# A debate about 9/11 Truthers and CT threads (in the Pit)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [June 7, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242 "2014-06-07T02:26:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/21 "2014-06-07T08:02:59Z")
Wouldn’t locking 9/11 CT threads, or imposing stricter posting requirements on that specific topic, just _contribute_ to their belief that the Powers That Be are trying to silence The Truth?
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/22 "2014-06-07T09:07:32Z")
> [@XT](#):
>
> So, the latest in a seemingly endless line of [9/11 CT threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725132) has once again sprung up like a mushroom in GD. This one, like so many others is following the usual trajectory. The OP dropped a steaming pile in GD, came back for a brief encore, then has seemingly left.
You are mistaken. The OP did not drop a steaming pile. The OP of that thread is a steaming pile.
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/23 "2014-06-07T09:09:29Z")
> [@Patch](#):
>
> No different than any other conspiritard (JFK, Pearl Harbor, HAARP, etc).
Of course they’re no different! They’re the same jackasses.
[/QUOTE]
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/24 "2014-06-07T09:10:55Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#):
>
> I met one of them in the flesh on the tenth anniversary of the incident. I had to retreat to the ladies room to get away from him. After listening to a neighbor keening over the loss of her firefighter husband on my Staten Island block as we all spent a week watching Manhattan on fire . . . . it was all I could not to deck him.
Next time, don’t go to the can. Deck the jerk.
---
### Author:  [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/25 "2014-06-07T09:52:09Z")
I have a question for you folks.
What would someone have to show you to convince you that a CT had merit?
CTs, by definition, sound “out there”. I personally believe that if this board had existed when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, anyone posting a CT about it would have been abused and thrashed in a thread in which they stated exactly what happened.
I don’t think the [Gulf of Tonkin Incident](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident) is doubted any longer, is it? LBJ used a “faux” attack to escalate US involvement in the Vietnam War by using the incident to draw up the GoT resolution, and getting it passed in Congress.
My favorite quote from the wikipedia article is this:
> [@](#):
>
> In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the Aug 4 attack never happened.
Is that enough proof to tip folks over to the side that it actually happened? Has there been enough proof over the years to satisfy those that debunk every CT immediately out of the gate? Or do people still debate this? Considering McNamara came out with his quote in 2003, were there still some people calling anyone who believed that the GoT incident was a CT nutter for the 39 years between the incident and McNamara’s admission?
Look, I don’t believe in a 9/11 CT. But I don’t believe this board is open to real and honest debate on the subject either. And not just on 9/11, but on ANY CT. No matter what anyone says, people jump in those threads and attack the OP like a pack of Hyenas attacking a baby elephant (I recently saw this on an animal documentary, and it was quite graphic and brutal… So I think it is appropriate here.). Mob mentality quickly takes over, and suppresses most folks from entering the thread to add their thoughts about any CT, as they known whatever they submit will be shredded to bits if it doesn’t agree 100% that no CT exists.
I don’t think the answer is locking the threads. That would work, but is that what we want the board to become? Perhaps the best thing to do is to make a special forum called “Conspiracy Theories”, where CTS on any subject are posted and discussed… They wouldn’t clutter GD, and they wouldn’t be seen unless someone actually entered the CT forum in the first place. That should cut down on the outrage many feel by just reading a CT OP and feeling the uncontrollable urge to enter the thread and impart their wisdom on the subject to the “ignorant” OP.
---
### Author:  [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/26 "2014-06-07T09:58:23Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#):
>
> Look, I don’t believe in a 9/11 CT. But I don’t believe this board is open to real and honest debate on the subject either. And not just on 9/11, but on ANY CT. No matter what anyone says, people jump in those threads and attack the OP like a pack of Hyenas attacking a baby elephant (I recently saw this on an animal documentary, and it was quite graphic and brutal… So I think it is appropriate here.). Mob mentality quickly takes over, and suppresses most folks from entering the thread to add their thoughts about any CT, as they known whatever they submit will be shredded to bits if it doesn’t agree 100% that no CT exists.
If a CT believer were to introduce some _new_ bit of evidence that hadn’t previously been considered and rejected, or some new development were to occur that shone light on facts previously unbeknownst to the community, I have no doubt that we’d reconsider it. Up until a certain somebody last year decided to reveal new data, the claim that “the NSA is reading everyone’s emails all the time” would have been well within CT territory, but once that evidence became available, the Teeming Millions didn’t reject it out of hand just because it was a CT.
