Ten Misconceptions About Truthers That Debunkers Will Have YOU Believe

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Hello ATS!

I've had my doubts regarding the Official Story (OS) almost from the beginning. It started with a compelling gut feeling that I had to learn as much as I could about 911. To research and absorb information and find out what really happened. The more I looked, the more I found unanswered questions that I couldn't ignore.

I put some of these down in my thread: 40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque, which you should feel free to check out.

I continued to research the events of that historic albeit infamous day, and continued to ask increasingly difficult questions.

Along my journey I have taken on the label of "Truther", I'm quite proud of it actually. For me it means something, it means I search for the TRUTH. In my eyes, this a noble notion.

I haven't been a member of ATS for that long, about a year, so I've only had a short time to discuss and vent my views on this subject. Finding ATS was a watershed moment for me, I was able to discuss, learn and share my ideas. It was amazing to find like-minded individuals who agreed with me but also to find those who disagreed bringing balance and common sense to my theories.

In the last year or so I've posted on quite a few 911 threads, always on the side of Truth and always with respect and an open mind to debunkers (I hate that label but you all know what it means) and those Believers in the OS.

In that time I've noticed that Truthers get called a lot of things, I want to put ten of them down in this thread. and do my best to counter them.


1)Truthers are all paranoid

This accusation works for Believers because it implies some level of psychological problem. I see quite a lot of "You're paranoid, go and hide, the governments going to get you!"

The problem with this is that the ENTIRE WAR ON TERROR and story of 911 is built on the paranoid fallacy that Muslim extremists and Al Qaeda want to kill us. So it is amazingly hypocritical to level that accusation. Just because we want to know the truth, doesn't mean we're paranoid. We don't all live in fear, all sleep with a gun under our pillow and all think we're being followed. However we DO not believe what we are told just because it's on CNN and BBC, that's not paranoia, it's prudent.


2)Truthers are unpatriotic

I believe that nothing could be farther from the truth. It is out of love for our home nations and the freedoms our respective constitutions and laws hold as ideals that we demand to know the TRUTH.

When I see a coffin draped in the Union Jack being saluted as it makes its way to the poor Soldier's final resting place, a part of me always recoils at the thought that he died because of a lie, because of an atrocity that we still have questions about.


3)Truthers have no respect for the victims of 911

Again, this accusation is thrown around 911 threads fairly regularly and is in itself disrespectful to the victims, especially as Truthers want to see a second, thorough, unbiased investigation. Wanting to get to the bottom of 911 mysteries, calling for former presidents and government officials to give evidence under oath is possibly disrespectful to those individuals, but never to the victims.

If my father, brother wife or sister had died in New York on that day, I'd want the TRUTH, and I'd respect not deride any individual searching and pushing for the TRUTH.


4)Truthers are illogical and of low intelligence

This is one of the most common slights against Truthers. The problem with this one is that it is just a personal attack, and can be said of Believers just as easily. If I'm honest I have to say I've seen this launched from both camps.

Saying someone is "illogical" is one thing, but calling someone of "low intelligence" is simply an ad hominem form of debating and entirely uncalled for.

Truthers cover a broad cross section of society, so certainly aren't all of low intelligence. it stikes me that having a second investigation would be a logical request for Believers as well as Truthers, they'd finally have an opportunity to prove us wrong.


5)Truthers believe everything they see on You-tube

I can understand why Believers say this, because a lot of our evidence IS on You-tube. But I say that just because evidence is on a You-tube video doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence has no merit.

There are government agencies, prestigious scientific bodies and individuals that use You-tube, it is a medium through which to get a message out. If the evidences is valid, it shouldn't matter if it's presented on You-tube or by any other method.


6)Truthers are closed minded

I can't speak for all of us, but I believe this simply isn't true.

As a Truther, I'm seeking the answers to my questions and if I find out that the OS is correct, so be it. I'm completely open minded and prepared to accept that this is the case. I don't care about being right, or proving a conspiracy theory for the sake of being correct, I just want the truth. Nothing more, nothing less!


7)The Truth movement is dead

Again, when backed into a corner the average Believer will put this on the table. It is intended to make the Truther feel that they're fighting a losing battle and therefore wasting our time!

