9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Jerry_B]

Who are the conspiracy theorists you pompously talk about?

Some decorum would be nice.

Most of the people I have encountered in the 9/11 truth movement are not theorists at all. Exposing evidence that the official explanation is false is not theorising, it is, if anything, countertheorising, i.e. disproving a theory.

It is people like you who on the one hand are demanding that the evidence is assembled into an hypothesis and then on the other hand using any such hypothesis as a stick to beat people with and as a license to use the epithet 'conspiracy theorist' or as you glibly put is, CT.

Unfortunately for you, most truthers don't theorise.

Unfortunately for the truthers, those who do theorise are the only ones people like you take any notice of and by and large find themselves on the fringe of the truth movement. Once their damage is done, they normally drift into obscurity. We hear very little these days from Web Fairy, Nico Haupt, Phil Jayhan et al but their silly ideas of TV fakery, holograms and missile pods still pollute the internet and provide easy ammunition for those who wish to scoff.

It might be useful for some people to say that this group is ignored because of the polluting factors you mention, but if you take the time to read all of the 9/11 threads here at the FTMB you will find that these factors were not the mian thrust of the discussions.

Even if we dispense with the whole 'theorist' moniker, and also (for the sake of balance) don't use the 'truther' one either, we still have a problem. The problem is that we have a group of people who have yet to show evidence of intent, insomuch that it shows who ordered and who organised 9/11 as a covert action by the US.

For example, who do you think ordered 9/11? Who organised it? Do you have any evidence which demonstrates this? Was it something sanctioned by the Bush administration, or was it something that was allowed to happen by the various agencies within that administration?

 

[Quake42]

There's evidence that government figures were warned not to fly on 9/11. Is there any reason Al Quaeda would want to save the Mayor of Chicago?

I'm not about the provenance such "evidence", but for argument's sake let's say it exists. It's quite plausible that senior figures in the US Government had been advised that a terror attack was likely, and that they may wish to consider delaying travel plans. That anti-terrorism agencies may be aware that an attack is likely, and that such an attack may involve civil aviation, does not make it an inside job.

Incidentally, if such a warning was given, I doubt very much that it filtered down to individual city mayors. Warning people on this sort of scale is equivalent to putting out a press release.

 

[AngelAlice]

Well, I just managed to delete a post on this topic and can't be bothered to do it again.

But here's a reciprocal question - do you think the official story is entirely consistent with all the known facts?

 

[Quake42]

But here's a reciprocal question - do you think the official story is entirely consistent with all the known facts?

I'm not convinced by all aspects of the official story; in particular I have suspicions that United 93 was shot down I also think that the extraordinarily swift actions taken to remove members of the Bin Laden family from the US without being questioned looks fishy, although it was probably intended to avoid any potential embarrassment at the close links between the Bushes and Bin Ladens, and the US and Saudi more generally.

I don't however believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that the Islamist death cult nutters would kill thousands of innocent people in a suicide attach; they have after all been doing it in their own countries for decades. There is a reluctance amongst many to confront the reality of this poisonous ideology. It's much easier to bash the US and the West, it seems.

 

[AngelAlice]

There's evidence that government figures were warned not to fly on 9/11. Is there any reason Al Quaeda would want to save the Mayor of Chicago?

Incidentally, if such a warning was given, I doubt very much that it filtered down to individual city mayors. Warning people on this sort of scale is equivalent to putting out a press release.

Actually I was wrong, it was the mayor of San Francisco:

http://propagandamatrix.com/willie_brow ... rning.html

But he's apparently now changed his mind and says that didn't happen:

On February 12, 2008, Willie Brown spoke about his new book, “Basic Brown: My Life & Our Times” at the Free Library of Philadelphia. After speaking, Brown took questions from the audience and emphasized, “no subject was off-limits.” Little did Brown know, but he was about to be on the receiving end of some salient questions regarding his activities related to the events of 9/11/01. The Philly 9/11 Truth-squad unleashed a fury of questions pertaining to Brown’s early warning, backing up their claims with reports from mainstream media publications. Brown, while attempting to controvert the issue, contradicted previous statements he made to the San Francisco Chronicle in the September 12, 2001 article titled “Willie Brown got a low-key early warning about air travel.”

