Not about "unanswered questions"... but answered questions

Unanswered questions...

...are obviously no answers.

Answered questions...

...are the reason we are debunkers. Answered questions give you evidence. Evidence build a case.

It really is this simple.

Just wanted to make a VERY short post about something fairly important. I think. Quick and to the point.

Good day.

How the planning happened (made up)

Intro

A fellow debunker on Facebook made a comment about the supposed planning of 9/11 that I thought was so funny that I decided to make a blog post out of it. These funny stories are both entertaining and might make some question what they believe and why in the best case scenario. The words below the headline are all his and not mine. He chose not to be named. Without further ado I will share the story and call it "The planning".

The planning

Somewhere, in a darkened, smoke filled room, evil men conspire.

"Gentlemen. We need to make sure we frame our (finger quotes) 'operation' on (finger quotes) 'Islamic terrorists'....from the group we're calling (finger quotes) 'Al Queda.' Suggestions?"

"Well, we could get video of them boarding the (finger quotes) 'planes'...."

"No. They would just blend in with the other passengers and we'd be accused of (finger quotes) 'stereotyping.' We can't have that."

"Okay. How about if we create this thing we'll call a (finger quotes) 'passenger manifest?' We can simply forge their names onto that. Show a paper trail of (finger quotes) 'buying tickets,' (finger quotes) 'baggage checks,' (finger quotes) 'drink purchases...'"

"No you fool! Anyone can claim that the paperwork was forged. Besides, we would then have to add the airlines in on our conspiracy, which means less profits for us."

"Hmm. How about if we plant a passport on the streets of New York from one of the (finger quotes) 'hijackers'....soak it in (finger quotes) 'jet fuel' to drive the point home that it came from the planes...."

"Liking it....liking it...."

"Then, we can take a lighter to the edges of it....you know to make it look like it went through an (finger quotes) 'explosion'..."

"NO! It must be kept pristine so that the sheep never question who was on the planes!"

"Well....ooookay. But I've got another idea too! We could make them out to be Iraqi since our long term goal is to invade Iraq and steal their oil."

"No. That won't be necessary. Jenkins here is working on planting a WMD in Iraq for that operation. Aren't you Jenkins?"

"Zzzzz....er....uh....wut?"

"(Rolls eyes) Never mind. He'll get it done. Or he'll be back to discrediting those annoying JFK (finger quotes) 'researchers' on Facebook."

"Uh....what's (finger quotes) 'Facebook?'"

"Oh. It's another operation that is in the works where we will employ thousands of (finger quotes) 'shills' who will help us keep the sheep from waking up."

"Brilliant."

How good they were

How good were they?

First off, who do I mean by "they"? By "they" I mean the ones who were responsible for 9/11 according to truthers. For simplicity, I will simply write they from now on without quotation marks, but imagine "they" (wink wink) are there.

This post will be about some of the things they supposedly did to allow us to admire their amazing skills.

They

OK, going back to the question who they were. Well, they were so good, that we don't even know who they were! Again, we assume it was not the AQ now, but some group of individuals that did a number of things to orchestrate 9/11, and also to shift the blame from themselves towards those chaps in AQ that supposedly did the actual hijackings with supposed real people and planes. or so they want us to believe.

We know they haven't talked since noone has really admitted to these supposed deeds that we can confirm. So, we know they can keep secrets. Let us look at what they did.

Before 9/11

They apparently worked in tandem with AQ or nudged AQ to do what they wanted AQ to do in order for AQ to frame themselves and be witting or unwitting patsies and pawns to be used. Because AQ made fatwas against the US 2 times and their actions and words afterwards show that they wanted to attack the US and claim they did 9/11. Some of them, like KSM and Binalshibh, express a wish to want to die for their supposed roles in 9/11. I am sure they fooled AQ and made them puppets to use as punching bags to take the blame for what they did. Again, here I refer to they mentioned earlier and which this post is about.

Apparently they also got parts of the Arab world and intelligence community along with it since they all gave warnings of something big about to occur prior to 9/11.

