-58 votes

Do Truthers ever visit 9/11 Debunking sites?

Seriously, do you? I read both, Truther sites and debunking sites. I must say, Truther sites read like a bad (any) documentary from the Discovery Channel... I can hear Leonard Nemoy in the Background (accompanied by spooky 'In Search Of' music) 'Was WTC #7 brought down by explosives?'

Fun Project Read the theory / watch the YouTube clip of the Truther theory, and then just search for that theory on a debunking site. You will soon learn lots about Junk Science and how to identify it! Its fun!

Here is a good debunking site: http://www.debunking911.com/

BONUS! For the first Truther to claim that the debunking sites are secret government websites - I will personally +1 your comment!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

THINKER

You cannot "debunk" scientific fact and even the most dense person in AMERICA should realize that an airplane cannot bring down a skyscraper. Never could never will. I beleive what I see with my own eyes. The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter what anybody SAYS or WHO says it or how many people say it. WORDS are abstract, meaningless, how can anybody believe the government's lies???? That is the what astounds me.

I never heard that theory

I never heard that theory.

Every theory I have heard involves the plain + the jet fuel.

Kinda like a saying a jab wont knock most people out. That may be true, but after 12 rounds of punches it certainly can.

#7 wasn't hit by a plane with jet fuel

#7 wasn't hit by a plane with jet fuel. Thank you, next please...

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

There certainly are questions about #7 but

the twin towers were clearly brought down by heat stress from the fires..watch it on a big screen -65" or bigger -it's so obvious. You won't be able see it on a small screen

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

It was a Hollywood animation

A tower structure cannot destroy itself from top:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm

Another Hollywood animation: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/23/nyregion/23sc...

^

Pre-2007, I had studied most points and info provided by 9/11 “debunking” websites, such as the website posted by Bill Gillingham. There is some valuable information provided at such websites, but I believe for the most part they're just apologists and purposeful continuents (is that a word? lol) of the official story and/or cover-ups.

Real 9/11 truthers should, however, research all relevant information provided at 9/11 “debunking” websites. There are some answers and facts provided that are important. Notice I said real 9/11 truthers? A lot of 9/11 twoofers don't actually want answers, unless it's what they've already decided are the “facts.”

Twoofer: “Ask questions, demand answers! [...] I don't like your answers, they aren't what I already decided!”

The same mindstate could also probably be said for most official story promoters who won't concede the official story is so ridiculously impossible it must therefor be false.

In a past 9/11 related thread at the Daily Paul, I posted a few comments in reply to a former Daily Paul member and 9/11 twoofer BigT. Now that I have my old iMac, I'll post the things [in this comment http://www.dailypaul.com/212589#comment-2234719] I said I would.

First, my Letter to the Editor regarding 9/11: Press for Truth, published in a September 2006 edition of a local newspaper with a print readership of ~10,000+:

http://i.imgur.com/M52fL.jpg

Second, the Pentagon image I found at the U.S. Air Force official website prior to ALL related imagery (that I have most of) being completely deleted from publicly accessed .mil Air Force servers and completely scrubbed from the Google Wayback Machine:

http://i.imgur.com/fwETV.jpg

Bill and Fireant, please don't post any further comments about 9/11 until you finish watching this following film in its entirety. You seem like intelligent people who'd like knowing all relevant evidences. After watching, ask yourself, “why such a cover-up if there was no “inside job” complicity?”

9/11: Press for Truth

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-press-for-truth/

I suggest you also search for the 2006 National Press Club news conference, where Paul Thompson (from that film) and 9/11 victims' family members were COMPLETELY ignored by the mainstream media, while they [msm] were instead in a nearby conference room fawning over the lying f-king pieces of sh-t Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Chair and Vice-Chair of the official 9/11 cover-up commission.)

At least C-SPAN broadcast it. Ironically, it was C-SPAN that had a 2005 Lee Hamilton Q&A caller interview, where [he] described the 9/11 WTC victims as “the loss of LICE.” He's such a piece of sh-t. Listen to it at an old SoundClick profile I used [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=355179&songID=2511264] (click 'play hi-fi'.)

Denial: “But somebody [in government - executive, military, intelligence] who was involved would talk!”

Yeah, so they could be convicted and spend the rest of their life in solitary confinement in the most restrictive and psychologically torturous US supermax prison ADX Florence with other terrorists such as Moussaoui *eye roll*. That's IF they weren't executed first.

When are you going to look into the victims part of this story?

