Challenge to truthers

Some time ago, I had a bit of an online back and forth with a truther.  I eventually stopped because I have better things to do, but my brain kept thinking on it.  It eventually came up with a question I don’t believe truthers will be able to give a convincing answer to.  They’ll try, but it will sound just like their other theories.

Now, I know with conspiracy theories there are always versions designed to weasel around inconvenient facts, so this is the general version the truther I was talking to was pitching.  Phase One involved an unknown group of people going into the Twin Towers in the weeks or months before 9/11 to place demolition charges.  Part of the back and forth was me asking – repeatedly – how much explosives would have been needed to bring the towers down.  I figured it’s a basic element of the truther case and they should have a ready answer.  The reason I had to repeatedly ask this question was because the truther seemed unable – or unwilling – to give an answer.  Eventually, they said that studies had been done and I could look them up, or something like that.  I felt like replying that studies have been done that show explosives were not needed to bring the towers down, but like inconvenient facts, truthers weasel around inconvenient studies as well.

Phase Two of this truther’s 9/11 theory, was the whole airplane thing.  The planes hit, and then after an hour or so of people evacuating from the buildings, the explosives set in Phase One are set off to bring the towers down.  People are then to believe that the planes – not the explosives – caused the collapse.  And Phase Three was some nebulous idea of Bad Guys using the wars and tighter security measures or whatever to make money.

The challenge I have for truthers is this, why bother with Phase Two?  Once they had the buildings wired, why not wait until they were full and then blow them?  I don’t know how many people were able to evacuate between the time the airplanes hit and the buildings were “blown,” but if you cut out that evacuation time, a lot more people would have been killed.  And if they wanted to kill as many firefighters or cops as they could, they could have blown one, waited until everyone showed up to it, then blew the other.  But you ask, Who would believe terrorists would be able to demolish a building?  Who believed they had the skill to pull off four, simultaneous hijackings and then fly the planes into buildings?  Why would that be more believable?  Why did they think they needed the diversion of the whole plane thing?  If the truther terrorists were able to sneak hundreds, maybe thousands, of pounds of explosives passed building security and plant it, then surely they could plant evidence to make it look like Al Qaeda did it.  Plus, the idea that there are nutjobs out there who would fly a plane into a building is terrifying, but the idea that there are nutjobs out there with the knowledge and skill to topple any skyscraper – and they are still out there – is fucking terrifying.

So, by dropping the whole plane thing, they could have had a smaller operation which means few chances of things going wrong or them being found out, as well as fewer people who might later come forward, they could have killed more people generating even more fear and hatred, and with the culprits not being caught any time soon, they could have pushed through even more draconian security measures for the Bad Guys to make money off of.  So, why fly the planes in?  What did they gain by it?

On a related note, is the whole “The Pentagon was hit by a missile,” thing.  A terrorist group with access to missiles is more terrifying than one that flies planes into buildings.  So why, from the truther point of view, would the conspiracy want the terrorists to seem to have fewer resources?  Unless the conspiracy is just a wheel in a bigger conspiracy that the ultratruthers are playing on the truthers.


13 Responses to “Challenge to truthers”

  1. Jeppe Severin Says:

    Dear blogger:

    Dr. Niels Harrit states in this interview
    that the amount of nano-thermite (not saying that nano-thermite was the only cause of the collapses) is estimated to between 10-100 tons.

    But frankly, only a real investigation could prove how much explosives and incendiaries was used. Why do you feel that not being able, as a civilian, to answer what is covered up, proves the official story/that there was no need of explosives to take down the towers?

    You go on by asking questions about how it all went down – still as if lack of answers to all that proves the official account. It’s flawed logic based on utter fear of the truth. Again, if you want those questions answered, be a man/woman and demand the investigation of what happened that day. Don’t fool yourself and keep telling yourself (and others), that is HAS been done, because it simply hasn’t. And more and more experts are waking up to that fact. Many of these people used to believe in the official account but then they actually took a look at the fraudulent NIST -reports and went “Hey, if the official story is true, why is this bad science based on a cover-up?? Something IS wrong!”

