As I've said before, I personally believe the government will burn to the ground before it allows the truth about 9/11 to get out. With as much power the US government has, I'd really like to know how anyone plans to carry out an investigation with zero interference. That being said, I really hope there is a way.

without a free media and honest news, no investigation has a chance.

fringe, who reads our words here? various alphabet agencies of the world, some shills and a few people who managed to unplug themselves. a drop in the ocean.

when i say free media, i mean free and honest MSM

yeah the old msm is dying that much is true, look at CNNs numbers or any of them. there is hope, a window of opportunity which they are seeking to close with the new press laws and "licenced journalists" blog bans etc

yeah all msm tows the line, or else

End of freedom on internet is one switch away

I call bullshit, how would u go about that? We would grow darknet 2.0 in an instant. Telecomix, EFF and other organisations alike would present u with options the day before the slow hand of the power flicks the switch.

Whom owns the hubs, owns the internet

care to ellaborate?

Filters installed on hubs can filter traffic, basically stop packets reaching their destination

Sort of, but sort of not. You could kill internet trunking, but now that the idea of the internet is common, people would re-invent it without any central controls. I think that's primarily the reason this hasn't been done: by the time anyone in power realized the danger, trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle would ultimately have harmed their interests more than it would have helped.

Cables are owned. Radio waves could be jammed. Only hope: narrow directional satellite and straight sight infrared lasers which of course could be easily detected and destroyed.

The internet hubs which are out of our control could filter most of thr non approved traffic and non standard protocols

fringe, who reads our words here?

Enough to require an army of shills and dedicated subreddits, with the sole purpose of derailing free thought and association in this sub.

pretty funny when you think about it. they're worried about 0.0001% of worlds population knowing or learning the truth.

The American revolution was fought and won with only 10% support.

3%, the amount of soldiers in the battlefield never amounted to more than 3% of our population.

There are 200,000 people subscribed to this subreddit. That would be enough people to swing a major election. Maybe not a presidential election but definitely at the state level. I know, "What's the difference democrat or republican?" but I'm just saying it's enough people to make a difference in the world.

More people are getting their news from various sources on the internet rather than cable news channels and newspapers in 2014.

I still have some hope.

Not really enough to sway a major election, not even if they were all in the same state.

In the 2012 Presidential election the following states were decided by less than 200,000 voters:

Alaska

Colorado

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Iowa

Maine

Mississippi

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wyoming

And this was a major election year. Voter turnout is even less during mid-term elections. But this isn't just about elections. There are other ways to make a difference in the world. My point is that 200,000 people is a shit ton of people.

If we could get that many people to protest at our capitals then they would have to hear us

If converted to shit I'd say it'd have to be at least 100tons

There are 200,000 people subscribed to this subreddit.

50% socks or dead accounts, 10% shills, 25% would never vote but yeah, stay positive

[deleted]

You also have people who lurk for years without making an account at all.

Not all 200,000 people are onboard your crazy ship, sir.

A lot are here to laugh

Also many of us don't live in the USA.

Funny, I remember my polish grandma telling me a story about her adulthood in Poland right before the Germans invaded. She came from a well-to-do family, and would often speak of her peers' inability to believe that the Reich could possibly do such a thing as to invade Poland, and even if they did, that they would be safe since they weren't Jewish. Those that believed otherwise and said so publicly were derided as 'crazy' and 'deluded'.

Grandma, being the smart woman she was, kept her mouth shut, formulated a plan, and left her husband and her country with my mom, aunt, and uncle in tow. Weeks later, the nazis invaded and promptly killed every single person she knew (she found years later).

I am grateful to grandma beyond belief. Not only would I not be here if not for her actions, but she also taught me the fallacy of the normalcy bias and the intelligence-neutering ability of cognitive dissonance.

My guess is that you and many others feel a sense of satisfaction at laughing here, and then broadcasting about it publicly to others.

I think you do this in great part to reinforce your own belief systems in order to protect your normalcy biases; it helps to make you feel safe in your belief that the world is a safe place, that bad things happen somewhere else, and that groups of humans do not come together to conspire to amass wealth and power even at the expense of their fellow man.

You continue to believe this and laugh at those who claim otherwise even though science has shown that a good 1% of the human population is clinically sociopathic, megalomaniacal, and sadistic.

This is to me the very definition of willful ignorance, and clear evidence of the mind-numbing effects of the normalcy bias and its ability to short-circuit rational thought. Sad, really.

But keep laughing if it'll make you feel better I guess. It's your mind.

LOL indeed. and very well said.

Actually a lot of people read this sub for the lols.

the ignorant and foolish are easily amused

What's a delusion of grandeur

that would be thinking a poster on an anonymous internet forum cares about your fortune cookie analyses?

The news media that distributes the large bulk of information to the masses has been falling on the freedom side though. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/11/report-democraticcountriescurbpressfreedomsinnameofsecurity.html

I personally believe the government will burn to the ground before it allows the truth about 9/11 to get out.

the Federal government WILL burn to the ground (self destruct) if the full truth about 9/11 gets out.

ditto with Connecticut, when the full details of the Sandy Hoax event becomes widespread.

lies and lies upon lies destroys truth and lawful govt, they cannot be trusted after lying so big.

Sandy Hook wasn't a hoax. My aunt lives 5 miles away.

My cat farted yesterday.

Nice rhyme, son.

Sandy Hook wasn't a hoax. My aunt lives 5 miles away.

Get out, and take your ridiculous non sequitur with you.

/s it's called sarcasm. Thanks for your downvotes.

There is point where being a shill, and pretending to be a shill are indistinguishable. You don't want to occupy that space.

my uncle lives 1mile away and he says it was

It is perhaps the act itself that protects those who organized it...

• the elevator refurbishing and security contract shakup as soon as silverstein took possession
• the simultaneous norad drills
  
• the immediate destruction/disappearance of the building core columns
  
• the woefully and laughably inept 9/11 commission report under Zelikow
  

All those things point to an intelligent and well financed operation along with assistance by individuals holding high office. It might just be more than anyone in the justice department is willing to bump with.

I'm 100% certain that the destruction of these buildings was pre-planned and had nothing to do with the (diversionary) aircraft strikes.

The implications behind the act itself are monstrous... so much so that it may very well be the primary deterrent to any honest inquiry by any honorable faction of law enforcement.

My question is what will happen when the truth comes out? Let's say Snowden releases some video showing Bush, Cheney, Bin Laden, and Rumsfeld sitting in some control room sipping on lattes while carrying out all the attacks that day. Would the USG have to go until marshall law mode to protect itself? Would the shills stick their heads in the sand like an Ostrich?

It is very possible that Edward Snowden got his hands on something related to 9/11 and it hasn't been released yet. Why? Well, I remember hearing about the guardian or the post asking permission to release his documents (that way he wouldn't go down for being a traitor). In my personal opinion, he scraped some files that were related to 9/11, but the gov't is using the terrorism excuse.

Yeah, the government probably know what he got his hands on. I remember The Guardian branding it the 'doomsday vault' and its a deterrent for them killing Snowden, because if they do, they'll release it. It must be pretty juicy for it to be working.

No they neutered Snowden, they have his trove of documents and are releasing a trickle at a time, instead of a torrrent of documents that then the whole internet can look and search we get redacted versions of his documents under the guise of protecting national security

The reason for tricling out the information is with every new release it gets coverage in the media. If it was all realesed at once the next big story hits the media and Snowdens relevations are forgotten

sure it is,according to a rough estimate published on Cryptome.org in November of this year, “Out of [a] reported 50,000 pages (or files, not clear which), about 514 pages (1%) have been released over 5 months beginning June 5, 2013. At this rate, 100 pages per month, it will take 42 years for full release. Snowden will be 72 years old, his reporters hoarding secrets all dead.” why is there redaction's, when snowden wanted the full documents published. Not to mention the involvement of Pierre Omidyar the billionaire with connections to booz hamilton and the NSA. Its plan and simple that the Snowden files are in the hands of greenwald and his cohorts and have used the files to make themselves wealthy and who know what files they will not release. Snowden I believe was a real whistleblower but got conned out his documents and now lives in exhile. The US government wouldnt dare touch him because it would just bring him more attention so this whole doomsday vault story is red herring.

I personally believe the government will burn to the ground before it allows the truth about 9/11 to get out.

http://m.thedrum.com/uploads/drum_basic_article/128226/main_images/edward%20snowden_0.jpg

I believe that they are waiting for the same thing to happen here that has happened with the Kennedy shooting. Waiting for all the players to die out so that no one will be able to answer anymore questions.

Outstanding post.

I think the strongest force right now is rethink911, which AE911Truth takes part in. They're the organization behind the billboards and I also read somewhere that they're gathering resources to take their case to court.

ATM, they're doing a tour in Canada, lead by Gage.

Don't worry. Sooner or later, we will see justice for this crime.

The specific issue they're taking to court is NIST conducting scientific malpractice (fraud), which I think is the best and easiest road to take. Any scientist that reads their report will immediately know that it doesn't even qualify to be a scientific paper, since they didn't make it falsifiable. For instance, no one can access their computer model parameters.

Please tell me what you think "peer-review" means.

I'd really like to know.

What is their timeline on this? I haven't heard this before.

You caught me with my pants down, I tried finding a source earlier, and I hate to make empty claims.

Found one source, which wasn't the one I read, but hopefully tells you that I'm not BS-ing:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.se/2013/11/lawsuit-against-nist-on-way.html

I'm not trying to suggest you're BSing at all, just curious to follow the proceedings. Could be very interesting.

P.S. you know your submission is good when it receives a 60% like rate and it's about 9/11. 18 up- to 12 downvotes one hour in.

I wish that was possible but all the chances for a real investigation ended as soon as building 7 went down. Then when the evidence was shipped off-site and destroyed.

Some of my friends make fun of me for obsessing over 9/11 so much. It's not that this disagree with my position (which is much like yours). They don't. It's that I find it relates to everything (much like you do). It's like when you are playing civ and adopt a new social policy. It's kinda more like the capstone filling out the tree, really. All those value-added bonuses.

The reality is that the investigation will never happen. And I think we need to find a way to move past that and onto what occurs today. Some of the arguments that are used refer to 9/11, but in reality many of the programs started way before. If anything, 9/11 was quite a long plan. Ever see the video of the report commissioner referring to it as a 20 year plan? Our obsession over 9/11 isn't helping us stop Obama similar policies.

