From Issuepedia
< 9-11‎ | anomalies
Revision as of 02:08, 27 February 2016 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (→‎Other Arguments: update: tone-policing)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This page is for structured debate on the issue of 9/11 anomalies.

The majority of objections in the mainstream media take the form of straw man attacks on imagined positions not generally endorsed by those who question the official story; the imagined positions most popularly targeted for criticism are documented here.


right-arrow debaticon There are substantial anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11 which have not been (and need to be) properly investigated.

up-arrow debaticon There are substantial anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11.
down-arrow debaticon In a major disaster, it's perfectly normal for evidence to be destroyed or ignored; non-explanations and ignoring of significant evidence are standard operating procedure. ([1])
up-arrow debaticon This is not an argument against a proper investigation, but rather an assertion that proper investigations are rare.
up-arrow debaticon If someone conceals or removes evidence from a crime scene, that is itself a crime that should be investigated.
down-arrow debaticon If there were a conspiracy, government inaction given foreknowledge of the attacks seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of controlled demolition, even for WTC7. ([2])
up-arrow debaticon This is a naked assertion.
up-arrow debaticon There are a number of extremely unlikely elements in the official story as well, including:
up-arrow debaticon Groups of foreign hijackers took control of 4 different planes using only box-cutters and piloted 3 of them into targets in two of the most heavily-guarded airspaces in the world, without even an attempt at interception.
up-arrow debaticon No heads rolled as a consequence of this gross security failure.
up-arrow debaticon One plane executed an extremely difficult hairpin turn in order to fly into the most heavily-protected side of the Pentagon?
up-arrow debaticon No less than three steel-framed buildings completely collapsed from fire and limited mechanical damage, for the first time in history, all on the same day.
up-arrow debaticon Those three buildings did not just fall to the ground towards the side most heavily damaged but instead seemed to explode straight downward and outward into microscopic dust particles, leaving almost nothing (aside from the steel girders) larger than a finger, long after the impacts and when the fires were clearly dying down.
up-arrow debaticon Authorities claimed that this was totally what you would expect to happen, even though the buildings were designed to handle such an impact.
up-arrow debaticon The airplane impacts resulted in pools of molten steel in the wreckage (and seen pouring out of WTC2 before collapse), when jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

Other Arguments


Filed Links


  • 2010/01/29 [L..T] Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers “The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.”
  • 2005/09/12 [L..T] WTC7 Collapse: The Real Story (not tinfoil) “I see a semi-regular appearance of the idea that the WTC7 building (part of the WTC complex but not one of the Twin Towers) collapsed due to deliberate demolition rather than due to damage from the Twin Tower collapses. This is pretty implausible so I did some internet research to find out why so many people believe it and what actually happened.”
  • 2005/02/03 [L..T] Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report sub-headline::Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.