I read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin a couple of years ago. It sums it up.

Seriously, even debating 9/11 at this point, after all the times I've done it, is a complete waste of time, because the evidence is so overwhelming, the opposing argument is a mockery.

This is the conclusion I came to about a year ago. I remember feeling half-convinced by the first loose change, but every bit of information I heard since leans toward the official theory being impossible, and that's that.

Okay, you replied to four of my posts in four different places. I know a troll when I see one.

You're a joke.

You're a joke.

Fountainhead: "Yep, I'm a joke."

People in /r/conspiracy are unwilling to do in depth research.

The 911 truthers I know have done a lot of research, at least they have searched the literature and watched all the relevant videos. Unlike those who accept the conspiracy Bush proposed. Some of them even perform actual research but that is beyond most of us. We don't know how to analyze the metal spheres found in the WTC dust. Like this:

In April 2002, the RJ Lee Company was hired to investigate environmental contaminants in the Deutsche Bank, across the street from the World Trade Center. It reports, “Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.” The problem here is that lead vaporizes at 3200° F, some 1200° F hotter than is possible in hydrocarbon fires. A study of the WTC dust by the USGS for the EPA observed molybdenum-rich spheres that can form only above 4750° F. http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentview&comment_id=158

But for those of us who don't have a lab and a mass spectrophotometer, we can at least reason.

It always seemed irrelevant to me. Faked IDs aren't that hard to get even for American teenagers who want to drink. Alive, dead, identified, misidentified. It's not something I can know. The terrorists are alive articles are old, that could be because most of their families in in countries, like Saudi Arabia, where the authorities can silence them. But people who fly planes for a living say that these half trained people could not have done the flying seen that morning.

[Top Gun Pilot] Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, "At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described." http://rense.com/general78/pent.htm

I don't know if a plane hit the pentagon. There is evidence it didn't (no wing marks on the wall - http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/punchout-path.jpg ) and evidence it did (eyewitness testimony).

Certainly the French believe it was a missile hit. But it works either way. Either there was no plane and it was a missile attack, then the US was involved. Or it was a remote controlled plane, and the US was involved and that would explain the hotshot flying. There's even a third possibility, that some of the hijackers were Israelis sacrificing themselves in a false flag attack they saw as helping their country and that the pilot was an Israeli hotshot. All that's really clear is that, once again, the Bush Administration lied.

' No wing marks on the wall' There were nine foot tall engines below those wings and there were no marks Anywhere from those.

Ok, forget what I said above.

You are being downvoted for questioning the party line.

This can't be healthy.

Perhaps the members of /r/conspiracy who have a good grasp of reality simply ignore those threads?

I'm more interested in seeing new material, not the recycled old, so why waste time with it?

People are here for different reasons.

I don't really care that much about correcting untruths: the people here cop a hiding from the rest of the world, let's not make this place a battleground. I'm quite fond of the more wacko theories, at least these guys have imagination.

I'm more interested in keeping an eye out for new conspiracies: I mean, four financial wizards committing "suicide" over one weekend? That's great stuff! I don't really feel like calculating the probability of that happening by chance: maybe the chances are quite high!

Yes, it's a fictional playground, but it opens up your mind to possibilities.

Sadly, in this world, it is very hard to get to the bottom of any history.

All we can do is prepare ourselves for what we believe to be the most likely.

yeah remember that guy's ID floated down on 9/11. case closed.

viewing 911 truth movement as a single cohesive community is a pretty big leap

haha your awesome, "community", maybe you missed all the lihop, mihop arguments and the hundreds of theory's and conjecture as to what happened and fighting and arguing on forums all around the net, or you can just keep calling it a cohesive community

you keep going on with the fucking hijackers, did I even mention them, are they even on the flight manifests? that is not even one of the more important aspects to 911 you can go on and on about one freakin asapect can't you, like I said before, IT IS NOT A COHESIVE community, I think those fuckers are dead, any arab who was involved has been offed and probably any else who can lead to the perpertators, but you STILL have to deal the structural failures, the lies about the towers not having any cores, the foreknowledge of the 'collapse' of building 7, the lack of debris field at the pentagon and in shanksville, the mass amounts of Particlized concrete, please explain to me where the energy for that came, the norad stand down PLEASE tell me why 9/11 was the first time norad has not scrambled planes within 20 min of flight deviation/loss of contact, how about the 9/11 commission members who say the white house interfered with investigations, does that bother you at all? someone at the whitehouse hampering the official investigation into 9/11, does that not make you the least bit suspicious? what about all the convenient drills that happened that day, or the scores of of people who heard multiple explosions when the buildings fell? and then there was the patriot act that had been sitting on the shelves waiting to get passed before 9/11, you still wanna focus on the hijackers?

