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.

 

Too many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let´s narrow it down.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Now as for the OS being wrong. I disagree. I believe the OS may have some inconsistences, people made mistakes, some people lied to cover their backs or others backs, but I do believe that basically the OS is the truth.


True things are not inconsistent with themselves. Inconsistencies cannot - by definition - all be true, if one thing is inconsistent with another that means one or both of the things are false. Theories - for example the OS - which are inconsistent with themselves, or with real observations, cannot be, and are not, true.

From Merriam-Webster - Inconsistent: : containing incompatible elements See: an inconsistent argument

Things are true or false. Not "basically" true or false, or "complicatedly" true or false. If there are any false parts, the story is false. That's what false means; that there are parts which are untrue.





Phase two: real investigation. There just isn't sufficient evidence to debate the details of any particular conspiracy theories.


Now. I don´t think I understand you here. You say there just isn´t sufficient evidence to debate the details of any particular CT but just above you claim the OS has been prooven wrong.
How was this done if not with evidence??


There's enough evidence to rule out the OS but not enough evidence to confirm any complete theory of what actually happened. Analogy: If someone keys your car, you may not know who did it, but you can rule out(for example) yourself. You know you didn't do it, you know someone else did, but you don't know who. I know the OS isn't right, I don't know what actually happened, but I know that something happened which is not the OS.

This is not a nonsensical argument. There is evidence which falsifies the OS, but there is not enough evidence to construct a complete explanation for what happened. Another analogy: A person is murdered and John Smith is accused of doing it. If John Smith has a rock solid alibi, then there is enough evidence to rule out John Smith as the killer. There may not be enough evidence to say who the real killer is, but clearly we can rule out John Smith. For 9/11, there is not enough evidence to say what actually happened, but clearly it wasn't the OS.

[edit on 4/8/10 by OnceReturned]

[edit on 4/8/10 by OnceReturned]




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


If you think that inconsistency is indicative of untruth then surely you must reject truther theories and support the "official story " if you want to call it that.

For the best part of 9 years the OS has been that 4 planes were hi-jacked by muslim radicals on 9/11. Two were flown into the twin towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania as a result of the passengers fighting back. All this has been backed up by buckets of physical, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence . The basics have not changed.

Truther theories, on the other hand, have sprouted like weeds. Controlled demolition, nuclear weapons, beam weapons, ufo's ,hologram planes, missiles, disguised military planes, remote-controlled planes, planes switched, passengers unloaded different places, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake black boxes, aircraft debris and dna dumped, witnesses paid off or in on it etc etc.

If you seriously think inconsistency is important then it seems to me a no-brainer. A solid account which has stood unchanged for years against a welter of unsubstantiated theories which constantly grow and morph.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

There's enough evidence to rule out the OS but not enough evidence to confirm any complete theory of what actually happened. Analogy: If someone keys your car, you may not know who did it, but you can rule out(for example) yourself. You know you didn't do it, you know someone else did, but you don't know who. I know the OS isn't right, I don't know what actually happened, but I know that something happened which is not the OS.


The problem for you is that all your "evidence to rule out the OS" is complete rubbish being manufactured by those damned fool conspiracy web sites who are deliberately misrepresenting everythign to get people all paranoid over shadows. I and my compatriots have posted enough evidence of that so that there can no longer be any debate on this.

Thus, a better analogy is that yes, there's plenty of evidence that shows the Jews conspired to plunder Germany and instigate a war of extermination against the German people, but when you see that all this evidence is coming from the Nazi propaganda ministry, we need to reconsider exactly how credible this "evidence" actually is. Likewise, there's plenty of evidence showing the 9/11 plot was an inside job, but when we see all this evidence is coming from a bunch of college kids making internet videos in their dorm rooms to sell their T-shirts, we likewise need to reconsider exactly how credible this "evidence" is. Simply saying theere's plenty of evidence supporting this accusation or that theory is largely meaningless.