How do you really know that they didn't fake that part of the story also? How do you really know that? TV and AJ told you?

Everyone knows that no plane crashed that day in Shanksville and Pentagon. Even AJ says this. Should there be some adjustment to this victims list? No? We do not even have an official list, with accurate numbers. Give me a break.

Could the victims families just be some hired actors? No?

Planes crashing into buildings and killing 3000 is the basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to go along with. What if they even faked this victims part of the story? What if?

You could start your own investigation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0

Update: This post was already downvoted. They simply do not want us to even discuss this part of the story. I know why.

You presume, incorrectly, that I haven't looked into the victims

Perhaps the main reason that I am doing this, is because/for the victims. I don't really like Alex Jones. I believe that the Shanksville plane was shot down. A plane, flight 77, did crash into the Pentagon. I see you in other threads directing readers to - and promoting - Judy Wood. Why are you trying to direct readers to a purposeful disinformation dispenser's lies and made-up nonsense? Judy Wood is a POS.

Why do you believe this victims part?

 

Wood is a POS

She presents some rare pictures of some odd events and claims Energy weapons caused it. Energy weapons are obvious nonsense. I try to point out that that the footage is simply CGI and fake, you know, what they do i Hollywood all day long. She is one of these agent paid by the 911 operation management to hide the image fakery and promote a silly idea that makes everyone who doubts the official conspiracy theory look like lunatics.

AJ is a gatekeeper, also paid by the 911 operation management. He protects medias involvement in this operation, the victims story and that planes did crash into WTC but not Pentagon and Shanksville.

Foreign hijackers crashing planes into buildings and killing 3000 is the basis for the War on terror, etc. Without that part off the story, WoT couldn't go on. Planes and the victims are what the 911 operation management need, and they are still in operation and protecting that part with lots of their agents.

If you still believe that planes crashed in Pentagon and Shanksville, you must be a little slow. You will never understand much before you understand medias involvement in the 911 operation. It was just a Hollywood horror movie on TV, and they faked it all, including the victims. So the operation wasn't a conspiracy to murder.

Odd that you cannot see any of the media fakery that went on. I have posted a very simple and very crucial illustration many times, but I assume you don't event understand this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthonyc31/5728754807/in/photos...

You should investigate that illustration. It really proves a lot.

Maybe you wold be interested in this quite unknown fact from that day. Almost all of the first eye witnesses on the news networks were media professionals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuB4jLAuVLk

You're just such an idiot.

Literally.

...said the clown

who investigates inside his virtual reality world.

A clip I edited some music to

A clip I edited some music to a while back that I figured some might enjoy. I'm not claiming anything that is said in the clip is true, just thought it was kind of a cool clip :)

"You Got One Minute To Tell Me The Truth"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX1lVf1pwYM

Even though I agree with Nystrom's point below that these arguements really don't get anywhere, I really do enjoy these 9/11 debates. I definitely lean towards the "Truthers" side of the arguement but it's always good to learn more about the subject. I do agree with Bill that there is a lot of junk science out that there that needs to be pointed out, but to ignore all the CREDIBLE evidence that there is contrary to the official story is just crazy.

What I resent most from the

What I resent most from the deniers is their insistence that we must have an alternate theory about what happened and "who done it." Actually, truthers do not have to present an alternative theory to debunk the government's official conspiracy theory. All we need to do is show one falsehood underlying their theory of planes and fire and fire alone bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 (NIST says fire alone causes its collapse), respectively, to legitmately demand a new, and impartial investigation.

I visit both.

Nevertheless, however it happened, I am left with two choices; The government knew exactly what happened the same day, yet it was a surprise, and was too incompetent to stop it; or elements in the government made it happen and lied about.
I don't believe the Civil War was about slavery.
I don't believe the Spanish American War was about the Maine.
I don't believe the First World War was about the Lusitania.
I don't believe Pearl Harbor was a surprise.
I don't believe Hitler wanted to conquer the world or exterminate the Jews.
I don't believe a lone gunman killed Kennedy.
I don't believe the North Vietnamese attacked a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin.
I don't believe the U.S. gets attacked for minding its own business too much.
I don't believe Bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS and buried at sea.
I don't believe a lot of things the government tells me.
We know the government lies; That is its nature. So are we to believe a couple dozen guys with a former CIA man, Bin Laden, at their head attacked America because militant Muslims hate American freedoms? Because the official mouthpieces say so? Really? I don't pretend to know the truth. Nevertheless, I can recognize a self-serving lie when I see one. We know the government habitually lies. We know the government is chronically incompetent. Take your friggn' pick.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Yeah. Damn straight.

