If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If one asks specific questions about Conspiracy Theories like demolition the numbers who respond that they entertain those notions drop dramatically.

I'm not qualified to discuss the failure of the Towers.

I believe we can discuss the Tower Failures for 100 years, No sir,

Any body who questions 911 should look into the events leading up to the planes hitting the Towers.

Passports being ordered to be passed by CIA agents.

Highjackers being meet by FBI agents , and being "handled" by the FBI.

If you want to research 911, research leading up to the sept 11 events.

I'll be making a few threads sir, look forward to see you argue facts.

Originally posted by magicrat
Are there any truthers here who have been (or feel they have been) scammed out of their money? I know I haven't spent any money on videos, and I've watched just about all of them - official theory and conspiracy theory alike. They're all available for free online. What a scam.

Give us an example of how we could even be scammed. The 9/11 commission report is a gov't document so it's free to download-

The 9/11 Commission Report

Since you're saying they're "all for free online", do you know where I can get a similar free-to-download copy of Morgan Reynonds's books? Or were you just making that all up too?

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Good GOD the guy is a blatant scam artist.

Something is very Blatant, I agree.

Your unwavering devotion to muddy the facts of 911, shame on you.

What "facts of 9/11" have I muddied, precisely? Give me an example, please. Up until now, all I've done is expose these blatant con artists behind those damned fool conspircy websites for the blatant con artists they really are.

Or were you just making THAT up, too?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I am not talking about the plans I am talking about the steel and concrete distribution. Were the horizontal beams in the core at the 5th level the same thickness as the horizontal beams at the 105th level?

The plans specify the size of the beams and the thickness of the concrete for each floor.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

I'm not qualified to discuss the failure of the Towers.


I'll be making a few threads sir, look forward to see you argue facts.

I'm happy to do that. I was responding specifically to your implied assertion that a majority or even a significant minority of people are "Truthers". They are not.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never claimed that any of them KNEW what brought the buildings down. I don't claim to know what brought the buildings down. I am simply saying an airliner and fire could not do it and without that information no one can PROVE THAT AIRLINERS AND FIRE COULD BRING THEM DOWN.

If you're admitting you don't know how the towers were constructed then how can you say they couldn't have been brought down by the impact and the fires? Truly intellectually honest researchers would say "there's not enough information to explain why the towers collapsed".

All you're doing here is making up excuses for why you shouldn't have to abandon your conspiracy claims. You know that and so do I.

It is totally absurd to not have that data. I am not talking about the plans I am talking about the steel and concrete distribution. Were the horizontal beams in the core at the 5th level the same thickness as the horizontal beams at the 105th level? Where is that data? But if the thicknesses were different then the weight of steel on those levels would be different even if all of the horizontal beams were in the exact same locations.

psik

The blueprints specifically show each floor was supported entirely by a horizontal framework supported by the internal core columns and the exterior perimeter. No floor contributed to the support of any other floor so there would be no reason why there would be any difference in construction. For the sake of estimating an answer, noone would fault Gage for assuming they were all equal.

You and I both know Gage still won't attempt to reverse engineer how these controlled demolitions brought down the towers. All he'll do is invent some new excuse for why he won't do it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The blueprints specifically show each floor was supported entirely by a horizontal framework supported by the internal core columns and the exterior perimeter. No floor contributed to the support of any other floor so there would be no reason why there would be any difference in construction. For the sake of estimating an answer, noone would fault Gage for assuming they were all equal.

You and I both know Gage still won't attempt to reverse engineer how these controlled demolitions brought down the towers. All he'll do is invent some new excuse for why he won't do it.

OOPS!

The horizontal beams in the core which did not support the floor outside of the core just got disappeared again.

Just because you are saying something that is true does not mean you are saying something important.

You are just creating distraction, as usual. I didn't say anything about controlled demolition. Explain the physics of how the airliner and fire totally destroyed the towers. Oh, how do you explain how they came down so fast if you don't know the distributions of steel and concrete?

Just BELIEVE and you don't need to explain.

