Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?

PhilosophyGenius said:

1) The WTC was hit before so it makes sense that it would get hit again. And I'm not too sure you can call the WTC America's "principal centers of Finance" because they were destroyed and the economy recovered withing months. If anybody wants to destroy our economy they would hit Wall Street or something, the economic devestation would be far worse.

The Pentagon which was hit was under construction-so there was not a huge loss of life and no one important died when it was attacked.

2) bin Laden set up the bases in Afghanistan in the mid 90's because that was his only choice for a safe haven. Also Afghanistan is loaded with oil and drugs.

3) Exlosives in the WTC is only a fraction of the 9/11 Truth argument. Ruppert's book which proves the govnt was behind 9/11 is 500 pages, and only a small paragraph of that book talks about the possibility of explosives in the WTC.

Click to expand...

1) Only from the terrorist's point of view. It was then, and still was, a great target. For US prepetrators, though, they'd never strike twice in the same spot. That behavior wouldn't seem like behavior from terrorists to the people. They'd expect terrorists to move around, with a goal of as many tagrets as possible, with big things secondary to speading "terror".
2) Afghanistan is shit for oil compared to just about every other middle eastern country
3) You gotta start somewhere. If you can't convince people the towers weren't brought down just by the planes, a lot of time and credit to your name is blown out the window. A whole lot of the 9/11 stuff on this site is that the towers weren't brought down just by the planes.

does anyone here think starting off with building 7 to make an argument about a coverup surround 9/11 is a terrible idea? I'd like to think i know enough about human psychology to conclude that it is not a good idea to start with this piece of evidence.

while i think building 7 was controlled demolition, i think its very hard for most people to accept this, even if you show them convincing proof.

it seems to me whever i start 9/11 discussions with unsuspecting normal people they always immmediatly scoff when you go as far as saying the goverment purposefully blew up the buildings and refuse to hear the rest of the obvious coverup.

it seems like among the vocal 9/11 truth community i am in the extreme minority on this.

awepittance said:

does anyone here think starting off with building 7 to make an argument about a coverup surround 9/11 is a terrible idea? I'd like to think i know enough about human psychology to conclude that it is not a good idea to start with this piece of evidence.

while i think building 7 was controlled demolition, i think its very hard for most people to accept this, even if you show them convincing proof.

it seems to me whever i start 9/11 discussions with unsuspecting normal people they always immmediatly scoff when you go as far as saying the goverment purposefully blew up the buildings and refuse to hear the rest of the obvious coverup.

it seems like among the vocal 9/11 truth community i am in the extreme minority on this.

Click to expand...

The way to start convincing people isn't with evidence first, it's with motive. And not the tired war for oil/power thing anymore: we;re talking about politicians, it's reallynot hard to convince on that point. What you need to convince people is why The WTC and Pentagon as specific targets were blown up by the Bush conspirators. That's the hole in the bottom of the "9/11 Truth" boat until it's answered successfully.

jetsetlemming said:

1) Only from the terrorist's point of view. It was then, and still was, a great target. For US prepetrators, though, they'd never strike twice in the same spot. That behavior wouldn't seem like behavior from terrorists to the people. They'd expect terrorists to move around, with a goal of as many tagrets as possible, with big things secondary to speading "terror".
2) Afghanistan is shit for oil compared to just about every other middle eastern country
3) You gotta start somewhere. If you can't convince people the towers weren't brought down just by the planes, a lot of time and credit to your name is blown out the window. A whole lot of the 9/11 stuff on this site is that the towers weren't brought down just by the planes.

Click to expand...

1) The WTC was the perfect target because it was high up (making it easier to hit with a plan), its very visible (so a lot of people can see and film it), and it's a symbolic American target which was already hit. And how many times was it said by 'terrorism experts' that al-Qaeda likes to go back and finish off old targets? The answer is a lot.

2) Yeah Afganistan has a fraction of the oil that the middle east has, but, there's no way invading that country because that's where al-Qaeda is. I don't know if you've seen Farenheight 9/11 but they showed footage of Richard Clarke (Fmr Counter-terrorism chief) talking about how Rummy wanted to go to Iraq first but they had to go to Afganistan.