What they did in Manhattan

Remember the supposed jet engine found on the pavement in Manhattan? They planted that! A jet engine, right smack dab in Manhattan, without anyone seeing them on a beautiful busy workday. Very sneaky. First they banged up the engine so it would look like it came from a 767 that crashed into one of the Twin towers. They were so good that they made it look similar to a simulation of the damaged engine in a simulation of the damage to an engine that flew through a model of a tower that was shown in a NIST-report. Skills. I wonder who smashed that engine up and who placed it there without being noticed.

They also planted plane parts on the roof of some buildings without being seen and - interestingly - planted a spandrel with a plane wheel wedged into it from one of the towers. That stuff weighs a LOT! and they still managed to just plop it there on the street as we can see in a picture that I cannot remember right now the source of, but I ask you to google that up for yourself or simply believe me, but preferably you'll google it yourself.

Towers

The major things they did of course though, the "finale", were the demolitions of the Twin towers. That was something else. They used explosives that were quiet, did not flash so the many cameras picked it up or leave any physical parts like cords or metal parts that any worker that sifted through the fine material reported to have found.

They were very interesting. They opted to take down the south tower (WTC2) first, even though it had been hit last. Also, they chose to make the demolitions they controlled extremely fast so truthers would be tipped off that they did it, thereby revealing they were behind it. Haven't figured out why they didn't make it slower if it exposed that they were responsible, but that's what was literally going down in downtown Manhattan in 9/11 2001 truthers say.

Something curious they did was when they handed the script to BBC about WTC7, which they made them call the Solomon brother's building. This script said that WTC7 had fallen, but silly BBC said so and filmed it before it had been! Well done to make BBC not reveal the script in all these years I'd say.

Oh, and WTC7 fell fairly quietly. Such a sneaky demolition!

They were interesting in how they chose to demolish these 3 towers differently. WTC1 peeled like a banana, WTC2 tilted. Both of these from the top. but WTC7 they "pulled" from the bottom! What that thing was with the penthouse is not known to truthers.

Pentagon

For the Pentagon, they opted for a different approach. Not sure if they didn't have the CGI-machine working, but they instead opted to pay off (assuming they payed, greedy bastards!) many to claim they saw a plane, when in actuality they used a missile! From where was this missile launched? Why did they have the missile fly in big turn before hitting the Pentagon at an angle? Typically, it seems like missiles fly rather straight and fast to pack a big punch. Or, so, I, a layman, think.

The "funny guys" were so silly that they planted engine parts, but of the wrong type of plane! According to truthers at least and the truthers know what happened as we know.

How they knocked the light poles with a missile is unknown at this point.

Also, we are not sure why they handed out surveillance camera images that did not show a plane. They could've faked it with their CGI-machine, but again, we must assume it was not working here. Used too much in NYC maybe? Questions... Well done in not showing the missile though.

Now, they hit a newly renovated part of the Pentagon that could resist an explosion. Why they opted to hit that part is also unknown. If we assume they were greedy and didn't want to bother paying for the reconstruction of that part again, they were in for a surprise when it collapsed! Got many workers out of the way though. Would've been a shame if 5,000 or so would've died.

At the Pentagon, they apparently also planted plane parts without being spotted. Also in Shanksville! Funny enough, they opted to "drop" the black boxes here, although they smashed the CVR so we couldn't hear them on their faked tapes. Too greedy to record another tape I'm sure.

Shanksville (U93)

Speaking of Shanksville... Here in Shanksville, curiously, they opted to use a real plane for some gosh darn reason, BUT, they also shot it down by the military... and had the military not say a peep about it. Not a word... or else!

Then they dug a little hole with some planted smoke in and burned some trees, and voila! - called it a crash site!

As mentioned before, plane parts were planted here, but in a very sneaky way: underground! and they dirt must've been placed on top of them so they later could "find" the parts. Of course, some items of the hijackers were also planted to bring the point home. Here they opted to let us have the cockpit voice recorder along with the data recorder (the 2 black boxes). How they got the loved ones to recognise the people on the recording seems a bit odd.

What they wanted

If we try to put it all together, all these events, what seems to have been what they wanted to accomplish? First, let's just quickly recap. They bombed the towers, shot a missile at Pentagon and had the military shoot down U93. It might not seem like these seem so very related, but I am sure they knew what they did and why. One question might be why they didn't attack more buildings in Washington if they had access to at least one missile? Why not shoot one at the Capitol building? Also, why not use missiles in all 3 locations? Out of missiles? 

Back to the motive. It seems like they wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, they acted in an interesting way here and chose to not use Afghanis or Iraqis as the supposed hijackers, but mostly Saudis! Did they want us to suspect and blame them? Truthers have not cleared that up yet. It's curious also how in Iraq they chose not to plant some WMDs just to at least try to save face to the American public and the world. Especially given how they went around to plant stuff in the US! Not so easy to plant in Iraq under the cover under the military? They work in mysterious ways... Funny guys!

Why would they want to attack Afghanistan or Iraq? Couldn't they have saved the money used to commit 9/11 to instead buy some new houses or yachts or travel the world? Guess not...


Were these guys good or were they good? (They were good)

Finally

Just a little disclaimer. With this post, I just wanted to show how little the truthers' conspiracy theories "hold together" and make sense if thought about from a broader perspective. In my view at least. I also want truthers to think about their theories more and dare to scrutinize their own claims and the people making them. Preferably doing so without pride or trying to side with "your camp" to maximize chances of getting to the truth!

I did not use links in this post as I wanted to try to make it somewhat funny and read more like a story sort of. A different post compared to my others, I know.

I do not mean anything bad against most truthers except those with evil intentions. I have a big understanding for how confusing it seems many times when it comes to 9/11 and this blog is an attempt to try to provide some facts to help people out if they want it.

Also, no disrespect of any victim or loved one of victims intended. I have learnerd how badly people have suffered both physically and emotionally from 9/11 and I am full of compassion for them.

Let us go for truth and care for each other!

Why do we debate 9/11? [main aims and why]

Why do we debate 9/11?

It can be useful to take a step back from the heated rhetoric and ask ourselves this question. I'll give my answer in this post. Why do I ask it? Because many have for years been stubborn and kept one position and kept "in a camp".

The main goal: finding the truth

Might seem like a given, but it is not. Why? Some have agendas that might make the agenda be the main goal, to push for something or other. If your income is dependent upon you doubting the "official" 9/11 "story", then you very likely will doubt it. These agenda-driven people are often the loudest voices, but they really are not debating I would argue, in one sense because they are only pushing an agenda. There are several agendas, ranging from well-meaning war-protestors to anti-semites.

The 2nd reason why it may not be a given to find the truth is that perhaps we don't even yet agree on what the truth looks like. or how we know we have found it. For some it might be what mainstream media does not say and that fits these people's view of the world. 

For me, it is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". This is still somewhat subjective since "reasonable doubt" might be different for me compared to someone else. but it's pretty good. I think I should not have different standards here from other cases. So, if I do not generally suspect police to plant evicence in other cases, then I should not expect that here. That's one example. If I would see that they had, then of course that would be terrible and cause me to have big doubts.

Also, we may differ on what constitutes evidence. As a clear example of that, many truthers seem convinced they have overwhelming evidence 9/11 was an inside job or some other conspiracy besides the AQ-conspiracy. They "know what happened". Meanwhile, us debunkers might think they very little evidence while we think we have a lot.

But, in any case, this is the main goal and should be our focus. As you may notice, I did not write a word about insulting the other in the text above. That distracts from this main goal. It may very often also be very bad against the person subjected to that treatment. If we can see that this is our main goal, then maybe we can see our debating opponents as more of a "help" as they can help us test our own theories. If we have solid theories, then no objection ought to be able to destroy the theory.

The reason we want to find the truth is of course to assert blame, so the ones remaining alive and guilty can be charged.

