[Blue_Nose]

OPP wrote:

It matters little if the actual conversation with the fire chief took place. That he confessed to demolishing the buildings in an interview is of relevance. I don't see your logic here? Why could he not fabricate the conversation and then slip in actual events by mistake?

Why the hell would you assume that? If the conversation can be so easily dismissed, why not equally dismiss the 'pull' comment?

You're simply and blatantly rearranging facts to suit your own conclusion. It's laughable.

[Tiler]

You have to wonder if that complacency in regards to 9/11 is really a good thing or a bad thing. In many ways, it comforts me to some degree that most people have returned to the 'business as usual' view ordeal. People are people, and that's all you can seriously expect out of them.

As for all the current crap going on in popular culture, I primarily blame the television media for encouraging a lot of banal stuff. Thanks to them, those angry Hollywood actors have become gurus, and angry shouting has replaced political discourse. It just seems like a lot of people have realized that it's a lot easier to move people and get lots of attention with empty emotion than with cold facts. But then again, there are tons of things you can blame depending on your view on the world. The wimp-ification of America's children, the 'bread and circuses' attitudes, general complacency caused by an overly posh lifestyle, the evils of capitalism, and evil rays that can only be stopped by tinfoil. Whatever it may be, it's a slow process, and those kinds of processes are the scary ones since nobody notices them, and nobody really tries to stop them.

I'd say that the whole 9/11 "truth" movement is a symptom of this. People let themselves be caught up in emotional arguments with hollow, but nice sounding 'facts' with an ominous musical background. Despite their name, they don't have any care for any sort of truth. Their thought process is the complete and utter oppisite of a logical thought process.

A conspiracy theorist first arrives to a conclusion (9/11 was an inside job! We never landed on the moon! It really is butter!) and then hunt down random bits and pieces of information that can support the accusation. When these claims and the 'facts' are discredited, they simply find new 'evidence', or they create a new accusation. For example, the whole 'theory' that a missile hit the pentagon. They created the conclusion, found some pictures of some grass and people covering it with sand, and wove from those unconnected items a tangle of conspiracies. When evidence was presented that it was, in fact, a plane that hit the pentagon, they simply claimed that those facts were not true, until it was so damn obvious that it was a plane, they changed their tune. Now, it really was a plane... b-u-u-u-u-t it was a military jet. Or whatever bullcrap they've come up with now.

Why do they do this? Because they are emotionally driven. They believe that there was a conspiracy involved, and they will do anything to substantiate their beliefs, facts be damned. You can call it a twisted religion.

Why are 9/11 conspiracy theories so popular? I think it's a mix of anti-Americanism, anti-Bushism, and an emotionally charged attitude supported and inflated by their folk heroes like Chomsky and the T.V. media which caters to the lowest demographic.

[Interrobang]

It's private sensationalism, a mental cinema with one reel always rolling.

[OPP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

OPP wrote:

It matters little if the actual conversation with the fire chief took place. That he confessed to demolishing the buildings in an interview is of relevance. I don't see your logic here? Why could he not fabricate the conversation and then slip in actual events by mistake?

Why the hell would you assume that? If the conversation can be so easily dismissed, why not equally dismiss the 'pull' comment?

You're simply and blatantly rearranging facts to suit your own conclusion. It's laughable.

I edited the post.

[Blue_Nose]

Your post continued:

OPP wrote:

He's suposed to explain what happened that day and botches up his story. Is that so hard to believe?
It's just as if the police would bring him in for interrogation and he's trying to concoct a believable story but bites his tounge and mess it all up by giving away a bit too much of the actual truth.

"A bit too much"? Of all things to let slip, you're suggesting that, with a plain face, he made up the whole fire commander story, but threw in the open confession of his guilt accidentally?

You're finished, this is beyond my ability to take seriously.

[OPP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Your post continued:

OPP wrote:

He's suposed to explain what happened that day and botches up his story. Is that so hard to believe?
It's just as if the police would bring him in for interrogation and he's trying to concoct a believable story but bites his tounge and mess it all up by giving away a bit too much of the actual truth.

"A bit too much"? Of all things to let slip, you're suggesting that, with a plain face, he made up the whole fire commander story, but threw in the open confession of his guilt accidentally?

You're finished, this is beyond my ability to take seriously.

You need to put things into perspective. When the interview was made and for what purpose. There must have been a lot of things to keep track on and he might even have felt a bit too confident of getting away with all of this and didn't reflect on what significanse this would have, later on, as he made the interview.

[BartSimpson]

OPP, then you agree with the Arabs that The Jews Did It!!!, right?

Larry Silverstein being Jewish and all.

[Interrobang]

Careful! Frank Weltner will sniff us out! He'll make an angry video, he will!

[Blue_Nose]

OPP wrote:

You need to put things into perspective. When the interview was made and for what purpose. There must have been a lot of things to keep track on and he might even have felt a bit too confident of getting away with all of this and didn't reflect on what significanse this would have, later on, as he made the interview.

Yes, and of all things to keep track of, "fake conversation with fire fighters" stuck out in his mind, but "don't tell them I did it on purpose" dropped off the radar?

You're a fool.

[OPP]

Interrobang wrote:

OPP wrote:

I believe that the Oklahoma bombing was an attempot to pass new laws which would make it a lot easier to perpetrate the "main attack" which is the one we saw on 9/11. The 93' bombing of one of the twin towers was carried out to enable them to set most of the charges or explosives in these two buildings under the guise of repairs. You mentioned that Building 5 was attacked aswell during the 90's and that would suggest that they installed much of what was needed to bring it down during the repairs that followed...

OK. You had some credibility (just barely) before you posted this. Your logic here can be referred to two fun analogies:

1. I SCUBA dive for while and take my time while doing so. I emerge later than I had planned. My friend on the surface concludes that I must have been spooning a mermaid.
2. Bob takes pills. Bob has a heart attack. Obviously, the pills caused the heart attack. Or Bob could have had arterial hardening....or he might have taken his Enzyte instead of his usual St. Joseph's Aspirin.
(or you know "correlation isn't necessarily causation")

I understand that it's best to approach this with an open mind, and the skepticism is, generally, a beautiful mindset. However, as with any mindset, it has its extremes. You are at this extreme. You think yourself the zenith in terms of "truthseeking" but in fact you are the nadir. You can't say you're seeking the "truth" if you already have a set of predetermined conclusions and presuppositions that you insist upon others as the "truth." This is an embarrassment to skepticism.

This movement has a large following on Youtube, and several user groups spam 9-11 truth and Loose Change-like videos by complementing anyone who doesn't criticize and dissing those who dare to. I chuckle at the notion that one of this movement's most popular breeding grounds is an area just filled with people who often randomly call perceived enemies as "Nazis" or "ignorant f**ks."

I liked that idea that JJ noted, that the 9-11 truth movement only produces the illusion of enlightenment. I mean Pew Research surveys have shown that we are generally less politically informed than we were 20 years ago.

The physics of 9-11 has been explained over and over again, probably best represented by the article in Popular Mechanics. The whole "pull it" expression has been said to have had little meaning by people in the demolition industry. The asbestos claims have been addressed. Celebrity backing means nothing. Impact claims have been show to be BS, ex. plane do not leave perfect impressions of themselves in collisions. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and the logic that follows are well-known as examples of logical fallacies. I could go on and on and on...

My point is: To question things is the only way to gain true knowledge. BUT, 9-11 truth followers go a step too far. They follow presuppositions to conclude that not only were we slow, but deliberately slow, not only was there "evidence" of demolition, but that it has been conveniently swept up by the government (and sent off to China? wow). Ad hoc arguments keep going round and round e.g. "My evidence is in testimonies. No substantial evidence though. But that's because the government took it." I could spin this and say, "Well if you are so intimate with the psychology of our government, what makes me think you're not one of them?"

The thing here, Interrobang, is that I have been researching this and I do have a large amount of facts to bring to this discussion. I don't go blindly on what others say but draw my own conclutions and research the sources to all claims. I don't jump to conclutions. I show the possibility and the oportunity the american government had to perpetrate this act. I often get questions on how this is even possible and I adress the issue with, sure, a lot of speculation, but still, oportunity and ability to perpetrate these acts. Much of this isn't fact but I suport the larger speculative parts with facts so to prove that it is infact possible.

I would like you to skim through this thread: The official 9/11 foiler thread

This is where it starts to get interesting. You should note the date on these posts however and that much has come to light (and to my attention) since then.
So, before you judge me, take an honest look at my posts.

[OPP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

OPP wrote:

You need to put things into perspective. When the interview was made and for what purpose. There must have been a lot of things to keep track on and he might even have felt a bit too confident of getting away with all of this and didn't reflect on what significanse this would have, later on, as he made the interview.

Yes, and of all things to keep track of, "fake conversation with fire fighters" stuck out in his mind, but "don't tell them I did it on purpose" dropped off the radar?

You're a fool.

No, Larry Silverstein is the fool at this point.

[OPP]

WTC 7 The Smoking Gun
A 15 min video on the collapse of building 7 and the anomalies on that day. Only 15 min of your time, people.

[Calbeck]

And already thoroughly debunked. The conspiracy theorists had to ignore numerous known facts to push the theory in the first place. "Loose Change" for example tried to foist off a mini-video showing an airliner flying behind WTC 7 followed by a bright yellow-orange bloom-tip that they claimed was an "explosive charge" supposedly blowing out of WTC 7 near the top. Instead, it's very obviously the tip of the airliner blast, which is otherwise concealed by WTC 7 itself. A close examination reveals no breakaway debris either, although we're supposedly seeing the blast at a 90-degree angle.

It's a con job.

[PluggyRug]

OPP wrote:

WTC 7 The Smoking Gun
A 15 min video on the collapse of building 7 and the anomalies on that day. Only 15 min of your time, people.

Cmon OPP, such a delusional person as yourself would not not expect sane people to watch another delusional "video" of such un-proportional stupidity.....

And...

Reach the same idiotic conclusions as yourself, 15 minutes or not....

maybe in another 20 years or so you will realise how stupid your current stance is.....maybe not......

if not...then you have my sympathies.

[ShepherdsDog]

wasn't this the same individual who hoped the American dollar and economy would collapse so Europe could be in the driver's seat again. They did such a wonderful job the first time.