Come on, now, seriously, when we find out that the whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" fable started from some French guy marketing a conspiracy book he wrote, even a ten year old can see that it's less of an actual investigation into allegations of conspiracy and more of a ploy to make a fast buck off gullible people. Such con artists are the whole reason why your movement has been stunted by so many crackpot conspiracy claims to begin with.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



The problem for you is that all your "evidence to rule out the OS" is complete rubbish being manufactured by those damned fool conspiracy web sites who are deliberately misrepresenting everythign to get people all paranoid over shadows. I and my compatriots have posted enough evidence of that so that there can no longer be any debate on this.


The problem here is you never have been able to prove the OS true. If you think posting insults and opinions are facts you are sadly mistaken.
No OS believer has ever been able to show proof that the OS is all-true, and God knows enough lies have been proven in the OS, and that is a fact that everyone can agree on.
I agree there are some website out there that do mislead everyone including the gov.org, CNN, FOX, MSN, BBC, ect… and at the same time they are making a killing in advertising, all of them making millions of dollars a years selling stuff. You talk about the 911 conspiracies website making money, why not. We live in a capitalist society, opportunities are for everyone to making money on the internet to support their websites, and that is a good thing, don’t you agree?

Talk about misrepresenting everything to get the people paranoid, I think our government and media dose enough of that 24/7.



Thus, a better analogy is that yes, there's plenty of evidence that shows the Jews conspired to plunder Germany and instigate a war of extermination against the German people, but when you see that all this evidence is coming from the Nazi propaganda ministry, we need to reconsider exactly how credible this "evidence" actually is.


Your ignorance proceeds you, and your information is wrong in your above quote. The [color=gold] Jews did not conspired to plunder Germany and that is a fact.


[color=gold]Jews in Nazi Germany


www.historylearningsite.co.uk...


[COLOR=GOLD]HOLOCAUST ENCYCLOPEDIA[/COLOR]


WWW.USHMM.ORG...

YOUR analogy is false.


Come on, now, seriously, when we find out that the whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" fable started from some French guy marketing a conspiracy book he wrote, even a ten year old can see that it's less of an actual investigation into allegations of conspiracy and more of a ploy to make a fast buck off gullible people. Such con artists are the whole reason why your movement has been stunted by so many crackpot conspiracy claims to begin with.


Everyone has an opinion, including book writers, however it doesn’t prove a "cruise missile” didn’t hit the pentagon, does it?

I don’t think a ten year old can fully understand the complexity and the lies of the OS to even make such judgment.

The Truth movement is not stunted by many crackpots.



[color=gold] ******** NEW SECTION 400+ Medical Professionals NEW SECTION ********

200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,100+ Engineers and Architects

250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals

400+ Professors Question 9/11

300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals



WWW.PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM...


[color=gold] 1165 architectural and engineering professionals
and 7830 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.


WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG...

I supose you want to call all these creible educated professinals crackpots as well.





[edit on 8-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
For the best part of 9 years the OS has been that 4 planes were hi-jacked by muslim radicals on 9/11. Two were flown into the twin towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania as a result of the passengers fighting back. All this has been backed up by buckets of physical, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence . The basics have not changed.


What this tells me is that MOST of the official story is true. However, some details were intentionally misleading, others intentionally omitted to create crazy theories (like a missile hitting the Pentagon), while some details may have been completely fabricated (death tolls, anyone?).


Originally posted by Alfie1
Truther theories, on the other hand, have sprouted like weeds. Controlled demolition, nuclear weapons, beam weapons, ufo's ,hologram planes, missiles, disguised military planes, remote-controlled planes, planes switched, passengers unloaded different places, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake black boxes, aircraft debris and dna dumped, witnesses paid off or in on it etc etc.


And you better believe the government is thankful for every one of these crackpot theories that spring up. Each new theory only serves to muddle the entire picture, and makes it more difficult for the mass public to believe in an alternate story. There's a reason the government helped perpetuate the "missile hit a Pentagon" theory (as well as the remote controlled/windowless plane theory, in my opinion).

If the average person is to accept that 9/11 was a conspiracy, they have to know EXACTLY what happened and it can't stray too far from what they already KNOW happened (4 hijacked planes crashed into 4 targets with passengers onboard).