Afganistan also has a shit load of drugs which the govnt wants ( Gold hooked me up with a Ruppert lecture which explains the whole thing, holla at me if you want it, or Gold). And besides, look at the movie Farenhiet 9/11 where it showed the important of Caspian Sea oil and how people are after it. Some oil is better than none.

3) I guess explosives in the WTC is the easiest to prove, rather than giving a whole long list of facts.


(Just theories of mine:SpiningDe )

The Pentagon thingy is very shakey..

PhilosophyGenius said:

Of Course! I was just pointing out the fact that it could be rebuttled where as no plane wreckage in the Pentagon cannot.

Click to expand...

I have seen good arguments both for and against the Pentagon crash. I lean more towards something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. There are a few things which make me think so.
1) The stubborn refusal by the feds to release clear video footage of the event (while they have REAMS of it from multiple angles).
2) The confiscation of all video surveillance by cameras pointed towards the Pentagon.
3) the small hole which does not seem to account for a whole jumbo jet having just crashed into the Pentagon wall.
4) The almost perfect hole PIERCED into the third ring's wall. A commercial jet is essentially a light hollow tube (because it has to be able to support the weight of potentially hundreds of passengers, and be able to fly fast).
From what it seems like, a commercial plane wold have crushed like an empty beer can being stepped on if it hit into a reinforced brick wall. To think that it pounded through not just one, but THREE walls seems ridiculous. Even if it DID make it to the third wall, why was the hole so circular? Why didn't the wall just look mashed up with no clear distinction as to exactly where the plane crashed through?

Actually there WAS some plane debris and luggage left over at the scene. HOWEVER, I am speculating that this was planted. Remember, the part of the Pentagon that was hit was the LEAST important part of the structure. How coincidental. Also, that part was a section which was recently renovated right before the attacks. That made me think that maybe, just like the ridiculous Guiliani bunker being placed in the most likely place to get hit, that possibly that part of the Pentagon wasn't really being renovated at all, but was perhaps being prepped for 9/11. Stuff that part of the building with bullshit plane parts, along with "luggage", so that when the missile or military plane does the real hit, the impact (or possible bomb placed in that same renovated area) causes all that planted evidence to spill out on to the lawn in order to help corroborate the idea that a real plane crashed there.
What shows that something more ominous is really at work, is seeing various personnel carting off pieces of debris COVERED with big tarps.

The answer is real easy when you think about it..

jetsetlemming said:

The way to start convincing people isn't with evidence first, it's with motive. And not the tired war for oil/power thing anymore: we;re talking about politicians, it's reallynot hard to convince on that point. What you need to convince people is why The WTC and Pentagon as specific targets were blown up by the Bush conspirators. That's the hole in the bottom of the "9/11 Truth" boat until it's answered successfully.

Click to expand...

It's all psychological warfare. The WTC complex symbolized powerful financiers and the crux of American business and the western capitalistic economic structure. The Pentagon symbolizes and is the military headquarters of the American military, the most powerful military headquarters in the entire world.
What better way to strike at a nation than to neuter their financial and military structure?
The point was to frighten Americans so much that they'd accept ANY kind of illegal military misadventures all over the world. Take note that Bush, and all these powerful have-mores suffer no financial or political loss over an attack like 9/11. Quite the opposite: they gain substantially. They got Iraq, Afghanistan, the "Patriot" Act, the REAL ID Act, attaching physically identifiable info to peoples' various forms of identification, etc.

awepittance said:

does anyone here think starting off with building 7 to make an argument about a coverup surround 9/11 is a terrible idea? I'd like to think i know enough about human psychology to conclude that it is not a good idea to start with this piece of evidence.

while i think building 7 was controlled demolition, i think its very hard for most people to accept this, even if you show them convincing proof.

it seems to me whever i start 9/11 discussions with unsuspecting normal people they always immmediatly scoff when you go as far as saying the goverment purposefully blew up the buildings and refuse to hear the rest of the obvious coverup.

it seems like among the vocal 9/11 truth community i am in the extreme minority on this.

Click to expand...

