Rational Wiki Resource on the 9/11 Attacks

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Nov 4, 2016.

  1. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Main link:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

    I think this will be a good resource for the casual reader wondering what the heck "truthers" are talking about.

    Quick links:

    Flight 11and 175
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flights_11_.26_175

    Flight 77
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flight_77

    Flight 93
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flight_93

    Miscellaneous conspiracies
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Miscellaneous

    Rationalwiki also has helpful rebutals of the most common 9/11 conspiracies, and well as informative external links:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#External_links
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You forgot this important page from that wonderful anonymous "debunking" site:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank

    Crank is a pejorative term applied to someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions

    And the "extremely unorthodox views"? They don't believe the OCT, those nasty cranks. Go figure.

    One of the board "trustees" is someone named FuzzyCatPotato, another is called Human. At least David Gerard is well known, everyone knows him/her, right? He claims he has a pet robot called Divabot who apparently needs to kill all the humans.

    You can't make this manure up, oh wait, someone did, an anonymous expert "debunker".
     
  3. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Some highlights regarding the Pentagon attacks, since that seems to be a hot topic on the forum right now:

    There is no conclusive video evidence that any aircraft hit the Pentagon

    The one video camera on the scene that was actually trained on the site of the crash was a time-lapse camera that flipped from a vague shot of the beginning of something incoming to a full-blown explosion. 9/11 truthers have argued that without a direct image of an airplane in the security footage, it can't be proven that what hit the Pentagon was actually a plane. They back up this claim by saying that there was no plane visible in the post-crash pictures. Adherents of this theory are sometimes called "no-planers," though the term has generally come to be associated with the biggest cranks in the movement who believe no planes hit the WTC either.[36]

    Rebuttal: There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[37] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[38] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn.

    Also, although inconclusive (and "personal commentary") a photo was presented on a 9/11 truther website claiming that the "round" debris observed was not possibly the wheel of the alleged jetliner. However, it clearly was, albeit stripped of its outer edge.

    In any case, why would anyone expect a high-res video camera to be pointed at the exact spot where the plane hit? The intrinsic improbability of such a circumstance would make it direct evidence of a conspiracy, and no self-respecting conspiracy would allow evidence of its existence to remain.
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    somebody needs a nap ...
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is nothing new.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482877&p=1066792868#post1066792868
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[37] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[38] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    All of this has been answered.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780017#post1066780017
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780070#post1066780070
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780237#post1066780237
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066780302#post1066780302
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066782729#post1066782729
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066779653#post1066779653

    That article is sophistry because it assumes the truthers don't have answers for the points made. They're trying to take in the people who haven't seen the research.
     

Share This Page