Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??

Leapin Logic!

Let's start with the Pentagon. We have the no plane theory even though there's debris found, bodies found, and many eyewitness accounts. Simply saying there's evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon when you have no evidence of what you think actually did, or even a consensus of what the alternative was, is not even close to a strong enough argument for most people to indict their government in a mass conspiracy. Really.

Just because someone is "thinking out of the box" doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.

How about the WTC's? Now we have eyewitnesses that say they heard explosions and things that "sound like bombs". And this is the largest logic flaw of them all: To believe no plane hit the Pentagon you have to believe all eyewitness accounts were sanitized, untrue, or mistaken. Yet we're supposed to believe that what these people think they heard are wholly accurate.

Not to mention the fact that people are asked to believe that someone was able to get bombs in there and plant them.

And I agree, the NIST report is definitely flawed and there are a lot of questions to be asked about the WTC's. But again, there's not enough evidence for most people to indict the government here.

It seems that there were many people with foreknowledge of 9-11. This fact hardly ever gets any attention.

Bin Laden was/is a CIA asset. Again, usually just a throw-in during a debate about the towers. When in actuality, this is where your strongest argument about an inside job lies.

Hell, the very fact that the bin Laden family is in business with the Bush family is something that's not capitalized on nearly enough.

Why the 9-11 movement doesn't get the respect it should is not because people are scared, or blind, or sheep. It's because they've focused on hard to prove, if provable at all, theories.

All-the-while the more grounded theories are skimmed over and not given the attention they deserve because it's easier to have intellectual pissing contests with math equations. You also can't make a neat flash animation with a death metal soundtrack about "put" options.

The easily plausible ideas can't be heard over the din of the absurd ones. Forty-three percant of Americans think the government is hiding something. That doesn't mean they think it's a hologram or a bomb or a "no plane" theory.

If the "movement" isn't careful, they're going to scare that 43 percent away.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


Here's a fact for ya. . .

History has proven time after time that countries, governments, political parties, organizations, religions, friends & neighbors, etc., when faced with an uncomfortable situation will LIE, CHEAT, or at least put a SPIN on their story to make themselves look better. It's human nature to do so. People usually don't tell the truth if it is going to hurt them unless forced to. You see it everyday. . .

In part, that's why I firmly believe that we're NOT being told the truth with respect to 911. There are many details that just don't seem to equate to the official explination. Therefore I believe the three story paradigm is in full force here because people don't want to get hurt.

Three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth!

I'm not stating that this happens 100% of the time, I'm also not sure that everything I believe or question about 911 is correct, but I 100% believe there is the official story, the conspiracy theories, and somewhere in the middle-

The truth. . .

Just my $.02

2PacSade-

Originally posted by PistolPete
Let's start with the Pentagon. We have the no plane theory even though there's debris found, bodies found, and many eyewitness accounts.

Ok, let's. Please show me the photographs of those bodies. Please explain how the impact and explosion can "vaporize" an entire aircraft while leaving bodies to be DNA tested. Please explain that logical fallacy to me.

Just because someone is "thinking out of the box" doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.

Works both ways my friend.

Not to mention the fact that people are asked to believe that someone was able to get bombs in there and plant them.

Can you come up with a scenario that would make it COMPLETELY impossible? If not, I'd have to call logical fallacy toward you.

Who signed Sakher (Rockey) Hammad's WTC basement level pass? No one has yet to comment on this except that it is just another one of those thousands of anomalies encountered about 9/11.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Who killed Katherine Smith?

"...A group of September 11 relatives has filed papers in a Maryland court seeking to become a defendant in a lawsuit it says is aimed at forcing the state Motor Vehicle Administration to issue driver's licenses to undocumented aliens...

...All the September 11 suicide attackers had driver's licenses or state-issued identity cards that they used to board the planes they hijacked, though most were in the country illegally..."

(ed: This 'lawsuit' actually ignores the obscure story of Katherine Smith,
once tied to the MVA cover-up of 9/11:

inn.globalfreepress.com...

