What’s more important to you?

reply to post by Alfie1

You say you " don't assume someone who would take part in such a thing would feel guilty to begin with. " Well, there are of course psychopaths for whom that would be true but, fortunately, they are rare. However, as regards alleged 9/11 inside job conspirators, we are not talking about the dregs of death row.

The vast majority of psychopaths are not murderers and are not on death row.

To be of any use to the alleged conspiracy they had to be educated people with professional expertise of some sort.

And who ever gave you the impression that such people cannot be remorseless?

Not only that, you are suggesting these people are very family orientated and would not do anything to put them at risk.

I don’t believe I ever expressed that one had to be the other, but I have no problem seeing why people who could be psychotically driven by an ideology or power could also want to protect their children. People are complex.

So far as Obama letting Bush/Cheney off lightly about war crimes, I don't want to get into that but what you are suggesting is very different from a pro-active policy of killing people to cover up for them

Well, as someone who has as little faith in Obama as I have in Bush I don’t have trouble understanding why others would feel the same.


[edit on 12-3-2010 by litmuspaper]

reply to post by litmuspaper

I’m not trying to mislead anyone

I didn't mean to suggest you were, at least not purposely. I don't have the context or experience dealing with you to even think of trying to make that suggestion. Though there are many in the movement who have knowingly constructed false evidence, cherry picked data, and have made baseless accusations for personal gain. Be that gain attention (+ or -) or monetary.

Whether or not your misleading people can be debated, and often is here on ATS and in other conspiracy forums... yet, if intent to knowingly mislead others is not or can not established, then it loses it's social stigma and weight as an accusation. Unintentionally misleading others comes in the form of making mistakes, misjudgments, or miscommunication between what you mean by your words and what a listener infers your words to mean.

the truth is what I’m interested in.

As a general rule, I've found that the "truth" is a goal most people claim to be in pursuit of - but typically most often accepted when it's convenient or can be molded to taste & preconception. Were Diogenes still alive, I have no doubt he'd still be carrying his lamp to this day. That's why science is a methodology independent of the observer, to help weed out bias that we hold and exercise on the subconscious level.

I’m being completely genuine when I ask: have you really followed the movement at all?

For about the first four years, mostly spurned on by distrust of Bush, the Neocon & Religious Right who had started to become the more visual/vocal members of the conservative movement, and a concern over the encouragement of uber-patriot-near-nationalist sentiment which flourished and was manipulated to build a case for the Iraq War based on little to no evidence and "gut feelings".

By that time, I was no more convinced of the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as I was convinced the Iraq War was justified... and I think the truther movement did more damage for their involvement than good by fostering a false perception of those who criticized the government's actions. Not... "at fault", but definitely not helpful during a very critical time.

People have tried to petition the government head on.

How big was the petition and demand from the public was there for Oliver North to be tried? Was there REALLY that much public demand and petitioning to establish whether or not Clinton dipped his presidential pen in the secretaries inkwells? Outcry and activism means little. If you want incitements and accountability, you are going to need evidence which meets a higher grade of standard than most people want to apply to their pet theories. Good intentions and devotion to a cause are admirable, but not applicable to the system in any useful capacity.

too bad the media focuses on the crazies and ignores people who aren’t even part of huge truther “movements”

The media is there to entertain, not inform. They're selling a product, and competing against other stations for your viewership. That some of their shows are "News Oriented" doesn't mean they're going to let the facts get in the way of a good story. It's a balance between useful information that people want, and fluff they like. Too much info, it gets stale and boring... too much fluff, it's tabloid trash.

I would suggest getting news indirectly from sources which are not advertiser based and/or which are marketed to a niche audience which demands accuracy as a function of their industry. The problem there is, if you find a source which is not advertisement based - you must be willing to pick up the extra slack in publishing cost. They will be more comprehensive, in depth, analytical, and generally much bulkier so long as printing costs don't overcome distribution... but you'll also be paying 50.00 to 60.00 for an issue vs. 2.50~5.00 newsstand price on advertiser based sources.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here and in general about television and print media... and much of that becomes mistrust and cynicism as accusations based on those misconceptions become more distorted.

they don’t go as far as saying the government is involved

I seem to recall several programs which did explore the truther angle or leaned towards insinuation that they're on to something... but typically only as a means to build interest and pad the storyline. Typical conspiracy format... 2/3rds unchallenged conspiracy theory assertions and uncritical analysis of their claims... 1/3rd "skeptical" air brushing of facts and their positions without fully exploring the implications of either... the whole discussion is homogenized and watered down... and then you the viewer are invited to believe whatever the hell you want and draw your own conclusions based on what they presented.

