Did the 9/11 truth movement really die?

Post Reply New Topic

I know a guy who was in the Pentagon on 9/11. He says that "the flight that fought back" was actually shot down by the Air Force after it was hijacked and the story was created to create a spin for the media to promote patriotism in a time of national crisis.
But, as far as he knows the rest of the 9/11 official story is true.

Lots of people were in the Pentagon during 9/11. That doesn't mean they know what happened.

Pentagon = Ministry of Defense in any other country.

They employ thousands of people in countless fields and many levels of clearance. Why would this guy be in the know?

I am quite happy to accept that a building that is obviously on fire after being hit by a load of burning debris will probably fall down.

http://web.archive.org/web/201107210558 ... R%201A.pdf

Yada yada...."sheeple"...yada yada...."wake up".

The biggest weaknesses in many conspiracy theories are:

1. The actual point. By this I don't mean a vague notion of power, but looking at the entire conspiracy, would the enterprise be actual worthwhile as opposed to countless other far simpler and more fruitful plans.
2. The logistical possibility.
3. The number of people that would have to be involved to carry it off.
4. The surprising apparent selflessness of the co-conspirators to cooperate, where very few of them would benefit much out of it, and certainly there would no guarantee they would be rewarded.
5. The likelihood co-conspirator not to succumb to self-interest or compromise the plan with their humanity and fallibility.
6. The need for such powerful origination to be secret rather than overtly take control.
7. The pointlessness of deliberately leaving tenuous clues for the true believers to goad them.
8. The over simplistic view of the world and morality.
9. The lack of knowledge or interest in world history prior to when they consider their theory (or seminal times), and simply using it selectively fill in the gaps.
10. The tendency to absolve oneself from human nature by having this catch all evil force to blame problem on.
11. Assumption chaining.
12. The idea that becuase they have this insight that somehow those that don't agree with them are incapable of thinking for themselves, and are somehow more conformist than they are.
13. The idea that being contrarian is the answer, becuase if you don't actually know then the more "logical" position must be the opposite to what you are "supposed" to believe.
14. The obsession with certain influential (often historical) groups at the exclusion of others who may in fact be far more influential and powerful today, which coincides with lack or real understand of socioeconomic issues.



In other words if in doubt, emotionally blackmail. You mean "some" families are looking for another narrative for justice. The family's views are widespread, from strong need retribution, to wanting to move on.

Grief is very complex. This is true, for natural death, misadventure or mass murder.

I welcome inquiry on this issue based on merit.

"I am quite happy to accept...."

Please proceed with caution.

During the 1930s and '40s almost all of the German people were hoodwinked into being "happy" and ignoring what
the people on the trains were headed to. This is "happy" accepting what the government told them to believe while
the truth is in front of them.

I didn't notice you refuting any points made other than to say you're happy with what the government has told you.

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were specifically designed to withstand airliners crashing into them, and never before or since have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire (many have burned far worse and for far longer and remained standing). And a 3rd building (building 7) collapsed at free-fall speed exactly like a demolition - 2 planes, 3 buildings, you do the math.

I think one of the reason for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a lack of sense of scale. Most peoples are not able to properly concieve the amount of speed, energy and mass involved in something of the scale of 9/11.

I wouldn't trust the US federal government with running an ice cream truck, much less their ability to actually carry out such an elaborate conspiracy and keep a lid on it over such a large number of people that would inevitably have to have been involved.

Primary fallacy of the "anti-conspiracy" crowd.

They equate a conspiracy for 9/11 to involve the government as the instigator.

I could assemble a list of less than 10 people who KNEW of a plan to carry out 9/11 who could get it done with no other people KNOWING they were part of such an insidious plot.

Actually, I posted a long report detailing exactly why the building fell down. It goes beyond "maybe it was damaged earlier", it details specifically how it was damaged and why it fell down. Check the pages in the 50s of the .pdf (more like 20s of the report itself, there's a big pre-amble).

I don't need to "accept what the government tell me". I know that burning buildings fall down.

Again, which of these is more likely:
1) The burning remains of Tower 1 (or was it Tower 2?) hit WTC7, it was badly damaged and caught on fire, lost structural integrity and fell down
2) Having successfully brainwashed Arab men into hijacking planes and flying them into WTC1+2 and the Pentagon, sucking the country into an unwinnable war, restricting civil rights and requiring millions (billions?) of dollars of spending on clean-up, the government decided to demolish an empty building that served little or no propaganda purpose and was obviously quickly forgotten by almost everyone, effectively giving themselves away to anyone alert enough to pay attention.

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but why can't people accept that terrorists were to blame on 9/11 and no one else?

Like some of these "conspiracy theories" seem quite...out there.

So, just like a lie repeated enough times becames the truth, doesn?t a ?dead? truth stop being the truth?

Very nice. NOW will you answer my question concerning previous False Flag incidents by the U. S. to perpetuate war????

Otherwise you must be considered just a casual "arguer" without serious intent.

If you want to poise questions you'd like answered you must answer questions in turn. OK Walrus?

And you may know buildings fall down but give me ONE incident where a building has suffered instant collapse from such, and you'll be unable to do so. But for people who already have their minds made up there is no such thing as proof or fact that threatens to disrupt their presently held "beliefs.

I believe your precious beliefs have nothing to do with the physical reality of the buildings demise.