Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

I just want to add... that WAYYYY before 2001... WAYYYYY before PNAC in 1997... Usama Bin Laden was noted as saying (in reference to the towers) "I WILL bring those down one day..." this was in 1993... when we built a base in Saudi Arabia.

Next step... Nobody knew Prescott Bush was a Neo-Nazi? I beg to differ. Though some of you may not have developed an interest in the backgrounds of your elected officials... it takes the whole story to base an opinion... Do you SERIOUSLY think that this information was repressed until post 9-11?


Next when they hit us again in 15 years.... and AWNOLD is president... I guess people will forget his Father was a Nazi... Until it's convenient to recall.

I also love the statement that the bushes are involved in "rituals"... Care to provide proof of that assumption??? My family hasn't backed the Bushes since the reagan era(I was too young to vote then)... and the news was revealed that Prescott was a Nazi.

on the last note....
God I hate these 9-11 forums... No valid debate... Just a bunch of trash talk... Its sad to say... But I think it's time for ATS to branch off a new page just for this junk... 9-11fightclub.com or something to that effect. Leave the intelligent forums about the topic here... move all of this bunk there...

good to see you guys are readily monitoring as always!

Out... on this topic for good...

Coven

I find it sad that you would suggest that this entire forum be removed simply for the fact that you don't buy into 9/11 conspiracy.

I believe it was I who was accused not long ago of stifling others?

I certainly did not request that their entire FORUM OF DEBATE be removed.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

This thread is pointless and only leads to furthering the gap between both 'sides'.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, informed or otherwise. Debate it with them, sure, but don't abuse each other because you think differently.

Just let it go that some people won't believe it was one way or the other and deal with it.

Case By Case

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
The case has been made. It's on dozens of websites. It is called the 9/11 truth movement. This is a forum FOR the 9/11 conspiracy discussion.

Not just one case has been presented, but several different cases in several different forms and with many variants, some of which conflict with others or even themselves.

Some of them are more compelling than others, but to date I haven't seen any which has been conclusively proven.

Does that mean all of them are wrong? Not at all. I will readily concede that even what I might think to be the most absurd of theories regarding 9/11 could possibly be right.

But I feel absolutely no duty to endorse any claim of which I am not convinced.

Such are the constraints of intellectual honesty.

Movement Without Motion

Consider the argument against skepticism -- which, by the way, doesn't by any means involve acceptance of the "official story", of which I'm also skeptical.

At its core, the proposition of the argument against skepticism is that one must accept as fact something which may not be fact.

Isn't that the same argument the government makes when we are expected to "trust them"?

I don't trust the government. In fact, I consider it my duty as an American citizen not to trust the government, because that is the final check and balance against tyranny.

Likewise, I don't trust anyone who hasn't earned my trust. That takes time, and it takes a solid track record of honor and integrity -- qualities which most proponents of the "movement" sorely lack.

I also distrust "movements" in general. They are by nature campaigns intended to constrain, homogenize and regulate thought, and thereby facilitate centralized control, which works in direct opposition to intellectual freedom.

That doesn't mean movements are necessarily wrong, but the very nature of ATS is to challenge the herd mentality and promote critical thinking.

If we are willing to believe what "truthers" say simply because they insist we believe it, why not believe what the government says, simply because they insist we believe it?

Same product, different brand, no thanks.







P.S. I strongly suspect the "9/11 Truth Movement" is itself being fostered and controlled by certain government elements to keep suspicious minds focused on "fun with physics", discredit dissent with the official story and steer the American people away from inquiring about just who really orchestrated the attacks and discovering the truth. Consider the implications of that, if you will.

Originally posted by Majic

P.S. I strongly suspect the "9/11 Truth Movement" is itself being fostered and controlled by certain government elements to keep suspicious minds focused on "fun with physics"

Absolutely possible. I find myself decrying skeptics simply for the amount of bickering that goes on over details like the collapse, when the 9/11 truth movement has already explained their position and rely on expert opinion to explain why the buildings should not have collapsed as they did. This could be the effect of having an already strained paradigm for discussion (people are tired of 9/11 truth or are tired of preaching it).

Originally posted by fooffstarr
This thread is pointless and only leads to furthering the gap between both 'sides'.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, informed or otherwise. Debate it with them, sure, but don't abuse each other because you think differently.

Just let it go that some people won't believe it was one way or the other and deal with it.

