Insanely Incredible Issues as Proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 35 times


reply posted on 3-6-2007 @ 02:58 AM by xwayne
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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".



I think if those in government who apparently perpetrated 9/11 had good evidence to the contrary they would trot it out on Fox News in a heartbeat, and mercilessly ridicule Truthers without end. But they just don't have that evidence and the best they can do is release an indecipherable video of something hitting the Pentagon.

Let's face it, 9/11 Truth (along with the Iraq war) has seriously damaged the public's perception of those in power, and the low poll numbers have crippled plans for their inevitable war with Iran. Our "leaders" would love nothing better than to crush 9/11 Truth for good and put us all back to sleep.

It's not that the elite are puppet masters forcing the public into a "false dichotomy," it's simply that there is no court in which we can try these bastards no matter how much evidence we have against them, so we end up arguing back and forth while getting nowhere. Sadly, even though the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 should at least be TRULY investigated, and that many in power should be indicted and tried for treason, murder, etc, the hard truth is that it will take something close to a revolution to get the government to put itself on trial.


reply posted on 3-6-2007 @ 04:51 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by RavenWolf

#1 HOW do you do this 'research' of yours? You obviously spent quite a long time on some impressive posts, there. WHERE did you gather this information?


All over. It depends on the subject. My research into propaganda and diversionary disinfo led me to the insights presented here. For that I study every video on the subject (3+ times each; the brain memorizes in approximations) and things like the latest 'science papers' and college textbooks on things like Persuasion [, the science of], Psychology, Sociology and so on.


WHERE is the HARD EVIDENCE to indicate that this was an inside governemt job?


That's a little tricky. It all depends on the matter / aspect. The view in this piece was to lay a 'new' dichotomy / perspective to open a 'new' line of analysis / interpretation. It needs more (or rather all of the relevent)examples, and then they need to be meticulously assessed to distingiush between "qualitive" and "quantitive" classifications, and then we might be onto something. This is something I've been gradually working towards for about a year, but I'm into too much to really sit down and focus for consistent periods of time. I recommend applying the qualititve/quantitive model to any 'paper' on the matter for anyone really trying to build an 'actionable consensus' case:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


#2 WHY would the government concoct such an elaborate plan?


Total global domination. This is beyond the mere invasion of Iraq dichotomy too many leave it at. Also as a total diversion. My biggest topic is "AI", but ove rthe course of the last 18+ months I've learned that virtually all 'alarmists' are focused almost completely on 911; or the flip side is people don't fully understand the nature of our system so when I do show them the AI programs and such they're incapable of interpretting how serious it is. Each element has forced me to understand them to be able to get peoples attention on the AI matter. 911 is a total diversion from AI, in the same way UFO's have always been the diversion from American Hegemony. The modern American Propaganda Model is to divert everyone away from anything but ignorance, but then there's things like UFO's to divert those who can look outside of the box.


Google Video Link

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In light of certain facts other things become self-evident.

There must be something each of us can do, besides just sitting at our computers, throwing theories at each other all day and night.


Nothing unstopable will come without clearcut actionable consensus. That was my intention here.


There has to be something to support your theories, sir.


Well let's distinguish what is and what isn't self-evident etc and so on. I haven't really gotten any arguments about this piece, and I'm hoping for more examples...



reply posted on 26-7-2007 @ 01:59 PM by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well said Caustic


Thanks - I kinda went off there thanks to O'Reilly quotig me...

So did anyone have any actual arguments against the data supporting my argument, or any relevant data to add? There was never much debate about the actual argument. If this argument is weaker or stronger than my initial assertion I'd like to understand that truth either way.


If I recall correctly, it was about the info set-up around theattacks - the odd statements, secrecy, encouragement of speculation and silly mystery...

I wouls have to add that this is to be expected over such a major event. It's partly the PTB doing things, like the NTSB releasing their wrong animation but only ver explaining two things about it - it's theirs and it's got a mislabeled timestamp. For everything elese we're on our own and collectively doing a crap job of analyzing it for "truth."

Which brings me to the poinnt of self-criticism for he movement - we don't need to fall for these traps. Case in point - Bush saw the first plane hit on TV> People take this as evidence of a persoanl presidential TV system watching the WTC in advance. More likely it's either a sloppy PR move - he wanted to look like other Americns who saw the news on the TV, and Rove or whoever just didn't bother to check if that EVER WAS ON TV at the time. This is unlikely, so perhaps an info set-up? Or he meant to say he saw a plane had hit the tower? And make that mistake twice?

Let's just keep our wits and remember there are basically infinite possible explanations for anything, not just the one that best fits your theory.

Where do we go from here? Which is the way that's clear?

Beats me.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags