Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marc Powell

Member
Due to its massive spreading fires, extensive damage and increasing signs of instability, early in the afternoon on 9/11, the FDNY imposed a safety zone around Building 7 and waited either for the fires to burn themselves out or for the building to collapse. Conspiracy theorists do not acknowledge these issues and claim that the fires were small (or even burned out), that the building was in a serviceable structural condition and that its collapse should therefore have come as a surprise… but suspiciously wasn’t. As evidence that government officials had foreknowledge that Building 7 was going to be demolished, at the 1:14:05 mark in the 2014 David Hooper film, The Anatomy of a Great Deception (viewable in its entirety at youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc ), a brief audio recording is presented in which then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani can be heard saying the following:

And we were in a building in which we were trapped for about 10, 15 minutes and we setup a headquarters at 75 Barclay Street which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the head of Emergency Management and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse... the World Trade Center was going to collapse... going to collapse... going to collapse.

As presented by the filmmakers, the audio clip gives the impression that, after being briefly trapped by fallen rubble from the collapse of the twin towers, Mayor Giuliani moved to an improvised headquarters at 75 Barclay Street where he was informed that Building 7 was also going to collapse. However, that is not what happened and not what the interview was about. The audio clip was edited by the filmmakers so as to imply a false subject and timeline. The audio clip is from a telephone interview Mayor Giuliani did with ABC journalist Peter Jennings at about 1:00 PM on 9/11/2001 the subject of which was the twin towers, not Building 7. In the interview, Giuliani was talking about hearing of the imminent collapse of Building 2 which did collapse only seconds after he heard the warning. Mayor Giuliani's statement can be heard at the 1:25 mark in the original interview presented below.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8

The actual words spoken were as follows:

RUDOLPH GIULIANI: I saw people jumping out of the World Trade Center. I saw some of the firefighters who I know going in, into the building so, and we were in a building in which we were trapped for about 10, 15 minutes.

PETER JENNINGS: Are you talking about the office... did you go immediately to the Office of Emergency Management?

RUDOLPH GIULIANI: I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barclay Street which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the head of Emergency Management and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse and it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes then finally found an exit, got out, walked north and took a lot of people with us.

The warning about the imminent collapse of the twin towers was issued by an unnamed engineer from the Department of Buildings who reported that the damage to the towers appeared to be immense and that the stability of both buildings was compromised. The message was relayed to the Fire Chief only seconds before the South Tower collapsed. Since Giuliani was with the Fire Commissioner at the time, it is reasonable to assume that the message had also been relayed to him and that’s when Giuliani heard of it.

This is corroborated by EMT Richard Zarillo whose account can be read at the NY Times 9/11 Oral Histories website at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF . Following is part of what he said:

Again, times are a little fuzzy initially for me. A few minutes later, John came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following message: that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse. I said okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.--

As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down.

Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello's oral history account at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110141.PDF corroborates that of Richard Zarillo:

At that point I don't know exactly when the Commissioner and Mayor had left. It was pretty soon after they had left that Richie Zarillo, who works with EMS -- I believe he's an OEM liaison -- came running up to me. I was not on the ramp at this time. I was like almost at the sidewalk location.

He said Steve, where's the Chief? I have to tell him, you know -- I said tell him what, Richie? These buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. I said how do you know that, you know? So he ran with me. I ran over and grabbed Chief Ganci and said Chief, these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. He looked up at me --

Then at that point within a few minutes, Richie Zarillo came up to me. I'll go back to that. He said that these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. I went right up to the Chief because I was a few steps away. I said Chief, these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. And he said to me who would tell you something like that?

And he looked at me and he had that determined -- I have to say probably scared look on his face, who would tell you something like that. I said Richie, come over here and tell the Chief what you just told me. He got the words out of his mouth. I think it was maybe 25, 30 seconds later, maybe, the building came down.

