Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes

[FourScore]

[libodem]

1. loved it

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Brilliant!!

Thanks for posting this, it was great! Made me smile/laugh at a time when I just really, REALLY needed it.

Peace,

Ghost

[T S Justly]

3. Haha! good one. K&R (nt)

[TheUnspeakable]

4. k&r-very good-Thanks!

[cpwm17]

5. Yes, that's everything I need to know about truthers in under 5 minutes.

[FourScore]

6. I'm sorry, I missed the part that's truther.

I understood this as being a quick recap on the "official" story.

Please explain the "truther" part.

[KDLarsen]

7. A quick strawman more like it..

It was brought up on DU2, and IIRC it was pointed out how it doesn't even finish the first sentence without completely misrepresenting the actual truth.

It's nothing but a truther's satire over what he/she wants the "official story" strawman to be, in order for him/her to be able to dismiss it.

Edit: Let's just take the first sentence step by step.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters
.. and knives, mace, as well as what appeared to be guns and bombs.

directed by a man
There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the running of the operations after the lead 9/11 hijackers were in the US. He was certainly involved at the planning stage, including making the selection of Mohammed Atta as the leader of the hijackers, but beyond that it was being run by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

on dialysis
There is no evidence that OBL ever had kidney disease to the point of him needing dialysis.

in a cave fortress halfway around the world
There is no evidence that OBL employed the use of caves prior to the 9/11 attacks and the US led invasion of Afghanistan. Why would he? He was the guest of the Taliban government and even had a home at Tarnak Farms.

using a satellite phone and a laptop
See above, OBL was never involved in the runnings of the operations.

directed the most sophisticated penetration
No penetration of the ADIZ was made, all flights began in domestic airspace.

of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world
I can think of a few places being more heavily defended than commercial US airspace.

overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft
Really? Only Charles Burlingame was military, and he had been out of the military for a good couple of years prior to 9/11. But perhaps the narrator can enlighten us, as to what sort of military training teaches you to overpower 2 or more attackers, coming up on you from behind and trying to slit your throat while you're strapped to your seat.

before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
AA11 hijacked between 8:14 & 8:24 AM, crashed at 8:46 AM. 32 minutes.
UA175 hijacked between 8:42 & 8:46 AM, crashed at 9:03 AM. 21 minutes.
AA77 hijacked between 8:51 & 8:54 AM, crashed at 9:37 AM. 46 minutes.
UA93 hijacked between 9:25 & 9:27 AM, crashed at 10:03 AM. 38 minutes.

Not a single flight was "off course for over an hour". On top of that, the only intercept that took place entirely in domestic airspace prior to 9/11, the Payne Stewart crash, it took nearly 1½ hours to intercept the aircraft.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Seriously. It's like trying to find out about President Obama from World News Daily. n/t

[FourScore]

9. I just googled the archives. You spend an awful lot of time trying to discredit those

who post threads questioning the "official version" of 911. Odd. I sure hope it's worth your while!

Anyway, this argument has been hashed through so many times, no need to go there.

[KDLarsen]

10. On the contrary, I discredit the arguments being made

Naturally I can't be 100% certain, but I do believe I've never, ever, attacked a poster personally for posting a thread about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[FourScore]

15. This is true and deserves correcting. I genuinely apologize

for saying you try to discredit the poster when what I meant to say is that it appears as though you spend a lot of time trying to discredit 9-11 "truther" posts.

There is a group of about 7 DU posters who have spent years here in the 9-11 forum arguing with those who question the "official conspiracy theory". I just think it is very odd. You may or may not be one of those who spends a great deal of time and energy arguing about 9-11, I don't know. But we all know who the usual argumentative ones are.

If someone posts something about Chemtrails, I think they are wrong. But I don't spend years of my life making the same arguments against it. I just let it go. So what's the motive behind those who spend their time for years on end arguing every 9-11 post that appears on this board. I know I don't have that much time on my hands -- which is why I refuse to hash through the same arguments over and over. That's what I was referring to.

