It takes a while to look at it all but I think this is a pretty good summary of the truther position. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=351109&page=12&p=1065652592#post1065652592
So many that an exhaustive listing here is impossible, but here are a few of the larger ones: no airliner at Shanksville or the Pentagon, non-airliner at South Tower, very near free-fall collapse times for WTC buildings, explosions in the basement of North Tower BEFORE the airplane strike, damage at WTC inconsistent with office fires, FDR information that was bogus. Cover-up, cover-up, cover-up
I asked for facts ... you have failed to provide any ... major fail ... do you have a dictionary? ...
I gave you facts, but they are apparently too uncomfortable for you to ponder or acknowledge. Yes, I have several dictionaries, do you? Continue to display your denial in public--it's good for your credibility.
No you never have given any facts whatsoever. You have only repeated assertions and claims without a shred of evidence. Repeated claims are not evidence or factual - - - Updated - - - All false and proven false. So where are your facts?
If you watch this video,... September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M ...you'll see the facts he refers to. You're trying to sway those viewers who haven't done any research. Here's some more truther info. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=351109&page=12&p=1065652592#post1065652592 It takes a while to look at it all but anyone who ridicules the truthers should know what their arguments are. If you ridicule something you don't even seem to understand, you just look silly.
I have watched all the silly videos ... no facts ... just implausible theories and selective viewpoints ... How come no major Pulitzer Prize winning book blowing this all open? ... I mean, the evidence is "crushing" right? ...
He is not really interested in facts--he is comfortably numb, and certain that the government would never fib to him.
9/11 had a lot, a lot of elements that were plainly unusual and defied reason. Yet we saw it on TV. The problem is not with what happened, but with the official explanation of what happened. There still are a lot of people who were involved in looking into it for some time now who say they totally believe the official version of 9/11. (And there still are people who believed that JFK was killed with a single bullet). Most of the people are afraid to admit that something might be wrong because the consequence of such a conclusion is just too scary. We live in a "mafia" led world yet we are taught that it is not. It is safer to believe that everything is OK. Thanks, Ed
This is an interesting point. If there is such 'overwhelming evidence' as the twoofers claim, why hasn't an investigative journalist blown the whole thing wide open? Simple, the evidence for such claims is wanting.
that's what I've been asking but it gets ignored or they claim that whistleblowers are ascared of the big bad gubmint ...
The lack of evidence is the proof of the monstrous scope of the conspiracy and cover up ...being ironic here....
Quite a few journalists HAVE blown it wide open. That is why so many people do not have faith about the official explanation--it doesn't hold water. Bollyn, Ruppert and many others have done so, at great personal cost. The mainstream media goes to great lengths to suppress the truth.
No, they are just cranks and Bollyn is just an anti-Semitic POS. Sorry, that's a fail. These guys exist on the fringe for a reason, and Shinebox and I are discussing real journalists that use credible sources. You can add to your list: James Fetzer (Veteran's Today), David Ray Griffin (Author) & Kevin Ryan (Crank) inter alios.
Absolutely, everyone who questions/contradicts the OCT is a whacko, everyone knows that. The only brilliant people are those who spend every day parroting/defending the OCT and never, ever question any of it, those are true patriots.
Seriously Bob, they are whackos because they are whackos. The 'fringe' is called that for a reason-it's 'out there'. It has nothing to do with patriotism or any other political motivation. They are whackos because they peddle pseudo-science. Please Bob, I know you're above the usual noise on here, therefore, I suggest you look up some of Bollyn's anti-Semitic articles and quotes (rants). While you're at it, you can look up Fetzer-he is just as bad. I'm sorry, but they are too much, and they are willing to believe, and circulate any garbage as long as it paints the Jews in a poor light. No integrity.
And the "pseudo-science" being anything that contradicts the OCT I take it? And David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan, are they anti-Semitic too or just plain whackos? How about all these people?: http://patriotsquestion911.com/
No, pseudo-science is fake science. They have not produced anti-Semitic diatribes that I've read. It is hard to say if these two are whackos or con men. Griffin is certainly making a nice dollar out of sales, and Ryan is a professional CTist. What about them? Have you forgotten virgin births and the Jesus zombie already? I don't give a damn about arguments from popularity as they are fallacious. Please try to avoid fallacies if you don't mind, they just muddy debate.
That's correct but you claim they "peddle pseudo-science". What now in your world, the burden of proof is on me that they don't peddle pseudo-science because you made an unsupported claim? Or genuine. You checked their personal finances or is that yet another unsupported claim? Oh right the burden of proof is on me to prove your unproved claim is false. Non-sequitur, you do have a habit of tossing a lot of red herrings into your arguments. Non sequitur again. I only asked if you believe they were all whackos. Not all arguments from popularity are fallacious and in this case, their positions are far from popular. Conversely, it only takes 1 person to be right when everyone else is wrong. Please follow your own suggestions.
It's like that is it? Don't be a jerk, Bob. They peddle pseudo-science because it is easy to provide examples. Note Griffin's BIGGY with the air-phones for a start. Note how Ryan supports the six second collapse for 7WTC when in actual fact it was 17.5 seconds. I could do this all day if you like. Well, that's not even on the table as controlled demolition is ludicrous from the outset. It's been done on ISF. No, please try to understand the subtlety of the English medium. There are no non-sequiturs or Red herrings in that statement. It is a reference to our previous discussion on the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, but I think that may be a little above your understanding at this point. No, see above and please revise your use of fallacies as you don't seem to fully understand them. No, I believe some are con men, but the rest, yeah. I mean controlled demolition? Really? Not according to 9/11 truth. A given, but that still needs to be demonstrated. I do, it is just your poor understanding of these terms that is letting you down.
What you don't like my responses? Don't be a jerk, Blues. Because you say so? Always posting unsupported claims. If you're trying to convince me of anything, it's not even making a small dent. Face it, you're just another anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous forum defending the OCT nearly daily and never questioning any of it. I come across your type in every forum. Posters like you aren't in the least bit realistic. Maybe it was 6+ hours if you start counting from when the fire first started. Any fool can count the time from the moment the roof line starts to descend to the time it reaches the ground. Even the entity you defend daily disagrees with your fake stretched out time. You can do whatever you like, no one is stopping you. I fixed your statement to make it accurate. What is "ISF"? And why is it important? This kind of stuff has nothing to do with 9/11, who cares? Non sequitur, you fill your posts with those all the time. What fallacies are you talking about? That I believe the OCT is nothing more than a cover up? Really. Sorry but I'm not interested in most of your posted beliefs and frankly, I'm getting really tired of reading them. I don't speak for "9/11 truth", whatever you think that is, I speak for me ... ONLY. Here we go again, making **** up and hoping it sticks to the wall. Read this carefully for the next post of yours I may respond to. I will not get into a you/me discussion. Stick to the topic if you can and I'll respond as I see fit. Anything about you or me will be ignored.
Disregard the science--common sense tells you the official story is impossible. Consider the science, and it becomes certain the story is concocted.
