Insanely Incredible Issues as Proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy

I'm not a fan of the typical "Loose Change" arguments that attempt to prove a conspiracy. Here I don't want to focus entirely on the actual issues in question. Instead it's about finding the bigger story behind them, or rather the one that's right on the surface of them all as a whole.

It's not that many of the "LC" arguments are without merit, it's that the ambiguity that they're all subject to makes me avoid them. I avoid them because they're all so highly debatable. For too many important issues it's a matter of what you belive, as in too many cases there's no solid concrete outcome possible. These things can be debated for enternity, and that's the big story.

The "big story" is a concept I look for in everything I do these days. It's the thing that the hype overlooks. The "big story" is most often found right on the surface. It's the one detail that is right there beyond the hype of either side. For example, the big story wouldn't be the enormous stories behind each actual side of something, the big story would be that there are only 2 sides to a highly diverse issue. In that reality, the 2 sides binary would be the problem that needs to be addressed.

And now back to the real issue:

The most striking thing is that virtually every single aspect of 911 is virtually impossible to make concrete sense of, meanwhile "they" intentionally add fuel to the fire which spawns more questions and controversy which is keeping scores of researchers diverted from getting to the concrete issues. In this view they're goal would only be to keep their critics diverted and their supporters satisfied.

The idea of this view becoming some sort of proof is in this: How INCREDIBLE can something be in all of its aspects before we're to declare corruption / direct disinfo led coverup? With 9/11 you learn more and more as you go on that almost any issue you could delve into is conveniently impossibly ambigius to such degrees that it can become hard to believe that everything could be so incredible unless it was meant to be that way.

Therefore, to test this view, we must attempt to see how many impossibles outcomes there are in light of the critical aspects. The more the impossible outcomes, the more likely this collective evidence enters into the realm of self-evident proof.

A critical theme in understanding this view is that all of these things are intentionally used as diversionary devices to keep people wrapped up in subjects that are too debatable to warrant actionable consensus. Therefore, if that is indeed the case with any of the cas epoints, then the intention of using diversion becomes the actionable consensus itself.

In many cases the best clearcut theory would be intentional disinfo on the part of the potential suspects. When this occurs, in my view, the big story is no longer what the truth of actual specific issue is/was, it then becomes the disinfo itself. Knowing the actual truth of the specific matter isn't even necessary from that point on, instead the act of disinfo / coverup dictates the 'score' 'they' get on said issue. Each example of disinfo only adds to the probablity of a conspiracy in large. Each case of disinfo is to be used as the item of "actionable consensus", not the possible outcome of the original event in question.

Case Point: WTC7

The infamous WTC7. For most it's a slam dunk, either way. This is not the case. There may be degrees of probability, working for 'either side', but it is still highly debatable.

2 more recent examples in this would be:
"Lost" photos show ground level WTC7 damage and FEMA disinfo coverup
Even more important:
WTC7 Faked Image
That's not to say that it's absolutely faked, but it's almost safe to say that its absolutely impossible to determine what's going on there for sure.
It's all blue sky from there. It starts off with the government tennants who were there, and Giuliani's OEM bunker that he mysteriously wasn't inside of and he tried to avoid mentioning the bilding in question.

This only expands on Giuliani's other account that day where he stated that he was warned that WTC2 was going to collapse:
Who told Mayor Giuliani WTC2 was going to collapse?
It expands into the infamous Silverstein statement, which in itself doesn't prove anything, but as the recent film "Anatomy of the 9/11 Cover-Up" points out, it's yet another case of ambiguity.

And so on. What can you add????


Case Point: The Pentagon

"They" intentionally add fuel to the fire by doing things like withholding the footage from numerous security cameras at the Pentagon that would show us what hit it, while releasing the worst possible images that only spawn more questions and controversy to add fuel to the fire which is keeping scores of researchers diverted from getting to the concrete issues. What hit it is irrelevant and the real story is that they're toying with us as they have solid camera angles, the images they give us (after waiting years) are crap and offer absolutely no analysis, while the Osama tapes they put out include advanced image analysis. They're goal is to keep their critics diverted and their war supporters satisfied.

Donald Rumsfeld stated "and the missile to damage this building":
www.the7thfire.com...
ATS thread with 4223 replies:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The fact that one issue could be debated for that long speaks for itself.
Which is important because they could simply show us the real images and end the controversy:

Apparent doctored footage, with no analysis even if it's not:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yet they give us advanced analysis on Osama tapes:

s24.photobucket.com... (Album)
Yet those tapes were somehow released in a docudama many months before the media????:
infowars.net...
But in anycase these 2 new videos/revelations apparently debunk the official flight path, with 'official' sources:
video.google.com... (Pentacon)
video.google.com... (Pandoras Black Box)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
An So On...


