Note: This is a work in progress – feel free to add thoughts in the comments section below.
Preface: Debating with 9/11 truthers is essentially like shooting uninformed fish in a barrel which can get boring and tedious, but the fun (if you can call it that) comes in the squirming as they attempt to reason their way out of impossible problems. Having argued with truthers over 9/11 for quite a few years now and not letting them see the light on a factual level; I’ve begun discussing 9/11 on a logical level instead. During this effort, I’ve come across a major conundrum that is -essentially- an unanswerable question if you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy.
It works something like this:
Even if a truther believes that the government used demolitions to bring down WTC1 and WTC2, a truther will acknowledge the initial plane hits. So, Given that the government used planes were used on WTC1 and WTC2. Many truthers deny that a plane hit the pentagon (they claim a missile was used). But, the so-called official story has a plane hitting. So, you can easily get a truther to acknowledge that the government, at least, wants the people to believe that a plane was used. So, according to official accounts, a truther will acknowledge planes at WTC1, WTC2, and Pentagon. So, the conundrum comes in at WTC7. Truthers will claim that “controlled demolitions” were used to take down WTC7.
So the question becomes…why would the government break a theme at use demolitions on WTC7 when, clearly, planes were used in every other instance? Why the fundamental flaw in the plan.
At least, you’d expect a missile to have been used – similar to the one at the pentagon, correct? It actually works as a wonderfully impossible logical problem that can lead to wonderfully awful explanations.
This one is a bit long and tedious so I think I’ve found a second one that works in about 5 minutes and, if properly used, would be quite effective in ending the discussion.
Which leads to the next, and possibly, the most devastating logical problem regarding the conspiracy.
Your goal: Get a truther to admit that Osama Bin Laden was, in some way, the hero of 9/11.
What? Yep, you read that right. But honestly, this shouldn’t be difficult to accomplish as I’ve done the work for you. In any online forum, message board, etc that is started by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Posit this question (or similar):
Remember after 9/11, Osama Bin Laden initially claimed not to be responsible for the attacks. Why do you think he did that?
To a truther, the only possible retort would be, of course: Because he didn’t do it. (This assumes you can get a straight answer out of them, if you can’t, simply press the issue).
So, the follow-up, of course, is:
Do you think he was trying to warn the world that something wasn’t right about the attacks?
I’d expect a dodge and weave here, if I were you, so here is your next reply in this scenario. Your next follow-up would be, of course:
Isn’t he really the original person who stood up and said, “hey something isn’t right here” In some sense, he’s the person who brought it out into the open that this was a huge conspiracy, right? Alex Jones didn’t start the 9/11 conspiracy talk until 2002, Loose Change didn’t come out until 2005, but Bin Laden denied involvement in Oct of 2001.
As long as the truther responds here (I’d suspect they realize where this is going and vacate the conversation – this is where each of my attempts ended), your next follow-up is, of course:
So, in that sense, Bin Laden is somewhat of the hero of 9/11, isn’t he? For being the first to stand up to the Bush Cabal and not take blame for the conspiracy.
If the truther didn’t vacate the discussion before; he most certainly will here. Who wants to be known on the board/forum as the guy who called Bin Laden his hero?
What this does is point out the dishonesty of their argument. If the truther cannot admit that Bin Laden is somewhat heroic for denying involvement and standing up to Bush, then, at least they have it in the back of their mind that Bin Laden is behind the attacks. If they do come out and say that Bin Laden was a hero for standing up to Bush; well that kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it?
If you do get an agreement here; please send me a screenshot or link to the discussion. I think it’d be an immediate object lesson to anyone toying with the “truth”. I’m working on it, but I’m a bit too well known as a debunker on forums I visit, so it’s a tough road to hoe unless I happen to find a truther who is a newbie - and they are already fun enough to mess with.
Update: So, do the Truthers have the courage to nominate their hero for President in 2008?