Fair enough. I have attracted enough heat from this thread... despite the fact that I am the one being called a child etc.

Unsubscribing to thread .


[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

Originally posted by ProfTom
Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full of innocent New Yorkers to explode, hired in secret, worked every night for what had to be a year (and that's only if they had a big enough crew) placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7 (the smaller WTC tower that also collapsed, later in the day on 9/11).

This arguement is pretty tired if your then going to turn around and say 2 aircraft did in one hour what huge teams of demo experts would have to do in a year every night.

reply to post by coven


No valid debate. A bunch of trash talk.... Too bad you said you won't be returning.

Why? (rhetorical question...)

Because this member's post is a prime example of why the debate is moot at this point. Instead of carefully reading what I wrote, the poster jumped down my throat with several straw-man arguments and then then dashes off before any chance at rebuttal.

But to clear up any misconceptions that were presented....

First to rebut your first point. Sure that comment has been attributed to Bin Laden in 1997, but it has also been proven that he worked as a liaison of the CIA in the Afghan/Soviet war. Personally, I think that the 1997 quote is good 'stagecraft' from someone who 'used to be' on the CIA payroll. The 'foreshadowing' adds a lot of drama to the back story.

Second, I never said 'nobody knew' Prescott was a NAZI (Neo-Nazi is a modern label, Prescott was a REAL DEAL NAZI). I said that "I" didn't know. The same holds true in regard to the 'rituals' that the bushes attend. The Rituals I was alluding to were the Yearly retreat of the worlds elite at Bohemian Grove, in California. I was not alluding to any other rituals, but it wouldn't surprise me, personally.

No offense to 'Coven', but I knew if I dropped those 'tidbits' in my previous post, that someone would jump on them, instead of anything I had to say about how Occam's Razor in this case actually compels us to look further into the events surrounding 9-11. That there are too many coincidences and tidy pieces of 'science' that defy common sense for everything to have occurred on that one day.

I think that the purveyors of propaganda have artfully manipulated the stereotype of Muslims rooted in the terrorists from Back to the Future, and probably older than that. They also probably knew that by withholding certain pieces of vital information from the public, that the 'real' or 'valid' questions and theories would get drowned out by the kookiest of ideas.

At least we have gotten to the point where we can talk about it, and maybe a bit past it. For a long time I felt that I was alone, and everyone else was some flag waving zombie.

Best wishes to each of you on your own quest for 'the truth'.
Just don't stop questioning authority, its okay to agree afterwards.
DocMoreau

Originally posted by ProfTom


In order for this or any conspiracy to "work" everyone involved has to keep quiet - keep it a secret and we all know 2 people can't keep a secret!


Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full
You guessed it. They were paid to stay silent. Hey, why not? Probably half a million people there, but, you know. Since we've got the checkbook out anyway...

Also, think of all of the friends and family of these paid conspirators, who suddenly see all this mysterious wealth...

And here's the kicker...

100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it.

n order for this or any conspiracy to "work" everyone involved has to keep quiet - keep it a secret and we all know 2 people can't keep a secret!

You don't know much about covert operations do you. You ever served in the military ? Ever hear of the manhattan project? You assume everyone in a conspiracy KNOWS they are involved moreover you assume they all have the privilege of knowing the final outcome. You assume that workers hired to do one part of a conspiracy not knowing WHY they are hired to do it also know of an entirely different part also hired to do quite another part.

Neither knows of the other or what the big picture looks like. While you say it is supicious that bomb sniffing dogs were really the same dogs that are to sniff out explosives would anyone no the difference if they were dogs that were trained to sniff out POT? Not that I am suggesting thats what happened but my point being no one would make anything of it no more then anyone would find suspicious workmen with hardhats installing one part of an explosive device while yet another installs another component of that device. Would anyone say HEY YOU ISN'T THAT C-4 you got there ? For all the unsuspecting public would know is they are elevator repairmen. Has anyone done a study on mysterious deaths of CD employees that have ever worked on the WTC ?

While you talk about those NYFD Fireman have you missed the many websites by those same NYFD Fireman now realizing they were manipulated into becoming agents of a conspiracy?

Let me take the same logic YOU use to cast doubt on the credibility of a conspiracy by illustrating how all those people who couldn't keep a secret unless they were paid works just as well for all those who didn't get a dime.