Case Point: Funding
ISI General Mahmood Ahmed funds Hijackers, AND has breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with Sen. Bob Graham:
www.cooperativeresearch.org...:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodAhmed
Sen. Bob Graham heads the Congressional Joint inquiry into 9/11:
www.gpoaccess.gov...
Then Bob Graham openly calls the investigations a coverup:
video.google.com...
("BBC: 911 Conspiracy Files" 'hitpiece', final segment)


Case Point: WTC Towers:
Even if fires did knock them down, it's nature of the falls and the pools of metal are incredible, for starters.
Another striking element here is the Israeli moving van guys, as underscored by "Anatomy of the 9/11 Cover-Up ".

Those 2 scenario's lay the foundation of both being incredible, and involving potential disinfo for misdirection and confusion.

Case Point: Flight 93:
Regardless of what happened, just look at it:

It goes from there...
Donald Rumsfeld stated "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania":
video.google.com...

With those 2 cases (Pentagon, Flight 93) whatever really happened is irrelevant, the big story is that either those Rumsfeld claims are true, or they're intentionally toying with us on this most serious matter to create diversion. For those who doubt this view, take GWB's actions as supporting evidence:

Case Point: GWB on the day of 9/11:
He claimed that he watched the first plane impact:
www.whitehouse.gov...
And then elaborates on it even further:
www.whitehouse.gov...
On top of all of the confusing controversy already surrounding the school event:
www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=bush
by doing things like withholding the footage from numerous security cameras at the Pentagon that would show us what hit it, while releasing the worst possible images that only What hit it is irrelevant and the real story is that they're toying with us as they have solid camera angles, the images they give us (after waiting years) are crap and offer absolutely no analysis, while the Osama tapes they put out include advanced image analysis.



It comes down to this: Critics suggest we believe those 'official' statements are true, or apologists assert we're to believe that those statements are just "cockup". I declare False Dichotomy:
en.wikipedia.org...
With the third solution being that these real-scenarios are merely ploys to create total confusion. In any case, in light of the other case points presented here, the apologist viewpoint is itself "insanely incredible".


What can you add to or subtract from this view?

I have a grandfather that I tried to talk to about 9/11.
OMG not a good idea. That man loves Bush and what bush says is the law.
And man did he get mad at me.

There are 100million other people in america just like him. Tell me how to get through to him and make him see the truth and you will convince the world.

He doesnt believe anything you tell him or show him no matter how proof positive. He only believes Bush the "christian".

I think your research is awesome work and much attention has been given to the topics

People should also see your your other research site (linked) that has loads of information regards to 9/11.

Good job, flagged!

Originally posted by earth2
I have a grandfather that I tried to talk to about 9/11.
OMG not a good idea. That man loves Bush and what bush says is the law.
And man did he get mad at me.

He doesnt believe anything you tell him or show him no matter how proof positive. He only believes Bush the "christian".

Well. There's no simple way to explain the total solution in simple terms besides:
It takes a bottom up and top down approach.

Generally, from my observations, people best know the "top down" approach, being look at these 'concepts' of tyranny/etc that our 'leaders' (begin by referring to them as our rulers) perform.

The "bottom up" would be by using approaches enlightened by a good understanding of the sociological and psychological mechanisms behind all of it (political bias for starters).

It's blue sky from there, but I try to spread these levels of understanding in my every breathe whenever I can. I have lots of posts / threads, and myspace blogs (500) that go back and forth between attacking each top/down perspective, but as a critic of binary'ism I must promote a third view. In this case it would be having a clear understand of core things like the US Constitution, and for that I HIGHLY recommend the "Consitution Class" video on google video.

For your specific case you're dealing with interconnected irrational social mindset biases. This isn't simple to explain, and I've yet to publish this unfinished piece (I've actually elaborated on this in may myspace blogs / comments), but for a simple top down approach I recommend you highly scrutinize Bush's "Christianity", and here's an approach to that:
Bush's God

IIB fix that link for me(bushsgod) im very interested in reading it. ty.

Originally posted by greatlakes
I think your research is awesome work and much attention has been given to the topics

People should also see your your other research site (linked) that has loads of information regards to 9/11.

