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.

 

9-11 Truth Movement or 9-11 Cult?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I came across this site today and thought it was very interesting.

While I don't agree with everything they are saying, it is scary how it so accurately describes the way things are presented on many conspiracy sites.

www.911cultwatch.org.uk...


www.911cultwatch.org.uk...

1) Rigid belief system

The claim 9/11 can only be properly understood from within the group's mindset--assertions about explosives pre-placed inside the WTC, US government complicity, the Pentagon being hit by a missile rather than a plane on 9/11--these tenets and similar are integral core beliefs. It is not permissible, within the cult, to question such--doing so immediately excludes the person.

2) Intense activism/aggressive proselytising

Not an exclusive characteristic, patently. However, the messianic and intolerant zeal displayed does make these people stand out somewhat. A nasty variant of the aggression was the practised spook tactic (unsuccessfully) employed by Machon at the 2005 Anarchist Book Fair of trying to goad--by posture/insulting language--opponents into violence so she could play 'victim'.

3) Advancing non-falsifiable propositions

In vernacular language, there is no amount of evidence that can shake these people in their beliefs--and despite claims they seek 'truth', they want nothing of the sort--merely one-sided information that bolsters their conclusions (premises). As one incisive (US) source of comment stated "no evidence, of any kind, has been found that gives any evidence that the government planned or organised these conspiracies. No documents have been found...Nobody involved in these alleged conspiracies has stepped forward". To the cult believer, this mundane statement is intrinsically ludicrous, if not malevolent. We disagree, but concur with remarks by US commentator Bill Weinberg that "the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled 'researchers' is delegitimising the entire project of critiquing the 'official version'. The ostentatiously named 'Truth movement' is not clearing the air, but muddying the water". That may well be the idea, of course, in some quarters. Fundamentally though, the fact that 'anything goes' and the most elementary rules of evidence do not apply in the cult's discourse is disturbing, to put it mildly.


emphasis mine.

I am by no means saying that all or any members here act like this, but I have seen this behavior on other boards, and presented on sites like prisonplanet.

That 9-11 scholars show on Cspan definitely fits these descriptions, with the aggresive political activism and support of the half truths and distortions of Loose Change.

While I am extremely skeptical of the demolition theories, I am open to the more plausible Let It Happen On Purpose theories.




What do the rest of you think of this?




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
1.) Cults have one leader who gets all allegiance. 911 truth seekers have no "leader," but seek the truth independently on their own. By the way science progresses when independent laboratory observations and results prove things. Science cannot progress when a dictator tells us what science is. So who is the "cult?" There is no "rigid belief system," when people look with their own eyes, so what is to "believe?"

2.) Our government spent more than a billion dollars to have people write blogs, proselytising with force of dollars very much more than 911 truth seekers who pay out of pocket a great deal of the time.

3.) Government lies daily and the pot is calling the kettle black here when it says there is "no evidence." There is enough circumstantial evidence here to query and to speculate. Just because we do not have their exact plans does not make any difference. The US government should show the evidence why for example building 7 collapsed, while other buildings are left standing.

Conclusion: IMHO this "cult watch," thing applies to the government, not to independent truth seekers. As usual "follow the money." The proposition is another red herring, a weak argument, that defends nothing and attempts a very sly name calling and a group paint brush version of ad hominem attacks.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The waters will be muddied because it is the only logical course of action.

Supressed evidence means all we can do is attack and punch holes in the official story.


Get the evidence that was destroyed and supressed and the focus/#/actions will change.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
1.) Cults have one leader who gets all allegiance. 911 truth seekers have no "leader," but seek the truth independently on their own. By the way science progresses when independent laboratory observations and results prove things. Science cannot progress when a dictator tells us what science is. So who is the "cult?" There is no "rigid belief system," when people look with their own eyes, so what is to "believe?"

2.) Our government spent more than a billion dollars to have people write blogs, proselytising with force of dollars very much more than 911 truth seekers who pay out of pocket a great deal of the time.

3.) Government lies daily and the pot is calling the kettle black here when it says there is "no evidence." There is enough circumstantial evidence here to query and to speculate. Just because we do not have their exact plans does not make any difference. The US government should show the evidence why for example building 7 collapsed, while other buildings are left standing.

Conclusion: IMHO this "cult watch," thing applies to the government, not to independent truth seekers. As usual "follow the money." The proposition is another red herring, a weak argument, that defends nothing and attempts a very sly name calling and a group paint brush version of ad hominem attacks.

