The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I mean, sorry Hugh, but you're showing yourself to be a perfect example of the numbnuttery that is rampant in 9/11 "Truth" circles. You come to these wild-eyed conclusions based on absolutely nothing but a few pictures in a supermarket rag. The only thing it proves is that some people are too gullible for their own good.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Wrong. You are displaying your own faulty reasoning.<br>That is decontextualization, something Prof Pan excels at when he tries to claim that all I'm going on is the several glyphs in a specific post instead of my entire life's intellectual activities. <br><br>Seeing photos in LIFE isn't how I reached my conclusions. Those LIFE photos just happen to be there in plain view long after I've sifted through all I can find. I read everything I can find on 9/11 because the truth matters.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Dude, do you have ANY idea how much energy was contained in those buildings?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Let us examine what kind of energy it takes to shoot steel beams both up and out hundreds of feet. Can a 'pancake collapse' of the floors do this like spitting out watermelon seeds?<br><br>Let us examine how long a 'pancake collapse' of 110 stories would take. A lot longer than the near-speed-of-freefall that WTC 1,2, and 7 came down in. Check out that physics. It is conclusive.<br><br>Let us examine the physical ability of those 47 steel columns to just disappear when supposedly the floors attached to them like shelves on a wall 'pancake.'<br><br>Please explain the pools of molten metal and the temperatures required to create them.<br><br>Please explain Prof. Steven Jones metallurgical analysis find of thermate and even an adhesive used to keep thermite products in place on the surfaces they are demolishing. <br><br>Please explain the many many first-responders who in their oral histories (suppressed by the court until 8/05) report seeing and hearing the symptoms of a controlled demolition and even use those exact words.<br><br>Waiting...dude...:) <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>2. Therefore ...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Uhmn, no Bismillah, I didn't draw any conclusions. I'm just not ruling it out yet, given the inconclusive evidence one way or another that we have available to us. And I very much prefer to use my own toothbrush whenever I can.<br><br>And I think I'm gonna use it right now to clean my mouth from the words you just put into it.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[postrchild]