You mean to tell me that all those witnesses that said they heard bombs going off, all those sent up the street by fireman as early as noon telling them that WTC7 was going to be "Brought" down. That all those people now suffering respiratory ailments due to the lies told them by the EPA, that all those experts who work in controlled demolitions that had seen WTC7 and swear absolute it was a CD, that all the fireman that had seen the lobby of the WTC tower saying it had been blown up down there, that all those in the basement that had heard explosions in the basement WERE ACTORS?

Or were they paid to say that in some wild conspiracy?

Of those YOU claim knowingly engaged in a conspiracy that would have to be paid hush money to keep a secret their are many more that want there story heard and not kept secret by those in Government who have lied to us from the President down many of whom answer only softball questions while those who ask the tough ones are escorted out or tazed to keep from having there secrets see the light of day. Then their are those like you, who while you castigate those who you deem are crackpots, selectively deaf to the crys of the seekers of truth, you act as an agent in quite another conspiracy and while I assume you aren't getting paid for it, you do all you can to disparage and discredit anyone who does not buy it in an effort to stop any REAL forensic investigation.

You do it and nobody had to tell you a thing

or pay you a dime

Like sheep

- Con

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

For the most part, communities of 'skeptics' who consider science to be the only valid rule - are denying the scientific evidence presented by experts that 9/11 was controlled. This leads me to believe that they are either incapable of accepting the evidence mentally, or emotionally.

I had to pick up on this, because it contradicts itself.

You are condemning "skeptics" for sticking to science, but the science of the event is the same for everyone. Its the one known and calculable factor, unless you are proposing that different laws of science apply.

The difference comes with the spin thats put behind the science, and the overall package where people start to play with words, and logic, and try and be clever with stuff by manipulating things to their own end - phrases like "aluminium can't cut steel" (another 9/11 thread here) which looks correct on a superficial level until you do the whole maths of the impact equations. People like to promote what they think they know rather than look at what actually happened.

And theres more.

Someone above referred to "19 hijackers and Bin Laden in a cave" not being able to "Pull this off". Thats a sterotypical picture thats often painted, apart from the fact that Bin Laden is incredibly rich, may spend some time in a cave if he's in hiding but no doubt also has access to better facilities and can (could, if he's dead) use them when he wanted.

And even if he couldn't, the spirit of people is severely underestimated - the Resistance in France during WW2 and the North Vietnamese during Vietnam all carried out incredibly complex tactics without the use of computers and cell-phones. If someone is determined enough to do something then by hook or by crook they will find a way to do it.

Then theres the unknowns. Things like weak welds, metal fatigues, concrete cancer - people assume that the WTC was in perfect condition when it was hit and superficially it may have been, but unless someone was frequently checking the whole structure with ultrasound and penetrating radar to check for microscopic cracking, then no one can be sure, and even then faults can develop inbetween checks. Quite simply no one ever knows how a structure is going to react when it takes damage until its taken it - you cannot design for every eventuality. Its impossible.

I may just have been that, on 9/11 2001 three sets of people got incredibly lucky (from their perspective), and one set didn't. The three that did hit three major landmarks. The ones that didn't left a hole in the ground in Pennsylvania.

The fact is this, that you believe something.

But just because you believe it, that doesn't make it right.

I don't know the full story of 9/11. You don't either. I would vouch that no-one does.

You are no more enlightened than the rest of us I'm afraid.


[edit on 12/1207/07 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


Great post and spot on my friend.(star for you) Not one person that has brought forth evedence aginst this administration for 9/11 has proven thier case 100%. Im sorry people but for me to blame my governement for this very horrible act I need 100% proof! thats all. If you cant bring it then please dont make those of us who require it out to be anything other than truth seekers ourselves. None of us think our government is perfect. Yes the US government is capable of some pretty bad things. but I have to say extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof thats all.

To the bigger discussion of a conspiracy; this might come as a surprise to the OP but, I am a conspiracy theorist! Truly and honestly. I have lurked at ATS for quite a while before joining and officially entering the various discussions.

I am here not out of a desire to stand up and yell all conspiracies are bogus. Not at all. I am here because, I too, believe there are conspiracies and 9-11 might be one of them. Now, those in the truth movement might beg to differ and I respect their opinions. The only thing I can do is assure you my opinions are genuine, I don't want to personally attack anyone, and I don't get energy trying to deny or some how suppress those that don't agree with me.

What I do want is plausibility and, well...proof. Or at least something like plausible proof. Please allow me this parallel as a means to try and explain where I am coming from?