NEVER BELIEVE THIS my freinds. As long as there is one person with the ability to think independently and ask pertinent questions about 911, then there is always a chance that the truth will one day be known.

This is s marathon, not a sprint, we just have to keep plugging away, if we bring ONE person a day to ask questions and begin to doubt then we haven't failed.

Just remember, it only takes a spark to light a fire....cheesy but true.


8)Truthers don't listen to simple facts

Another common tactic by Believers, "You just don't listen to the simple facts!"

I believe that at times this can be said of Truthers with regards to some facets of the 911 debate, but the converse is also true. Believers are so blinded by faith in the OS, the Government and the fear of being paranoid (like Truthers!) that they can't ask SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

The problem with the "Facts" of 911 is that they couldn't be less clear. 911 Truthers would like nothing else than the facts to be presented, discussed and proved one way or another. Some of the time it isn't the facts that we take issue with, but the lack of transparency and deliberate subterfuge used to ingrain the OS into our psyche.


9)Truthers can't handle anyone disagreeing with them

You'd be surprised how often this one turns up. I believe this method is employed in an effort to lump all Truthers together in a single category: "Stubborn and Stupid"

This depends on the Truther in question of course, but as a rule it's not a good idea to generalise. Of course there must be some Truthers who dislike Believers disagreeing with them, but we're only human, who doesn't???

The real issue here is one of passion, passion for the TRUTH, belief in one's convictions, and the stakes should we give up.

I myself believe that this issue is one that may go on to define mankind. One day I may be asked if I stood up to Tyranny and Lies, and I'll be able so say proudly that I did. We are debating the very freedom and liberty that we declare to be a human rights. If we sometimes get passionate with Believers, can you blame us?


10)Truthers are ignorant

Another common complaint against Truthers, one that really is completely untrue. Taking into account the pains that we go through to uncover the TRUTH, the hours of research we have to do and the debate within our own consciences and minds that we must endure how can we be ignorant?

Ignorant is someone who believes the first and only explanation without exploring other possibilities and theories.

This accusation really doesn't hold water.


Well ATS, I don't know if any of you managed to stay with me through all this, these are my own observations and mine alone.

I'm not saying that Truthers are without blame, in fact we are probably just as bad as the Believers. If we could all learn to stop labelling each other and show more respect to one another, then I feel the journey to the truth will be a far smoother one.

All the best ATS, Kiwifoot!







[edit on 10-12-2009 by kiwifoot]




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I HATE it when someone tells me that I should let the dead rest, etc.
Its not that I do not respect the dead, the victims.

I just want to know what really happened. It intrigues me.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
I HATE it when someone tells me that I should let the dead rest, etc.
Its not that I do not respect the dead, the victims.

I just want to know what really happened. It intrigues me.


I've never been told that personally, but I have seen it.

My view is that the greatest way we could respect the dead, would be to get to the truth about how and why it happened.

It's important to be respectful though, as you probably know, not everyone agrees.

All the best, Kiwifoot!

[edit on 11-12-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I have seen,read and listened to all of those things and yet the os supporters seem oddly silent when it's pointed out how the families had to fight tooth and nail just to get the Kean-Zelikow commission formed and how do these self proclaimed non-partisan fact finders say on their first day? "We are not here to place blame."Now that my friends is disrespectful to the memories of the dead.The fact of the matter is this:that commission was simply going through the motions and covering up everything that contradicted Kean,Hamilton and Zelikow's pre-prepared outline.

[edit on 073131p://1026 by mike dangerously]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
kiwifoot, that is an incredible thread you posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I haven't had a chance to go through it, but I intend to. This blog has a bunch of video clips that you can use in pleading your case:

9-11-truth-conspiracy.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ericbs5247
kiwifoot, that is an incredible thread you posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I haven't had a chance to go through it, but I intend to. This blog has a bunch of video clips that you can use in pleading your case:

9-11-truth-conspiracy.blogspot.com...



Thanks mate, I'm glad you like that thread, it is an honest expression of doubts and queries that I have about the OS.

I'll check that out, thanks for linking that site!



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
"We are not here to place blame."
[edit on 073131p://1026 by mike dangerously]


Is that true??

I didn't know that was the case!