OK. Hate to break up the party but watching from a distance is showing me something that I think you guys are missing.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>This article has been largely successful in dividing a once generally united group</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>1.) Everyone (or almost) here despises the administration for whatever reasons, be it incompetence, malice, greed, inhumanity, treason, fear mongering, etc.<br><br>2.) None of us believe the offical story in its present form.<br><br>3.) the government has been complicit in any range of scandals, and is most certainly not the benign protector they portray themselves as, regardless of complicity (or not) in 911.<br>(At best they made good out of a bad situation. Maybe their wishes DID magically come true, in a horrific way.)<br><br>4.) We all want a REAL CHANGE, unless you are some war profiteer or paid shill.<br><br>5.) Most of us, Masonic Plot excluded, think we can change something if we can actually come to a common ground and unite behind it. That a vote does count. That a protest of proper magnitude does count. <br><br>6.) We believe that a better world could be manifested, otherwise we wouldnt be here. You first must realize the monster under the bed is real to banish him from the room.<br><br>Ok #6 is a hypothesis.<br><br>WE ARE BEING DIVIDED....AND BEAUTIFULLY IF I MAY ADD.<br><br>Sure Hugh is a little presumptious. But that doesnt mean we should ridicule him to death. He has some far out views, but then again so does Jeff. Thats what makes RI, RI. Just know that when dealing with him it relys largely on speculation. Speculation is underrated. Having to know every damn detail before it can be acted on as fact is a little negligent dont you think? All anyone really wants is someone to investigate it for real. If they want to prove all the damn CT's wrong just let us appoint a commission? A commission that isnt potentially compromised. That doesnt have a conflict of interest with the people it is potentially investigating. The first thing I would do as an innocent President would be let anybody and their mother look <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>ALL</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> at the facts and evidence. But we haven't been given that opportunity or luxury. So just because you say that 911 cant be proved so we should ignore it, we should ignore the whole occurrence? There was a crime there. It was committed by our government. The air quality cover up? The travesty of invoking the deaths of these 3000 to give a pretense for constant war? <br><br>You are right I can't prove 911 was an inside job. But I sure as hell can prove that the Govt is criminal in its actions and desires a Police State in its dreams. So is there something that anyone would like to "debunk" about this?<br><br>I think that once you recognize the purpose of this type of argument it is easier to stay above it. We need to find a common ground, and stand united, if we don't they will run us over while our backs are turned....and you won't even know what hit you. Forget aligning yourself with a 911 truth movement. It is a physical impossibility at this time. We need to unite behind a reform movement that wears 911 (the question of) as 1 of many feathers in its hat. Another could be the MCA. Another is Iraq/Afgan. Enviromental Concerns. Corporate Greed. Health Care. You could go on and on. Everybody believes in something. Thats what needs to happen, we need to get past individual differences and try to find a common goal. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>I don't accept the official explanation but at least it is in the realm of what is possible in this universe. Sadly, most 9-11 conspiracy theories are not even physically possible. Others tear credulity to shreds. I like what Matt Taibbi says. He has made a clear, consistent and logical argument that the 911 movement does not seem able to reply to.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Neither he nor you has said shit. I don't know what happened on 9/11, but I know that I am being lied to. It's not up to me to supply an alternate theory. It's up to my government to stop insulting my intelligence with their lies, cover ups and self-contradictory narratives. They've written a screenplay with a plot that doesn't make any sense and they've asked me to give up my civil rights and support a state of never-ending war because of their bullshit screenplay. Their screenplay is a load of bullshit, and I don't need to write a competing screenplay to say that with perfect confidence.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The overwhelming evidence is that this is an incredibly incompetent administration. They are not able to manage a conspiracy of the magnitude it would take to cover up 911.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>What a stupid argument. If you really believe that a ragtag group of 19 Arabs could easily do something that our finest, best funded and most highly trained intelligence assets could not, you are hopeless.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>In addition, I think it is in their interest to deliberately confuse the issue. That's is why I believe they do not release the video that would prove one way or another the truth about what happened at the Pentagon. It is in their interest not to. It's the number one job of a bureaucrat, cover your ass. I think that goes a long way to explain things and doesn't involve real time CG video faked planes, or mini-nukes, or missiles at the pentagon.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>How is it "in their interest to confuse the issue"? Is this the new <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>South Park</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> talking point or something slightly less incredible?<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Occams' razor say we should give more credit to bureaucrats covering up their own incompetence rather than believing in UFOs at World Trades 1 and 2. It isn't that hard, what seems to be hard is giving up comforting theories that explain our current political state. Believing in all knowing, super intelligent, ultra secret societies like the Masons or the Illuminati or that catchall "the powers that be", this seems to be preferable to a real world with real fallible human beings who sometimes just plain fuck up.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Occam's razor in no way prefers a highly convoluted, insanely complicated and completely incredible series of egregious fuck ups to either LIHOP or MIHOP. If it did, the currently accepted scientific description for the state of our planet would simply be "the universe fucked up." <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 10/26/06 2:48 pm<br></i>

[sunny]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You point out perceived "holes" without even attempting to come up with an alternative explanation. It's just plain lazy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Once again, for the cheap seats: IT IS NOT UP TO THE VICTIMS, IE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO COME UP WITH A THEORY OF THE CRIME.<br><br>It is quite enough, in a court of law, in the court of public opinion, and in the minds of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>reasonable</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> people, to poke holes in the official version, in order to discard the theory. Especially as the holes contain the most important aspects of the crime. WTF else do you need? Video of Cheney and Rumsfeld cackling over their plans in a smoke-filled room? Sentient people who know their history do not need the kind of evidence available in this case, which is massive and stinks to high heaven, to disbelieve what the gov't tells them-they presume the gov't, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>this</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> gov't particularly, to have the worst motives and have every right to expect them to prove their innocence in any given situation or event. They have earned every bit of distrust thrown their way. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING JOURNALISTS OFF WRITING ABOUT 9/11!</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>From writing what about 9/11? Crap that trashes the "9/11 Truth Movement" by positing strawman arguments against it and saying that 19 Arabs are far more competent than our best intelligence assets and that none of our finest intelligence agents know how to keep secrets? <br><br>Over the last five years, what else have corporate journalists ever written about the events of 9/11 other than parroting our government's various lines of bullshit? <p></p><i></i>

[Bismillah]

