This was another robust discussion, with thanks to RawStory for posting it. I especially enjoyed "fighting the good fight" with my fellow Raw Story regulars, Deadly Dismissal , ∮ciGuy ⚗ 🝧 🔬 ☢ and His Shadow .

There's no doubt that the 9/11 Realistsagain won this round over the so-called "truthers."

Top honors should go to Jeo Ten 's excellent post, Occam's Razor.

One other observation about this thread: As it is with most 9/11 threads, many so-called "truthers" seem to enjoy validating this wonderful piece of satire with their behavior.

But, coming back to the theme of this story and thread, I believe that Carl Sagan would be in complete agreement with the "Carl Sagan" of this generation:

"A conspiracy theorist is a person who tacitly admits that they have insufficient data to prove their points. A conspiracy is a battle cry of a person with insufficient data" - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Thank you, Dr. Tyson...

This was another robust discussion, with thanks to RawStory for posting it. I especially enjoyed "fighting the good fight" with my fellow Raw Story regulars, Deadly Dismissal , ∮ciGuy ⚗ 🝧 🔬 ☢ and His Shadow .

There's no doubt that the 9/11 Realistsagain won this round over the so-called "truthers."

Top honors should go to Jeo Ten 's excellent post, Occam's Razor.

One other observation about this thread: As it is with most 9/11 threads, many so-called "truthers" seem to enjoy validating this wonderful piece of satire with their behavior.

But, coming back to the theme of this story and thread, I believe that Carl Sagan would be in complete agreement with the "Carl Sagan" of this generation:

"A conspiracy theorist is a person who tacitly admits that they have insufficient data to prove their points. A conspiracy is a battle cry of a person with insufficient data" - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Thank you, Dr. Tyson.

It is safe to say, without fear of contradiction, that this thread has put the final nail in the coffin that is the whole "it was a controlled demolition" canard.

Not a single so-called "truther" in this entire thread (with over 2,800 comments) was able to impeach the logical conclusions by the people who actually examined the evidence (here), or the analysis of the actual professionals in the controlled demolition industry (here).

And for all their objections, no so-called "truther" acknowledged the fact that the NIST WTC reports are accepted as fact by such groups as the ASCE, SEI, NCSEA, SAEoNY, RIBA, AIA, structuremag dot org, ENR, and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Instead, all we've seen in this thread is a repeat of "truther" unsourced, logic-defying opinion, heavily-edited and cherry-picked YouTube videos (thoroughly deconstructed here) and the pseudoscience of Richard Gage and his merry band of landscape architects, designers of wood frame residential structures, and non structural or building "engineers" (proven in detail here).

And speaking of Richard Gage, his absurd box-dropping demonstration was easily demolished by a physicist and mathematician (here) and by an astute poster (here). Not a single so-called "truther" could even touch, much less disprove, the science and logic behind those two sources.

Besides, as has been proven many times on this thread and elsewhere, Gage's group is really just a way for him to grift, and is actually nothing but a bunch of individuals who did not have access to the actual evidence, many of whom are not even qualified (again, as proven here), and who actually represent barely a mere fraction of the total licensed professionals who are qualified to call themselves architects and engineers.

What non-reasoning blather specifically? "Visual evidence" may be a sloppy term, but when you call it "photographic and video evidence" it becomes respectable enough. NIST put a lot of effort into looking at photographic and video evidence.

How to sell a conspiracy theory:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E9/11 for short), more than any other conspiracist organisation I’ve come across, showcases the psychology of sales techniques, influence, and persuasion.....they take advantage of almost every psychological sales technique in the book.

http://conspiracypsychology...

The business of an educational non-profit is the sales of ideas. There's nothing wrong with using the techniques of sales to further the educational mission of the group.

Well, I'm sure as hell not buying what you're selling. "9/11 truthers" are not unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses. They get people hooked in, but don't bother to mention the deeper implications right away. The next thing their converts know, they find themselves carrying around a card in their wallet saying essentially they'd rather be dead than receive a blood transfusion. Same goes for their kids. Because what you're really trying to sell, that people don't realize right away, is dead babies. The smoldering bodies of dead babies used solely as props. Nothing but props. Not a single-ass thing more than fucking props! Props! Are you catching my meaning? Props! That's what you're selling: dead babies as props!

ANY valid proposition gets people "hooked in". You think that negative framing can defeat a valid proposition.

Your emotional "dead babies" meme can not defeat the demonstrable fact that the official reports about 9/11 are dishonest, incomplete, and unscientific.

Did I already thank you for your emotional rants, showing that you can not make a rational case?