But, there were only 19 highjackers involved right? Then why are people pleading guilty of helping the highjackers obtain false identification?

"...At least four people have pleaded guilty in an ID cards and drivers' licenses scheme for the "hijacker suspects".
Among them is Luis Martinez-Flores of Falls Church, Va., who certified a Falls Church address for Hani Hanjour.

One of the most important witnesses of this scheme was Katherine Smith (Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles), who died in an unexplained fiery car crash on Feb. 10, 2002, one day before her testimony.

216.239.51.104...:L0r_Z7iFI6EJ:www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/02/15/inv.licenser.death/+katherine+smith+car+accident+lived+in&hl=en

And I agree, the NIST report is definitely flawed and there are a lot of questions to be asked about the WTC's. But again, there's not enough evidence for most people to indict the government here.

I'll agree to that. Why does it have to be the "entire" government that was involved? Could it just be a few operatives who have made it into positions in the government? Like an Al-Quida James Bond?

It seems that there were many people with foreknowledge of 9-11. This fact hardly ever gets any attention.

Bin Laden was/is a CIA asset. Again, usually just a throw-in during a debate about the towers. When in actuality, this is where your strongest argument about an inside job lies.

See my question above about maybe just it being a few operatives.

Why the 9-11 movement doesn't get the respect it should is not because people are scared, or blind, or sheep. It's because they've focused on hard to prove, if provable at all, theories.

Right you are again.

If the "movement" isn't careful, they're going to scare that 43 percent away.

I refuse to consider myself part of the "truth movement" for just the same reasons you gave above.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Sorry, but the more of the 9-11 postings I read, the more I want to stop coming to ATS. I love the debate and love finding all the interesting articles, but I really can;t deal with this stuff anymore. I see the thread headline and feel I need to read what is written, then I feel compelled to answer.

Sorry for what happened to you, but the fact is 6 years later and we still do not have all the facts of what really happened that day. Not just to the towers but Builidng 7, Pentagon, and FLight 93.

The way it sounds you want to filter out people who do not agree with the official story, is that true?

I thought we still had freedom of speech, oh thats right i forgot it does not cover 9/11.

Its alreaday been proven by the people who are being punished for speaking out about 9/11.




[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Gazman
Is it just me or are you getting it as well?? People TO THIS DAY still reckons im a idiot or a nut...

No one laughs at my theory on 9-11, which is that it was an inside job...but that's mostly because no one asks or really talks about it other than to say, "it happened, lets have a moment of silence." I've had back and forths with friends online about it but we eventually agree to disagree and drop it. It really doesn't matter whether they laugh or not though.

It can also be the fear or living in a society where ones own government can callously decide to sacrifice it's own citizens to push a radical agenda. Most would rather pretend that everything is fine than admit they are a slave regardless of whether or not the chains are visible.

It's not like scenarios such as the one that happened on 9-11 were never conceived by members of government at one time or another or that average Americans were never sacrificed for whatever version of the greater good our officials at the time conceive.

It's happened and it certainly is possible that it has again.



I laugh with you, not at you.

Great examples of why people laugh at truthers...

Originally posted by PistolPete
Leapin Logic!

It seems that there were many people with foreknowledge of 9-11. This fact hardly ever gets any attention.

Ok, who specifically had foreknowledge? Any names? Any evidence to support this claim?

Hell, the very fact that the bin Laden family is in business with the Bush family is something that's not capitalized on nearly enough.

They were not in business together anymore than you and I are in business together because we eat at McDonalds. Bush and the Bin Laden family invested in the same hedge fund. This is another example of why people laugh at unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims.

Why the 9-11 movement doesn't get the respect it should is not because people are scared, or blind, or sheep. It's because they've focused on hard to prove, if provable at all, theories.

And because most in the truth movement are so desperate to demonize Bush that they make unsubstantiated and far-fetched claims, and state those claims as facts.