After my experience discussing WTC 7 with others, I have to agree. Knowing what I know now, I think starting with the slow NORAD response and other LIHOP issues is better.

jetsetlemming said:

The way to start convincing people isn't with evidence first, it's with motive. And not the tired war for oil/power thing anymore: we;re talking about politicians, it's reallynot hard to convince on that point. What you need to convince people is why The WTC and Pentagon as specific targets were blown up by the Bush conspirators. That's the hole in the bottom of the "9/11 Truth" boat until it's answered successfully.

Click to expand...

hmm, im not sure many people on here refer to anybody as "Bush conspirators" , anybody else smell a straw-man argument?

but anyways the WTC and the pentagon were known potential targets by outside threats for years. It was only natural that they might or would be attacked in the future in some form or another. If your saying why did the "conspirators" choose to "blow" them up? Easy, it was a perfect frame up for the patsies in mind, arabic terrorists (in general) who already expressed interest in attacking these targets.

Lots of people on this site have pinned 9/11 on Bush and Cheney and Rove on this site. I don't know about the theorists at large, because they bore me. And that reasoning still doesn't cover the damage loss of the center of finance and heavy damage to the center of military, considering their eyes were on war, these two thngs in peak condition were vital. Who knows how the war would have went so far ifthe wtc and pentagon weren't attacked? They would have picked just as big, but less important targets, like the statue of liberty, or the U.N. building, Or the many monuements in Washington. There are tours of the statue everyday, and it's full of employees cleaning it and making sure the insides are in good condition. You think there wouldn't be as much video of that? People are far more likely to point their cameras at the Statue of Liberty than at the WTC, the people who taped that grabbed their cameras after the first plane hit.

jetsetlemming said:

Lots of people on this site have pinned 9/11 on Bush and Cheney and Rove on this site. I don't know about the theorists at large, because they bore me. And that reasoning still doesn't cover the damage loss of the center of finance and heavy damage to the center of military, considering their eyes were on war, these two thngs in peak condition were vital. Who knows how the war would have went so far ifthe wtc and pentagon weren't attacked? They would have picked just as big, but less important targets, like the statue of liberty, or the U.N. building, Or the many monuements in Washington. There are tours of the statue everyday, and it's full of employees cleaning it and making sure the insides are in good condition. You think there wouldn't be as much video of that? People are far more likely to point their cameras at the Statue of Liberty than at the WTC, the people who taped that grabbed their cameras after the first plane hit.

Click to expand...

I just remembered, earlier in this thread it has been discussed that there was important govnt info on corrporate/govnt corruption that could have easily put a lot of people in jail. That's why the WTC was a good choice and that's why WTC 7 had to be taken down as well. WTC 7 was to low to be hit by a plane and it didn't make sense as a target so they just made up some bullshit excuse about the fire and the weakened structure after the WTC collapse. In fact, they didn't even do that! It was never investigated!!!!

jetsetlemming said:

They would have picked just as big, but less important targets, like the statue of liberty, or the U.N. building, Or the many monuements in Washington. There are tours of the statue everyday, and it's full of employees cleaning it and making sure the insides are in good condition. You think there wouldn't be as much video of that? People are far more likely to point their cameras at the Statue of Liberty than at the WTC, the people who taped that grabbed their cameras after the first plane hit.

Click to expand...

i dont understand your logic, your saying that those are more likely terrorist targets? The facts show that there has been knowledge of planned attacks against the Pentagon, the WTC (1993 was the first time), The capitol building, CIA headquarters, and the Whitehouse.

Why did they not pick something that would have thousdands of tourists to capture the attack on video you say? BEcause they didnt need to, seeing the actual attack take place vs thousdands of people experiencing it actually happening. Which one do you think is more impacting/important?

there are many more people on the streets of manhattan than there are in or around the stature of liberty.

real terrorists would have NEVER bothered to do something like 9/11

awepittance said:

i dont understand your logic, your saying that those are more likely terrorist targets? The facts show that there has been knowledge of planned attacks against the Pentagon, the WTC (1993 was the first time), The capitol building, CIA headquarters, and the Whitehouse.