One is left to wonder why sincere documentary filmmakers such as David Hooper and his Technical Director, Richard Gage, would need to alter evidence and create false timelines to make their points.
 
Last edited:

Thomas B

Active Member
Thanks for these close readings of Hooper's film. Your project is interesting because Hooper himself presents his story as a "tale from the rabbit hole", a journey through a great personal crisis to a spiritual awakening. Is your overall conclusion that he isn't being as honest about this as he pretends, i.e., that he knows that there's nothing suspicious about 9/11 (that "the dog barked", if you will) but that he has sensed a market for his story as long as he pretends to still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that he's learned to live with this shocking truth?

I also have a question about the the specific issue of your raise in this post. I agree with you that the Giuliani quote has been shoehorned in here and its meaning has been distorted in the process. But this doesn't, to me, resolve the larger issue of foreknowledge. In fact, as you may know, the materials you bring together here were used in Chapter 22 of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions book (2008) to emphasize the "contradiction" that, although there was no reason to believe the buildings would collapse, the idea that they would collapse was circulating, and probably originated in the Office of Emergency Management (with which Giuliani was in close communication). This suggests to Griffin that someone there must have known about bombs.

Are you limiting yourself to establising that Hooper is insincere? Or do you also have some satisfying solution to this tension in the official story about whether "anyone could have known" that the buildings would collapse that day?
 
Last edited:

Sauron

Member
Very interesting. I didn't know anybody warned about tower 2 imminent collapse. Was this guy inside the building or just an external inspection. If the latter, why were Firemen not warned earlier?
 

Thomas B

Active Member
they were hit by two passenger jets
pretty good reason if you ask me
Griffin spends a great deal of time establishing that the planes did not give experts on the ground reason to think the buildings would collapse. Even when they were told that this would happen, the people in charge of emergency operations were incredulous. They had been dealing with the situation on the assumption that the buildings would not collapse. As Marc quotes them above,
His reply was who the fuck told you that?
He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that?
And he looked at me and he had that determined -- I have to say probably scared look on his face, who would tell you something like that. I said Richie, come over here and tell the Chief what you just told me.
So, yes, in hindsight, the planes were a "pretty good reason" to think they buildings would collapse. But, at the time, it didn't give the decision-makers at the scene a reason to think so.

(cue spooky music)

Whoever told Giuliani must have had some other reason to think it would happen.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Whoever told Giuliani must have had some other reason to think it would happen.
Take care wth the trap of "truther logic" assuming the situation was binary - black or white - will collapse or wont.

From the perspective of an emergency manager "Hope for the best -- plan for the worst". So the emergency commander facing an emerging situation would need to take both the "collapse" and "no collapse" scenarios into account. By the time WTC7 was becoming the focus "play safe" was clearly the preferable option by overwhelming weight of argument. All the occupants had escaped the building >> the PRIMARY objective achieved. Leave WTC7 to take its chances was the valid choice both at the time and since proved in hindsight even tho' hindsight is irrelevant. "Protect the building" always the SECONDARY objective and over-ridden by resource limitations - lack of water and already huge personnel casualties.

Whoever told Giuliani must have had some other reason to think it would happen.
That sub-topic has been discussed ad-nauseam. e.g. the "bulging" bit of structure monitored by a "transit" and related issues.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I also have a question about the the specific issue of your raise in this post. I agree with you that the Giuliani quote has been shoehorned in here and its meaning has been distorted in the process. But this doesn't, to me, resolve the larger issue of foreknowledge. In fact, as you may know, the materials you bring together here were used in Chapter 22 of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions book (2008) to emphasize the "contradiction" that, although there was no reason to believe the buildings would collapse, the idea that they would collapse was circulating, and probably originated in the Office of Emergency Management (with which Giuliani was in close communication). This suggests to Griffin that someone there must have known about bombs.
The quality of these predictions depends on the knowledge and insight of the people who make them.

Your typical fire chief knows that the building codes provide for a certain level of fire resistance. You have the impact, the building still stands, so you get your designed-for 3 hours or whatever to evacuate the building and get the fire under control.

