Your first red pill - what was it???

Originally posted by PapaHomer
Personally, I don't buy into them. I know that will get me labelled as an "agent of disinformation", but I could care less.

I assure you that most here will not insult you or put a "disinfo agent" tag on you merely because you disagree with us.

I have yet to see evidence of a "smoking gun" for 9/11. When someone can show me conclusive evidence, then I'll have my "red pill".

What if i just showed you the official story was not only a mistake but a PURE LIE?
I won't push any conspiracy kook stuff on you, I'll just show you that without a single doubt the official story is a very very obvious lie.
Is that cool?

Let me start by saying I am a conspiracy theorist. And anyone who knows me would agree. However, I have watched hours and hours of video, wanted to believe, and still no one has undeniable proof. The key word being UNDENIABLE.

Don't get me wrong I have seen a ton of stuff that has convinced me it is a very likely possibility.

But where is the proof we need to convince the masses? If there was proof everyone needs to know and will know. Where's the hard evidence? I am trying to find it. Help me out here guys. Where is the smoking gun? Let's find it and let it be known. Where is it? I will be the first on the capitol steps!

I want to Believe.

We just need to ask ourselves, If we came into this not knowing anything, and not having watched the hours of streaming internet conspiracy videos, we would want proof. Right? Well let's give it to them. Where is it?

I hope I don't sound like a non-believer..... However I am acting as Devil's advocate here.
[edit on 5-5-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 5-5-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

I've done a lot of armchair, web research into 911 and I have no doubt that the official version is a crock. In my discussions with some of my friends I have laid out a considerable amount of very convincing evidence starting with the "near free fall speed of the collapse". However many of them remain unconvinced. My question is "What would convince you?" I think most of these people would say, "I dunno."

Some people are congenitally incredulous. They don't believe anything unless everyone around them believes it. The real truth about people like this is that they are easily taken in by just about any statement you might make. They get burned a few times in grade school by mischievous classmates and then never believe anything again, unless everyone else believes it.

Discussing anything in a spirit of rational inquiry with them is a waste of time.

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter
However I have watched hours and hours of video.......Where's the hard evidence?[edit on 5-5-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

These words from "Utah" (although they are not the complete quote) sum up my postion so far. I've perused the 9/11 forums on ATS for several years now (mostly as a lurker). To this date, I have found no evidence that would stand up in court in support of the conspiracy positions on 9/11. If anyone has any, it is my belief that it would be silly to just post the information here on a webforum. If such evidence truly exists, it should be presented in a court of law against those responsible. I think I know what some might think.... "If I were to try to present this information in a U.S. Court, the government would swoop down and throw me in Gitmo." Who says you have to go to a U.S. court? If you have credible evidence go straight to the U.N. Believe me there plenty of member nations in the U.N. that would love to present evidence against the U.S. if it exists.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Some people are congenitally incredulous. They don't believe anything unless everyone around them believes it.

I hope you're not talking about me. If you are, I would swear that as a non-believer, I was in the minority here.

Originally posted by ipsedixit The real truth about people like this is that they are easily taken in by just about any statement you might make.

In my case if that were true, I'd be agreeing with the 9/11 conspiracies posted.

Originally posted by ipsedixitThey get burned a few times in grade school by mischievous classmates and then never believe anything again, unless everyone else believes it.

Again, this couldn't be me. I was always the mischevious one. And I've always had a knack for getting away with my "trangressions"

Originally posted by ipsedixitDiscussing anything in a spirit of rational inquiry with them is a waste of time.

Again, if it's me your venting against (I know, I'm being a little self centered here), I apologize for wasting your time. I suggest you make use of your lovely "ignore" button, so I won't further waste your time.

If anyone here has read my previous post, I stated that my red pill would be any evidence that could be entered into evidence in court. Since the events of 9/11 resulted in mass murder, I would further stipulate that that evidence be "beyond a reasonable doubt," as that is the evidentiary burden for most criminal cases. See wikipedia article on "burden of proof."

Originally posted by ipsedixit
My question is "What would convince you?" I think most of these people would say, "I dunno."

Don't give up!
First - Do you have a portaple DVD player?
If not, get one, they can be bought for a hundred bucks or less and carry it at all times with you. With it, you keep a DVD or VCD on which you burn the videos of the WTC7 collapse and you show it to them. There is a good reason the media NEVER shows the videos of the 7 collapse, they know it's dangerous for us to even see it, Hell, they don't even acknowledge the collapse or existence of WTC7.

Second - Go to 911weknow.com and buy a copy of 9/11 Mysteries. then burn DVD copies of it and hand it out to your friends, your family, your boss, your co-workers, people you meet on the street.

Third - Don't stop learning ever, don't stop questioning, don't stop buddy - DON'T STOP. the more you know, the more you can teach others. Knowledge is power and once enough of us know, something will happen.

Some people are congenitally incredulous. They don't believe anything unless everyone around them believes it. The real truth about people like this is that they are easily taken in by just about any statement you might make. They get burned a few times in grade school by mischievous classmates and then never believe anything again, unless everyone else believes it.

Discussing anything in a spirit of rational inquiry with them is a waste of time.

No, it's not a waste of time, sure it's not easy .... did you think you can just speak and everyone would listen?
Keep trying dude, they might think you are a kook and then I'll speak to them and they might think I am a kook too but eventually they will hear something that just doesn't fit, something that will make them want to know more.

If we all gave up, you would have never found out, someone woke you up, return the favor and wake up 2 more people. As you keep trying to convince people you will get better at it. But always treat people like they are as intelligent as you are, don't call them shills or sheeples or brainwashed. None of that shi-it is productive, treat people with respect and they will more likely listen to you.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

I started questioning the motives of 9/11 in about 2003 when someone showed me the sequence of folded currency that depicts the events... They were a bit much to be a coincidence in my opinion.

Then, I saw the video of the pentagon plane. I thought to myself, someone in the government is thinking "oops, shouldn't have let that go public..." When I discovered FPI, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, and forums like this I quickly realized that the hole goes very deep.

I am with the pilot above. I don't fly, but have played plenty of simulators... Even with agile military crafts, it is damn hard to hit a building dead center, especially on the first pass. What we witnessed was not human flight ability. If a person did that, we would have seen a few slower passes and then a line up like it was a landing. Then the pilot would speed up when he was sure he was centered. I think these planes were brought in by a homing device.


I just wonder how many of us will take the "red pill" before someone starts getting upset enough to do something about it. Or is something so awful planned that they don't even care?

[edit on 5/5/2007 by Anubis Kanubis]

Knowing, beforehand, that due to increases in terrorists activities (Kenya bombings, USS Cole, etc) and the gov't interest in OSB (Clinton tried to raise concerns). They were aware, had reason to speculate, and chose to ignore obvious warning signs.

The biggest "red pill", as you say, was the hiding of the fact a female FBI agent, who has been obscured, was reportedly speaking with SW airlines that day asking specifically about hijacking. This was due to because of intelligence gathered on a somewhat "specter" sourcing, but after the first crash, I believe it should have been acknowledged that there were people aboard aircraft with ill intentions.

Ah the matrix - saw it but it didn't click.

'JFK?' - TBH I thought that was a fairly terrible film but anyway....


On conspiracies etc I have just a thought, IF these things are in some way the govt/CIA etc etc 's fault then 'they' would be stupid and niaive to plan, and actually be so involved to introduce technologies etc. The amount of people involved would be huge and a leak would surely follow plus the effect and excuse for the oil grab would have been the same if it was only two planes, one tower.

IF (again) they did it it's much more likely they'd do it purely by neglect - simply change reporting structures, give agents close to the suspect group many other tasks to divert their attention, etc. It's much simpler and much more deniable.

If 'they' are intelligent to arrange all this (and kill a president) they know the simpler the better.

My take on it is they turned a blind eye, waited to see what 'it' was and then made the most of it when the attack succeeded

For me the most important point was that the towers fell at all. And that they didn't collapse, they exploded.

I watched those replays all day long and just knew they had not collapsed from airplanes. Common sense and basic physics can tell you that. And I've lived in NYC for over ten years, I knew those buildings, had been in them, they were so massive it was ridiculous to believe they'd fall--and anyway, they blew up.

Then the roiling dust cloud, all the way to Jersey--where'd that come from? It looked exactly like a war zone, because it was.

