30 Bananas a Day!

OK, I admit it: I came on too strong in this thread about the 9/11 (un)Truth movement. That was born from years of frustration debating (un)Truthers and seeing their tactics up close. I expected the same behavior in that thread too, and so acted presumptuously.


At prad's suggestion, I am starting my own thread, dedicated to the fact (not opinion) that 9/11 was an outside job. The only people behind it were Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers, who do not and never have had any connection to the U.S. government.


Rather than write a dissertation on all the ways that the leaders of the 9/11 (un)Truth movement have been misleading people solely for financial or personal gain, I'll shift the burden of proof where it belongs: to those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. In skeptical analysis, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic. The skeptic is the person who accepts the verdict of the evidence and the scientific/historical consensus, in this case, the NIST report, the ASCE report, the9/11 Commission Report, etc. It's on those who claim something opposite to this consensus to prove their claims, not on those who accept the consensus to accept counter-claims at face value.


In this thread, I invite (un)Truthers (and no, I will not stop using that name) to offer what they consider their best evidence for the inside job narrative. That evidence will then be examined skeptically, with a scientifically-rigorous standard of evidence.


This thread is not the place to debate Bush or Obama policies, other conspiracy theories, or the character of other posters. I cannot promise that my responses will be timely, but they will be civil towards the person posting. I reserve the right to continue calling Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage and other (un)Truth leaders quacks and con-artists, because that is what they are objectively and those labels are thus neither insulting nor name-calling.


However, I operate under the assumption that most people who believe in 9/11 (un)Truth are basically honest, decent, compassionate people who had their good intentions and natural curiosity exploited by snake-oil salesmen.


A little about my background: I was recruited to 30BAD by Freelee, who witnessed my shenanigans on pro-meat blogs. I am a university student in the Los Angeles area, seeking a degree in Geology with a focus on Paleontology and Radiometric Isotope Geochemistry. I maintain my own blog at PaleoVeganology, and am also available for weddings and bar mitzvahs.


So, do your best/worst (un)Truthers!


Again, here are the terms of the debate on this thread.

1) Keep it civil. No one here is a dupe or a sheep, or a COINTELPRO disinfo agent, or a liar.

2) Keep it apolitical. This only about evidence, not policy. If you're for or against a particular war, keep it to yourself or start your own thread.

3) Keep the focus on 9/11. This isn't the place to bring up JFK, Roswell, or the Minions of Cthulhu. Other conspiracy theories are not evidence for 9/11.

4) Show your math. If you're arguing that some aspect of 9/11 violates the laws of physics or chemistry, I expect you to actually understand the laws of physics and chemistry, and be able to demonstrate your claim with accurate mathematical proofs. If you think this is setting the bar too high, feel free not to participate. I'm only asking of you the same standard of evidence I'm asked to meet in my academic studies, and that anyone who hoped to have their work reviewed by the scientific community would have to meet.

5) If citing interviews or other documents, quote them accurately and in context. Quote-mining will automatically disqualify you from discussion with me, though others will be welcome to respond at their discretion.

6) Questions are not evidence. Make an affirmative claim and back it up.

7) Finally, state up-front what, specifically, you think happened on 9/11, and don't assume the false stance of "Just Asking Questions." Questions are born from a point-of-view and from unstated assumptions. Make your biases public from the start, so we can all deal honestly with each other.



Views: 4699

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You post things but maybe post your views on who you think is responsible behind this event?


My first point would be in many past airplane accidents a black box is found. I am not aware of any black box not being found after a airplane accident in the past and yet nothing was found here but yet they where able to find passports of terrorists and small bone fragments of plane victims at the crime scene in all that rubble.


Yet I recall somewhere a eyewitness firefighter volunteer see the black box's being found but no report of it in the 911 commission report.


Why is the black box important?  It would reveal exactly what went on between air traffic control and the cockpit.  Maybe some things in the black box is not suitable for the public to know.


Seems awfully odd to me.


I will not post to many points at the same time.


I think what happens as in most government jobs the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.


Take Care,

The voice and/or data recorders were found for flight 93 and the pentagon plane.  The data showing their flight paths is available on the net.   But of course, one can deny their validity.

Chuckster Yes I did find it interesting that on that particular flight they say they found something.