Second goal: teach others

Many of us, regardless of sides, have researched this and learned a lot. We can teach others who have studied, but might have missed something that we have learned as 9/11 is a fairly complex matter if one delves into the many theories and facts. but mostly we can teach those who have not had the time to study this as much as we have. Those with superficial knowledge of the theories might benefit a lot from our knowledge. Also, today we have lots of fake news going around, and since day 1 basically, we have had people with various agendas as mentioned before, and they may not want to disseminate the truth sadly(unless it benefits them).

Third goal: learn more

Regardless of which side we are on, we might learn from others with other perspectives. Perhaps they have looked into something we haven't. Bringing that up in a debate might enrich our knowledge. If that indeed is the case, then we again can see how opponents can become a help.

(Fourth goal: conspiratainment)

I put this in parenthesis as this is not really a goal, but often a good thing to do to make the discussions more fun. There are many conspiracy theories that can become quite funny. I call it "conspiratainment". Whether it be Richard Gage dropping boxes or AJ talking about gay frogs.

(Fifth goal: stand up against cyber-bullying and bad insults)

Some harsh words are unavoidable when it comes to debating and some insults will almost certainly come. However, there's rarely any need for the worst insults and maybe even threats etc. We should try to avoid the worst insults. Agenda-driven people might deserve insults at times though. but I mean that people we only debate with that have a differing view should we try to not insult that badly. Everyone is a person and times are tough enough as they are. Also, I think we should try and respect those that have sadly passed away with time, even if they were on the other side. Michael Ruppert for example. Can throw in standing up against racism or anti-semitism etc. in there also.

Summary

These are my goals of what I ideally think are the goals with debating 9/11 and I think they are important to keep in mind to keep the discussions fruitful. of course, we are all individuals, and your goals might differ from mine. My opinion is that these are the good goals with discussing though.

Undeniable proof demolitions were not used in the twin towers?

Twin tower floor connectors

In a recent debate about the Twin towers, I recalled that NIST wrote that all connectors (I thought bolts) below impact were pointing downward. This clearly shows something pressed on them downward and bent them. A demolition would not have done that. Some might get twisted, but they wouldn't in that case all be twisted downward.

To me, who is not an expert, this is an undeniable proof that there was no demolition.

More specific and where to find the info yourself

To be specific, it was so-called floor truss connectors that pointed downwards. As far as I can understand, these are the "plates" that connect to the outer columns and that the floors then rest on. You can, if you want, read about these floor truss connectors in NIST NCSTAR 1-3 here . That will take you to the whole PDF so it might take you some time to load. Then you can go to section 3.5.3 on page 117 of that report. Some truss connectors were missing.

Page 119, the summary, also brings this up.

Caveat, and important to bring up, is that NIST thinks there are too few samples and too random to see a pattern. They are the experts and I acknowledge that. but in the summary, you can see that 93% of the truss connectors in WTC1, and 88% of the truss connectors in WTC2 were pointing downwards or missing.

NIST mentions in the summary (last sentence) that fracture indicate overloading during collapse.

Regarding the bolts, most of those they found had broken off or failed. I mention this, because some claim the bolts were very strong. Section E.7 also mentions that the major failure mechanism was fracture of the bolts. Page 18's second paragraph mentions breaking of the bolts also. Page 108 brings up different bolt failures too.
Section 3.4.4 on page 114, 2nd paragraph, mentions how the Building Performance Assessment Team took pictures of hundreds of columns and panels that had failed at the bolts during collapse. The summary in section 3.4.5 on the same page the major failure mechanism was failure of the bolts even. Section 7.6, page 2.8.2, 2nd paragraph, says the same about major failure mechanism.

Explosive scenario

Again, imagine an explosive scenario. I imagine an explosion similar to a ball of pressure (and more). The pressure from such an explosion I thus imagine would not only push down on such floor truss connectors, or from one direction.

Also, those that espouse the demolition theory say the demolition basically traveled down under the collapse to make the collapse happen.

Summary

So, again, I think these floor truss connectors basically prove there was no demilition by planted explosives. or, at least, I don't see how to reconsile the 2 possibilities. Again, I am no expert, so I could for sure be wrong about this.