How can the Commission be taken seriously at all if these were the first words spoken by them!?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 
They were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place Kiwifoot,The OS supporters simply back them because they were an official government body and that's what they counted on the whole time they knew that the general public would never bother to read their findings.They had no interest in finding anyone responsible other then Al CIAda.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 

I'd like to remind readers of what is at stake here.

9/11 was the impetus for our War On Terrorism. It sought to establish that the "why" of terrorism on earth is a bunch of fanatics in a far away land who have gone crazy. As a result of this, it was proposed that we should send our troops to their strongholds to kill their leaders and by various methods de-power them, and that this would handle the situation.

I want to point out that, in the affairs of men, this is not the first time a whole nation has been sent chasing after an "enemy" that is the "cause" of something bad, only to "win" and yet find that the bad continues.

An evil but intelligent person or group can prolong their game by diverting the attention of those who would have enough power to stop them by having them fight among themselves, or against some other "enemy." This is an observed pattern of human behavior.

Is 9/11 another example of such a diversion? That is the crucial question. There is more at stake here than answering "what really happened on 9/11?"

We are a rich and powerful country. We are a strong and independent-minded people. There are beings who covet (seek to have without earning) our riches and power. There are beings who feel threatened by the vitality of our culture and of our proud citizens. As long as we are a successful country, we will have enemies who envy us and wish to bring us down. They are criminals and our strength threatens their agenda. They are the real terrorists on this planet. But are they the people we are fighting in Afghanistan? See - I don't think so. I think Afghanistan is the wrong target. I think we have been mislead. And so I think it is unlikely that we know the whole truth of 9/11. And that leaves open the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. That implies that our various agencies and power groups have been infiltrated by our real enemies.

I would like to think that this is not the case, but there is a lot of evidence that it is. So there is more at stake here than just knowing what really happened on that infamous day. That's why the "Truthers" need to be allowed to continue to do their work. And it won't stop with 9/11. Any action that forces our leaders to take large and costly actions that could weaken us financially, send thousands of bright young men off to war instead of using them to be creative and productive here in our own land demands to be scrutinized.

I wish the Truthers all the best. If they stick to their principles and realize the true purpose of their work, they are patriots because they are working for our survival.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by kiwifoot
 
They were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place Kiwifoot,The OS supporters simply back them because they were an official government body and that's what they counted on the whole time they knew that the general public would never bother to read their findings.They had no interest in finding anyone responsible other then Al CIAda.



Yep I guess you're right, in fact you are right.

Most people would have lost interest after that first day and line.

I hope one day we get a new independent inquiry.

All the best, Kiwifoot.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by mike dangerously
"We are not here to place blame."
[edit on 073131p://1026 by mike dangerously]


Is that true??

I didn't know that was the case!

How can the Commission be taken seriously at all if these were the first words spoken by them!?


What say you, oh, I don't know, READ THE THING so you'll know what it says, instead of wringing your hands wondering what it says? that's why they wrote it, you know. It's a gov't document so it's free.

The intention of the 9/11 commission report wasn't to place blame. It was to document the step by step process of the attack, and the step by step process of the U.S. response during the attack. Yes, along the way they did place blame I.E. Mohammed Atta and his bunch, as well as the political environment and the occasional person who failed in his duties (though you'll need to look up the name in the bibliography to find the actual name), so claiming they were trying to avoid placing blame AT ALL isn't true. The priotiry was to find out what the heck happened and get everything on paper, not to run around with a noose looking for someone to hang.

Then, there's the real reason why they said it. Everyone in the gov't was afraid they WERE running around with a noose looking for someone to hang. Lee Hamilton said that himself. They really didn't have any choice but to put out that disclaimer to get people to testify, since they really had no police powers to send soldiers with fixed bayonets to bring them to the committee table. I'm not sure whether I agree with having to play nice in this way myself, but that doesn't mean I can ignore why they had to do it.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by mike dangerously
"We are not here to place blame."
[edit on 073131p://1026 by mike dangerously]


Is that true??

I didn't know that was the case!

How can the Commission be taken seriously at all if these were the first words spoken by them!?


What say you, oh, I don't know, READ THE THING so you'll know what it says, instead of wringing your hands wondering what it says? that's why they wrote it, you know. It's a gov't document so it's free.