One pressing and important fact must have alluded you when you wrote the above rhetoric, SkipShipman? The above link is a UK based link that is mainly aimed at debunking and "targeting" UK and Irish 9/11 and 7/7 so-called and self-proclaimed "truth seekers." Been to the site and read the commentaries, yet?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
One pressing and important fact must have alluded you when you wrote the above rhetoric, SkipShipman? The above link is a UK based link that is mainly aimed at debunking and "targeting" UK and Irish 9/11 and 7/7 so-called and self-proclaimed "truth seekers." Been to the site and read the commentaries, yet?


Comment: The money proceeding from our government is only an example. The cartoon on the page is an obvious red herring making it appear 911 truth seekers are absurd in their root beliefs. While it may refer to various "truth seekers," in the UK, the pattern of government intervention in general whether here in the US or in the UK is almost too obvious. These "debunkers," make ad hominem attacks, and do not address the most pressing questions. That goes for the Rush Limbaugh's and others of this world who are happily living in la la land, frittering away their editorial and journalistic powers by whispering down a well any semblance of truth, if at all that much, while parroting questionable propaganda.

The purposefully put red herrings are exactly the "cult figures," that are opposed on the web site, and okay I agree, they look government sponsored, or copy cats of phony "left wing," or whatever setups. These nutcases make it look as if the general 911 truth seeking people are of the same variety. That was well illustrated on an O'Reilly interview referring to Ward Churchill, who had nothing to do with the man O'Reilly was interviewing. Lumping everything into the same case is a great problem, but a tactic of atavistic or throwback projects in the CIA Mockingbird category.

Opposing the war in general terms yield some worthwhile focus, say for diplomacy in the end, and it may be laudable, but opposing it on the historical basis of contrived events and falsehoods is far more persuasive especially by way of evidentiary learning. It may be impossible or difficult to prosecute the powerful since they may well have interlocking systems of blackmail for almost every office holder and judge in the US and other countries. (Why do people shut up too easily?) But the public must overlook the contrastingly trivial matters in deference to the most basic principles that are being uprooted daily in the name of a fiction, a "war on terror," having no end to funding arms dealers perpetually and rendering most of the rest of us high and dry.


[edit on 22-10-2006 by SkipShipman]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

The waters will be muddied because it is the only logical course of action.

Supressed evidence means all we can do is attack and punch holes in the official story.


Get the evidence that was destroyed and supressed and the focus/#/actions will change.


....


2) Intense activism/aggressive proselytising


I take it you get my point...

You don't just 'attack' and 'punch holes in' a story... you step back and logically look at it from BOTH sides.



[edit on 23/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
You don't just 'attack' and 'punch holes in' a story... you step back and logically look at it from BOTH sides.


One follows the other shroom head. I have looked "logically" at thousands of pages of the NIST reports and listened as the co-chairs of the 9/11 Comission called their own report JUNK after wasting my time reading that...

I have seen both sides. One is no longer worth looking at.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Interesting you bring this up. I once heard from a jewish man(not serphaidic, ashkenazi, or khazarian, but some ancient tribe) that had legit military credentials, real nice and sincere guy but he claimed to have lived with an Illuminati family at one time. He said much of the anti-NWO movement ie: Gulags in America, 911 truth movements and many others were created and controlled by these Illuminated families for disinfo purposes.

Question is, disinfo to destract away from what?

Like I said, he sounded really sincere but had a real presence of urgency almost to the spooked point.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
There is no story here other than people who will still see Loch Ness long after the Loch is drained and shown to be empty. I worked on the 97th floor of tower 2 (southeast tower) until 9/11/01. I was there on Sunday, 9/9/01 when the electricians were upgrading power to equipment in our data center. There were no explosives. How much evidence do people need to stop this foolishness? The answer is "never enough". because the people who believe this stuff will never be swayed by the truth. I have heard things like "orgy of evidence" in reference to supporting conspiracy theories. Where is it? Some guy on another thread here was looking for parts of the plane to bounce off (deflection) the trade center, and he felt that the lack of deflection debris constituted evidence.

Try this: Watch the discovery channel whenever they play the episodes that show a company called Controlled Demolition, Inc. preparing to take down a building. The Loizeaux family (pronounced low-ah-zoe) (pioneering father Jack and four children following in his footsteps) pioneered the modern practice of high-rise implosion. You can watch the process of wiring, drilling, and installing explosive charges. And most interesting of all, you can watch how after years of experience, and many hours spent checking and rechecking every wire connector and detail before throwing the switch, the team is all on edge that everything will work as expected. Now, imagine dousing the job they just did in jet fuel and letting it burn for an hour or so, thinking about things like plastic wire insulation burning off the copper wires that lead to the explosive charges. You can pretty quickly realize how ridiculous the whole thing is.

