Rusted Sky

The attentions of some folks who are trying to persuade me down in Rusted Sky: This has GOT to be the best Anti-9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking Site... that it WAS done by the government. So far, however, I ain't buying it.

Let me give you some examples of the give and take so far.

If the government was not against the United States, why are all of the facts not adding up? Also, why is it when citizens question what exactly happened on September 11th, the government never answers the questions? Not the mention, whenever a government official states anything that could catch Bush and his administration in this huge lie and that they are real terrorists, even if they just put a dint into it, the official gets fired for it?

All these questions are answered in this one statement: No matter how much the government claims that they did not plan the terrorist attacks, they left evidence that proves it and that the Supreme Court would find them guilty and sentenced for life for murder. Bush claims that he is anti-death and he goes around killing his own innocent people most likely for more money because that is all he cares about.

They come up with an idea to write a bogus book to show what great liars they are called the "9/11 Commission Report" and they still get caught by a book called "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". What do we have to do to get through their heads that citizens realize that the U.S. government is the real terrorists behind the attacks and we are just waiting for them to admit it? We must tell them we know they plan the attacks and let them know what they did was incorrect and now widows, children and families are suffering without their loved ones and have to grieve over the death. The cause of the death by an autopsy you might ask?

It is not a fatal plane crash, but Bush and his administration flying other people’s innocent lives into the Twin Towers, "a field in Pennsylvania" and "The Pentagon" when it should have been his own.

Posted by: theusadminturned

I'll freely admit I'm not following the guy here. He's apparently saying that the US government did it, because... there's evidence they did? I dismiss him as your standard 9/11 nutcase. Make a claim, rationalize it, and use those rationalizations to 'prove' you're correct.

Shortly afterward, this post popped into the queue.

I respect your opinion about the government and how it hasn't killed Dylan Avery, but I don't agree that just because they weren't killed, that means that the government is innoccent of all crimes. You are assuming that a man with horrible piolit skills, Honjur, was able to get past the anti-misile system on the most protected building in the United States, the Pentagon. You are also assuming that Al Qaeda would be able to pull off such a scandal leaving evidence that points to the US government. What would their motive be for attacking the largest and most intelligent millitary country in the world? These are questions that need to be asked.

Posted by: Jessica

Now, I'm starting to see a pattern here. There are claims, without facts to back them up. Supposition, and downright inaccuracies. (Since when did they install anti-missile defenses at the Pentagon pre-9/11?) There's also the idea that Al Quaeda's incapable of pulling these coordinated hijackings off - and since the policy at the time was to cooperate with any hijackers - I don't see that as being an issue. Notice also the turns of phrase - "Largest and most intelligent military country"? That's an odd way to put it...

Jessica -

There's no anti-missile system on the Pentagon. There's also no indication that the US government orchestrated the attacks, aside from some fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists. We DO have good, clear evidence that points to Al Quaeda doing the job, and they publicly and loudly took the credit.

By the way, you seem to think it takes a great deal of piloting skill to find a large city like NY, and find a tall building in it, and ram a plane into it. It doesn't, as anyone with a copy of Flight Simulator can tell you. The hardest thing in flying is landing the plane, and they weren't looking to do that.

What would be their motive? Look at what they published - they hate the US, they hate the West, they hate the modern world, they hate everyone who doesn't believe as they do, they hate any possibility that their culture and beliefs might be questioned or even made fun of... and hate is a VERY strong motivator.

I noticed you're posting from the U of F. (That's where the IP listed in the entry points, University of Western Florida BTW, but I'm not seeing Sitemeter visits from those IP addresses around the times they're posting... J.) - I'd like to caution you that critical thinking does not mean automatic reflexive disbelief, but a careful evaluation of all relevant information on the subject. Credulous belief of secondhand speculation and theorizing that ignores hard facts and hard science is not critical thinking.

J.

Things get a bit deeper with the next visitor. Now we've PAID Al Quaeda to do it?

I agree with Jessica on what she said about the government not killing Averly but that does not mean that they are innoccent. I disagree with saying that Al Qaeda could pull off this scandal and leave evidence that points to the US government unless the government had paid him to put such a scandal into action. Just because Al Qaeda does not like people who do not share the same faith or anything as he does; does not mean that he would have attacked one of the most powerful countries in the world without a better reason than not sharing the same things as he does.

Posted by: alyne | March 8, 2007 2:05 PM

Um, yeah. Also - 9/11 was a 'scandal'? Don't think it quite qualifies as that... And again, note the odd phrasings. IP address was again from the UofWF. So out of curiosity, I replied...

What evidence pointing to the US government? Paid him to put such a scandal into action? That's an interesting way to put it...

Sorry - but if you think you're going to convince me, you're going to need a LOT of solid evidence. And I don't think you've got it. What I think is, you've been told by someone you trust that these things are true, and you've had no reason to question or investigate them for yourself.

So. Point it out. Use primary sources, because I will NOT accept second or third-hand interpretive speculation, or creative interpretation of photos. Do the research, make your case so bulletproof that I've got no choice BUT to believe. I've gone over a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy sites, though, and it's pretty evident that you've got to go into that sort of stuff WANTING to believe - there's just too many holes otherwise.

It's your job to convince me you're right. Remember, though, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So you'd better have something extraordinary.

By the way, just to warn you, if you put in a bunch of links your comment will get held for approval. Don't worry, I won't let it languish in the spamtrap long.

Hmm. three folks so far from the U of WF according to the IP address. That's pretty extraordinary in itself...

J.

