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.

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.