The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge"

Actually, the 9/11 conspiracy theories would make much more sense if Al Gore was President. After all, since Bill Clinton put that separation between the FBI and CIA, if Mr. Gore had been President when the 9/11 attacks took place, then I would have believed there was a conspiracy...especialy since Al Queda had been planning the attacks for two and a half years while Mr. Clinton was President.

Wait a sec, didn't Al Gore win the election?

Woops! Now I'm starting another conspiracy theory...

I love your analogy of the little boy. Like most fascists you're saying that if someone is grown up enough to know that he need not and perhaps SHOULD NOT submit to searches merely because someone suspects SOMETHING he MUST BE guilty of something!

In the 14th century EVERYONE knew the earth was flat, just as most liberals today assume that EVERYONE in the 14th century, particularly if they were religious, knew the earth was flat. However, the truth was that many educated people of that time believed the earth was in fact round as did Columbus. There were many charts from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, and Muslims that showed the earth to be round. The only disagreement was the circumference of the earth. Columbus who was a Jew by the way, miscalculated it and thus miscalculated the time it would take to get to China and India. And yes, he didn't figure on a small land mass blocking his way, like the N. American continent, which he never landed on.

But as we all "KNOW," Bush was responsible for the stealing of 3 elections, 911, the FL hurricanes and Katrina, the tsunami, the Iranian earthquake, and the al Zarqawi bombings in London, Madrid, Jakarta, Bali, Africa and elsewhere. The fact that Bill Clinton's henchman Sandy Berger stole and destroyed TS SI SCI documents proving Clinton's role is of course irrelevant even though it was far more egregious that what Libby supposedly did in the Plame Affair (by the way it was Armitagge, a Democrat who actually outed her, but who cares about facts?).

But in using your reasoning, because Obama's explanations surrounding his birth don't add up, he isn't our president and is guilty of treason and should be treated as such without any further proof needed. And of course as we all KNOW, with his past associations, Obama is Communist.

Originally posted by dangerouslogic


If the sheriff is a suspect in a murder case, the first thing you need to do is stop letting him direct the investigation and dictate the press releases.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

And those same truthers have included pretty much everybody in the conspiracy so who's left to investigate. Hell we can't even say WE at ATS could do the investigation as those same truthers say ATS is full of disinfo agents.

So who's left?

As for the little boy analogy,
I also think it's not 100% solid, because the little boy could also have something in his pockets that he's ashamed of, like a condom, a childish toy, or a picture of the girl he's secretly in love with... etc... etc... etc...

Just because the boy has something to hide, doesn't mean he's a thief.

However, we're talking about the President and the government here, who serve the public as representatives, and in doing so should be exemplary people with exemplary behavior.
If they actually cared about the PEOPLE, they would do as much as they could to proof their innocence.

Instead we get a poor, biased investigation, and two Presidents saying "not to question the official story or consider ludicrous conspiracy theories"...

Conspiracy Theory; a word that has the negative connotation and insinuation of delusional paranoie woven into it over the years.

Just by labeling alternative explanations and interpretations of the events of 911 'conspiracy theories' they've already tainted the proposed information, even before we hear a word of it.

"And according to 1 conspiracy theory....." and subconsciously people already roll their eyes....

...at least those people who aren't conscious of their subconscious preconditioning and programming.

"You can fool some people some time..."

Wow, page 12 and there are still people running on and on about the analogy.

You guys realize I was just trying to make a small point right?

You guys realize that was less than 5% of a 2 page post right?

You guys realize that it was strictly anecdotal, and was in no way meant to be the nail in the coffin..... right?

Perhaps this forum is more doomed than I ever suspected.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by dangerouslogic


If the sheriff is a suspect in a murder case, the first thing you need to do is stop letting him direct the investigation and dictate the press releases.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

And those same truthers have included pretty much everybody in the conspiracy so who's left to investigate. Hell we can't even say WE at ATS could do the investigation as those same truthers say ATS is full of disinfo agents.

So who's left?

Well, we could sit around all day and just point fingers as to who is spreading disinfo as opposed to those who are just ignorant, but that just defeats the spirit of the OP which I agree with (although not 100% of his/her reasoning).

Instead of coming up with excuses like this or bickering about details of yet to be proven hypotheses, what needs to be done first is to put ourselves in a position where a real investigation could actually be conducted before all the remaining evidence has been destroyed or covered up.

