ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
Yes 20 13.07%
No 128 83.66%
Undecided 5 3.27%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 1st January 2015, 10:44 PM   #1
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2015, 10:59 PM   #2
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

What official narrative; please post the official narrative in total. Source it.

Oh, you are not going to vote?

Guess 911 CTs have not faded away. Were you a big 911 truth follower.

Which narrative?

19 terrorists took four planes and hit 75 percent of their targets; Flight 93 passengers too action after figuring out 911 in minutes; something which 911 truth has failed to do for 13 years.

There is nothing wrong with questioning anything; what is your question?

Is this like your painting of a UFO that was not a UFO, and you will not comment or participate; like a post and run...

Last edited by beachnut; 1st January 2015 at 11:01 PM. Reason: took out the math so Balsamo could understand
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2015, 11:35 PM   #3
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
What official narrative; please post the official narrative in total. Source it.
From the OP --
Quote:
* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.
That's what I've defined as the Official Narrative -- the words and reports and investigations that have been initiated by government leadership.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Oh, you are not going to vote?
Why are my voting habits of any concern to you? Or do you oppose the freedom of voting too?

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Guess 911 CTs have not faded away. Were you a big 911 truth follower.
Actually, no I was not. By the time something caught my attention with 9/11, the movement was already dead and the so-called leaders of said movement were snake oil salesmen, shills, extreme ideological dissenters, propagandists and the mentally ill -- in other words, the legitimate aspects of the conspiracy were co-opted by less favorable elements to, as I've said before, poison the well. Tactics like that are employed against protesters too -- ways to infiltrate the protesters ranks, introduce unsavory folks into the mix, etc etc.

Anyway, it was September 11th, 2011 when I first questioned anything about 9/11. I was a sophomore in high school when 9/11 happened. I was in my psychology class and had asked to turn the radio on, which is when the class and I got to hear that, "America is under attack." I watched with everyone else who were just as mortified and shell shocked as I was when the buildings fell. I didn't look at any of it again until 9/11/11, not even when corporals, sergeants and staff sergeants I knew talked about suspicious things, because it was extremely depressing and was kind of like a PTSD thing, I suppose. I am humbled by the empathy and sympathy I have for the victims of the attacks. When I visited the WTC memorial during my honeymoon, and donated money (and got the white bracelet with NC blue text which I still wear today -- almost 2 years) I stood on unsteady legs -- it'd be like visiting Auschwitz IMO, just an emotionally humbling experience.

Unfortunately, my eyes are open. I've seen the dirt under the rug and now it's all that I see, again, unfortunately. I'd much rather it not be this way, but, I don't always get what I want, you know, none of us do. We've got what we've got, and that's that.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Which narrative?
The one I defined in the OP.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
19 terrorists took four planes and hit 75 percent of their targets; Flight 93 passengers too action after figuring out 911 in minutes; something which 911 truth has failed to do for 13 years.
Agreed, the 9/11 Truth Movement has failed. They have. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There is nothing wrong with questioning anything; what is your question?
Questions. Plural. More than one. And I disagree with your statement that "there is nothing wrong with questioning anything". The disagreement comes into play that there is an abundance of opposition to people asking probing questions about the governments of the world, the U.N., or multinational corporations or wealthy individuals. If people ask candid questions about Israel, they're called anti-Semitic and the conversation/debate is derailed and therefore lost. The same goes about a non-black person asking candid questions about the so-called "black community". And besides, you saying what you said ignores the reality of what you've done for years and 20,000+ posts: be nothing but piss and vinegar, see the below quote as an example of that:

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Is this like your painting of a UFO that was not a UFO, and you will not comment or participate; like a post and run...
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2015, 11:49 PM   #4
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,799
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
... in other words, the legitimate aspects of the conspiracy ....
Which are?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 12:59 AM   #5
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
There isn't, because there aren't any legitimate questions left unanswered.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 03:08 AM   #6
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,291
I clicked "undecided".

Almost everything the truth movement claims today is false, much of it is vile. Their calls for "new investigations" are bogus and unfounded. You know, all the technical claims.

There is an obvious arena of uncertainty concerning the secret services and political decisions.
The aftermath of 9/11 has most certainly led to terrible political decisions, and those decisions and actions are in part criminal - I am convinced of that. But that is not meant here.
There seem to be open questions about who sponsored, supported and protected Al Qaeda before 9/11, and whether such terror support was covered up; on whose orders and why.
I find it very disturbing indeed that so many people, particularly Americans, and even smart and usually skeptic people on this subforum, are okay with the "national security" state, accepting that some secret branches of government are so outside the law and jurisdiction. When patriotism is invoked - when folks club others with the question "what are you doing for your country" - I get cautious; bad arguments and advice often follow.

Having said that, I don't believe that there is a conspiracy left to be uncovered within the US government and her services whereby duty-sworn offficers decided to let terror and harm descend on citizens and abuse this for political gains. I don't see that there is actual prima facie evidence for that - only conjecture. I would NOT support another investigation given the evidence that's available now, but I DO support declassification of much more information; and depending on what's then revealed, I might change my stance.

Hence "undecided".
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 03:25 AM   #7
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
... Hence "undecided".
Sounds like my order at a restaurant. A valid one, and things change.

Happy new year.

Quote:
etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.
Did the OP leave out the hundreds of other work and studies which comprise the "official narrative"; unless the "or investigations" include schools, engineering proprietary reports, and more; which are no government sponsored.

Kind of broad. I can't find anything 911 truth questions to be valid.

Most of the BS quibbling borders on the lines of Monday morning quarter backing BS.

Wonder what Jango's questions are?

Wonder what Jango's legitimate reasons are; ... it may remain a mystery.

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd January 2015 at 05:23 AM. Reason: Happy new year. moved it
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 03:48 AM   #8
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,544
By all means ask questions, but if you've decided in advance what the answer is there's no point. Asking questions means you need to be prepared to accept the answer, whether or not it meets your assumptions. You have asked a question in the OP having already decided what you want the answer to be, and having already decided that you won't like the answer you think you'll get from this forum.

On the other hand if asking questions means questioning the evidence of your eyes and the laws of physics, then all you're entitled to is to be ignored.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 04:51 AM   #9
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
By all means ask questions, but if you've decided in advance what the answer is there's no point.
Then it wouldn't be a question then, eh?

Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Asking questions means you need to be prepared to accept the answer,
Accept a response, you mean. Just because someone responds to a question does not mean that they have actually answered the question.


Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
whether or not it meets your assumptions.
I know how Q-an-A works, bubba.

Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
You have asked a question in the OP having already decided what you want the answer to be,
I want it to be No, and a Solid No at that, but I already know that it isn't a Solid No. But that's beside the point, do you know what Polls are for?

Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
and having already decided that you won't like the answer you think you'll get from this forum.
Then why would I ask questions or create Polls if I won't like the responses I get? Again, what are Polls for?

Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
On the other hand if asking questions means questioning the evidence of your eyes and the laws of physics, then all you're entitled to is to be ignored.
An example or two being?
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 05:55 AM   #10
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,544
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Then it wouldn't be a question then, eh?



Accept a response, you mean. Just because someone responds to a question does not mean that they have actually answered the question.
You asked for an answer. I gave you mine You're already disputing it. Seems you're making my point.

Quote:

I know how Q-an-A works, bubba.
From your first answer, it doesn't seem so.

Quote:
I want it to be No, and a Solid No at that, but I already know that it isn't a Solid No. But that's beside the point, do you know what Polls are for?
I know a lot more than you do about polls.

Quote:
Then why would I ask questions or create Polls if I won't like the responses I get? Again, what are Polls for?
To ask for opinions. You're already disputing opinions. Clearly you don't know what a poll is for. What you want is a stick to beat someone with.