Sunny and Stickdog: Exactly. Very little to add.<br><br>But expect Nomo and Bvonahsen to ignore everything you've actually said, to address not a word of it, and to inform you instead - sarcastically - that Elvis was not kidnapped by Martian Communists and that you haven't provided any <i>proof</i> that he was. <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HMW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "Let us examine how long a 'pancake collapse' of 110 stories would take. A lot longer than the near-speed-of-freefall that WTC 1,2, and 7 came down in. Check out that physics. It is conclusive."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Taibbi</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "One of my favorites comes from David Ray Griffin, who in his book The New Pearl Harbor posited that if the falling top-section of the second tower had paused just a half-section each time it collapsed a floor beneath it, it would have taken 40 to 47 seconds to fall, and not the "near-freefall" 11 seconds or so that it actually took.<br><br>Which is true. It's also true that if the top-section had paused for three seconds on each floor, it would have taken, not 11 seconds, but three minutes to fall! And if it had paused five minutes on each floor, you could have watched the whole first half of Ghost Dad on the fifteenth floor before you died! And so on. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Griffin never explains why he thinks the building should have paused a half-second on each floor, but that's why he teaches theology, not engineering.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HMW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "Let us examine the physical ability of those 47 steel columns to just disappear when supposedly the floors attached to them like shelves on a wall 'pancake.'"<br><br>You mean the HUGE pile of debris had no steel columns in it at all? And I thought those steel columns were surreptitiously carted away and sent to China to be melted down? You can't have it both ways, man.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HMW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "Please explain the pools of molten metal and the temperatures required to create them."<br><br>What kind of molten metal? Aluminum? Iron? Mercury? Tin foil? Oh that's right, we don't know.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HMW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "Please explain Prof. Steven Jones metallurgical analysis find of thermate and even an adhesive used to keep thermite products in place on the surfaces they are demolishing."<br><br>Well, I most certainly can't explain a nuclear physicist's "metallurgical analysis" of materials he hasn't been in physical contact with, but maybe you can.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>HMW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "Please explain the many many first-responders who in their oral histories (suppressed by the court until 8/05) report seeing and hearing the symptoms of a controlled demolition and even use those exact words."<br><br>Hmn. From clips I've seen, controlled demolition works from the ground upwards. For some reason, at the WTC the experts decided it would be better to start the explosions at the floor of impact and then work their way down. Gotcha.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Taibbi</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: "anecdotal evidence of people hearing explosions (in a collapsing skyscraper full of jet fuel? Shocking!)"<br><br><br><br>Seriously people, this stuff is all so dumb, and so easily refuted by a little common sense. You want to prove the attacks were an inside job? I'm all for it, but focusing on the mechanics when the physical evidence has been gone for 5 years is beyond futile. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Pulleaze. Of course those 19 had considerable help, as we know for a fact. It's not one or the other. Hows about govt.insiders+19hijackers+pakistani intelligence+florida drug cartel for starters?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Sounds good to me. So who were all the hijackers' playmates? When will we be witnessing their trials? <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Nomo, I don't have time this minute to counter-refute your attempt at point-by-point refutation but I'll be back later.<br><br>Suffice it to say you're wrong again. lol.<br><br>Oh, but BYU physics prof Steven Jones did get his hands on samples of the molten slag where he found the thermate. <br><br>And photos of angle-cut support beams at Ground Zero show the evidence of thermate on them. And more.<br><br>doh. gotta run. <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>So who were all the hijackers' playmates? When will we be witnessing their trials?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Probably around the same time of Bush and Cheny's trial. In other words, don't hold your breath. <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Suffice it to say you're wrong again. lol.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Okay. You win. I can't argue with that line of reasoning.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 10/26/06 2:52 pm<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Which is true. It's also true that if the top-section had paused for three seconds on each floor, it would have taken, not 11 seconds, but three minutes to fall! And if it had paused five minutes on each floor, you could have watched the whole first half of Ghost Dad on the fifteenth floor before you died! And so on. Griffin never explains why he thinks the building should have paused a half-second on each floor, but that's why he teaches theology, not engineering."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Say no more really.<br><br> If this is Tabbais "debunking", I for one am glad he isnt writing FOR the 9/11 truth movement.<br><br> And, I should add, this is a guy who's claiming that he's scared to write for us because of our insanity ?<br><br> Dont you believe your lying eyes, or the laws of physics Tabbai. Oh, and Ive got a large palace up Pall mall for sale. <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Griffin never explains why he thinks the building should have paused a half-second on each floor, but that's why he teaches theology, not engineering."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That is the least amount of time they should have paused, because, you know solid objects like steel reinforced concrete, would provide at least <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>some</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> resistance. <p></p><i></i>

[Gouda]

Comments and feedback on Taibbi's article at <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>RS:</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=640">www.rollingstone.com/nati...irs/?p=640</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>