Upon receiving the 9/11 group's first question about the warning, Willie Brown denied the existence of the Chronicle article altogether declaring "some jerk on the internet started that nonsense and it has taken on it's own life."

A separate audience member then told the former mayor that he was holding the original article in his hand and began to read from it!


Brown then confirmed that despite his admissions to the Chronicle in 2001, he was not asked to testify before the 9/11 Commission, encouraging the questioner to "drop it".

When informing Mr Brown that several victims' family members interviewed on MSNBC brought up the issue, Brown became agitated and shot back "They're wrong, they're wrong, they're wrong, that is the end of it, they're wrong"

"Why don't you go to a library and read the 9/11 report... read the damn report" Brown continued, declaring that it "speaks for itself" despite the fact there is no mention of the prior warning.

Later on at a book signing the Philly group approached Brown again with the Chronicle article. Brown responded "it means nothing, move on, move on friend, it didn't happen".

Plays like an outtake from JFK doesn't it.

BTW - how did you manage to reply to my post when it vanished while I was editing? We truly live in an age of miracles!

 

[AngelAlice]

But here's a reciprocal question - do you think the official story is entirely consistent with all the known facts?

I'm not convinced by all aspects of the official story; in particular I have suspicions that United 93 was shot down I also think that the extraordinarily swift actions taken to remove members of the Bin Laden family from the US without being questioned looks fishy, although it was probably intended to avoid any potential embarrassment at the close links between the Bushes and Bin Ladens, and the US and Saudi more generally.

I don't however believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that the Islamist death cult nutters would kill thousands of innocent people in a suicide attach; they have after all been doing it in their own countries for decades. There is a reluctance amongst many to confront the reality of this poisonous ideology. It's much easier to bash the US and the West, it seems.

I don't find it hard to believe they would do it. I'm sure they would do it. But that doesn't necessarily men they could, or did. The only way to assess that question is on the basis of evidence. I think some evidence is problematic for the case that foreign terrorists were responsible.

If, for example, thermite was used to bring down all three buildings, then how can we reconcile that with Al Quaeda being responsible? So on that grounds alone, pending a good physics-based explanation for the collapse of the towers that doesn't require demolition, I think there's a huge question mark on the "official story".

Not that this means we have to believe the W administration did it. There's a lot of intermediate steps between doubting foreign terrorists could have been responsible alone and assuming it was the "gumment".

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

There's evidence that government figures were warned not to fly on 9/11. Is there any reason Al Quaeda would want to save the Mayor of Chicago?

I'm not about the provenance such "evidence", but for argument's sake let's say it exists. It's quite plausible that senior figures in the US Government had been advised that a terror attack was likely, and that they may wish to consider delaying travel plans. That anti-terrorism agencies may be aware that an attack is likely, and that such an attack may involve civil aviation, does not make it an inside job.

Incidentally, if such a warning was given, I doubt very much that it filtered down to individual city mayors. Warning people on this sort of scale is equivalent to putting out a press release.

The evidence for such a claim is, as usual, manipulated and overstated. In any case the fact that a supposed warning was given to a fairly peripheral figure due to take off several hours after the hijacked craft from the width of a continent away is hardly supportive of the Inside Job hypothesis. Wilful negligence, perhaps, but then that only raises more questions in the light of the truthers claims. One would also have to ask why a supposed shill like Justice Department Solicitor General Ted Olson wouldn't alert his wife to a plot almost certain to bring about her death.

Maybe the marriage had grown frosty.

 

[AngelAlice]

Do you think we should be wary of downplaying the truth movement as being nothing more than a bunch of marginal crazies?

