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! is it?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have not seen the BBC program..I don't even get that channel.

Hey this is a conspiracy Theory forum.... What ever happened to THAT.

Why is everyone getting so defensive?

We need to be UNITED..not POLORIZED.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
have you ever considered that the very arguments you use against the 9-11truth movement can be applied and mutiplied 10 fold regarding the war on terror??


That is why I posted the YouTube video...and as the world famous monster says: "it is kind of like a magic trick, once you know how it is done; you are able to understand it better"

I just made some observations beyond that. It is up to you what to believe or not believe.


talk about isolation....if you speak out against the regime your branded a traitor and a terrorist


So you think the "Bush Regime" is popular? I think this regime is getting evicerated from both sides of the political spectrum. Without people being branded as anything.


...talk about threats and the monopolization of perceptioon...try turning on any news cast and not hear the words "al qaeda" "terrorism" "muslim extremists" "war on terror" literally like 4 times a minute.


I agree... THAT is why I posted the video. Don't be fooled with Rhetoric, no matter the source. Be Sceptical of EVERYTHING.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by something smells

Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
I think this is a very good post. While I do not believe the official story of 9/11. I also see a lot of cultish behavior in the 9/11 movement. Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, and Dillon Avery seem to be the core.

I hate to say that any of them have bad intentions. It's just that they do fit the classic mold of a cult. I mentioned it in another thread, but I did go to an alex jones live event (terrorstorm premier) and I must say the whole thing really struck me as cultish. In line a guy said to me "how did you find out about alex jones" and he said it in a really weird worship kinda way. I was thinking, aren't we here about 9/11, not AJ.

I noticed that the core of the audience was people who are "perpetual losers". The type who always feel someone or something is KEEPING THEM DOWN, and if it wasn't 9/11 truth, it would be some other fight against THE MAN.

Otherwise it was some college kids. I really felt out of place. But the place served alcohol, so I got drunk...then it didn't seem so scary...lol


That was a very inspirational post


I have for some time been trying to put into words what I feel about the 911 CT (s). In the back of my mind I knew but what was it? Now I know what it was. Thanks
All the hallmarks of a Cult. The comment of perpetual losers was excellent. I have often thought that there was deep paranoia with the "911 Cult".

In the UK we don't have a lot of experience of the cult phenomena so it was hard for me to figure it out without the correct exposure. Thanks


Oh, I think you folks in the UK know PLENTY about this type of cultish behavior....well at least your grandfathers did.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
That is why I posted the YouTube video...and as the world famous monster says: "it is kind of like a magic trick, once you know how it is done; you are able to understand it better"


Gwion, I'm not asking this to be offensive, but what kind of educational background do you have? If somebody's going to tell me I'm being seduced by a political cult, hopefully you'd understand if I wanted to know who the hell they (you) are.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Observations... Simple observations.

It is up to you to believe what you choose to believe.

I am only advocating that YOU make the choice.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I take that as "no comment".

Do you not think your observations would be a little more informed if you had actually studied psychology or anything of that nature?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I take it you do not read all of the threads.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Really though.

The only people who should be offended by this are the ones that have already drank the 9-11 truth movement kool aid.


The "truth" hurts.


I think it's a great video and stresses something that is lacking in our society. Critical thinking.

More and more people nowadays are willing to believe in pseudoscience across all types of education backgrounds.

While overall knowledge of science is up, so is the belief in astrology and other such pseudoscience.

Link

IMHO, this helps to explain why so many people are willing to believe in the "fire breathing dragon in the garage" that is some of the 9-11 theories.

en.wikipedia.org...


spl.haxial.net...

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
en.wikipedia.org...


spl.haxial.net...

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.


This seams to work both ways. Where is the evidence that it could have happened the way they say? NIST's own computer analysis says it's impossible. So, who's drinking the kool aid?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
The fringe groups...they drink the kool-aid. That sir is a no-brainer.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

This seams to work both ways. Where is the evidence that it could have happened the way they say? NIST's own computer analysis says it's impossible. So, who's drinking the kool aid?


Actually there is a huge difference.

All the things that NIST blames for the collapses we know for a fact were present that day.

We know that planes hit the buildings.

We know that there were huge fires in the buildings.


Many of the conspiracy theories involve things which there is absolutely no evidence for such as:

Demolition charges, thermite, lazers from space, holographic planes, etc.


It is silly to say that there is no evidence for planes hitting the building and subsequent fires.

So while you may disagree with NIST's exact scenario for collapse, you have to admit that all the elements were present.

With many of the conspiracy theories there is exactly zero evidence for the components necesary, such as explosives.

A world of difference there.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Ok now for the next question

The title: 9/11 Truth Movement.