You also can't make a neat flash animation with a death metal soundtrack about "put" options.

Another great example why people laugh at truthers. The entire put option myth has been debunked over and over. See, the reason truthers get laughed at is really pretty simple. They generally are younger and are good at searching for stuff on the internet, which leads them to sites that make outrageous claims.

They then are good at parroting the claims on other web sites like ATS when they have no idea what they are even talking about. I'd bet that 99% of the truthers who reference the put option myth could not even explain what a put option was, what the strike price means, or what they expiration date has to do with anything.

They also would not be able to explain how the put options were valued, or how the purchase of the airline put option prior to 9/11 was traced back to benign sources who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The easily plausible ideas can't be heard over the din of the absurd ones. Forty-three percant of Americans think the government is hiding something. That doesn't mean they think it's a hologram or a bomb or a "no plane" theory.

Another great example of why people laugh at truthers. Truthers tend to care about any PLAUSIBLE idea not matter how many times it has been debunked, or how there is no actual evidence to support the idea.

If the "movement" isn't careful, they're going to scare that 43 percent away.

I would guess that the percentage that think 9/11 was done by the U.S. government is closer to 0.1%. Why? Because for all the coincidences, anomalies, and mysteries of 9/11, there is no tangible evidence that it was an inside job.

Of course the closest we have come to that evidence is Sandy Berger destroying classified documents before his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission, and Curt Weldon exposing Able Danger.

Unfortunately, the MoveOn.org crowd of democrats, the people who are most likely to accept a 9/11 conspiracy, would never in a million years raise their collective voice about the Sandy Berger cover-up because, well, he's on their side you know. Now the convicted destroyer of top secret documents is working for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

And as for Curt Weldon, the liberal democrats automatically said he was lying about Able Danger because he was a republican. In fact, in was Sandy Berger who orchestrated the campaign to have Weldon lose his seat.

In my opinion, until the MoveOn.org liberal democrats are willing to look inside their own party, and especially at the connections with the Clintons and their cronies, the 9/11 truth movement will always be on par with bigfoot sightings.

Originally posted by robert z
Ok, who specifically had foreknowledge? Any names? Any evidence to support this claim?

Is this enough or do you need more?

www.ctstudies.com...

Early '01 Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat
….The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings, but its full contents had not been disclosed…..(Reuters, 12 Feb 05)

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings
U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings….(Reuters, 10 Feb 05

Originally posted by robert z
Great examples of why people laugh at truthers...

Great examples of people who make an account, do a drive by "debunking" post and are hardly ever heard from again.

Ok, who specifically had foreknowledge? Any names? Any evidence to support this claim?

Hmmm...Able Danger? Which you even comment about.

They were not in business together anymore than you and I are in business together because we eat at McDonalds. Bush and the Bin Laden family invested in the same hedge fund. This is another example of why people laugh at unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims.

Well, if you were trying to buy a McDonalds and I gave you the money for it, then you could make the comparison.

James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented.

Source: lundissimo.info...

And because most in the truth movement are so desperate to demonize Bush that they make unsubstantiated and far-fetched claims, and state those claims as facts.

I have nothing against Bush. Other than he's a liar and crook. But, so are the Dems.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT PARTISAN POLITICS!!!!!!!!

The entire put option myth has been debunked over and over.

Really? By who? You?

Truthers tend to care about any PLAUSIBLE idea not matter how many times it has been debunked, or how there is no actual evidence to support the idea.

Yet again, I guess I need to remind you of the lacking evidence to support the official conspiracy theory.

Why? Because for all the coincidences, anomalies, and mysteries of 9/11, there is no tangible evidence that it was an inside job.

There is no tangible evidence that it wasn't either.

Of course the closest we have come to that evidence is Sandy Berger destroying classified documents before his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission, and Curt Weldon exposing Able Danger.

And yet, you still parrot the official conspiracy theory? Jeez people. This isn't about politics. It's about people in our government (republican and democrats alike) murdering our own citizens.