What we’re seeing here is not an attempt at honest debate - rather, it is a form of witnessing not unlike creationism. We see people coming in and bandying about a few “facts” which have been refuted time and time again over the past decade, but which have accreted within the Truther community to the point of being articles of faith. There’s little point in giving serious weight to diatribes about “free fall speed” and “nano-thermite” and “pools of molten steel” and “pulling it” and so on when it’s the same stuff we’ve seen before.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/27 "2014-06-07T11:33:37Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> The problem is, no one really wants to fight this type of ignorance anymore. The threads that are there largely consist people making fun of them. Very little is said to actually try to convince anyone.
>
> So my proposal is that, if a GD thread has devolved into jokes without the OP responding, close it as no longer being a debate. Tell the OP that, if they want to continue the discussion they can email a mod or open a new thread or whatever we decide.
Has anyone been convinced otherwise? So, what’s the difference if we just make fun of them?
The most laying out theories will do for people who already believe in CTs is to make them preface their CT threads in the future with “I know, I don’t believe there was a conspiracy to take down the towers, BUT…CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY CT CITE! I’M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!”
---
### Author:  [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/28 "2014-06-07T11:40:04Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#):
>
> What would someone have to show you to convince you that a CT had merit?
Evidence.
Wow that was easy. Next?
---
### Author:  [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/29 "2014-06-07T11:46:52Z")
I mentioned this in an anti-anti-vax thread, but I think it would be helpful if we started an omnibus thread for the major topics, with links to good citations and explanatory posts, and then when a new CT thread is started we’ll have a ready made place to go for information. We could link to that thread and then close the new one with an “asked & answered”. Then we could come to the pit and mock them until they wet themselves.
---
### Author:  [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/30 "2014-06-07T12:25:55Z")
I don’t think this is something that needs fixing. No one is being forced to participate in these threads. Don’t like them? Don’t read them. Those that do choose to participate each take the approach that amuses or entertains them the most, just like every other thread.
I agree that sometimes it gets disheartening to see the same old bullshit repeated over and over again. I’m a biologist, after all - I’m familiar with the phenomenon. That’s when it’s time for a break. Fight the good fight, but even front line soldiers need relief now and again.
---
### Author:  [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/31 "2014-06-07T14:34:42Z")
> [@XT](#):
>
> I’ll use myself as an example of what I see as the trouble with this one…I always follow the threads I start (such as this one). However, I don’t always post in them again …
I’ll use myself as an example of why I agree with you…
> [@SiXSwordS](#):
>
> I have no idea how this could possibly implemented,
I agree with just about every point that’s been made in this thread. You are spot on.
One trend in this thread seems to be the idea that there’s learnin’ to be had. Lurkers my be looking to answer their own questions about a given issue. I often follow thread related to dowsing and mind reading and those types of phenomenon that appear to defy logic.
I’ve learned a lot by following those types of threads, which help answer questions I’ve had such as, “presuming it’s bunk, why does it seem to work?”
I think that is an important function of these boards.
> [@XT](#):
>
> …unless I’m asked a specific question
One of the reasons that what could be useful threads become choo-choos in the gator swamp is that poster after poster confronts the OP, with minimal or no response. Soon there is nothing but like-minded individuals patting each other on the back for well-crafted zingers and recapitulations of accepted ideas.
One thing that separates GQs from debates is that many of the ideas that are presented are challenged.
I believe 9/11 happened more-or-less the way the story is generally presented in news reports. But my belief is based on what I’ve seen in the news. Am I a sheepson? (I guess that epithet doesn’t work well in the singular.)
My point is that I tend to challenge my own beliefs, and those of others. Sometimes that’s a pain in the ass.
But, I’m way off track here…
I agree with your points in response to my post.
> [@XT](#):
>
> …unless I’m asked a specific question…
When the OP is asked a specific question, and does not respond (again this is subjective, and timing is a major impediment to actual implementation) the thread should be closed before it starts to attract flies. By that I mean, before someone who wouldn’t otherwise be interested enough to start their own thread comes along and starts to just “play debating” with the posters who—for better or worse—are engaging with the drive-by OP.