Thanks Yo!
Not often agreeing with either side isn't good for the popularity contest, but in my view it's the key to finding the big story behind anything and therefore worth it (not to mention the effects that social group affiliations play on individuals ability to reason).

[edit on 27-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by earth2
IIB fix that link for me(bushsgod) im very interested in reading it. ty.

It's good. Keep clicking on it or maybe its gonna make you sign in.

EDIT: Ya, they changed it apparently, it's gonna make you sign in. When i sign out and click that link it goes immediately to the myspace login. I loathe myspace.

Maybe its time I bring that argument over here to ATS... That was one i did over a year ago.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[removed quote of entire previous post]



Yeah I signed in though and it took me to my blog page.

Im probably doing something silly.



Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Dude I think you need to back away from your keyboard..Get up and go outside..Then breath in some fresh air..Once you've done that take in an activity or 2 or 3 that don't involve using your computer..Then take a couple aspirin and call me in the morning..

[edit on 5/27/2007 by gotanybob]

Originally posted by earth2
Yeah I signed in though and it took me to my blog page.

Im probably doing something silly.

I converted it to ATS and expanded on it a touch:
ATS: Bush's God

Originally posted by gotanybob
Dude I think you need to back away from your keyboard..Get up and go outside..Then breath in some fresh air..Once you've done that take in an activity or 2 or 3 that don't involve using your computer..Then take a couple aspirin and call me in the morning..

So that's your opinion on this matter?

I think you need to go turn your TV back on and watch some more sitcom reruns. It's not that i want you to, as I oppose what I call the "entertainment geniuses society", but TV and the selfish / ignoranamus mindsets it promote is actually addictive.

Ignorance...we have not seen eye to eye before, and probably never will..which is ok...but I have to say you take the time to dig up some of the best research on here. And i will just say this about 9/11...I think almost EVERYONE can agree...this was no fly by night operation. Was the US involved...without a doubt. Was it planned and finalized here in the states...I don't think so. But noone, and I mean noone who knew what was inevitable was going to do a damn thing to stop it....and now their pockets are as deep as they wanna make em.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's not that many of the "LC" arguments are without merit, it's that the ambiguity that they're all subject to makes me avoid them. I avoid them because they're all so highly debatable. For too many important issues it's a matter of what you belive, as in too many cases there's no solid concrete outcome possible. These things can be debated for enternity, and that's the big story.

Funny thing is, the idea behind the hard proof approach of LC is supposed to sidestep the debatability thing with, well, hard proof. Yet by setting themselves up against the facts in mant cases, debate has continued...

The "big story" is a concept I look for in everything I do these days. It's the thing that the hype overlooks. The "big story" is most often found right on the surface. It's the one detail that is right there beyond the hype of either side. For example, the big story wouldn't be the enormous stories behind each actual side of something, the big story would be that there are only 2 sides to a highly diverse issue. In that reality, the 2 sides binary would be the problem that needs to be addressed.

I couldn't agree more. This whole thing is a clown show of one silly conspiracy theory against another. Reality has got to be somewhere else.

In many cases the best clearcut theory would be intentional disinfo on the part of the potential suspects. When this occurs, in my view, the big story is no longer what the truth of actual specific issue is/was, it then becomes the disinfo itself. Knowing the actual truth of the specific matter isn't even necessary from that point on, instead the act of disinfo / coverup dictates the 'score' 'they' get on said issue. Each example of disinfo only adds to the probablity of a conspiracy in large. Each case of disinfo is to be used as the item of "actionable consensus", not the possible outcome of the original event in question.

?? I'm pretty sure I agree on this too...

Case Point: WTC7

The infamous WTC7. For most it's a slam dunk, either way. This is not the case. There may be degrees of probability, working for 'either side', but it is still highly debatable.
[...] What can you add????

Whoever's fault it is, the total ignorance of building damage and massive fires/smoke pouring from the bldgs South Face. It's not that this is why it colapsed, but why be dishonest and focus on the smooth north side with its smallfires, insist the building wasn't damaged, and so it MUST be a CD? I think FEMA and NIST/etc may have fed into this, but the blame must lie somewhere in the "Truth" community IMO, who decide how to frame their "smoking gun issues."