My advice: Go chase Bigfoot. There is at least a chance that a large primate has yet to be officially discovered, and you would look less foolish.

And to bring Illuminati into this? Holy Mama! He stayed with a nice Illuminati family... (sheesh!) seemed terrified to talk about it... (yet will risk it all to pass on some unsupportable info to you)

I think the comparison of this 9/11 conspiracy following to a cult or any other group of dysfunction is a fair and healthy exercise.


[edit on 23-10-2006 by Mr Spock]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock
I worked on the 97th floor of tower 2 (southeast tower) until 9/11/01. I was there on Sunday, 9/9/01 when the electricians were upgrading power to equipment in our data center. There were no explosives.


Can you give us your first hand account of 9/11? I haven't met anyone yet to be able to ask this. Thanks in advance.

If you were on the 97th floor of tower 2, how did you escape? Things like this. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
What I'm wondering is how long he stood over the shoulders of the guys doing the work to watch exactly what they were doing, and at what point they became annoyed with him.

I'm not saying they were planting explosives, or hooking up/activating detonators or whatever, necessarily, but the fact that people were around is no great shock. I just wonder how one can make such concrete statements unless they were up in the faces of those doing the actual work.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
This could be a tactic designed to as someone else said lump every 9/11 conspiracy theorist into a secluded group of twisted individuals. Thing is ive never seen so much effort or detail about a conspiracy as much as this, so everyone is just wasting their time, or doing it for kicks. If this is some type of tactic, what better way to shift people from one side to the other by labeling people skeptical about 9/11 as a "cult" or some type of extremist out of alignment with the "normal" people.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock
...you can watch how after years of experience, and many hours spent checking and rechecking every wire connector and detail before throwing the switch, the team is all on edge that everything will work as expected. Now, imagine dousing the job they just did in jet fuel and letting it burn for an hour or so, thinking about things like plastic wire insulation burning off the copper wires that lead to the explosive charges. You can pretty quickly realize how ridiculous the whole thing is.

My advice: Go chase Bigfoot. There is at least a chance that a large primate has yet to be officially discovered, and you would look less foolish.

And to bring Illuminati into this? Holy Mama! He stayed with a nice Illuminati family... (sheesh!) seemed terrified to talk about it... (yet will risk it all to pass on some unsupportable info to you)


Good Lord, Spock!

Watch what you say! They're listening!


Obviously, these fiends must have had fireproof insulation on their high-temp alloy wire. The gubmint can, you know, do anything and everything and pull it off without a hitch. Why, just look at Watergate! And 'member when we rescued those hostages from Iran? Oh,.... yeah,... nevermind.


I think I just found a friend. Ahhh, logic. Sweet, sweet logic.


Harte



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Onto Topic now.

How can 9/11 truth be a cult. I don't know about everyone else on that 9/11 truth cult bandwagon but for me personally. I just look for answers to simple questions like these.

So how far away does a car have to from WTC 1 and 2 to be blown up?

So why did 3 buildings fall on 9/11 due to fire?

So, why did a big ass plane make such a small hole in the pentagon.

So, why did WTC 7 fall again?

Anyway I do it to answer small easy to answer questions, needless to say no answer has quite fit the bill yet for simple easy to answer questions.

So this 9/11 cult thing are we going to go to some mansion in CA somewhere and kill ourselves next?? Is that what this is about??



[edit on 11/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I cannot watch the buildings fall and believe that it was solely the planes impact that felled them.
The towers do not fall,they literally turn to dust.
The cores disappear.
The documented lakes of molten metal do not fit the official story.
Suspicious activity,power downs,and reports of whole floors closed off in the weeks before the disaster do not help the official story.
The links between the terrorists and the US inteligence agencies do not help
the official story.
WTC 7,a case in itself,does not fit in with the official story.
The testament of William Rodriguez,and others also does not back up the official story.

Many police and firemen in NY do not believe in the official story.

The US government has tailored the details of 911 over and over,to suit their story.

Bush even spoke of bombs placed in the buildings by AQ recently.

The CIA actually created,funded,supplied and trained "Al Qaeda."

False flag type attacks have occurred throughout history.FACT.

The official story is Baloney.