But if you have engineering insight and the knowledge that went into these building codes in the first place, you know that the fireproofing applied to the steel wasn't designed for an airliner's worth of kerosine, a wide-spread fire, and a failed sprinkler system. To people with that knowledge, it was obvious that the steel would give way much sooner than was planned for.
And once steel gives way, and the building starts moving again, anything can happen.

So to me, the idea that the OEM expected the towers to come down shortly does not suggest foreknowledge of bombs; it suggests that they had the services of an expert engineer who actually knew something about steel structures and fire. And I'm not surprised that a responsible engineer hired to provide input on emergencies such as high-rise fires in NYC would have that knowledge, or would have acquired it; it comes with the job responsibilities.

This was predictable; someone predicted it. End of story.

The alternate idea makes no sense: if there were bombs in the building, why would the conspirators have told the OEM? And if their intent was to save lives, why not phone in a bomb threat on the morning of 9/11? The idea that secret info about a bomb leaked to emergency services goes against common sense.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Why presume that an engineer's assessment of impenitent collapse is based on knowledge of a CD plan rather than the performance of the frame subject to massive fires and structural damage?

A truck slams into a building. An engineer is called and makes an assessment that the building may likely collapse. It does. Why presume he knew it would because he knew there were bombs in the building? Why not presume he made a professional engineering evaluation?

Oh I forgot... the engineer was in on the plot and followed the script.
 

econ41

Senior Member
A truck slams into a building. An engineer is called and makes an assessment that the building may likely collapse.
And the engieer's assessment could be one of two very dfferent predictions viz "Is the building safe to enter" OR "is the building going to collapse". There is a margin of safety factor separating those two.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
And the engieer's assessment could be one of two very dfferent predictions viz "Is the building safe to enter" OR "is the building going to collapse". There is a margin of safety factor separating those two.
Life Safety is the raison d'etre for such assessments. Better to err on the side of caution. We see this all the time in bad weather forecasting... People don't like to "get out of harms way) but better safe than sorry.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And I'm not surprised that a responsible engineer hired to provide input on emergencies such as high-rise fires in NYC would have that knowledge, or would have acquired it; it comes with the job responsibilities.
You kinda run into the same issues we had we Covid: the fact that governments and health organizations were actually prepared for a SARS-like pandemic has been conspiracy-theorized as foreknowledge of an engineered event, when it was simply responsible preparation for a likely event.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Despite popular myths of American heroism and sacrifice, a core rule in fire fighting and police is that no commander will ever order their men and women do flat-out die.

If you sent 350 of your troops into a situation where there is a 10% risk that all of them die, that is statistically equivalent to sending 35 into a situation where there is 100% certainty all will die. Such a high level of probability of total collapse would therefore preclude the idea any commander would send - and then leave - 350 firefighters in the towers if they think there is a 1 out of 10 risk of total collapse.
The only mitigating factor might be if you think you have a competing good chance of saving many more lives by risking not too many.

Consequently, what FDNY leadership ought to be assessing is
  • on one hand the risk of collapse, times the number of personnel sent into that harm's way
  • on the other hand how much the chance of saving trapped civilians improves if you sent in your resources, times the number of lives this would save.
It follows that you "pull it" either when you realize the risk becomes too significant, OR when you realize your hope of getting the fires sufficiently under control in time is not high enough - or both.
 

Marc Powell

Member
Thanks for these close readings of Hooper's film. Your project is interesting because Hooper himself presents his story as a "tale from the rabbit hole", a journey through a great personal crisis to a spiritual awakening. Is your overall conclusion that he isn't being as honest about this as he pretends, i.e., that he knows that there's nothing suspicious about 9/11 (that "the dog barked", if you will) but that he has sensed a market for his story as long as he pretends to still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that he's learned to live with this shocking truth?

