CT Arguments that Can Go Both Ways

[eeyore1954]

I have noticed how many of arguments that could be used to further the belief in a CT no matter which side you take.

I am only listing one to start
The fact that there were cell phone calls prove it was an inside job. If there had been no cell phone call that got through I can state with a 99.999999% degree of certainty the argument would have been something along these lines.

The fact that no calls got through proves there were no passengers on the planes. Any one knows that some of the calls would have got through. Some psuedo scientist would have done a project Tendons (instead of achilles) and proven that some calls should have made it through. BLah, blah , blah Etc, Etc...

[Firestone]

The fact that the side of the Pentagon that was hit has been renovated shortly before 9/11 is sometimes cited as evidence (never quite understood why, but who cares ...).

If the side of the Pentagon that was hit had not yet been renovated, that would also have been evidence for an inside-job: "What a coincidence that they hit a part of the Pentagon that had to be redone anyway. Coincidence, yeah right!".

[uk_dave]

Likewise, if there had been large pieces of wreckage at the pentagon and shanksville the cry would be......

"Oh do they think we're stupid? The plane was supposed to be travelling at a billion miles an hour but they plant a tail section sticking out of the ground/building and expect us to believe it's real? C'mon bwahahaha" etc etc

[MikeW]

If the side of the Pentagon that was hit had not yet been renovated, that would also have been evidence for an inside-job: "What a coincidence that they hit a part of the Pentagon that had to be redone anyway. Coincidence, yeah right!".
And I think I might have mentioned this before, but along the same lines:

- Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, on the opposite side from Rumsfeld's office: very suspicious!

- But if Flight 77 had hit in the exact same spot and Rumsfeld wasn't there, we'd be told that was suspicious, he knew the attack was coming.

- And if Flight 77 had hit the side of the building with Rumsfeld's office, and he'd been killed, we'd be told that was suspect: it was just so unlikely, he'd been targeted by the NWO for making a fuss about the "missing" $2.3 trillion, etc etc.

[chippy]

It's a lot like how once we convinced people that a plane did crash at the Pentagon, they said "yeah, but maybe it was flown by remote control!" Or once we proved that a plane did crash in Shanksville, they said "yeah, but maybe it was shot down!" Or how we proved that the pod theory was ridiculous, so they said "yeah, the planes did crash, but it was still a controlled demolition!"

The fact is that we're whittling them down nicely. We just have to keep this up.

[CHF]

No video = "it's a coverup"

Video = "it was faked, cuz it's a coverup"

[Dave Rogers]

How about...

Black smoke = oxygen starved fire, supports CD
White smoke = thermite, supports CD
No smoke = small, localised fires, supports CD

Dave

[pgwenthold]

Here are arguments that HAVE gone both ways:

The towers fell in their own footprint, so it must have been a CD.
Pieces from the towers flew too far away (i.e. "not in it's own footprint") for it to happen by itself.

And another, with WTC1 and WTC2:
"It looked like CD when they fell, so it was a CD"
"It didn't look like a CD when they fell, so it was an atypical approach to a CD"

[8den]

The fact that the side of the Pentagon that was hit has been renovated shortly before 9/11 is sometimes cited as evidence (never quite understood why, but who cares ...).

If the side of the Pentagon that was hit had not yet been renovated, that would also have been evidence for an inside-job: "What a coincidence that they hit a part of the Pentagon that had to be redone anyway. Coincidence, yeah right!".

My favourite response to a CTer ever

CT "What are the odds the plane hit the side of the pentagon that had been reinforced :rolleyes: "

Me "Like 1 in 5"

[Firestone]

Lucky Larry Silverstein got the lease on the WTC-complex six weeks before the attacks: inside job !!!

Of course, there were months of negotiations before the deal between Silverstein and the NYNJPA was finalized.

Now imagine, just imagine, that the negotiations had dragged on even more, and the lease was due to enter into effect a few weeks after the attacks!!!

That would have been some "Lucky Larry Silverstein" argument!

[ZouPrime]

"Operation Northwood":

They take a plan calling for "mock" attacks, fake death and funerals, and limited destruction of US property, all of this far away from the public eye and thus easily "faked" with limited to no risk of getting caught, and then they try to compare it to the 9/11 attacks, with thousands dead, billions of dollars lost, all of this on national TV and involving potentially hundreds of peoples who may or may not keep the awful secret in the end.

If Operation Northwood can teach us one thing, it's that the US government would never do something as complex and completely unecessary as 9/11 just for the sake of creating a casus belli.

[chippy]

No video = "it's a coverup"

Video = "it was faked, cuz it's a coverup"

Ugh, yeah, tell me about it. CTs complained for YEARS about how the Doubletree footage wasn't released. And when it was, they said "oh, it's grainy, you can't trust it!"