you see something suspicious and you don't ask questions, go ahead, cover you ears and lalalala, a criminal act was committed, lets all just ignore it and hope it goes away, call it a religion and you've won, you made fun of the whole 911 'community' and made us look like crazy Christians, epic win

1. You're making this up and lumping us all together.

2. You're making this up and lumping us all together.

3. You're making this up and lumping us all together.

By the way - you didn't post a fucking question, idiot.

Thanks for playing.

I have a quick question. wont lie ive never really looked into any of the 9/11 conspiracies. But one thing ive noticed is if they are controlled demolitions how do they start falling from the exact spot where the planes hit?

[deleted]

Good answer. But like cyince said, wouldnt the explosives be destroyed in the initial hit or afterwards from the fires? Or can those things withstand that sort of heat?

But then i guess if they had wired the building they would have to make sure that they have most if not all floors wired since they wouldnt know for sure exactly where the planes would hit.

Ive spent maybe about 2 hours just watching videos and reading articles and i can see how people think its an inside job. (Norad, WTC7, fires destroying a steel building which has never happened etc....) But ill reserve my comments since i have a lot of catching up to do.

Any good videos or sites you recommend? Besides the main ones. 911truth, whatreallyhappened (i think thats it)

Thermite takes a very high temperature to ignite, much higher than jet fuel can provide.

That is an excellent question (specifically why weren't the alleged explosives/detonation devices destroyed by impact/fire), that won't see an answer.

yes, anything explosive on those floors would have gone up when the plane hit. Those floors were enveloped in a fireball and then burned for many hours afterwards.

You have to reach far out to say the government let it happen and you reach really really really far out there when you say it was controlled demolition.

Its not the movies, you don't just slap some c4 (or spray miracle termite) on some pillars and boom, controlled demolitions take weeks to setup and also involve lots of cosmetic destruction before hand to even access the columns you need to blow. THe theory is not only completely unnecessary if one was trying to prove the government was involved it is ridiculously implausible.

If you would simply apply your self-claimed skepticism even 1/10 as much to anti-truthers as you do to truthers you might have a leg to stand on.

I'm certainly not going to get suckered into claiming there is "one" piece of evidence that proves or disproves anything. Here's a short list of things that, taken together, provide some small insight into what may really have happened that day. I could expand this list to include hundreds, if not thousands, of more detailed bits of evidence but I have neither the time nor the inclination to duplicate what many others have already done.

These are in no particular order.

Who benefited?

Money trail

Secretary Minetta testimony

Stock market put options

Detailed analyses of 9/11 videos

Eyewitness testimonies

Nano-thermite

FBI investigators shut down prior to 9/11

Hijackers training at US military installations

Hijackers actions prior to 9/11 (not "muslim" like)

Hijackers given special treatment to get their visas

Hijacker's IDs found

History of bin Laden

History of al-Qaeda

Bin Laden family allowed out of country

5 dancing Israelis - quietly let out of country then announcing on Israeli national TV that they were "there to document the event"

Comparison to 7/7

Wreckage and bodies found miles from 93 "crash site"

Passenger lists

Passenger autopsy list s Military exercises on 9/11

Foreign intelligence warnings ignored

Able Danger

Sibel Edmonds

Northwoods

Larry Silverstein - lease, insurance & "pull it"

Rudy Guiliani actions

"Slips of the tongue" by Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bush "saw" first plane on TV

Security companies at the airports & WTC

WTC1 & 2 basically condemned and not allowed to be demolished legally

WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7 contents

Investigation delays

9/11 commissioners - history & recent comments

Unusual security shutdowns at WTC prior to 9/11

History of governments in general

History of banksters in general

History of Zionism in general

Edit: Format

[deleted]