Pffft. Same format for "ID vs. Evolution" where a controversy is scripted for market appeal regardless of weight of evidence.

And if they don’t only address the nuts, then they try to turn any sane person into a nut like the Japanese Member of Parliament.

I would question the relevance of a JP Parliament member, though if he had demonstrable evidence and a good working knowledge of any number of scientific fields which could be used to analyze evidence... perhaps. But just because they're in government doesn't mean their opinion is worth a damn. Mike Huckabee wants to challenge Evolution being taught in schools, yet does anyone really think he's qualified to make those criticisms? This is actually a big issue we're going to have to face as science and technology start to change our society... and laws governing them are being created by scientific illiterates. Case in point, copyright laws. The internet has radically changed how we engage with copyrights on IP... and it's not just pictures & music. Gene patenting has been patched to prevent ownership of naturally occuring genes... but what of designer genes which evolve naturally, or are passed on from a gene therapy patient to offspring? Never mind the stem cell debate/debacles.

In matters of law, I would accept a politicians understanding far more than I would their understanding of Science.

Well I guess it’s good that you spent so much time addressing a moot issue

Well, I felt like sharing my opinion. It's not like everybody in the truther movement is innocent of injecting their opinion into discussions... regardless of the topic. Sometimes proper forum or manners are ignored... spread where it is intended specifically to annoy and irritate so as to generate spectacle. Sometimes with bullhorns... and it seems in some cases that being right or accurate or justified is secondary to merely being heard and dominating the area. Again, some are undeniably in it for the attention and the role play.

I have to wonder why people like you participate in the first place.

Why not? I don't come here to troll, but to be exposed to contrary opinions. I doubt my mind will be changed on most topics, based on prior experience and familiarity with various subjects. But if I do not expose myself to contrary opinions, I'm merely enslaving myself to my current opinions by sheltering them from dissenting views.

I find falsification to be a powerful tool for accuracy.

It's not my intent to derail the subject, merely to express my view. The subject matter of your OP relates directly to the video I posted, as the insinuation of "reconstruction" of the environment detailed in the SPE in Abu-Gharib is being levied by the man who created the SPE... and he further discusses in those talks the roles of environment in creating heroes who put themselves at risk to basically be whistle blowers and put a stop to injustice and abuse - even at the threat of repercussion self and kin. He served as the defense counselor for Ivan Frederick who took part in the abuses.. as as well as leaked the controversial abuse photos to family and friends.

The whistle blower who also put a stop to the abuses in the SPE and shut the experiment down, later became his wife. So while he does elaborate more on why people are not just complacent, but contribute, to immoral and evil situations/initiatives... he doesn't ignore the flip side of the coin which can turn the same "evil" potential into heroism and sacrifice in the right situation.

Abu-Gharib and SPE were controlled environments... but the world as a whole is not, and to suggest that a conspiracy could be so in control and so thorough as to force multitudes of individuals into silent capitulation... I can't see it happening. Typically, we don't. There usually is a whistle blower revealing the scandal to the public and forcing action... whether for monetary gain, political maneuvering, altruism, guilt... something will motivate someone in a large and diverse enough group to spill the beans.

Originally posted by litmuspaper
reply to post by vicen

 

This is because, regardless of the views of the majority of people on this forum, 9/11 was an attack by Al Qaeda.

www.youtube.com...

With 9/11, you're talking about keeping thousands quiet. It's just not possible.
And consider the people that those in the know would have told, eg, husbands/wives/brothers/friends/psychiatrists. The list just expands & expands.

Not necessarily, there are all kinds of theories. The government could have known of the attack for months, or longer, and could have allowed it to happen. That wouldn’t require a huge amount of conspirators.

Ah well, that is a whole different ball game from Bush/Cheney engineering the whole thing.

I still don't believe it because it was a huge embarrasment for the administration , they had failed in their primary duty to protect citizens. And I am sure Bush could have come up with something more presidential than looking gob-smacked in front of a bunch of schoolchildren if he knew what was coming.

But, was there negligence about warnings, was there negligence in security, was there negligence in response ? I think these are questions worth examining, not in a witch hunt way, and it is a pity that it is being obscured by controlled demolition rubbish etc.

reply to post by litmuspaper

"The government could have known of the attack for months, or longer, and could have allowed it to happen."

