Who has been the most effective 9/11 "truth" advocate?

[Praktik]

Hey all!

Ok, so I'm new here and I've been browsing the forums. Been enjoying the possible audiophile MCD challenge and some of the discussions here in the conspiracy corner. Seems like there's a lot of other cool things to talk about in other forums too.

Anyhow, I've been coasting through some of the 9/11 threads and reading discussions that really haven't shaken any of my perceptions regarding 9/11. I've participated in debates in other boards and have never come across an argument for the conspiracy that -at best - didn't already have an alternative reasonable explanation. At worst, the tripe is in the realm of the fantastic (holograms) or clearly identifiable as a strain of the conspiracy lore of the NWO and the usual suspects like Jones or Icke (as someone memorably said to a troofer on another board: "if you can't detect a faulty methodology from depictions of alien lizardmen, then you deserve to waste your time reading that garbage"). I've spent a lot of time on truther sites and debunking sites and am generally familiar with most of the standard "truth" tenets. Going through the threads, I'm not really seeing anything new.

Maybe I have a confirmation bias against the CT arsenal, who knows. I just haven't been convinced.

So help save me some time trodding over old arguments, is there any CTer that has proved themselves particularly effective at convincing the rationalists here? What are the most interesting and plausible arguments that have been made here? I'm wondering if anyone has been able to sow some real doubt among people like me who haven't been convinced by any 9/11 truth argument yet.

[PhantomWolf]

So help save me some time trodding over old arguments, is there any CTer that has proved themselves particularly effective at convincing the rationalists here?

I'll save you the time too. No.

What are the most interesting and plausible arguments that have been made here?

Interestingly the one that probably is the most plausible is from a non-truther, Dr Greening under the Guise of Apollo20. He suggested that a form of rocket fuel could have been mixed into the fireproofing and used in the respray causing the mixture to heat up to extemely hot temperatures in the fire, thus melting the trusses and causing them to sag and thus then I asume following the basic situation NIST outlined to collapse.

Of course this has some big issues too, like the fact that a number of the the floors in one of the towers, IIRC WTC2, that had the fire hadn't been treated with the new Fireproofing and that it seems the fireproofing was way to fragile to survive the impacts anyway, but it is an interesting idea and way more plausible than anything the rest of them have come up with. (usually the old canards of Thermite/explosives, or high energy space beams/nukes.)

[T.A.M.]

I think the laundry needs to be done.

TAM:)

[Disbelief]

I think the laundry needs to be done.

TAM:)

Not so fast TAM.

To expand a bit on Phantom's post, Crazy Chainsaw did a number of experiment to back up some of Dr. Greening's ideas. Not saying that what the good Doc has suggested is right, as that is outside my expertise, but it is interesting and doesn't involve any conspiracy.

[T.A.M.]

ok. ok...

Most Plausible arguments here...

1. That other sources of heat, chemical in nature, contributed to the temperatures within the WTC fires, and hence contributed to the collapse.

2. That the iron spherules, that CTists allege as proof of thermite, might simply be the combo of heat, iron/steel, energy transfer, and organic materials (all found in WTCs without thermite).

TAM:)

[Bell]

LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) is the most plausible to me. With LIHOP, the government knew of the impending attacks, but choose to not stop them, so they could use the attacks to pursue their own agenda.

[hellaeon]

Im with Bell, if anything its LIHOP, but putting together a plausible LIHOP scenario seems beyond the scope of single brain cell organisms such as CTists, as they cant even understand what actually happened to then create a plausable LIHOP scenario.

Someone once remarked 'Call Stephen Hawking! We have found something denser then a singularity'...whilst being ridiculously hilarious its also my experience with almost all the CTists who have visited here.

[Brainster]

Effective in terms of bringing people to the movement? I don't think there's any doubt that "honor" belongs to Dylan Avery. Effective arguer? Certainly folks like Arabesque, Greg Jenkins, Russ Pickering, and Caustic Logic show tremendous facility in debunking parts of the conspiracy theory that they don't believe in personally. Unfortunately they all have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the parts of the conspiracy theory that they do believe in.

[BenBurch]

You cannot convince a rationalist with anything other than data, and all the data points to 9/11 being exactly what it appeared to be, live, on our televisions.

BTW, Twoofers, there is no "official story", we all made up our minds based on what we saw then and what we learned later. Nobody could try to tell me what to think and live.

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey all!

