9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

a reply to: wildb

Massive damage was on the south side of WTC7. That is why WTC7 tilted toward the south during its collapse.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Then why din't you post a photo of the south side?

a reply to: wildb

This is the photo I posted before and it shows smoke flowing out of the massive impact hole. On the north side of WTC7, it appeared to be fairly undamaged, but on the south side, WTC7 was gutted by debris from the collapse of WTC1.

Photo: WTC7 Damage

a reply to: skyeagle409

That doesn't work because reality says otherwise because there was no way the top of the WTC Tower was going to tip over on its side.

Worked perfectly for me champ.
I led you straight into a wall.

a reply to: randyvs

It was all very simple to understand and it was just a matter of calling upon the laws of physics.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Exactly why it was predicted. I agree.
See diplomacy is having the other guy get your way.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Well don't you think you should post a photo of this Massive damage? Or is this what you think is massive?

wtc7.net...

a reply to: skyeagle409

It seems to me the entire World Trade Center Complex suffered massive damage.

Way more massive than could have been caused by office fires on 10 floors.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Of course 9/11 theorists are subject to ridicule, among other things.

This is standard psychological fare, and is very often used as an effective tool to curtail talk about subjects 'they' would rather not talked about, 9/11 included.

Which is a good reason in and of itself to talk about 9/11 a LOT more.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I wouldn't exactly call any such ridicule "unfair". 9/11 conspiracy theorists (as a whole), have earned any ridicule they get. There are, of course, intelligent individuals who have raised some interesting questions and are undeserving of any ridicule, but 'truthers' as a whole? Not so much...

Why should we be considered 'as a whole?' I never signed on to be represented by the 'Hologram Truthers.' I never signed on to be represented by the 'Isreali Truthers.'

Lumping every Truther together is what makes the ridicule so successful. Everyone knows there is disinfo out there (See Jesse Ventura's recent ATS thread) and there is plenty of misinfo, too. But that doesn't mean everyone who questions 9/11 is on board with the disinfo and misinfo.

I happen to find the statements made on video by Larry Silverstein and Lloyde England compelling enough to call the 'official conspiracy theory' into question. And the argument made for the use of thermite/thermate is a stronger explanation than the official explanation regarding how the three buildings fell. And I happen to personally know a man who worked on the reconstruction of the Pentagon and from talking with him, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

That is enough for me to be confident in the belief that people with money and influence -- who are NOT members of Al Qaeda -- had a hand in the planning and carrying out of the events of 9/11... and that there is a cover up.

As far as means, motive, and opportunity, I have read NOTHING more compelling than EP Heidner's beautifully researched work, 'Collateral Damage' on the Black Eagle Trust Fund. Means, motive, and opportunity -- FOR ME -- remain at the top of the list when it comes to criminal investigation. Nothing comes close to what Heidner has put forth.

If anyone is not familiar with this work, you can download a pdf here: Collateral Damage

I wear my tinfoil hat proudly -- the ridicule doesn't deter me from reading, considering, or discussing anything. I refuse to be lumped in with all the Truther conspiracy theories and won't defend those I don't find logical or compelling.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What was raising a lot of eyebrows were claims of nukes and space beam weapons. One guy actually took me seriously when I joked about government-engineer metal-eating termites taking down the WTC buildings. He was actually going to post my post in another forum until I told I was just joking. Simply amazing!!

How far would he would have gotten was anyone's guess.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What was raising a lot of eyebrows were claims of nukes and space beam weapons. One guy actually took me seriously when I joked about government-engineer metal-eating termites taking down the WTC buildings. He was actually going to post my post in another forum until I told I was just joking. Simply amazing!!

So what? He doesn't represent me.

The fact is, if you believe the official theory, then you believe a conspiracy theory with many holes that has never been proven. It's just the 'official conspiracy theory.' And the source of that theory is implicated by Lloyde England's and Larry Silverstein's statements on camera. I'd rather look at the facts available and make up my own mind than accept the official story with all of its' flaws and considering the source.

What's Really Ridiculous...

...is the idea that ridiculing people will somehow get them to agree. If someone calls you crazy or an idiot, you'd have to be crazy or an idiot to agree with them. It doesn't even work in middle school.

For all his bluster, it is unlikely Mr. Sharwood's taunts will change so much as a single mind, because all confrontation does is trigger defensiveness and strengthen polarity of thought.

Which is what makes all the sniping and back and forth so exasperating: nobody wins, everybody loses. And nobody who falls into that trap ever, ever changes their minds.

Well, almost nobody. Once in a blue moon, someone realizes what a waste of time it is to think in black and white and take sides for the express purpose of demonizing anyone who doesn't see things their way.

I see it happen now and then in our forums, and when I do, it's like an angel just got their wings. Invariably, those for whom the "lightbulb goes on" tend to change radically in tone, become more thoughtful and circumspect in their posts, and often go on to become some of our very best members.

In the meantime, whether it's 9/11 or anything else, people are free to believe whatever they want. But to the extent they allow themselves to be swept up by extremes of dogma or belief (whether the "official story" or any other theory), they surrender that freedom a little more with each passing day, until eventually they become slaves to their own insularity.

That's something we are all free to do as well, but thankfully, we can break the chains of mental slavery at any time simply by being willing to question everything, including everything we believe and hold dear, and accepting the fact that we can be wrong.

It's not an easy road, but it's a much more pleasant path than that of living life in perpetual warfare against everything we don't agree with.

Or not. It's a personal choice and as with all roads, Your Mileage May Vary.

Just my two cents as a fellow ATSer, and as always, I could be wrong.

"9/11 conspiracy theorists just refuse to listen to plain, simple logic."

perhaps that has something to do with all the miraculous events that happened that day?

There are two types of logic, logic itself and 9/11 logic

Two buildings falling into their footprint after being hit with aluminum planes with fuel that burned off instantly after the blasts, Falling nearly an equal amount of time perfectly via demo style, wtc7's random collapse (again perfect convenient demo style collapse) no video of the pentagon "plane" and no witnesses of said plane crossing over several major highway arteries, a crater in shanksville with not even a single piece of plane bigger than a fist. The list goes on.

Know why I don't believe the official stories? Because this world is full of evil and I am spiritual, I can feel the wrongness in the entire event.

a reply to: randyvs

No, because they did not "fall into their own footprint" either. I have watched controlled demolitions that "fell into their own footprint. Hell, I watched one that was ten feet from another building and the remaining building was not scratched by the collapsing building. That is what "falling into a footprint means", the debris lands almost completely within the perimeter of the building. With the depth of the basements of the complex, a controlled demolition of the Towers would have accomplished that. Instead, we saw collapses that saw debris going 3-4 city blocks away from the building site.

Instead, we saw collapses that saw debris going 3-4 city blocks away from the building site.

Yeah, gravity sure din't do that, but explosives would..

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yet, Larry Silverstein who owned WTC7 said he gave an order to pull it, and "they made the decision to pull it and the building collapsed." So who cares how much of any of the three buildings fell into their footprints. his statement is inexplicable.

Explosives could have been used in all three buildings but strategically NOT designed nor placed to make the most controlled-looking demolition -- *ahem* for obvious reasons.

The fact that so much of the buildings disintegrated to dust is the most compelling evidence to me...and Larry Silverstein's admission.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why should we be considered 'as a whole?' I never signed on to be represented by the 'Hologram Truthers.' I never signed on to be represented by the 'Isreali Truthers.'

I agree.

If that makes me a Truther then I wear that badge of honor proudly. The fact is when it comes to the OS the OS supporters are the only one's doing the most ridiculing from what I have seen.

The Truth does not need ridiculing, however a lie does.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I also totally forgot about this... Also, how come the bedrock was melted after all the debris was cleared at GZ? There was molten steel dripping all over like someone dipped into a pool of lava, dripping all over.

So, according to the newer versions, jet fuel managed to create an office fire inferno after impact, melt beams and then after having survived the free fall still had enough energy to create an intense steel mill under the towers where basically no oxygen was?

a reply to: skyeagle409

What was raising a lot of eyebrows were claims of nukes and space beam weapons.

Truther are way past that nonsense now. No one believe any of that anymore, that was years ago. If that's all OS supporters can do to defend the OS lie then so be it. However that does not make OS supporters credible when they have to use "old ridiculous claims," that ALL Truthers believes in space beams, Holograms, silent explosions, and no planes. Not everyone on ATS is stupid or have low IQ's. Some of us are educated and hold many degrees.

The first year I did my research into 911 I tried to prove the OS true, however I failed miserably, because the evidence was not there. Then I tried to prove the so call science of the OS true and I failed miserably.

The science was pseudo science, and could not stand up to real science.