Nevertheless, I'd like to reiterate, I feel certain that you have never attacked anyone personally. That (very careless) comment of mine not only deserves a correction, but also an apology.

[KDLarsen]

16. No worries, apology accepted

There are plenty on the debunker side who will attack the poster rather than the argument, but to my knowledge that has never been the hallmark of the DU debates.

The reason I keep debunking on 9/11 at DU, is my belief that lies, if let unchallenged, will inevitably accepted as the truth. And especially concerning 9/11, a lot of the lies being paraded around as 'truth' ARE pretty damn convincing, unless they are put into their proper context. See the above sentence I quoted, where I could point out several half-truths and downright lies, that would otherwise easily be accepted.

Videos such as the one linked one of the 'smoother' ways that the truth movement has been able to recruit followers (if one can call it that). Hell, I was suckered in by Loose Change 2nd Edition back in the day. That is, until I took the time to actually go over the claims made in it, and realised how it relied on either half-truths, distortions, or downright lies in order to make their point.

[cpwm17]

17. It's important that the American public properly understands 9-11

It doesn't do anybody any good to blame innocent people for the crimes of 9-11. Not only are members of the federal government falsely accused, many civilians have been falsely accused by the so-called truthers. Now that's terrible.

The New York Fire Department has been accused of committing mass murder against their fellow firemen. The owner of WTC7 has been accused of taking part in the plot. The military at the Pentagon has been accused of lying about what attacked them.

Here's one of the victims of the false accusations from the truthers:

Truthers need to be challenged. The public needs to understand what 9-11 was about. Truthers harm that effort.

[FourScore]

18. I think the word "truther" is often (but not always) a false label.

I do not think that any of those people you mention played a role in 9-11. Still, there are questions that need answers, and acting as if they don't only perpetuates the falsehoods of the "truther" movement.

[zappaman]

11. It's a discussion board, so why is it odd?

And pointing out where a poster is mistaken is not "discrediting".

[greyl]

14. Why are you spending time changing the subject and none responding to the points made? nt

[mrarundale]

20. "Charles Burlingame"

had been "out of the military" for more than a few years.... Talk about "Straw men".
and most of that stuff was reported by media at some point or another, which is really the only source of information since there was never any real trial (Moussaoui was not mentally competent) and no one would answer the questions of the 911 commission's well compensated, conflict of interest laden panel.

[ottobahn]

23. "what appeared to be guns and bombs"

How did they smuggle those on board?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. It's my understanding that they used wires and modeling clay to build what looked like

a bomb, and did so on the plane. This is depicted in "United 93", a rather accurate portrayal of what we know happened aboard the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

[jesters]

26. Transcript and sources

are here: http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

Did you miss that part?


Oh, and 8:14 - 9:37 AM = 83 minutes.

But yeah, keep on "debunking". . .

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. so, was AA 77 was hijacked at 8:14? or did AA 11 crash at 9:37?

Until further notice, I'll stick with KDLarsen: not a single flight was "off course for over an hour."

[LARED]

13. It's pretty easy to explain

It is a recap of truther fantasy not the "official story" (Whatever that means?)

"Truther" is just about the most ironic moniker invented. Truthers simply invent stuff to fill in perceived gaps while ignoring any reasonable explanation that is contrary to the fantasies running amok in their brains.

[Nostradammit]

12. At 1:28 --> "If you can believe that..." LMFAO!!!

This IS excellent and really points out what a far-fetched tale the "official story" really is.

Thanks for pointing it out!

[wildbilln864]

21. That rocks! Thanks!

[ottobahn]

22. Love the fictional cave fortress @:21 !!! n/t

[deconstruct911]

29. No one loved it more than Rumsfeld

Apparently he didn't find it very fictional either.

"Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1403724

[jesters]

30. Good find! Lol.

[antitsa]

25. Great vid! nt

[jesters]

27. BTW,

This hit a million views on New Year's, I think.

1,005,484 views now.