It has been almost 6 years since the attacks on 9/11, yet not one shread of proof. Just a lot of wheel spinning, and superficial added complexities.

If this is a "Movement" Just where is it Moving?

What are the goals?

I see the number of "views" on YouTube and Google vid for these Shock doc's and the numbers are pretty damn high. I am noticing they are making them in foriegn languages. No proof, just more propaganda.

Is the goal revolt?

To entice other countries to feel justified in hating the USA?

I would prefer to look at the big picture instead of getting caught up in all of the small to tiny ones.

Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So while you may disagree with NIST's exact scenario for collapse, you have to admit that all the elements were present.

With many of the conspiracy theories there is exactly zero evidence for the components necesary, such as explosives.

A world of difference there.


I do admit that I see your point. One thing missing from the NIST report though that was present that day. The leaning cap of WTC2. The lost angular momentum of that cap has never been addressed. Also, in their own models (computer and real life), they couldn't get the trusses to fail like they say happened in their conclusions. Faulty scientific method if you ask me.

But, I do see your point LeftBehind.

As far as the goal of the "truth movement" I don't know since I'm really not a member to any organization. I would say though that justice might just be the front runner. This pertains to whomever did this. If it was the gov. or terrorists. We've had how many people tried for 9/11 again? Where's Bin Laden again? Why have we forgotten about Bin Laden? I would say those questions need answered.

On a side note. Why is government incompetence acceptable? A BJ and pergury were enough to spend millions over but the incompetence of a few key players and subsequent deaths of over 3000 people weren't? I'd like to see some of these incompetent key players in government taken down. But no, most of them got promotions and raises. Why? For being incompetent? My ass.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
My thoughts on the latest footage: WTC 7 BBC reports collapse early.

This fits into the conspiracy theory, within a conspiracy theory.

A key question is: When was this footage of the BBC/WTC 7 first avalible to the public?

I cannot imagine this video not being well indoctrinated into the "Truth Movement's" research if it has been avalible for 5+ years.

If the clip has been around for awhile or even if it hasn't, I suspect the leaders of the "Truth Movement" of supressing "clues" ( clues that lead nowhere IMO..but that is just me), and periodically "breaking" the info, as an Occasional Indulgence (carrot dangling), and if possible, a tool to disrupt and discredit target nay-sayers in the public eye..in this case the BBC.

After all this IS an Infowar, as Alex Jones claims. I consider him the minister of propaganda for the "Movement" due to his continuous media capibilities.

It is no secret that Alex Jones was a bit upset with the BBC Documentary that was aired a couple of weeks ago. I think he was hopeful it would bolster support in the UK and give the "movement" legitamacy by being portraied in a "Good" light by a major media outlet.

Instead..it was a "Hit Piece!!" Grrr.

Enter the *new* BBC live footage from 9/11/2001 ..on....wait for it....The Alex Jones program. Surprise? No.

I will have to say the people behind this "Info War" are pretty bright.

Not only does the "breaking" of this footage get the "herdcore truthers" all in a frenzy...proclaiming "We WIN!" "We have found our Smoking gun!" et.al.

It throws a bit of egg on the face of the BBC by evidencing inaccurate reporting, and recordkeeping; regaurdless if you even believe in the "conspiracy" or not.

Revenge? Through information?

It also compels many people to start calling and e-mailing the BBC (probably incoherently..or not) about the "truth" of their reporting in force...Thus tying up the BBC communications systems and wasting their labour resouces dealing with the issue. AKA Stampeding the herd.

This electronic barrage tactic has been used many times in America by Radical Religious Right wing organizations such as the American Family Association (AFA) and the Parents Television Council (PTC). Often times the organization's force is directed at the FCC, but in other cases companies like Proctor & Gamble have fallen subject to their Phone/e-barrage prompting them to change policy on where their advertizing dollars are spent, and thus getting material the AFA, PTC deem offensive cancelled on television.

--Therein lies the Info War--

And the Herd to perform it...

It is amazing to me how many people, six years down the road, have forgotten how 9/11 unfolded.. THAT DAY. I remember being glued to the TV literally waiting for WTC 7 to fall. It wasn't a surprize. No one knew of some crazy stat about Steel buildings and their strength, much less if they had fallen before. It is as if all of the memories were WASHED away, and once the "conspiracy" started, all info was relearned..with a twist.

Comments?







[edit on 28-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I think the main problem with the movement lies in something David Ray Griffin pointed out, that the argument is cumulative rather than deductive. A thousand little hints and clues and inaccuracies that together build up a picture quite apart from the 'official story'. Obviously with this type of argument, there is a risk that in a complex world with many sources of information, looking hard enough for something will enable you to find it, there or not.