They could have known, but neither yourself nor anyone else has any real evidence that this was the case.

reply to post by Lasheic

yet, if intent to knowingly mislead others is not or can not established, then it loses it's social stigma and weight as an accusation. Unintentionally misleading others comes in the form of making mistakes, misjudgments, or miscommunication between what you mean by your words and what a listener infers your words to mean.

That can be said about anyone involved in any movement, you can’t blame a concept because of the way some might mishandle it.

As a general rule, I've found that the "truth" is a goal most people claim to be in pursuit of

I actually don’t think the truth is the biggest issue on most people’s minds in this debate. I think they just want to be agreed with.

If you want incitements and accountability, you are going to need evidence which meets a higher grade of standard than most people want to apply to their pet theories. Good intentions and devotion to a cause are admirable, but not applicable to the system in any useful capacity.

I definitely agree, but I don’t think you can claim a movement must be enrooted in falsehoods just because it is not yet paid enough attention by the mainstream. Many scientific theories we teach in schools now were solid, but they were opposed for years by the majority.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here and in general about television and print media... and much of that becomes mistrust and cynicism as accusations based on those misconceptions become more distorted.

I definitely agree with all of that, but if you’re going to reach anyone you have to gain a certain amount of popularity or play the games of the mainstream to an extent.

I seem to recall several programs which did explore the truther angle or leaned towards insinuation that they're on to something... but typically only as a means to build interest and pad the storyline. Typical conspiracy format... 2/3rds unchallenged conspiracy theory assertions and uncritical analysis of their claims... 1/3rd "skeptical" air brushing of facts and their positions without fully exploring the implications of either... the whole discussion is homogenized and watered down... and then you the viewer are invited to believe whatever the hell you want and draw your own conclusions based on what they presented.

Pffft. Same format for "ID vs. Evolution" where a controversy is scripted for market appeal regardless of weight of evidence.

Yeah, the same can be said for any conspiracy I can think of.

But just because they're in government doesn't mean their opinion is worth a damn.

I never said otherwise. My point is he isn’t a nut, so why turn him into one because he disagrees with the OS? It’s their first instinct.

Well, I felt like sharing my opinion

I get that, but you could have done it in an appropriate thread.

contrary opinions

I don’t mind them, but you went completely off topic. Sounds like you just used my thread to vent without considering the content in it.

Originally posted by vicen
reply to post by litmuspaper

 

"The government could have known of the attack for months, or longer, and could have allowed it to happen."

They could have known, but neither yourself nor anyone else has any real evidence that this was the case.

Never heard of the warnings? Hm.

www.mediamonitors.net...

Dead horse.

Find somewhere else to beat it.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

Because MSM won't supply you or spoon feed you:

And so you open with the most overused and tired canard in the stereotype trope. Again, I would suggest that efforts of the "truth" movement may be more effective if they stuck more to fact than slinging baseless assumptions and accusations.

you probably haven't spent much time looking at photographic evidence from the felling of the twin towers (have you???).

I have seen my fair share of collapse photos, but I am not qualified to give anything other than a casual opinion. I am not a structural engineer, nor do I have access to all the necessary experience, education, or evidence to make a speculation on internet photographs. I wouldn't suggest that my "intuition" or speculation could justifiably be promoted as evidence.

However, I do know enough to ask some other pertinent questions, and not jump to a conclusion before having a satisfactory answer. For instance, you mention steel beams being ejected vertically - however, the picture you provided shows only one (that I noticed) substantial instance of this occurring. Most of the obvious pieces are shooting out horizontally or are falling.

What I want to know, is how you know that object you're pointing to is a steel beam? How do you know it's composition, what part of the structure it originally was attached to, what is it's weight, and how did it move through the air while being ejected? Can you pick it out in a moving image to get it's trajectory?

You assert that it is a steel beam. I see a black line which could be any number of possible debris items which were in the building that I wasn't aware of prior to it's collapse. A steel beam could certainly be ejected as it followed a path of momentum after breaking off a larger section of the outer frame. There's too much smoke for me to make that determination... but it is quite common. Further, without knowing the mass and dimensions of the object in question I have no means by which to determine if it could instead be a lighter and thinner object than a steel beam - requiring less initial momentum to eject it at such angles and if it's flat like a piece of sheeting - you have to factor in how the air affected it's trajectory.