Even if we never can prove what DID happen, it is still imperative that we eliminate the OS, which is more like the story of what DIDN'T happen...

Originally posted by dangerouslogic


Even if we never can prove what DID happen, it is still imperative that we eliminate the OS, which is more like the story of what DIDN'T happen...

If you're interested in a TRUE investigation, you must go into it unbiased. In other words, your goal should not be to disprove the "official story" but to simply gather facts which allows for a conclusion.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by dangerouslogic


Even if we never can prove what DID happen, it is still imperative that we eliminate the OS, which is more like the story of what DIDN'T happen...

If you're interested in a TRUE investigation, you must go into it unbiased. In other words, your goal should not be to disprove the "official story" but to simply gather facts which allows for a conclusion.

Good reply, The fact is it happened and never should have with the technology of today. Profit was made from it, losses to the USA in lives and trillions. The "moneychangers" are STILL in control and all of the investigations from now til eternity will not do ONE THING3

Love your Signature

reply to post by king9072

Now you realize why I picked this name.
This belief that people who seek the truth ARE the problem,
is why that very truth will never come out and we will
always be duped(and doomed) as a collective.

The ill-informed voters that were thus decieved and let them get away
with it(scot free btw), are just as much to blame as the perps/enablers.

Note to JFJ: No one is left. They are all crooks. Almost.....
Hard not to be when the entire country's system IS one big FIRE mob.(see below)

These rackets are often summarized under the acronym FIRE (for finance, insurance and real estate), a system set up to strip-mine profits from the wish commonly labeled "the American Dream" -- itself largely a product of televised advertising and propaganda.

kunstler.com...
Why is it a stretch to think the gubmint may have an agenda?

Judge accuses CIA officials of fraud, unseals secret files

news.yahoo.com...
Wasn't I just asking about this in a prior post?
Trust 'them' at your own peril.
Anyone know what a "downwinder" is?


[edit on 20-7-2009 by dodadoom]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by dangerouslogic


Even if we never can prove what DID happen, it is still imperative that we eliminate the OS, which is more like the story of what DIDN'T happen...

If you're interested in a TRUE investigation, you must go into it unbiased. In other words, your goal should not be to disprove the "official story" but to simply gather facts which allows for a conclusion.

Of course you should go in unbiased, that's my whole point. Which is also why if you approach it from an unbiased perspective, you must dismiss the majority of what the official story claims, since that has already been successfully disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it were the case, as you suggest by your notion of approaching the topic without bias, that the official story was still conceivably tenable, then that would beg the question as to why we would need a new investigation in the first place.

What is in doubt, and thus should not be relevant to the need for starting a real investigation are the many yet-to-be-proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt theories as to what actually DID happen that day.

Ignoring proven facts that a few would rather dismiss (such as the ground zero size holes in the OS) is not unbiased at all. It is a form of bias in its own right.

EDIT: LOL bad typo corrected.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Yes I did read it. I am wondering if you read your own post however. You asked me to take a point used by the truthers and discuss it. I did.

"Truthers" allege that Larry Silverstein purchased a 99 year lease on an office complex that was losing money, was full of asbestos and basically derelict...because he could insure it, watch it be destroyed and rebuild it...AND make a profit. The documents I posted stated, that while the WTC was going to need work, it wasnt in as bad a shape, structurally, tenant wise or financially as the "truthers" would lead you to believe.

Now, Silverstein's financial situation. Again you seem to think that it has only arisen since the economy started its impression of an anchor. Once again, the "truthers" assertations is that Silverstein undertook his lease to make bank on it after the WTC's destruction. I pointed out information that states 1. He did not have enough insurance to rebuild it 2. Any rebuild would take years before it would be creating revenue and 3. He was STILL PAYING RENT on property that is not generating income. For some reason, "truthers" think that he would make money under that scenario and that is the scenario he has been operating under since Sept 12, 2001....it didnt start this year or last year.

If this is what you think shows that a band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down that WTC then you need to start afresh, that document does nothing.

This one is funny. I dont think a "band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down the WTC". I know it was a band of terrorists lead by Osama Bin Laden that did it.

I don't think this is key evidence but, to set the record straight, Silverstein made 3.5 billion from the insurance claim. Since 2001 he has paid out about 800 million for "rent". Now, explain to me how he is not better of by a long shot.

online.wsj.com...