And what stayed with me, nagged at me, were the initial televised reports of bombs going off, repeated over and over that morning and afternoon, and then the complete disappearance of any mention of them the next day. Wow.

Then WTC7 late in the day. That was beyond belief. Then a few days later, talking to a business associate and friend who has dealings unrelated to real estate with Silverstein, who said that Silverstein had told him WTC7 came down because of the fuel oil igniting. I thought, "What in the world is LS telling him that for?" It didn't add up at all, sounded like alibi planting.

And flight 93, reports the day after of fighter jets in the area, farmers seeing the plane explode, etc, again that vanished down the memory hole.

And that after all that time elapsing, a plane "hits" the Pentagon. I mean, the Pentagon???? Stand down, indeed.

And GWB circling all day, pointlessly in AF 1, while Cheney's in his bunker. Hmmm. Paging Dr. Strangelove.

And then 19 Arabs with boxcutters, all directed by a CIA-created mastermind from an Afgan cave. Please.

So I knew from the getgo it was all a crock of lies, but I must admit I let it all slumber, too involved in my own life, until I read of the Zogby poll on 9/11 last fall and that's when I revisted it all again, got myself Googling and up to speed. And outraged.

And at the same time talking to a friend who had worked the inner/Fed security cordon around Ground Zero beginning Sept 12. He was quite frank about what happened.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by Strangerous
...IF these things are in some way the govt/CIA etc etc 's fault then...The amount of people involved would be huge and a leak would surely follow...

911 was implemented by organizations much, much higher than "govt/CIA". it is entirely possible that these "red pills" were introduced intentionally in order to entice "those wacko conspiracy theorists" (to what end i am not sure).

the first thing i saw on the TV, after sleeping through the first four hours of it, was a screen-full of "terrorists" . My personal view of humanity does not allow for "bad guys". Invariably, such a term is used as propaganda to manipulate the mind-set of the general public.

clearly, i was intended to feel hatred for these individuals whom i had never met.

my red pill was the violent rejection of my mind to the information which was being forcibly crammed into it.

i will not hate someone just because the TV told me to.

dkp

We all (well, most) had a pill on this. Some detail or insight that did not fit the official story. Mine was the Washington scene. Up to that point, I was willing to take in the feed at face value. (Though I would have analyzed it later under any circumstances.)

I was taken aback that there was no air defense of our nations Capitol. That was then, on the first day, and ever since, the ultimate red flag. Yes, I've heard how the needed planes couldn't be scrambled in time, blah, blah, blah. There is no way that Washington would have been unprotected from attack. This is the 21st century, and no nation leaves their seat of government so wide open. Hell, some place as small as Uruguay would have put up more protection, especially with such a lead time that something was coming down.

I have not found a theory that sounds totally convincing yet. It's like all of them have bits and pieces of the truth, some more than others. (I don't even count the nut case theories.) Somewhere I heard mention of two things that stick in my mind. (It could even have been here on ATS.) The government's story is only a theory, and even by their definition, it was a conspiracy. The question then is who ALL was involved, and to what degree.

As to the poster who wanted evidence that would stand up in a court of law: there have been many convictions based on circumstantial evidence, which seems to be as good as can be found in some crimes.

PepeLapew

I live in Toronto and that week I was off work and I was sleeping in. At that time I was single and living alone, my t.v was on the blink. I had internet. I was sleeping in and I awoke after 9 sometime and I had all these messages on my voice mail. I listened to them and everyone was calling me telling me the United States was under attack. Terrorists were attacking, and the Towers came down.

I called my sister and she said the towers collapsed. I said, not to the ground though, she said all the way down. I couldn't believe it.

So I went over to her house, my mother was there and family.

When I first saw the towers collapse, I had a really strange feeling. Like it wasn't making sense, this wasn't how I envisioned it. I saw it in my mind differently.

What it looked like, was the building was just evaporating or something. Hard to describe.

But... I believed the official story till about 2 years ago. I actually thought people who said there was a conspiracy were nuts. I really thought they were out to lunch and should find better things to do.

But I must say that my first doubt was the box cutter knives. Even though I believed the official story, that was a little hard to swallow. But I did.