Blindly believing anything is always problematic, and Alex Jones et al should not be followed like modern day prophets. Though a lot of interesting points may be raised, there is also a lot of unevidenced speculation in their arguments, trying to fill in the gaps between the clues. Al Jones in particular has a habit of tangential rants which can seem to lose objective focus.

However...

You don't have to be of a cultish mindset to read things like Operation Northwoods and realise that 'false flag' ops have been a part of the relatively recent history of western intelligence.

You dont have to be of a cultish mindset to wonder how an unprecedented event (a steel high rise collapsing in one action due to moderate damage from fire and debris) occured and was not adequately discussed in the mainstream.

You don't have to be of a cultish mindset to wonder how news agencies recieved reports of this unprecedented event prior to its occurence, and why they seem uncompelled to explore the issue now (the current top match for 'bbc' search on google news is a story about a cookery program phone in 'scandal' with 25 matches, compared to the 3 results for WTC7 pre-knowledge halfway down the search page.)

And so on and so forth...

Being of a scientific mindset, I always leave at least 0.1% undecided on anything I hold true, however this particular cumulative argument appears to be expanding with time, from the original french pentagon plane site to the massive movement/cult/community it is today. Constant revelations suggesting that 'all is not as it seems' pile on top of each other to the point where the official story seems weak in comparison, with one side (disregarding the massive quantity of chaff) asking for answers and trying to logically assess the situation, and the other ignoring pertinent questions and relying on populist rhetoric.

I agree with your argument that it is important to be objective, make up your own mind and take information from as many varied sources as possible, trying to seive out the evidence from the speculation and 'coincidence-collections'. Also to decide whether the issues presented to you are in any way relevent to your own life.

However I also think there are enough serious burning questions about 911 that haven't been adequately answered to be able to discuss the relevant evidence (credible witnesses, original newsreels, money trails etc) rationally and without engaging in axiomatic 'cognitive dissonance' thinking. As long as you apply the uncertainty principle and accept that even if the evidence seems overwhelming, you may still be wrong, then a rational interpretation is possible.

Yes there is a depressing amount of BS on the overburdening plethora of sites related to the 911 CT, however by applying a tar brush of discredit to the whole issue because of this, you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And though he gets on my nerves a bit, if Al Jones is right on this, then he is messing with some seriously hardcore murderers, and genuinely risking his life. That dedication deserves some respect.

If he's wrong, then so are a lot of other people and everybody's been searching for a phantom (And claiming to have found it). If so we will have seen an extraordinary example of a new type of collectively reinforced counterfactual delusion, which is interesting enough in its own right.

I just get the feeling that when there is this much smoke, there's got to be some kind of fire.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'd also like to add that I WANT to believe the official story. That 911 was the result of disastrous foreign policy leading to a group of foreign terrorists seeking revenge, and an ineffective defense system against such a cleverly planned attack. That the afghanistan war was justified and we are living in a safer world because of the brave determination of our leaders to combat the source of these types of threats.

I don't want to believe that we are cattle living in a faux world of distracting delusions, and that western powers are either deviant or puppets to a deviant master. That we are dispensable to a creed of rulers that care not whether individuals they are supposed to represent live or die. That they have their own strategic objectives, and are without the burden of morality in their approach to achieving them. That the people I know and love are pawns in a great game for which we will never know the rules nor the players.

But the more I read about this stuff, the more the first seems like the convenient illusion, and the second seems like the historical norm, and the current reality.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Excellent posts, Giordano! Welcome friend.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Cheers Caustic. Whenever a new story breaks I have my forum frenzies!



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, reading the paper or watching the news (spoonfeeding) is healthy but taking the time to think about things and using your own brain isn't? Who's the brainwashed person here again?


Exactly, right on the button.

Thinking for your self is the path that is required to not be brain washed.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
This is polarizing and is doing exactly what it was intended to do..divide US..


Its been a long time since i heard someone say that
Kudos to you sir!

"Divide and Conquer". What better way to control humanity than pitting themselves against each other, keeping them distracted from uniting together to fight those who are really controlling things.

Alex Jones, IMO, is most certainly not just a "truther", and has been corrupted somewhere along the line. He never talks about Israel/Zionism, never talks about anything positive, has been suckered in by the "Thermate theory" (if not perpetuating it).

If everybody is thinking doom and gloom and NWO, thats the reality that will manifest. I don't think people realise just how powerful the collective human conscience is when everyone is thinking the same thoughts. This has been demonstrated many times with mass meditation for example.

Its funny how Alex says he makes his money from his videos etc, but ive recently seen a competition of his offering a $1000 reward for making youtube videos etc. Funny how he can just through that amount of money at one little competition


You should read my thread on Disinformation (in the disinfo forum).




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join