Ooops, sorry Swampfox, Silverstein made $4.6 billion from insurance.


www.insurancejournal.com...

reply to post by baboo


Other news stories concerning the current court cases say that he has paid 2.75 billion to the Port Authority.

However, lets go with the 800 million listed in the article you quoted. Your article also states this....

In 2003, Mr. Silverstein used part of the insurance proceeds to pay back his and his partners' $125 million equity in the original 2001 purchase. An additional $563 million was used to pay off a mortgage on the Twin Towers. Much also has been spent on design and site preparation. Mr. Silverstein has less than $1 billion in insurance money left, said people familiar with the project.

Less than $1 billion left....and the anticipated reconstruction costs are going to be $7 billion. Unless you use some different math, that is going to be about $ 6 billion short. So, again, how is he making money on the deal?????


He is still spending a lot of money, the buildings arent finished and as such, are not generating any revenue. Only a US Government accountant would see a profit there.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

One more item Swampfox, I just went through the second 100 pages of your WTC survey and just a quick scan seems to indicate maybe 50-75 million dollars worth of asbestos abatement needed. What do you consider a significant asbestos problem? This is on top of whatever cost there is to repair all the other systems in the building. The tab for getting those buildings back into good condition could have approached 500 million. Also, what about the ongoing litigation that was glossed over in the report due to asbestos? Is this your idea of a golden investment opportunity?
It sounds more and more like, if someone wanted to make a great political statement by knocking down a grand symbol, the WTC would have been a good choice.

reply to post by baboo


Ive never claimed it was a golden opportunity. I have said that the buildings needed work, but were far from needing to be demolished since they were still making money.

It is members of the "truth" movement that proclaim he leased the complex in order to reap a financial windfall when it was destroyed and rebuilt.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


What that article means is that the 125 million and the 563 million went into their pockets. Plus add the additional 1 billion to the 1 you acknowledge plus the 688 million and you get a tidy little sum. I'm sure it's chump change to you but it's a good weeks wage in my book.

Also, the 'rent' you mentioned actually was treated as a mortgage.

And I forgive you for using articles that play in your favor like the one referencing the 2.75 billion rent. I'm sure it's an honest mistake. After all, only truthers mislead.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by baboo]

So many lost lives, so many left behind in grief. King, starred and flagged this thread. I thank you for the wealth of knowledge and insight in your posts. I can only hope that somehow, some way, justice will be served.

Originally posted by chiron613


The burden of proof is always on the claimant. After 9/11, an investigation was conducted to try to determine who was responsible and how they did it. Answers were provided. To some, these answers were unsatisfactory. Now it is up to those dissatisfied people to show why the answers weren't sufficient, to show that there was some problem with them. Just as the non-believers are unable to provide full answers, neither are the investigators. Even if there is some grand conspiracy, the investigators were almost certainly not a part of it. If there were a conspiracy, these investigators were no doubt fed carefully selected facts that would lead to the desired - mistaken - conclusion.

This is not true. The burden of proof should be on the government, and I'll tell you why.

I am a citizen of the United States, as I'm assuming many of the other people on here that question the official story are. I pay taxes to my government, and expect certain things in return for those taxes. The bare minimum that my government is supposed to provide me with is protection from aggressors.

During 9/11 four planes were allowed to hit in this country with many people dieing as a result. These planes were even able to hit our chief military building, the pentagon, without any fighter planes being able to stop this. To me, this constitutes a gross negligence on the part of our government.

Lets look at it this way, if hijackers were able to do this, what if we were still in the cold war and those planes were Russian with nuclear bombs. We would be history. Trillions of dollars of the American peoples money has been put into defense, and yet amateurs were able to bypass all of this. To me, this means that the American people deserved an explanation.

But our government fought tooth and nail to not have an investigation, which is asinine in its own right. When the investigation ultimately did happen, ultimately, not one person was held accountable. How could not even one person from NORAD have gotten fired over this debacle? Needless to say people had questions.

So lets look at the commission report. Several members had close ties to the administration, Bush and Cheney testified together, WTC 7 is unmentioned, it was determined that the supposed financier of the terrorist was of no importance, and to top that all off, several members of the commission itself said that the report was compromised by bias. Yet still you think that the burden lies on the people to prove the official account is unsatisfactory?