Fountainhead, your expectations are not reasonable. Apparently you believe you can demand that other redditors participate according to your standards. Suppose a redditor reads an article with 50 statements. They agree with 45 statements, but find 5 unconvincing or even misleading. Do you insist that they downvote the article? Or do you insist that they comment on the article to spell out for everyone exactly which statements they disagree with and why?

reddit is not a doctoral level seminar. It's fruitless to try to hold the community accountable for their actions. For one thing, every redditor has a different background of knowledge. Regarding a topic that you consider definitively settled, some redditors might be completely ignorant of the topic, while others might reasonably disagree with your conclusions. Also, not every redditor has the same attitude regarding the significance of upvotes and downvotes. For many redditors, an upvote does not indicate unconditional agreement with an article or comment. It's silly to insist that no one should vote unless they have a thoroughly researched and cited justification prepared. I read and vote on many more articles than I comment on, and I suspect most redditors do the same.

I don't like reddit's subreddit and moderation system, but it's designed so that people who don't want to see articles about a specific topic, such as conspiracies, can avoid being exposed to them. It stands to reason, then, that such subreddits should be more permissive towards the extremes in that subcategory.

As for downvotes: I am much more likely to downvote comments from participants who have shown a tendency to spread misinformation, make illogical claims and unjustified attacks, and disrupt discussions. I see plenty of content on the conspiracy subreddit that I find unconvincing at best. But I simply do not participate in such discussions. It's odd and a little sad that a handful of redditors seem to think it's their duty to undermine discussions here. It's good to provide sound facts and reasoned opinions opposing the consensus, but you are among the handful of redditors here who routinely go beyond that with bad behavior.

treebright, Fountainhead should not be downvoted for expressing opinions different from the majority.

If /r/conspiracy is to work properly, the community must be mature enough to support vigorous discussion, rather than automatically downvoting anyone who raises questions.

There's a difference between raising question and endless ad hominem attacks, misinformation, putting words in people's mouths, etc. Fountainhead and others are consistently guilty of the latter.

Ok, perhaps that is true in FH's case, but people in /r/c do seem to have thinner skins than those in /r/politics. Its a lot faster, and a lot more entertaining, to be able to push back against things you disagree with without getting hammered, so long as you have something to say.

I agree with this. It's just that the small handful of trolls (of which Fountainhead is far from the worst) who relentlessly harass this subreddit tend to wear down one's patience.

fuck you

I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by the "911 Terrorists are still alive!" conspiracy unless you mean that some of the names and photos of the 19 hijackers match those of people who were found alive. This is not a conspiracy. This is a fact and was widely reported on in the media in the weeks that followed 9/11.

FBI List of Hijackers

FBI admits they aren't very sure of the identities of the hijackers

Man whose picture is among the 19 hijackers alive and well

Photo of Hamza Alghamdi is not him

Another guy who was suspected, but is alive

The hijackers used fake ids and the FBI rushed to put pictures to names and released them prematurely.

Is there is some other conspiracy theory surrounding this that you are referring to?

Umm, I didn't say terrorists were still alive. Do you even read the comments you respond to? Didn't think so. And it's making you look like an idiot.

I said that some of the pictures shown on television, names given as terrorists, were those of people who were/are still alive.

Do you have evidence that the above articles are incorrect? Let's see it.

Please, by all means point out where I'm mistaken!

That's easy, you are arguing with me about something I never stated. Its like you aren't even reading the comments you respond to.

I said:

The hijackers used fake ids and the FBI rushed to put pictures to names and released them prematurely.

You respond:

Or is there evidence that there are terrorists that are still alive? Didn't think so.

I never once stated that the hijackers were still alive. I was pretty clear about it. I said that some of the pictures the FBI released of the 9/11 hijackers were not actually the hijackers as some of them were found alive (and unconnected to terrorist organizations) after 9/11.

I tried to explain this to you in my next response.

Umm, I didn't say terrorists were still alive.

and I asked you a specific question:

Do you have evidence that the above articles are incorrect? Let's see it.

You respond by posting the titles of the articles and resting your case. Did you read the titles of those articles?

Man whose picture is among the 19 hijackers alive and well

The title alone is pretty clear about the fact that the person alive and well is NOT A HIJACKER.

I'm all for people showing evidence that any CT is incorrect. I just want the facts. You, on the other hand are an idiot who provides neither facts nor evidence of critical thinking skills.

I am arguing that some of the pictures of the hijackers are not of the actual hijackers. That is clearly what the titles of the articles say:

Man whose picture is among the 19 hijackers alive and well

Another guy who was suspected, but is alive

They do not say that the hijacker is alive and well. I have never said that either. It's like I said, "man, it's hot out," and you argue, "IT DID NOT RAIN YESTERDAY, LIAR!!" You are not even arguing against my point.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE HIJACKERS ARE ALIVE, I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. YOU ARE READING MORE INTO MY WORDS THAN ARE THERE. JUST TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

You're either bad at trolling or you're good at being an idiot. Either way, it's no wonder more people don't respond to you.

Huh? I provided the evidence, you provide the counter-evidence. Sheesh, for someone who goes on and on about researching, and using critical thinking you sure are dense. I certainly hope you're not in high school yet, there just may be hope for you.

Unfortunately, being right about the basics of 9/11 and the creeping authoritarianism does nothing to ensure intellectual rigor. The really sad part is that while verbal attacks on the conspiracy community are almost always misguided regarding political realities, they are almost always accurate about the ridiculous crap people will believe if it reinforces their views. I think a lot of people catch sight of enough to know that something nefarious is going on, but then want a nice easy label like "its the CFR" or the Illuminati or who the fuck ever.

If there is one thing I have become sure of, its that we don't really know jack about the relationships and relative clout of different groups and anyone who says its a monolithic, easily categorized conspiracy hasn't done their homework.

Good post. You can tell because you have a reasoned post yet you have been down voted 3 or 4 times already. It's the r/conspiracy way.

if by "3 or 4" you mean 2 then yes, he did get downmoded "3 or 4" times.

(as of 7:37a PST, 30 min after submission of above post)

Your anal credentials having being established, is there some Reddit feature that shows this kind of thing?

wow, that is a dick reply. i just didn't want a reply saying "but now there are 7 downmods" and crap like that. use greasemonkey (or the equiv in your browser if not FF) and then search userscripts for reddit. there are actually many gems for many of the websites you might use.

Thanks, some of the scripts seem interesting.

Re: the dick reply - yours just came across as nitpicking since I was estimating and was only off by one (or two).

so, you will agree that "something nefarious" went on on 9/11? i have no problem not putting a label on it. i do have a problem with people of authority giving crap responses and having the public say "oh, okay".

At least a third of the country thinks "I don't know what happened on 9/11 but I know the official story is horse shit". It's the dozens of half-baked conspiracies that turn them off. If less effort went into attributing blame to mysterious groups and more into forcing officials into actually trying to uncover mysterious groups everyone would be on board.

Now you're just trolling.

That's possibly enough to explain the downvotes.

If you're going to question the party line, then at least keep a civil tongue in your head.

Fountainhead, you/me/we could start up a better moderated subreddit if you like. I am all about in depth research and vehemently hate blind following of some conspiracy from people who don't want to do their own learning but have some psychosis about it giving those of us who quest for real truth a bad name.

Could be that the Illuminati do not want these issues discussed in a meaningful way, so you might be fighting an up-hill battle to get sensible discourse anywhere public and conspiracy-related.

I of course do not know what happen that day, but I know there were explosives on WTC, there is no way it fall on its own.

Its just kind of reverse engineering if you will call it that, but I can not be convinced otherwise ever.

On the other hand, I think this is going to be common understanding 100 years from now, that it was an inside job, but right now its too hard to swallow for the regular folks.

This community will downvote anyone they disagree with. Case in point: "911 Terrorists are still alive!" Actually they aren't, no one disagrees on this point, but it's still up on all the "question the official story" sites.

There are dozens of these debunked theories, that are constantly recycled here. At first I didn't mind posting the relevant links to debunk them. (which are met with downvotes, and no rebuttals/discussion) but after the 100th or so time, fire can't melt steel, the hijackers are still alive, free fall speed, marvin bush head of security, power down posts I really started to question the point of even replying to these things. People who are 'investigating 9/11 should realize that much of the information and CT dogma is simply false. Just because you consider yourself a 'truther' does not mean you have to accept/endorse all truther arguments, and theories. If you see BS being posted, call it out. That would give you so much more credibility than simply upvoting then downvothing dissenters.

