and then say things like, "I don't how it happened, but it was definitely a demolition".

Do you know how often Truthers say that kind of thing?

It's... it's symptomatic of a belief based on faith.

Obvious Troll is Obvious!

I can answer those questions... shoot away troll

herp de derp

edit on 18-9-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

Avoid ad hominem attacks such as the use of the word troll. It is unnecessary and against decorum.

I have a question you can answer. Why were there no explosion sounds heard before the tower began to collapse? Every demolition I have ever seen has to have explosives happening specifically before the building can begin to collapse.

reply to post by zerozero00

Danny Jowenko didn't think WTC1 or WTC2 were controlled demolitions, and the first time he was shown the WTC7 collapse it was the shortened version without the penthouse collapse and with no sound (so he couldn't hear the lack of explosions being set off)

Originally posted by roboe
... WTC7 collapse it was the shortened version without the penthouse collapse and with no sound (so he couldn't hear the lack of explosions being set off)

C'mon man, you know the penthouse kink is the classic sign of implosion demolition right? Probably the first thing that clued the guy that it was controlled.

Not hearing sound does not contradict the physics. A building can not land in its own footprint from a natural collapse. Please don't say it didn't, the difference between being in its footprint, and not being in its footprint, is so obvioulsy huge there is no question if you know what you're looking at. I'm tired of people denying the stupidly obvious.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by roboe
... WTC7 collapse it was the shortened version without the penthouse collapse and with no sound (so he couldn't hear the lack of explosions being set off)

C'mon man, you know the penthouse kink is the classic sign of implosion demolition right? Probably the first thing that clued the guy that it was controlled.

Not hearing sound does not contradict the physics. A building can not land in its own footprint from a natural collapse. Please don't say it didn't, the difference between being in its footprint, and not being in its footprint, is so obvioulsy huge there is no question if you know what you're looking at. I'm tired of people denying the stupidly obvious.

I admit that's what I thought when I first saw it without the penthouse though, or knowing about the damage. I thought that the WTC 7 just collapse willy nilly. It wasn't until I did research on it, that I changed my views completely and came to the understanding that there was an explanation for its behavior.

reply to post by Observor

No enquiry instituted by a US government can come to any conclusion that is fundamentally different from what the current official position is.

What about the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations finding there was a conspiracy to kill JFK?

You think this is the only conspiracy by a government of the US?

Where did you get that assertion from, not from anything I said? While I am not as profoundly cynical as you are, I am well aware of our government's disturbing track record.

By the way, the official story about 9/11 is absolutely logic defying and meaningless, not by accident or inefficiency. It was meant to demonstrate to the world governments exactly what the US is. A nation of psychopaths that can pretend to believe anything as long as it offers them an opportunity to do what they do best, going around murdering people.

One second you are claiming the government is concerned about “suicide in international relations,” and the next claiming it is deliberately shining a light on our national psychopathy? I am not understanding how those two positions can coexist.

I agree that the whole anthrax debacle deserves more attention. I hate emoticons.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
And yet NO Truthers can answer simple basic questions about their own beliefs.

You have had the case against the OS repeatedly laid out for you on multiple threads and yet you keep making the same bogus, blanket claim against the Truth Movement. Weird, to say the least.

Originally posted by Elbereth
Originally posted by Observor

There are so many things wrong with the OS as it stands, for example: the eyewitness testimony of multiple credible witnesses regarding the flightpath of AA77 at the Pentagon in glaring contradiction to the OS, that I don't see how we can just pretend there is no problem.

And yet they all say the same thing in the end - a commercial jet liner hit the building. sites.google.com...

Does it really matter much after that?

Originally posted by userid1
And yet they all say the same thing in the end - a commercial jet liner hit the building. sites.google.com...

Does it really matter much after that?

No, that isn't true. At least one witness I am aware of saw an airliner fly directly over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. Many other credible witnesses report a flightpath significantly to the north of the OS flightpath in a location that calls into serious question the entire OS regarding the attack on the Pentagon. And yes, I have looked at the debunking and counter-debunking of the Citizens Investigation Team, and I find the counter-debunking more convincing than the debunking.

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by userid1
And yet they all say the same thing in the end - a commercial jet liner hit the building. sites.google.com...

Does it really matter much after that?

No, that isn't true. At least one witness I am aware of saw an airliner fly directly over the Pentagon after the explosion. Many other credible witnesses report a flightpath significantly to he north of the OS flightpath in a location that calls into serious question the entire OS regarding the attack on the Pentagon. And yes, I have looked at the debunking and counter-debunking of the Citizens Investigation Committee, and I find the counter-debunking more convincing than the debunking.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Elbereth because: fix

I'm sort of curious how you come to that conclusion as, by your own admission, you can only find one dissenting opinion regarding the impact. Really, I don't give a damn about the path - it doesn't change the fact of the impact - one single witness from dozens not withstanding...

I also don't understand this attitude that if *one* thing is questionable/wrong about the OS - then it must be ALL wrong. Is that how it works in real life where you live?

Originally posted by userid1

I'm sort of curious how you come to that conclusion as, by your own admission, you can only find one dissenting opinion regarding the impact. Really, I don't give a damn about the path - it doesn't change that fact of the impact - one single witness from dozens not withstanding...

that if *one* thing is questionable/wrong about the OS - then it must be ALL wrong. Is that how it works in real life where you live?

