The perfect 9/11 truther conundrum?
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?
Post Comments Here » 14 Comments so far
Related Posts:
- Things I’ve Learned from Summer Movie Season
- The World Needs a Ron Paul Coin
- Farfour: We Barely Knew Thee
- Al Gore Says: (Nearly) Extinct Animals are Delicious
14 Comments so far
Trackbacks URI http://www.lorien1973.com/osama-bin-laden-hero-of-911/trackback/
Leave a reply
More Related:
Check these Categories below for more on Osama Bin Laden: Hero of 9/11 ?
Previous Post: Kyla Ebbert: Misogynist Southwest Commercial?
Next Post: Increasing Conversion Rates Through Discounts
Search For More Articles Related to:
BadgerHawk on September 18th, 2007
Your second one is pretty good Lorien, though I suspect most of the truthers would see the trap coming.
You’re probobly right about arguing on a logical level too, since truthers seem to be totally incapable of understanding basic factual evidence.
lorien1973 on September 18th, 2007
Probably - that’s why its a work in progress.
It could be reworded, maybe, like this. If you start out pretending you are a truther. You’d have to be unknown for this ploy to work, though.
Saying something like:
I think that, whomever started to stand up to the Bush Cabal and really put out the theory that it was a conspiracy, not caused by Bin Laden but by Bush, is a hero and deserves our respect. Don’t you agree?
Then, with that distraction..you could hit with this line in some form.”I just did some quick research…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. So, really, he’s a hero of 9/11 isn’t he?”
That kind of blindsides them. Possibly. Work in progress. But I like that, now that I give it a second thought.
Marcus Jump on October 3rd, 2007
This is brilliant! Your little forum trap single-handedly proves that the Government had nothing at all to do with allowing 9-11 to happen. How could anyone argue after that? Simply brilliant. Quite the ‘Vigilant Guardian’ you are. Or is that ‘Northern Vigilance’??
lorien1973 on October 4th, 2007
Well, that’s not the point, is it? That part is easy to show. But, it’s far more interesting to get a truther admitting that Bin Laden is innocent - despite everything to the contrary - and to admit that he is somewhat at the head of movement.
Take a minute and consider if you would fall into that trap. How does it feel to be a willing accomplice? That’s what you should ask yourself.
Eric on November 30th, 2007
The plane that crashed in Shanksville, PA, Flight 93, was more than likely intended to target WTC 7. The fact that the plane crashed prematurely and did not strike the target, yet the target still fell, is quite supportive of the theory that WTC 7 was indeed wired with explosives to demolish. Had Flight 93 not crashed in PA, and instead hit its intended target, it would be much more difficult to question the fall of WTC 7. However, that is not what happened and yet WTC 7 still fell. You cannot discount this valid line of thinking, and it is quite clear that there is more behind the story of the fall of WTC Building #7.
lorien1973 on November 30th, 2007
So you are saying that the Bushitler planned for this contingency and pre-wired wtc 7 with explosions? Or did, maybe, the firefighters do it while inside the building?
Put a little thought behind the stupidity, please. You really make my job too easy here.
Sure I can. With no proof and a completely moronic premise, it is easy to dismiss.
LC on December 6th, 2007
“So you are saying that the Bushitler planned for this contingency and pre-wired wtc 7 with explosions? Or did, maybe, the firefighters do it while inside the building?”
I’m not a believer in the conspiracy theories, but you’re entirely missing the point of the argument. The thought isn’t that the explosives were a “backup plan;” rather, a plane could not be relied upon to take down the WTC, so explosives were planted and the planes were used as a semi-believable cover. The planes had nothing to do with the explosions, according to these people.
lorien1973 on December 6th, 2007
You aren’t a believer but cannot find the simple problems in your complaint?
At least fess up to your trutherism and don’t hide behind “I’m just asking questions” - that has gotten old a long time ago.
For your argument to hold any water at all, you have to believe that WTC1 and 2 were also wired with explosives, correct? If planes could not be relied upon to bring them down. Where is the evidence of any bombs being planted at the towers? There is none. Cuz there weren’t any bombs.
If only WTC7 had bombs planted (cuz your shanksville plane never made it to the target); then Bushitler was remarkably prescient, wasn’t he?
Put a little thought behind these replies, would you?
Jeppe Hedevang on December 15th, 2007
Hello
This is ridiculous. Lorien your arguments are so poor i cant discribe it.
Of course Bin Laden would say it wasn’t him. Should he say that it was him, if it was not?
And how do you come to the conclusion that he is a hero?
Am I a hero too? I didn’t do it either you know.
Osama probably figured that some might use him as a scapegoat, so he said it early that it wasn’t him.
And the tape coming YEARS LATER is fake. Ask yourself: Why would he long time AFTER suddenly SEND A TAPE admitting it, when he would not do it from the start? Even if he did it, that doesnt add up.
From a danish boy (if you know what that is, you ignorant bitches) here is a qoute that says it all:
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned.
When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1904
Oh brother on January 29th, 2008
Only someone who doesn’t know jack about physics would ever say anything the likes of which Eric, LC, and Jeppe Hedevang have said. I’m getting sympathy embarrassment pangs reading that and imagining just what kind of mental midgets anyone who knows the most rudimentary of physics would think of them.
blah on September 7th, 2008
This is retarded.
You’re not quite the sword-wielding “philosopher of truth” that you fancy yourself.
The leap between “denied involvement” and “do you think he was trying to warn..?” is so freakin’ big that you could drive a bus full of noisy circus clowns through it.
eleventy on February 11th, 2009
Yes bush orchestrated9/11 right blah? your a joke :Rolleyes:
RG on March 31st, 2009
My understanding is Bin Laden was a CIA asset from the United States stated and continuing goal of slowing Russian creeping world lust for domination..George Bush could not even get anyone to listen to him before 911 and was one of the most secretive presidents in the short history of dim witted politicians..there is no more proof that Bin Laden pulled off 911 than there is that the Trade Towers were brought down by explosives..the question is who has gained from their destruction…how much have the peoples of the United States of America freedom and liberty been lost in this the fear mongering that has been created by everyone involved..including the writer of this blog..what is the motive of all…it appears to destroy this great Republic..congratulations now you have done your part as well…if you are not part of the solution…you are part of the problem..
Law professional in Shanksville offering legal service to those suffering from asbestos cancer on July 2nd, 2009
[...] Osama Bin Laden: Hero of 9/11 ?: Read it at Lorien1973.Com [...]