My first real doubt is when I first read OPERATION NORTHWOOD'S. I started to see that Gov's really do plan things that are horrible.

But my real turning point was when I started to think about building 7 and what was in it, and how if fell.

That marked the turning point.

The next thing that really got me thinking, was the Bin Laden video tape.

I really thought it was strange that they could get a video tape, but they coudn't find Bin Laden.

I started to think, if there was an intelligence agent filming this, then couldn't he have had a 'homing device'?

I mean, it sounded to stupid to believe they could come up with a confession and then find the tape, but not find him.





[edit on 5-5-2007 by talisman]

Just for the record (PapaHomer) if you reread my post I'm sure it will be clear to you that I was speaking generally about the "congenitally incredulous." My reference in the remarks was to personal friends of my own, as I stated.

I have no opinion of you. It is hard to form an opinion of a lurker.

Incidentally, one doesn't need proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to take a case to trial, but let's say one did, "What would constitute such proof for you?"

i myself not being the " matrix " geek , i have no idea what
the red pill would be . but if your asking what was my first clue
as to that bush planned 911 , i have no clue !

Originally posted by gen.disaray
if your asking what was my first clue
as to that bush planned 911 , i have no clue !

Well, Bush too has no clue, the guy can't even find the skills to swallow a pretzel or pronounce the word "nuclear" properly.
Anyone who thinks Bush was the mastermind for 9/11 is an idiot. Bush is a puppet, nothing else.

Originally posted by NGC2736
We all (well, most) had a pill on this. Some detail or insight that did not fit the official story. Mine was the Washington scene. Up to that point, I was willing to take in the feed at face value. (Though I would have analyzed it later under any circumstances.)

I was taken aback that there was no air defense of our nations Capitol. That was then, on the first day, and ever since, the ultimate red flag. Yes, I've heard how the needed planes couldn't be scrambled in time, blah, blah, blah. There is no way that Washington would have been unprotected from attack. This is the 21st century, and no nation leaves their seat of government so wide open.

Two (2) F-16's were behind the second plane that struck the World Trade Center. They were given permission to fire, based on their discretion. They chose not to. They should have been ordered to fire, according to Military Doctrine of Chain of Command, and they should not have been left to decide whether or not firing on a civilian aircraft was proper. This was planned.

Those in charge wanted someone to blame if things were not in concordance with the accepted range of possibilities. These things were seen in advance, and they wanted a "human element" of surprise, with which to taunt at the population.

Their doctrine now consist of blaming anyone speculated as terroristic for all the troubles in the world, not mishandling. The VA massacre is a shining example of shifting responsibilities to promote fear. An obvious self-motivated terrorist, he has been painted disturbed, fitting the criteria of spontaneous. Meaning, look out for further episodes...

There will be more...

bothered, first time I've heard about the F16s.. do you have a link or source for that information?

There was no F-16's on the tail of any of the WTC and pentagon planes. But 93 is a free-for-all wild goose chase as far as I am concerned.

Bothered is mistaken.

Cooperative Research

(8:40am)

Two F-15 fighters are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts to find Flight 11, approximately 190 miles from the known location of the plane and 188 miles from New York City. [Channel 4 News (London), 9/13/2001; Washington Post, 9/15/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/17/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] On the NEADS operations floor Major Kevin Nasypany instructed Major James Fox, the leader of the Weapons Team, to launch the Otis fighters a minute earlier, at 8:45 a.m. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] Interestingly, the 9/11 Commission will later state that “Because of a technical issue, there are no NEADS recordings available of the NEADS senior weapons director and weapons director technician position responsible for controlling the Otis scramble.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 459] According to the commission, NORAD makes the decision to scramble after only one phone call, as the decision is made to act first and get clearances later.

Sorry, not F-16s but F-15s. This information is often skewed, and not well reported. There was very little coverage on it, but I remember an interview one of the pilots did where he stated he had a great deal of difficulty targeting a civilian aircraft with non-combatant passengers on board.

The reports have been so well-misplaced that I cannot locate, and will not be able to, the reports that fighters were involved with some of the planes. I guess this just looks to bad for NORAD and all of the others who just happened to be doing a well coordinated hijacking scenario "drill" that day.



[edit on 5/6/2007 by bothered]