Don't feel like quoting a huge partisan political post. I wonder what party you belong to? Nah, from your post, I don't have to wonder.

The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.

Or their unwillingness to support it to begin with.

Originally posted by Griff

Or their unwillingness to support it to begin with.

I still want to know why after 6 years we might have a tenth of the facts, evidence, and reports we should have to tell us what really happened that day.

Originally posted by Griff
Can you honestly say, BlueTriangle, that EVERY single thing we have been told of 9/11 is accurate and true?

Of course I can't, there are some things that don't add up. Having said that, I think the official story is much closer to the truth than any of the conspiracy theories that I've read.

I'm going to be dating myself here, but I've always like the old Extreme album "Three Sides to Every Story". I've found that to be quite true to real life. There's the government version, the conspiracist's version, and the truth. The truth obviously falls in the middle somewhere and in my opinion it's right outside the front door of the government's version while the conspiracist's version is a state away.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by BlueTriangle]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I still want to know why after 6 years we might have a tenth of the facts, evidence, and reports we should have to tell us what really happened that day.

It reminds me of the NIST video where DR. Shunder is speaking of the limited evidence they were allotted. You can actually hear it in his voice pleading with us to not laugh because of the lack of evidence.

This to me says that NIST at least tried with what they had but were also on a tight rope to come up with some conclusion that fits the official story.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by Griff]

I dont know. The poll question was probably something like "did the US gov have any part in the attacks of 9-11". In which case some might say yes, since intel did not do it's job. Remember that unless you know the questions asked, the poll is useless. I have never run into anybody that thought 9-11 was anything other than a AQ op.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

reply to post by BlueTriangle



I can agree with that. Like I said, I'm not a "truther" but I AM a "truth seeker". There's a huge difference IMO.

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
I have never run into anybody that thought 9-11 was anything other than a AQ op.

Nice to meet ya. Now you have.

Edit: Not that I don't think they didn't play their role in it.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by Griff]

The whole 9/11 argument boils down to which one of these scenarios do you believe is less impossible.

1)
Three buildings dropping into their footprint in an unprecedented series of collapses.

2)
Ten major federal and city entities collaborating to secretely remove four aircraft from working commercial fleets in order to risk crashing them into buildings which have already been secretively wired to conduct the three largest controlled demolitions in history so we can justify attacking a country that we've already invaded once without being prompted by a major stateside terrorist attack.

If I have to believe one of these things, I believe #1 and I think that's the way most people feel.

There are some very fishy things about the official story, but the "conspiracy version" of events has the plausibility of a Dr. Suess book.


And by the way, speaking of the Zogby poll, anybody take a moment to see who conceived and funded those things (there were two, right)?

If you guessed 911Truth.org, 9/11citizenswatch.org, and Jimmy Walter (of In Plane Sight fame) then you are correct!

Those Zogby polls are a validity nightmare and, in my "sheepish" opinion, shouldn't be taken seriously.

August,2004 Zogby Survey of NY, NY

The following makes me wonder about you guys:

Why? Because for all the coincidences, anomalies, and mysteries of 9/11, there is no tangible evidence that it was an inside job.

There is no tangible evidence that it wasn't either.

I remember when I was in 11th grade English, the guy claimed that North Dakota was an abyss and did not exist and challenged us to prove otherwise. No internet back then, so it was kind of hard to do short of flying there. I never bothered, but those who showed him some document, or mentioned the ND senator were rebuffed with " that could be faked...."
This was a demonstration, or a mental exercise, that NOW I see the value of.
He was playing devils advocate. But you guys arent playing.

But, for a mental exercise such as this, claims like ND doesn't exist, WWII never happened, 911 conspiracy, we never went to the moon, can all be refuted with LOGIC.

First of all, the US govt is INCAPABLE of a conspiracy of such a grand scale and complexity. How could they be sure SURE all would go as planned? More likely they could be sure of some screw up. Which leads me to point 2...

