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.

The Tube

Introduction

Thought about the famous speech from the movie "Network" and how one can slightly modify it and get a fairly meaningful text today about YouTube as opposed to Television as he was talking about in the movie. Will write [YouTube] where "Television" has been replaced by me.

Have also cut up the speech a bit to have a more coherent speech and one that is fitting the "YouTube generation". I will write "..." where bigger parts of the speech has been cut away.

Disclaimer: I don't think there's anything wrong with YouTube as such and actually love it, but it depends on what one watches there.

Speech

"And woe is us! We're in a lot of trouble!!

...

Because less than 3 percent of you people read books.

Because less than 15 percent of you read newspapers.

Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.

Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.

This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation.

...

So, you listen to me. Listen to me!

[YouTube] is not the truth. [YouTube]'s a goddamn amusement park. [YouTube] is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.

...

But, man, you're never gonna get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you wanna hear. We lie like hell. ... We'll tell you any shit you want to hear.

We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night -- all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know!

You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here!

You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal.

You do whatever the tube tells you --

You dress like the tube.

You eat like the tube.

You raise your children like the tube.

You even think like the tube.

This is mass madness, you maniacs!"

Fairly fitting, right?

Going to FEMA camp this summer?

Summer time among other things means a time for different camps people of different ages can go to.

Will you go to FEMA camp this summer?

It has all the Kool-Aid you can drink! One of the perks.

They also have pools at the FEMA camps. Pools of molten steel... Very hot, but strong as...well, steel.

Who can attend the FEMA camp? 

Well, being a truther is a sure bet it seems according to some conspiracy theorists.

That's your ticket in. or, actually, you don't need a ticket! VIPs only though. Many prolonged stays however...

You can get to "shill" with the Debunkers at FEMA camp!

Experiences

Help yourself to a Bilderberger or maybe enjoy a "gubermint".

Don't worry, US taxpayers pay...

There's also waterboarding!

Ah, false flags are in the air... nothing like FEMA camp...

Day or night, FEMA camp attendees will be subject to attempts to "wake them up", sometimes literally.

The Illuminati is there to help with the lighting...

You can actually get your very own black box at FEMA camp! A personal one and it's actually black, not orange. Big though. or so says Alex Jones and he has shown pictures and videos.

FEMA camp is not to everybody's liking of course. "A few fries short of a Happy Meal" as they say. "A burger short of a combo meal", "a few tacos short of a fiesta platter", "a few toppings short of a Deluxe Pizza", "a few burgers short of a barbeque".

Supposedly some "bite the dust", but that's unconfirmed.

In summary

Either way you slice it, FEMA camp is quite an experience!

The Disaster Movement?

Have you noticed a tendency in the 9/11 "truth movement" and other conspiracy groups to quite often seem to predict impending doom, a disaster, a collapse or a new world war?

Well, at least I have. I'll give you some examples.

Michael Ruppert

Michael Ruppert was a truther who became sort of famous from a lecture he held that he turned into a movie about 9/11. It seems like it didn't go so well for him after that and he got depressed and was in a documentary simply called "Collapse". Here's a 2-minute clip:

RIP Michael Ruppert...

AMTV

You have likely heard about Christopher Greene and/or AMTV if you have checked out conspiracies on YouTube:

A search for "collapse amtv" gives you 8,690 results on YouTube:

Even more results for "ww3 amtv": 11,900:

StormCloudsGathering

StormCloudsGathering is another common account on YouTube with many views that delves into conspiracy theories:

StormCloudsGathering is Aaron Hawkins in real life. 2,610 results for "collapse storm clouds gathering":

Alex Jones

The uncrowned chamption of disaster theories and fearmongering(without seemingly honestly worried - he acts scared at times only) is Alex Jones. We can see that in the numbers:

His website is of course infowars. 313,000 results from "collapse infowars". If you search for "ww3 infowars" you get slightly more results, 333,000:

I just included the first hit in the search results above

Hypocritical illogical reversed stance

Ironically, many of these conspiracy theorists that so quickly yell disaster, collapse, WW3 etc. then minimizes real threats like say terrorists or the risks of guns in USA (about 9,000 gun murders per year) or climate change. These are just some examples of real threats they play down. That can make you at times wonder whose side they're on and if they're really "patriots" as at least Alex Jones claims to be.


Referring back to the above examples and others, you have to wonder: is the truth movement in fact the disaster movement?

Just a thought.