    A handful of these experts have argued why the official reports are heavily flawed on the scientific matter and why the hypothesis of controlled demolitions stand as the most plausible:

    To explain the obvious interests of the demolitions and the cover-ups surrounding the preparation, hereøs a challenge to YOU: Are you able to go through tis information and accept it as facts and not “conspiracy theory”? (Regardless of who did 9/11)

    That no one can explain exactly how the buildings were wired does not save you from the horrible truth – but of course, you can keep telling yourself that it does if you like pissing in your pants to stand the cold.

    A little more on the evidence of the preperations and wirings of the buildings from a former CIA agent here:
    (Again, here comes the challenge: Are you able to listen to Susan Lindhauer without deeming her an unpatriotic nut who must have got some strange idea to earn an extra buck or something like that?)

    About the Pentagon: I agree that a plane hit the Pentagon – and then mysteriously disappeared. Well, not all of it, as there are pictures taking from small pieces left from the plane. Besides that, every frigging witness outside the Pentagon reported on a plane and no one on a missile. The claim of “no-plane” and “missile” at the Pentagon is a trap obviously pushed to make truthers swift away from the MAIN claim in the official story (the one about a certain al-Qaeda terrorist piloting the plane) and make them look more “conspiracy nutty” to the sheep majority. It only works in favor of the perpetrators of 9/11. See, the real question to ask about the Pentagon (and any of the 3 “hit” plane incidents) is this: WHAT evidence do you have to connect the plane crash(es) to al-Qaeda? Please tell me.

    Jeppe Severin,
    Copenhagen, Denmark

  2. Yeah, blah blah blah. You say I should “demand the investigation of what happened that day.” That’s what I did. I demanded truthers tell me what the point of flying the planes into the buildings was. What was the goal of that operation? Do truthers have any theories on that subject? What are they? Or are you unable – or unwilling – to answer my questions?

  3. Jeppe Severin Says:

    You also asked how much explosives was used and had the answer that we are so far able to come up with.

    But no problem – and I’m not here to entertain you with theories. I’m talking FACTS: the goal is to achieve a global dominance acting as if it is a process of peace and democracy. It’s all about money and power. The US and Europe are about to go down the drain, because those power demons controlling the military and the banks are the real mob running our governments, and this is a historical way to get more power on the behalf of the people: hypnotizing populations into believing that their leaders are there for them while it’s a total illusion and while only a few “nutcases” or “conspiracy theorists” are able to see the forest for the trees. But I guess you’re too brainwashed to realize that – exactly how that mob wants you to think; You still think that 9/11 was carried out by al-Qaeda (physically impossible) and that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is to “protect the American people”, right?

    Sure, you do. But if that’s so, are you willing to answer the questions of WHAT ties the 3 plane crashes at the WTC and the Pentagon to al-Qaeda?

  4. I’m not asking to be entertained. I’m asking what the truther version of events is. For what purpose did the bad guys fly the planes into the buildings? If you don’t know, than be honest and say you don’t know.

    • Jeppe Severin Says:

      How about reading my response again? That’s the answer and that’s that. And even if you don’t agree, controlled demolitions and super performance unidentified Boeings have been proven (the engine of what hit the south tower doesn’t even match the craft – UA Flight 175 – that se were told crashed into WTC 2: – along with the fact that there is NO evidence of the official “Osama & His 19 Li’l Hijackers” fairy tale.

      Get used to the official story not being proven by your constant questioning of what only a real investigation would reveal. It’s a matter of spotting your own hypocrisy.

  5. How about reading my challenge again. I’m asking, why did they fly the planes into the building instead of just detonating them? Why did they do that instead of something else? What purpose did it serve in their scheme? If you want to talk about fake engines or whatever, do that AFTER you give me an answer. What was the goal of flying the planes into the buildings? Why was that a necessary step in their plans? That is my challenge that you are failing. I’m asking what color the sky is and you’re trying to give me the atomic weight of uranium. It’s like when somebody asks a slimy politician a yes or no question, and they ramble on for five minutes without actually answering it.

    • Jeppe Severin Says:

      “why did they fly the planes into the building instead of just detonating them?”

      Seriously, I can’t believe you’re asking that: Because it had to look like the planes were the cause of the collapses!

      Jesus. You’re quite hopeless. Sorry, this is really bad, man.