I've drastically scaled back my posting, as you' (and others) have noted, the parallels between tutherism and creationism are striking. The willful ignorance to facts and evidence contrary to their claims is the halmark of this magical/fantasy thinking. I think this article sums up the mindset quite nicely. (being a former truther i can testify to it veracity)

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

It might be because BBC reported on it quite some time ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

After 9/11, the BBC reported in the above linked article that Waleed Al Shehri was alive and well shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

So refute that BBC report.

From the bottom of your link.

And for good measure.

Read that already.

They added the change of "A man named Waleed Al Shehri."

My response was to Fountainhead's questions:

"You don't read the shit you link to do you?

Do you really think the hijackers are still alive? Seriously. Do you really think that and why?"

Well, it's articles like the one the BBC reported that lead people to say that the hijacker's are alive. Do you understand how that could be?

Here's a recent video released by the BBC explaining how Al qaeda never existed. Keep up the denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA

Well, it's articles like the one the BBC reported that lead people to say that the hijacker's are alive. Do you understand how that could be?

Yes, people who still think that aren't very smart. The days after the attacks in a rush to get the list out they confused two men with the same name. Days later the report was amended.

In spite of DNA evidence, martyr videos, the name appearing on the flight manifest, the al-Sheri family confirming both brother went missing etc, people still think the initial report somehow proves he is alive.

Some al-Shehri bkgrnd

Do you really think the hijackers are still alive?

I would like a yes or no to this question. Bonus if you think they (he) is, why do you reject evidence to the contrary?

Here's a recent video released by the BBC explaining how Al qaeda never existed. Keep up the denial.

What does this have to do with anything? Did I say anything about AQ, or have I ever trumped up AQ?

Idiot, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying that the supposed 9/11 hijackers were alive after 9/11, I'm explaining the confusion. Jesus.

That responds to you entire post, except for the part about my link.

I posted that link because it has two things in common with the original argument: 1) It's a report by the BBC 2) it involves Al qaeda.

I did not understand what you were trying to say. Use proper formatting, and a lot of confusion would have been cleared up. I thought this post was pretty ambiguous, and I simply answered you asking

So refute that BBC report.

With all of that said, I can understand why there may have been confusion years ago, however today I feel there is no excuse for it.

When it comes to this case of some hijacker's being reported to being alive, it does not concern me. The case for an inside job has nothing to do with this.

I think your comments are irrelevant and are weak attempts to associate the knowledge of the 9/11 black op with creationism. Okay, well, your argument is just like (fill in the blank). Your argument is like the neocon argument to invade Iraq, since it was based off of the war on terrorism and could not have happened if the staged attack of 9/11 had not occurred.

"That's all it takes for you isn't it?"

No. You're a troll talking out of your ass. Sorry I'm more informed than you.

"hehe, way to resort to name calling when you can't actually respond with something factual. Bravo."

Original post:

"That's all it takes for you isn't it? You don't care beyond what supports your conclusion. I seriously doubt you've read the der speigal report, I doubt you even know about it. I have no hope to change your mind. I doubt you could even supply me with what would convince you otherwise. It's a religion. I've met this same mindset debating creationism."

Uhhhhhh... You're essentially arguing that I'm just like a creationists. I don't count a single fact in that post. It's a post of teenage angst, a bitch fest without focus or facts.

I always like it when I can just copy and paste something I said before because it was true then and it continues to be true:

"You're a troll talking out of your ass."

"The BBC article you posted was updated by the bbc because they acknowledged it was a case of mistaken identity. "

I already acknowledged that earlier. Jees, is that what you're getting worked up over.

No need to even read your comments anymore. Why?

You're a joke.

Go to the comment page and read this very comment and then look at cyince, then go down.

You're seriously tripping. A good example of what happens when you mix denial and sitting on the internet for too long. I have to start getting ready for work. Since this is your job, good luck, but I don't think you'll get very far.

wow, that is a dick reply. i just didn't want a reply saying "but now there are 7 downmods" and crap like that. use greasemonkey (or the equiv in your browser if not FF) and then search userscripts for reddit. there are actually many gems for many of the websites you might use.