The FBI refused to release an audio record or transcript of Flight 93's voice recorder with the excuse: "we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way." 1 Then, in April of 2006, a transcript of Flight 93's CVR was published in conjunction with the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui



But did they actually find the recorder?

In the 911 commission report no black box was found from what I understood.


The question for me is why do they not want the public to know what is on that re-corder.


Why didn't the FBI release the air traffic controller's protocols? after many requested it through the  freedom of information act.


How does World Trade Centre 7 building collapse with no "airplane" hitting it?


Who owned that building?


Take Care,




The flight data for 2 planes is out there.  A truther group CIT has analyzed the flight 77 flight path data and claimed it is fake.


If you want to ramble on to multiple other subjects, fine.  I'm out.

it seems to me, chuckster that bigG isn't rambling at all. nor is such a statement in line with robert's first commandment:

1) Keep it civil. No one here is a dupe or a sheep, or a COINTELPRO disinfo agent, or a liar.


in fact, bigG has presented ideas with references and asked some good questions.


if you are going to say stuff like:

The flight data for 2 planes is out there.  A truther group CIT has analyzed them.

then at least provide some links so people can follow-up on such things.


in friendship,



Sorry Prad.  It's a common tactic.  The subject is changed so often one gets dizzy.


No, I'm not going to give links.  To much a waste of time.  People need to find the information for themselves.   It's pretty common knowledge and easily found. One can always find what one wants to believe.  That's why these discussions are a complete waste of time.

i don't understand the tactic evidently since i'm not familiar with it.

as a neutral observer, it seems to me that bigG has provided an argument and support for it. his items can be investigated at least.


yours cannot, so i don't see the point of your post. you won't provide the links, yet you say that it is common knowledge (i can easily refute that claim by my own ignorance :D) and easily found (if so, what's keeping you from finding it?).


thank you for the "Sorry Prad" though i think it's bigG who is really entitled to it. i understand that these discussions can be frustrating for both sides concerned, but a mutual level of cooperation and data exchange really would go a long way to establish understanding - and that is what i think robert is trying to achieve here (with what i think is one of the best laid out ops i've seen on 30bad).


in friendship,


Whatever info you find, folks will complain about some undotted 'i' or uncrossed 't' so it's useless.


You just haven't been around these discussions much.  We were talking about black boxes.   If he wants to talk about other subjects, then start another message in this thread.   People should focus their arguments or meaningful discussion just can't happen.

Whatever info you find, folks will complain about some undotted 'i' or uncrossed 't' so it's useless.

well that's of course happens on both sides. however, if we focus on a mutual exchange of info, then at least they can't deny the sincerity of the effort. for this sort of thing, imho, such exchange is more important than 'scoring points' in a debate that does become, as you say, "useless".


You just haven't been around these discussions much.

yes i am quite ignorant about these discussions and it no doubt shows. i don't have time to get up to scratch now, but was hoping that i might pick up on some of the ideas by following this thread especially from posts that explain things well.


in friendship,




The tactic Chuckster's referring to is the one I mentioned in a post in the other 9/11 thread: a 9/11 (un)Truther will either make a claim or ask a leading question, then change the subject or raise other leading questions when he or she is challenged (or worse, debunked!) on the original point by a skeptic. Eventually, after a variable amount of time and verbosity, they will circle back around to repeat their original claim, pretending it had never been challenged in the first place.


I've seen it dozens of times, and the only breed of debater worse about it than (un)Truthers is creationists. It's a dishonest tactic, too, because it does not seek answers, but merely looks for opportunities to proselytize.


On this thread, I'm asking that posters

a) make affirmative claims, with evidence to back them up; and,

b) not resort to leading questions or attempt to shift the burden of proof off of themselves.

ok thx robert. i guess i didn't pick up on the challenge from chuckster's post to bigG:

The voice and/or data recorders were found for flight 93 and the pentagon plane.  The data showing their flight paths is available on the net.   But of course, one can deny their validity.

therefore the questions in bigG's subsequent post seemed reasonable (particularly since i don't have my bearings in this topic yet).


in friendship,




Common tactic of what?


Dizzy have you ever tried to slow down a bit?


I look forward to all the facts you can provide on this discussion. I am open to hear both sides of the story.


Take Care,


30BaD search


Freelee & Durianrider Blogs

         Durianriders Blog

            Freelee's Blog

© 2014   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service