The difference with Jehovah's Witnesses of course is that a belief in a prohibition of blood transfusions does not in any way logically follow from their initial selling points of a blissful existence in the afterlife. With the "controlled demolition" hypothesis, a belief in intentional murder of innocent men, women, and children is an unavoidable logical conclusion. So, people should be better equipped to see that logical conclusion in advance, if they realize that they, in Chomsky's words, "just have to think for a minute."

I'm reminded of GB Shaw's famous remark about prostitution.

We have already established that innocents were murdered. The only question is--who did it?

Unfortunately, the dishonest, incomplete, and unscientific government reports do not do a good job on that.

It's a whole different psychological dynamic between 1) the mainstream perpetrators and 2) your alternate ones:

Number one involves, in the mind of the perpetrators: punishing your sworn enemies, the infidels, a perceived threat to your way of life, by striking at them both physically and symbolically (at the centers of power and wealth). In this instance, the children were just unfortunate collateral damage.

Number two involves, in the mind of the perpetrators: hoping for a chance to punish your sworn enemies -- somewhat vaguely defined enemies -- at some point in the future, if you can make a political case for it, which you're expecting to do, but it's not guaranteed. As part of your political plan -- and having highly accurate knowledge of buildings and their occupants on your home soil -- you decide to kill some people, fellow countrymen toward whom you feel no animosity, but who rather just happen to be expedient props, like buildings, tables or chairs, in your stage presentation to the world.

I hope you can see that both one and two are evil, but number two is also a completely amoral position where human beings -- in your own group, your own community -- have absolutely no value beyond that of any other inanimate object.

There's a qualitative difference there. Do you see that difference?

Any Commander in Chief who sends troops into harm's way in pointless, cynical wars treats his countrymen and women as expedient props. That goes for Obama just as it goes for Bush.

Top level policy analysts for both the Democrats and the Republicans stated that Americans were not sufficiently desirous of military force to do what had to be done, and the Republicans even said the people would only go along with it if there were a catalyst like "a New Pearl Harbor." The evening of 9/11/01. George Bush wrote in his diary "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."

You forget that the Bushcists thought it was their duty to take control of the "New American Century," that they said "We are an empire now, and we create our own reality."

Moral? The Bush regime? They tortured, they sent American soldiers to war to die for nothing, they looted the public treasury for the benefit of their cronies, they lied us into war.

So, what, then, dead babies?

If your point is that you wish to claim that Americans can not be as evil as swarthy little guys with boxcutters, you're just being silly. How many innocents did GWB kill in Iraq? Do you think it's more evil to kill Americans for political purposes than it is to kill Iraqis for political purposes? Why?

Romney, who nobody would claim is more evil than Cheney, said he doesn't even think about 47% of Americans.

Your non sequitur babbling about dead babies shows your inabolity to think rationally about the subject.

My point is, if you're going to exhibit the courage you say you have, why not courageously own up to the implications of your own thinking? Why conceal it?

I didn't claim any courage. Your non sequiturs make no sense.

As usual, you have accomplished absolutely nothing in this thread.

Since you started posting in this thread more than a week ago:

☒ Not a single person with a national presence - politician, statesman, celebrity or scientist - has taken up your idiotic and quixotic quest.

☒ No one in Congress, of any party, has proposed any national legislation related to your your idiotic and quixotic quest.

☒ There has been no upswing in the membership of landscape architects, designers of wood frame residential structures, and non structural or building "engineers" in the grifting group led by your hero, box boy.

☒ There has been no groundswell of grassroots support for your your idiotic and quixotic quest.

☒ There has been no groundswell - not even a mole hill - of support demonstrated by your fellow so-called "truthers" for anything you've posted here.

Nope: You have accomplished nothing. Nada. Zilch. Null. Void. A big goose egg.

But, perhaps I am not being fair. Perhaps you have accomplished something here.

As Jon Stewart proves every evening on The Daily Show, the most biting and effective satire is that which is based on an all-too-real example. And in that respect:

☑ You are the all-too-real example, the very quintessential example, needed to absolutely underscore the biting and effective satire in this Onion article.

So I guess congratulations are in order.

No doubt, your parents must be very proud.

ACE ACME Deadly Dismissal • 4 days ago


You don't think like I do because you don't have the honesty and the courage to face facts. That doesn't surprise me. I was in Manhattan on 9/11 and I have no choice but to be honest and courageous.

It was in a nearby thread; do I need to find it for you?