Case Point: The Pentagon

"They" intentionally add fuel to the fire by doing things like withholding the footage from numerous security cameras at the Pentagon that would show us what hit it, while releasing the worst possible images that only spawn more questions and controversy to add fuel to the fire which is keeping scores of researchers diverted from getting to the concrete issues. What hit it is irrelevant and the real story is that they're toying with us as they have solid camera angles, the images they give us (after waiting years) are crap and offer absolutely no analysis, while the Osama tapes they put out include advanced image analysis. They're goal is to keep their critics diverted and their war supporters satisfied.

Well I disagree there. Of course we can never KNOW what happened, but as a "truth" movement, we should look at the evidence and take our best guess. The issue is too confused and "divisive?" Help sort it out and look for a consensus based on evidence, not on averaging together baseless and solid claims to get some watered down "we don't know." Ignore the idiots, use your brain, or, failing that for lack of time or whatever, please admit ignorance and then say "I don't know." (Not directed at you, just general advice)

But the real issue is indeed how we've been toyed with.

Donald Rumsfeld stated "and the missile to damage this building":
www.the7thfire.com...

Better link:

The fact that one issue could be debated for that long speaks for itself.
Which is important because they could simply show us the real images and end the controversy.

"We" do it to "ourselves." But the no-video mystery helps, so they aren't keen on releasing. Until the time is right.

Yet they give us advanced analysis on Osama tapes

Jeep the debate framed - focus on the evildoers, let the dissidents choke on mystery and their own feet

Others good points as well, similar patterns. Mental conditioning abounds, even when they seem to "slip." That and we're infiltrated. Great post, good to have a thinker on board here these days in a different mold from the Loose Change model...

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by gotanybob
Dude I think you need to back away from your keyboard..Get up and go outside..Then breath in some fresh air..

Bob, is that a solution you use often. Isn't fresh air in Los Angeles a rare commodity? Maybe some people are past believing just any explaination of an event.

Hopefully the pieces with fit together one day and we will truely know who was behind all those events.

No matter what actually happened on 9/11, it seems apparent that the events have been opporunistically manipulated to further and deepen the polarization of the U.S., and now the world. The "left" and the "right" battle each other to see which one of "THEM" is going to run the world. You almost have to admire THEM for the brilliance of their strategy.

Great post !

I've been frustrated by the debates over minutae re 9/11 for a long time now-it happens not just between a debunker and a CT'er but between two CT'ers and it's just insane. Of course this is the result of carefully placed disinfo.

If you look at the layers of information available to people on the web-it becomes clear which media are playing along with the game in order to maintain mainstream "credibility"

For example: Huffington Post is considered a "leftist" organization by most...this is where democrats go to read the news and comment on the stories of the day. I have seen one tiny link to a 9/11 truth article on that site only once. They won't touch the subject because Arianna wants to be on Bill Maher and MSNBC-she has to maintain that "i'm not a conspiracy nut" mantle in order to be accepted on the tube.

There is an essay on the Post now critcizing Rosie O'Donnell calling her a "bully", etc. One of the commenters said something like "i used to like her but when she started all the 9/11 stuff it turned me off" (paraphrasing) That commment struck me because it's right in line with the general consensus you find on many so-called liberal sites.

This is what I would call the layer beneath the cable news layer, the frontline of propaganda...then as you continue to plumb the depths, so to speak, you find many more layers, and eventually you wind up at ATS, where just about anything goes...

Remember that there is also a horizontal dimension to the desimination of information...when you talk about the top down and bottom up, you are going to find the willingness of any individual to entertain any view of 9/11 colored by their supposed place on the left/right spectrum...I know that there are people on the right who are more than willing to question the official story, but it seems the left has a larger share of "truthers".

When the lines get blurred and the so called left and right meet, that is when the truth wins...If I can stand shoulder to shoulder with people who thought Bush was the second coming and have now seen through some of the crap to the dark criminal heart of this regime, then the truth wins-even if we can't be sure who did what when-the unwillingness to swallow any propaganda from the elite-regardless of subject, 9/11, immigration, gun control. etc...then we the people have a chance.

Your post was valuable to this subject and I commend you IIB.

Ignorance is bliss. Good post. I personally can't get passed the pentagon cameras. If Bush wanted to prove a plane hit by releasing that footage, he could probably increase his approval ratings by 20%.

Also, could someone please take a look at the video with Guliannis voice in the OP. In the last three seconds a raging fire erupts before it collapses. Is this normal to create fire that extreme that fast without another source?