I also have a question about the the specific issue of your raise in this post. I agree with you that the Giuliani quote has been shoehorned in here and its meaning has been distorted in the process. But this doesn't, to me, resolve the larger issue of foreknowledge. In fact, as you may know, the materials you bring together here were used in Chapter 22 of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions book (2008) to emphasize the "contradiction" that, although there was no reason to believe the buildings would collapse, the idea that they would collapse was circulating, and probably originated in the Office of Emergency Management (with which Giuliani was in close communication). This suggests to Griffin that someone there must have known about bombs.

Are you limiting yourself to establising that Hooper is insincere? Or do you also have some satisfying solution to this tension in the official story about whether "anyone could have known" that the buildings would collapse that day?
My conclusion is that David Hooper is, first and foremost, an entrepreneur. Nothing he has to say about his trip down the 9/11 rabbit hole can be taken at face value. Hooper’s deliberate misrepresentations, doctoring of evidence, distortions of science and concealing of contradictory evidence expose his true agenda. And his sanctimonious quotes from Ephesians and comparisons of the US Government to Nazi Germany are an outrage and an insult to the memory of the thousands of 9/11 victims and the families who still grieve for the loss of their loved ones. And he is not alone in his exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy. Hooper’s ironically-titled film was a joint project with Richard Gage, CEO of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage is on record as approving the entirety of the film’s content. He attended its gala premiere and heavily promoted it on his AE911truth website. Gage even invited David Hooper to be a guest speaker at his 9/11 “truth” rallies. As we approach the twentieth anniversary of "the day that changed everything,” I realize that there is probably little I can do to stop these guys but at least I can embarrass them by revealing their tricks and lies. Maybe, with a little luck, it will snowball into something. That is my project, my hope and my only purpose here.
 
Last edited:

Thomas B

Active Member
I realize that there is probably little I can do to stop these guys but at least I can embarrass them by revealing their tricks and lies. Maybe, with a little luck, it will snowball into something. That is my project, my hope and my only purpose here.
Fair enough. Do you think David Ray Griffin is an "entrepreneur" in the same sense? More generally, do you think the truth movement is mainly a scam? It's certainly a noble project to expose a huckster when you see one, but doing so doesn't mean that all used cars are lemons, right? The fact that Hooper and Gage cobble together some dubious arguments in pursuit of fame and money, doesn't in itself prove that the conclusions they're promoting are false. At the end of the day, this is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps well-placed, but still logically invalid.

I think most people in the truther movement have grown accustomed to discovering profiteers in their midst without letting it affect their "faith". To pursue that analogy a bit further: the exposure of the occasional televangelist as corrupt and adulterous hasn't really snowballed into a problem for the Christian evangelical community more generally. Many people in those communities are decent, hard-working people who just hold some strange beliefs and engage in some odd practices on Sundays.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Reason and logic have no impact on the people who gravitate to conspiracy theories.
Fair point. But I would put it to you that the same is true of those who gravitate towards conventional wisdom and official doctrine. The problem, it seems, is mainly gravity.
 

Marc Powell

Member
This truther film was made 7 years ago. It contains a number of incompetent, uninformed professionals offering their opinions. It is actually embarrassing to watch them. Yet one can imagine that the technically uniformed public to fall for this. Gage relies on the "trust the experts" approach..Hooper doesn't present other experts who have the opposite (correct) understanding of the wtc collapses.
In my critiquing of David Hooper’s film, I have concentrated on its deceptions and avoided discussion of the opinions of the "experts" who appear in it. However, I will say that through their inane remarks regarding subjects for which they have no experience or training, they embarrass themselves and bring disgrace on their professions. The very fact that Hooper would present Jesse Ventura as an expert on the science of controlled demolition shows just how absurd his argument is.
 