Some victim families are members of the movement and clearly feel they have valid reasons for thinking they haven't been told the whole truth. There are also physicists, pilots, ex-government officials and even ex-CIA employees.

How sure are we they have no valuable insights or information?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Do you think we should be wary of downplaying the truth movement as being nothing more than a bunch of marginal crazies?

Some victim families are members of the movement and clearly feel they have valid reasons for thinking they haven't been told the whole truth. There are also physicists, pilots, ex-government officials and even ex-CIA employees.

How sure are we they have no valuable insights or information?

I believe this point has been discussed various times throughout the 9/11 threads. It shouldn't really be a question of credentials, only the evidence - or lack of it.

I wouldn't say everyone in the truth movement is a marginal crazy but the rhetoric that often issues from it would suggest the tag applies to some of those most vocal within it. In turn many of those leading the movement would seem to be making an appeal based on the aforementioned assumption.

 

[Heckler]

How sure are we they have no valuable insights or information?

Into what though? You are proceeding from a position that they are onto something 'hidden' that a further investigation will uncover.

I'm open minded to a point but currently the most feasible explanation is still the one involving nutters in planes. I'm certainly open (like Quake) to ideas around Flight 93 being shot down, but that is more a hunch than anything evidential and frankly one could argue that would be something that really doesn't need to come out, the heroes of Flight 93 works far better.

 

[AngelAlice]

Do you think we should be wary of downplaying the truth movement as being nothing more than a bunch of marginal crazies?

Some victim families are members of the movement and clearly feel they have valid reasons for thinking they haven't been told the whole truth. There are also physicists, pilots, ex-government officials and even ex-CIA employees.

How sure are we they have no valuable insights or information?

I believe this point has been discussed various times throughout the 9/11 threads. It shouldn't really be a question of credentials, only the evidence - or lack of it.

I wouldn't say everyone in the truth movement is a marginal crazy but the rhetoric that often issues from it would suggest the tag applies to some of those most vocal within it. In turn many of those leading the movement would seem to be making an appeal based on the aforementioned assumption.

Then you don't think there are any inconsistencies or anomalies in the numerous different versions or partial versions of the story that has been offered?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Then you don't think there are any inconsistencies or anomalies in the numerous different versions or partial versions of the story that has been offered?

No, I do.

 

[Quake42]

Some victim families are members of the movement and clearly feel they have valid reasons for thinking they haven't been told the whole truth.

At the risk of sounding uncaring, the fact that a few families of victims believe they haven't been told the full story is not evidence of a cover-up. It's not unusual for bereaved people to convince themselves that doctors, police, government or someone could have done more to save their loved one. It's sad but it proves nothing in and of itself.

There are also physicists, pilots, ex-government officials and even ex-CIA employees.

I'm not actually sure that there are; or at least I'm not convinced that any *relevant* individual in those groups has come out in favour of the Truthers.

As I've said before, a conspiracy of this size would require hundreds or maybe thousands of co-conspirators. It's simply not credible that not a single one of these would have come forward in over ten years.

On the other hand it is eminently credible that Islamist Funda-Loons would destroy a building full of innocent people in a senseless terror attack. They do so every day in some countries.

 

[George_millett]

If, for example, thermite was used to bring down all three buildings, then how can we reconcile that with Al Quaeda being responsible? So on that grounds alone, pending a good physics-based explanation for the collapse of the towers that doesn't require demolition, I think there's a huge question mark on the "official story".

1 question and an observation.

The question first: How did the ever elusive 'they' manage to get the thermite in the a position close enough to the planes impact that it looks as though the planes have caused the buildings to collapse yet protect it enough that it was not spread all across the building due to the aircraft hitting the building. All with out alerting other people in the building that there was something odd happening.