Why did they not pick something that would have thousdands of tourists to capture the attack on video you say? BEcause they didnt need to, seeing the actual attack take place vs thousdands of people experiencing it actually happening. Which one do you think is more impacting/important?

there are many more people on the streets of manhattan than there are in or around the stature of liberty.

Click to expand...

Let's play along with the feds' "logic". Osama bin Laden hates America and wants to see it destroyed. WHY would they bother going to the trouble of attempting to train Al-Qaeda operatives to learn to fly a plane?
Ever see how vast and UNPROTECTED New York is?

Wanna know what I'd do if I wanted to carry out a devastating attack?
Hire a few thousand operatives for the job. Have two man teams driving over every bridge and tunnel that connects to Manhattan. One drives a huge truck stuffed with explosives. The other drives the getaway car. Drive the trucks up to the supporting beams of each bridge. Park the truck, get out, and get into the getaway car. Once the car makes it off the bridge, blow up the truck. This would destroy the main support structure of every bridge leading to Manhattan. Even if the bridges weren't destroyed, they would be damaged enough that cars could not drive over them for at least a few months. This would mean that only Manhattan natives could work in Manhattan. This would devastate Manhattan businesses, for at least close to a year, if not permanently.
Also, get 5000 guys armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, grenades, and whatever else to attack and shut down Wall Street. Imagine 5000 guys masked and armed with machine guns waltzing on to the trading floor? Bomb all the equipment which carries out all those financial transactions. Kill as many traders as you can.
And get maybe a few hundred guys armed with grenades and machine guns to bomb every, or almost every, subway station in Manhattan. All those steps leading down to the subways..throw grenades down them, and watch the fun!
What I just described would DESTROY Manhattan, perhaps permanently, and would have cost much less, and be much easier to orchestrate than 9/11. So why didn't they do this? Because it's all a hoax. The 9/11 sponsors wanted SHOCK VALUE, not permanent damage. REAL terrorists would want PERMANENT DAMAGE, and not shock value. Shock value is meaningless to people who wish to do real damage, and not showcase themselves..
The theatricality of 9/11 gives away the fact that it was a scam. ONLY people wishing to scare and manipulate people would crash planes into high rise office structures. Terrorists that would want to do real lasting damage would have gone the EASY route: that is, conventional weapons and warfare. Imagine 1000 guys with machine guns running around all over Manhattan, gunning down whoever they saw? Imagine 100 guys with automatic weapons entering FAO Schwartz on Christmas Eve, slaughtering everyone in their sight? They could be doing this every other day of they wanted to! But why don't they? Because we're being jerked off..

Goatfish, I'm glad your not the brains of al-Qaeda.

awepittance said:

i dont understand your logic, your saying that those are more likely terrorist targets? The facts show that there has been knowledge of planned attacks against the Pentagon, the WTC (1993 was the first time), The capitol building, CIA headquarters, and the Whitehouse.

Why did they not pick something that would have thousdands of tourists to capture the attack on video you say? BEcause they didnt need to, seeing the actual attack take place vs thousdands of people experiencing it actually happening. Which one do you think is more impacting/important?

there are many more people on the streets of manhattan than there are in or around the stature of liberty.

Click to expand...

i'm talking about from the conspirator's point of view, not Al Qeida. The conspirators would rather thousands see it happen then die from it happening, more people left to join the army in retaliation. Common people who don't think much about this stuff would expect terrorists not to stick to one area, but to spread it around as much as possible. Why attack something twice? If you succeeded, terror is spread, if you failed, that place is better watched now, might as well try somewhere else. It's only when you think more about it, something that rarely happens, that hitting the wtc a second time makes sense, unless, of course, it happens, in which case you assume the terrorists wanted to make sure.

jetsetlemming said:

i'm talking about from the conspirator's point of view, not Al Qeida. .

Click to expand...

but you're missing my point, the conspirators obviously wanted to frame up al queda or other real terrorist organizations in general. To give the perception that actual arab terrorists did this, they would have to setup things in a similar way that the terrorists would. And that involves choosing previously known terrorist targets or at least ones that americans would associate with a terrorist attack (the financial and defense headquarters of the united states). It wasnt mass casulaites they were after alone, it was the symbolism and death toll combined. Statue of liberty, while being an important symbol, i think would be much less missed than the WTC towers themselves.

Funny

PhilosophyGenius said:

Goatfish, I'm glad your not the brains of al-Qaeda.

Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha!!! Thanks once again, Philosopher, I think!! But anyways, I find it's a good argument because what I described woould be FAR more devastating, be much easier to execute, and require much less money and preparation.
9/11 was very Hollywood-ish, and that again points to a different group. Real terrorists would actually want to do damage, and not terrorize. But in the case of 9/11, we had a lot of terrorizing but not much damage. Not to dismiss the damage of the WTC complex, but compared to damage that could be done, it's relatively minor.
Also the lack of follow up attacks makes no sense. Maybe Al-QaQa could have started out with 9/11, and then follow up with smaller frequent attacks like some of the things I mentioned. That would have been much more believable. But the notion that these guys are patient and will wait things out (for what reason?) makes no sense. At the rate they're going, the whole arab world will be gone by the time they next attack..

Goatfish said:

Bwahahahaha!!! Thanks once again, Philosopher, I think!! But anyways, I find it's a good argument because what I described woould be FAR more devastating, be much easier to execute, and require much less money and preparation.
9/11 was very Hollywood-ish, and that again points to a different group. Real terrorists would actually want to do damage, and not terrorize. But in the case of 9/11, we had a lot of terrorizing but not much damage. Not to dismiss the damage of the WTC complex, but compared to damage that could be done, it's relatively minor.
Also the lack of follow up attacks makes no sense. Maybe Al-QaQa could have started out with 9/11, and then follow up with smaller frequent attacks like some of the things I mentioned. That would have been much more believable. But the notion that these guys are patient and will wait things out (for what reason?) makes no sense. At the rate they're going, the whole arab world will be gone by the time they next attack..

Click to expand...

Your plan of attack sounds good in theory but it could never be pulled off in the real world. I mean before 9/11 all there attacks were small scale suicide bombings. A bunch of other attacks were foiled as well (since they were already penetrated). If you think about it, how hard do you think it would be for al-Qaeda to get thousands of there guys into the U.S. legally or even illegally? That would be logistacally almost impossible considering how long it took and how much effort was needed to bring in the 19 hijackers (going by the official story).

As far as a follow up attack goes, the 9/11 mastermind proposed that was bin Laden said no because of how hard that would be to plan. That idea was planned during the attacks in Morocco, more was suppose to happen a week later but was foiled.

Most people freak-the-fuck-out when I start talking about 911. They can't stand to think critically about their beliefs. In fact, I was recently kicked off of a board because of the information I was posting there. They called me, amongst other things, insane. It was a surfing board, no doubt. One might have illusions about surfing being some sort of subculture, at best a counterculture. No way. It is as dominated by right-wingers and nationalists as golf or tennis. At least that is what I have decided.

But nobody could really foist a working argument about why wtc 7 fell, at free fall speed, neatly into its own footprint. The Omission Report, oops I mean Commission Report, avoids any discussion of wtc 7. It is definitely a good entry point for a skeptic wanting to approach 911 critically and to get immediate rewards for their skepticism. The Pentagon, I believe is also a good entry point.

Having said that I would like to point something out. In Plato's cave, what would happen to informed folks who entered the cave and started spouting about the truths about the cave and what was going on outside the cave?

According to Plato, they were ripped apart. RIPPED TO PIECES.

People want to stay in the cave. They like the cave. It is comfortable. The smoke and shadows and reflections are created to, amongst other things, make them feel good about themselves. To talk about the reality of the cave is to make people wonder if they shouldn't really feel so good about themselves. To consider that they have made a huge mistake about what they have concluded about reality.

And according to Plato, they would rather rip a truth-bearer to shreds than accept reality.

Ignatius Riley said:

Most people freak-the-fuck-out when I start talking about 911. They can't stand to think critically about their beliefs. In fact, I was recently kicked off of a board because of the information I was posting there. They called me, amongst other things, insane. It was a surfing board, no doubt. One might have illusions about surfing being some sort of subculture, at best a counterculture. No way. It is as dominated by right-wingers and nationalists as golf or tennis. At least that is what I have decided.