Last edited:

Marc Powell

Member
Fair enough. Do you think David Ray Griffin is an "entrepreneur" in the same sense? More generally, do you think the truth movement is mainly a scam? It's certainly a noble project to expose a huckster when you see one, but doing so doesn't mean that all used cars are lemons, right? The fact that Hooper and Gage cobble together some dubious arguments in pursuit of fame and money, doesn't in itself prove that the conclusions they're promoting are false. At the end of the day, this is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps well-placed, but still logically invalid.

I think most people in the truther movement have grown accustomed to discovering profiteers in their midst without letting it affect their "faith". To pursue that analogy a bit further: the exposure of the occasional televangelist as corrupt and adulterous hasn't really snowballed into a problem for the Christian evangelical community more generally. Many people in those communities are decent, hard-working people who just hold some strange beliefs and engage in some odd practices on Sundays.
I think that exposing the leader of the most prestigious of the groups promoting controlled demolition theories as a first-rate flim-flam artist will go a long way toward bringing the 9/11 truth movement down "at free fall speed."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The problem with propaganda is that it's never open and honest, and therefore the motives of the people who create that propaganda aren't always all that clear without additional information. It's just that it's never likely that it's in your own best interests.

And the new problem with propaganda, it turns out, is that it's liable to kill people. Those same hardworking people who "hold some strange beliefs and engage in some odd practices on Sundays" don't get vaccinated because their preacher told them that god would protect them, and some of them die. They storm the Capitol because "it's our house" and some die. When it was just Flat Earth and 9/11 and everyday radiation and chemtrails, people would merely waste money on a weird hobby, but now people are dying, and democracy is shook, all because of propaganda that lied to them and that they trusted.

Nowadays, if you're responsible, it's not enough to be earnest. You are responsible for the lies you help spread, and the hate and division you help foment. If you help destabilize society, the consequences will get us all, and you'll have been responsible for it if you comfortably believed those who told you it was the right thing to do.

If you talk to a Christian, remind them that they have been warned about the "father of lies" and the "deceiver of the whole world". Evil tends to have the looks of righteousness. You need to be watchful and not complacent.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Fair point. But I would put it to you that the same is true of those who gravitate towards conventional wisdom and official doctrine. The problem, it seems, is mainly gravity.
Obviously this film is a marketing endeavor to sell 9/11 truth stupidity as a reasonable take away from the events of 9/11. To sell something the seller will frequently resort of endorsements,... experts and celebrities. Same MO.
The sellers who produces these "presentations" and dog&pony shows are doing them to make money. This is a fact.
We have been analyzing the "arguments" coming from the truth movement. They are bereft of engineer and include numerous false statements such as falling at "free fall *speed*" is a tell that the collapse was caused by explosives... that massive amounts of molten steel was seen at the site under the building... presumably a tell that their at time time favorite "cause".... thermite had melted steel leading to the towers' collapse. Never mind that the truthers can never show all the steel with tell tale signs of explosion damage or melting..., that none of the visual signs of historical CD sequences are present.
Hooper is a liar... and an uninformed on who doesn't really how limited his knowledge is.
The engineers being interviewed are speaking out of their butt holes, have not studied any of the details of the events and spout pronouncement such as the collapse of the building was impossible without CD. They embarrass THEMSELVES not the profession of engineering. These are probably a handful of incompetent engineers... and there incompetents in all professions.
None of these "truth experts" will "debate" their claims with an engineer who understands the events and causes of the collapse.
But... ignorant people can be mislead by such exploitative efforts. There is a place in hell.... if it exists for these people.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Fair point. But I would put it to you that the same is true of those who gravitate towards conventional wisdom and official doctrine. The problem, it seems, is mainly gravity.
No
As we see in the covid "debate" the loonies don't have science and the conventional wisdom does have science.
We living through a time of the rise of "religious" (irrational) thinking... rejecting of science. We are heading back to the dark ages... led by various "churches"...
David Griffin is complete fraud
Richard Gage is complete fraud
David Hooper is a complete fraud
and the list goes on...
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Fair enough. Do you think David Ray Griffin is an "entrepreneur" in the same sense? More generally, do you think the truth movement is mainly a scam? It's certainly a noble project to expose a huckster when you see one, but doing so doesn't mean that all used cars are lemons, right? The fact that Hooper and Gage cobble together some dubious arguments in pursuit of fame and money, doesn't in itself prove that the conclusions they're promoting are false. At the end of the day, this is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps well-placed, but still logically invalid.

I think most people in the truther movement have grown accustomed to discovering profiteers in their midst without letting it affect their "faith". To pursue that analogy a bit further: the exposure of the occasional televangelist as corrupt and adulterous hasn't really snowballed into a problem for the Christian evangelical community more generally. Many people in those communities are decent, hard-working people who just hold some strange beliefs and engage in some odd practices on Sundays.
WOW this is a weird bit of "thinking">

The fact that Hooper and Gage cobble together some dubious arguments in pursuit of fame and money, doesn't in itself prove that the conclusions they're promoting are false
Dubious arguments mean conclusion is FALSE.

It is not an ad hominem attack exposing frauds

NO most people in the truth movement are as gullible as the people in church pews. Both show lack of critical thinking,

The evangelical communities thrive because:​
they brainwash their sycophants as infants​
way too many people have no understanding of science and are not interested in it and made to distrust it by churches
They are not decent people with their ignorant racist idea. You have a weird standard for decent people​

Irony is that there isn't an smattering of truth in the truth movement...

Religion was mankind's worst invention.
 

Marc Powell

Member
Nowadays, if you're responsible, it's not enough to be earnest. You are responsible for the lies you help spread, and the hate and division you help foment. If you help destabilize society, the consequences will get us all, and you'll have been responsible for it if you comfortably believed those who told you it was the right thing to do.
So true. In fact, everything that Richard Gage claims to be suspicious about what happened in NYC on 9/11 can be proven to be a deception of one kind or another. His rabble rousing and exploitation of a national tragedy were directly responsible for the hideous things the Boston Marathon bombers did in retaliation for their belief that the USA was falsely blaming Muslims for 9/11. That's why Gage needs to be stopped and his 9/11 "truth" fantasies put to rest.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
His rabble rousing and exploitation of a national tragedy were directly responsible for the hideous things the Boston Marathon bombers did in retaliation for their belief that the USA was falsely blaming Muslims for 9/11.
That seems a bit of a stretch?
Article:
Before he stopped talking, however, the naturalized U.S. citizen reportedly “told the FBI that [he and his brother] were angry about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the killing of Muslims there.”

Article:
Dzokhar, the surviving Tsarnaev brother, reportedly told law enforcement officials that he and his brother were inspired by Awlaki sermons available online. Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric who encouraged attacks against America and the West, delivered his ideology of extreme intolerance and violence to English-speaking online audiences for several years.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
David Griffin is complete fraud
I'm nowhere near this conclusion. It implies that 9/11 truth consists entirely of frauds and dupes. I personally think there are thousands (maybe millions) of people (on both sides) who genuinely misunderstand exactly what happened on 9/11.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
If you talk to a Christian, remind them that they have been warned about the "father of lies" and the "deceiver of the whole world". Evil tends to have the looks of righteousness. You need to be watchful and not complacent.
This is some interesting energy!

It seems to share with the truthers the conviction that it's very important, not only to have the right beliefs about 9/11, but to make sure no one else holds the wrong beliefs about it.

I have to admit I don't think it's that important. I think it's perfectly understandable and acceptable that some people believe it was an inside job. I'm still curious about exactly how those buildings collapsed and I don't claim to understand it. So someone who thinks it must have been controlled demolition is okay with me.

Not trusting the government is surely still a legimate political position?
 

Thomas B

Active Member
I think that exposing the leader of the most prestigious of the groups promoting controlled demolition theories as a first-rate flim-flam artist will go a long way toward bringing the 9/11 truth movement down "at free fall speed."
Like I say, I don't think this is likely. Many leaders of many movements have been exposed as frauds in the past. In so far as they were exploiting issues that people genuinely care about, the movements live on.

You have to engage with the ideas of the movement, not its personalities, if you want to make a difference. It's one thing to show that someone is promoting an idea for profit; it's another to understand why someone might believe that same idea sincerely.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
@Thomas B it's not important that everyone know the truth
but it's important that everyone, be they curious or a believer, understands that one side in this fight for truth is deceitful, and that any convictions formed from media that that side has produced have come from misinformation and deceit (including the theological ramifications of that, if applicable).

and it is equally important to understand that the honest people you trust are a part of this when they share misinformation on social media out of complacency. Information from a person you trust is still not information that is to be trusted.
 

econ41

Senior Member
one side in this fight for truth is deceitful,
It's not necessarily global. "Many leaders and some followers....are deceitful". "Deceitful" like "lying" and similar words imply intent. A large proportion of 9/11 truth followers are probably obsessed holders of genuine belief. They utter falsehoods but are not strictly "liars".
Information from a person you trust is still not information that is to be trusted.
So true. And it applies to "both sides". Blind faith in "authorities" misleads many truthers but it can also mislead debunkers. The test of a claim should be "is it true" and NOT "NIST said so" or "Bazant said so" or even "he holds a PhD in the subject - and you dont"
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It's not necessarily global. "Many leaders and some followers....are deceitful". "Deceitful" like "lying" and similar words imply intent. A large proportion of 9/11 truth followers are probably obsessed holders of genuine belief. They utter falsehoods but are not strictly "liars".

So true. And it applies to "both sides". Blind faith in "authorities" misleads many truthers but it can also mislead debunkers. The test of a claim should be "is it true" and NOT "NIST said so" or "Bazant said so" or even "he holds a PhD in the subject - and you dont"
Sure many repeat what they heard (falsehoods) believing it / them to be true. They do so because they trust "experts" or celebrities and because they are not educated enough on the topic to be able to discern a falsehood.

Gage, Szamboti, and number others leading the truth movement are smart enough to know that 9/11 truth is full of falsehood and so when THEY say, write, or repeat these falsehoods it's not possible to give them a pass... THEY are liars. They are WILLFULLY dishonest. THEY are WILLFULLY deceiving others and some are asking the hoodwinked for financial support to continue to spread what they SHOULD and like DO KNOW is a pack of lies.

The average Jane of Joe who repeats 9/11 truth talking points are spreading lies, believing in them but as they don't understand the topic they are not INTENDING to deceive.

The engineering truth about 9/11 is available for anyone who wants to know and this applies to people with or without engineer backgrounds. Engineers who present 911 lies are a disgrace because they should have discovered that they "theories" have no basis in fact / reality.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It's not necessarily global. "Many leaders and some followers....are deceitful". "Deceitful" like "lying" and similar words imply intent. A large proportion of 9/11 truth followers are probably obsessed holders of genuine belief. They utter falsehoods but are not strictly "liars".

So true. And it applies to "both sides". Blind faith in "authorities" misleads many truthers but it can also mislead debunkers. The test of a claim should be "is it true" and NOT "NIST said so" or "Bazant said so" or even "he holds a PhD in the subject - and you dont"
1) I have made it clear that my opinion is that intent doesnt matter any more. You have the deceivers who know that they are deceiving, and then you have an army of helpers who share the misinformation and proselytize on it, and my post explains that these people have a responsibility as well, even if it is a different one. You can't say " I didn't know I spread lies" when you have been told they are lies, and you didn't check, and you bought into the propaganda and spread them anyway.
There are CTs where this behaviour kills people.

2) The NIST report might contain errors, but it is not deceitful. There's no "both sides" here.

