-114 votes

Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Let me give you an example, and then I will go off on my rant.

Regarding the passport: You guys only see what you want to see. Why don't you list every item that survived? Drivers licenses survived, entire arms and other limbs, clothes, etc. Tons of things survived, but you frame the argument like only the passport survived. They already had flight manifests. They knew who was on those flights. There was no reason at all to plant a passport. The fact of the matter is that tons of things survived, not just a passport, and planting a passport would have been useless. It only seems like it matters to you guys because you want it to matter. If it was a conspiracy, don't you think the real cover up would have been about how they faked the flight manifest?

You people just continue to see what you want to see, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy. Check that, I shouldn't even call it "evidence' because it isn't. It is a lack of evidence that you have. You invent questions about the incident and when you can't wrap your brain around reason and logic, you take every stupid thing any witness ever said and cling to it as if it were straight from God's mouth to your ears. You twist logic to fit your own narrative so you can feed your feable need to feel important on a national scale, like somehow the nation is reading your posts.

I remember when this sight was about liberty and free market capitalism. I remember when people here discussed topics related to the ideas Ron Paul was bringing up every day. You all have driven those fine people away with your own ignorant lack of critical thinking. I enjoyed those people. We shared information and learned together. I don't enjoy you people. You spread fallacy through verbosity. You post every tiny scrap of psuedo-evidence no matter how easily refutable, rendering the rest of us simply too tired to continue to address your never ending pile of fiction.

And worst of all, you continue to move the goal post, to the point that no amount of debunking will ever satisfy you because you will simply wait for the next bit of psuedo-evidence to come out, and if that evidence isn't readily available, you resort back to the old time honored defense of "All I know is that I don't believe the official story". And that only creates another fallacy you all love, the false dillema, where you try to shoot holes in the official story thinking that it somehow proves your story is true, only you don't even have a coherent story to back up. If I point out all the inconsistency in the Bible, does that somehow prove that Thor is real? You need evidence in support of your story, not lack of evidence in support of their's. You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story. What you do have unfortunately, and in abundance, is a never ending supply of fallacies.

As a middle school teacher, part of my curriculum is teaching fallacies, so when I claim you are using them in abundance, I'm not speaking generally. You are using them in abundance and it is killing your argument. The sad part, is that even if you all were right, your constant use of fallacy and lack of logical skills has driven away countless people who might have actually cared.

Comment viewing options

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

fuck you

fuck you

f___ all forms of govt.

So let Me get this straight

So let Me get this straight the Deep Water Horizon burned for 36 hours before it sunk and the towers burned 18 minutes before they fell? Why did the Horizon burn for 36 hours while the towers only burned for 18 minutes? It can't be the amount of fuel because the horizon had a almost unlimited source of oil and gas coming up through the hole. So please explain it to me because I am having a hard time with the lies You tell Yourself so You can feel good in the morning...

You fail to realize that man is fundamentally flawed and evil. You never have to teach a child to steal or be selfish while on the other hand You do have to teach them to be honest. That is the one thing that Liberals like You fail to realize. As long as people make up government the government will always have tyranny. So take Your government loving arse and keep kissing the jack boots but please stop calling skeptics idiots.

Well said

Well said



πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

It's telling that this has a rating < -100

The truthers have taken over the site. They use mob tactics to chase others away, and the years have not been kind to the standard of discourse here.

I fought the good fight for a while, but I now view DailyPaul as the inbred cousin of the liberty movement: well-intentioned but embarassing and not to be trusted with any responsibility.

Au contraire, who is chasing who away?

Snakepit22 framed the discussion by making over a dozen accusatory “you” statements and invited retaliation, Psychology 101.

Regarding your stated, …”well-intentioned but embarassing (correct spelling is embarrassing) not to be trusted with responsibility,” Snakepit22 apologized to Michael Nystrom and stated, “In any case, I again apologize for my rant. I realize it did nobody any good except for myself.” Snakepit22 took responsibility for the ensuing
aftermath for what one could argue is in the worst or least valued post category via the -106 down votes. You attribute such a number to truthers’ use of “mob tactics.” That is a very pejorative description of what is really going on. As long as debunkers denigrate and taunt truthers in the manner of this kind of post, you can expect the reprimands, counter punches and down votes to continue.

You stated, “The years have not been kind to the standard of discourse here.” Neither you nor I have been a DPr long enough to make a judgment on that (in your case one year 5 months, and mine one year 6 months).

I'll back you up here..

Although most of my comments on this post have attempted logic and accuracy, the actual article itself was simply a result of my frustration and was not intended as anything other than a statement of anger at the people I've been frustrated by.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

+1 I commend you

for taking responsibility. It does a lot to calm the waters and
restore civility. Thanks for the backup!


You've been a member for less than a year and a half (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) and you are giving us a lecture on the good old days when DP was about liberty and free market capitalism?? Sorry to burst your bubble but there have been 911 posts on this site since the this site started. So state your case, particularly since you are a self proclaimed expert in fallacies, but don't use the fallacy that this site has changed course when, in fact, it hasn't.

sharkhearted's picture


Well said!