Ok, so I'm new here and I've been browsing the forums. Been enjoying the possible audiophile MCD challenge and some of the discussions here in the conspiracy corner. Seems like there's a lot of other cool things to talk about in other forums too.

Anyhow, I've been coasting through some of the 9/11 threads and reading discussions that really haven't shaken any of my perceptions regarding 9/11. I've participated in debates in other boards and have never come across an argument for the conspiracy that -at best - didn't already have an alternative reasonable explanation. At worst, the tripe is in the realm of the fantastic (holograms) or clearly identifiable as a strain of the conspiracy lore of the NWO and the usual suspects like Jones or Icke (as someone memorably said to a troofer on another board: "if you can't detect a faulty methodology from depictions of alien lizardmen, then you deserve to waste your time reading that garbage"). I've spent a lot of time on truther sites and debunking sites and am generally familiar with most of the standard "truth" tenets. Going through the threads, I'm not really seeing anything new.

Maybe I have a confirmation bias against the CT arsenal, who knows. I just haven't been convinced.

So help save me some time trodding over old arguments, is there any CTer that has proved themselves particularly effective at convincing the rationalists here? What are the most interesting and plausible arguments that have been made here? I'm wondering if anyone has been able to sow some real doubt among people like me who haven't been convinced by any 9/11 truth argument yet.


I personally had trouble refuting Gordon Ross's work, but that's because it was right up my weak spot; as I've admitted elsewhere here, I was all over the qualitative sciences in college, but the quantitative ones smacked me hard.

However, others here have tackled it fairly well. Heck, Newton's Bit's critique is pretty recent, and still being commented on. And I think others have made mention of single points they've analyzed.

I also had zero knowledge with which to answer any of Balsamo's work, but aside from his confrontation+anger=effective argument mindset, I wasn't predisposed to agree with it anyway, simply because the results of the analysis was so counter to witness accounts that day. Doesn't matter, though; others here have rather firmly taken care of it themselves.

Granted, those two examples weren't exactly what you meant. Neither argument I listed above actually gave me any crisis moments, or induced cognitive dissonance, nor did they cause much doubt in my mind. I merely mention them because the spirit of you OP was whether there were any arguments able to sow some doubt among the newly introduced people to the topics, and if one of those topics were thrown at me with a witness nearby, I'd be hard pressed to challenge them effectively.

[CptColumbo]

There are those who have made me have to do deeper research into the subject then I noramlly would.

[Good Lt]

Killtown. Definitely Killtown.

:duck:

[beachnut]

Ok, so I'm new here and I've been browsing the forums. Been enjoying the possible audiophile MCD challenge and some of the discussions here in the conspiracy corner.
Maybe I have a confirmation bias against the CT arsenal, who knows. I just haven't been convinced.

So help save me some time trodding over old arguments, is there any CTer that has proved themselves particularly effective at convincing the rationalists here? What are the most interesting and plausible arguments that have been made here? I'm wondering if anyone has been able to sow some real doubt among people like me who haven't been convinced by any 9/11 truth argument yet.No. No truth in 9/11 truth! But the $$$ for the MCD; I do not think that is real. Is it. But Randi is right if he said that wire is wire, is wire. Speaker cable CT is an old one.

So help save me some time trodding over old arguments, is there any CTer that has proved themselves particularly effective at convincing the rationalists here?NO

Zero 9/11 truth movement people have anything that makes sense. Not one single fact or piece of evidence to support the conclusions of 9/11 truth. Zip.

Which crazy idea do you like?

[Praktik]

Zero 9/11 truth movement people have anything that makes sense. Not one single fact or piece of evidence to support the conclusions of 9/11 truth. Zip.

Which crazy idea do you like?

Hehe - for sheer entertainment value, I think the "hologram" and "remote control" theories are the ones I "like" the most.

But as others have said, no argument or "crazy idea" has ever really had me thinking twice except for LIHOP. Still, I think there's enough evidence out there that the gov was playing a game of "broken telephone" and I'm not sure that they were able to connect the dots sufficiently to "let it happen on purpose". You can't "let something happen" if you have no idea (or a partial idea) of what's coming. However, LIHOP is eminently more plausible than a lot of the stuff flying around in the internets.

Thanks for the replies people, I'll run some searches and look up some of the posters and arguments mentioned - not because I think I'll be "shaken" - but I'm curious to see the "best" the troofers had to offer...