Yeah. Damn straight.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

What is missing from this thread?

The thread starts with a negative to disprove what happened on that day, not a positive explaining why it happened like the Poster believes or possibly believes.

Known as a "hack job" is what that is, a "lure" into an argument where the Original Poster has no structure of his own to be his foundation or backup, if you will. A bashing of his own accord because he has a problem with the subject, which includes, no proof of his own, which means, his foundation is backed by theories of his own and\or heard elsewhere.

Do you agree or disagree that it happened the way that the government has said? If so, to what degree or exactly what is agreed upon or disagreed upon? This is the same exactness, the same precision of thought, that is being forced upon the ones who disagree with the government's account. Even in your own defense you find doubt?

Reasonable debate from most

I'm attacking the junk science. Plain and simple. I don't have to provide a better answer than the junk theories that runs rampant through your movement... I'm just attacking the junk. Perfectly legitimate.

What I believe happened that day is irrelevant. I am not on a mission to disprove the conclusions of your theories - just the science that gets you there.

Sometimes, I do cite scientifically backed alternatives. Of course I rely on other people's good science. Do you claim to have come up with all the Truther theories yourself? I do exactly what I said in my original post - pick a theory and look into its debunking.

Problem is, without your junk science, all your theories crumble. And without your theories, all you are left with is paranoia. When you guys see any post that counters your belief - you reach for the negative... tantamount to "lalalala I can't hear you!!!! You must be a troll, massad agent, douche-bag. hack job,..."

Junk...

Boooooooooooooooooo Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !

It's BS baby. You're BS baby. You know it. I know it. They know it. BS is, as BS does...

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

And you are SB

Figure it out

You are BS. Everyone has

You are BS. Everyone has figured it out. Look at the +/- rating on your thread silly man.

Bunkum is as bunkum does...

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Yeah - I trust the voters in this thread

just like I trust the voters of the nation. bunch of sheep - "bahhahha, thermite bahaaaaa, thermite"

Why do you put the onus on us

Why do you put the onus on us to explain what happened? The govt has yet to prove its case, and we have found plenty of holes in theirs.

Re: Why do you put the onus on us

EXACTLY.....

That is the beef Bill Gill....

Stop blamming the messenger. Start looking at the evidence....

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Right on.

Right on.

One has to wonder what Bill Gillingham's motives are.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Spoken like a true paranoid

Maybe I think your motive is to make the Liberty movement look bad.

Nannie nannie boo boo...

I think that is your motive. So there, we're even. Nannie nannie boo boo...

Give us a break Bill.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

fireant's picture

Evidence please.

Folks, instead of focusing on ancillary evidence which is inconclusive, why are you not scouring photos and videos of debris fields looking for the structural evidence which must be in abundance if the buildings were taken down with thermate? Have any of you even bothered to confirm your allegations? Do you think a grand jury will be persuaded with dust and globs of mixed materials? If you are so sure of yourselves, why the fear to even look? It has to be there.

Undo what Wilson did

Fireant...I already told you

Fireant...I already told you four or five pages back....just google "beams cut 9/11" and you can look at all the pics you want and as I've also said before...I heard the counter argument to those pics...its a what came first the chicken or the egg argument. Unless you're prepared to show evidence that can prove that those exact beams pictured were cut afterwards of course. So please, stop pretending like those pics do not exist and claiming you have not seen any evidence of thermate cut beams...it's there, just look.

Since you keep screaming for evidence maybe you could help me out... I'd just like to see some of the evidence that shows Bin Laden was responsible...Oh, and if you have that evidence, please turn it over to the FBI because they could use it...since they themselves have been unable to link him to 9/11.

fireant's picture

Please stop making assumptions about what I do or do not think.

I've considered all the standing bevel cut beams and they are not conclusive, not for grand jury standards. There are no slide marks or pocking, which does not help the case for them being part of controlled demolition. The only way to resolve it is to talk to the personnel on site. It's on the table, as is the assumed molten steel, which in itself is not conclusive. Try to understand we must measure up to grand jury standards if we are ever to make sense of all this and get justice.
I'm not screaming for "evidence". I'm screaming for conclusive structural evidence of cut members in the debris pile which would prove controlled demolition. I can only find sheared members. That is not consistent with other evidence, and is a fatal flaw for controlled demolition.
We do not find truth by reaching conclusions based on incomplete or disingenuous evidence.

Undo what Wilson did