Here it is:
I don't think any of us (well, maybe a few) doubt that JFK was shot and killed in Texas. We have all seen the tapes, interviews and reams of evidence. Stay with me - I didn't say the evidence shows conclusively how he was shot but, I think we can all agree...he was shot. Now, we all have a common ground with which to start debating, discussing and generally kicking around ideas. Imagine if a certain portion of the population claimed he wasn't shot. ((This next portion is for comparison and I mean no disrespect to our President or the events of that day)). What if a certain segment of the population claimed there were controlled demolitions within the seat back the President was sitting in? What if there were shaped charges in the headrest? What if the President was actually a stunt double? What if everyone who filmed the event and saw it with their own eyes was labeled an "insider", or paid off/kept silent somehow? What if people were saying the whole event was a fraud, a hologram? Can you imagine the reaction to that? Can you see the parallel?

My example was not intended to be a personal slam against those in the truth movement. It was my attempt to explain how I see some, not all, of the (mostly) really wild, completely implausible ideas presented. To my thinking, even if the reader doesn't agree.

In closing; believe it or not, I want to believe. I want to uncover the truth, wherever that may lead me. I am not the enemy. I am on our side, to the end. I want the truth. I feel that my healthy level of skepticism is a contributing factor to ATS, not a negative energy.

Just know that my skepticism comes from honest thinking, coming from a good place. I never offer my opinions to frustrate others who disagree with me. I do offer my opinions in the hopes that I contribute to the discussion, offer differing interpretations of what others present and lastly.......help guide us towards the truth.

After all, we are all in this together.

I am your brother in the search for truth.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by adjay



the terrorists would actually stand to lose the most. If they were clued up enough to carry out these attacks so meticulously, don't you think they'd have knowledge of the kind of repercussions that would face them afterwards?

Huh?
The terrorist got exactly the response they expected. They knew the U.S. would come out swinging at some Islamic countries, Afghanistan for sure. Basically 9/11 was A.Q. throwing down gasoline on the wood of the Middle East, knowing full well that the U.S. would supply the match to light it. They (AQ) wanted the battle.

One could even contend that AQ might have actually hoped for us to invade Iraq or another Islamic country as well. We could have very well walked into AQ's plan by invading a second Islamic country. Not that doing nothing would have been better, all that would have done is painted and even bigger target on us.

I remember a Time magazine from 98 or about then. It told how Bin Laden was planning a war that would last 40 to 80 years, knowing full well that he would not be around for all of it. That kind of thought process leads me to believe that 9/11 was basically a trip wire to get the whole conflict from simmering to full fleged war.

A.Q. knew it would get hit hard after 9/11. It also knew that it would gain a wider auidence and more recruits as well. All one has to do is ask: Is AQ a more powerful influence before or after 9/11?

Sorry to say so, but the battle has barely begun. This conflict will make the Cold war seem like a walk in the park in length and intensity. Too bad most of us in the West don't seem to have the stomach for long prolonged conflicts. We have short attention spans.

Course the best way to end this conflict is to come up with a economical replacement for Middle East oil. Once we have no need for their oil, the whole region can turn into a dustbowl as far as I am concerned.

I guess this is going to go on until the end of time....


Here's another good one...

commentisfree.guardian.co.uk...

Agents Moulder & Scully -- where are you????

The truth is out there........



[edit on 12-12-2007 by ProfTom]

Originally posted by StudioGuy
reply to post by NewWorldOver

 

The problem with connecting that duplicity with the events of 9/11 is that those events would have required too much risk. There were a hundred ways to get us into another war if that's what they were after.

You think that this was ONLY about a war? You see, this is where most people start to get the issues confused. What happened behind the scenes because of this event? An extremely controversial act was passed finally after being shot down numerous times over the past decade plus. The Patriot Act was forced through and the government really put themselves in a higher position of power with it.

You see, it's not only about a war. It's about scaring people into depending on the government while they strip everything away. Yes, it's time to turn the tables and revamp the entire thing.

There is much more to it than just the Patriot Act and the war.

I agree, you don't want to believe everything that supposed truth movers are flinging around but the logical person can normally pick through all of the evidence and come up with a fairly clear picture of what happened that day.

There simply are TOO many coincidences that link together over the past 20 years to ignore. This WAS an inside job in ALLIANCE with the so-called terrorists.