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Dude You Need To Get A New Job

Trolling On DP isn't really working for you. You NEVER make any good arguments when it comes to this subject. You really suck at it. Like a plane can blow up and turn into a big fireball that leaves nothing but a passport. You constantly insult my intelligence with your stupid statements about 9/11! As far as DP talking too much about 9/11 instead of liberty, EVERYONE KNOWS that 9/11 directly affects our liberties with stupid things like the UNpatriot act, TSA, Fusion centers, more surveillance everywhere, paranoid cops and so on so get off the BS. I for one don't buy your crap!


sharkhearted's picture

Right on!


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

sharkhearted's picture


Chris...please repost. I will upvote it until the cows come home.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing!!

PS also I am printing it out to read to my neocon (but receptive) parents tomorrow for sunday lunch.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

You first! It's not my thread, just something I found here...

by clicking on the 'random thread' button, the one between 'viewed' and 'forums' on the blue bar.

9-11 was a panda job.

I saw building 7 fall.

It wasn't hit by a plane.

I saw the report revealing the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust.

I saw recently declassified video of a cruise missle hitting the Pentagon. Its not difficult to find.

I saw 5 Mossad agents - 'dancing Israelis' - were arrested filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks.

I saw the BBC report that building 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it actually fell.

I saw a nation taken into a state of mass denial and its people subjected to a unprecedented level of psy-op in terms of number of people affected and the degree of the effects.

I didn't see these things because I 'wanted' to.

Yep, but was hit by a lot of

Yep, but was hit by a lot of falling debris and finally went down due to uncontrolled fires.

By products of burning of thermite were found in SOME analyses, but these by products can also be produced in other oxidation reactions. The point is moot because their concentrations were too low anyway.

Please post the said video, it will prove you right once and for all.

Don't be silly, everyone knows Jews can't dance.

Captain of the titanic knew one hour before that it was going to sink. Oooh, CONSPIRACY!

Come off it man.

Barry Jennings gives account of explosions in wtc7...

...PRIOR to the collapse of the twin towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE (from around 1:40)

So wtc7 wouldn't have experienced that debris damage yet for it to have been responsible for the explosions that Barry Jennings described.

Mr. Cricket, you have to

Mr. Cricket, you have to realize that hearsay does not count as evidence unless it is made in a courthouse under the penalty of perjury :-S

There could be 10 more witnesses who did not hear anything and you would consider their testimony irrelevant just as I consider that of Barry Jennings. Let's agree that it is best to listen to all the testimonies but not use them to confirm what we already believe, as that, Mr. Cricket would be dishonest.

Then listen to one of the explosions yourself.

If you are not satisfied with Jennings' own eyewitness account of explosions with regard to wtc7, and since he's no longer around to testify in a courthouse for you since his suspicious death, listen to one of the explosions yourself in this 16 second video:


Emergency people are on payphones when an extremely loud explosion is heard. Other fireman approaches telling them, "We gotta get back. Seven's exploding!"

Fyi, even if one were to actually consider Jennings' OWN eyewitness account to be "hearsay", there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Recorded recollections and excited utterances are among those exceptions. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

At any rate, while Shyam Sunder and the NIST website mislead people...

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.


...as you can hear yourself, there were BOTH. There were audible blast sounds recorded AND witness reports of them.

So this notion of leading people to believe the collapse of wtc was due to falling debris and fire, while completely disregarding (and even denying in the case of NIST and Sunder) the explosions/blasts, when there ARE reports and recorded evidences of them...THAT is what is dishonest, Mr. Godsfavson.

These noises occur AFTER the

These noises occur AFTER the towers have collapsed or at least that is what the video description says.
Thanks for educating me on the law though. Learned something new at any rate.
I'm sure you can understand though, why I still do not consider it a high enough standard of proof. After it inexplicably snowed in a place I used to stay, a friend called me up to say that there had been at least a foot of snow outside but later when I looked at the news there was maybe an inch or two.

People exaggerate for effect.

True, that particular explosion...

...where the firefighters are on the phone may not have been one of the explosions Jennings heard prior to either of the twin towers collapsing. BUT it is an evidence that there were explosions/blasts in wtc7, contrary to what NIST is leading people to believe.

Also all the dead bodies in the lobby of wtc7 should raise an eyebrow. There was obviously more going on than fires simply resulting from falling debris.

Mr. Cricket, when mountains

Mr. Cricket, when mountains of burning debris have rained down upon a building you have to accept that it would be silence that would be mystifying rather than loud noises.

Any kind of bomb explosions are unimaginably loud if you happen to be in the vicinity. So much so that you're likely to suffer from irreversible hearing damage. Have you ever heard a car crash? It sounds for just a second as if the world is ending.

Now imagine you're in a building which is on fire and structurally damaged, parts are collapsing, elevators falling. I'm not saying absolutely that you are wrong in your conclusions, only that in this particular case, if you're being honest, you need to admit there is a lot of room for doubt.

It is not brave in any way to refuse to relinquish your beliefs, when you find that all that you have been told is not entirely true.