Come on.

[Brainster]

And if the planes had been shot down:

Todd Beamer had discovered evidence in Oracle's databases that proved Florida's 2000 election was stolen!

They did it to get rid of Barbara Olsen who was about to reveal...

Zionist commando Daniel Lewin was in charge (of course, some retards (http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/ZionistDid911.html) already think that).

[Anti-sophist]

NIST not considering explosives = Curious ommission, coverup, inside job
NIST considering explosives = "Duh", No other explanation, inside job

[eeyore1954]

If WTC 7 had not collapsed that would be proof that 1 and 2 could not have collapsed without explosives.

Look at WTC it had suffered severe structural damage , the fire was allowed to burn unchecked for several hours , the fire was out of control on all floors .
How can you claim an airplane could bring down the towers after number 7 was able to withstand all of that.
Look at WTC 7 once again proof that no steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire.

[Mancman]

I was arguing with some idiots about the sniffer dogs they claim were removed from the WTC just prior to 9/11. I of course pointed out that they were only removing extra security, and that there was always at least one sniffer dog there 24/7.

They replied that the dog could have been a fake, non-sniffing K9.

So there were no sniffer dogs. And if there were, they were fake.

[A W Smith]

sometimes they argue this in the same paragraph

A) The building fell into its own footprint exactly like a controled demolition

B) Material was ejected 500' outward so it HAD to be a controlled demolition


I see pgwenthold beat me to the punch above

[steve s]

I was arguing with some idiots about the sniffer dogs they claim were removed from the WTC just prior to 9/11.

What's so ridiculous about their sniffer dog argument is that it would have taken at least six months to a year to wire up the two towers with explosives. And the troofers think that the dogs were removed in the days before 9-11 so they wouldn't smell the explosives.:wide-eyed

Steve S.

[jaydeehess]

Had Flt 77 hit another side of the Pentagon they'd find it suspicious that the side with the upgraded blast protection was avoided.

Concerning WTC 7 I pointed out that the NIST computer sims identified a collapse sequence involving certain columns that would create a collapse as was seen. This includes having them fail somewhere below 13th floor. I was then told that the explosives must have been on those columns. However the same CT had just pointed to the supposed 'squibs' in WTC 7 along one wall at the top floors of the building as evidence of CD.

[PerryLogan]

The CT attitude toward the news media flips back and forth very nicely. If the news says something the CTs don't like, they just say it's fake. If, on the other hand, the news is something they like, all of a sudden the news becomes reliable. They do the same with the government--declaring the government to be a big liar, but quoting government sources when it fits their fantasies. They are blithering conspiratorial idiots.

[Architect]

"Blithering idiots" sums it up nicely, I must say.

[TellyKNeasuss]

What about the USAF response? The CT'ers are always citing the fact that the USAF didn't intercept any of the hijacked planes as evidence of an inside job. So what if they had intercepted some of them? Then the CT'ers would be saying stuff like "How did they find those specific planes in such a short time unless they knew in advance where they would be?" and "Why did they violate regulations by breaking the sound barrier over land unless they knew in advance that the hijacked planes would be crashed into buildings?".

This sort of thinking proves that it is always possible to find some item that appears to support any position. That's why falsifiabilty is so important.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Stocktrading
If all the suspicious stock trading prior to 911 was normal, why did the CIA investigate?
(Had they not done so it would obivously be taken as a coverup)


Media is in on it (or not)
None of the mainstream media is writing about the WTC7 collaps (proof of coverup)
Isnt the fact that the New York times writes and calls (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D94044 82)the fall of WTC7 "a mystery" a strong indication that somethings fishy? (proof of coverup)

Cheers,
SLOB

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I am only listing one to start
The fact that there were cell phone calls prove it was an inside job. If there had been no cell phone call that got through I can state with a 99.999999% degree of certainty the argument would have been something along these lines.

The fact that no calls got through proves there were no passengers on the planes. Any one knows that some of the calls would have got through. Some psuedo scientist would have done a project Tendons (instead of achilles) and proven that some calls should have made it through. BLah, blah , blah Etc, Etc...
An alternative, since CTists seem to enjoy hi-tech wizardry, would be that the government jammed all attempted calls from the planes so that none of the passengers could reveal any information about the situation that might contradict their well-written script.

In fact, that'd be a hell of a lot easier to swallow than the idea of agents using voice-morphing technology to relay contradicting accounts of the situation. :rolleyes:

They replied that the dog could have been a fake, non-sniffing K9.