Yes you do. More likely I maligned the cowardice of people like you who refuse to look at the evidence. That doesn't mean i claimed courage. When all else fails you guys are reduced to misquoting someone to make a fight so the thread is overwritten with a useless "Did so!" "Did not!" exchange that only benefits confusion. Right out of the disinformationists handbook.

Worth sharing:

A&E9/11Truth’s claims are an example of anomaly hunting – combing through every eyewitness account, news report, photograph, video, official report etc about the events of 9/11, and seizing upon any piece of information that doesn’t immediately appear to fit with the generally accepted narrative. These small pieces of errant data are framed as being curious and sinister, with the implication that they provide evidence of a conspiracy.

Anomaly hunting is not unique to 9/11 conspiracy theories; it is characteristic of all conspiracy theories. Philosopher Brian Keeley argues that the reliance on errant data gives conspiracy theories an appearance of explanatory strength; the conspiracy theory is apparently able to account for everything explained by the mainstream narrative, plus all the anomalies and errant data which appear to go against the mainstream account. Yet this superior explanatory strength is an illusion. Under scrutiny, the leap from anomalies and errant data to a coherent alternative conspiratorial narrative is unjustified – the anomalies so crucial to conspiracy theories are not satisfactory evidence.

This feature of conspiracy theories is, in part, a product of the confirmation bias. The idea that a conspiracy took place is the starting point; any evidence that can be shoe-horned to fit with that theory is incorporated and any evidence that doesn’t fit is dismissed, distorted or ignored. In the case of A&E9/11Truth, anything that appears to support the hypothesis that the collapses were a result of controlled demolition is accepted uncritically, and everything else is disregarded.

http://conspiracypsychology...

Oh, thanks for sharing another term-of-disinformation-art. "Quote-mining" was an earlier one, by which propagandists would demean those of us who could actually supply quotes to support our claims.

So now we've progressed to "anomaly hunting." The thing is, we don't need to go hunting them. They're right out there, You can't dismiss the elephant in the room by falsely claiming that it was a hunted anomoaly. You guys don't seem to recognize that the smartest messagers in the world have written the memes you fall prey to.

NIST admitted that they did not analyze the towers' collapses.

NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

The 9/11 Commission failed to address 200 of the widows' 300 questions, and failed to answer 273 of them.

We don't have to hunt these. Recognizing these glaring deficits is not hunting the honest loose end as you claim it is.

You guys are so lame. Can't you get somebody in here who is actually competent?

"Yet this superior explanatory strength is an illusion. Under scrutiny, the leap from anomalies and errant data to a coherent alternative conspiratorial narrative is unjustified – the anomalies so crucial to conspiracy theories are not satisfactory evidence." Amen.

It's not "errant data". You're simply engaging in semantic sleight of hand. You're name-calling away essential facts that you can't deal with by calling them hunted anomalies and errant data. They're irrefutable facts and important evidence of the incomplete and dishonest nature of the official reports.

You are replacing reality with a self-serving ideology.

What's the "coherent alternative conspiratorial narrative", then? I'll tell you what it is: it's dead babies. The smoldering bodies of dead babies used as nothing more than props in a political theater! That's your sick narrative, which you gleefully go about promoting on the internet.

The coherent alternative narrative is that the official reports are dishonest, unscientific, and incomplete, and new investigations are needed. How many times do I have to tell you?

I didn't say anything about smoldering bodies. You need to wave the bloody shirt shows that you can't make your case rationally, and must rely on emotional effect to give the erroneous impression that you have a case.

Smoldering murdered babies as mere stage props is the only logical conclusion that follows from a "controlled demolition" hypothesis.

Your burned babies fetish is noted. Are you a veteran of the Vietnam or Iraq war?

Your belief that there is a logical connection to controlled demolition is absurd.

"controlled demolition" -> "false flag" -> "sinister theatrical spectacle for political ends" -> "large-scale murder as a dramatic element" -> "murdered innocents, including babies, as an enhancement to the drama, to achieve maximum psychological impact."

How do you know Osama didn't blow up the WTC to enhance the drama? If the planes didn't bring the towers down the attacks would be a symbol of terrorist impotence, not a symbol of the fragility of civilization.

Having them stand as charred empty hulks is hardly a symbol of terrorist impotence, but perhaps an even greater visible symbol of destruction along the city's skyline, visible from far and wide, than simply having them completely missing from view.

What makes you think they'd stand as charred hulks? There were only fires on a few floors.

I don't know, 3,500 gallons of accelerant?

The jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes says NIST. FEMA's experts says the jet fuel burned off in about 4 minutes.