Look at the JFK assassination. There was even a much later congressional investigation into it that said the warren commission sucked and that it was most likely a conspiracy. Yet you still see people arguing over it 50 years later.

That's the reality of the media programming we often point to. It works on most people. It worked on 9/11, and does today. As much as I love seeing wtc7 ads in times square, it serves little to tackle the today. The gov't security apparatus is revealing itself, daring the public to resist. That's when they can take it to the next level and actually take on domestic 'terrorists'.

I'm not saying we should stop stuff like the wtc7 ads. But I don't think obsession is going to get us any closer to whatever justice or vengeance would be. We gotta fuckin' kill the bastards.

And the rest of the world has started voicing their opinions on it.. their opinions being that it was an inside job, carefully planned and executed and that it is all part of the great american war machine. Even if it's just small media snippets from abroad, as the world puts pressure on the states for answers, hopefully more people in the states will also seek answers.

Well I don't think the rest of the world uses 9/11 as justification for anything.

'The coalition of the willing' is long dead. And as I mentioned with the unveiling of the surveillance state, many nations appear to be mostly unpleased with the US anyway. I don't think proving 9/11 was a fraud is going to change anything when everyone saw those buildings get demolished. When you have people steeped in cognitive dissonance so deep that they witness controlled demolition and think it's terrorism there is a deeper issue. That's what I think we should strive for.

Could you at least agree that it should be a mutual goal?

I never said they should wait for the USG to "get to it". The USG is never going to get to it and the investigation is never going to happen. Even if it does, it won't change anything. They were able to do 9/11 long after killing JFK and the several investigations of it. So I'm not really sure what you think it will change.

Don't you think it's better justice to get these crooks out of power? Can you respond to a couple of my points? It kinda seems like you aren't even reading what I write.

Well seeing as how they started collecting everyone's phone calls since before 9/11, there should be plenty of stuff.

Jeez, we are posting in /r/conspiracy here - don't act like 9/11 is the only crime ever committed by the government in recent times. Shit dude, congress should be in jail for insider trading. I mean - do you get my point??

It seems like you want to get something done. I'm suggesting a starting point that's going to end with results. The only thing that could be more controversial is trying to go at this from the kiddie porn angle. It never seems to make it's way to the top.

Elite kiddie porn rings is mass murder on a global scale and 9/11 was just an event that happened in nyc, d.c. and pa. Is there a reason you post in soundbites?

Right - and the NSA would be monitoring your traffic regardless of 9/11. So proving 9/11 was an inside job isn't going to change anything.

I'm not going to sit here and go in loops with you because you can only respond to one point at a time.

My country has suffered no repercussion from kiddie porn in the US.

Where do you live? The kiddie porn isn't limited to the US - it's international rings that traffic children for the elites. The elites don't only live in the US. I never said they did - that's your own strawman argument.

I suggest you engage in a topic that is.

I gave examples of things that are more important right now. Did you read that long ass post I wrote? You aren't very fun to discuss with :(

I prefer to not get into details about my current location. I hope you understand.

It's OK, we know.

Right - and if you bothered to read anything I've said or what Snowden reported, you'd realize they started the massive surveillance well before 9/11 so it's justification as a pretext doesn't actually exist anyway.

Proving 9/11 was faked can help undo that since it's been proven the NSA gathers intelligence illegally worldwide for no reason at all. It would also bring the troops home because the war would no longer be justified. I don't think you're seeing the many layers involved in this issue.

Proving JFK was assassinated has not changed anything nor taken those psychopaths out of power so I think you really need to rethink your strategy.

I prefer to not get into details about my current location. I hope you understand.

Well, you could've made up a country too. The point was that it happens wherever you live.

The entire Muslim world matters. That's a quarter of the globe. An apology could be a grand start

Sure - I agree. That's what I've been saying. But if they aren't apologizing for the actual strikes where they kill people, I don't see a 9/11 apology ever actually happening.

Yet you still see people arguing over it 50 years later.

CIA infiltrated the MSM, pushed the CT tinfoil hat label onto anybody daring to investigate truth.

Yes - I give credence to the point when I refer to the effectiveness of the mainstream media. This is definitely my point.

I remember the world before and after the JFK assassination. Pre/post 9/11 is similar.

It's like a child being asked by its parent to swallow some wretched tasting medicine the child absolutely knows to be snake oil and will have zero effect on its condition. But the foul taste and the suspicion that your parents really don't know what they're doing lingers long and you never trust or view the parent the same again.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” Frank Zappa

Very well done--thanks for sharing...

As for the media, they have long ago stopped any hard-nosed investigative journalism. For the last year I have been referring to the press as the "Corporate Main Stream Media." The other day I listened to Peter Dale Scott in an interview--he refers to the press as the "Governing Media" which I feel defines the press quite well.

The Governing Media not only shape the stories--the publishers/editors KILL articles or may act in more subtle ways by omitting important facts. In fact, the act of Omission is one of their biggest sins--the Governing Media has purposely eliminated any story which questions the Lee Harvey Oswald (lone nut) official version. Likewise, the Governing Media has omitted any investigation which seriously questions the 9/11 official story.

"Omission is the most powerful form of lie." --George Orwell

https://soundcloud.com/member-s/conversations-peter-dale-scott

[deleted]

None of your premises actually make sense

The post-9/11 world we live in today was shaped only by the events of that day

Rubbish - it was a convenient trigger to execute US government policy at the time. It is not the ONLY thing that shaped the world. But lets pretend you are correct for a second.

If the events are not according to what we are led to believe, how else will government justify the new security-obsessed initiatives and global wars?

They don't need to justify it and never have. The US have been invading sovereign nations since shortly after WW2 and continued to do so without much justification needed. Likewise, national security has always been a free-for-all ... you only need to look back at FBI and CIA history to see that.

Foreign governments and allies will would also begin to demand answers because the events of 9/11 have had a huge influence globally.

Doubtful at best. Who demanded answers when WMD turned out to be a fairytale? No-one!

The War on Terror is a US-lead conflict that impacts a handful of 3rd world countries who have no influence anyway - they are been demanding answers all along so nothing changes.

The rest of the 'coalition' was a token effort to maintain friendly ties/alliances with USA ... no-one has has much skin in the game and again no-one is going to make a huge deal of it, so as to not impact alliances/international relations.

The US would lose credibility worldwide and skepticism and criticism of their "benign" actions would send the country into chaos, a chaos not planned or orchestrated to bring about a certain end, as TPTB's favorite slogan clearly states: Ordo Ad Chao.

Ah - my favourite ... the US has no credibility worldwide anyway as everyone can already see the "War on Terror" for exactly what it is - a continuation of american imperialism via "protection of american interests in international regions"

tl;dr - 9/11 facts have no further relevance to the current world ... its old news and you can't re-write history ...

Sad but true.

Or mostly true. I will disagree a little on the 'no further relevance' part - I think the event is still fresh enough in our history that if some indisputable revelation were to emerge tomorrow it could have an impact - perhaps even 're-write history', as you put it. But admittedly not for long. Time moves on, and in a few years, once all the players have either passed on or retired from public life, the truth will, as you say, cease to be relevant.

"The greater the crime perpetrated by the leadership, the less the people would believe the leadership capable of such a crime."

• A man who knows nothing of controlling people's minds, Adolph Hitler

"There is a principle which is bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation"

• Herbert Spencer

Some people just won't even look at the evidence. They are filled with contempt and refuse to believe the leadership is capable of such a crime. Usually they are the people that lived through the traumatization of the event. The same phenomena happened after the JFK assassination. These people need the television to tell them the truth to force them to face it. It will be emotionally jarring too. People that were too young to effectively be traumatized or weren't born yet are more able to dispassionately examine the many discrepancies with the official government narrative. By the time we have enough people willing to examine the evidence, it will be too late. We need to make a solid credible well funded and staffed investigation that integrates all of the available evidence into a solid piece of work with recommendations for prosecution. Then we should ignore the traumatized as we push forward using all of the legal means possible to get those involved to reveal even more information that could illuminate the key players. We should not try to convince those with contempt prior to investigation. Let the television do that if we are successful.

I would suggest rather than trying to provide better proof of the facts (there is plenty already) or calling for an international enquiry it might well be easier to sue in a civil court outside of the United States.

Sue for gross negligence by members of the Bush regime for doing nothing to stop the attacks succeeding, in the face of overwhelming diplomatic and intelligence warnings of an impending terrorist attack using aircraft/airliners.

The burden of proof is lower in a civil court.

If members of the Bush regime chose not to appear and defend themselves the jury is entitled to draw their own conclusions from that in a civil court (in most countries).

There are plenty of countries to choose from to launch an initial case on behalf of the family of at least one of the foreign nationals killed on 9/11.

More countries could then follow suit.

There are plenty of countries to choose from to launch this initial case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

Brazil might be a good one to go for as it has recently fallen out with the US government, plans to build it's own government internet away from US servers and cancelled the order for US warplanes and went elsewhere instead.

Germany is possible - there are already anti NSA activists in Germany.

Upon the successful completion of 1 or more civil suits, more serious criminal charges could then be brought.

These criminal charges might be for war crimes, treason, conspiracy to murder, or simply murder.

Also when trying to persuade new people of the facts of 9/11, I find it better to stick to the more uncontroversial facts and effects, rather than say going into the details of how the buildings collapsed.

Something like this :-

US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion or $75,000 for each American Household

The following article contains the results of a recent study by Harvard University http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

What if ...... the wars were never about terrorism they were always about money and corporate greed http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-if-wars-were-never-about-terrorism.html

The Timeline of Events leading up to 9/11 and subsequent events http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/10/list-of-us-accomplishments-since-1992.html

The following contains a previous study on the costs of the wars that was done 2 or 3 years ago and was published by Reuters, plus some additional factors and effects added by me.

The Real Cost of the Afghan and Iraq Wars http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/05/real-cost-of-afghan-and-iraq-wars.html

911 : Italian Supreme Court head calls for international 9/11 inquiry http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/09/italian-supreme-court-head-calls-for.html

What do we know about 9/11? http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-do-we-know-about-911.html

Who actually benefited from 9/11? Follow the Money. Why we are where we are - it wasn't an accident http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/10/in-light-of-current-debt-crisis-who.html

The above links contain the evidence easiest to introduce in any civil case (in my opinion).

More and more Americans are now believing that what the 9/11 Commission Report says is not the truth. Which is at least a step in the right direction.