Have you looked at the above linked Citizens Investigation Team site? I think they make a compelling case based on eyewitness testimony for a more northerly flightpath for AA77, thereby seriously undermining the delivered wisdom concerning the Pentagon attack. I don't understand this attitude that establishing a more northerly flightpath is irrelevant, when it casts reasonable doubt on the OS.

If only there were just *one* thing wrong with the OS. Here are a few more off the top of my head: Spoliation of the crime scene. No investigation of alternative collapse scenarios. Use of Commission legal resources to quash fact-finding instead of facilitate it. Lack of adequate test facilities. Curious time constraints and inadequate funding. Lack of appropriate investigative methodology. No other high-rise buildings collapsing from fire in the last 30+ years. No definitive finding of cause in collapses. Spiriting out of the country of possible material witnesses immediately after 9/11.

There are many more, but aren't these enough to make you wonder of we can trust the OS?

reply to post by Elbereth


Yes I did look at your link - but the simple fact of the matter is that the eyewitness testimony from the site I listed directly refutes the interviews on yours. Keep in mind even the Pentagon police stated the plane hit the building regardless of which side of the Citgo it came from. So what's to argue? The eyewitness testimony I've read directly refutes and buries any claims about missiles and global hawks.

Additionally, the debris found, and the DNA testing done also directly support that not only was it a commercial jet liner, it was a 757, AND it was flight #77.

I've never seen/read a credible counter to these claims. The point in your argument seem to be more applicable to the WTC impacts - which I'm not addressing. This is about your comments on the Pentagon impact.

Spoilation of the crime scene? What would you have people do who are first on the scene of a disaster? I myself picked up a piece of the wreckage from the lawn to examine it and this occurred 2-3 minutes before the first emergency responders arrived (Arlington Fire btw). I wasn't thinking crime scene - and frankly if you'd been there - you wouldn't have been either.

Alternative to collapse scenario? Why? Is there some other speculation as to what caused the Pentagon collapse?

The rest of your points are all things I haven't heard complaint about in any serious manner about the Pentagon investigation either here, or on other sites I read. Are you thinking of issues with the other attack sites?

reply to post by userid1

Keep in mind even the Pentagon police stated the plane hit the building regardless of which side of the Citgo it came from.

I don't recall them claiming they actually saw the plane impact the Pentagon, but maybe I misheard that. I believe they merely assumed it was the source of the explosion, and indeed, they would have been unable to witness the impact from their vantage point at the Citgo.

Additionally, the debris found, and the DNA testing done also directly support that not only was it a commercial jet liner, it was a 757, AND it was flight #77.

Well, people have been sent to their doom based on faulty DNA evidence. After all, who controlled the DNA evidence? Was it perhaps the notorious FBI Crime Lab (I really don’t know)?

The point in your argument seem to be more applicable to the WTC impacts - which I'm not addressing. This is about your comments on the Pentagon impact.

I was responding to the following comment:"I also don't understand this attitude that if *one* thing is questionable/wrong about the OS - then it must be ALL wrong. Is that how it works in real life where you live?" and assumed you were referring to the OS in toto. I agree that it would be unreasonable to toss out the OS based on one error. For me, a gestalt of sorts occurred when I was confronted with so many odd coincidences, omissions, redactions, incongruities, and insupportable yet critical assumptions.

Spoilation of the crime scene? What would you have people do who are first on the scene of a disaster?

Again, I was referring to the WTC crime scene. I am new to the whole Pentagon controversy, so I have no idea if there was spoliation or not, and I willingly defer to you who were actually there on that issue, at least until I know more.

reply to post by Elbereth


Nobody saw the plane impact, the OSers will claim they did all day long, but can not supply one witness that says the saw the impact.

Even Sean Boger didn't see it impact.

In fact not too many people could have even been in a position to see the impact point, because it was obscured from everywhere but where Lloyds taxi was set up.

stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Why are the OSers not asking about this? What is their excuse for erecting temporary dirt mounds around a building days before it was supposedly attacked?

It's obvious the whole thing was a set up from Lloyds taxi to the light poles. All fake.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Nobody saw the plane impact, the OSers will claim they did all day long, but can not supply one witness that says the saw the impact.

Even Sean Boger didn't see it impact.

In fact not too many people could have even been in a position to see the impact point, because it was obscured from everywhere but where Lloyds taxi was set up.........It's obvious the whole thing was a set up from Lloyds taxi to the light poles. All fake.

That whole exchange with Lloyd on the Citizens Investigative Team video was bizarre. I don't agree with taping someone when they think they are off the record (it happened to me ten years ago courtesy of the LA Times and hurt me professionally), but it is what it is, and Lloyd's comments about "people with money" and the whole thing being "too big for him" were quite interesting.

As an aside, I see from an old ATS post by Merc_the_Perp that Floyd is receiving money from the Survivor's Fund. Also, I have had some experience with large, galvanized light poles similar if not identical to the one that allegedly fell on Lloyd's car. For the use we put them to we had to transport them in one piece on a trailer to a machine shop where they would cut them up into six foot lengths for us. They were wicked heavy, tricky to transport, and, if I am recalling correctly, took 5-6 burly machinist to manipulate for cutting on a giant band saw. Floyd's description of his encounter with the light pole, how it was removed, and the minimal damage it caused to his cab stretch credulity, like so much with the 9/11 children's tale.