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave
I wasn't suggesting that you've been scammed, or that the 9/11 Commission Report was a scam. I know it's available for free, but I really did buy a copy of the book, and I was being a bit facetious in pointing out that that's the only money I've spent (sorry if the tone didn't come through).

Not sure what books of Morgan Reynolds's you're referring to specifically, but I was talking about videos. My larger point was that the information, evidence, analysis, opinion etc is all available for free if you look for it. There are certainly books and DVDs and knicknacks for sale (and I'd agree that there are snake oil peddlers out there, and it's important to be wary of that), but I don't have to buy those things. A quick google search gets me a lot of video and writing by Reynolds, so it's not like I have to shell out money to research his perspective.

Given the free access those damn fool conspiracy sites (facetious again ) provide to most of their content, I tend to think their main goal is to share information they think is important, rather than scam people out of money. They definitely didn't scam me out of mine, which is why I was asking if they've scammed any of us here.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The horizontal beams in the core which did not support the floor outside of the core just got disappeared again.

Just because you are saying something that is true does not mean you are saying something important.

You are just creating distraction, as usual.

How is it not important to point out that Gage and his bunch are uniquely qualified to irrefutably prove a conspiracy was involved in 9/11 and yet they're steadfastly refusing to do it? They have the blueprints, they have the chemical composition of the explosives, they have scores of eyewitnesses and tons of videos, and even 1500 experts to analyze all this...and yet all he does is tour the country charging people to hear him say "controlled demolitions" over and over. It's like a homicide detective having the murder weapon, the fingerprints of the murderer, armies of witnesses, a crime video of the murder, and 1500 crime analysis technicians and experts...and instead of using them to find out who the murderer is he'll just sit around saying "the victim was murdered" over and over. Are you genuinely telling me that isn't significant?

Please tell me in your own words you don't believe this is significant, because to everyone else in the universe, it's significant because to avoid being scammed we need to know how to recognize when something actually is a scam. Otherwise you might as well be shovelling all your money to Nigerian ex-presidents who want to share their millions with you in exchange for a small donation.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I wasn't suggesting that you've been scammed, or that the 9/11 Commission Report was a scam. I know it's available for free, but I really did buy a copy of the book, and I was being a bit facetious in pointing out that that's the only money I've spent (sorry if the tone didn't come through).

Not sure what books of Morgan Reynolds's you're referring to specifically, but I was talking about videos. My larger point was that the information, evidence, analysis, opinion etc is all available for free if you look for it. There are certainly books and DVDs and knicknacks for sale (and I'd agree that there are snake oil peddlers out there, and it's important to be wary of that), but I don't have to buy those things. A quick Google search gets me a lot of video and writing by Reynolds, so it's not like I have to shell out money to research his perspective.

I would strongly suggest you look at those links, becuase all they are, are thinly veiled advertisements for his books as well as the books others have written (I.E. David Ray Griffin). The most obvious one is where he outlines the material he puts in his book and lists the page numbers where you can find more information in his book. It's not an article. It's a sales pitch.

This is neither here nor there because I was simply using him as an example. The point is, if someone had genuine information on gov't impropriety...especially when it caused the deaths of 3000 innocent people...they'd be screaming it off the tops of their heads trying to get people to listen, rather than trying to make a fast buck off of it. When Paul Revere wanted the colonists to know the British army was coming, he galloped across the countryside yelling "the Redcoats are coming." He didn't yell "Something dreadful is coming and I'll only tell you what it is if you give me your money, plus I have a lovely assortment for sale of T-shirts, books, videos, posters, bumper stickers, etc etc etc."

Given the free access those damn fool conspiracy sites (facetious again

) provide to most of their content, I tend to think their main goal is to share information they think is important, rather than scam people out of money. They definitely didn't scam me out of mine, which is why I was asking if they've scammed any of us here.

These damned fool conspiracy web sites aren't sharing any information. All they do is drop innuendo to get you to believe what they want you to believe. Dylan Avery for example shows a grainy video of the impact from five miles away that makes it kinda sorta look like missiles were launching from the plane before it hit the building, and the reason he's choosing that specific video is because every OTHER video of the plane impact showed no such thing. There is no way this misrepresentation could have been done accidentally. Is this a case of "sharing information that was important" or a case of "trying to trick you into believing something that wasn't true"?