The launch of a civil court case against the Bush regime, would generate a lot more interest and persuade a lot more Americans that their government is not telling them the truth.

My links mostly give the reasons and motives of WHY 9/11 happened and some of the more obvious lies and some of the less controversial facts surrounding it - not the details of what happened on the day itself.

Now what? Now nothing...who are you going to convince? Everyone in the world saw Kennedys head go "back & to the left" and what good did that do? What did it change? The only people to prove anything to to are the ones who are in on it and wont listen because of that fact! Its their world - we just live in it. (sorry, feeling kinda hopeless & defeated today...)

You couldn't disestablish the security built up over the last 10-12 years. How do you think this would play out in the middle east? My guess, they'd be seriously pissed, so your need the security to manage that problem!

The Big Lebowski (milk receipt) and Enemy of the State (birthday of the Jon Voight's character) have references to the 9/11 date

I wonder if there are other recent movies, which have references to some specific date, which is not yet associated with a historical event a catastrophe of some kind.

Then, I would watch out every year to see if there are any suspicious signs preceding that date.

The Cheech and Chong movies point to something catastrophic occuring on 4/20.

It is already happening in Colorado and Washington.

April 20-st I would definitely stay out of there because of the possible zombiocalypse

The Matrix is another film with a reference. At the beginning of the film, before Neo takes the red pill, he is being questioned by Agent Smith in an office. Neo's personal info is revealed in a folder that has his passport attached that has 9/11/2001 as its expiration date.

Thank you, never noticed, I have an old VHS with it, hopefully, pre 2001, will watch it tonight.

Much like the screwing about with the moon missions we will NEVER be told the truth about 9/11. There is too much money wrapped up into it (think insurance payouts, rebuilding, war profiteering...not to mention the embarrassment of our "closest ally" who played a HUGE part in the events of that day). America would cut them off immediately which would basically mean and end to their nuclear apartheid state.

What's more...we're talking about some of the most powerful people in the WORLD being involved here. You really think that, if, say, Cheney or Dov Zakeim's involvement were brought to light that there would be "real" justice? Justice is only as good as money can buy...and they have mostly unlimited sums.

WTC was probably planned by the US/Mossad YEARS before it happened. It depended on the apparatus of a fixed state's intelligence (Mossad, CIA, and who knows else) who's planning and knowledge spanned YEARS. Remember the Jewish man who heard several very high-level Jews talking about 9/11 happening (in plain Hebrew) a LONG time before it did...only to be dismissed MANY times by the FBI as a crackpot?

There were a LOT of high-level people in on 9/11...and if you think that "all those people" could never keep that secret...well, you're dead wrong.

Read Christopher Bollyn's excellent and free ebook "9/11--The Deception that Changed the World" (at Bollyn.com) for a far more in-depth and footnoted look at how the events of that day REALLY went down...and exactly who was responsible.

There is nothing more patriot ghan the truth. Whether you believe it was a conspiracy or not it is clear the investgation was insufficent. Demanding a new one though would be difficult since it was back in 2001.

Makes total sense if you think about it and you know about the '100th monkey' affect. This is why the press is tightly controlled, and why 'fringe' groups are persecuted long before they seem to threaten the status quo.

people thinking we all were free before 9/11 scares me a bit.

The system of control, is the system of control. Just because it acquires the technologies and legislations to grasp deeper does not mean that it has changed

people thinking we all were free before 9/11 scares me a bit.

i agree.

at the same time, 9/11's symbolic power is huge.

when the spell of 9/11 is broken, we of course would have to face still the same system of control, but it would be harder to maintain.

i'm not sure, it could all be very grim after that....

Maybe it would be monumental to the population of the US, but I think you are overstating your credibility when it comes to allied and foreign nations in general. If it was announced that 911 was an inside job, I think the reaction would be, "and we've known that since 2002."

If you haven't yet watched the awesome new documentary on 9/11, check it out, post in on Facebook, etc.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xslls/911_the_new_pearl_harbor_irrefutable_proof_the/

[deleted]

Rule 6 - No caps lock.

Comment removed.

TL;DR\W

I don't think it matters anymore. The National Security State runs the country. I don't think any of this (the surveillance, the loss of rights, the growing police state) is going to go away anytime soon, regardless if the truth about 9/11 comes out.

There is no justice anymore, just security. And that means protecting the market above all other things.

Here's a good article which blows the official story out of the water. This information needs to get out to everyone.

I'm not implying anything. The information is straightforward. What makes it propaganda and ridicule?

The manner in which truth has been bastardized in to a slur with truther is so freaky and Orwellian it boggles the mind.

I'd give you reddit gold if I had money but this should do

Personally I find it hilarious when people refer to themselves as "anti-truthers".

The author addresses that. When he was asked, "I have read what you said on the internet about the collapse of the towers. First I find it unprofessional the constant use of pejorative to make your case...."

He responds:

Really? 9-11 conspiracy buffs can slander government officials, accuse them of mass murder and conspiracy, and ridicule their critics, and I'm being pejorative? If people are going to talk like that they should at least have the guts to take criticism. The conspiracy buffs supposedly have the courage to expose a massive high level conspiracy, but they whine like pre-schoolers when anyone attacks their ideas. Some courage. They can play these games because they know perfectly well that nobody is really going to do anything to them no matter how much they blather about conspiracies. It's all play acting. How else can you call bull$*** what it is without being pejorative?

The amazing thing is this guy can slander people he's never met and who have done him no harm, and somehow he thinks that is acceptable professional behavior. You can't have a meaningful conversation about professionalism with this guy any more than you can play chess with a duck.

Oh, ok.

When a text uses "troofer" to describe people who question 9/11, what would you call that?

I'd say that's within his constitutionally protected rights.

When a text denies the findings of AE911Truth, what would you call that?

I'd call it science. Is this really that difficult?

I'd say that's within his constitutionally protected rights.

Being constitutionally protected doesn't mean deliberate slander has merit. People call other people all sorts of shit, and it's because they have no real argument. If these people had a point, they'd likely make it instead of making up cute names for things.

I'd call it science. Is this really that difficult?

Science is dismissing scientific findings, right. You guys are off the deep end.

This other guy's username is "TheRealWhoretnon". Does that go for him, too?

Snide bullshit doesn't suit you. Thanks for demonstrating my point exactly though.

What other post?

Dimension already tore that one up.

His comments probably are better than years of research and a six hour documentary.

Pick a topic.

Which one?

Ok.

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred? (1:14:51)

Yes. The fucking buildings collapsed. I'd say that suggests the steel weakened.

What a ridiculous question. I wasn't in the building.

There were obviously fires burning in the building. Plus many columns were damaged by the plane crashing through them. Is there reason to believe something other than the impact damage and fires caused the structure to fail?

This is probably the most ridiculous article on 9/11 I have ever read. I actually laughed at some parts. Is it meant to be funny?

Some parts were really funny. I thought this line was funny:

A controlled demolition simply does not produce large amounts of molten steel. You might as well argue that all the concrete dust shows the buildings were taken down by an army of gnomes armed with grinding wheels.

The consensus explanation for 9/11 is the one that satisfies the majority of scientists and engineers. AE9/11 represents a minority view. If you want a do-over, try not to repackage the same tired anomalies on Youtube University that have been soundly debunked, and publish an actual coherent alternative narrative to let the scientific community scrutinize it.

I have a more productive suggestion. Reflect on why you are so confident that your (probably layperson) opinion is stubbornly intransigent despite the scientific consensus? Confirmation bias might be a part of it.

http://xkcd.com/258/

You are proud of that magnificent example of the Gish Gallop.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

It's a sure fire way to prevent a meaningful debate. Have you ever seem a debate where the opponents trade 6-hour monologues? Imagine how cumbersome it would be to have a comprehensible back-and-forth debate about 50 assertions all at once. It would be more reasonable for you to pick your favorite piece of evidence and start the debate there.

But if your challenge is for me to start debunking that at will... How about squibs? I will link to two GIFs that demonstrate how the random puffs of dust that you misinterpret as demo charges are actually inconsistent with explosives, and perfectly consistent with overpressure debris jets from a collapsing building.

1) http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

2) http://www.democraticunderground.com/11352797

Haha, I'll just assume you don't see the hilarious hypocrisy in accusing people of a "gish gallop" and then quoting those websites.

The pancake theory is physically impossible and needs the believer to not understand simple thermodynamics. You're as bad as popular mechanics.

No, it's not, and he's making an excellent point.

You present him with a mountain of claims, and act like unless he tirelessly addresses all of them, he must be wrong.

So many of the points you linked to have been addressed already (though you probably either ignore, or dismiss those explanations based on their source rather than their validity), some of them are just nonsense, some are questions based on a completely unestablished premise: "...what caused the squibs...?" How do you know they were squibs?

or "Can you explain how more than 100 witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions at the WTC?"

Because they saw what looked like explosions, or possibly were explosions of a sort? It's a giant burning, heavily damaged building, how is this only plausible with planted explosives?

...and many of them are just unanswered questions, using the same nonsense premise that creationists use: "If you don't know the answer, then our theory is correct."

When you study any event in detail, there will be all kinds of unanswered questions. Sometimes I feel like the reason "truthers" get so excited about all these "coincidences" and "inconsistencies" is because they've never really looked into anything before in their lives, and this is the first time they've actually seen how complicated real events are, and feel like all of these complications must actually have one incredibly simple explanation: "The government did it".

Pointing out your link bomb is just a suggestion on how to get better mileage out of a debate, if that's what you want.

Nevertheless, You might have noticed I did take on part of your video in my post. Are we going there?

Nothing in this documentary asserts anything definitive, it simply explains that the official story is impossible. I don't think you know what the terms you use mean.

My post suggests the official report is false, you're arguing that it isn't. You're on the wrong post to begin with if you still believe the narrative.

Is that the attitude the subreddit has? "If you disagree with a post, leave"?

So disagreeing with your claims is going off-topic?

Well, your premise is "So the official 9/11 story is false, now what?" People are allowed to question a premise.

If someone posted a thread that said "We know 9/11 conspiracy theorists are definitely insane, but what mental illnesses do they have specifically?" would you fault anyone for disagreeing with the idea that a consensus has been reached about that?

"If you don't like it, leave" is a poisonous attitude for a community to have, as I implied in my original comment. That's the exact sort of thing an authoritarian might say to someone who criticizes the government. That person bringing forward an issue about the way things are isn't doing it to "lower the tone", they're doing it because they think it's a damaging problem.