Quote:
An example or two being?
I think you know exactly what I mean and what those examples might be. Nowhere did I suggest you subscribe to them.

I have seen countless conspiracy theorists make the same old boring "Just asking questions" routine and it is quite obvious that they are not 'just asking questions', they are trying to hide a (blunt) knife under a cloak. They also tend to follow a doctrine of "If you question something, then it is suspicious". Questioning something does not automatically make it wrong. It is a tired old routine and dishonest.

You have already made your opinions on the so-called 'official version' (ie the one that outlines the known facts of 9/11 rather than the made up fictions of the conspiracy crowd) well known, so I question your need to have a poll about it other than to query the motives of people who disagree with you.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked

Last edited by threadworm; 2nd January 2015 at 05:56 AM. Reason: typos and stuff
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 06:04 AM   #11
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
It is legitimate to question anything. It's not legitimate to ignore the answers when you don't like them.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 06:42 AM   #12
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,291
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Sounds like my order at a restaurant. A valid one, and things change.

Happy new year.
Happy new year to you, too.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Did the OP leave out the hundreds of other work and studies which comprise the "official narrative"; unless the "or investigations" include schools, engineering proprietary reports, and more; which are no government sponsored.
...
Jango already made it quite clear that he agrees with the technical aspects of the commonly accepted narrative - AQ hijackers, planes crashed, fires cause collapses. So yeah, those engineering, NTSB and what have you reports belong to the body of reports that make up the commonly accepted narrative, but as Jango has no problem with these (and perhaps expects that neither do we), we can as well ignore them for the purpose of this poll.
If you were a nutbag truther, Gage- or Wood-style, you'd have cause to rant about the OP leaving those reports out. Are you?
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 07:20 AM   #13
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,171
As usual, the question leaves a lot of leeway for misinterpretation of the meanings of the responses. Yes, there is a perfectly legitimate reason to question anything, which is simply that rational scepticism requires us to consider all conclusions provisional and to re-examine them in the light of the evidence available. At the same time, no, there is no evidence which has arisen in the last 13+ years that would prompt such a re-examination, given that a reasonable and open-minded examination of the existing evidence can only lead to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a group of people funded by, and owing allegiance to, al-Qaeda, with no evidence of even passive complicity from anybody within the US Government. This is the actual position held, I think, by most reasonable people, and does not correspond to "yes," "no" or "undecided".

Of course, those of us who've been here a while are also somewhat cynical as to the motives of anyone posing such a question. Our suspicion is that a vote of "no" will be taken as a denial of the basic principles of scepticism, whereas a vote of either "undecided" or "yes" is to be trumpeted as a finding that even the hardcore supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory have trouble believing it.

So I decline to play against loaded dice. To paraphrase Sky Masterson, I'm not getting cider in my ear.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 07:54 AM   #14
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
I'm mostly satisfied with the technical claims of the mechanics of the collapses. Because the specifics of which column collapsed when were hidden behind the perimeter walls, there is of course room for speculation that the mechanisms may be somewhat different in the details. JSanderO, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and others who have much more technical savvy than me have challenged some of these specifics without denying the overarching government narrative, which they support: planes crash, explode, start fires, weaken structures, global collapse, starting unfought fires in several other buildings, causing extensive damage or bringing them down partially or totally as well. That basic government narrative has also been supported by several university studies, etc.
I greatly doubt that the higher-ups Let It Happen on Purpose, but can only 98% rule that out. I am confident that incompetence and lack of coordination among our defense infrastructure gave the terrorists the openings they needed.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 08:32 AM   #15
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
The question is a bit loaded imo.

Did 4 a/c get hijacked and 3 deliberately crashed into buildings?
Yes!
Did three buildings collapse directly or indirectly from this?
Yes!