---
### Author:  [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/32 "2014-06-07T14:38:58Z")
The “don’t like them? don’t read them!” argument is worthless on its face. If that were the policy we went by, we’d end up allowing every single post including obvious spam, threads in GQ that didn’t ask a question, or even a thread title that called another poster a cunt (how could we live with that?).
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/33 "2014-06-07T17:11:32Z")
> [@Smapti](#):
>
> Up until a certain somebody last year decided to reveal new data, the claim that “the NSA is reading everyone’s emails all the time” would have been well within CT territory, but once that evidence became available, the Teeming Millions didn’t reject it out of hand just because it was a CT.
I dunno. I think a lot of us would have reacted saying, “Yeah, so what? Spies will spy.”
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/34 "2014-06-07T17:41:23Z")
Sticky a master list of threads on the subject, with a list of most of the major questions that have already been asked and responded to in those threads, then tell folks that only new questions and/or ideas and/or refutations will be allowed.
---
### Author:  [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/35 "2014-06-07T18:07:54Z")
> [@Monty](#):
>
> Next time, don’t go to the can. Deck the jerk.
[Works for Buzz Aldrin.](http://youtu.be/wptn5RE2I-k?t=1m28s)
---
### Author:  [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/36 "2014-06-07T18:45:52Z")
> [@StinkFishPot](#):
>
> What would someone have to show you to convince you that a CT had merit?
Falsifiability. The CT proponent would need to prove that their theory could, at least in principle, be proved wrong. Consider the common arguments against, and typical CT rebuttals to, 9/11 Truther dogma:
1). Loads of experts have said that the Twin Towers were not brought down by a controlled demolition - These experts have been paid off by the government.
2). Passengers on the planes called their families to tell them they were being hijacked - The calls were faked.
3). Bin Laden is on tape laughing about it - The tape was faked.
4). Thousands of witnesses saw the planes smash into the towers - They were holograms, it was a fake. Other truthers say that the planes _did_ hit the towers but couldn’t have brought them down, which is basically just a restatement of their “rebuttal” to point one.
And so on. In the minds of CT’ers the government is all-powerful, and capable of faking any evidence that undermines the theory. CT’ers are thus perfectly immune to reason. Before I can take one seriously they need to tell me in no uncertain terms exactly what it would take for them to change their minds. If they can’t to that, or if their answer is patently ridiculous, I just write them off. Some people are always going to be ignorant, no matter what you show them. Best not to waste your time.
---
### Author:  [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/37 "2014-06-07T22:13:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Sticky a master list of threads on the subject, with a list of most of the major questions that have already been asked and responded to in those threads, then tell folks that only new questions and/or ideas and/or refutations will be allowed.
Not a word of which will be read by those who need it.
---
### Author:  [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/38 "2014-06-07T23:03:50Z")
> [@Smapti](#):
>
> If a CT believer were to introduce some _new_ bit of evidence that hadn’t previously been considered and rejected, or some new development were to occur that shone light on facts previously unbeknownst to the community, I have no doubt that we’d reconsider it. Up until a certain somebody last year decided to reveal new data, the claim that “the NSA is reading everyone’s emails all the time” would have been well within CT territory, but once that evidence became available, the Teeming Millions didn’t reject it out of hand just because it was a CT.
I can’t imagine what that evidence would be, though. Can you? When a truther points to a study by some engineers who say the building couldn’t have come down that perfectly, that controlled charges would have been required to bring down buildings like the WTC in such a small area (if you think about it, both of those buildings came down more or less straight, something that I personally didn’t think was possible unless expert demolitions people set the charges correctly.), this board’s reaction would be to toss the conclusions of the engineer(s) out as being formed without proof, formed with an agenda, or some other reason. I don’t know enough about structural engineering or demolition to speak to these topics with any real expertise, so I personally can’t speak to the validity of an opinion or study on a subject like that.
So, i guess my question points to, what is considered reliable, real evidence that the TM would consider?
> [@Smapti](#):
>
> What we’re seeing here is not an attempt at honest debate - rather, it is a form of witnessing not unlike creationism. We see people coming in and bandying about a few “facts” which have been refuted time and time again over the past decade, but which have accreted within the Truther community to the point of being articles of faith. There’s little point in giving serious weight to diatribes about “free fall speed” and “nano-thermite” and “pools of molten steel” and “pulling it” and so on when it’s the same stuff we’ve seen before.