[deleted]

Uh, show me an example of the Gish Gallop being used by those debunking "truthers".

I'm not sure you actually know what the term means.

Wow, pseudo intellectualism with a smug overtone and no substance? Never would have expected that!

That comic applies more to people that refuse to deviate from the obviously false official story in order to make themselves feel safer.

The fact that you seem to believe that people don't buy into the "truther" nonsense because they think that the government is trustworthy and that would mean a "safer" world just goes to show that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of your opponents.

You might want to actually try listening to what the other side says. It's odd how so many people who argue with "truthers" have actually spent a lot of time going over their claims, while the "truthers" never seem to be familiar with even the oldest explanations for, or objections to their claims.

See, there's the problem. You automatically think "truther" means something specific and dismiss it offhand.

You either believe what your totally trustworthy government said or you don't, and you're acting as if those who don't are somehow crazy so it's fairly easy to see where your opinion lies.

don't even have a rudimentary understanding of your opponents

That's pretty fucking rich from someone that dismissive.

You might want to actually try listening to what the other side says.

Go ahead, explain your position that's obviously going to be completely different from "believing everything you're told".

It's odd how so many people who argue with "truthers" have actually spent a lot of time going over their claims, while the "truthers" never seem to be familiar with even the oldest explanations for, or objections to their claims.

This isn't even remotely true, reading Popular Mechanics isn't research.

See, there's the problem. You automatically think "truther" means something specific and dismiss it offhand.

"Truther" does mean something specific. Sure there are variations within the movement, but I"ve never encountered a single person willing to call themselves a "truther" that was willing to seriously consider that 9/11 was carried out by Islamic extremists, and that the government wasn't completely aware of their targets.

You seem to be under the impression I just outright dismissed all of this without consideration. I've been following this shit for a long, long time. I was already deeply into these things when Loose Change was released, and a quick check tells me that was 2005. I don't remember how long after 9/11 occurred before these theories started to become popular, but it can't have been too long.

There were times when I took them more seriously than others, for the first few years I was on the fence, but I have also been very interested in other conspiracy theories, as well as wilder claims about things like the paranormal, and I began to recognize the traits and tactics that crackpots of all stripes have and use, and that the "truthers" were as guilty as any of them in their use of logical fallacies and dishonest rhetorical tactics.

You either believe what your totally trustworthy government said or you don't, and you're acting as if those who don't are somehow crazy so it's fairly easy to see where your opinion lies.

That's exactly the kind of silly, oversimplified thinking I'm talking about. The government isn't just one giant hivemind that is either totally honest, or totally dishonest. The fact that you see it as what is clearly a false dichotomy just reinforces the image of the "truthers" as people who see the government as the villainous organization from a Bond film, and not a real group of humans.

Not only that, the idea that the "official story" of the events of 9/11 were completely dictated by the government is ridiculous in itself.

Go ahead, explain your position that's obviously going to be completely different from "believing everything you're told".

That's a pretty silly request. There's a great deal of the "official story" (which is a pretty stupid term) that is absolutely consistent with the available evidence. Blind distrust of everything you hear just seems like you're trying to make yourself seem smarter through disbelief, rather than through any actual demonstration of intellectual capability.

My opinion is consistent with what historians, academics, political scientists, and other researchers believe happened. If you did much reading, you'd find that many of these people are enormously critical of much of ways that the US has handled its foreign policies, corporate connections with the government, among other things.

Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky? Gore Vidal? Even Chris Hedges? These are not people who anyone would consider to be blind believers in the US government... and they certainly don't believe in the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories. Chomsky is probably one of the harshest and most brilliant critics of the US government and financial culture you can find, Vidal is enormously respected as a historian and author, who is critical of the way that the US government is changing, and warns of impending dictatorship (though personally I think that's a tad hyperbolic), and Hedges was famously fired from his job at the New York Times for his outspoken views about the war in Iraq. These are the kinds of people who oppose the "truther" movement. Personally, I feel that it is harmful to real, important activism that needs to be done. There are genuine issues out there, and you guys are making the critics of the government seem like clowns.

Many academics are actually far more critical of politics in the US than the "truthers" are. So many "truthers" are libertarians, or even Tea Partiers with a hard on for capitalism and a mindless distrust of the very concept of government.

Now, if you want to look at the actual events of 9/11, it seems pretty clear that the accusations of termite, squibs, and controlled demolitions are just bullshit. They're not based on earnest scientific analysis, but on people saying things like: "hey, doesn't that look like a demolition?" or "I know absolutely nothing about what would happen when a jetliner hits a building, but I would assume it would look different".

Many of the claims that the government or various insiders must have known something are complete fabrications. Jews were never warned not to go into work that day, and the fact that you can find a handful of people out of thousands of workers who had some sort of coincidence make them late and probably save their lives doesn't mean anything.

It is somewhat plausible that the Bush administration ignored warnings to some extent, possibly even in the belief that an attack could be politically useful. What's not so plausible is that they would think the attack would be anything like what happened on 9/11. Al Qaeda has recently bombed the USS Cole, killing 17, and their 1993 bombing of the WTC killed 6. I doubt they imagined they were dealing with anything that had the likelihood of being as successful as the 9/11 attacks were.

It's odd how so many people who argue with "truthers" have actually spent a lot of time going over their claims, while the "truthers" never seem to be familiar with even the oldest explanations for, or objections to their claims.

This isn't even remotely true, reading Popular Mechanics isn't research.

Uh, I'm talking about actually reading the claims of "truthers". Poring over their long lists of "evidence", watching their ridiculously long youtube videos. That kind of thing. What I'm saying is that me, and many of the people like me have spent tons of time reading conspiracy websites, while you don't even seem to be familiar with the mountains of resources that go over the claims of "truthers" in detail, showing the issues. The fact that you referenced a Popular Mechanics article from 2005 as though it was the entire source of anti-truther information just demonstrates how unfamiliar you are with the other side.

I don't remember how long after 9/11 occurred before these theories started to become popular

It was plainly obvious on the day they were lying. It's easier to have perspective when you aren't crying and having a shit over it.

"Truther" only means that you acknowledge the official story as completely fabricated, and you want the truth to be put forth. It doesn't imply anything else.

I"ve never encountered a single person willing to call themselves a "truther" that was willing to seriously consider that 9/11 was carried out by Islamic extremists

That's because knowledge about the events makes this completely and utterly impossible for them to carry it out alone.

and that the government wasn't completely aware of their targets

Some of the government was at very least, otherwise steps would have been taken to stop it. Who do you think refused to stop war games that morning?

That's exactly the kind of silly, oversimplified thinking I'm talking about. The government isn't just one giant hivemind that is either totally honest, or totally dishonest

Yes, the government sure isn't one big organisation that puts out statements on behalf of itself or anything!

Your statement here makes no sense. Do you believe the official report or not? There's no middle ground. Stop trying to be obtuse to avoid the question. If you believe the official report then you obviously just ate up what they told you without knowing anything, if you don't then you're in the same position as me and you shouldn't be arguing.

Not only that, the idea that the "official story" of the events of 9/11 were completely dictated by the government is ridiculous in itself.

No, they only hired NIST to do the official investigation and reports and hid all their methodology and studies from the public and other scientific organisations. Totally different! It's not like they made up a bunch of pseudo scientific bullshit that ignores laws of thermodynamics or anything!

That's a pretty silly request.

It's a "silly request" for you to explain your position, so that it can be given the same scrutiny you apply to everyone elses viewpoints? Gee, it's almost as if you don't want to reveal it so it can't be shot down!

There's a great deal of the "official story" (which is a pretty stupid term) that is absolutely consistent with the available evidence. Blind distrust of everything you hear just seems like you're trying to make yourself seem smarter through disbelief, rather than through any actual demonstration of intellectual capability.

It has nothing to do with "trust", it has everything to do with knowledge. If you seriously think that the official story is in any way plausible then you obviously don't understand physics, among other things. I don't "trust" anyone with a vested interest's opinion on such matters offhand, because they have a fucking vested interest.

If you don't have knowledge of it then you should find out about it before randomly trusting people with all the reason and all the precedence for lying to you.

Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky? Gore Vidal? Even Chris Hedges? These are not people who anyone would consider to be blind believers in the US government... and they certainly don't believe in the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories.

How is this relevant? It's not their area of expertise nor are they involved in the studies.

These are the kinds of people who oppose the "truther" movement.

You mistake "not being involved" for "virulently over defensive weirdo on the internet". Don't presume to compare yourself to these people.

Many academics are actually far more critical of politics in the US than the "truthers" are. So many "truthers" are libertarians, or even Tea Partiers with a hard on for capitalism and a mindless distrust of the very concept of government.

Except that a great deal of people that are involved aren't American and find the concept of libertarianism or the tea party as a joke. Don't try to lump people in with a group you can criticize just because you have no valid argument otherwise.

Now, if you want to look at the actual events of 9/11, it seems pretty clear that the accusations of termite, squibs, and controlled demolitions are just bullshit. They're not based on earnest scientific analysis, but on people saying things like: "hey, doesn't that look like a demolition?" or "I know absolutely nothing about what would happen when a jetliner hits a building, but I would assume it would look different".

See, this is incredibly rich because that's exactly what you did. You watched it on TV and believed their story.

• You seriously believe that a plane hitting the top of a building will make it collapse from the bottom.

• You seriously believe that fire can make a skyscraper collapse, even though it never has before or since.

• You seriously think that the top of a building can fall and crush the rest of the building while remaining intact, despite it being made of the same material.

• You seriously think that a jet can maneuver into the Pentagon in the way it did.

You're the one taking shit at face value dude, none of the above are physically possible.

Many of the claims that the government or various insiders must have known something are complete fabrications. Jews were never warned not to go into work that day, and the fact that you can find a handful of people out of thousands of workers who had some sort of coincidence make them late and probably save their lives doesn't mean anything.

Random rumours and hearsay are not really applicable here. Funnily enough though the guy who bought the towers, insured them for a shitload of money, and worked in them every day didn't come in that day though! I'm sure it's a coincidence and nothing to do with the fact he was going to have to practically rebuild anyway!

Uh, I'm talking about actually reading the claims of "truthers". Poring over their long lists of "evidence", watching their ridiculously long youtube videos. That kind of thing. What I'm saying is that me, and many of the people like me have spent tons of time reading conspiracy websites, while you don't even seem to be familiar with the mountains of resources that go over the claims of "truthers" in detail, showing the issues. The fact that you referenced a Popular Mechanics article from 2005 as though it was the entire source of anti-truther information just demonstrates how unfamiliar you are with the other side.