Are there questions that could possibly be asked/answered?
Yes, to whit:
Would further research pin down the initial failure mechanism in WTC 7 such as whether expansion phase or contraction phase is more likely to fail girder 44?
Was there any malfeasance in allowing the PANYNJ a different fire code than NYC, and did the different code play any significant part in loss of structures or life?


But are these of great significance? Maybe!

Are they of any significance in the minds of 9/11 conspiracists? Probably not by a long shot.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 08:32 AM   #16
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,941
There is absolutely no evidence that an alternate theory might even be possible, and a great deal of evidence that actually contradicts alternate theories.

- Of course, if continued study of the engineering helps to make buildings safer, I've no problem with that.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 09:41 AM   #17
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Poorly worded question is poorly worded.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 10:09 AM   #18
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
The details of and scope of the Commission Report, in particular, are worth questioning. Details of the "official narrative" are also worth questioning. I don't think there is any reason to question that 19 hijackers flew commercial airliners into the twin towers and the pentagon. Nor do I think there is any reason to question the fact that there was no controlled demolitions at the world trade center buildings.


Originally Posted by asydhouse View Post
Are you really that complacent?

Do you think going to Viet Nam was more patriotic than opposing a wrong-headed engagement in a pointless war to support a corrupt regime?

Your straw man's on fire.
Not just a corrupt regime, but a dictatorship, which the majority of the Vietnamese people clearly did not want.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 11:43 AM   #19
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Poorly worded question is poorly worded.
Poorly worded, worded (loaded) such as to invoke a specific interpretation, or insufficiently worded to avoid a specific interpretation.

Most here seem to have assumed the specific interpretation, that which would have the 'legitimate reason' conform to any of the myriad conspiracy theories illustrated in forums such as this one.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 11:47 AM   #20
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Post

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Happy new year to you, too.

Jango already made it quite clear that he agrees with the technical aspects of the commonly accepted narrative - ... ?
Not exactly.
Quote:
The first official narrative, in so many regards, was torn to shreds by later revelations.
I am interested, but there will be no facts, only recycled 911 truth nonsense; like -
Quote:
9/11 is just one of those rare conspiracies that has a voluminous assortment of official and credible information that runs directly counter to what has been said by people in key leadership positions in the government post-9/11.
Yet, nothing specific - no sources, nothing but talk.

And right out of 911 truth's BS guide...
Quote:
NIST tells us the Answer For X Is Three but won't show us their math, and the investigation of the buildings' collapse was compromised firstly by the necessary searches for life but then the investigation was rendered untenable by the clean-up crews working urgently to get the debris shipped outta dodge.
"outta dodge" shipping is 8 months plus - not urgently but reality. What a load of BS.
Instead of making specific claims against any reports which fit into "legitimate", Jango has taken the BS that was said about 911 and made up "questions" he can't define or explain.
NIST, and math is the best one. As an engineer, I have no problems modeling the collapse on my own with my own research; there is no legitimate reason to make up the silly statement about not showing; even the "question" of math is fuzzy, direct from the 911 truth BS bag of woo.

I am looking for that "first official narrative" - where is it? In the 911 truth playbook?


Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Poorly worded question is poorly worded.
Truth

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd January 2015 at 11:50 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 12:54 PM   #21
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
There is absolutely no evidence that an alternate theory might even be possible, and a great deal of evidence that actually contradicts alternate theories.

- Of course, if continued study of the engineering helps to make buildings safer, I've no problem with that.
That's why this is a poor question. It's easy to get people to disagree with the notion that some particular investigation is all there should be, and that it is complete and correct in all its particulars. Most people will agree with the abstract notion of further study and will not act to forestall it, even if the expected return is poor. Further, we are culturally predisposed toward suspicion, even if the conclusions we suspect are in fact well founded.

To "question" something can mean a great many things, not all of them compatible, and to lump them together in opposition to "No, there is no legitimate reason to question this," is dishonest. For example, I can question the "official narrative" on grounds that doesn't hold adequately responsible the officials tasked with detecting and preventing such occurrences, or responding to them. That would be entirely different from proposing that some other agents or mechanisms were directly responsible than those named in the narrative.

This is the same rhetorical stunt the JFK conspiracy theorists use. Regardless of how little evidence favors any of the alternative explanations, and regardless of how much evidence contradicts them -- and of which the respondents are likely to be largely unaware -- the type of question asked here is misleading in the context of support for conspiracy theories or new investigations.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 01:07 PM   #22
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
911 happened.
Buildings and aircraft were destroyed.
Nearly 3000 innocent people were murdered by followers of a primitive belief.
Nothing more and nothing less
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 01:32 PM   #23
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Poorly worded, worded (loaded) such as to invoke a specific interpretation, or insufficiently worded to avoid a specific interpretation.
Indeed there's an art to writing this sort of question if you want a meaningful answer.

"Do you believe that Al Qaeda terrorists were responsible for 9/11?" is a different question than "Do you believe the government's version of the events of 9/11?" although they ostensibly treat the same set of facts and conclusions.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 02:23 PM   #24
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
No, nope, and nada.

Absolutely nothing.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 02:30 PM   #25
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Unfortunately, my eyes are open. I've seen the dirt under the rug and now it's all that I see, again, unfortunately. I'd much rather it not be this way, but, I don't always get what I want, you know, none of us do. We've got what we've got, and that's that.
Jango - would you mind elaborating on that highlighted portion?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 02:50 PM   #26
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,702
I vote "NO". Read my signature
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 08:36 PM   #27
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Jango - would you mind elaborating on that highlighted portion?
The obligatory dirty laundry list of historical events that up to late 2011 I was completely unaware of -- human experimentation, torture, assassinations, coups, sabotage, terrorism, renditioning, propaganda, etc etc. All things I had never thought that we did to anyone else or let alone to fellow Americans and service members. I was blind to that aspect of history entirely.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2015, 09:08 PM   #28
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The obligatory dirty laundry list of historical events that up to late 2011 I was completely unaware of -- human experimentation, torture, assassinations, coups, sabotage, terrorism, renditioning, propaganda, etc etc. All things I had never thought that we did to anyone else or let alone to fellow Americans and service members. I was blind to that aspect of history entirely.
That stuff can all be true, and is probably the cause of 9 - 11, but it falls well short of the government being actively involved with it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 12:02 AM   #29
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That stuff can all be true, and is probably the cause of 9 - 11, but it falls well short of the government being actively involved with it.
You're right, past behavior is just that, past behavior. But at what point when looking through U.S. History (or any country's history for that matter) is there a section when People In Positions Of Authoritah didn't Abuse Their Power? Hint: It Has Never Stopped And It Never Will.

But specifically related to 9/11 -- there is so much information running counter to the pleas of ignorance and incompetence uttered by the government post-9/11. Investigations done post-9/11 like by the 9/11 Commission were tainted by political pressures I.e. the POTUS, VPOTUS and the White House. They didn't want 9/11 to be investigated. They succumbed after enough of the American public started speaking out. They tapped Kissinger to lead it initially but after meeting with the Jersey Girls, Kissinger recused himself -- due to the conflicts of interest that he was pointedly asked about. So what happened next? Philip Zelikow took his place. The same Philip Zelikow who had been on Bush's transition team and who was friends with the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and who had written reports about Catastrophic Terrorism in the late '90's.