The intention of the 9/11 commission report wasn't to place blame. It was to document the step by step process of the attack, and the step by step process of the U.S. response during the attack. Yes, along the way they did place blame I.E. Mohammed Atta and his bunch, as well as the political environment and the occasional person who failed in his duties (though you'll need to look up the name in the bibliography to find the actual name), so claiming they were trying to avoid placing blame AT ALL isn't true. The priotiry was to find out what the heck happened and get everything on paper, not to run around with a noose looking for someone to hang.

Then, there's the real reason why they said it. Everyone in the gov't was afraid they WERE running around with a noose looking for someone to hang. Lee Hamilton said that himself. They really didn't have any choice but to put out that disclaimer to get people to testify, since they really had no police powers to send soldiers with fixed bayonets to bring them to the committee table. I'm not sure whether I agree with having to play nice in this way myself, but that doesn't mean I can ignore why they had to do it.



You make a couple of good points, but no matter what you say about nooses and my efforts in reading the report, the dismissive attitude (towards blame) and the laoded nature of the 911 commission (with regards to memebers being independent and unbiased) cannot be papered over or ignored.

It doesn't matter if I read the entire report or none of it, the TRUTH is still the TRUTH!

All the best, Kiwifoot.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
You make a couple of good points, but no matter what you say about nooses and my efforts in reading the report, the dismissive attitude (towards blame) and the laoded nature of the 911 commission (with regards to memebers being independent and unbiased) cannot be papered over or ignored.


All right then, tell me, who would be ona genuine independent and unbiased commission? Anyone experienced in disaster scene forensics is almost certainly goign to be in the gov't I.E FEMA, while anyoen knowledgable about airline procedures is naturally goign to be from one of the airlines. It's a given that anyone from the military who can testify on NORAD procedures or anti-terror responses are going to be right out, too. Of course, any educational institution I,.E. MIT is going to have military ties as well.

Who the heck is left? Yeah, Alex Jones is great for getting people all paranoid and dropping innuendo, and Dylan Avery is good at making internet videos in their dorm room, but how many passenger jet crash sites have they been to, exactly?


It doesn't matter if I read the entire report or none of it, the TRUTH is still the TRUTH!


On the contrary, it does matter. The entire reason the gov't released the report was specifically to answer the questions we had about the attack. If your intention really is to look for the truth then it becomes your obligation to read the thing, and if you think the report is a pack of lies, then it still becomes your obligation to read the thing to point out what the lies are so you can say, "Here is why they're lying...".

What gets my goat is that this very forum is littered with insipid questions (I.E. why was there a stand down) that they would have known the answer to, if they had only taken the time to read it. Instead, they go to get their information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, and you already know what my opinion is on that.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 
They had the power to issue subpoenas but The Kean/Zelikow commission avoided that for the most part it came to a head when former senator Max Cleland complained about the Administration's stonewalling." "We shouldn't be making deals,"If somebody wants to deal, we issue subpoenas. That's the deal." - former senator Max Celeand.Shortly after that interview Cleland left the commission though some feel he was forced out..

[edit on 123131p://5726 by mike dangerously]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, tell me, who would be on a genuine independent and unbiased commission?


I think it is possible to get necessary experts in the different fields required without them being total Bush government Stooges! I mean seriously they tried to install Henry Kissinger for goodness sake!

And Philip Zelikow is hardly any better.

The chances of the commission being anything BUT a whitewash were nil from the outset.




those damned fool conspiracy web sites


Oh the irony!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Hello ATS!

I've had my doubts regarding the Official Story (OS) almost from the beginning. It started with a compelling gut feeling that I had to learn as much as I could about 911. To research and absorb information and find out what really happened. The more I looked, the more I found unanswered questions that I couldn't ignore.

I put some of these down in my thread: 40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque, which you should feel free to check out.

I continued to research the events of that historic albeit infamous day, and continued to ask increasingly difficult questions.

Along my journey I have taken on the label of "Truther", I'm quite proud of it actually. For me it means something, it means I search for the TRUTH. In my eyes, this a noble notion.


Holocaust Deniers have made the same "appeal for legitimacy" for over 50 years. It didn't get them anywhere except the dustbin of history and it won't get you anywhere either.