Don't pretend you're well versed in this, because your posts have shown that you most definitely aren't.

It was plainly obvious on the day they were lying. It's easier to have perspective when you aren't crying and having a shit over it.

No, it wasn't, unless you're interpreting events to match your worldview, and don't give a shit about facts.

"Truther" only means that you acknowledge the official story as completely fabricated, and you want the truth to be put forth. It doesn't imply anything else.

Oh, it only means you completely dismiss an enormous and complex set of information with no basis other than the fact that doing so matches with your view of how the world works. Gotcha.

Some of the government was at very least, otherwise steps would have been taken to stop it. Who do you think refused to stop war games that morning?

You probably shouldn't just believe everything you read on conspiracy sites, drills and exercises on 9/11 were shut right down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001

Your statement here makes no sense. Do you believe the official report or not? There's no middle ground.

How could there possibly be no middle ground in "believing" an enormous and detailed analysis of a complicated series of events.

Is it largely based on fact? Certainly. Are there errors? Absolutely. Is there some intentionally distorted information? Quite likely. Is the whole thing a fabrication by evil government overlords who want to put chips in our brains? No.

It's a "silly request" for you to explain your position, so that it can be given the same scrutiny you apply to everyone elses viewpoints? Gee, it's almost as if you don't want to reveal it so it can't be shot down!

I did, actually, explain my viewpoint to some extent, and you ignored it. But it's a "silly request" because essentially asking me for the history of Middle Eastern politics, the Russian war in Afghanistan and the formation of Al Qaeda, various aspects of the cold war, US foreign policy, etc... is a pointless exercise.

It has nothing to do with "trust", it has everything to do with knowledge. If you seriously think that the official story is in any way plausible then you obviously don't understand physics, among other things. I don't "trust" anyone with a vested interest's opinion on such matters offhand, because they have a fucking vested interest.

Give me a fucking break. What are your credentials in physics?

Would you care to explain the calculation errors here?: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf

I certainly don't have a degree in physics, but I do have enough of a background to be able to understand most things with some time and effort. I also have enough science background to know how to research available information and figure out what's more reliable.

How is this relevant? It's not their area of expertise nor are they involved in the studies.

You're making it clear that you think that anything who thinks 9/11 wasn't an inside job is a gullible super patriot. This just shows you're completely wrong.

You mistake "not being involved" for "virulently over defensive weirdo on the internet". Don't presume to compare yourself to these people.

How is this "comparing myself" to them? I'm not just making assumptions because they haven't brought it up, these are people who have made it absolutely clear that they don't think the conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously.

Also, it's lacking quite a bit of self awareness to call someone a "virulently over defensive weirdo on the internet" when you've been just as involved with the argument with said person on the internet. Perhaps making blatant ad hominem attacks isn't the smartest strategy, ok?

Except that a great deal of people that are involved aren't American and find the concept of libertarianism or the tea party as a joke. Don't try to lump people in with a group you can criticize just because you have no valid argument otherwise.

My point was to emphasize how there are plenty of intelligent, informed people who work to oppose and criticize the US government and corporate power structure, and who think the truthers are fools. That has very little to do with the entirely of my argument, and it's a tad dishonest to try and ftan it that way.

You seriously believe that a plane hitting the top of a building will make it collapse from the bottom.

Sort of, given the right circumstances. I don't think "collapse from the bottom" is a very accurate description.

You seriously believe that fire can make a skyscraper collapse, even though it never has before or since.

Sure. I don't get why you'd think that it not happening before or since is very relevant considering the uniqueness of the circumstances.

You seriously think that the top of a building can fall and crush the rest of the building while remaining intact, despite it being made of the same material.

I thnk you're wildly misinterpreting the actual info here. Blindly believing the things on conspiracy websites kind of makes you look like a hypocrite when you think anyone who takes anything the government said seriously is "gullible".

You seriously think that a jet can maneuver into the Pentagon in the way it did.

Keywords: "in the way it did". Yes.

You're the one taking shit at face value dude, none of the above are physically possible.

Well good thing you did the math and showed everyone clearly that these things violate the laws of physics instead of just stating that's the case with absolutely no basis. Otherwise you'd have made yourself look totally disreputable.

Funnily enough though the guy who bought the towers, insured them for a shitload of money

What, the World Trade Center towers were insured for a shitload of money?! That's a total smoking gun, because large buildings like that are never really insured for anything. I mean, why bother, right?

It's also not like he had any reason to insure it specifically against terror attacks. I mean, they tried it once in 1993 and failed, so there's no reason to think they'd ever feel the need to try again.

...and worked in them every day didn't come in that day though!

You're not getting your conspiracy theory correct. The claim is that he ate at the restaurant every morning, but not that day because he had a dermotologist's appointment. Now, there's not exactly solid documentation that he "never missed a day" or anything like that, and the idea that an elderly man occasionally had to go to the doctor in the morning is hardly surprising. There were also many, many other important traders connected to all the groups the "truthers" think were complicit, and who did show up that day and were killed.

Don't pretend you're well versed in this, because your posts have shown that you most definitely aren't.

Assuming that anyone who looks at the same information as you will come to the same conclusions is not a trait of an intelligent person.

No, it wasn't, unless you're interpreting events to match your worldview, and don't give a shit about facts.

Yes, it was, because buildings don't fucking collapse like that. Americans were too busy blubbering and feeling sorry for themselves to look at it objectively for the most part. Facts disagree with the official story. What "world view" could possibly affect anything? You think it's "anti American" to not believe random lies?

Oh, it only means you completely dismiss an enormous and complex set of information with no basis other than the fact that doing so matches with your view of how the world works. Gotcha.

The fact you think it's so complicated that you couldn't possibly think for yourself speaks volumes. It's plain as day you're being lied to but I guess it makes you feel secure or something.

You probably shouldn't just believe everything you read on conspiracy sites, drills and exercises on 9/11 were shut right down:

Says the guy quoting a Wiki page edited by some over zealous American. The war games were not stopped, that was the reason there weren't any spare jets available to intercept. By the time they were it was already over.

How could there possibly be no middle ground in "believing" an enormous and detailed analysis of a complicated series of events.

Stop being so deliberately obtuse. Do you believe what the commission says or not? Do you believe what NIST says or not? If they're wrong or lied about one thing how is the rest sacred? Your logic is flawed at best.

I did, actually, explain my viewpoint to some extent, and you ignored it. But it's a "silly request" because essentially asking me for the history of Middle Eastern politics, the Russian war in Afghanistan and the formation of Al Qaeda, various aspects of the cold war, US foreign policy, etc... is a pointless exercise.

You didn't and still haven't explained your viewpoint, good job dancing around and avoiding all the questions! Do you believe the official story or not?

Give me a fucking break. What are your credentials in physics? Would you care to explain the calculation errors here?: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf I certainly don't have a degree in physics, but I do have enough of a background to be able to understand most things with some time and effort. I also have enough science background to know how to research available information and figure out what's more reliable.

It takes a high school knowledge of physics to know that the pancake effect is impossible, that the trusses couldn't have pulled and destroyed metal walls multiple times their strength, and that a plane hitting the top can't cause a building to crumble from the bottom, especially not a building so much stronger than ones that have been hit by planes and burnt out with fires and never collapsed. Nothing about the collapses has ever happened before and have ever happened since, and all the models used to come to these conclusions are not available to the public.

You're making it clear that you think that anything who thinks 9/11 wasn't an inside job is a gullible super patriot. This just shows you're completely wrong.

I don't think you know what "patriot" means, and all those people not being involved means is that they aren't involved. They're not on your side by default because they have no opinion. Meanwhile people such as yourself that claim to be well informed but are just parroting what the government has been saying all along are laughable.

Also, it's lacking quite a bit of self awareness to call someone a "virulently over defensive weirdo on the internet" when you've been just as involved with the argument with said person on the internet.

That's not true at all, I like calling out stupid shit where I see it. "Anti conspiracy" people are some of the most overly defensive and stubborn people on the internet.

I thnk you're wildly misinterpreting the actual info here. Blindly believing the things on conspiracy websites kind of makes you look like a hypocrite when you think anyone who takes anything the government said seriously is "gullible".

You don't even understand the theories that you're defending, what a surprise!

NIST came to the conclusion in the official report that the top part of the building crushed the rest of the building as the floors "pancaked". This is impossible because of Newton's third law of motion.

You can't just dismiss everything you can't explain as "oh you probably read it on a conspiracy website" because it makes you look like an idiot.

Keywords: "in the way it did". Yes.

More like, "in the way it was said to have done" because it's impossible and couldn't have happened for many reasons.

Well good thing you did the math and showed everyone clearly that these things violate the laws of physics instead of just stating that's the case with absolutely no basis. Otherwise you'd have made yourself look totally disreputable.

Everything you are impotently trying to discredit and deny is in the documentary this topic is about. Perhaps you should watch it instead of acting smug?

What, the World Trade Center towers were insured for a shitload of money?! That's a total smoking gun, because large buildings like that are never really insured for anything. I mean, why bother, right?

It is when you insure them a month or so before 9/11 happens. You seem to know shit all for a guy who claims to be well informed.

You're not getting your conspiracy theory correct. The claim is that he ate at the restaurant every morning, but not that day because he had a dermotologist's appointment.

And by "conspiracy theory", you mean "what he said in a filmed interview"? Sure.

Assuming that anyone who looks at the same information as you will come to the same conclusions is not a trait of an intelligent person.

I think it's fairly presumptuous to assume you've looked at any information.

Yes, it was, because buildings don't fucking collapse like that.

What, you're saying the building didn't collapse?

We're looking at an event that is unlike anything that ever happened before, and you're telling me that your completely uneducated assumptions about what should happen are guaranteed to be correct?

Scientists are often surprised by natural phemonena in physics that don't occur the way they'd assume based on what they know. ALL. THE. TIME.

And yet I'm supposed to think that a complete layman can tell me exactly what happens when a skyscraper is hit by an airliner full of fuel? Give me a break.

Americans were too busy blubbering and feeling sorry for themselves to look at it objectively for the most part.

Sure. But you're too gung ho on the belief that everything the government does is a big evil conspiracy to think about it objectively. No matter what they say, you're going to disbelief to think point that you could be easily manipulated using reverse psychology.