Also, there are of course other indicators it wasn't a demolition by explosives like the fact that WTC2 fell first and the lack of any discernible sounds that match those of controlled demolitions.

The imagined discussions that would preceed supposed "demolition" of the twin towers and WTC7

Hello.

I was responding to someone on FaceBook about WTC7 and then I got to thinking how absurd the discussions might've been had it truly been demolitions that went on back then.

"let's plant silent explosives that will go off silently while everyone's watching from around the world after most of the people below impact has escaped"
...
"especially, let's blow up this obscure WTC-tower few cared about prior to 9/11 so as to point to a lease-holder for no reason"
...
"let's also make the towers collapse as fast as possible so that people can speculate it was demolitions even though we supposedly control these demolitions"
...
"and, guys, not a word. Scout's honor"

These were of course made up by me and satirical. but they highlight logical problems with the demolition-theories.

One could imagine other absurd statements, like:

"let's plant plane parts in New York City without anyone seeing it in one of the biggest cities in the world"
...
"also, let's destroy 2 of USA's most iconic building as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and lose trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives in messes that won't be solved in 17 years"
...
"let's shoot down United 93 with a missile for no reason by a plane noone has seen shoot a missile at it"
...
"we have to make AQ-videos spewing anti-American propaganda for years of course"

Yes, these are exaggerations and imaginary, but they truly highlight how illogical it would have been to do these things that conspiracy theories would have us believe "they" did.

There's also some "conspiratainment" in them.

Happy Easter!

What truthers and debunkers have in common

What truthers and debunkers have in common

My first blog post in a while.

Intro

There are 3 things that I recently found both sides of these 9/11 conspiracy debates have in common. Let me get started right away.

First thing in common

Both sides at times see many on the other side as shilling for or being with the perpetrators or those responsible for 9/11. This is a generalization of course, and not all do this, and those that do may not claim all on the other side do this. But I am sure you've heard truthers claim debunkers are "government shills" or may have been called that yourself numerous times.

As a debunker, you might think several truthers sort of "shill" for the attackers by calling them "patsies" etc.

Either one side is correct or neither is correct.

Second thing in common

Both sides might think the other side is stupid or that they're "idiots".

Truthers may and often do call debunkers "sheep".

Debunkers often use the term "twoofers".

There are variations of course for both sides, but still. It's interesting how both sides believe this about the other.

Here I guess both COULD be correct. We ALL could be idiots, or, in the best case, none.

Often in real life though: people generally don't call actual idiots "idiots".

What I think it's really about here in the case of 9/11 are very different points of view making neither side unable to understand the perspective of the other side.

Truthers internally may be unable to understand other factions of the truther-community, but that's a separate issue.

The third thing in common

Finally, both sides often these days feel like the debate is over.

Truthers for their part have almost since I can recall when I began to look at this, perhaps in 2005 or so, said "We know what happened".

They also have videos claiming 9/11 has been "solved", but then point in the totally wrong direction and without evidence, but that's besides the point. The point is they claim it has been "solved".

You can probably think of variants of these where they basically say it's over.

Us debunkers may think these discussions sort of "ended" around 2011 or 2012 perhaps. At least, after 2006. We might think it's 2006 all the time in "trutherland" as many truthers seem to use arguments stemming from roughly that time-period although some arguments made then had been launched earlier.

So, many of us debunkers feel the debate is indeed over and that truthers lost (sorry truthers, just saying from our perspective). It was AQ that did it in our point of view with some of the finer details like what Saudi-Arabia did or what the support-network of the hijackers in the US were etc. to be worked out.

End thoughts

Although 3 things in common sounds pretty positive, I do not think it helps us move forward unfortunately. 

But it is very interesting how both sides can be so convinced of being correct even though the perspectives are so different so that likely one side ought to be correct, while the other isn't. Not saying which side though, even if I have my opinion as I wrote under the 3rd thing we have in common.

But perhaps these 3 things in common might make some of us more humble and understanding towards the other.

And you can probably come up with more things in common, such as how we both say we want to get to the truth and spread the truth. Hopeful I guess.