It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: FlySolo
See? You do get it.
You are here to discuss an issue, correct? Doesn't really matter the issue.
Would you rather discuss it in a manner which will lead, maybe, to some answers? Or would you rather it devolve into name calling which leads only to hurt feelings, and future animosity?
Seems a simple choice to me. "Shill", or terms just like it, lead only to the latter, and do nothing towards the former.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: worlds_away
Is it possible to accept the entire official story and propose/investigate 9/11 theories?
I'm not trying to be smart.. I'm wondering what you think. Which major aspects, if not?
Contemplate this thought experiment...
Item One: The New York Times ran several stories investigating the firms involved in constructing the World Trade center in the late 1960's, and followed up in 1971. They're available on microfiche at the main branch of the New York Public Library. All the construction firms had ties to organized crime, and the NYC building inspector's office was rampant with corruption. Corners were cut, including lower-quality fire-protection, among many other things, during construction. So in some dark corners of near-forgotten knowledge; the buildings are known not as strong as they should be.
Item Two: The attacks happened pretty much as seen and generally described by "The Official Story." However, the inspiration and motivation for the attacks originated via covert means within one or more clandestine services of the US. This is plausible as Osama Bin Laden has been in the same location (a hospital in Switzerland) as known covert operatives in 1998. The goal was for a terrorist attack on the US, on a target that has known weaknesses.
Item Three: In order to ensure that tracks are not just covered, but completely ignored, the covert operatives initiated a series of intense disinformation campaigns to create so many conflicting and improbable conspiracy theories, that they very idea of 9/11 Conspiracies would be laughed at by the general public at large.
Everything in those three items describes numerous deep and troubling conspiracies, while also generally accepting the surface narrative of the "Official Story."
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Grimpachi
And yet a thread can't drift from Building Fire discussion to 9/11 discussion, and the similarities to the particular fire in question?
I guess it happened a bit quickly, but the point stands.
At what level of thread drift does it become unacceptable? It's arbitrary.
I guess we'll just have to trust the mods.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlySolo
Common sense isn't proof. I asked how you were going to prove it. And again, as long as they remain in the T&Cs they are allowed here.