9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Katzen, I agree with you to an extent. The main issue is that there are many people (including some in this forum) who continue to believe the official story. I find that in my time here, a few things happen. I meet some likeminded individuals (those who outright disbelieve the official story), but I also meet someone who, however slightly, question the official story. These people may -generally- support it, but every now and then, I find that they have some doubts. I've found that the trick to getting those doubts to grow is not to hammer them over the head by saying that the official story is false, or worse, accuse them of knowing the truth but pretending not to, but instead, to constantly remind them of these points, to show that, despite the fact that we may disagree on much if not most of what happened on 9/11, there can still be some points of agreement, and perhaps an expansion of that agreement in the future. I think the clearest point where many people claiming to support the official story are beginning to waver is the whole issue regarding the extent of the Saudi Arabian government's involvement, due in large part to the renewed interest in the release of the 28 pages redacted from the Joint 9/11. I recently looked over an article regarding the 28 pages. It cites a recent article from the New York Times and comes out with some very good points in my view... We Found a Preview of the 28 Redacted Pages — and It’s a 9/11 Game-Changer

 

I like to make sure they have access a summary of proof of an inside job in case they find time to look at it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060

I've emailed documentaries to people who believe the official story and years later they tell me they still haven't had time to watch the documentaries and they still believe the official story. It's hard to get people to even watch those docuentaries. I've found that showing them something really clear such as this...
http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif

...gets them wondering. They usually experience cognitive dissonance* and go into denial when shown stuff like that but people like that are saying one thing and believing another. They are convinced but they simply can't accept it so they say they don't believe it. Once they reach that point, it's difficult to get them to talk about it at all. It takes a long time for a patriotic believer to turn into a truther.


Here's some info for people like that to look at.

Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/821-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-.html


*
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

 

Some good points. For the record, I have seen official story supporters look at documentaries that question if not outright disbelieve the official story, some in this very forum. To make an analogy, official story supporters could be seen like delicate plants, whose doubts concerning the official story of 9/11 can have a difficult time to grow without very specific pieces of information, just like delicate plants need very specific conditions to thrive. I definitely think that the recent surge in interest in the 28 pages, even here amoung people who profess to believe the official story, is a good sign that some required pieces of information necessary for those doubts to grow are surfacing.

 

"Humans are free"?

The article is crap.

 

What keeps making headline news are the 28 redacted pages but what has been kept largely in the shadows (save for a local Broward County, FL news source) is the fact that the FBI covered up 27 boxes (about 80,000 pages) of documents from its PENTTBOM "investigation" and lied to Congress and the 9/11 Commission by claiming they gave them everything. Those documents are allegedly directly connected to the 28 pages and the Saudi connection to 9/11. Hopefully, the 9/11 families' lawsuit vs the Saudis causes those documents to be exposed during the discovery phase.

 

So you say. In the Saudi thread, you elaborate more on why you think so, and I have responded there. Seeing as that thread is specific to this subject, perhaps we should continue this discussion there.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I'd mentioned those in the past as well .

 

Is this one better for you?:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/17/us/document-saudi-memos-9-11.html?_r=1

 

Just thought I'd post an article from an author I trust, relating specifically to the 9/11 hijackers, as I've been talking about the subject in this forum for a while...
Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 &#8216;hijackers&#8217; boarded any planes | Truth and Shadows

 

Sadly, the AMERICAN people are rather short on being able to apply LOGIC
the fact is that it is abundantly clear what didn't happen on 9/11,
now given that realization, we could move on to other bits, but with half the population
still believing that story about the hijackers ( etc.... ) its kind of a moot point.

 

I once said that a theory is an educated guess, in so far as a person's education goes. The problem, in my view, is that most people's education on the events of 9/11 is sadly lacking, and so they are satisfied with the official conspiracy theory.

 

It's not just that, they also accept what they're told by the US government and its complicit media with little or no questions asked.

 

That's what I meant by "satisfied with the official conspiracy theory" .

 

You do NOT have to absolutely have an alternative explanation handy
in order to KNOW that the official story is a FRAUD.

 

Have you seen my posts "basic logic" and "Physical Science Question"

I KNOW that airliners were not used as weapons that day. ... do you have a rebuttal?

 

"The towers tore themselves apart. Anyone who thinks that looks like a 'pancake' is kidding themselves."