So there were no sniffer dogs. And if there were, they were fake.
Holograms. :rolleyes:

[Free Thinkr]

An alternative, since CTists seem to enjoy hi-tech wizardry, would be that the government jammed all attempted calls from the planes so that none of the passengers could reveal any information about the situation that might contradict their well-written script.

In fact, that'd be a hell of a lot easier to swallow than the idea of agents using voice-morphing technology to relay contradicting accounts of the situation. :rolleyes:
Oh, for sure. If there had been no calls, their "case" would be much stronger. Of course, both boil down to simple incredulity and prove nothing.

[stateofgrace]

NORAD stood down.

Jet fighters dispatched by NORAD shot Flight 93 down.

[The Doc]

Alex Jones:

"The media isn't reporting this because they are government controlled, Fox News is a CIA asset, CNN is run by a criminal element of the government..." etc.

Then at other times

"This is all admitted. This is main stream press people, Fox News articles from 2001. This is out in the open".

[T.A.M.]

The USG ignored the numerous warnings that 9/11 was going to happen...therefore, Inside Job.

Elements of the USG were warned about 9/11 and chose not to travel that day...therefore, Inside Job.

TAM:)

[Myriad]

Some politicians and military leaders say we don't know the full story -> they think it was a conspiracy.
But if all politicians and military leaders were to insist we do know the full story, we'd be hearing about how suspicious it was that no Democrats or anti-Bush military factions were raising questions, no doubt due to a conspiracy.

Heat generated and sustained within the ground zero debris piles -> must have come from massive amounts of hot thermite reaction products, indicating CD.
But if the debris piles stayed cool, we'd be hearing that the collapse alone coudn't have snuffed out the fires, the fires must have already been nearly out before collapse or possibly snuffed out by explosives, either way indicating CD.

NIST (or any other investigators') final report differed from their early assessments -> they're incompetent, or were coerced to change their story to cover up the truth.
Final reports in total agreement with early assessments -> they knew right away what happened because it was planned in advance.

Here's one they have three ways: the speed of tower collapse...
"Faster than freefall" -> vacuum effect created by "implosion" -> CD
"At freefall speed" -> no internal resistance from columns -> columns pre-severed -> CD
"Slower than freefall" -> support columns slowed the collapse -> the slowing proves the intact lower floors could have halted collapse -> they didn't -> CD

Respectfully,
Myriad

[defaultdotxbe]

i think this is one of the more rediculous ones:

flights 11 and 175 FDRs not found = no planes

flights 11 and 175 FDRs found = covered up, not the right planes

flights 93 and 77 FDR found = faked data

flight 77 FDR found = real data that happens to prove a conspiracy


they have a CT for every possible option

[ref]

Someone already mentioned something like this.

No clear video showing Pentagon hit by a plane: No plane.
A clear video showing Pentagon hit by a plane: Faked video.

Others include,

Commission report: Biased, omitted everything.
No Commission report: No investigation, they don't want it.

No bodies: No real passengers.
DNA identified bodies: faked results.

Eyewitnesses supporting 'official' account: not credible.
Eyewitnesses contradicting the 'official' account: credible.

Silverstein not at work during attacks: Foreknowledge
Rumsfeld at work during attacks: He was safe on his own wing, and carrying the strecher was a planned blunder, a photo op.

Someone misquoted: proof
That someone correcting the quote: forced/payed/wrong

All the million reports and accounts supporting the natural collapse: wrong, controlled investigations, payed
All the few reports and accounts supporting CD: the undisputed truth

[PerryLogan]

I may have wandered into the realm of internal contradictions here, but no harm done:

Everyone is waking up, but everyone's a sheeple.

Experts are government shills, unless they say something you like.

The clues are many and obvious--but only conspiracy guys can see them.

Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same, except for their starkly different behavior and records.

The leaders of both major parties are ruthless and power-mad. They are also meek servants to their New World Order masters.

The bad guys control both parties, so their guys always win. They also rig the votes--to make sure their guys win.

Most people are elitists--because they're brainless sheeple, too stupid to see the secret conspiracy that's going on.

Clips of Osama bin Laden are always clumsy fakes. All YouTube clips are real.

The evil goverment is trying to scare you into submission. It is also trying to lull you and tranquilize you.

Amy Goodman and Bill O'Reilly have both had Truthers on their shows. But they're still gatekeepers.

The courts are controlled by the globalists. But it's OK for Truthers to sue one another.

The Truther truth is being brutally suppressed--except for the documentaries and the forums and the television interviews and the magazine write-ups and the cable TV shows and the radio programs and the Google Videos and the DVDs and publications and celebrity endorsements and T-shirts and bumper stickers and other miscellaneous marketing options.

Only Nazis favor gun control--even though the American Nazi Party violently opposes gun control.

