What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I've been laughing at this conspiracy theory since I first heard about it in 2002. Being on ATS has made it even funnier.

a reply to: MsVen

"I cant understand how a hijacked airliner was allowed, or able, to get so close to such an important building - the HQ of the Defense Dept of all things - so long after the first hint of attack."

The second plane in NYC hit at 9:03.
The Pentagon was hit 34 minutes later.

Why would you expect the Pentagon would be third?
Why not the Sears tower?
Why not the Empire state building?

You have to remember the confusion of the day.
The alphabet agencies did not talk to each other back then.
The attack was well thought out because they chose a method we did not seriously think could happen.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
The reason why people took years to start believing in the conspiracy theories, is because it took them a few years to actually forget everything that happened that day, and in the days and weeks that followed........

This sums up this conspiracy theory perfectly.

It didn't grip me until September 2015. My awakening came her on this forum. It was a called something like "9/11 conspiracy in 5 minutes". It caused me to think and research much more deeply.

Yes, I am convinced our government was involved, and it is a frightening revelation.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You became a believer in the future?

a reply to: svetlana84

I stand by what I say. It was a horrific tragedy. It was not a conspiracy.

I knew by 2003. I knew WTC 7 was the smoking gun.
Still is, but now it's one of many.

The USA will not be whole until this particular
injustice is righted.
For those who don't know or are on the fence
the now 2,200+ Architects and Engineers for
9/11Truth is a must. The newly released 4 part
documentary 9/11 Ten years of Deception, which
is listed as one of the most popular documentaries on Hulu,
proves Truth is alive and well.
After MOUNTAINS of evidence, the defending of the OS makes me ill.

It's TIME TO TAKE NAMES, not personal opinions of people interested,
but officials who have in one way or another have schemed for the OS.

In media start from the bottom up .
Writers for the Nat Geo hit piece
Writers for the NOVA documentary (believe us not physics)
MSNBC's Maddow for screaming at a family member of someone
who was killed that questioned the OS
FOX's Hannity for screaming at multiple interviewee's
for having questions about the OS (see bi partisanship exists)
Popular Science for lying and lying and lying some more .
Then start questioning people who worked for these unknown
off the radar security companies whose job it was to paint thermetic
explosives I mean do matinence on the WTC buildings.

The OS is a crappy lie full of holes on a good day.
If the nightly news spent 3 minutes on WTC 7
we'd wake up to an entirely different country the next morning.

Maybe we should vote for the 9/11 PARTY in 2016.
Just having a political party named such in the mainstream
will be enough to push this over the stonewall ledge.*

*which is why Jeb will drop out.Jeb will bring an onslaught
of 9/11 questions if he makes a real run. TPTB are about
to realize as much, so so long Jeb.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak. Richard Gage is a joke. You do realize that 99.5 % of architects and engineers do NOT agree with him right?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I remember the exact date. It was 9/11/2001. I suspected immediately.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

For me, it was the day it happened. I was in college but skipped class that day (don't judge me). I remember watching the events unfold live on tv, except the 1st plane. At the time, they didn't know who did it and everyone kept pointing out that there were explosions in the towers, particularly in the basement & lobby. So the story at first was that it was a coordinated attack between the planes & possible suspects on the ground. They were afraid that more buildings were rigged with explosives.

I even remember them showing the Pentagon & saying there was a massive explosion which crumpled the wall, long after the initial collision there. Then I remember them only releasing a few frames of video from the Pentagon collision. And the entire Bush administration's constant refusal to answer questions; then how Bush & Cheney wouldn't answer questions under oath; and then when Bush would only answer questions when Cheney was with him (and not under oath, of course). And how nobody lost their job even though they ignored all kinds of warnings & info that could have stopped 9/11 from happening.

A few days before 9/11, the Taliban's arch-nemesis Massoud (from the Northern Alliance) was assassinated. I figured something was going to happen, but I thought it would be something like the Taliban officially "winning" against the Northern Alliance. Never would I have imagined the War on Terror or invasion of Iraq.

Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?

originally posted by: glend
When I read an online UK article with the headlined that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 but when I clicked their source it linked to an Afghan newspaper interview with Bin Laden where he claimed he had nothing to do with 9/11, said it was done by people within the US.

I remember some of bin Laden's first responses to 9/11. He kept saying he had nothing to do with it, but praised whoever did. Then, the Taliban was willing to turn over bin Laden if the US could show proof he was involved, but the US never even tried to give them proof. And the FBI's official story said Khalid Sheik Muhammad (sp?) was the mastermind (not bin Laden) & he was captured early on.

So it never made sense that we'd attack the Taliban & the Afghan population for something 20 suspects & Khalid Sheik Muhammad supposedly did. Then there was the alleged connection between Jack Abramoff & some of the 9/11 hijackers; the allegations of Bandar Bush & the 9/11 hijackers; the bin Laden family being flown out of the US; the Israeli Mossad keeping a close eye on the hijackers without warning the US; the supposed shady Wall Street transactions prior to 9/11; and more (like the rumored calls to stop various government officials & other improtant figures from flying that day). The official story just didn't make sense to me.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?

I listed my reasons. The story didn't make sense. How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.

And when they wouldn't release the full video of the supposed airplane collision with the Pentagon, that also raised my suspicions. If it was really an airliner like they claimed, then showing the full footage would've validated their story.

snotty on time kiss , them vaticproject.blogspot.ru... alien species for planet must take by hot pursuit for the gills in Oklahoma, they feel impunity and tomorrow will arrange nuke false flag

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?

I listed my reasons. The story didn't make sense. How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.

And when they wouldn't release the full video of the supposed airplane collision with the Pentagon, that also raised my suspicions. If it was really an airliner like they claimed, then showing the full footage would've validated their story.

That's the thing. You allegedly asked those questions on the day of the event, then when the explanations came down the pipe, you rejected them outright because they didn't jive with the answers you were looking for with those questions.

You literally just proved usernameconspiracy's point here. Confirmation bias at work.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?

Oh, I'm so glad someone besides me feels this way.

Don't even get me started on the 911truth website. That site is a hot mess

I spent many weeks mulling over things. As painful as it is, my country, which I love like crazy, got caught with its pants down. I know that is damn hard to accept, but that is the truth. Not all the other crap.

a reply to: ChiefD

The 911truth website was one of the first exposures to this silly conspiracy theory I first encountered. I had heard rumblings of distrust up until then, but I really took notice when I heard about that site. Then I looked at the claims it was making and couldn't believe that anyone would even buy that garbage.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Huh? The explanations given didn't make sense to me. Why's that so hard for you to understand or believe?

Suppose I went outside and saw 3 buildings completely pulverized. So I ask what happened & someone tells me one of their friends punched 2 of them then all 3 collapsed. I would ask if their friend was the Hulk because that wouldn't make sense to me. Then if I asked to speak to their friend & they stonewall me before eventually saying their friend was vaporized in the explosions. That would make me more suspicious because it wouldn't make sense to me.

Then if I asked to see footage of the event and they only showed me 5 frames of video. I work in the entertainment industry & was in classes in college for it when 9/11 happened. I know how easy it is to manipulate imagery & audio, especially when the raw footage is hidden. So this would make me even more suspicious.

I've never blindly believed what authority figures tell me, especially when they have something to gain from it. Especially since I've been learning the truth since before 9/11; such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, how the Lusitania was secretly transporting weapons, the Tuskegee Experiments, the "rat lines" & their smuggling of Nazis out of Europe after WWII, etc.

So no, I didn't believe that 4 planes did what they claimed they did, especially since I watched from the press coverage right after the 1st plane hit. My opinion wasn't influenced by any documentaries, conspiracy theories, message boards, or the such. I watched as the events went down & kept doing my own research.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Huh? The explanations given didn't make sense to me. Why's that so hard for you to understand or believe?

So did you look for clarification of the explanations if they didn't make sense, or did you just deny them because they don't make sense?

Suppose I went outside and saw 3 buildings completely pulverized. So I ask what happened & someone tells me one of their friends punched 2 of them then all 3 collapsed. I would ask if their friend was the Hulk because that wouldn't make sense to me. Then if I asked to speak to their friend & they stonewall me before eventually saying their friend was vaporized in the explosions. That would make me more suspicious because it wouldn't make sense to me.

That story is easily confirmed or denied by studying physics. Not to mention a spectator on the street isn't an official testimony or account of how the buildings collapsed. The government's account of the actions on 9/11 IS an official account of what happened, backed up by the government's research and investigation.

How about rewording your account a bit? You talk to the someone who says that his friend punched two buildings into rumble and then the someone hands you an independent investigation into the matter that confirms his story. Do you still disbelieve the account then?

Then if I asked to see footage of the event and they only showed me 5 frames of video. I work in the entertainment industry & was in classes in college for it when 9/11 happened. I know how easy it is to manipulate imagery & audio, especially when the raw footage is hidden. So this would make me even more suspicious.

It's funny how you bring this point up since the Truther movement is known for doctoring the building collapse video to make it look like the entire building fell the entire time at free fall speed, which isn't true.

I've never blindly believed what authority figures tell me, especially when they have something to gain from it. Especially since I've been learning the truth since before 9/11; such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, how the Lusitania was secretly transporting weapons, the Tuskegee Experiments, the "rat lines" & their smuggling of Nazis out of Europe after WWII, etc.

Fantastic, doubt everything. It's a good rule of thumb to live by. That doesn't mean that you continue to doubt them if their story checks out however. Also, it would be nice if you'd extend some doubt in the direction of the Truther movement as well. Just doubting the government means you end up duped by independents looking to take advantage of you instead of the government. It doesn't mean you stumble across the truth though.

So no, I didn't believe that 4 planes did what they claimed they did, especially since I watched from the press coverage right after the 1st plane hit. My opinion wasn't influenced by any documentaries, conspiracy theories, message boards, or the such. I watched as the events went down & kept doing my own research.

Your opinion certainly wasn't influenced by the laws of physics either.

a reply to: enlightenedservant I guess you do not understand that a high speed airliner, is basically a guided missile. Between its mass, its speed and its fuel load, it makes a very destructive missile