Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

Some people in the 9/11 truth community have promoted In Plane Site even while acknowledging that promotes false claims, saying that it's beneficial because it "brings people into the movement". It's certainly true that IPS motivates some people to get involved. However, the claim that the video is beneficial to the movement overlooks three facts:

• Many people are turned away by seeing a video such as IPS, especially people whose rational sensibilities are offended by the video's patently ludicrous claims and sensationalism.

• As a tool for motivating involvement, IPS selects for people who tend to undervalue critical thinking skills and scientific evaluation of evidence. Such people will tend to promote IPS and other flawed materials, playing into the stereotype of 9/11 conspiracists as lunatics.

• IPS is, by itself, a powerful tool for smearing the movement, as the Popular Mechanics piece illustrates. Any promotion reinforces the case of the movement's detractors.

One of the movement's greatest assets is a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Steven Jones, who persuasively articulates the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 in a scientific paper. Because of Jones' credentials, he addresses the criticism that the demolition thesis lacks the support of experts. In a slide presentation Jones has shown to scores of academics, he states:

Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially -- until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.

[RandomGuy]

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

1. Think of the stupidest possible
2. Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bull
3. This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.

Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.

In either case it boils down to this:

If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be

1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy

or

2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.

There are no other possibilities.

Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?

Lying and evil, or stupid?

[Don Quixote]

A good question ...

What's there to gain by showing that there was a conspiracy on 9-11?

[RandomGuy]

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along…

Ok, let me rephrase that:

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along.

I even provided hotlinks to all the calculators I used, just to make it easier...

[Don Quixote]

the truth?

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

Then it becomes a program.

[RandomGuy]

A good question ...

What's there to gain by showing that there was a conspiracy on 9-11?

How about this?

or this?

or this?

or this?

I am being a tad unfair here, of course. Running websites does take money, and that has to come from somewhere.

Certainly there are scammers out there willing to make bucks on this. I think our mouse may have been the victim of one of those scams to the tune of $1000+ bucks.

If there really is some grand conspiracy out there, I wish these people all the luck in the world, honest.

I have yet to see anything remotely compelling on these websites that can't be plausibly explained with much more mundane causes.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Don Quixote]

Like a TV program? I guess ...

But tell me about the Truthers. What is their agenda? Let's not pretend that no reasonable people have agendas -- everyone does. When I, for instance, argue for or against some ethical, biblical, or legal position, it's with the intent of moving somewhere. In short, small truths need to be put in the context of a large over-riding truth.

So, what (Big) Truth are the Truthers driving towards? They've spent alot of time googling things and coming up with this big theory. And if they're right, then what?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

We take it to trial of course.

Unfortunately at a trial, if you are asked a simple yes or no question 22 times, and you don't answer it, you get thrown out on your ear.

[RandomGuy]

Like a TV program? I guess ...

But tell me about the Truthers. What is their agenda? Let's not pretend that no reasonable people have agendas -- everyone does. When I, for instance, argue for or against some ethical, biblical, or legal position, it's with the intent of moving somewhere. In short, small truths need to be put in the context of a large over-riding truth.

So, what (Big) Truth are the Truthers driving towards? They've spent alot of time googling things and coming up with this big theory. And if they're right, then what?

I think most of them expect some kind of revolution, beit peaceful or not. Alex Jones certainly does (the radio host, not the ex-professor).

I have always wondered:

If they are right, why are they still alive?

If there is a grand evil conspiracy willing to kill thousands of people, why then are the people attempting to expose that conspiracy not killed off?

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, there would be a trial/tabloid scandal. I get that. But what would proving that there was a conspiracy, itself prove? That the Bush admin. is disingenuous, evil, and not to be trusted? Pardon me for saying, but that is the Truthers' presupposition going into the whole debate. And that is the common belief out there anyway. I'm just not sure how proving a 9-11 conspiracy gets us anywhere.

What are the political leanings of Truthers? Who would they support for President?