For the observation go on Youtube or the Mythbusters site and find the episode they did on the Hindenberg crash where they disproved the theory that the explosion on the Hindenberg was due to it being painted with Thermite not filled with Hydrogen. Even with the correct mix of covering on the models they produced they were able to get a thermite reaction when they burnt their models.

With the aluminum planes striking a building with and Iron and Steel frame/core it is conceivable that a similar process could happen quite naturally with out any external factors.

For reference one of the Mythbusters Hindenberg experiments is here.

 

[Jerry_B]

The thermite angle has been variously explored and discussed previously in the past 9/11 threads. I'm pointing this out merely to prevent rehashing.

 

[AngelAlice]

Some victim families are members of the movement and clearly feel they have valid reasons for thinking they haven't been told the whole truth.

At the risk of sounding uncaring, the fact that a few families of victims believe they haven't been told the full story is not evidence of a cover-up. It's not unusual for bereaved people to convince themselves that doctors, police, government or someone could have done more to save their loved one. It's sad but it proves nothing in and of itself.

I don't think the families would want you to take their beliefs as evidence, but they might want you to look at their evidence as evidence. Have you visited any of their websites?

There are also physicists, pilots, ex-government officials and even ex-CIA employees.

I'm not actually sure that there are; or at least I'm not convinced that any *relevant* individual in those groups has come out in favour of the Truthers.

I'm not sure we should go down the line of assigning "relevance" to such people, are you? How do we even begin to measure such an elusive property? and it's likely to become self-fulfilling in that our measure of relevance is likely to be determined by whether a person says things we can agree with.

But I guess you're familiar with the whole mess of "9/11Truth organizations. Can we say all the contributors to these places are "irrelevant"? Do they offer no good data?

As I've said before, a conspiracy of this size would require hundreds or maybe thousands of co-conspirators. It's simply not credible that not a single one of these would have come forward in over ten years.

Well, you could argue it's early days. How long did it take for the Gulf of Tonkin to be revealed as a false flag? Or Pearl Harbor to be revealed as a LIH event?

But I really want to emphasise I don't think W ordered 9/11! i'm just trying to find the middle ground between believing in holographic planes and accepting every aspect of the official story, even the parts that seem to contradict known physics.

 

[flamesong]

Who are the conspiracy theorists you pompously talk about?

Some decorum would be nice.

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

 

[AngelAlice]

If, for example, thermite was used to bring down all three buildings, then how can we reconcile that with Al Quaeda being responsible? So on that grounds alone, pending a good physics-based explanation for the collapse of the towers that doesn't require demolition, I think there's a huge question mark on the "official story".

1 question and an observation.

The question first: How did the ever elusive 'they' manage to get the thermite in the a position close enough to the planes impact that it looks as though the planes have caused the buildings to collapse yet protect it enough that it was not spread all across the building due to the aircraft hitting the building. All with out alerting other people in the building that there was something odd happening.

For the observation go on Youtube or the Mythbusters site and find the episode they did on the Hindenberg crash where they disproved the theory that the explosion on the Hindenberg was due to it being painted with Thermite not filled with Hydrogen. Even with the correct mix of covering on the models they produced they were able to get a thermite reaction when they burnt their models.

With the aluminum planes striking a building with and Iron and Steel frame/core it is conceivable that a similar process could happen quite naturally with out any external factors.

For reference one of the Mythbusters Hindenberg experiments is here.

I'm not a "truther" - rather a curious bystander, and one troubled by the strange physics going on that day, but I've read enough to know there were literally dozens of witnesses on the day who claimed there had been explosions in the TT on multiple floors well below the site of impact. Firefighters, journalists, building maintenance workers, all reported hearing and seeing these explosions, often swiftly repeating (like charges detonating) just before the towers came down.

So, to answer your question - we don't have to assume "they" (wonderful sense of mystery in that word) got the charges to explode "close enough to the planes". In fact that would have been pointless. "They' would have put the charge where they were needed to bring the building down - as demolition guys do.

Does controlled demolition have to mean inside job though? It's a leap often made, but is it justified?