  6. So you are saying that it is really beyond comprehension that a group of terrorists could have planted some ten tons of explosives in a building and then detonated it to bring it down. Are you saying that nobody would believe that story?

    • Jeppe Severin Says:

      Al-Qaeda?? placing these super “black-op” UA/Israeli military industrial complex nano-thermite and other explosives into the WTC without getting noticed and no reports of the stuff missing?

      So the government covered that up with a “natural collapse” story because it would be too embarrassing for them to admit that al-Qaeda put the explosives in the towers?

      LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Yeah, you go out there and tell that that’s what you think. Be my guest.

  7. Wait, what? You’re the one saying it was easy for some group to plant all these explosives without the building security or maintenance noticing. Are you saying that, instead of just using more regular explosives that Al-Qaeda would have been able to get their hands on, making it easy for people to accept that Al-Qaeda bombed the buildings, this group decided instead to use super secret super explosives and then use a big distraction to hide the fact that they used them? Is that your answer to my challenge?

    • Jeppe Severin Says:

      It was easy to plant that for those who had access to both the explosives and the WTC, for christs sake. They also control the security, as they controlled security cameras in the respective airports that never showed all the terrorists boarding the flights.

      Regular explosives would reveal the collapses as normal and rcognizable CDs. They had to make it as little recognizable as possible. But the have been exposed today:

      But it’s kind of cute that you endorse the controlled demolition scenario – but just won’t acknwledge it was criminal elements nehind the government and not bin Laden who placed them.

  8. I do NOT endorse the controlled demolition bullshit. That is you crazy truthers. I’m trying to get you to notice the logical fallacy in your crazy theories. The only people more batshit crazy than you truthers are the dickless, batshit, religious fucking Al Qaeda fanatics who flew the planes into the buildings, with no fucking explosives in them.

    You may continue to post, but I will not reply because you are batshit crazy and you are not reading what I’m typing. But I will leave you with this. If the bad guys – in the crazy truther version of events – wanted us to think Al Qaeda was behind the collapse, then why not use regular explosives? Al Qaeda has used explosives in the past to blow up buildings, so who would care if it looked “normal?” That would just strengthen the case against Al Qaeda. Then, what would be the point of flying planes into the building to hide the evidence? That is my challenge that you have failed to meet.

  9. Jeppe Severin Says:

    No, you endorse the even more ridiculous “Attar, al-Shehhi and Hanjour piloted the planes into their targets” even that it has been proven impossible – most notably with the WTC planes. That is the crazy majority who have been brainwashed into this cartoonish notion.

    “the dickless, batshit, religious fucking Al Qaeda fanatics who flew the planes into the buildings”

    And where’s your evidence they did, neo-religious sheep?

    Me, batshit crazy? That’s what the Vatican and the majority told Galileo, when he argued that the earth turned around the sun. That’s what good people in Germany were called by the nazis and most Germans, when they were trying to tell people that all jews weren’t bad and that something was really wrong with Hitler’s policies.

    Today most people in the US and the rest of the world are literally BRAINWASHED into believing that “planes + WTC collapses = al-Qaeda; planes + WTC collapses = al-Qaeda; planes + WTC collapses = al-Qaeda; planes + WTC collapses = al-Qaeda; planes + WTC collapses = al-Qaeda” because they had it bombarded on TV – the most prominent tool of mass hypnotizing these days.

    “…then why not use regular explosives?”

    I don’t know how many times it will take for your dead, robotical mind to understand this, but here we go again: IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK AS IF THE PLANES DID IT AND THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPLOSIVES!

    If it looked “normal” too many questions would be raised on how al-Qaeda got the explosives into the buildings. NO ONE would believe that al-Qaeda placed the explosives unseen. Heck, most people don’t even get how those controlling the security in the WTC and some companies having offices in the WTC and who are heavily involved with the military ind. complex, got the explisives in without noticing. Better make it a super secret “black-op” demolition, wired in the night time and behind the walls through elevator shafts, to fool the stupid majority – including me to begin with – that it was all a natural cause of the planes and fires.

    I fail NONE of your challenges. Your fat, aspartame brainwashed American lame-brain fails at comprehend my answers and that you’re nothing but a rat lab to those who pretend to be taking care of you.

    Understand the message of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: