It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy Theories Taken As Facts.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Let me begin by stating that I respect all of you, and all of your theories. I thank all of you for your work, research, and input on this subject.

I am not an engineer. I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor, or anyone who claims to be an "expert." I did not witness any of the 9/11 attacks first hand, although I watched the news since minutes after the first plane hit and watched it time and again on video. I do not claim to be better or smarter than anyone, but I do know that I have the ability to understand and evaluate facts and claims on my own.

Enough beating around the bush. My gripe is how conspiracy theories are taken as something that is proven far, far too soon. I have read, reread, and evaluated for myself all of the conspiracy claims - the missiles, bombs, fires, all of those. I think they have some ground and should be considered and debated, but never taken as anything more until you have proof. While there are things in the official stories that are a bit strange, the conspiracy theories have no more ground (and probably less) than the official stories do. Things like how steel doesn't melt at the temperatures the fire in the world trade center was burning, but how it loses half its integrity and weight bearing ability at MUCH lower than the melting point.

But my point isn't to prove or disprove anything, it's to push you all to seriously consider every idea brought up, but not to follow them until there is substantial proof. You can say "hey, there is proof for theory x, just look at evidence y!" But the sad fact is, while the "evidence" shows something that is hard to believe, it doesn't automatically mean that the official story is wrong. Even more so, it doesn't mean that the conclusions you derive (the theories - bombs, missiles, etc.) are correct, or are the only explanation.

In short, everything is false until proven true. While that holds true for the official story, it also needs to apply to any and all conspiracy theories thought up. Otherwise, you're only hurting those people who consider the facts and theories, but don't go off running and screaming with them like they're the truth (ex. much of the Loose Change people). Thank you all for reading this (for those who do =P) and for posting on ATS.



(Edit is for me failing at spelling)

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Johnmike]




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
My gripe is how conspiracy theories are taken as something that is proven far, far too soon.

But the government comes out the next day with the list of suspects for 9/11 and that's not too soon? The government sweeps up the crime scene within days and that's not too soon?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I don't think you understood what I said. That sentence means that people become defenders of a theory before they have sufficient evidence that's been tried and stood up to any debate against it.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
My point was what has the government proven that's been tried and tested? How could they know all the suspects the next day? IMO what they provided is not proof either but theories which hold as much weight as most of the 'conspiracy' theories.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
In short, everything is false until proven true. While that holds true for the official story, it also needs to apply to any and all conspiracy theories thought up.
[edit on 10-8-2006 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by Johnmike
My gripe is how conspiracy theories are taken as something that is proven far, far too soon.

But the government comes out the next day with the list of suspects for 9/11 and that's not too soon? The government sweeps up the crime scene within days and that's not too soon?

They had reports in their file cabinets about such incidents being plausible in the near future. They could simply look those back up and automatically put names down on a suspect list. Acquiring a passenger list and running background checks to see what people have shady backgrounds and potential links with terrorist nations.

Bingo.

You put a couple hundred government employees at the keyboard and tell them to 'go fetch' - that kind of stuff can happen overnight.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Yeah, that specific thing wouldn't be hard for our government.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join