As to the Hindenberg thing. It's interesting, but not a comparison at all.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

Do you know many people who would describe themself as Truthers who don't believe in a conspiracy theory surrounding the official account of 9/11? If so what do they happen to believe instead?

 

[AngelAlice]

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

Do you know many people who would describe themself as Truthers who don't believe in a conspiracy theory surrounding the official account of 9/11? If so what do they happen to believe instead?

To be honest with you Ted I don't care what Truthers believe. And I don't see it as relevant to what interests me here. I'm curious about the things that don't fit the official version - not because I have a belief about what really happened, but because I don't, if you get what I mean.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

Do you know many people who would describe themself as Truthers who don't believe in a conspiracy theory surrounding the official account of 9/11? If so what do they happen to believe instead?

To be honest with you Ted I don't care what Truthers believe. And I don't see it as relevant to what interests me here. I'm curious about the things that don't fit the official version - not because I have a belief about what really happened, but because I don't, if you get what I mean.

That's fine but it was a question directed at flamesong, who appears to believes that the terminology is important. I am interested to hear what Truthers believe, conspiracy theory or otherwise. I'd have thought that was quite relevant to this thread being as it is in the conspiracy forum and also because it may influence the way in which the evidence itself is likely to be shaped.

 

[AngelAlice]

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

Do you know many people who would describe themself as Truthers who don't believe in a conspiracy theory surrounding the official account of 9/11? If so what do they happen to believe instead?

To be honest with you Ted I don't care what Truthers believe. And I don't see it as relevant to what interests me here. I'm curious about the things that don't fit the official version - not because I have a belief about what really happened, but because I don't, if you get what I mean.

That's fine but it was a question directed at flamesong, who appears to believes that the terminology is important. I am interested to hear what Truthers believe, conspiracy theory or otherwise. I'd have thought that was quite relevant to this thread being as it is in the conspiracy forum and also because it may influence the way in which the evidence itself is likely to be shaped.

Meh - I find dwelling on what other people believe (when I don't even know who the people are) is more a barrier to communication than a facilitator.

BTW - what aspects of the official story would you think of as most dubious or anomalous?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Meh - I find dwelling on what other people believe (when I don't even know who the people are) is more a barrier to communication than a facilitator.

Perhaps but when people object to being referred to as conspiracy theorists (even when they're offering conspiracy theories) and instead insist on being referred to as truthers for the purposes of shaping debate then a barrier has already been erected.

Having followed this debate since pretty much the 11th of September 2001 I can't help observing that belief and the way in which evidence is evaluated are inseparable. And without dwelling on what others believe we would not have threads such as this and questions such as...

BTW - what aspects of the official story would you think of as most dubious or anomalous?

...would be rendered irrelevant.

For what it's worth I wouldn't say there was anything that strikes me as especially dubious or anomalous within the official story. Some of the theories surrounding United 93 are plausible although not neccessary on the grounds of any evidence and in any case they don't suggest a wider or more troubling conspiracy.

 

[Quake42]

I don't think the families would want you to take their beliefs as evidence, but they might want you to look at their evidence as evidence. Have you visited any of their websites?

No, I haven't. Perhaps you could summarise what evidence the families have, and how they have obtained it. I do not see why they would be privy to military/government secrets on the grounds that they are bereaved relatives.

I'm not sure we should go down the line of assigning "relevance" to such people, are you? How do we even begin to measure such an elusive property?

Is the person in a position to have knowledge or expertise to support what they are claimining. The fact that they once worked for the government, or are a physicist, may well be irrelevant: they may have been a junior civil servant in the agriculture department, for example, or they may specialise in an entirely unrelated branch of physics. The fact that no whistleblower has emerged in over 10 years, despite the fact that the conspiracy alleged would require many, many people, would suggest that maybe there's nothing to blow the whistle on.

But I guess you're familiar with the whole mess of "9/11Truth organizations. Can we say all the contributors to these places are "irrelevant"? Do they offer no good data?

I'm afraid that I have no intention of trawling through the thousands of truther websites on the offchance that one has an interesting or curious fact. If you are aware of a credible source who has evidence to support the claims for a conspiracy, please post details.

Having followed this debate since pretty much the 11th of September 2001 I can't help observing that belief and the way in which evidence is evaluated are inseparable.

Agreed. I don't think the truther movement emerged because of evidence that the original story was unreliable, I think instead a minority of people were convinced that it was an inside job from the start and have spent a great deal of time hunting around for anything which would support their belief: when a particular theory ois debunked, they then go hunting around for some completely different one which would support their central "inside job" thesis.

 

[AngelAlice]

I don't think the families would want you to take their beliefs as evidence, but they might want you to look at their evidence as evidence. Have you visited any of their websites?

No, I haven't. Perhaps you could summarise what evidence the families have, and how they have obtained it. I do not see why they would be privy to military/government secrets on the grounds that they are bereaved relatives.

I'm not sure we should go down the line of assigning "relevance" to such people, are you? How do we even begin to measure such an elusive property?

Is the person in a position to have knowledge or expertise to support what they are claimining. The fact that they once worked for the government, or are a physicist, may well be irrelevant: they may have been a junior civil servant in the agriculture department, for example, or they may specialise in an entirely unrelated branch of physics. The fact that no whistleblower has emerged in over 10 years, despite the fact that the conspiracy alleged would require many, many people, would suggest that maybe there's nothing to blow the whistle on.

But I guess you're familiar with the whole mess of "9/11Truth organizations. Can we say all the contributors to these places are "irrelevant"? Do they offer no good data?

I'm afraid that I have no intention of trawling through the thousands of truther websites on the offchance that one has an interesting or curious fact. If you are aware of a credible source who has evidence to support the claims for a conspiracy, please post details.

Having followed this debate since pretty much the 11th of September 2001 I can't help observing that belief and the way in which evidence is evaluated are inseparable.

Agreed. I don't think the truther movement emerged because of evidence that the original story was unreliable, I think instead a minority of people were convinced that it was an inside job from the start and have spent a great deal of time hunting around for anything which would support their belief: when a particular theory ois debunked, they then go hunting around for some completely different one which would support their central "inside job" thesis.

if you have never visited a 9/11Truth website, never read any of their evidence and "have no intention" of doing so, then do you feel in a good position to know why or how they have come to their conclusions? It has to be possible you would agree with them to some degree if you'd actually read what they have to say isn't it?

Why not venture into unknown territory? It's always advisable to understand a POV before rejecting it. And you might even find they aren't all the deluded morons you assume them to be (though probably the death-ray theorisers might broadly fit that category)

 

[Quake42]

if you have never visited a 9/11Truth website

I didn't say I'd never visted a 9/11 truther website. I said I had not visited one which was run my families of the victims.

It has to be possible you would agree with them to some degree if you'd actually read what they have to say isn't it?

Why not venture into unknown territory?

It's hardly unknown territory. The various 9/11 conspiracy theories have been rehearsed at length on this message board. I haven't found any of them very compelling, although as I say I'm not convinced of the official United 93 story.

You brought up the "evidence" supposedly held by relatives of the deceased. I asked you what this evidence was and how the relatives had come into possession of it. I don't intend to surf random Truther websites, but if you are aware of one which does contain evidence - rather than belief - from the families, then please post a link and/or a summary of said evidence.

 

[AngelAlice]

if you have never visited a 9/11Truth website

I didn't say I'd never visted a 9/11 truther website. I said I had not visited one which was run my families of the victims.

It has to be possible you would agree with them to some degree if you'd actually read what they have to say isn't it?

Why not venture into unknown territory?

It's hardly unknown territory. The various 9/11 conspiracy theories have been rehearsed at length on this message board. I haven't found any of them very compelling, although as I say I'm not convinced of the official United 93 story.