At this point, I'm willing to give them a chance. Hey, I can be persuaded that global warming is real - with sufficient, documented, understandable evidence. (I also believe that if it weren't for global warming, we'd be hip-deep in an ice age, but I digress...) I CAN be convinced with evidence. I won't be convinced by argument, rhetoric, hyperbole, or ranting.

So what do I get next? Sigh...

Then tell me this "Mr. J," have you gone up to the President of the United States and personally interviewed him and asked he what exactly happened on September 11th AND given him a lie detector test of some sort to show proof that it was not planned by him and his administration? I didn't think so.
Have you asked him questions and he has answers them with evidence that is not him? No answer.
It shouldn't matter what my opinion is. What should matter is that the guy that you trust in So much is lying to you and the rest of the country about his wrong doing. I'm surprised that he is not trying to rush out of office by now. Thank God that lying old man is leaving office soon! COUNTDOWN!!!

Posted by: theusadminturned

Right. Rant, change of subject, deflection. Damn near classic - I ask for evidence, and get back garbage. "It shouldn't matter what my opinion is." was NOT what I was looking for as proof! It DOES matter when you insist you're right, and you're being asked to back it up. I'm a trifle ticked off by this - I think I'm being reasonable asking for facts and proof. It's THEIR job to convince me they're right on this, and so far they're just not getting the job done.

I normally don't change a user's comments - but I almost made an exception in your case because you're doing a terrible job of convincing me you know anything at all about this.

Look, I'm asking YOU for evidence. Evidence, not arguement. The two are not the same thing, regardless of what you might think. You won't convince me by arguing at me or ranting or changing the subject - you'll convince me with facts. Solid facts, hard facts, information I can verify the authenticity and correctness of.

You're real short on facts and long on emotional ranting - I understand it feels good to you but it's not going to convince me.

You'll have to try harder. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. You've taken on the responsibility of convincing me you're right - I don't have any responsibility to defend MY viewpoints or beliefs.

You, however, are doing a miserable job persuading me that you're in the right on this so far.

J.

So now we wait. Will I get anything resembling factual data? We'll see. I WILL update this post with the next messages I get.

Let me make two things very clear, gentle reader. I gladly welcome disagreement and discussion on this site, but you'd better have something to back it up. I'm a skeptic, I'm hard to convince. You don't win points here for personal insults, you don't win points for TYPING IN ALL CAPS or "uzins bad spelin 'n sintax". If you're going to argue the rightness of your opinion, be prepared to back it up with hard information. I won't sign onto something because YOU believe it - I want proof, and even then don't expect me to change my point of view to yours.

(See my point on global warming above. The standard is Global Warming Exists, Man Did It (or contributed), And It's A Bad Thing Which Must Be Stopped By Any Means Necessary. I believe two out of three of the above - yet that is still sufficient to get me pretty much branded a heretic because I won't sign off on the third.)

The SECOND thing is, you'd better be polite about your disagreement. I'm under no obligation to keep your post if I don't think you're being at least minimally polite and respectful. This is my on-line home and I love to have folks drop in, whether you agree with my points or not - but you crap on the board and you'll be gone in short order. I'll tolerate disagreement, but I won't tolerate trolls and I've set the bar pretty low when it comes to deciding if you're edging into trolldom.

If you can't make your points coherently and clearly, without insults or cascading obscenities, without the same sort of language you'd use talking with someone you respected a great deal and didn't want to possibly offend, don't bother posting here.

And don't gripe at me about your right to freedom of speech. I'll just point you at a low-cost, high reliability hosting service and a place where you can get blog software and tell you to go roll your own - or if it's really free speech you're after you can check out Blogger.com.

Now - it'll be interesting to see what the next response will be. Will there be facts? Will there be insults? Will there be possibly information that'll prove what they claim?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm not holding my breath for it.

Update: Another user's chimed in.

It is understandable to believe that if the government executed the attacks on 9/11 they would easily be able to shut down production of a film, let alone just kill off those who may be starting a conspiracy theory. However, I disagree that just because this didn't happen it is full proof that the government is innocent and had nothing to do with 9/11. Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event? The questions posed by the public are ignored by the government, and given to a team of writers to make a book that still leaves the questions UNanswered. The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another.

Posted by: ZD621

Again, the premise FIRST that the government did it, and then subsequent statements depend from that... That's not what I'm looking for. Can it be that they aren't understanding what I'm asking for? That they literally can't comprehend what I want?

Anyway, let's apply the same process to another controversial item.

Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event?

When the evidence doesn't point to it, I find it hard to believe that it's responsible.

Is it really that improbable that the moon is not made out of cheese? Admittedly, we've had photographic and spectroscopic evidence for years, we've had lunar samples returned which show a decided lack of dairy products, we've had people walk on it who've found nothing resembling cheese... but still the question remains. Could the moon indeed be made of cheese?

The answer to that question is, of course, dependent on how determined you are to maintain your view that the moon is made of cheese. Did the astronauts look under every rock? Did they do deep-core drilling to get samples beyond a possibly stony rind? How do we KNOW the moon is not made of cheese? Have we taken it apart, sifted down through every bit to make sure there's no brie or cheddar hidden amongst the minerals?

There is, to my thinking, no amount of evidence that will persuade a hard-core 'truther'. Look at your own circuitious logic, and you yourself put it solidly - "The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another."

Give me your proof. Give me the facts that make you think that. Persuade me. That's what I'm asking you to do, and this doesn't do it.

J.

I'm glad I'm not holding my breath on this issue. I'd be pretty blue by now.

J.