Exactly how is it that a skyscraper tears itself apart? Buildings are designed and built to stand not fall.
The wave front of destruction was accelerating downward at apox 2/3 the acceleration of gravity.
how do you account for a strictly gravity powered collapse that completely destroys the whole skyscraper,
and in addition drops at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity?

 

You can't live your life with only the ability to determine things that aren't true.

What is it that you believe to be true, and what is your evidence for this? Does it withstand the same scrutiny that you apply to the so called fraud story?

 

Have you seen my posts in "Basic Logic" and "Physical Science Question" .... the argument is presented that airliners could not possibly have made those wing shaped gashes in the towers. This does not require being able to say HOW it was done, but the fact that the hijacked airliners story is bogus, is very obvious.

 

A logical argument has three pillars. It should have valid premises. It should be sound in structure, and the result should be a valid conclusion. Your posts contain claims of logical arguments, but they do not contain one.

For example, in your post regarding "basic logic" you present the following:

1. Mid air aircraft collisions take place.
2. These collisions always resulted in catastrophic damage to both aircraft.
3. fundamental physics of the collision show clearly that there would have to be a huge amount of energy expended in said collision.
?
Conclusion: wing shaped impacts are impossible.

This is not a sound argument. It contains false premises. It contains poor structure. It draws a conclusion not supported by the premises.

Futher, someone with an understanding of logical argument understands that you don't invalidate a conclusion by simply invalidating a premise. There's 4 outcomes of an attempted logical argument. It can have valid premises, and valid structure that lead to a valid conclusion. It can have false premises, a valid structure and a conclusion that is either. It can have valid premises, false structure, and a conclusion that is either, or it can have false premises, false structure, and a conclusion that is false. What this means is that there's 3 ways to arrive at a valid conclusion, but only one way to arrive at one that can be declared true.

That is why I think you should provide your argument for a valid true conclusion. If you intended to invalidate the accepted conclusion, you need to do so with a sound argument for a contradictory conclusion. You can't just invalidate the premises of the other conclusion. Expecially not with unsound arguments like the one in your basic logic thread.

 

Let me address the previous points about the logical argument,
The fact is that there would be time >70 milliseconds for the plane to react to the forces imposed.
there would be forces imposed by the equal and opposite re-action to having struck the side of the skyscraper and with at a minimum
having to displace tons of mass, there would be very significant forces applied to said airliner.
The major argument here is that all the damage to the aircraft would be confined to the point of contact with the wall, can not be supported by logic.

Note that "Fangbeer" left out a good bit of what I presented in order to assert that my logical argument was incomplete.
if anybody wants to debate this issue, read the whole thing!

 

I didn't find any good bits to include. I could only find false bits.

If you'd like another attempt at presenting a valid & sound argument, be my guest.

 

In your above post, you jump to "Conclusion: wing shaped impacts are impossible." without noting that in my posts,
I give reasons why said wing shaped gash would be impossible, that is given the time for physical materials to react
to the stress imposed and the fact that there would be stress ( that is >100 g ) the airliner would not remain whole,
it would break up before having any opportunity to make that wing shaped gash. This is what I meant by including the
whole argument.

Do you have any sort of rebuttal that recognizes the fact that I did include in my original post, the argument for why
the wing shaped gash was impossible?

 

I suppose it makes logical sense to you that I do that here, in this thread, called "What really happened on that day?" rather that answer my question to you to present a logical argument of what you think happened that day?

tsk tsk.

 

Please be so kind as to elaborate upon what you are actually trying to express, I'm not sure what you mean by your post.
also on the subject of what happened that day, it is abundantly clear what didn't happen and that is airliners were not hijacked
and crashed into the Pentagon & WTC towers......

BTW: you began this bit with a attack on my logical argument as to why the airliners story was impossible and have as yet,
not provided sufficient evidence that there were actually any airliners, so far the logic stands.

 

This thread is not about your previous illogical arguments, nor is it specifically about aircraft impact studies.

According to the subject heading it is about "What really happened on 9/11"

It think it quite reasonable for me in this thread to press you for an outline that answers the question I asked. Granted it was a question I asked of an entirely different person more than three years ago, but your delay in response only underscores how much time your movement has had to come up with a cohesive alternative outline of "what really happened" on 9/11.

 

On the subject of "What really happened" The only thing that the evidence so far supports is making a statement about
what did not happen and that is hijacked airliners were not crashed into skyscrapers & the Pentagon. and "FLT93" is a total hoax!
so exactly what did happen, skyscrapers were blown up, and talking heads on TV lied a lot .....