You can get a pretty good fire established in 4 minutes. I imagine any serious arsonist would love to have an extra 3,499 extra gallons in his gallon kerosene jug. In any case, the damage would have been expected to be significant in any terrorist planning scenario involving crashing fully-loaded passenger jets into buildings.

You're changing the subject sad usual. You claimed that had the towers remained standing after the attacks, they would have been "charred hulks". That's ridiculous. Photos of the towers shortly before the collapses show that had they not collapsed they they would have had some holes in them and they would have had some broken windows and smoke-stained above the fires, remaining pristinely white below the fires.

So you don't believe the 9/11 Commission's NIST Report?

"Jet fuel sprayed onto the surfaces of typical office workstations burned away within a few minutes. The jet fuel accelerated the burning of the workstation, but did not significantly affect the overall heat released."

NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, page 184

"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."

(p. 183/p. 233 of the .pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/customc...

"...the 9/11 Commission's NIST Report..."

The NIST reports on the events of 9/11/2001 are not part of the 9/11 Commission.

Oops.

Just another reason why 9/11 Realists laugh at the absurd ramblings of so-called "truthers."

It you understand the question in the context of this thread, all you have to realize is what an accelerant does, and more specifically from the perspective of a terrorist plotting something like this for the first time. In the mind of such a terrorist, even just the spectacle of the planes full of people hitting the buildings -- with whatever significant but unknown damage to the buildings that might involve -- may have been dramatic enough.

ps. This "thread" began with ACE ACME stating that the jet fuel initiated fires could not have brought down the towers, and you replied that "charred empty hulks" could have been all they planned for.

I responded with support for ACE's original statement from the official report. I find that most of the folks I meet who "debunk" the "truthers" don't really know what the official story really says.

Why don't you believe the NIST report?

The jet fuel "did not significantly affect the overall heat released."

"The fires were started by ignition of the jet fuel, whose distribution was provided by the aircraft impact simulations. The radiant energy from these short-lived fires heated the nearby combustibles, creating flammable vapors. When these mixed with air in the right proportion within a grid cell, FDS burned the mixture. This generated more energy, which heated the combustibles further, and continued the burning."
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, page 122

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that steel reached temperatures above 250 [480 F.]"
NIST NCSTAR 1 page 90

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening the steel structure."
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 page 236

The fire after the first few minutes was fueled entirely by typical office materials: paper, desks, panelling, etc. At least, that's what the 9/11 Commission found.

Why don't you read what I wrote?

In the mind of such a terrorist, even just the spectacle of the planes full of people hitting the buildings -- with whatever significant but unknown damage to the buildings that might involve -- may have been dramatic enough.

That's OK. I understand that you "debunkers" can't deal with the actual evidence.

Go back to your comfort zone.

Sleep tight.

Good night, anomaly hunter.

There's no need to "hunt" an elephant that's in the room.

Ever hear of the parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant? Figuratively speaking, I think you ended up on the anus end of the elephant.

Thank you, Deadly Dismissal , for your excellent posts. It has been a real pleasure to, once again, fight the good fight with you.

I must say how impressed I have been, watching you correct and checkmate that ace character over the past several days. Bravo!

Meanwhile...

♪♫Truthers to the left of me,♪♫
♪♫Birthers to the right,♪♫
♪♫Here I am,♪♫
♪♫Stuck in the middle with you.♪♫

You're not only in denial of the elephant, you're in denial of the fact that you're up to your eyeballs in its waste!

What I've learned about the left is that they're habitual projectors. They accuse those on the other side of doing exactly what they themselves might do.

So when they say 9/11 was a false flag or inside job, it isn't just crazy talk. They really believe that the right thinks like they do and so would resort as they would to killing thousands to advance their cause.

If you think I'm exaggerating, just consider how many deadly leftist regimes there have been, like the Soviet Union, and how little the left care for the deaths of literally millions under such regimes.

Now that the Soviet Union has passed, they defend leftist governments like that of Venezuela -- a government so inept that it has resorted to rationing toilet paper.

They're crazy true-believers. Even when their own country is attacked by insane, suicidal terrorists, it's still the fault of the USA. The USA is, in their minds, the great evil, racist, capitalist exploiter of poor innocents all over the world. They really don't believe those with less power and global influence (such as Muslims from the Middle East) could possibly have evil intentions. The underdog is always innocent and the powerful always guilty. And the USA is still powerful (despite their efforts).

That stupid, simple-minded heuristic, that those with less power are always innocent, is applied with religious zeal and guides all of their judgments. There's no subtly in their thinking,