9-11 Truthers: Talk about it here
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
Actually not a bad idea to create a nexus for such discourse.
I have to admit that I'm not happy with using "Truthers" as a group noun, it just seems a bit derogatory and dismissive somehow but I'd not actually come across it until you posted it the other day so I'm not qualified to judge if it's insulting or not.
The trick will certainly be to keep debate calm and non-abusive. Here's hoping everyone can abide by that.
I have to admit that I'm not happy with using "Truthers" as a group noun, it just seems a bit derogatory and dismissive somehow but I'd not actually come across it until you posted it the other day so I'm not qualified to judge if it's insulting or not.
The trick will certainly be to keep debate calm and non-abusive. Here's hoping everyone can abide by that.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
It's become kinda like calling a Marine a Jarhead. It was meant to be an insult, but more then a few "truthers" have adopted the term as there own 'badge of honor'
That is true, regardless how others outside the "circle" view this group and their points of view...from what I know of those who hold these views, the term "Truther" is not derogatory in nature (as we know, perception is everything!). As Cuong said, it is almost a badge of honor for some.
Thought it will be difficult to discuss this topic without throwing a great deal of mud - I personally do not share the beliefs and will put it out there that if you are really interested in the topic, there seems to be more evidence AGAINST this particular train of thought than there is FOR it. As a Structural Engineer in college during the attacks and having studied them in depth, I can say that many of their central claims are in error.
I will echo Sukerkin here, let's please keep this one civil. This could be a very interesting discussion! I would love to hear some of the "other side" when presented from a scientific and objective manner.
Thought it will be difficult to discuss this topic without throwing a great deal of mud - I personally do not share the beliefs and will put it out there that if you are really interested in the topic, there seems to be more evidence AGAINST this particular train of thought than there is FOR it. As a Structural Engineer in college during the attacks and having studied them in depth, I can say that many of their central claims are in error.
I will echo Sukerkin here, let's please keep this one civil. This could be a very interesting discussion! I would love to hear some of the "other side" when presented from a scientific and objective manner.
I've heard so many versions of what happened or what probably happened or what REALLY happened on that horrible day of 9/11 that it's going to be impossible to find out exactly what is the full truth.
in about 5 or 10 years 9/11 is going to be regulated to the same type of discussions as the Kennedy Assassination(s) and Roswell. In less than 25 years we'll get the "freedom of information act" version of it... which is a thick sheaf of papers with a lot of black lines crossed over certain passages.
It's frustrating and it's tiring.
Key points have been brought up and unanswered. The money to finance the operation has been traced (??) but it was "deemed as not an issue" by investigators.
Why are the confiscated videos of the Pentagon attack from roughly 80 civilian building cameras (including one from a gas station located directly across the street at the point of impact) that surround the Pentagon not been released for public scrutiny? What do they NOT want us to see?
in about 5 or 10 years 9/11 is going to be regulated to the same type of discussions as the Kennedy Assassination(s) and Roswell. In less than 25 years we'll get the "freedom of information act" version of it... which is a thick sheaf of papers with a lot of black lines crossed over certain passages.
It's frustrating and it's tiring.
Key points have been brought up and unanswered. The money to finance the operation has been traced (??) but it was "deemed as not an issue" by investigators.
Why are the confiscated videos of the Pentagon attack from roughly 80 civilian building cameras (including one from a gas station located directly across the street at the point of impact) that surround the Pentagon not been released for public scrutiny? What do they NOT want us to see?
mrhnau
Senior Master
Been having this discussion with a friend of mine lately. I'll see if I can get him involved. He actually brings up some very interesting points, makes you think. However, he has absolutely no interesting in martial arts, so getting him to join would be difficult 
*waits for UNK to chime in*
*waits for UNK to chime in*
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
no, it isnt impossible
we know what REALLY happened.A good plan worked, better than expected. Our security was a joke, we got hit in the giblets.
"(including one from a gas station located directly across the street at the point of impact) that surround the Pentagon not been released for public scrutiny? What do they NOT want us to see?"
that WAS released, for the Padilla trial. it didnt show the impact.
There is simply NO WAY the truthers version of events works.
they spend MONTHS planning controlled demolitions of EMPTY buildings. You think they could plan and execute TWO in less than nine months without someone noticing?
it simply couldnt have happened the way those people claim it did.
It didn't happen the way those people claim it did, but it certainly could have-at least, it's not like the reasons that you offer are enough to have kept it from happening.
Do you have any idea how many people pass unnoticed through buildings like the World Trade Center-every day? While the security at the Pentagon offered another level of scrutiny, it too was far from impassable.
In the end, it's Ockham's Razor that applies here: we saw the planes fly into the buildings, and serious engineering and scientific scrutiny of every objection to that scenario says that, well, that's the way it happened.
The planes flew into the buildings, and that's that.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
But there was still alot that could have been done to prevent it. Before 9/11 when was the last time we updated our security regulations? Could it happen again? Yes, while more things are no-gos on a plane, it is still very possible to sneak them in, and it does happen. I've heard of people sneaking explosives onto planes, just to go 'see, our security protocols are bunk'. I know the FBI has been doing the same, and getting similar results.
So, the truthers do have a point, our gov. may not have been behind 9/11, they could be blamed for allowing it (kinda like negligant homocide).