Just see the discussion below. I know already what study Mr. Sharkhearted is going to show, having dismissed the basic chemistry of oxidation as 'RUBBISH', claiming that as thermitic reactions are very violent, the byproducts cannot be produced by other more simple mechanisms. A mere perusal of an inorganic chemistry textbook would show him he's wrong but he prefers to put his doubts aside and keep 'believing'.

The fact is that he is going to quote a certain study which will show red specks of iron, but when you calculate how much thermite would be required for a demolition, it will come out many orders of magnitude larger than what can be deduced from the amount of iron found.

Mr. Cricket, if you will admit that there is room for doubt in your assertion about explosions in WTC7, then you can bring up the next thing that in your opinion constitutes proof. Maybe we can come to some conclusions there as well.

Huh? A falling elevator? fireant, is that you?

Not sure how anyone could think that extremely loud explosion that was heard when the firemen were using the phone was a falling elevator, especially when the other fireman even came up to them and told them that "seven's exploding".

But if you really think that explosion might've been a falling elevator or other falling part (or tires and batteries or any of the other absurd things fireant listed as possible explanations on another thread), consider this video with sound analysis that corroborates the explosions witnessed at the onset of the collapse of wtc7.


I'm not getting falling elevator from these sequential explosion sounds.

Barry Jennings' account of the dead bodies in the lobby of wtc7 might be debatable since there was no corroboration that I'm aware of by Hess or the fireman who led them out, BUT Hess did corroborate explosion in wtc7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4XUj1xNSY

So there are numerous witnesses describing explosions and there are audible explosions recorded and supported by Chandler's information in the video above. Explosions become harder to dismiss.

Mr. Cricket, I have worked in

Mr. Cricket, I have worked in audio engineering and have a keen interest in it. Given enough filters, I could make Paradise City sound like a controlled demolition =D

Maybe he talked about falling elevators because that seems the simplest solution? Many debunking websites consider it likely.

Ok, so what do you think was used as an explosive?

sharkhearted's picture

You are mistaken.

The truth...shall set you free. Take your head out of the f-u-c-k-i-n-g sand!

NO skyscraper can "go down" at near free fall acceleration, due to "uncontrolled fires."

Not physically possible.

Can't happen. Won't happen. Will never happen.

I mean you can try and go and defy physics like stepping out in front of a speeding car, but trust me, dude, the car will NOT suddenly alter its physical properties and go through you unharmed. In sum, you will die.

Likewise, in sum, 120,000 tons of steel and concrete (like WTC7) can not....CAN NOT...descend to the earth sometimes at the speed of gravity...without some help.

Your whole thermite oxidation blah blah is complete NONSENSE. The thermitic reaction is one of the most violent known to science. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE "OTHER OXIDATION REACTIONS."

"The concentrations were too low??" There was thematic residue EVERYWHERE. It was ubiquitous in the WTC dust.

You need to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyimz35UCiU

Why are you so trying to stick up for the official government state-sponored "account" of the events of 9-11?

3000 innocent people are dead. Do you care about them? Do you care about the twice that number of our military who have been slaughtered because of that day....and many more who commit suicide every day???


Or do you care about getting your government paycheck to disinform, soviet style? (And not very good at it, at that).

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

The byproducts of a thermitic

The byproducts of a thermitic reaction would be aluminium oxide, and iron. Aluminium oxide is produced in burning Al in the presence of air. easily.

Ubiquitous is not the same as concentrated.

I look forward to your reply, maybe we can settle at least this particular issue through a decent discussion.

Heads up

Just a heads up, the Harrit et al paper has been thoroughly debunked. They never even ran the chips through an FTIR.


There never was any elemental aluminum in the chips, therefore, not thermite.

They're trying to narrow down the exact chemical formula for the matching primer now.

Eric Hoffer

Ok, thanks for the report.

Ok, thanks for the report. Made for some interesting reading. My first thought when I red about the red chips was 'must be some oxide of iron'. But yeah, that is why you have scientists, they can analyse in such excruciating detail.

47 pages of references. Wow. While the truthers compile numbered lists =P

Can you tell me why many readers will look at the link, never click it and still continue to use Harriet et al as gospel truth that nano thermite brought down WTCs in a controlled demolition? It seems failure of human curiosity to me. Its as if they say 'We've asked questions so far but we'll go no further'

Its a pity they think they're 'awake' when in truth they're simply dreaming a different dream.


When you don't have many straws to grasp at, you grasp at the few you've got super hard.

Honestly, it's the only piece that comes even close to being "scientific." The problem is that they don't understand the process of actual peer review, don't understand Bentham's reputation, and don't understand that scientists can make mistakes or not fully evaluate evidence. It's "sciency" enough for them, and waving it around as "Truth" is easier on them. Of course, those not fully plugged in to the issues will accept the "scientific" study, not knowing it has been debunked and not knowing where to go to find the updates.

There are some legitimate Truthers out there with respect for the science involved, but the ones citing the nano-thermite study by Harrit, unless they're ignorant of the updates, are giving the group a bad name.

Eric Hoffer