I can give you as many examples of this deliberate chicanery as you would like.

As already pointed out, truth can never be a scam ...

Fact of the matter is, if you look at the date 9/11 ... it represent historical dates of meaning, to the United States of America, and it's development. And it's lesser meaning, a cry for help.

Now, you can't even torture me to believe Mr. Usama Bin Laden has even the smallest sense of irony. So, the date itself ... should be a signal, to look deeper into anything.

Unless this is solved, this will drag the United States down to the gutter ... and you are litterally blind, if you cannot see that. Here, we're starting to teach chinese to our children in school ... that should tell you, whome we are going to give control of the world to.

But of course, it's up to you ... do you love your country, or do you love a handful of liars. If you love your country, it means you should fight your enemies ... even those within.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


The Ad Hominem logical fallacy: Attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The horizontal beams in the core which did not support the floor outside of the core just got disappeared again.

Just because you are saying something that is true does not mean you are saying something important.

You are just creating distraction, as usual.

How is it not important to point out that Gage and his bunch are uniquely qualified to irrefutably prove a conspiracy was involved in 9/11 and yet they're steadfastly refusing to do it? They have the blueprints, they have the chemical composition of the explosives, they have scores of eyewitnesses and tons of videos, and even 1500 experts to analyze all this...and yet all he does is tour the country charging people to hear him say "controlled demolitions" over and over. It's like a homicide detective having the murder weapon, the fingerprints of the murderer, armies of witnesses, a crime video of the murder, and 1500 crime analysis technicians and experts...and instead of using them to find out who the murderer is he'll just sit around saying "the victim was murdered" over and over. Are you genuinely telling me that isn't significant?

Look dude, I concluded an airliner could not destroy those buildings long before I ever heard of Richard Gage. I am not going to even think about trying to explain his behaviour.

When I asked him about the distribution of steel and concrete in 2008 he looked at me like I had grown a second head. That is why I wonder if his group just wants this to appear complicated. The distributions of steel and concrete are simple concepts. If the collapse time cannot be explained by plane and fire then obviously something else did it.

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave
I will concede that many of the articles that come up in that search serve as advertising for his books. You're still missing my point, though - I haven't spent any money on any of these books, yet I have easily found access to information that I can evaluate as part of my personal research.

Like a lot of people, I started seeing inconsistencies, asking questions and looking for answers before I ever heard of any of these people you criticize so often, so I look at them as a resource, and not as a guide.

I do hear these people screaming their heads off trying to get people to listen, and rarely encounter a demand for money before accessing that information. I think your Paul Revere analogy is pretty funny and well-written, but not accurate. From my experience, the fair comparison would be if he was yelling "The British are coming! Please help me cover room & board costs for me and my horse if you can, so I can continue to get the message out to more people!"

I see your point (and I'm frustrated by it) that there is a lot of misinformation and / or disinformation coming from the truth movement. Almost as much as comes from its detractors. I think your skepticism is healthy and valuable, but it's preventing you from looking for the evidence rather than looking at the charlatans.

I think Loose Change has been pretty diligent about correcting errors and bad assumptions as they've come out with updated versions, but I don't assume they're infallible, and I don't think most truthers do. I know the history of how and why Avery started the project, and I think that's reason enough to watch with a grain of salt.

I also know there are a lot of videos, from a lot of different angles, that show a flash just prior to impact, so I think your example is disingenuous, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I have no doubt that you can provide examples of chicanery, and I think those examples do a lot of damage to the pursuit of real truth. I also really like the word chicanery, and want to thank you for using it.

reply to post by Tw0Sides
Glad I got it in paperback then

reply to post by magicrat

I also know there are a lot of videos, from a lot of different angles, that show a flash just prior to impact, so I think your example is disingenuous, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Sunshine reflected from the cockpit window onto the building. At least until the window entered the shade of the building.

reply to post by bjarneorn

Fact of the matter is, if you look at the date 9/11 ... it represent historical dates of meaning, to the United States of America, and it's development. And it's lesser meaning, a cry for help.