And i don`t even frequent "pro 911 truth" websites.I have maybe 4 or 5 times.

With the chain reaction that has followed 911,is it not becoming clear to people what really happened?



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I'm wondering is how long he stood over the shoulders of the guys doing the work to watch exactly what they were doing, and at what point they became annoyed with him.

I'm not saying they were planting explosives, or hooking up/activating detonators or whatever, necessarily, but the fact that people were around is no great shock. I just wonder how one can make such concrete statements unless they were up in the faces of those doing the actual work.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by bsbray11]


And on the reverse of that coin I can't understand how people that weren't even there can even speculate as to the intensions of the electricians in the building, yet every day I see someone rehashing the VERY tired electrician/explosive theory.

Not to point a finger, of course.

911 Truth is the new Alien Disclosure, as far as I can see. Just something new to blame on the government with speculation and conjecture. Heck, there is MORE evidence that the United States Government is hiding an Alien then there is evidence that they were involved in this plot.

I have heard all kinds of wonderful stories, my favorite are the ones involving the 'hijackers' being found alive somewhere else in the world. It just makes me wonder if people are seeking the TRUTH, or are they just seeking an escape from their mundane worlds and are HOPING that they live in a world like this.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I cannot watch the buildings fall and believe that it was solely the planes impact that felled them.
The towers do not fall,they literally turn to dust.
The cores disappear.
The documented lakes of molten metal do not fit the official story.
Suspicious activity,power downs,and reports of whole floors closed off in the weeks before the disaster do not help the official story.
The links between the terrorists and the US inteligence agencies do not help
the official story.
WTC 7,a case in itself,does not fit in with the official story.
The testament of William Rodriguez,and others also does not back up the official story.

Many police and firemen in NY do not believe in the official story.

The US government has tailored the details of 911 over and over,to suit their story.

Bush even spoke of bombs placed in the buildings by AQ recently.

The CIA actually created,funded,supplied and trained "Al Qaeda."

False flag type attacks have occurred throughout history.FACT.

The official story is Baloney.


And i don`t even frequent "pro 911 truth" websites.I have maybe 4 or 5 times.

With the chain reaction that has followed 911,is it not becoming clear to people what really happened?

Yeah, i know the CIA trained Al qaeda... I think I read once in the paper that families were demanding the truth about what really happened and they refused to disclose these documents. So if someone does that... I dont think that them having bombs put in the WTC would have changed the outcome of the attacks. The fact is that no one anticipated the attacks on the twin towers... >___>.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
"I dont think that them having bombs put in the WTC would have changed the outcome of the attacks."

Are you serious? The demolition of the towers is what caused the most deaths on 9/11. Had it only been 2 plane crashes, the death toll would have been far less... not enough to be a 'new pearl harbor'.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I cannot watch the buildings fall and believe that it was solely the planes impact that felled them.
The towers do not fall,they literally turn to dust.
The cores disappear.


Take a few engineering classes and you will be able to figure it out.


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The documented lakes of molten metal do not fit the official story.


I haven't seen any documentation on the "lakes of molten metal". All I have heard is theories and conjecture.


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Suspicious activity,power downs,and reports of whole floors closed off in the weeks before the disaster do not help the official story.


I do know why some of the floors were closed off. They were being renovated. The company I worked for at the time had the lighting contract for the renovations. They were also renovating an area between the towers called Zig Zag Alley. I designed the lighting fixtures for it.


You have voted Mr Spock for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I cannot watch the buildings fall and believe that it was solely the planes impact that felled them.
The towers do not fall,they literally turn to dust.
The cores disappear.


Take a few engineering classes and you will be able to figure it out.


I have and I still don't understand how the cores fell to the ground. Microscoping into themselves. What class did you take that taught this?



Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The documented lakes of molten metal do not fit the official story.


I haven't seen any documentation on the "lakes of molten metal". All I have heard is theories and conjecture.


Then you really haven't been looking. There are plenty of people (mostly engineers who know what molten metal looks like) who reported them. There are photos of steel being pulled out that is glowing red hot.



Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Suspicious activity,power downs,and reports of whole floors closed off in the weeks before the disaster do not help the official story.


I do know why some of the floors were closed off. They were being renovated. The company I worked for at the time had the lighting contract for the renovations. They were also renovating an area between the towers called Zig Zag Alley. I designed the lighting fixtures for it.


So, basically you're saying that just because some renovations were going on that the buildings couldn't have been undergoing other "suspicious" activity?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join