Honestly, again... I'm not qualified enough to provide reliable conjecture on the tower collapse, but based on a casual opinion - I would expect more vertical debris being ejected from an explosive charge. It doesn't seem out of the ordinary at least in comparison to other gravity driven demolitions I've seen. In fact, even when explosives are employed, vertical ejections seem rather rare.

Ultimately, I have to ask why you demand I explain the steel beam in that photo when you haven't even established that it is a steel beam.

Since there are troops supporting this scheme that started with 9/11, don't you think it is worth the time of day to make sure that it is right that our best and brightest are dying for something that is real???

Which conflict do you refer to? Iraq or Afghanistan? I had already stated prior that I did not support the proposition of war with Iraq based on insufficient evidence. Whatever connection they may or may not have tried to make between 9/11 and Iraq was banal and insubstantial. In regards to Afghanistan, there is plenty enough evidence to suggest Al-Qaeda had strong operational ties to that nation. We're only fighting the Taliban because they wouldn't cooperate with our retaliation. This isn't the first time they have attacked American targets, and not the first time the WTC was attacked in their name. Nor is it the first time we've retaliated militarily for those attacks. The Afghanistan War was in full swing long before cleanup and analysis of the collapse was completed. It was initiated so quickly, that I don't think most people at the time really - significantly - care who we retaliated on. The "Truth" movement didn't matter in the initial stages of the war... because we were hurt, and we wanted someone, anyone, to strike back at.

Personally, I'm more dissapointed that we didn't press or take some kind of political (at least) action against Saudi Arabia for their role in all of this, but it was their oil and their government's influence which we apparently couldn't afford to loose. I'll shed no tears when their resources are no longer in demand and their economy collapses because their riches were squandered on Western merchandise when it should have been used building infrastructure, education, and enacting the social reforms necessary to make an information society work.

Regardless, I think we owe it to Afghanistan and Iraq now to help fix what we started. And they will make useful allies in the region. But they see us as transitory self-interested invaders, and cooperation efforts are sabotaged by a lack of faith in our ability to protect the civilians from tribal retaliation. We have cultured a well deserved reputation for using civilians and then bugging out, leaving their asses hanging in the breeze when it wasn't convenient for us.

Yeah, you're never going to stop fighting the "War on Terror". We have been waging it since before Guy Fawkes's gunpowder treason, and we will continue to wage it. Just like we are still loosing police and military officers to pirate raids hundreds of years after the heyday of Black Beard and Mary Read.

That 9/11 was exploited for political and financial gain by various parties is well known, and well documented. It's not in serious contest the way some truthers have tried to paint the picture. However, it does not follow that an event manipulated for substantial gain was necessarily premeditated and executed purposefully for by the benefiting parties to that effect.

Vultures gorge themselves on roadkill, but they are not necessarily responsible for the invention of the automobile and establishment of the highway department.

The theory that the government couldn't possibly keep something as big as 9-11 a secret is predicated on the false belief that somehow whistleblowers are a dime a dozen. The fact is most people will do what they are told and keep their mouth shut in even the most trivial of illegal and immoral schemes, like the administrative assistant for a doctor or dentist who dutifully double-bills an insurance company for one procedure so the doctor can double his fee. The Admin knows what they are doing is wrong but their job depends on it and so, mum is the word. In the case of a crime as huge as 9-11 you can be sure that everyone that is in on the caper knows full well that not only their lives, but also the lives of their families are dependant upon their complicit silence.

Orchestrated leaks of sensitive info is a staple of the Washington political scene and should not be construed as a proof that the government can't keep a secret. The fact is that we are totally incapable of discerning what our government's actual ability to conceal and falsify actually is, since any secrets that have been kept from the public knowledge would constitute a success on their part and be completely unknown to us. For all we know there could be thousands upon thousands of nefarious goings-on that have never seem the light of day and never will.

In the case of 9-11, our truest measure of the deception is still the verifiable facts versus the tale spun by the cover-up committee and the president. The story just doesn't line up with what little facts we were allowed to have, not to mention the additional facts that honest scientists, pilots, etc. have been able to add. For all the bashing that the Truthers have taken, I have to say that I'm proud of them. Afterall it was the Nazis who boasted that if they told an outrageous lie loudly for a long enough time, then it would eventually be accepted as the truth. The 9-11 Truthers may well be proof that that is not always the case.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by godless]

reply to post by godless


I tend to agree with most of what you said godless (obviously).
….

Just want anyone else who replies to this thread to know I’ll address your posts on Monday.