Facts disagree with the official story.

Which facts? You can't just make things up about what you believe is "supposed to" happen when a skyscraper is hit and call it a fact.

What "world view" could possibly affect anything?

Your world view where the government is a giant evil organization hell bent on mind control and pointless terror.

You think it's "anti American" to not believe random lies?

Pull your head out of your ass. I'm not American. The US can go fuck itself. It's stupid and irrational to act like you're smarter than everyone just because you smugly tell them they're wrong.

The fact you think it's so complicated that you couldn't possibly think for yourself speaks volumes. It's plain as day you're being lied to but I guess it makes you feel secure or something.

How do you possibly translate that to "it's so complicated I can't think for myself"?

You're not even attempting to think, you're just asking on feeling.

Since you so firmly believe that you've figured this out based on your own intellect, SHOW YOUR WORK.

Show me exactly how you figured out that "buildings don't collapse like that". And no, "they just don't", or "well, I've never seen it before" is not showing your work.

I want to see some actual understanding of physics and math... your work, not somebody else's which would be an admission it's too complicated to figure out all on your own.

Says the guy quoting a Wiki page edited by some over zealous American. The war games were not stopped, that was the reason there weren't any spare jets available to intercept. By the time they were it was already over.

Dude, learn to use wikipedia. You see how there are little numbers next to the statements of fact? You click on those, and they bring you to the citations. From there you can actually see where the information is coming from.

You have provided zero references for your claim. I have zero reason to believe that you're not just making shit up.

Stop being so deliberately obtuse. Do you believe what the commission says or not? Do you believe what NIST says or not? If they're wrong or lied about one thing how is the rest sacred? Your logic is flawed at best.

"Sacred"? What the hell are you talking about. There's not a single document of that nature on the planet that is flawless. Everything gets some things wrong.

You didn't and still haven't explained your viewpoint, good job dancing around and avoiding all the questions! Do you believe the official story or not?

You can't possible be having that much trouble understanding this: There is no "official story", that term is stupid, but I'm going by the same assumptions the educated world is. Yes, Islamic extremists were clearly behind 9/11, no, I don't think any one document is gospel truth because you'd have to be an idiot to think in those terms.

I don't think you know what "patriot" means, and all those people not being involved means is that they aren't involved.

Of course I know what "patriot" means... generally, it means a moron who thinks their country is exceptional and special. There's a reason "truthers" also love to call themselves "patriots".

Those people are clearly more intelligent and educated than you, clearly don't blindly buy into government bullshit, and clearly think that the 9/11 truth movement is stupid. You're ignoring my point: Knowing this, why do you still cling to the belief that anyone who buys into what you call the "official story" is a government loving coward?

They're not on your side by default because they have no opinion. Meanwhile people such as yourself that claim to be well informed but are just parroting what the government has been saying all along are laughable.

It takes a high school knowledge of physics to know that the pancake effect is impossible, that the trusses couldn't have pulled and destroyed metal walls multiple times their strength, and that a plane hitting the top can't cause a building to crumble from the bottom, especially not a building so much stronger than ones that have been hit by planes and burnt out with fires and never collapsed. Nothing about the collapses has ever happened before and have ever happened since, and all the models used to come to these conclusions are not available to the public.

...and then you go on to say:

You don't even understand the theories that you're defending, what a surprise!

I don't, huh? Well, let's just look up "pancake" in relation to the WTC collapse... hrmm, a lot of conspiracy sites talking about how wrong it is, fair enough, oh look, a page from NIST themselves:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Hrmm, that's a bit odd, isn't it? All those "truthers" clinging to an outdated theory? Turns out that the "pancake theory" was one that had been proposed before the NIST investigation.

That's how science works. Investigation and research leads to improved understanding. even though that theory was wrong, it in no way demonstrated anything about a conspiracy.

You see, we don't have a magical and total understanding of every minute aspect of the physical world. We have to figure things out as we go.

Also, I seriously doubt that whoever wrote that Newton's third law disproved the "pancake theory" had the slightest clue what he was talking about (because, admit it, you didn't come up with that on your own, we both know you read it somewhere or saw it in a youtube video). Newton's third law doesn't disprove that theory any more than the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. It's just another example of idiots with a very basic understanding of physics thinking that they've outsmarted the experts. You can find plenty of these people online claiming they've figured out perpetual motion, or disproved the theory of relativity with some silly thought experiment.

Acting like the circumstances of 9/11 were identical to other plane crashes or fires is totally and utterly dishonest. The size of the plane, the amount of fuel, the fact that the circumstances made it difficult to try and deal with the fires all made for a very unique situation.

I get that people without much education see that and say "those magical scientists and engineers know exactly what they're doing, there's no way a couple planes hijacked using low tech methods could do so much damage... unless those magical and all powerful people in the government were involved!". You can't wrap your head around how things actually work, so you just ascribe impossible powers to those entities.

Everything you are impotently trying to discredit and deny is in the documentary this topic is about. Perhaps you should watch it instead of acting smug?

You've got to be fucking kidding me. We're talking about demonstrating actual physics, you can't just breeze by that in a documentary. Either link me to some actual work, or at the very least, give me a timestamp in the documentary where this brilliant bit of math is done, I've sat through dozens of tedious 9/11 conspiracy documentaries, I'm not doing it again just to find one tidbit that probably doesn't exist.

And by "conspiracy theory", you mean "what he said in a filmed interview"? Sure.

The conspiracy theory is that he was warned. You know of a filmed interview where he said he was warned?

I think it's fairly presumptuous to assume you've looked at any information.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who wasn't even aware that the pancake theory has been outdated since the NIST investigation.

Image

Title: Revolutionary

Title-text: I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 10 time(s), representing 0.10% of referenced xkcds.

^{Questions/Problems | Website | StopReplying}

What, you're saying the building didn't collapse?

They sure did, which means that something else had to bring them down because the official report on how they collapsed is physically impossible! It's almost as if I've been saying this repeatedly!

We're looking at an event that is unlike anything that ever happened before, and you're telling me that your completely uneducated assumptions about what should happen are guaranteed to be correct?

Don't try to project your lack of knowledge onto me. The only reason you believe the official story is because of "uneducated assumptions". You're still making them in the face of evidence.

Scientists are often surprised by natural phemonena in physics that don't occur the way they'd assume based on what they know. ALL. THE. TIME.

Haha, you seriously don't know what you're talking about, do you? Why would you try to argue about it?

And yet I'm supposed to think that a complete layman can tell me exactly what happens when a skyscraper is hit by an airliner full of fuel? Give me a break.

Planes have hit skyscrapers before, and the burning point of fuel is known. What's clear and definite is that jet fuel can't melt steel. Just because you're a layman doesn't mean everyone else is.

Sure. But you're too gung ho on the belief that everything the government does is a big evil conspiracy to think about it objectively. No matter what they say, you're going to disbelief to think point that you could be easily manipulated using reverse psychology.

What the fuck? Who said anything about the government or a conspiracy? Don't insert a narrative you can argue against because it's not relevant. We're talking about the official report and the fact that it's wrong. Anything else is speculation and isn't part of the conversation.

My god you guys have such a persecution complex.

Which facts? You can't just make things up about what you believe is "supposed to" happen when a skyscraper is hit and call it a fact.

Facts like fuel burns at too low a temperature to melt steel, or that most of it burned up in the initial explosion, or that it's physically impossible to fly a jumbo jet into the pentagon because it's not made to do it. You know, verifiable facts.

Your world view where the government is a giant evil organization hell bent on mind control and pointless terror.

Ah right, more persecution complex, should have realised. Who said anything about the government?

Pull your head out of your ass. I'm not American. The US can go fuck itself.

Could have fooled me.

It's stupid and irrational to act like you're smarter than everyone just because you smugly tell them they're wrong.

Take your own advice dude, you're arguing for an ideology instead of a reason.

How do you possibly translate that to "it's so complicated I can't think for myself"?

BECAUSE THATS IN EFFECT WHAT YOU SAID. Oh how could anyone possibly know, there's just so much information! Better trust the guys with all the vested interests in the world to tell the truth, because they've certainly done that before!

Show me exactly how you figured out that "buildings don't collapse like that". And no, "they just don't", or "well, I've never seen it before" is not showing your work.

Watch the film, idiot. I'm not going to sit here and write out 6 hours worth of shit for you when there's a fucking link in the title.

Or just you know, realise no building has ever collapsed like that before and demolition contractors would be out of a job if it was that easy and neat to bring a skyscraper down.

You have provided zero references for your claim. I have zero reason to believe that you're not just making shit up.

Again, watch the film this topic is about before repeating stupid shit over and over.

"Sacred"? What the hell are you talking about. There's not a single document of that nature on the planet that is flawless. Everything gets some things wrong.

Wow, still avoiding the question? You're so dishonest it's unbelievable. Just admit you don't know what the fuck you're on about.

There is no "official story"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

What's that then?

Of course I know what "patriot" means... generally, it means a moron who thinks their country is exceptional and special. There's a reason "truthers" also love to call themselves "patriots".

No, that's nationalism. I love how you tried to turn it around back on me.

Those people are clearly more intelligent and educated than you, clearly don't blindly buy into government bullshit, and clearly think that the 9/11 truth movement is stupid. You're ignoring my point: Knowing this, why do you still cling to the belief that anyone who buys into what you call the "official story" is a government loving coward?

That's a fair amount of presumption! Again, because you obviously weren't reading, they aren't fucking involved. Were they interested in the topic and read information about it they'd most likely change their position, but sadly it's irrelevant. Stop pretending your feelings are shared by smart people because they most definitely aren't.

Hrmm, that's a bit odd, isn't it? All those "truthers" clinging to an outdated theory? Turns out that the "pancake theory" was one that had been proposed before the NIST investigation.

It's almost as if NIST got it wrong and recanted their stupid shit because it was physically impossible! Sorry, but the pancake theory is what NIST wrote in the initial report and what they were on record as saying. Wow, maybe they got it wrong about other things too, but it's impossible to check because their physics models are private.

It's fucking hilarious how bad you are at this.

That's how science works. Investigation and research leads to improved understanding. even though that theory was wrong, it in no way demonstrated anything about a conspiracy.

Science is peer reviewed by nature, genius. That's the point.

(because, admit it, you didn't come up with that on your own, we both know you read it somewhere or saw it in a youtube video)

Or, alternatively, it's fucking obvious and any dumbass that watched it could plainly see that's not how it works. I'm sorry you never passed any science classes in high school but your ignorance is not anyone elses problem.

Newton's third law doesn't disprove that theory any more than the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

Hahaha, and on the other hand I know exactly where you got that.

I doubt you even understand how it applies. Drop a raw egg onto another raw egg. What happens? Does the falling egg smash through the stationary egg, and remain whole? Or do both eggs smash against each other because that's how reality works you dumbass?

You've got to be fucking kidding me. We're talking about demonstrating actual physics, you can't just breeze by that in a documentary. Either link me to some actual work, or at the very least, give me a timestamp in the documentary where this brilliant bit of math is done, I've sat through dozens of tedious 9/11 conspiracy documentaries, I'm not doing it again just to find one tidbit that probably doesn't exist.

There's plenty of timestamps to the various different explanations, you're just being deliberately awkward because you know in your head that if you watch it you won't have anything left to argue.

The conspiracy theory is that he was warned. You know of a filmed interview where he said he was warned?

Why don't you shift the goalposts a little more? You literally told me that the "dermatologists appointment" was a conspiracy theory. I'll quote you again to make it clear:

You're not getting your conspiracy theory correct. The claim is that he ate at the restaurant every morning, but not that day because he had a dermotologist's appointment.

Conspiracy!

That's pretty funny coming from someone who wasn't even aware that the pancake theory has been outdated since the NIST investigation.

What's funny is that you apparently don't realise that the fact that NIST recanted on their bullshit theories but still refuse to let anyone else see how they came to their conclusions throws their entire credibility into question for anyone even remotely interested in the scientific method. Have you seen their laughable models for the WTC7 collapse? It doesn't even look similar to what happened.

Message me again when you've watched at least some of the documentary in question. Otherwise you're just repeating shit that's already been explained over and over.

Have to split this in half.

Part 1

It's almost as if I've been saying this repeatedly!

You have been saying it repeatedly. Unfortunately, repeating some ridiculous statement doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Haha, you seriously don't know what you're talking about, do you? Why would you try to argue about it?

...argue about the process of scientific research? I work in science. I have an education in science. I'm not a scientist, but I work in a lab with internationally respected medical researchers. My parents were both respected scientists. I have a pretty good understanding of the research process.

What I'm pointing out is that you're making an argument from ignorance. This is the logical fallacy where you claim that your belief is validated because your opponent doesn't have all the answers.

Do we have a full understanding of every minute detail of the physics involved in the collapse of the WTC towers? No? Well then clearly that means that the planes weren't responsible at all, and the government was lying about absolutely everything!

You should check out this video. It's not about 9/11 or terrorism. It's about the concept of "common sense" and its relation to science. The basic point is that the idea of "common sense" has no place in science, and, if anything, prevents people from thinking critically. There are lots of things that seem to have obvious answers, and yet the obvious answer turns out to be completely wrong. I get that the notion that the government is lying about 9/11 seems obvious to you, but that is not evidence. That's an irrelevant statement about your perspective.

You're not even trying to make arguments or present evidence. You're just repeatedly accusing me of "not knowing what I'm talking about". You're arguing much like people argue for their religious beliefs, and it does seem an awful lot like your belief in a 9/11 conspiracy is based on a similar kind of faith based thinking.

To you, it seems like, it's "just obvious" that it was a conspiracy, just like some people believe that it's "just obvious" that there is a god. Why should

Again, because you obviously weren't reading, they aren't fucking involved. Were they interested in the topic and read information about it they'd most likely change their position, but sadly it's irrelevant. Stop pretending your feelings are shared by smart people because they most definitely aren't.

You've got to be kidding me. All three of those people have directly discussed the conspiracy theories, and made it clear that they're fairly familiar with the common claims.

There are plenty of highly intelligent people who have both studied the conspiracy claims in detail, and do not accept them. I've even linked directly to a paper that goes over the controlled demolition claims, and finds them deeply flawed, and that has no connection to NIST, but you pretty much ignored it: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf

...are you under the impression that the people behind that paper are just a bunch of idiots?

Not understanding your opponents is probably the weakest position you can be in during a debate... and the best way to demonstrate that you have that weakness is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of either ignorance or dishonesty. It really just shows that you have an overly emotional attachment to your beliefs.

Science is peer reviewed by nature, genius. That's the point.

"Peer reviewed by nature"? What the fuck does that mean? Do you know what "peer review" is?

Or, alternatively, it's fucking obvious and any dumbass that watched it could plainly see that's not how it works. I'm sorry you never passed any science classes in high school but your ignorance is not anyone elses problem.

Right, you just looked at it while it was happening and said "Clearly the planes didn't cause this, because of Newton's third law!"

It's almost as if NIST got it wrong and recanted their stupid shit because it was physically impossible! Sorry, but the pancake theory is what NIST wrote in the initial report and what they were on record as saying.

You clearly don't understand how science works. First off, if that were true, that would not be a damning accusation. That's how science works. A hypothesis is proposed and worked into a more formal theory. More extensive testing is done, and if one theory is proven wrong, new ones are formed. Science is constantly proving itself wrong about various things. That's what makes it science, the fact that it is dedicated to refining the facts and weeding out falsehoods.

Now, I can't find anything detailing where exactly the "pancake theory" originated, but the only connection I can find between NIST and the theory is them pointing out that their models disproved it. I see some reference to FEMA bringing it up earlier, so it seems quite likely that this is something other agencies proposed, but NIST actually investigated.

I don't think that NIST had anything about the "pancake theory" in any "initial report".

Wow, maybe they got it wrong about other things too, but it's impossible to check because their physics models are private.

That would be an interesting point if it weren't a huge exaggeration. They are keeping back some information, mostly that which pertains to certain simulation software that is confidential.

They did, however, release an enormous amount of simulation data to the public.

Here's a PDF of the letters regarding the FOIA request and release of data: http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

Someone started putting the collection of released files online, but I'm not sure if they finished.

There's an enormous amount of data here, but it requires ANSYS software to be of any use: http://wtcdata.nist.gov/index2.htm

For computer simulations more specifically here: http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/NIST%20Materials%20and%20Data/Computer+Simulations/

Also, this guy sent an FOIA request and got further simulation data. You can get details in the XPD file located there, but some browsers won't open it, so you might have to save it as an html file to take a look.

It's fucking hilarious how bad you are at this.

Uh, okay there hot shot.

Part 2

Planes have hit skyscrapers before, and the burning point of fuel is known. What's clear and definite is that jet fuel can't melt steel. Just because you're a layman doesn't mean everyone else is.

Planes have hit skyscrapers before, but airliners with that much fuel certainly have not crashed into skyscrapers anywhere near that height. A 747 hit an 11 story apartment building in 1992, but that's hardly comparable.

It really seems like the only place you've been getting your information is from conspiracy theory sites, as it doesn't really match up with what's in the actual reports.

Now, I'm sure you'll just claim it's all lies, since anyone who disagrees with you is clearly shilling, but here's a bit of an explanation addressing why the burning temperature is not as relevant as you think it is:

From: http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

It was never the NIST's contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorists suggest. Conspiracy theorists use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn't have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. Just as lighter fluid doesn't cook your meat in a barbeque, the jet fuel didn't sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can't leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorists say the columns couldn't have bowed and the trusses couldn't have sagged because the jet fuel wasn't hot enough and was used up within about 15 minutes of impact. That's like saying your meat didn't cook in your barbeque because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes.

Just because you're a layman doesn't mean everyone else is.

"Layman" isn't an insult, it just means the average person, not involved professionally in the topic at hand. I think you've made it pretty clear that you don't possess any kind of expertise in any of the subjects being discussed.

BECAUSE THATS IN EFFECT WHAT YOU SAID. Oh how could anyone possibly know, there's just so much information! Better trust the guys with all the vested interests in the world to tell the truth, because they've certainly done that before!

No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that no one person can claim to reliably do all of the investigation themselves. They need to rely on some information from others. Not all of the sources backing up what you call the "official story" come from NIST, FEMA, or the government. There are plenty of independent scientists who have studied aspects of 9/11.

Or just you know, realise no building has ever collapsed like that before and demolition contractors would be out of a job if it was that easy and neat to bring a skyscraper down.

The WTC collapse was "neat"? You realize that the difficult part of a demolition isn't simply making the building collapse, it's in preventing it from collapsing onto other buildings, spreading dust and debris all over the place, etc... WTC 1 & 2 did not collapse in a manner any reasonable person would describe as "neat". Neither did WTC 7, for that matter.

Wow, still avoiding the question? You're so dishonest it's unbelievable. Just admit you don't know what the fuck you're on about.

I answered your question to the best of my ability. I'm not going to say "I believe everything the government says about 9/11" because I don't. I'm also not going to say "I think the government is completely lying about 9/11" because I don't think that's the case either, and I think anyone who takes such a simplistic view of these things is a fool.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf What's that then?

That's the 9/11 Commission Report. What I'm saying is that what you call the "official story" is actually just a collection of the facts that the vast majority of journalists, academics, historians, political scientists agree to be correct. The vast majority of this information does not come from the government, and much of it can be found in pre-9/11 non governmental sources.

No, that's nationalism. I love how you tried to turn it around back on me.

Ehhh... not exactly. There differences between the two terms aren't all that well agreed upon. Some dictionary sources just see the terms as synonyms. Some people define nationalism as irrational or extreme patriotism, but I certainly don't see anything respectable in calling oneself a "patriot".

There's plenty of timestamps to the various different explanations, you're just being deliberately awkward because you know in your head that if you watch it you won't have anything left to argue.

Dude, I guarantee I've heard all of these claims before. I'm asking for one little aspect. There's a reason that extremely long movies are good propaganda tools but terrible ways of conveying scientific information. It's a nonstop flow of claims and ominous music that is all presented to promote one particular idea. This is why when asked what they good pieces of evidence are, "truthers" so often fail to come up with anything solid, and just say "watch the whole video!". They're saying that it's not about facts or evidence, it's about getting drawn into a compelling piece of propaganda.

What the fuck? Who said anything about the government or a conspiracy? Don't insert a narrative you can argue against because it's not relevant.

Oh, so you aren't under the impression that the government was deliberately lying? Because that would be a conspiracy.

We're talking about the official report and the fact that it's wrong. Anything else is speculation and isn't part of the conversation.

Yeah, and I'm saying that a good deal of the reason you believe it's wrong, even though you've convinced yourself otherwise, is that you have a kneejerk, irrational reaction to major world events, and tend to assume that the government is responsible.