I have always been a skeptic. Skeptical of what our media tells us, skeptical of our politicians' true intentions and what they promise for us, skeptical of what's always deemed "normal" or "popular", and now I'm pretty darn skeptical of the "official" explanation for 911.

Over the years being skeptical has led me to become quite the conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by pavilHuh?
The terrorist got exactly the response they expected. They knew the U.S. would come out swinging at some Islamic countries, Afghanistan for sure. Basically 9/11 was A.Q. throwing down gasoline on the wood of the Middle East, knowing full well that the U.S. would supply the match to light it. They (AQ) wanted the battle.

They expected to be thrown in gitmo? They expected to be dethroned from the safety of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Do you seriously think they wanted to be forced into hiding, scattered into other countries, and be persecuted in almost every Western country? They really wanted a war with the most advanced army on this planet?

I'll concede they may have wanted Iraq to fall.. But it's not logical to expect that outcome by crashing planes into the World Trade Centers.

Do you really think they wanted even more American presence, influence and control, when that's the exact thing that made Bin Laden turn into a dissident?

I emplore you to explain how or what the terrorists gained from 9/11, from where I'm standing, they are severely in deficit in multiple aspects. As should be expected.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


You don't need skeptics? When you yourself profess to be that very thing? Being a skeptic is what leads you, or others, to answers to questions, real or imagined.

My own views on 9-11 are ones of mistakes all across the board, on the part of the intelligence community, and law enforcement. Many knew something was in the works, when? they didn't know, how? again they didn't know, why? that one we all know...

studied and agree with neworldover.
i am over 50 and lived through vietnam. i am well
aware of what government will and has done.
just as concern over mia's has been purposely
forgotten, so will 911 truth. there are still guys
there and there is 911 truth. i feel disgust when
i see the o'reillys, hannitys, limbaughs, carlsons
and the other parrots. the disgust is because i
am aware a segment of america believes them.
conspiracy or simply idiots??? i will never know.

Originally posted by adjay
They expected to be thrown in gitmo? They expected to be dethroned from the safety of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

.

Yes. Quite probably they thought we would just execute them rather than imprison them. Their mistake.

Do you seriously think they wanted to be forced into hiding, scattered into other countries, and be persecuted in almost every Western country? They really wanted a war with the most advanced army on this planet?

Yes. The didn't want to but they certainly were prepared for such an outcome.

I'll concede they may have wanted Iraq to fall.. But it's not logical to expect that outcome by crashing planes into the World Trade Centers.

Who in the world would predict that the United States wouldn't go after A.Q. and Afghanistan for harboring them? It quite honestly was almost a given. A.Q. wanted the region radicalized and in turmoil, what better way to do it then have the U.S. come in and stomp around?

A.Q. knew they were going to get hit and hit hard. The US response was easy to anticipate. A.Q. didn't care if it was Iraq or Iran. I would bet they thought we would go after Iran first but Iraq served the purpose as well. You know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. What better way for Sunni dominated A.Q. to take out Shia dominated Iran than have your worst enemy do it for you? There was no love lost between A.Q. and either Iran or Iraq.

Do you really think they wanted even more American presence, influence and control, when that's the exact thing that made Bin Laden turn into a dissident?

What better way to rally the troops for the new Caliphate then to have the "Crusaders" come and invade your lands? If you want a war between Islam and the West you had to bring the infidels to the region. 9/11 was just the chum in the water. A.Q. wants the region in turmoil. That's why they will do everything in their power to derail the Israel/Palestinian talks, mark my words.

I emplore you to explain how or what the terrorists gained from 9/11, from where I'm standing, they are severely in deficit in multiple aspects. As should be expected.

By all estimates A.Q. has built back up to pre 9/11 power. Sure they have lost shelter and a sponsor in Afghanistan, that was the price they were willing to pay. They lost a lot of leaders but they can be replaced, the movement continues. They have more of a "fear factor" now then they did prior to 9/11. They are also have more of a voice on the "Arab street" then they did pre 9/11. Those who survived the war in Afghanistan have taught the new recruits. Iraq merely provided a testing ground for new jihadis, the few that survive through Iraq and make their way back to their home countries are very skillful

Those who think that we are in for peace once we either stabilize or leave Iraq are sorely misguided. We are still in the opening phases of what will be a multigenerational war with radical Islam. Those that don't believe that are sadly mistaken. This is going to be a long war with hot and cold periods.