I agree that if there is not an attempt at honest debate, then the premise of the thread is not to discuss a CT; instead, it seems more like the definition of trolling, since someone is posting something just to get a reaction out of people. But they aren’t interested in truly exploring the CT they posted about.
As to the specifics of 9/11 truthers, I honestly can’t speak to the particulars. I have heard a number of theories, but I haven’t seen anything that has convinced me that the day didn’t play out pretty much as has been reported. The only part that I have been interested in is the plane crash in PA and the eyewitness accounts of the white cessna-type plane that was seen by a number of people. I even posted a link to a site discussing this one point out here once, with no real dog in the fight other than I personally believe that plane was either shot down or it was being closely followed and was going to be shot down when the passengers fought the hijackers and drove the plane into the countryside.
I could never prove this aspect of 9/11, but the website was compelling (at least to me) in that it contained local news reports and interviews with eyewitnesses from the Shanksville area that all saw the same thing. Were they all lying? I don’t know. But I don’t think it is beyond the possibility that the military on orders from the government had a plane in the air and would not allow another 747 crash into a Washington building.
If I remember correctly, most folks threw out that website as “evidence” pretty quickly, and little discussion actually occurred.
> [@drewtwo99](#):
>
> Evidence.
>
> Wow that was easy. Next?
:rolleyes: helpful.
Evidence is obvious. My question was more along the lines of "what type of evidence is required? And by that I mean, can it be an eyewitness account? Can it be an expert in the field in question? Or does it have to be something that has been critically reviewed and ok’d by a senate sub-committee? And who decides what evidence is valid and what isn’t?
Once the official story is out there, ANYTHING that goes against that story is considered to be a nut-ball, kook theory. I just don’t believe this board would accept anything in the way of proof that wasn’t backed by some sanctioned, investigative body, or the report was validated on MSNBC as being accurate.
And hell, even THOSE get tossed out. Whenever the Kennedy Assassination comes up and someone points to the results if the congressional investigation and conclusions from the mid 70’s (I think 1977, but I’m not positive), folks claim that their conclusions were incorrect, and no “probable conspiracy existed”, and yet, that was the conclusion of the congressional investigation.
> [@drewtwo99](#):
>
> The “don’t like them? don’t read them!” argument is worthless on its face. If that were the policy we went by, we’d end up allowing every single post including obvious spam, threads in GQ that didn’t ask a question, or even a thread title that called another poster a cunt (how could we live with that?).
This is nonsense. Not entering a thread titled “9/11! Why it was a government job!” Is easy. And that has nothing to do with removing spam or anything else. If you find you MUST read every CT thread, that still doesn’t mean you have to reply to it. It doesn’t have to be a policy. It is a choice. And it wouldn’t stop you or anyone else from reporting a post that was obviously spam.
I can chose to read your next post, skip over it, or respond. That choice is mine. Even if what you have written is complete crap and I can prove it with cites, I am not obligated to do so. In the case of CT’s, since most have been discussed at length out here, supplying a link to a previous thread should be all that is required by you.
> [@SiXSwordS](#):
>
> One of the reasons that what could be useful threads become choo-choos in the gator swamp is that poster after poster confronts the OP, with minimal or no response. Soon there is nothing but like-minded individuals patting each other on the back for well-crafted zingers and recapitulations of accepted ideas.
This is exactly right.
I’m not interested in debating 9/11, or any other CT. My question was and remains “what kind of evidence would be considered valid?”
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/39 "2014-06-07T23:42:25Z")
They’ll never change. Ban on sight.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242/40 "2014-06-07T23:46:39Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#):
>
> . . . I’m not interested in debating 9/11, or any other CT. My question was and remains “what kind of evidence would be considered valid?”
It’d have to be damn hefty, at this point. I’d need interlocking testimony from involved persons, the kind where we interview them separately, and make sure their stories agree, right down to small details.
Their testimony would have to lead us to other, not-yet-discovered evidence. For example, to a warehouse in Duluth holding a whole bunch of thermite devices, and the paperwork showing that the devices had been there since 2000.
I am not going to be at all interested in “But can you show me why it couldn’t be true?” negative evidence. Argument from ignorance, right now, is all they’ve got. Show me something substantial, solid, palpable.
Also, it has to be consistent with what we know. If it relies on “And the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane, but by a missile,” they then can (checking this is the Pit) go fuck themselves.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-about-9-11-truthers-and-ct-threads-in-the-pit/690242.md?page=3)