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
The problem here is you never have been able to prove the OS true. If you think posting insults and opinions are facts you are sadly mistaken.
No OS believer has ever been able to show proof that the OS is all-true, and God knows enough lies have been proven in the OS, and that is a fact that everyone can agree on.


I have to admit I am continually fascinated at the concept prevalent among the more unwavering zealous conspiracy supporters that any criticism against their conspiracy stories is perceived as a personal attack against themselves. It is as if you all have such an intense emotional attachment to these conspiracy claims that it becomes theology, and you cannot separate the man from the message. I must tell you that you can go ahead and insult Bush, Obama, Silverstein, or anyone else to your heart's content and yet I don't perceive your criticisms against them as a criticism against myself.

This is neither here nor there. I'm not here to promote the (as you call it) OS becuase if you're of a mind to believe the Pentagon was hit by some UFO and everyone within five square miles of the Pentagon saying it was a passenger jet are really secret gov't disinformation agents...and from your previous posts, I know full well that you are...then you've developed for yourself such an extensive Gordian knot of interconnecting chains of circular logic that there isn't anything anyone on the face of the planet could possibly say that wouls sway you. Rather, I'm here to expose these damned fool conspiracy web sites for the con artists they are, and many of your own fellow conspiracy people here agree with me.

Did it ever occur to you that your "UFO hit the Pentagon" conspiracy is one of the very extraneous conspiracy theories the OP starting this thread was intending to weed out?


Your ignorance proceeds you, and your information is wrong in your above quote. The [color=gold] Jews did not conspired to plunder Germany and that is a fact.


You really are an expert in seeing only that which you want to see. I *said* that there is evidence the Jews were out to plunder Germany but it was all coming from (and obviously manufactured by) the Nazi propaganda ministry and therefore of zero credibility, and if you are denying this then you are lying. One merely needs to see some of the "Jewish World Order" conspiracies being posted by your fellow conspiracy mongers here to see that the idea isn't exclusively atributable to the Nazis, either.

You really have no credibility either, Impressme.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Let us please not forget this:::

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

No reason for anyone to get Warned or lose Posting Privileges...

BUT

The SNIDE Comments STOP NOW

Semper



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 



What this tells me is that MOST of the official story is true.


Common logic tells us the OS is a lie especially when there is little to no evidence to support it.


There's a reason the government helped perpetuate the "missile hit a Pentagon" theory (as well as the remote controlled/windowless plane theory, in my opinion).


That is your opinion and you have not presented any proof that the government didn’t fly a missile into the pentagon, or they didn’t use remote controlled / windowless planes.

We are on a fact find mission NOT an opinion mission, into solving the proven lies of the OS.


If the average person is to accept that 9/11 was a conspiracy, they have to know EXACTLY what happened and it can't stray too far from what they already KNOW happened (4 hijacked planes crashed into 4 targets with passengers onboard).


The problem is no one knows “EXACTLY” what happened. Secondly, because the OS has mostly been proven a lie, it is now proven that the OS is the conspiracy.

Were the planes really hijacked? You have no proof of that; there is no credible evidence to support it. As far as the hijackers goes, it has been proven seven out of the nineteen are alive and doing well.

Did the actual planes belong to American and United Airlines, we really do not know because the FAA and the FBI are not willing to share any critical records to truthfully conform this information, furthermore there are no maintenance records, or records of their “time change out parts” that could properly identify the crashed airliners. The FBI came out publicly and said they did NOT investigate any of the four plane crashes.

[color=gold]

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

pilotsfor911truth.org...

For the fist, time in America aviation history four commercial airliners crashed in one day and our government is not interested to know what really happened, and there are no records to prove anything. This is the greatest air disaster that ever happened on American soil yet our government chooses to ignore it. This alone convinces me those planes are NOT what they appear to be and the government and FAA are covering up something very important that will criminalize them.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Common logic tells us the OS is a lie especially when there is little to no evidence to support it.


But 4 planes did hit 4 targets. The question is, was there anybody in those planes?



That is your opinion and you have not presented any proof that the government didn’t fly a missile into the pentagon, or they didn’t use remote controlled / windowless planes.


I think the second piece of security footage released shows a plane crashing into the Pentagon pretty well, but it's not 100% provable.

www.youtube.com...

Also, what evidence is there for remote-controlled planes?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Did it ever occur to you that your "UFO hit the Pentagon" conspiracy is one of the very extraneous conspiracy theories the OP starting this thread was intending to weed out?



Everyone knows no UFO hit the pentagon, but there are those that will make those claims to only insult the truth movement. To call a missal a UFO is really a desperate attempt to discredit the truth movement and in hoping, to make us all look crazy.

I thought we are in here to deny ignorance, NOT promote it.


One merely needs to see some of the "Jewish World Order" conspiracies being posted by your fellow conspiracy mongers here to see that the idea isn't exclusively atributable to the Nazis, either.


Stop lumping all people in the truth movement in one category. Why are you dragging the JEWS into this topic anyway?


You really have no credibility either, Impressme.


What? I have never have made that claim Dave.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


I think the second piece of security footage released shows a plane crashing into the Pentagon pretty well, but it's not 100% provable.

www.youtube.com...


If you see a plane in that video, then please point where? Is this a game?


Also, what evidence is there for remote-controlled planes?


I do not need to do the research for you about remote-controlled technology. It is a proven fact that our military has been using this technology since the late 1960s.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   


1.- The no plane´s hitting the WTC towers, or holograms theory.
This to me is one of the most preposterous ideas.
2.- Right there with no planes would also be DEW. In the form of a weapon fired from another building or from space. Neither one has credibility IMO.
3.- Remote controlled hijacked passenger jets.
4.- Remote controlled secret military jets disguised as passenger jets.
5.- Mini nukes used to bring down the WTC Towers.


Yes, these 5 are bull-crap. If I may be so blunt.

However while the technology such as nukes, remote controlled aircraft exists they did not play any role on 911.


[edit on 4/8/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



So. I would like to start by submitting for comment, the theories that I find the [more unbelievable and see what opinions we get. For example:
1.- The no plane´s hitting the WTC towers, or holograms theory.
This to me is one of the most preposterous ideas.


I agree with you on that, I believe this was lies made up by disinformationist to demonize the truth movement.


2.- Right there with no planes would also be DEW. In the form of a weapon fired from another building or from space. Neither one has credibility IMO.


Correct, I believe some of this was cherry pick from Judy’s wood website again to make the Truth movement look insane. It appears there is a group of disloyal people in this country who have dreamed up such insane ideas, because they have the real agenda. In my opinion their agenda is to safe guard the truth.


3.- Remote controlled hijacked passenger jets.


This is very possible, yet we have not proved it, but circumstantial evidences certainly suggest it.


4.- Remote controlled secret military jets disguised as passenger jets.


Great possibility yet it has not been proven. The government will not turn over any real evidences on the four planes crashes to confirm if those are the said planes, this is why it opens the door to conspiracies theories.


5.- Mini nukes used to bring down the WTC Towers.


There is no proof at this time what explosive were used to bring down the WTC.
Some testing of the ground zero dust does proved there are chemicals in the dust that should not be there. Theses chemicals that scientist found are mostly used in creating military weapons, there is no reason for this to be in the WTC dust. Therefore, this raises some very important questions and only a new investigation to reexamine some of the WTC debris will get us some final answers.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


4.- Remote controlled secret military jets disguised as passenger jets.


Great possibility yet it has not been proven. The government will not turn over any real evidences on the four planes crashes to confirm if those are the said planes, this is why it opens the door to conspiracies theories.


OK. Very good post. I respect your opinion. But I have to say something about this.
As far as I know.
1.- Those were not crashes, like airline crashes. Those were considered criminal acts, and as such, they didn´t have to be investigated as airline crashes. And:
2.- The identities of said airliners was never in question. No need to identify parts from the planes or establish which flights they were. This was never in doubt.
This is a myth that has been created by one of the many "truth movements".




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by rush969
 



5.- Mini nukes used to bring down the WTC Towers.


