The 9/11 Liars have a specific set of rhetoric they use, mostly, consisting of ignoring the evidence. For instance, a 9/11 Liar on another forum recently said there was no evidence of explosions at the WTC. This is of course, false, and the liar in question is obviously intelligent enough to know he’s lying.
The reality is, there were hundreds of eye-witnesses to explosions in the building, both before the planes hit and after the planes hit. There were bombs in the basement of the building, thousands of feet below the impact of the planes. In one of the towers, most of the jet fuel blew out the side. The lobby of one of the towers was bombed out, a fact witnessed by numerous people evacuating the buildings.
The NIST report – which took something like 7 years to release – claimed a newly discovered phenomenon which they labeled “thermal expansion” caused one specific beam of WTC7 to collapes, thus causing the entire building to collapse at near free fall speed.
What is the evidence NIST uses to prove this theory?
None. They refused to release their data. It would be a threat to “public safety” if they did.
WTC7 was built in the 1980s, was up to the latest fire codes, yet NIST is claiming that relatively minor office furniture fires caues the building to collapse on itself. They didn’t release the data because the data doesn’t show any such thing. When an Underwriters Lab investigator did a report claiming that the certified steel beams could not have failed due to the fires at the WTC, he was of course, promptly threatened and fired. When the demolitions expert in Arizona gave an interview the day of 9/11, the next day he retracted everything and dropped out of sight. When the European demo expert observed the collapse of tower 7, he said it was an obvious demolition – then was promptly killed in a car crash.
Any scientist who questioned the government’s story of 9/11 was harrassed and fired, ala Steven Jones of Brigham Young University, who found thermetic material in the dust from the building – material that matched a modified form of thermite that had just been patented a few years prior, for the specific purpose of building demolition. This material should not have been in the dust of the towers, but it was. For releasing this information, Steven Jones was fired, physically threatened, offered bribes to shut up, and had a massive media campaign against him.
The 9/11 Liars simply ignore the evidence to come up with a plausible sounding theory that doesn’t actually fit the evidence. While ignorance is rampant among people, most of whom simply don’t know what happened, many of the debunkers – who we know actually get paid to troll online forums – simply engage in what is called “thought terminating cliches.” They used to say, “duh airplanes knocked the building down!” But of course, that’s not what happened – airplanes did not knock the building down.
Then they said that the jet fuel caused the steel to melt. But since jet fuel doesn’t cause steel to melt, they changed the story and said that the jet fuel merely “softened” the steel beams. But that’s doesn’t explain the evidence either because molten steel was found in the rubble a month after the attack. Then, the 9/11 Liars came up with the “pancake theory” to describe the collapse. Except, that doesn’t fit the evidence either, so that was also quietly dropped.
The abuse of Occam’s Razor is rampant among the 9/11 Liars as well. They seem to interpret Occam’s Razor to mean “the simplest sounding story is automatically correct.” That’s not what Occam’s Razor says, of course, and the official story of the collapse of the WTC is only “simple” if you ignore all of the evidence, which the 9/11 liars do.
It’s been 12 years of this. It always fascinated me that the worst 9/11 Liars came from the left, not the right, as might be expected.
That Towers 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed in a controlled demolition is an open and shut case. All of the evidence – from the way the buildings collapsed, to the materials found in the rubble, to the molten steel a month after the demolition, to the eye-witness accounts – show this. It is the prima facie case; the explanation that matches the video, auditory, chemical, physical, and eye witness evidence. The 9/11 Liars have been spinning their wheels for a dozen years, moving from one story to the next, always ignoring the evidence, then follow it up with threats, insults, and accusations.
An analogy: some guy gets stabbed in the arm, and many people witness him being stabbed in the arm. As eveyone is looking at his body, they notice a bullet wound in his head. The Liars then say, “well I didn’t see anyone shoot him, so forget the bullet hole in his head, he obviously died from the stab wound to the arm.” It’s plausible that someone could die from a stab wound to the arm – not likely, but plausible.
But unless you explain the bullet wound in his head, and give evidence of how he died from the stab wound, the simple, Occam’s Razor explanation that fits the evidence is that he died from the bullet in his head.