Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

11. Here's an answer that doesn't involve collapses...

First, Hi.

My experience over the last 5 years says that this is foolish, but I'm going to proceed as if you really are a person pursuing the truth on this matter. Just a couple of posts will reveal whether or not this is one of those rare exceptions.

We were told ...

I would strongly advise you to stop using this meme. Today, it's literal translation is "I'm about to repeat something I read somewhere on the interwebz, or think that I remember, no matter how idiotic, clueless, etc., with no effort at confirming the truth of the statement."

Research & primary sources are your friends.

Could you please tell us your age. I've no intent to be patronizing, but there's a bunch of misinformation here. I'm curious to see if that's because the info is morphing internal or external to you.

Like why did "terrorist" who we were told worked on this for years, not fly out of NY.

This is a wasted question.
First, it's irrelevant. Who cares in the grand scheme? Video of some of the hijackers boarding in Boston have been available for years.
Second, it's asking about the unknown & unknowable motives of a bunch of dead guys.
Third, simply bringing it up undercuts your credibility, especially presenting it as a first (apparently "primary&quot issue. It makes you seem frivolous, as though you have nothing & are reaching for straws.
Finally, the answer is immediately obvious, if you merely look at all 4 flight paths. Specifically, look at the distance between where they took off & where they were hijacked. I don't want to spoil the rewards of "original research" by just handing you the answer.

If you want to convince anybody of anything, stick to substantive, PROVABLE issues, not conjecture.

We were told they couldn't take box cutters on board.

You were told wrong.

So instead they take a chance of flying over military bases, thousands of miles away from their target.

Look up "thousands". Even in casual conversation, don't be off by an order of magnitude.
Investigate what bases in the US had interceptors, where they were located, and their relative locations with respect to the flight paths.
I am 100% certain that the hijackers had no concern about being intercepted by jets. For many reasons, including the fact that being shot down would have been merely a lesser victory.

Years of planning, but stopped by no box cutters.

Puzzling statement. They were not stopped. They had box cutters.
You'd be well advised to eliminate your "we were told" sources.

4 planes, 800 seats, but not ONE picture of a seat or a section of seats in debris pictures.

Utterly incorrect. You were told "wrong".
Several pictures of passenger seats from UA93 & (extremely gruesome one, including body parts) from AA77, presented at trial.

But here, that's "crazy" talk.

"More factual" = "less crazy".

And the Pentagon, our biggest DEFENSE building couldn't and wouldn't defend itself. WHY?

Buildings don't defend themselves. In this particular case, the only defense would have been a Antiaircraft battery. It's been proven, beyond doubt, that there was no such battery installed at the Pentagon. For very good reason. People & machinery make mistakes. Do you remember the USS Vincennes? If not, look it up.
What do you think happened to the career of the captain? What do you think would have happened if he had been off of NYC & those passengers had been American?
US Generals & Admirals are not in the habit of making career-ending decisions.

Putting an AA battery immediately under the final approach path to a major US airport, frequented by the (self-imagined) most "I" of VIPs is a very, very bad idea.

We were told not to blame ANYONE for incompetence, and till this day, it stands.

What silly person told you this?
Why would they tell YOU? Personally. Are you on some investigative board that we don't know about?

And there are millions of Americans who agree with them.

Yup.
One of the great things about this country that you might get to appreciate as you get older: a deep, abiding reservoir of "common sense". In spite of the unending attempts of "the media" to portray the average US citizen as some combination of ignorant, racist, morally bankrupt, helpless and/or just plain stupid.

Young people have a very, very difficult time with the concept that adults have much of anything to offer the ethical, moral, or philosophical discussion.

A question for you: Do you think that the media, in any form (either "respected" sources (e.g., NYTimes, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, PBS) or entertainment TV/movies) makes any attempt whatsoever to provide an image of America/Americans that is accurate &/or representative of the "typical American life"?

Think about the question. Think about the answer. Think about the implications of the answer.

All we get for our money for defense, is a blurry video of the Pentagon being attacked, and you'll ALL accept IT.

You're starting to sound like you're 18 years old & coming down with your first scorching case of moral indignity. Which inevitably leads to a 5-10 year lingering case of moral superiority.

Would anyone here like to be tried with blurry video in a court of law?

Nobody was convicted on this video. It was a trivial, irrelevant confirmation of a mountain of other evidence (including Flight Data Recorder, radar tracks, eyewitness accounts, body parts, DNA confirmation, FBI investigation (PENTTBOM), etc. etc.)

But that's good enough for most here in America.

No, it absolutely would not be good enough on its own for "most here in America". Who, it evidently will come as a surprise to you to hear, have a very highly developed sense of "justice".
However, see "mountain of evidence" above.

Nothing to see there. But those who ask questions are considered "nuts".

Nope. Asking questions is fine.
Asking the same old, 1000x answered questions starts to raise serious eyebrows.
And those who won't accept answers, compelling answers backed up by mountains of hard evidence, from real experts, when they possess zero evidence to the contrary, are considered nuts.
And should be.

For an accurate comparison, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories fall right smack dab in the epistemological middle of Alien Abductions, Bigfoot hunters & The Bermuda Triangle. Lots of press, lots of conjecture by amateurs, lots of books & DVDs for sale, zero evidence of anything.

Important note added:
For the purpose of this discussion, one subset of "nuts" includes "youngsters coming to the issue for the first time". Inglorious, self-righteous, down-in-flames, "publicly screaming stupidity" mistakes are a bona fide right of passage for most youngsters.
Most youngsters learn from, & mature out of, this dysfunctional state. And no permanent humiliation should attach to them for the sidetrack into temporary insanity.

It's infuriating, though, to hear adults entrusted with teaching (such as Doctors S. Jones, J. Fetzer, K. Barrett & D.R. Griffin), inflicting this toxic nonsense on the young & impressionable, while lacking the courage or integrity to first stand before a panel of seasoned experts.

This is the consummate failure of AE911T, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Truth & Justice, etc. Their utter contempt for a real review of their nonsense by real experts: highly experienced structural engineers. There is a painfully obvious reason why they choose not to do this. They know that they'd be laughed out of the room in a matter of minutes.

So instead, they inflict their nonsense on college kids & the amateur public.

For this irresponsible behavior, these people deserve every ounce of contempt & derision that honorable people can muster.

... JM(very strong)O ...