It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Side and Why

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:46 PM
So here's the concept: I want to hear from "Truthers" and "Official Story" folks the one piece of evidence that swayed them to the side they're on. For me, the whole point of ATS is to deny ignorance, so (as I wrote in an earlier post):

"While I find much of the "official" story reeks like week old fish, there are "Truth" elements that are equally suspect.

The Full Truth is something we will never know, IMNSHO and that's why so much of the arguing, screaming, etc is just farting in the wind.

While I respect the efforts to find the Truth and agree that there are massive problems with the "official" story, I wish people would realize that, contrary to all their "Evidence" THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, WHO DID IT OR WHY, PERIOD. Watching people continually bang on, presenting conjecture as fact, gets old from either side, y'know?

Words like, "I think", "what I have researched points to", "in my opinion" and such would help to further intellectual debate instead of stimulating passion... I think.

If the purpose of ATS is denying Ignorance, then pretending to own the truth when you don't know what said truth is, does not serve that goal and is intellectually arrogant as hell.."

That being said, why do you believe what you believe, what one piece of evidence swayed you and are you open to the possibility you are wrong?

I'll start:

I believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job because this Country and more importantly, The PTB/Illuminati/Elite/Zionists/Rothschilds/Rockerfeller/Jesuit/Reptilians/Whover the hell you label THEM, have a history of false flag operations and have more than adequately displayed a propensity for attacking/experimenting/testing on an unaware populace. Basis: Operation Gladio

Oh and and simple Cui Bono, too.

I truly began to doubt the official story when The Bush Administration fought so hard against an investigation into the deadliest terrorist attack in US History. This made and makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I certainly am willing to examine the possibility that I am wrong, have seen nothing that convinces me that this is the case and can't stand arrogant aholes who are nothing more than intellectual bullies pretending they actually know the truth and through their supreme benevolence are bestowing it upon me from on high....

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by leaderof theTFHbrigade
So here's the concept: I want to hear from "Truthers" and "Official Story" folks the one piece of evidence that swayed them to the side they're on.

What got me was the whiplash inducing head spin George W. Bush did when in the follow up of going after bin Laden, he decided to attack Iraq. I hadn't researched any 9/11 related stuff at that point, but that move just didn't make any sense.

That got me thinking also about the declared "War on Terror". I work in security and I thought 9/11 was a job for the police department. (It was a job for the police department and FBI but they were prevented from doing it.) I started to think that Bush didn't really want to get to the bottom of this crime . . . for some reason.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:24 PM
All the evidence supports something much closer to the official story. I have seen no compelling evidence of anything else having occurred that day. I am honestly on the fence about flight 93 being shot down or crashing, but it did crash there.

There has been so much backing & filling and covering up AFTERWARDS that we may never know for sure what was done in reaction. Small points based on arm chair quarter backing solve nothing.

I could be swayed by ANY evidence that supports a vast conspiracy.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:47 PM
That's a good point and one that spun me off into Greg Palast land! The fact of the matter IS (and he has the DOCUMENTS to back this) is that there were TWO plans for divvying up Iraq's oil fields prior to 9/11!

I agree that the move made no sense in light of 9/11 and this made the attack look like more than a bit coincidental, IMO...

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by Jake the Dog Man

I don't know that I agree that there is more evidence out there that supports the Official story, as I feel that there are an equal number of holes on both sides.

Another event that I found very suspicious: The Secret Service, after learning of an unprecedented attack on America, did nothing to get Bush away from a well-publicized, relatively undefended place to Max Secure ASAP. I have heard naysayers poo-poh this point, but the fact is that The Prez has NO say in a High Risk situation and they will, literally, lift him off his feet and forcibly remove him to safety if the situation warrants it. Evidence? Maybe not, but once these "oddities" start stringing together, you have a chain that looks might fishy...

It is not my intention to persuade or dissuade anyone, and I must ask you respectfully, howdo you explain this anomaly?

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:31 PM
I would say there is less of a chance that a kindergartener would be a terrorist with a sniper rifle, than a person outside the building hiding within range of the motorcade.

I would expect the Secret Service to thouroughly check the vehicles and perimeter before moving the President, once it was obvious America was under attack.

That's just me though.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:26 PM
I would say your assertion is corect! lol

Unfortunately, though, the fact that the country was under attack and that the President was at a well-known and publicized location did present a clear and present danger to him and the SS shoud have acted accordingly.

They did not.


posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:18 PM
In hind sight we have the luxury of making such an observation. I would hardly consider an elementary school somewhere in Florida a “well-known and publicized location”, though I know it had been published on a local level.

I’ll agree that there are many holes in the many theories, but holes in the official story are more perceived then factual. Even the quickest, laziest search disproves ¾ of the myths out there, with the remaining ones maybe needing some basic education in Physics & History.

Even given the obvious bias towards the conspiracy theories on these boards, nobody has been able to come up with any evidence that even begins to make as much sense as the official story. After 7 years only the internet & youthful ignorance has kept any of them alive.

top topics


log in