Reason, evidence, and intellectual honesty win every time.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
From what I read in various forums, Truthers tend to be insecure, starting multiple threads explaining trying to show everyone that they shouldn't be questioned.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Holocaust Deniers have made the same "appeal for legitimacy" for over 50 years. It didn't get them anywhere except the dustbin of history and it won't get you anywhere either.

Reason, evidence, and intellectual honesty win every time.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble.



That is a really unfair comparison. the 9/11 Truth movement has it's strokes of idiocy but good god it is NOTHING like the Holocaust Denial movement. Comparing the death of a few thousand people from a terrorist attack to the outright genocide and democide of entire populations is as reasonable as comparing a mine shaft collapse to a 50 megaton nuclear bomb explosion.

And i am NOT truther mind you. I saw the towers crumble from my high schools top floor _ I remember my Uncle (NJCPD detective) showing up at the family restaurant coughing up dust and a few days later showing us pictures he took at ground zero. I have friends whose parents worked at the WTC. I grew up 20 minutes outside of the city. AND i am a Jew (messianic mind you). To compare 9/11 to the holocaust in any way just demonstrates how little Reason, Evidence and intellectual honesty you demonstrate when even discussing the subject. The truthers have every right to question the OS. One of the most intellectually honest things you can do is question the OS as well as the "Truther" arguments.



Having that said My personal stance with the Truthers as well as the OS believers is one of Sheer Skepticism. The fact of the matter is that if the government was covering up something they could EASILY forge evidence to cover up anything that could hint at a conspiracy. Let's take the black box recordings from the aircraft for example. All they would need would be decent actors and a good sound effects crew. Recording on Analog tape is not like building a landscape from scratch in MAYA 3D. But that aside i also question people like Alex Jones because their whole shtick is railing the government and discussing conspiracies and pretty quickly you can find a way to turn a bogus retelling of a tragedy into a cash crop. At the end of the days there is bogus arguments on both sides. The most dangerous things the OS adherents create is this pseudo-intellectual notion that because the government publishes its findings and because some publication says " X amount of scientists agree with the NIST's reports and findings, etc" then it MUST be true. It creates a Complacency complex in which the government can do no wrong if they give us sets of data for us to analyze, and that any and all contradicting data is automatically bogus because...get this " It would be in the official report".

The Danger Truthers pose? You know i don't really see much danger from the truthers. For the most part I do not agree with them, Namely on the " there were no planes that hit the towers" argument, saying they were CGI. And i have seen no smoking gun evidence of explosives being used to take down the towers either. Like i said i am NOT a truther. But what i admire about the truthers is that they are not afraid to ask questions. And i have, *GASP* , Met really reasonable and well spoken truthers as well who even said that 9/11 truth does not necessarily equate to a grandiose conspiracy!

So i have something to ask for all of you OS adherents and the more "crazy" truthers ( the CGI airplanes and missiles in the pentagon types) What if the side you are arguing against is right? But better yet. What if you are BOTH wrong? As for me, i'm probably going to be a skeptic no matter how many independent reports and government reports come out. IMHO Something with this much political power should not be taken in absolutes. From my experience the Truthers are the "crazier" bunch, but that distinguishment doesn't make them any more worse than the OS adherents who mindlessly gobble up official reports.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield

So i have something to ask for all of you OS adherents and the more "crazy" truthers ( the CGI airplanes and missiles in the pentagon types) What if the side you are arguing against is right? But better yet. What if you are BOTH wrong?


I'd like to answer that mate with a quote from my OP.


As a Truther, I'm seeking the answers to my questions and if I find out that the OS is correct, so be it. I'm completely open minded and prepared to accept that this is the case. I don't care about being right, or proving a conspiracy theory for the sake of being correct, I just want the truth. Nothing more, nothing less!


I hope that helps in answering your question!

All the best, Kiwifoot!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
My beliefs are along the lines of "Truthers" in a lot of respects.
However I could care less about truthers.
Instead my interest lies in THE TRUTH.
I feel that debates about truthers etc, distract from the truth and the facts.
Its not about any of us.
Its about getting to the bottom of what happened and figuring out what to do about it.





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join