Perhaps you say this doesn't prove a conspiracy. Your right. But it does prove that the American people, and the families of the victims, have not gotten the answers they deserve. Because of this, there is a feeling of distrust.

But thats just the tip of the iceberg. People then started looking at the facts of the day. I'll give you an example of how I looked at them, but I'm sure there were many different questions from other people.

First I thought it was weird no black boxes were found. Then I found it astonishing that apparently paper passports of the accused hijackers survived some of the crashes. I thought that seemed strange. Then I learned that WTC 7 fell, which I barely heard of on the news, and learned it wasn't hit by a plane, and that the 9/11 commission didn't even mention it. That was strange.

So I looked deeper. I found many other odd coincidences (many mentioned in the OP), and was shocked to learn how quarantined the sites had been, and the fact that all of the evidence was being kept confidential or was destroyed (videos and metal, etc.). Why the secrecy with the evidence if there was nothing to hide?

Now people have been attacking this point on this thread by pointing out the anecdote with the little boy and how its wrong, but allow me to correct it. The government is not a random little boy, he's a boy we PAY! So it would be like the boy works for the shopkeeper, and the shopkeeper tells the boy he thinks hes stealing and he should empty his pockets, the boy claims then he didn't steal but refuses to show his pockets. Then the boy should be fired, just like our government should be.

Needless to say the more research I did, the more disturbed I became. I learned that in Waco Koresh was on the phone with 911 telling them that his front door would prove the ATF shot first, and saw video of that door being loaded into an evidence van, yet the door mysteriously disappearing before the trial, and other such shady government actions. All of this got me cynical toward the government.

Then I learned that the government had suggested attacking Americans before in false flag operations, which was very disturbing. The Government I thought I knew was starting to look very shady.

So this is what I have so far: at the very least the government failed its people, and gave a crappy explanation for why, that was admitted by some of those people to be bias; there are many bizarre unanswered coincidences surrounding that day, and when people try to get answers to them they are horribly demonized by the government and media; the government had been accused of having shady investigations of itself before with things like evidence coming up missing (Waco and such); people in the government had priorly suggested attacking thier own people; and of course that there was a motive of getting into two wars and passing draconian legislation.

Lets assume this was someone on trial. We know the person has a questionable past, and has even been heard mentioning possibly doing the crimes they were accused of, they claim to be able to prove that they have evidence that can clear them, but either refuse to show it or say its been destroyed (like the metal from the towers), they refuse to answer seemingly obvious questions, and they have a motive for the crime. This person would seem very guilty would he/she not?

Now lets assume that this person and their friends are in charge of investigation the crime, and not only that but they have been accused in the past of being bias, and even some of the people in the court admit that the trial was biased. This is why people are angry.

(Sorry I ran out of room, i'll continue below)

(continued from above)

So why should the American people with reasonable questions be the ones with the burden of proof? The government should be held accountable to us, and therefore all we have to do is find their story unsatisfactory to demand better answers. Why should I be forced to come up with a story and logically prove it, when I have no access to any of the evidence that they did?

So yeah, people come up with their on theories, and sometimes people believe things without substantial proof, but having seen everything above and knowing that they can't have access to the evidence, can you blame them?

And the best part is, if you have the nerve to ask some of these questions because you are really concerned about your country, you are demonized by the media, government, and most of the society that listens to them (thankfully ATS isn't as bad). Just look at someone like Charlie Sheen that was ran through the mud for just having questions.

To me it is patriotic to question my government, and the founding fathers would have agreed. So I'll continue to put the burden of proof on the government, and perhaps more people will do the same.

+I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS TRUE+

Having said that, I just wanted to point out something that caught my eye in the first few pages. Seems the debunkers couldn't debunk the logic of the rest of the OP, so they went with trying to derail the thread with silly little attacks on the anecdote that was posted. Blatantly obvious to me that people will try anything to avoid having to admit that they can't argue with the kind of logic that was expressed in the OP. Seems to be a tried and true method here on ATS, Deflect & Derail (and repeat, and REPEAT) until they've gone so far away from the original point that it is no longer recognized as the same entity, and the thread is closed. All because certain people can't accept certain facts, or even more disturbingly, get their kicks from intentionally derailing threads for no other reason than because they can. Great post OP, and keep up the good fight!

Chrono