You brought up the "evidence" supposedly held by relatives of the deceased. I asked you what this evidence was and how the relatives had come into possession of it. I don't intend to surf random Truther websites, but if you are aware of one which does contain evidence - rather than belief - from the families, then please post a link and/or a summary of said evidence.

Well if you've heard the evidence for the collapse of the 3 towers being a unique and almost inexplicable event and that doesn't raise any red flag for you then I think we have to agree your mind is made up.

I really don't want to get into some Troofer debate. And if anyone could show another example anywhere of steel core high rise buildings acting like the three WTCs did that day then I'd be happy to accept the official version.

 

[Bigfoot73]

The 'no planes ' theory did untold harm to the credibility of the Truther movement and I have to confess to being a subscriber myself.
The evidence most commonly cited in recent times has been the videos showing a second explosion but no approaching plane, seemingly shot from a news channel helicopter. It looks convincing but doesn't check out. Many of those who fell for it will already have been persuaded of the absence of planes by the strangely disappearing left half of Flight 175, which also managed to just disappear against the tower without breaking a single pane. It was shot or rather faked by Jules and Gideon Naudet , who couldn't possibly have been in just the right place at the right time to record both impacts. They realised something might prevent them reaching the second location in time so they CGIed a back-up. For all I know they were just opportunists who luck put there the first time and then decided to clinch their suddenly glimpsed glittering careers by cooking the second video. Perhaps this raised suspicions in the industry, hence their ensuing obscurity.
I'm prepared to concede that the 'no planes' theory is utterly implausible, it would be good to think some sceptics could concede that the Naudet brothers' Flight 175 impact footage stinks.
Sceptics judge the evidence by the perceived plausibility of the theory explaining it. It doesn't matter how much suspicion can be raised about the collapse of WTC7, it simply can't have happened that way because it just couldn't have all been done to obliterate evidence of a multi-trillion dollar currency trading or money laundering or tax evasion scam that was already cooking when the Centre was built with the intention of hosting the closing act of the scam.
But that's where evidence points and all sceptical sentiments are duly noted I'm not trying to run away with the thread.
The Truther side has let itself down by a complete failure to articulate the modus operandi . - the answer to the question of the absence of whistle blowers is perfectly simple : it was all an exercise, nobody thought they were doing anything at all. All it took was a few tweaks in the software.
If there were to be any progress in the debate at all it should be that the truther movement is no longer called that, because the truth seems to be evading absolutely everybody.

 

[Jerry_B]

Ha! You use the term conspiracy theorists as an epithet, don't you, i.e. in a couched manner so that there is a preconceived idea that they are irrational - and you demand decorum.

It's a cheap (and tired)tactic and that's why I think it was pompous.

No, I was simply using a well-known term. Nowhere have I implied that this also implies irrationality. If you see if as such then that tends to say more about your preconceived outlook than mine.

And you seem to object to the use of the word 'truther' as if there is something subversive or suspicious about seeking the truth. Most of truthers that I know and respect are willing to accept all empirical data and information which (as has been a fundamental column in campaign) the official 'enquiries' do not. There is a catalogue of evidence and witnesses who have been omitted and overlooked.

Again, this is something you're overlaying onto what I've posted.

If you imagine that anyone here, least of all me, is somehow taking such a aggressive negative stance then you are welcome to complain to the moderators. I'm hoping instead that you will be able to offer your views and answer questions posed to you without seeing anything said in reply as an attack in some way.

 

[Jerry_B]

The Truther side has let itself down by a complete failure to articulate the modus operandi . - the answer to the question of the absence of whistle blowers is perfectly simple : it was all an exercise, nobody thought they were doing anything at all. All it took was a few tweaks in the software.

If that can be demonstrated, of course. It still seems like another 'what if' guess about the story. It still does not show who ordered this as an operation nor who planned it.