Everything you wanted to know about the 9/11 official conspiracy theory in 5 minutes.

And then go on to suppose that:

1. The planes were empty or non existent,
2. The buildings were empty because people were warned not to go to work.
3. The emergency responders who died were part of the conspiracy.
4. Last phone calls with loved ones were staged.
5. Human remains were planted
6. Grief over the loss of loved ones was/is feigned.

The list of ways that truthers crap all over the lives and memories of those who died that day goes on and on.

 

The video only pokes fun rightly so,at the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists who accept the official fairy tale of the governments.It pokes fun at THOSE conspiracy theorists,again dervedly so because it proves to accept the official version,you got to be a retard which is what I love about it.

 

they get caught lying so often they have no credibility whatsoever in their posts. the objective and reasonable people that come on here see that right off the bat.

 

I notice youtube deleted the video.the government is obviously scared about that information being told and getting out on the net.

 

Wrong again.

 

Every time a bus has an accident in a big metropolitan city, passers by will jump on the bus and claim an injury. It seems to be human nature for several types of people to respond to a crisis. Some people come running because they want to help, and some people come running because they want helped.

Just because some people lobbed in the mix as "truthers", have some incredible, and off the mark ideas about the events of that day, is no reason to toss the baby out with the bath water.

I know much of the info put out as truth on 9/11 is false. I also know the planes did not bring down the towers in and of themselves.

 

Only 'truthers' claim the planes brought down the towers in and of themselves.

NIST (among many others) never make that claim.

 

So explain to us, in detail, what happened on 9/11. Here is your chance.

 

Every time someone uses broad generalizations to make a non sequitur point God drowns a unicorn.

Yes, and you come here to discuss that info that you "know" to be false. Time and again, we find that your conclusions sprang from a prejudice of the situation, and the only yardstick to measure the truth of your so called evidence is a healthy dose of confirmation bias coupled with an utter lack of familiarity with the topics you're attempting to discuss.

Time and again, truthers are shown that their conclusions are incorrect, false, misleading, and often outright fabrications. Rather then be daunted by that fact, they, instead, choose to plod along into other topics they stumbled upon while researching backwater conspiracy sites.

Let's take your comments about hurricane Erin as an example. You said that you found it odd that broadcast stations failed to report the hurricane that day. Undoubtedly you culled this fabricated "evidence" from some conspiracy site, and you added it to your collection in support of your belief that "planes did not take down the towers in and of themselves." Let's put aside the fact that the hurricane was reported, and the entire claim was made up. If a hurricane 400 miles off shore is evidence of a conspiracy, what isn't evidence of a conspiracy? What makes the cut and what doesn't in the mind of a conspiracy theorist? My wife got a speeding ticket that day. Can that be worked in do you think?

 

And just to clarify, what I find is that truthers tend to be easily sucked in by these incredible and off the mark ideas as long as there's some implied connection to their own theory. While one individual truther theory might not be any more incredible or off the mark then another truthers as a group tend to pick and choose which evidence subscribe to and which they ignore as wacky based on how well it fits with what they already believe.

If the evidence is shown to be off the mark and incredible, it never seems to enter into their minds that they might need to modify their theory. Nope. All they need to do is push the evidence into the off the mark pile so that it can be ignored until it's useful again.

This is not how research works.

 

What parts were false?

 

Start with the hijackers only being armed with box cutters.

 

Look who it is your asking. hahahahahahahahahahaa

 

Someone who at least knows the difference between your and you're?

Why is it truthers can't address their own lies? They've been reduced to not so pithy comments that expose a distinct lack of knowledge of the English language.

I've asked 10Aces and he ran from responding, so now it is your turn 9/11. So explain to us, in detail, what happened on 9/11. Here is your chance.

 

Can't keep the discussion serious, can you?..to troofers 9/11 isd one big joke.

 

thats because most americans are too busy watching Jerry Springer and star search to know whats really going on out there....trust me.....if the elites dont want you to know something then you wont.....the media is also controlled by the elites!

 

Why on earth would I do that?

I'll stick to the evidence, thanks.

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...judge-judy-dr-phil-is-top-talk-show-3/117606/

Neither Jerry Springer, nor Star Search (which is no longer in production by the way) are even in the top 25.

I guess there's no point in trusting you.

 

at your own risk

 

The media are indeed controlled by the elites. What is the position of you pro-official version people on this? Do you agree?

Here's some info on the media that I've already posted several times.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/220412-9-11-truth-movements-credibility-gap.html#post4799198

Like is says in this video...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30368.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3D43vAadVI

...the truth will not be broadcast.

Here's more.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26193.htm

 

Sorry if I ask questions before painting a culprit and declaring war. I just want to know that even if the Jet Fuel burned in IDEAL conditions, which means there was the perfect mixture between fuel/air, it still would not be enough to melt the steel frame. So what could we be overlooking? Even though the steel frame doesn't reach its melting point, it would have definitely lost a significant portion of its structural strength. But would that be enough to bring down 107 floors, roughly 1362 feet high in roughly 10 seconds? And would it also fall uniformly along the path of GREATEST resistance? It would actually be MORE believable if the part of the tower above the softened steel supports tilted to one side and maybe even breaking off from the original structure. Why is that?
Ever heard of ABS in cars? Well that kind of innovation creates the most efficient force that opposes the forward motion of the car in order to bring the car to a stop. Apply that same logic behind the ABS, if we assume that the towers collapsed beginning with the top section collapsing first and hitting every floor on the way down then we should see, like in the ABS in cars, a pattern of deceleration. But instead the rate at which the towers fell actually indicates that it accelerated instead. My question to everyone is, why is this?

I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, I do not wish to accuse anyone, not Bush and certainly not Jewish people. The idea should be to ONLY ask viable questions about fallacies in the official reports. It is easy to see the political motives that could have fueled such a crime and that is the reason for further investigation.

People somehow come to this thought that America is the epitome of freedom and that we are somehow immune to the reach of corruption. And that a crime like 9/11 could have never been carried out if someone in power knew. This is a flawed perception of reality. Once you get into the mindset of "it could never happen here" then you end up perpetuating the kind of ignorance that opened the doors for the Holocaust.

 

That's funny - do you not see the irony in these two statements? (Hint: You just contradicted yourself.)

I do agree that the defunct 9/11 Truth Cult had a huge credibility gap. That's why they are defunct.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse as ususal. I think it's clear that the message in the video is that that the truth will not be broadcast by the mainstream media. It can however be found in the alternative press.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

You didn't answer this question.

 

Since I'm not a "pro-official version person", the question does not apply to me.

But no, I don't agree. The so-called 'alternative press' is much bigger than the 'main-stream media' these days. Evidence and information is much more accessible than it used to be. That's why the 'truth movement' had such a huge credibility gap, as you pointed out.

 

I assume by elite you mean "wealthy?"

What's your point? They are wealthy because they have been successful. If they were not successful their media would by definition not be "mainstream."

As for the implication that they are all colluding against what you call "truth", the wealthy are as diverse a group as any. Are you suggesting that someone controls "the elite"? Who's that exactly, and why would "the elite" allow themselves to be controlled? Are you suggesting that the same media that accuses administrations of war crimes, leaks classified information, impunes
the integrity of the U.S. military, and expresses a general dissatisfaction with the government is somehow working under the direction of the government?

What an obtuse notion.