It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

911 Conspiracy Theories, Skeptics, and Spin

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I had to point this out in another thread, but felt it deserved its own topic. I am going to show you the sides that are CLEARLY drawn in the battle to decipher 911 truth.

The story released by the government (via the media) is 100% conspiracy theory. It is the theory of how Osama Bin Laden, Al Qeuada, the taliban, and elements within Iraq conspired to hijack 4 planes on September 11th 2001, and attempted to destroy 4 American Icons.

If you believe the story you are by definition a conspiracy theorist.


A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".


We directly accused Afghanistan and Iraq of this post 911. This is the "modern" version of conspiracy theory, the pre 911 version only used the words literally. Ironically we did not accuse Saudi Arabia of this, however we traced the money there.


skep⋅tic [skep-tik]
–noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.


So if you question 911, you are a skeptic by default, not a conspiracy theorist. I admit it is possible to both be a skeptic of the story presented and a conspiracy theorist (i.e. you could be a no planer). However, this is the official conspiracy theorists spin.

Pay attention to how this works:
1.) The released story is a conspiracy theory by nature.
2.) Some people are skeptical of the story and alternate conspiracy theories are formed.
3.) After the alternate conspiracy theories are formed, they are debunked by people skeptical of the new alternative theories.
4.) The people who believed in the original conspiracy theory have now been labeled as debunkers.
5.) Skeptics of the released story are now labeled as conspiracy theorists because they do not belong to the camp of so called "debunkers".

The spin is now 180°. The skeptics are now labeled as "conspiracy theorists" as it has a negative connotation.




posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The official story is not a conspiracy theory. It is based on facts, and evidence, and not wild speculation. The OS is consistent, but the truther stories have 5000 different explanations for the same events. That is why they are conspiracy theories.

Truthers cannot even agree amongst themselves how the events of 911 unfolded, so how are they going to convince people that they have the truth? Truth, by definition cannot have multiple explanations for the same event. So I am not sure why they even call 911 "truthers".. truthers.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ChronicBoom]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChronicBoom
The official story is not a conspiracy theory. It is based on facts, and evidence, and not wild speculation. The OS is consistent..

I think you mean predispositions, omissions, and inconsistencies. Within six months of 9-11, Bush publicly stated that Bin Laden wasn't even a priority of his administration, he got what he wanted out 9-11, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and carte blanche to manipulate the legislatures into whatever they wanted under the guise of anti-terrorism. Between Bush and the House and Senate Intelligence Committee's, very little information ever saw the light of day and the 'investigation' was stonewalled from day one.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Whatever. You can call yourself anything you like. I personally don't call them "conspiracy theories" because nothing I have read or heard from what you call "skeptics" ever rose to the level of "theory".

They are for the most part fanatasies, based primarily in factual misrepresentation at best and, in some case, all and out delusion. It would be nice to for once, to hear a unified theory. However, the "skeptic" community appears, as it shrinks into nothingness, to be deeply invested in a competition to see who can construct the most fantastical departure from reality.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChronicBoom
 






The official story is not a conspiracy theory.


Right, and any connection between Israel and 9/11, happens to be classified. IF there is no "conspiracy" or "nothing to hide" why is this so?



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ChronicBoom
 


thats just because dumb kids jump on the bandwagon. they might be able to see the obviousness of the official story's bull, but they also wanna believe in some explosions, or anything else

the reason no one can agree is because we dont have an "Official Story" of events. we dont have a big government commission.

the fact is something did occur. whether or not elements within the government knew it was happening and were planning sweeping policy changes and 2 wars that had no real intent of punishing those responsible for 9/11 is the question we are asking. those responsible also being easily linked to have been funded by us.

i think its quite obvious that is pretty close to the truth. people can add on their vans and explosions and holographic planes too if they wanna discredit the movement more the fact is our government was aware it was happenin, did nothin to stop it, and capitalized on it.

and the term truthers is stupid. labels are idiotic.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by whateverponcho]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ChronicBoom
 
If that's true then why did they need so many revisions and the building performance report for the pentagon and the NIST report to explain away WTC7? most if not all of the commissioners had financial interests in oil and the middle east.Now we have many of the former staff members of the commission writing books and talking about how leads were either ignored or covered up by Phillip Zelikow the executive director of the commission.It also came out that Zelikow,Hamilton and Kean got together and came up with an outline that eventually became the official storyline. The staffer's created a parody of it: "Oswald did it,trust us we know."



[edit on 033131p://2026 by mike dangerously]

[edit on 073131p://4026 by mike dangerously]

[edit on 073131p://4226 by mike dangerously]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Whatever. You can call yourself anything you like. I personally don't call them "conspiracy theories" because nothing I have read or heard from what you call "skeptics" ever rose to the level of "theory".

They are for the most part fanatasies, based primarily in factual misrepresentation at best and, in some case, all and out delusion. It would be nice to for once, to hear a unified theory. However, the "skeptic" community appears, as it shrinks into nothingness, to be deeply invested in a competition to see who can construct the most fantastical departure from reality.


However the OS holds as little or less water.
Your denial of the fact that people who believe the OS out and out are in the minority of people worldwide is duly noted.


The OS is consistent...

The OS is not consistent as it has changed since its inception.


The reason no one can agree is because we dont have an "Official Story" of events. we don't have a big government commission.


And as pointed out a zillion times, when I say OS I refer to the portrayal of events released by the US government to the media.


Truth, by definition cannot have multiple explanations for the same event.

Indeed. Please note that the FEMA report and NIST report have multiple explanations for the same event.






[edit on 22-10-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Here's spin:

The Kean Commission, FEMA, and NIST were charged to do investigations. It was THEIR burden to investigate, and provide evidence.

Many people try to say the burden is on us, civilians, to prove what did or did not happen. But it's the other way around: it's the job of those responsible for the investigation in the first place to DEFEND their own work when it is brought into question. And trust me, we all have vital questions that remain totally unanswered, that are very relevant to that day.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

posted by ChronicBoom
The official story is not a conspiracy theory. It is based on facts, and evidence, and not wild speculation. The OS is consistent, but the truther stories have 5000 different explanations for the same events. That is why they are conspiracy theories.

Truthers cannot even agree amongst themselves how the events of 911 unfolded, so how are they going to convince people that they have the truth? Truth, by definition cannot have multiple explanations for the same event. So I am not sure why they even call 911 "truthers".. truthers.



The 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY conspiracy theory is the wackiest wildest script ever conceived. If it had first appeared as a novel; it would have been laughed out of the book stores and placed in the comedy section. Perhaps with all its holes it could also have been consigned to the swiss cheese section.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I had to point this out in another thread, but felt it deserved its own topic. I am going to show you the sides that are CLEARLY drawn in the battle to decipher 911 truth.

The story released by the government (via the media) is 100% conspiracy theory. It is the theory of how Osama Bin Laden, Al Qeuada, the taliban, and elements within Iraq conspired to hijack 4 planes on September 11th 2001, and attempted to destroy 4 American Icons.

If you believe the story you are by definition a conspiracy theorist.


I easily refuted your contention already, jprophet420:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
You sure did, and when you did you destroyed any hope of ever being able to say the story is consistent. Couple with that the fact that you didn't properly refute it and we have "par for the course".


As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs



Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”


You directly state in your quote that "we" accept...

In other words the FBI's stance on 911 differs greatly from yours. So when you say "we" you are referring to a group of people excluding the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Im glad that your group has more information than the FBI. You should call them immediately and submit your groups evidence. They need it to charge Bin Laden.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by jprophet420]



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join