[Don Quixote]

people would be rung up for crimes against humanity

Yeah, I get that. So the Truthers are all about justice, then. And non-Truthers are not, I take it?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, there would be a trial/tabloid scandal. I get that. But what would proving that there was a conspiracy, itself prove? That the Bush admin. is disingenuous, evil, and not to be trusted? Pardon me for saying, but that is the Truthers' presupposition going into the whole debate. And that is the common belief out there anyway. I'm just not sure how proving a 9-11 conspiracy gets us anywhere.

What are the political leanings of Truthers? Who would they support for President?

Ron Paul by an overwhelming majority.

Truthers tend to be Libertarians for the most part, and waaaay left for most of the rest.

Those on the waaaay left call the libertarians of the movement Liber ians.

Fascinating subculture. As are the debunkers...

Funny thing is that here, we all share one common denominator:

[Don Quixote]

Ron Paul by an overwhelming majority.

Truthers tend to be Libertarians for the most part, and waaaay left for most of the rest.

Those on the waaaay left call the libertarians of the movement Liber ians.

Fascinating subculture. As are the debunkers...

Funny thing is that here, we all share one common denominator:

Really. Ron Paul. I thought most of the Truthers were from the Left. Is Ron Paul a Truther? And do these guys have the potential to make some noise politically?

[RandomGuy]

Really. Ron Paul. I thought most of the Truthers were from the Left. Is Ron Paul a Truther? And do these guys have the potential to make some noise politically?

According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: “9/11 was an inside job” and “Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?” -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harrassed him as he took shelter in the ferry’s pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City.

“It was awful,” said Wyszynski, who supports Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination.“I was embarrassed to be a Republican. Never, ever, have I seen such a disgraceful performance.”

Source article

Ron Paul had to very specifically distance himself (youtube link)from the Truthers during his campaign.

He attracted them after professing some mild sympathy for being paranoid about the government.



Transcript of the Truther-pandering exchange:

Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Libertarians are natually distrustful of any government, and that makes that ideology attractive for Truthers who, in general, believe the worst of those in power.

[Don Quixote]

The big question is, whose fans are the NBA equivalent of Truthers?

[TeyshaBlue]

The big question is, whose fans are the NBA equivalent of Truthers?

Suns fan. They have all but copyrighted the asterisk.

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, I'd vote for fans of the Ringless Wonders from Phoenix, too. They're definitely Truthers.

I've heard Raptor Fan referred to as Truthers, too, but I think they're just zealous for their team. Which is good.

[GoGatos.]

Where is the Video?

You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

[TeyshaBlue]

You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

Nobody has to call you stupid when, you know....you post stupid like this.

A lot of videos are here:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...=65131&page=62

[RandomGuy]

You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

I might even say you're in desperate need of a spell checker...

It is okay to ask honest questions. I will answer them respectfully and honestly.

Because if you are honestly asking a question, you will browse through a few debunking websites and give them the same fair reading as the conspiracy websites.

Start here:

http://www.flight77.info/

and go from there.

[The Club]

So not only do you have to ask questions only Chump and RandomGuy have to approve of first but you also have to make sure your an excellent speller?

Is there anything else needed before I attempt to reply any further? Would you like to run a credit check also?

[RandomGuy]

So not only do you have to ask questions only Chump and RandomGuy have to approve of first but you also have to make sure your an excellent speller?

Is there anything else needed before I attempt to reply any further? Would you like to run a credit check also?

Translation:

"wah"

Ask away.

You have my word, I won't correct your spelling. I will even do a quid pro quo basis on questions.

You ask a question, I give an honest answer.

Then I get to ask a question, you have to give an honest answer.

We'll see how far that gets us towards finding some reasonable explanation for the events of 9-11.

[Don Quixote]

A reasonable approach!

Let's see how long this lasts.

[The other side]

Translation:

"wah"

Ask away.

You have my word, I won't correct your spelling. I will even do a quid pro quo basis on questions.

You ask a question, I give an honest answer.

Then I get to ask a question, you have to give an honest answer.

We'll see how far that gets us towards finding some reasonable explanation for the events of 9-11.

Why did Bush just sit there reading a children's book after he heard of the attack?