So with all of that who are we to believe? Hundreds of eye witnesses and testimony and analysis from top experts in their respective fields... or the government?
mrhnau
Senior Master
This is a response from my friend. Do I believe in the 9/11 conspiracy? I'm not sure. Still not educated enough on the topic. Conspiracies are wonderful, because they are often very hard to disprove. I suffer from a terminal case of optimism, in that I always try to avoid belief in the baseless conspiracy and try to be optimistic of those in charge and my nation. However, sometimes those conspiracies have a meaningful speck of truth in them...
mrhnau
Senior Master
punisher73
Senior Master
This reminds alot of the the attack on Pearl Harbor. There is a large movement that claims the US intercepted radio transmissions and knew of the attack. Part of their claim is that most of the integral part of the fleet at Pearl Harbor was moved out just prior to the attack.
They claim very much like the 9-11 truth movement that the gov't allowed the attack to happen to justify entering into a war. Many people thought it strange that the US entered into WW2 in the European front and not in the Pacific front to fight the people who attacked them. Much like some people think that the main focus was always Iraq and when the 9/11 smoking gun turned out to be Afghanistan we needed to create something else to invade Iraq.
For the record, I'm not claiming this as my belief just pointing out some similarities between the two conspiracy theories.
They claim very much like the 9-11 truth movement that the gov't allowed the attack to happen to justify entering into a war. Many people thought it strange that the US entered into WW2 in the European front and not in the Pacific front to fight the people who attacked them. Much like some people think that the main focus was always Iraq and when the 9/11 smoking gun turned out to be Afghanistan we needed to create something else to invade Iraq.
For the record, I'm not claiming this as my belief just pointing out some similarities between the two conspiracy theories.
KELLYG
2nd Black Belt
Some of the things that I found interesting in looking at the "conspiracy type stuff. 1 The fire burned in the wtc was hotter than the "fuel" IE jet fuel could burn. 2. The hole inside the Pentagon was not airplane shaped and very minimal debris. 3. How many buildings fell straight down? 4 Where did all to gold go???
Things that scratch your head.
Things that scratch your head.
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
yeah ok. Let's get real here.
Caver, what are "hundreds of eyewitnesses" saying that is in conflict with the government report? the sound of explosions?
guess what happens to a co2 fire extengisher in a fire? it EXPLODES. Guess wht it sounds like when an several ACRES (thats right, each floor of the towers was a several ACRES of concrete)of concrete three feet thick falls and hits whatever is beneth it? an explosion?
The towers fell from the top DOWN, that isnt how it is done. Controlled demolitions happen from the bottom UP.
More than anything else, there just wasnt TIME to plan it.
Bush got into office at the end of january. He hadnt picked a cabinet yet, because of Mr Gore's hissy fit, so that took up most of feb.
In April, the Chinese forced one of our P-3's to land and held the crew captive.
in july, Bush goes to his ranch for 30 days.
not even 6 WEEKS later, 9-11 happens.
somehow, he was able to plan this all out?
forget that ALL the 19 hijackers were in country BEFORE the election, forget that a couple were in country BEFORE bush even announced he was running.
Osama ADMITTED he planned the op
KSM ADMITTED he helped make it happen
Caver, what are "hundreds of eyewitnesses" saying that is in conflict with the government report? the sound of explosions?
guess what happens to a co2 fire extengisher in a fire? it EXPLODES. Guess wht it sounds like when an several ACRES (thats right, each floor of the towers was a several ACRES of concrete)of concrete three feet thick falls and hits whatever is beneth it? an explosion?
The towers fell from the top DOWN, that isnt how it is done. Controlled demolitions happen from the bottom UP.
More than anything else, there just wasnt TIME to plan it.
Bush got into office at the end of january. He hadnt picked a cabinet yet, because of Mr Gore's hissy fit, so that took up most of feb.
In April, the Chinese forced one of our P-3's to land and held the crew captive.
in july, Bush goes to his ranch for 30 days.
not even 6 WEEKS later, 9-11 happens.
somehow, he was able to plan this all out?
forget that ALL the 19 hijackers were in country BEFORE the election, forget that a couple were in country BEFORE bush even announced he was running.
Osama ADMITTED he planned the op
KSM ADMITTED he helped make it happen
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
yes, the fire was trapped in a steel building, with LOTS of flammable stuff inside it. Plus, the heat was trapped inside the building. that mulitplies the heat produced
yes, airplane wings and tail are mostly hollow(the tail) or filled with fuel(the wings), hiting the building sheared them off.
There wouldnt be much debris left after hitting at full speed.
watch this:
The only really solid things on an airplane are the engines. and those were found inside the building.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marginal
Senior Master
Here's the truth about 9-11:
There was a conspiracy to divide a nation. It succeeded. Radical "Patriots" and liberal "Truthers" are now around to hate each other, point fingers, and haphazardly appoint officials to make bad decisions; purely based on emotion.
Both "sides" are guilty.
Since 9-11, we've seen the country split apart by nonsensical propagandists, and allowed our rights (and perceived/assumed) rights taken away.
I don't think there was US conspiracy-type involvement in the 9-11 attacks, but there was definitely special business interest involved in the events (and manipulation of such events) that followed. That's no lie.
There was a conspiracy to divide a nation. It succeeded. Radical "Patriots" and liberal "Truthers" are now around to hate each other, point fingers, and haphazardly appoint officials to make bad decisions; purely based on emotion.
Both "sides" are guilty.
Since 9-11, we've seen the country split apart by nonsensical propagandists, and allowed our rights (and perceived/assumed) rights taken away.
I don't think there was US conspiracy-type involvement in the 9-11 attacks, but there was definitely special business interest involved in the events (and manipulation of such events) that followed. That's no lie.
Aye, a pragmatic view of consequences and precursors is often the best way to resolve your stance on a subject. As with most analystical or investigative trains of thought, the richest veins are struck when you discuss "Who benefits" and follow the money trail.