Take your own advice dude, you're arguing for an ideology instead of a reason.

Really? I'd love to hear what kind of wacky ideology you've imagined I have.

Hahaha, and on the other hand I know exactly where you got that.

Huh? You know exactly where I got what? The nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics disproving evolution has been around for decades, and repeated by all sorts of creationists... I have no idea where I heard it first, and I'm pretty sure you have no idea either.

Drop a raw egg onto another raw egg. What happens? Does the falling egg smash through the stationary egg, and remain whole? Or do both eggs smash against each other because that's how reality works you dumbass?

Wow. That one is going in the book. The fact that you think your egg analogy is remotely relevant is nuts. First off, you certainly could achieve different results in your egg drop experiment by changing various factors. A perfectly vertical egg, for example, could potentially crack a suspended horizontal egg due to the natural strength of the egg's shape. I could go on, but this is so far from making any sense that it's pointless.

Why don't you shift the goalposts a little more? You literally told me that the "dermatologists appointment" was a conspiracy theory. I'll quote you again to make it clear:

You're not getting your conspiracy theory correct. The claim is that he ate at the restaurant every morning, but not that day because he had a dermotologist's appointment.

"Shift the goalposts"? It's like you've learned all of these terms about rhetoric and logic, but are just firing them into your writing like a blunderbuss.

I didn't say the "dermatologist's appointment" was a conspiracy theory. I said that the idea that he was always there, every morning, and only missed it once was. The idea that the dermatologist's appointment was a fabrication is a conspiracy theory. The idea that he had one was not.

What's funny is that you apparently don't realise that the fact that NIST recanted on their bullshit theories but still refuse to let anyone else see how they came to their conclusions throws their entire credibility into question for anyone even remotely interested in the scientific method.

Again, they're pretty far from "refusing" access to information. Until you've actually reviewed the mountains of information that have been released, it's pretty dishonest to say that it's lacking.

Have you seen their laughable models for the WTC7 collapse? It doesn't even look similar to what happened.

That's a pretty odd claim to make. It's not like there's well shot, high quality video from multiple angles. I don't see how anyone being honest would claim that they have enough information to declare the simulation videos flawed. Not to mention the fact that if NIST's goal was to make it look exactly like what people expect based on some misleading online videos, rather than what the entire set of data shows, it would be easy as pie.

By the way, a lot of the "truther" videos are pretty dishonest in the way they present the WTC 7 collapse. This segment does a decent job of explaining that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w#t=335

Or you can watch that whole video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w

Message me again when you've watched at least some of the documentary in question. Otherwise you're just repeating shit that's already been explained over and over.

Well, nothing has been explained in a rational manner, but how about this, you watch a few episodes of the Myles Power videos, like the one I just linked to (which is #4), and I'll start watching your documentary.

Here's the first in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc

Been watching the start of the "New Pearl Harbor" documentary... slicker with higher production values, but I'm really not seeing much in the way of new arguments or information. The focus on the very dubious claim that the US was totally aware Pearl Harbor was going to happen is a slightly new angle though. There's plenty of great information refuting this conspiracy theory, but the Straight Dope does a pretty good job of putting it together in an easily digestible package: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing

I'll continue skimming though it, but I've got to say, it's pretty difficult to take anyone seriously who actually thinks the "Pentagon might have been hit by a missile" theory is plausible.

I wanted to point something out to you. I've linked numerous times to this paper, but you continue to ignore it. There's an important point here though, which directly addresses your insistence that the temperature of the burning fuel was inadequate to cause any significant structural weakening:

But are high steel temperatures really necessary to explain collapse?

Not really. The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain collapse must be now revised since tests revealed a strong temperature effect on the yield strength of the steel used. The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures 150◦C, 250◦C and 350◦C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. These reductions apply to normal durations of laboratory strength tests (up to several minutes). Since the thermally activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al. (2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250◦C.

That's a pretty solid argument for the idea that the steel doesn't need to be heated to it's melting point to cause collapse, isn't it? They even reference actual experiments demonstrating this effect.

To address your belief that any intelligent person who looks at the evidence will come to the same conclusions you do, you should also check out this other video by Myles Power, not part of his main series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UYZITc_90

This is an extensive interview with someone who was once a prominent "truther", who changed his mind after having the opportunity to actually talk to numerous real experts. It should, at the very least, help you understand that it's actually possible for intelligent, informed people to disagree with you.

not seeing much in the way of new arguments or information.

All this tells me is that you aren't paying attention.

very dubious claim that the US was totally aware Pearl Harbor was going to happen

Americans still think that's a conspiracy theory too? Jeez.

I'll continue skimming though it, but I've got to say, it's pretty difficult to take anyone seriously who actually thinks the "Pentagon might have been hit by a missile" theory is plausible.

You mean as opposed to the "jet flew at an impossible angle into a building, left no wreckage, and somehow made the damage pattern of something completely different" theory, which is apparently totally plausible? Oh, witnesses claim to have seen "another plane" fly off after the explosion? Also out of tens and tens of cameras scattered around, only two of them caught 3 frames or so of the incident? Oh, those frames were also edited? Weird! Oh, you're not allowed to see the data that let NIST come to that conclusion either! We'll just have to take the completely untrustworthy governments word for it! That always turns out well!

I wanted to point something out to you. I've linked numerous times to this paper, but you continue to ignore it.

That paper uses mathematical equations to figure out something that didn't happen, their entire shit is flawed. The assumptions they made at the start disqualify the entire thesis. It's clear that the people who wrote it did so with a goal in mind, to defend the official story.

It's dishonest to act as if even a 25% reduction in strength would make a building built with massive redundancy in mind to collapse. The WTC was designed so you could remove nearly half the supports and it would survive a gale force wind. Buildings are made especially strong and the WTC even more so. Planes have hit weaker building and fires have burnt out weaker buildings and none of them ever collapsed, let alone collapsed on into themselves and into a cloud of dust that got blown outwards as if it were an explosion.

Nearly every event NIST describes is physically impossible, that's why they don't allow peer review like every other piece of science ever.

To address your belief that any intelligent person who looks at the evidence will come to the same conclusions you do, you should also check out this other video by Myles Power, not part of his main series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UYZITc_90

That's making a fairly hefty assumption that that random guy off the street is in any way intelligent. You're not willing to humour what a massive group of actual scientists say but you're willing to go off what this random guy in a wife beater says? You just want to be told you're right, not to learn. Dude in the video literally says "I thought it was the illuminati". Those aren't the words of a smart man.

numerous real experts

Doubtful. Real experts know how things work.

I've been watching that movie, and while it's certainly slicker, and has higher production values than most, it's pretty much a rehash of the same old arguments. Putting so much weight on the comparison to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories is a bit of a new angle (not a particularly credible one, mind you... good old Cecil Adams does reasonable job of concisely demonstrating the flaws in that theory).

I'll continue looking though it, but it's a little hard to take anyone seriously when they seriously considering the claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

I was also looking through the paper that I've linked to several times, that you haven't seemed to notice. They make an interesting point in regards to your claim that the temperature of the burning fuel would be inadequate to take down the supports:

But are high steel temperatures really necessary to explain collapse? Not really. The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain collapse must be now revised since tests revealed a strong temperature effect on the yield strength of the steel used. The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures 150◦C, 250◦C and 350◦C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. These reductions apply to normal durations of laboratory strength tests (up to several minutes). Since the thermally activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al. (2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250◦C.

Not only do they do a good job of explaining why the steel does not need to be fully melting to cause collapse, they even have experimental data to back it up!

You seem pretty intent on the belief that nobody could possibly disagree with you if they were informed and intelligent, but I'd recommend checking this out. It's also by Myles Power, but not part of his main series, an extensive interview with a former "truther" who, after having the opportunity to tour the US and interview all kinds of experts and scientists, and changed his mind. At the start of the second video, you can see how the "truther" movement reacts to having "one of their own" change their mind. Death threats, accusations of pedophilia, harassing his family (including sending pornographic material to his underage sisters)... certainly not the behavior of rational, decent people who want to have an honest conversation.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UYZITc_90

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2TjLuguKXs

Image

Title: Conspiracy Theories

Title-text: There are a lot of graduate-educated young-earth creationists.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 30 time(s), representing 0.24% of referenced xkcds.

^{Questions/Problems | Website | StopReplying}

Reflect on why you are so confident that your (probably layperson) opinion is stubbornly intransigent despite the scientific consensus?

All dem big words.

You hear what the government want you to hear. No more, no less.

[deleted]

one extra word. still quite easy to understand. just remove will/would.

[deleted]

While this isn't English 101...

Aside from the will/would error, the assertion that allies will begin to demand answers because 9/11 had a huge global influence does not, in and of itself, make much sense. Just because 9/11 had a global influence does not necessarily mean allies will demand answers. 9/11 may have had a positive influence for many administrations/regimes. Perhaps the British Parliament already knows 9/11 was a fake operation, but if it has permitted them to increase their self-surveillance operations, they probably won't "demand answers."

Again, not that this is English 101. Moving on.

Which one?

What is their timeline on this? I haven't heard this before.

My cat farted yesterday.

No they neutered Snowden, they have his trove of documents and are releasing a trickle at a time, instead of a torrrent of documents that then the whole internet can look and search we get redacted versions of his documents under the guise of protecting national security

that would be thinking a poster on an anonymous internet forum cares about your fortune cookie analyses?

my uncle lives 1mile away and he says it was

Sandy Hook wasn't a hoax. My aunt lives 5 miles away.

Get out, and take your ridiculous non sequitur with you.

"If you don't like it, leave" is a poisonous attitude for a community to have, as I implied in my original comment. That's the exact sort of thing an authoritarian might say to someone who criticizes the government. That person bringing forward an issue about the way things are isn't doing it to "lower the tone", they're doing it because they think it's a damaging problem.

More and more Americans are now believing that what the 9/11 Commission Report says is not the truth. Which is at least a step in the right direction.

The launch of a civil court case against the Bush regime, would generate a lot more interest and persuade a lot more Americans that their government is not telling them the truth.

My links mostly give the reasons and motives of WHY 9/11 happened and some of the more obvious lies and some of the less controversial facts surrounding it - not the details of what happened on the day itself.

If we could get that many people to protest at our capitals then they would have to hear us

If converted to shit I'd say it'd have to be at least 100tons

Whom owns the hubs, owns the internet