Signing off for the weekend, have to tuck the kiddy in and focus all my energy on her for a few days.

reply to post by litmuspaper


Dear litmuspaper

The big problem with exposing this 9/11 cover up, is it will be the end.

The end of what???

Just about civilization as we know it.

You think the economic situation is bad right now just wait until it gets exposed in the MSM.

I guess first to go over the water fall will be the stock market closely followed by all American banks.

The Europeans will follow in much the same way.

No money and your security agencies will become a thing of history.

It is not just going to be a few people in hand cuffs on the ten o’clock news. Simply because they are all in it right up to their necks. If they are not part of the event for sure they are part of the cover up.

It head for the hills time, be careful what you wish for.

reply to post by litmuspaper

If I had information that 9/11 was an inside job, you could bet your bottom dollar that I would get that information to every reputable news org. in the world, and I would do it in such a way that no one would know who it came from.

There are ways to keep parts of yourself unknown even to those who know you well. It's not that hard.



Peace.

reply to post by godless


Then explain Watergate, for example, which compared to a plot as massive and complex as 9/11 hardly registers. I don't think it's a stretch to assert that Nixon was as astute, intelligent, savvy, experienced as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, yet he ends up a hairs breadth away from impeachment & all those involved blab almost immediately.

You say "in the case of a crime as huge as 9-11 you can be sure that everyone that is in on the caper knows full well that not only their lives, but also the lives of their families are dependant upon their complicit silence."

This is all well & good & without it every 9/11 conspiracy theory pretty much collapses, but we're not talking about a couple of dozen conspirators. It must be thousands, not including theose that those in the know have told, eg, family members.

If this idea that not a single person with knowledge of the truth will go public is treated with the same scrutiny as other elements in the proposed inside job theory, eg the minute and exhaustive study of every millisecond of the collapse of building 7, you're in some trouble. What if one of the many who know anonymously gets in touch with a journalist? How does the cabal behind 9/11 have any idea what any of the thousands are going to do next? How do they even know who the lower level operatives have told?

So the plotters require 100% silence from EVERYBODY, even from people they don't even know exist, ie those that have been confided in.

While theoretically this might be possible, and is indeed essential for 9/11 and other conspiracies, in real life it doesn't happen. A journalist gets an anonymous tip that makes Watergate look like a cat stuck up a tree, but doesn't act on it because he or she is afraid? Even if this were true, it doesn't even make sense, because the conspirators will have no idea who, if anybody, has actually made some anonymous phone call.

Er, here I am making a quick appearance, what can I say? I’m a 9/11 debate addict.

Taupin Desciple---
I’ve addressed this repeatedly, but I’ll do it again. You can’t possibly know what information a potential whistleblower will have, it could just be that they were witness to something, like a high government official paling around with a Saudi who was linked to the funding of the hijackers.

How does one testify to such a claim if they do not step out of the shadows? To have anyone believe what they have to say they would at least need to sign an affidavit and eventually speak openly in a court of law. Maybe they don’t have tangible evidence on hand.

And while I think your statement is noble I find it hard to believe if you really thought death was the potential result for you and your family, that you would be so brave.


Vicen----
As I addressed before vicen people like you are putting 9/11 in a box. There are , again, several theories, one being that a limited amount of people knew it would take place and allowed it to happen, but they did not plot it and act it out. This would not require any sort of massive, complex plan.

As for Watergate, again, like I’ve stated repeatedly, our government has been involved in plots the likes of which will never see the light of day, the heads of our government admit this, the head of the FBI admits this, and while I’ve never personally seen/read the current head of the CIA saying the same I’m sure this has been discussed in the past and I know freedom of information acts related to the CIA have shown this to be a fact.

If you really think that Watergate is somehow proof positive that the government can’t keep us from knowing things it doesn’t want us to know then I don’t know how to discuss this issue with you, and those who follow that logic.

I mean after all these years of denying Area 51s existance, with ALL the people who have worked there, how many do you know of who have told everyone what really goes on there? How much time passed before the government was even willing to give a slight explanation of what its there for and what goes on there without any significant leaks?

[edit on 13-3-2010 by litmuspaper]

I still don't believe it because it was a huge embarrasment for the administration

Hm, Alfie, I don't know that it was.

By the time anyone cared and got over just being patriotic sheep the embarrassment wasn't a big deal to the majority of the American people.

And despite the "embarrasment" they got everything they wanted out of the attack. They got their wars, they got their Patriot Act and new Executive order, they got it all.