But nobody could really foist a working argument about why wtc 7 fell, at free fall speed, neatly into its own footprint. The Omission Report, oops I mean Commission Report, avoids any discussion of wtc 7. It is definitely a good entry point for a skeptic wanting to approach 911 critically and to get immediate rewards for their skepticism. The Pentagon, I believe is also a good entry point.

Having said that I would like to point something out. In Plato's cave, what would happen to informed folks who entered the cave and started spouting about the truths about the cave and what was going on outside the cave?

According to Plato, they were ripped apart. RIPPED TO PIECES.

People want to stay in the cave. They like the cave. It is comfortable. The smoke and shadows and reflections are created to, amongst other things, make them feel good about themselves. To talk about the reality of the cave is to make people wonder if they shouldn't really feel so good about themselves. To consider that they have made a huge mistake about what they have concluded about reality.

And according to Plato, they would rather rip a truth-bearer to shreds than accept reality.

Click to expand...

A while back I wanted to rewatch the Pentagon Strike video so I simply typed it up on Yahoo. And interstingly enough, one of the sites which shows it said they had to take it down because there were too many complaits about the content.

The Pentagon strike was the door through which I exited the cave.

The official account of the Pentagon strike is incredibly difficult to defend. Thus I recommend using it as fodder for a discussion by which one hopes to prod someone else into becoming skeptical of the legitimacy of the official account.

POINTS TO MAKE OVER A COLD BEER:

Real big plane (140+ ft wing span, 47 feet from tip of tail to ground), itty bitty hole (16' by 16).

No wreckage. Official account: the wings, instead of shearing off and bouncing back onto the lawn to be seen later by camera-toting reporters were sucked into the tiny hole as if it were the mouth of some sort of vacuum.

preexisting pentagon strike exercises envolving planes

virtually impossible descending maneuver by an idiot who couldn't handle a single-prop plane. Expert testimony reveals that 90 percent of pro pilots couldn't have pulled off what Hanjour did that day. Many say it is impossible for a Boeing 757 to make that kind of loop-de-loop at all w/o breaking apart or falling out of the sky. Meanwhile FAA radar dudes say, in day-of reports, that, based on the flight pattern and maneuvers, at the time they thought they were watching a military plane, not a boeing passenger jumbo jet, closing in on the bldg.

destruction consistent with that done by a cruise missile or a kamikazzee hit by a military jet

rescue personel strangely on hand on the day of

strike was on the "weak side" of the building, with Rumsfield, rummyrumrum, the stand up comedian, safe on the other side of the building at the time of impact

Engine parts found on site consistent with those of smaller plane/missile

gov't confiscates tapes from surrounding facilities with footage of impact

day-of reports of secondary explosions (I've got a neat theory on this, if anyone is curious p.m. me)

Reporters of mainstream TV news providers on the scene argue that no plane hit the bldg in day-of reports.

official account has most of plane "vaporizing," a historical first, with black box vaporizing, virtually impossible

surviving wreckage light enough to be hauled away, by hand, under tarps, never to be seen again

first accident on American soil involving a passenger jet that the FAA didn't investigate.

Rumsfeld's freudian slip where he refers in a speech to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon

Fighter pilots who were eventually scrambled that day report, after seeing the damage from above, thinking the bldg had been hit by a missile. They should know. They've seen what a bldg hit by a missile looks like.

Govt finally releases five frames from previously mentioned confiscated footage, none show plane (or anything for that matter except for an explosion)

What am I forgetting?

Oh, and yeah, gov't goons bully witnesses, saying repeatedly that it was a plane.

"Oh no, that wasn't a missile you saw. It was a plane. A jumbo jet. Now take this check and shut the fuck up."

POINT: Anyone who wants to defend the official account has a lot of explaining to do and not much information to do it with. The Pentagon is a good starting point, no doubt. I still voted wtc 7.

Insider trading is another good point.

But not as good as wtc 7.