The average Joe can't tell what is true. But if you look at Marc's excellent posts, anyone can see what's dishonest.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
1) I have made it clear that my opinion is that intent doesnt matter any more. You have the deceivers who know that they are deceiving, and then you have an army of helpers who share the misinformation and proselytize on it, and my pist explains that these people have a responsibility as well, even if it is a different one. You can't say " I didn't know I spread lies" when you have been told they are lies, and you didn't check, and you bought into the propaganda and spread them anyway.
Your position understood. My purpose was to identify the strict definition of the terms - not to disagree with your opinion as applied to the current discussion. The issue of "genuine belief" can raise a defence in a more strict legal setting.
2) The NIST report might contain errors, but it is not deceitful. There's no "both sides" here.

The average Joe can't tell what is true. But if you look at Marc's excellent posts, anyone can see what's dishonest.
Agreed about both points. Viz "might contain errors" AND "not deceitful". But my caution was about accepting any "authority" as proof of fact. The authority may be wrong. I chose to not elaborate but I decided back in 2007 to never rely on authorities reasoning when the truth of a fact can be determined in dependently. Many debunkers take NIST and Bazant et al as guaranteed to be correct. In the case of Bazantthat has led to erroneous argument following false trails endorsed by Bazant.
The average Joe can't tell what is true. But if you look at Marc's excellent posts, anyone can see what's dishonest.
I've been following Marc's posts with interest. A lot of good review work in my opinion. But I did not comment on his post(s). Again the point of possible difference - depending on the specific instance. "Anyone" can see what is false or untrue. Whether is is "dishonest" requires further proof..whether to your standard or the more strict one I refer to.

EDIT: This post was posted in error - incompleted. Thanks to @Mendel for drawing my attention to the error.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Gage, Szamboti, and number others leading the truth movement are smart enough to know that 9/11 truth is full of falsehood and so when THEY say, write, or repeat these falsehoods it's not possible to give them a pass... THEY are liars. They are WILLFULLY dishonest. THEY are WILLFULLY deceiving others and some are asking the hoodwinked for financial support to continue to spread what they SHOULD and like DO KNOW is a pack of lies.

The average Jane of Joe who repeats 9/11 truth talking points are spreading lies, believing in them but as they don't understand the topic they are not INTENDING to deceive.

The engineering truth about 9/11 is available for anyone who wants to know and this applies to people with or without engineer backgrounds. Engineers who present 911 lies are a disgrace because they should have discovered that they "theories" have no basis in fact / reality.
99% full agreement there Sander. I'm not 100% dogmatically certain that "Gage, Szamboti, and number others leading the truth movement.." are totally deliberate liars. My position probably too subtle and nuanced for this current discussion. They MAY still have some remnant obsessive genuine "belief". So I give a little bit of benefit of doubt. They cannot be unaware of the weight of professionally valid opinion which disagrees with them.

Those of them who rely on professional credibility MUST after ~20 years know that they are in disagreement with the prevailing wisdom of their profession. Depending on the applicable code of ethical conduct they are not free to present their own opinions as "truth" without open acknowledgement of their minority opinion status.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Debunked: Government to Nationalize Food Supply Conspiracy Theories 0
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Critical Thinker Debunked: "Government Labels those who Grow Their Own Food ‘Extremists’" Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Debunked: Government Stockpiling Unusual Amounts of Ammo [by Tom Coburn's GAO Report] Conspiracy Theories 63
Cairenn Debunked: Government Buying Iodine in Response to Fukushima Fallout. Conspiracy Theories 31
Mick West Debunked: Debunkers Trust the Government and Think Everything is Fine Practical Debunking 89
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
AluminumTheory Debunked: Infowars Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile General Discussion 25
Cairenn Debunked: Government buys 30,000 guillotines Conspiracy Theories 20
BenC Debunked: UK Government admits Chemtrails (Legislation HC221) Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Mick West Debunked: ‘White Guilt’ Bracelets - Government wants you to wear them? Conspiracy Theories 223
Spongebob Has this Government paper been debunked yet? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 24
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 12
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 20
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 2
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 5
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 32
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 41
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top