While maybe the govt is unfazed by such an amount of death and destruction, and maybe the benefits could be considered to outweigh the death and destruction, what would be the consequences of getting caught? Do the benefit outweigh that?? The amount of people required to pull this off would number in the hundreds or even thousands. What kind of riots would we have if there actually was some irrefutable evidence of such a conspiracy? Are we talking storming the White House with pitchforks?

If the govt is willing to kill 3000 to exact some political benefit, why is the guy who made "loose change" still walking around? If the govt is capable of pulling off 911, why can't they shut down some kid with a mac?

Many, many people would have to be involved. The guys planting the explosives, their bosses, the guys who planted the plane parts, newspeople, the hijackers, people who were told to stay home that day. And those coordinating all of this. None of them "went along" thinking to spill it later?
remember watergate? They all got caught, soon after. The prez can't even get a bj, how many people knew about that? Do you really think that THAT MANY people could keep a secret??????? Even if they could, as the planner of this, would YOU be certain, I mean so certain you would bet your life, that this many people could keep this secret???? I mean as you planned it, you estimate 500 people would have to know maybe not the whole story, but enough to HANG you???? And, as the plan progresses, more and more people get added to the list, the list who know enough to blow the thing wide open.

All you need is 1 guy to say "my boss told me to put C4 here and here", or "I was told to place this airplane part here.... ", or "I saw a guy plant this passport in the rubble", or "I worked on this special airplane" or "I was told to turn off my camera", or "I edited this video"

That's all it would take, to blow this open, and we would have a gallows on the White House lawn, and martial law, and so on. And if this is true, this should be an easy thing to get. The chance of a secret being revealed rises exponentially as people are added to the inner circle.

So many would have to know something that the chance of it remaining a secret are essentially NIL.

If you want to perpetuate this idea, go find someone involved, even at a low level, like a fake airplane wreckage mover. Get him to talk.
Until then, it all seems like a lot of preposterous, outlandish speculation.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Sorry, but the more of the 9-11 postings I read, the more I want to stop coming to ATS. I love the debate and love finding all the interesting articles, but I really can;t deal with this stuff anymore. I see the thread headline and feel I need to read what is written, then I feel compelled to answer.

Originally posted by traderonwallst


Sorry for what happened to you, but the fact is 6 years later and we still do not have all the facts of what really happened that day. Not just to the towers but Builidng 7, Pentagon, and FLight 93.

The way it sounds you want to filter out people who do not agree with the official story, is that true?

I thought we still had freedom of speech, oh thats right i forgot it does not cover 9/11.

Its alreaday been proven by the people who are being punished for speaking out about 9/11.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1







HARDLY the case. I want to be able to filter out of me having to view any threads about 9-11. When I see them, I feel compelled to read them. Then I feel compelled to answer them. I always end up angry for ahving to think about it again. If I could take part in all other threads but those I would love ATS. Right now, when I read some of the ridiculous statemenst people make, and I am not saying you, but ridiculous statements people make with out ever being to ground zero, having lived through ground zero, or having to live witht he memories of ground zero....I just get soooo damned pissed sometimes.
I am not trying to deny anyone their free speech. People, know matter how wrong they are in my view, have the right to say anything they want.

I wish you all could have been with me that day, and saw the things I saw. Stop thinking about all the "so-called mini explosions that someone thinks they might have heard. The sounds of bodies hitting the pavements.......now thats a sound you would not mistake. They make a kind of THUMPFHHHT. Try going to bed at night thinking about that.

And let me tell you something.....Anyoe who was there that day would know....once the buildings started to come down, the noise was so loud, so immense.......there is no way they would hear expolsions. I don;t care if they were standing besides the dynamite.

By the way I started a thread a few months ago no one ever read explaining my thoughts about the buildings being wired. Might even surprise you.......





[edit on 9-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

Answer #1 - The Big Lie - Per. Adolf Hitler

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously…

Answer #2 - Informational Cascade - John Tierney

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by Pootie]