There is no proof at this time what explosive were used to bring down the WTC.
Some testing of the ground zero dust does proved there are chemicals in the dust that should not be there. Theses chemicals that scientist found are mostly used in creating military weapons, there is no reason for this to be in the WTC dust. Therefore, this raises some very important questions and only a new investigation to reexamine some of the WTC debris will get us some final answers.


You say it as if it has been proven, that explosives were used to bring down the WTC!!! (Thats your opinion...ok.)
I know what you´re going to say.
People heard explosions. The collapse looks like a CD. First time in history.
Those are all arguments used by the several different "truth movements" to try and preserve theories that have been debunked time and time again over the years.
I insist, I respect your opinion, but it´s only that.
The explanation of the collapse, given by NIST and many other institutions working together, with structural engineers amongst them has not been shown to be wrong in any way whatsoever.
It´s suported by science and very specialized structural engineering calculations.



there is no reason for this to be in the WTC dust.


As far as I know, it has been demonstrated that this particles found in dust samples by Prof. Jones could have come from many components present in the buildings. I´m sure you´ve read this things too.
And you and I know, he hasn´t demonstrated or validated the existance of thermite or thermate or nano-whatever in that dust.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by rush969]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
2.- The identities of said airliners was never in question. No need to identify parts from the planes or establish which flights they were. This was never in doubt.
This is a myth that has been created by one of the many "truth movements".



Who here works for the government and is just feeding bull#? How could the plane identities not be in doubt? Some flights supposedly never even took off, others took off at the wrong time, etc.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 
A good post Impressme I have noticed the more holes appear in the official storyline the more the supporters cling to it.I run into that mindset from JFK to Iran Contra the general public refuses to even consider the thought that the US government would support drug dealers and terrorists much less dictators.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by kiwasabi
 

[

Also, what evidence is there for remote-controlled planes?


I do not need to do the research for you about remote-controlled technology. It is a proven fact that our military has been using this technology since the late 1960s.


The technology for remote control goes even farther back than that, but the CT of remote control is nonsense actually.
You see, it would not be feasible to do this unless we assume some very important points first.
1.- The planes would not be the airline planes. They would necessarily have to be special military planes possing as the airliners.
2.- Then we have to account for passengers, crew, communications, flight plans, radar coverage, ATC controllers, DNA, phone calls. All of those would have been faked. Not likely at all.
3.- Eyewitnesses that actually saw and identified the planes as passenger planes of the airlines mentioned. (Fake.)
4.- Video and photographic images that show this airplanes to be those passenger airplanes. (Fake.)
5.- Also, the part about flying by remote control isn´t done at those high speeds. There´s too much risk of loosing control or not hitting the target.
The only way it makes sense is with a suicidal pilot who doesn´t know very well how close he is to disintegrating the plane before reaching the building.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi

Originally posted by rush969
2.- The identities of said airliners was never in question. No need to identify parts from the planes or establish which flights they were. This was never in doubt.
This is a myth that has been created by one of the many "truth movements".



Who here works for the government and is just feeding bull#? How could the plane identities not be in doubt? Some flights supposedly never even took off, others took off at the wrong time, etc.


Well. It´s very simple really.
After the "total ground stop". All flights that had not taken off, remained on the ground.
And all the planes that were flying, landed somewhere.
And there were only 4 flights that didn´t land anywhere.
AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93.
Very easy indeed.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Cherry picking certain theories and calling them preposterous is, to say the least, not a very professional or objective way to enter into an investigation. A skilled, competent and unbiased investigator approaches any case with an open mind, not a smirk. Discounting any theory without the benefit of a full and conclusive investigation is being a tad narrow minded and will rarely lead you to the truth.

Insulting and belittling individuals who put forth unconventional explanations is a sign of insecurity by the scammer, for fear of being exposed as a fraud. This technique, used by your textbook debunker, is to some degree effective, although rather transparent. It is the hope of the debunkers that the fear of ridicule will be a strong enough emotion to prevent most individuals from putting forth or believing such alternative scenarios.

Taking this one step further, it is probably reasonable to state that individuals with lesser intelligence believe the OS, while more intelligent individuals do not believe it. For example, if you are not bright enough to be able to read, what other information alternative do you have other than the TV and word of mouth? This is how television played a big role in selling the bag job.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join