The saturation of media coverage 9/11 got has exposed the majority of the core official government narrative tenets to be rendered with scattershot giving the narrative as a whole a Swiss cheese lookin' appearance.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 12:43 AM   #30
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Loaded poll...pass.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 06:31 AM   #31
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,171
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The obligatory dirty laundry list of historical events that up to late 2011 I was completely unaware of -- human experimentation, torture, assassinations, coups, sabotage, terrorism, renditioning, propaganda, etc etc. All things I had never thought that we did to anyone else or let alone to fellow Americans and service members. I was blind to that aspect of history entirely.
Maybe that's part of what makes a conspiracy theorist. Having always been aware that governments and nations, including the USA (and of course the UK), do bad things, I've been in a better position to assess the types of bad things they do, and the practical limitations on them. If I'd started out wearing the same kind of rose-tinted spectacles that would be needed for anyone to believe otherwise, maybe I too would find, on having them forcibly removed by the latest set of revelations, that I started seeing a lot of things that aren't really there.

Jango, I think you may need to re-calibrate your cynicism. It may have gone from under- to over-tuned. Neither is accurate.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 10:40 AM   #32
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
But at what point when looking through U.S. History ... is there a section when People In Positions Of Authoritah didn't Abuse Their Power?
Red herring. "People abuse power, therefore I'm right about this specific abuse of power," is not a valid argument.

Quote:
...there is so much information running counter to the pleas of ignorance and incompetence uttered by the government post-9/11.
Yet in 13 years and counting, no one has been able to put all that alleged counterevidence together to form a coherent story that better explains all the evidence. Instead what we get are amplified tidbits clearly aimed more at making certain people sound more important, relevant, and knowledgeable than they really are.

This is the same broken, nonsensical line of reasoning that all conspiracy theories use. The theorists pick this or that outlying data point, lament that the "Official Story" apparently ignores it, and on that basis declare that The Official Story and the Powers That Be who formulated it must, by any standard, be discarded in favor of some farfetched, speculative nonsense for which the author is taking donations -- you know, to keep up the good fight.

Quote:
Investigations done post-9/11 like by the 9/11 Commission were tainted by political pressures I.e. the POTUS, VPOTUS and the White House. <rest of ramble snipped>
And this sort of acerbic, rambling innuendo is all we ever get, followed by excuses for why the government is somehow responsible for conspiracy theorists' inability to prove their case. It's just like the JFK conspiracy theorists who have been rambling on this way for 50 years -- every JFK theory ends up being an incoherent rant against the Warren Commission. And the UFO theorists who have been rambling on the same way for nearly 70 -- everything is a rant against the Air Force, NASA, and the CIA. It doesn't go anywhere because your brand of conspiracism is epistemologically and rhetorically broken in a very fundamental way. It's based not on marching toward some increasingly evident truth; it's based on marching away from something -- in any or every direction -- you've decided you don't believe.

Your poll is quite exemplary of this broken approach. You ask only whether people should consider running away from some idea. You don't even broach the subject of whether there's a better idea to run toward -- because you don't have one.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 01:01 PM   #33
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
You're right, past behavior is just that, past behavior. But at what point when looking through U.S. History (or any country's history for that matter) is there a section when People In Positions Of Authoritah didn't Abuse Their Power? Hint: It Has Never Stopped And It Never Will.
I've long dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories and it's because I put in the effort to objectively look into a large number of claims made by conspiracy theorists and found them to be fallacious if not outright lies. Not once did the thought "The US government couldn't have done it because they're too moral" cross my mind. I'd suggest that anyone who does have this thought is either very uninformed about the history of US foreign and domestic policy or they have a heavily distorted and biased view of history and/or morality.

Quote:
Investigations done post-9/11 like by the 9/11 Commission were tainted by political pressures I.e. the POTUS, VPOTUS and the White House. They didn't want 9/11 to be investigated. They succumbed after enough of the American public started speaking out.
I don't see why this should be surprising. Such an investigation would certainly have the potential to make them look bad, corrupt, incompetent or any other negative, plenty of which would not mean any sort of direct implication in the carrying out of the crime.