[jhunter1163]

Well, Dylan does look a little effeminate...

Oh, ARGUMENTS that go both ways....

Sorry. My bad. Carry on.

[Big Al]

Since the thread is not stated as restricted to 9/11 woo, how about:

The UFO didn't show up on radar. That proves it's a real alien ship.
The UFO showed up on radar. That really proves it's a real alien ship.

[A W Smith]

Well, Dylan does look a little effeminate...

Oh, ARGUMENTS that go both ways....

Sorry. My bad. Carry on.


Oh no.. You dont mean the old ghey face conspiracy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay+face)?

[rwguinn]

Since the thread is not stated as restricted to 9/11 woo, how about:

The UFO didn't show up on radar. That proves it's a real alien ship.
The UFO showed up on radar. That really proves it's a real alien ship.

You messed up, there. Proves that you are an alien off of a ship.
People saw it, but it wasn't on radar.
It sped off at 186,000 miles per second, making 90 degree turns all the while, according to the Radar track

[Big Al]

"Ha! Our primitive ape brains aren't capable of comprehending the Greys' motives or technology."

<slight pause>

"The Greys want to create human / alien chimeras to replenish their ancient bloodline. Their spacecraft work on a gravito-magnetic continuum warp..."

<continues in painful detail with the standard Star Trek "folded piece of paper" analogy that even a three-year old can understand.>

****

"Mere humans couldn't possibly have shifted the huge stone blocks for the Pyramids by musclepower alone. Aliens must have done it."

"They didn't just use musclepower. They had ropes, levers and A-frames."

"Where are these mythical so-called "A-frames", then?" ("so-called", said with a sneer, is a great woo standby)

"They were made of wood, and wood doesn't last 4,000 years in the desert."

"DU-UUH! Have you seen any hardwood trees in Egypt? Have you? Was there a convenient lumber yard in the middle of the desert or something?"

"Ancient Egypt bought timber from Lebanon. We even have carbon-dated papyrus receipts in original hieratic detailing the sales."

"You actually believe in this so-called "carbon dating"? All sorts of things can throw the dates out."

"What's more plausible, then: that the Egyptians were intelligent human beings using wooden levers and A-frames, or that bug-eyed space aliens helped them out with anti-gravity rays from their flying saucers and then pushed off back to Zeta Reticuli without leaving a sign and without the Egyptians bothering to mention the fact in their hieroglyphs?"

"STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! I never said they were bug-eyed! You're completely twisting and misstating my serious and sensible argument!"

[Firestone]

The hijackers were only armed with box cutters. Impossible to hijack planes with these toys: inside job!!!

The hijackers had firearms. How could they get these on the plane? Inside job!!!

[Free Thinkr]

they have a CT for every possible option
Bingo. The real (twoo?) answer to this thread is "all of them." The woos aren't about proving anything, they're about doubting mainstream explanations; anything can be doubted. Their "theories" are nothing more than explanations for incredulity.

[Firestone]

Thanks to none other than Dylan Avery for illustrating the theme of this thread.

From the thread Deconstructing the Naudets’ propaganda film (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4289) (:rolleyes:) on LCF:

...Then, with a nano-window of six seconds in which to catch Flight 11 stream from behind the AT&T building at 450 mph, he catches perfectly the last two seconds of the hit into the North Tower at 8:46.30 am, what’s commonly known in the film business as “The Money Shot.” So, calculate the odds...... and Dylan Avery answers:

That's the part that's always bugged me the most. The sheer accuracy of the shot. Say what you will, but the odds of an amateur videographer capturing a shot like that are, to me, virtually astronomical. (remember, Jules was with them for camera practice, the narrator even says so )

That, and the very chance that they'd be at a perfect distance to capture Flight 11 unobstructed, but not reveal any details about the plane itself ( even debunkers must admit the video does not conclusively show American Airlines Flight 11 )

My $.02I wonder what circumstance in this Naudet-story would not have been suspicious in the eyes of these guys.

[gumboot]

I think, in Dylan's comment above, it is finally revealed why he was booted out of film school. No doubt he sent them some "perfect" shots he took himself.

-Gumboot

[Rahne Everson]

And another, with WTC1 and WTC2:
"It looked like CD when they fell, so it was a CD"
"It didn't look like a CD when they fell, so it was an atypical approach to a CD"


How about using both ways to the prove the same notion at the same time. Like how 9/11 Mysteries uses the above.

"The buildings' imploding."
...
"We are seeing explosions rather than implosions."

[gumboot]

There's another thread somewhere with a whole catalogue of CT claims that directly and explicitly contradict each other, like the "neat footprint" "debris exploding outwards" example.

-Gumboot