AAC

Good comments

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Whoever's fault it is, the total ignorance of building damage and massive fires/smoke pouring from the bldgs South Face. It's not that this is why it collapsed, but why be dishonest and focus on the smooth north side with its smallfires, insist the building wasn't damaged, and so it MUST be a CD?

The demand of absolutisms in "logic" (in complicated matters) is what causes all of the hype. Once an absolutism is adhered to defending it then takes over and the other things (which aren't debatable) end up forgoten about. This is't just some 9/11 specific matter either, this is a major form of logical fallacy that permeates theoughout the human experience.

I think FEMA and NIST/etc may have fed into this, but the blame must lie somewhere in the "Truth" community IMO, who decide how to frame their "smoking gun issues."

FEMA is far more culprit here. Wasn't there some quotes in their report stating something like 'fires as the means of (implosion) seems unlikely'? It's all about starting or harboring the initial lines of controversy, then it takes on a life of ts own ala WTC7 World, then you release a 'better' report (NIST) to try to weigh in seveal years later after it's too late. [Well they havent actually released their WTC7 report yet.]

"We" do it to "ourselves." But the no-video mystery helps, so they aren't keen on releasing. Until the time is right.

There's a lot of truth to that. There's elements of human nature that are well understood by "persuasion scientists" (propagandists). Ah I'm trying to remember the specifics, but it's been awhile since I finished reading my "Persuasion and Compliance Gaining" textbook, and I'm stuck at work with no Internet at home for a few days (old roomate came and got his modem and the new roomate is out of town til tomarrow to order new service in his name etc)... but I'll be sur eto start up a rich thread on this matter soon...

Anyways, once you get the ball rolling it "takes on a life of its own". I wish I knew the full evolution of some of these matters, but I wasn't even aware of any real controversy until late 2005. Perhaps some others could weigh in better on the stages of progression (in light of the context of this thread & intentonal fire fueling by our rulers).

Originally posted by nick7261
No matter what actually happened on 9/11, it seems apparent that the events have been opporunistically manipulated to further and deepen the polarization of the U.S., and now the world. The "left" and the "right" battle each other to see which one of "THEM" is going to run the world. You almost have to admire THEM for the brilliance of their strategy.

All Democrats are insane, but not one of them know it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. - Mark Twain

Then you have the 9/11 arena. First you get the "Skeptics" (capital S) calling the "Conspiracists" 'nuts' 'insane' 'paranoid' etc and so on because of their beliefs. Then the 'other side' end sup calling the Skeptics insane crazy stupid etc, becaus e of their beliefs. It's not simply the beliefs, too often in either case, it's staunchly sticking to one side and dimissing contradictory inormaion, at least that's part of it. It comes down to "maybes".

If someone can't accept middle grounds on something as POSSIBLE, and instead it HAS to be THIS WAY (on highly complicated matters especially) then there's a certain degree of irrational biases involved regardless of what "side" you're on. In fact, the moment you decide once and for all on an issue you're setting yourself up for "confirmation biasing" (a form of self-deciet). If you blindly allign yourself to a certain social group (that has ideologies especialy) you're setting yourself up to accept shaky things as self-evident. These concepts especially relevent if you have absolutely no concept of what I'm saying here, as with most of anything to do with psychology or sociology.

There are irrational people on each side of this debate, but that doesn't mean that every person on every side is irrational. That doens't exactly make anyone "nuts" (well maybe in regards to the issue in question), but people of the opposite end of the 'spectrum' tend to focus on the percieved 'crazyness'. What neither side wants to admit (this ESPECIALLY goes for the Skeptics in this case) is that they may be irrational. If boths sides are infact irrational then maybe it's time to rethink things entirely.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope I'm being misunderstood by my last post or the OP.

For the last post, the problem comes when people percieve that certain individuals represent a certain social group, and then the observer who decides they like that group falls into the thinking of the supposed group representitive.

Then comes movies like Loose Change, which focus on the most debatable issues, and that's about it. The items may still deserve certain merit, but there are far too many issues with 9/11 that arent up for debate (actionable consensus) and are copletely forgotten about while everyone tries to figure out things that basicaly cant be figured out / proven. The concrete issues deserve their own thread, but since these other issues are front and center I had to address them.

The most important thing to remember (by both sides) is that debunking the "LC arguments" doesn't disprove the existence of a conspiracy. All they had to do was consciously allow it to happen, case closed, line up the firing squad on national TV.

My concern is because we NEED a REAL investigation, and so far getting one isn't going good, meanwhile most people that are aware of the subject at all are caught up in the same diversionary issues.