Quote:
They tapped Kissinger to lead it initially but after meeting with the Jersey Girls, Kissinger recused himself -- due to the conflicts of interest that he was pointedly asked about. So what happened next? Philip Zelikow took his place. The same Philip Zelikow who had been on Bush's transition team and who was friends with the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and who had written reports about Catastrophic Terrorism in the late '90's.
Again, not particularly surprising.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 04:49 PM   #34
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,049
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
But specifically related to 9/11 -- there is so much information running counter to the pleas of ignorance and incompetence uttered by the government post-9/11. Investigations done post-9/11 like by the 9/11 Commission were tainted by political pressures I.e. the POTUS, VPOTUS and the White House. They didn't want 9/11 to be investigated. They succumbed after enough of the American public started speaking out. They tapped Kissinger to lead it initially but after meeting with the Jersey Girls, Kissinger recused himself -- due to the conflicts of interest that he was pointedly asked about. So what happened next? Philip Zelikow took his place. The same Philip Zelikow who had been on Bush's transition team and who was friends with the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and who had written reports about Catastrophic Terrorism in the late '90's.

Do you know what one of the two co-authors of that article does now? Yup, Ashton B. Carter is awaiting what comes out of his nomination for Secretary of "Defense" by hopey-changey guy Obama. That's how bad it is.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 06:20 PM   #35
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Do you know what one of the two co-authors of that article does now? Yup, Ashton B. Carter is awaiting what comes out of his nomination for Secretary of "Defense" by hopey-changey guy Obama. That's how bad it is.
That is how bad what is? Who is running 911 truth, and why is 911 truth total nonsense with 13 years of failure?

Jango can't answer what was tainted, past the failed opinion stage of BS.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The obligatory dirty laundry list of historical events that up to late 2011 I was completely unaware of -- human experimentation, torture, assassinations, coups, sabotage, terrorism, renditioning, propaganda, etc etc. All things I had never thought that we did to anyone else or let alone to fellow Americans and service members. I was blind to that aspect of history entirely.
And this has nothing to do with 911. Zero. 911 was done by 19 terrorists, not the USA. Your topic is about 911, not some dirty laundry list.
You bring up complaining about NIST not sharing math with you, yet is not a valid reason to question the "official narrative". Your lack of knowledge in engineering is not a valid reason to question the official narrative.
When will you list what was tainted? It is your point you make without reference, or explanation. I am interested as you are, but I think you made up the BS of tainted out of the blue.

Plus, like the UFO painting with Jesus, can I expect you will not be explaining in detail what exactly was torn to shreds.
Quote:
The first official narrative, in so many regards, was torn to shreds by later revelations.
I was interested in the UFO/Jesus paining, how you were fooled into thinking that would be proof for UFOs, you never came back. Will you detail, like a list of what was torn to shreds related to 911.

I find the OP way too broad to have such a simple poll.

BS from the past is a valid reason to question stuff you don't understand like NIST's math/thingy. Why does the NIST math make you question the official narrative. Why would you want NIST work, you know their conclusion, you can thus come up with your own conclusion based on your own work, and then compare conclusions. Having their work/numbers/math could lead you in the wrong direction. The NIST work is easy to check; fire caused three buildings to collapse on 911, and NIST concluded the same. Bringing up the NIST stuff only exposes 911 truths bias and ignorance.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 07:36 PM   #36
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
As Chris Mohr noted I support the broad and in some cases the details of what is broadly referred to as the official story. I have seen no evidence to suggest that there was a CD or inside job or 9/11 was a false flag and so forth.

I do think that the technical explanations by NIST leaves me less than satisfied. My sense is these two designs were very unique and the designs themselves may have play some role in how they came down or that they collapsed completely. This was a discussion which seemed to be missing. These buildings were not your garden variety high rises by a long shot. The truth guys seems to miss this and the official guys seemed to have not discussed it... ie how other designed might do with the same conditions...