Now, you can't even torture me to believe Mr. Usama Bin Laden has even the smallest sense of irony. So, the date itself ... should be a signal, to look deeper into anything.

You believe in mystical number things?
What if your doctor diagnosed your problems by asking what day of the week were you born on?
Totally silly.

But your honor he can't be guilty. He was born on July 7th and it was a saturday.

reply to post by samkent
That's an assumption from bias, but I do think it's a possible explanation. I don't think it's proven - and it may not be provable - so I wouldn't state it as fact with any certainty, but it's definitely possible.

I was only bringing that up in response to GoodOlDave, who seemed to be suggesting that the flash was only visible on one grainy video, when in fact it's visible on many videos.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Look dude, I concluded an airliner could not destroy those buildings long before I ever heard of Richard Gage. I am not going to even think about trying to explain his behaviour.

Well then, how about explaining THIS question- if you're admitting you don't know anything about the construction of the towers then just how do you know "an airliner could not destroy those buildings"? I have to presume you're not exceptionally gullible like certain other people here who thinks the towers were fake buildings and/or the planes were holograms, so given that it's a real plane and a real building, for it to collapse it necessarily means there's an as-yet unknown piece of the puzzle that caused the collapse. Right?

YOU apparently determined somehow the missing piece of the puzzle is that there's some sinister conspiracy afoot, and I'm asking you to show how you came to this conclusion without one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites putting the idea into your head. This is the first time in history that a plane of that size and speed hit a building of that specific design, so I don't see how you can declare with such certainly what should or should not have happened with any intellectual honesty.

When I asked him about the distribution of steel and concrete in 2008 he looked at me like I had grown a second head. That is why I wonder if his group just wants this to appear complicated. The distributions of steel and concrete are simple concepts. If the collapse time cannot be explained by plane and fire then obviously something else did it.

Not true. There are many things throughout the world that have no full detailed explanation, and yet it still does not disprove the accepted general explanation. We don't know the exact physical progression of the breakup of the Titanic either but that doesn't mean that whole bit about the iceberg is false and it was really sunk by an alien submarine.

Titanic sunk by Alien submarine- the proof!

You do get the point I'm making, I trust.

Originally posted by magicrat
I see your point (and I'm frustrated by it) that there is a lot of misinformation and / or disinformation coming from the truth movement. Almost as much as comes from its detractors. I think your skepticism is healthy and valuable, but it's preventing you from looking for the evidence rather than looking at the charlatans.

The problem in your position is that every single bit of your "evidence" as you put it is coming from the same people caught lying about their information time and time again. Richard Gage deliberately snips off the video of the Penthouse collapse six seconds before the full collapse of WTC 7, all so he can say "mysterious noises were heard inside WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse." David Ray Griffin drops innuendo of "eyewitnesses heard explosions" while deliberately concealing that UA175 hit the tower's mechanical floor that had electrical transformers, fuel tanks, generators and machinery, etc, all of which would naturally explode while on fire. Dylan Avery just plain lies through his teeth by claiming "mysterious personnel were carrying an unknown object covered by a blue tap from the Pentagon" when it was really a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon. Don't even get me started on that lunatic Alex "secret cults of Satan worshippers" Jones.

You seem to think I don't pay attention to what these people are saying. What you don't seem to understand is that YOU don't know what these people are saying.

I also know there are a lot of videos, from a lot of different angles, that show a flash just prior to impact, so I think your example is disingenuous, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

That is correct, they do. The flash has been shown to be a reflection on the craft's aluminum skin. We know this because Avery's claim of a missile pod firing missiles is thoroughly refuted in all the video that was taken much closer to the impact.

I have no doubt that you can provide examples of chicanery, and I think those examples do a lot of damage to the pursuit of real truth. I also really like the word chicanery, and want to thank you for using it.

You're welcome. Believe it or not I learned the word as a kid from watching Looney Tunes cartoons.