But yes we did see the usual sort of bureaucratic CYA behavior and the take away is we had a robust national security state which was overwhelmed by a low tech "attack" producing a blow of greater than Pearl Harbor magnitude. That we were attacked and did nothing... feels like something was wrong, yet no one or agency was called out to the wood shed. And what we did is try to blame the Iraqis and invade them when they had no part in 9/11.

And where was the discussion of the causes of 9/11 if it was who they claimed it was? What exactly had the "great satan" done to merit such an attack?

I am not supporting an investigation not because we have all the answers... but because these investigations never seem to get to the bottom of things and everyone gets a pass except the dead guys.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 08:07 PM   #37
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Do you know what one of the two co-authors of that article does now? Yup, Ashton B. Carter is awaiting what comes out of his nomination for Secretary of "Defense" by hopey-changey guy Obama. That's how bad it is.
Yep -- or Paul Bremer running Iraq for a while after doing a commission on terrorism in 2000.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 09:42 PM   #38
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
... ... if it was who they claimed it was? ...
Got the DNA for 77 and 93 terrorists, and they did it... who it was?
Who it was is known, are you joking?

I can't think of anything we do which UBL would not want to kill us for;
Bacon... death
Honey Baked Ham... death
Shooters... death
Hooters... double death
Beer... death
Sitting down with women outside to eat, women you are not related to... jail
Letting women drive... death
Margarita... death
Make fun of the prophet... death
Having USA troops in SA... death

You can add the political stuff, the way UBL does to rationalize the hate, make excuses for UBL and his dumbed down suicide failed humans; who are thugs who murder, and are so bad at their job, they failed when USA citizens figured out the plot in minutes; Flight 93 Passengers stood up and attacked the failed nuts, UBLs best troops; how long does it take UBL to find 19 more failed humans. How did Hitler rationalize murder, was it political too.

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd January 2015 at 09:48 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2015, 10:47 PM   #39
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 451
Itís always a good idea to question anyoneís version of anything, and the more important the thing the more important the questioning is. And we all know that all organizations, including governments, can make mistakes, bad judgments, or outright lie for many reasons including institutional pressure or simply bad or incompetent individuals.

But we are thirteen years down the road. The big questions have been asked, answered, and scrutinized in incredible detail by many experts. If we canít say what happened exactly during every second, itís because of the inherent lack of information and the chaotic nature of the process. But there is essentially no doubt about the broad strokes, and because of the intensity of the investigation and the people involved, an amazing amount of information even about relatively small details is known.

So itís always a good idea to ask questions. But at some point you have to acknowledge the questions as answered.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2015, 12:47 AM   #40
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
Itís always a good idea to question anyoneís version of anything, and the more important the thing the more important the questioning is. And we all know that all organizations, including governments, can make mistakes, bad judgments, or outright lie for many reasons including institutional pressure or simply bad or incompetent individuals.

But we are thirteen years down the road. The big questions have been asked, answered, and scrutinized in incredible detail by many experts. If we canít say what happened exactly during every second, itís because of the inherent lack of information and the chaotic nature of the process. But there is essentially no doubt about the broad strokes, and because of the intensity of the investigation and the people involved, an amazing amount of information even about relatively small details is known.

So itís always a good idea to ask questions. But at some point you have to acknowledge the questions as answered.
You know, I would be standing right beside you echoing those same sentiments if I knew that the pressing questions have been answered, but in this instance, they unfortunately have not been answered. While not the monopoly, there are people who lost their child, parent, best friend, the love of their life on September 11th, 2001 whose burning questions have been ignored like the Jersey Girls. They had to fight the government to get an investigation and when they get the investigation their questions are ignored because the investigators have gone into their Praise Of Accolades routine with softball questions while never putting witnesses under oath. It was a political whitewash, one of very large proportions. What's worse is that 9/11 Commissioners have publicly complained about resistance and lack of cooperation from the government and the agencies -- the killer for me was the, We Still Don't Know What Happened On 9/11.

It's FUBAR, man, the cards we've been dealt.
Jango is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.