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.

 

A common 9/11 misconception

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I think the main misconception with most "normal" people and 9/11(and by normal people, I mean people who have never in their lives broken a law, lied about anything, committed so called immoral acts, and always held a job) is that: When they encounter the possibility of a so called conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11, they honestly and truly, think it is not possible not even conceivable...

They believe that other "normal" people would never do anything to jeopardize their own lively hood or safety. Like themselves, always operating through life making sure to never "break the law" or commit what the general public thinks are immoral acts, they believe other "normal" people will do the same.

It seems to me this is a common misconception, I have seen this in my own life many times, they never believe that criminal acts done by other "normal" people could be possible until it happens to them personally. Then they accept the fact that people are not always as they appear, even the people that are in positions of authority, with everything to loose.

Everyone must recognize this fact: Criminal acts involving multiple people are ALWAYS theories up until the point they can be proven. One of the fundamental parts of committing criminal acts are getting away with it.

A basic example:If everyone thinks my friends and I killed someone, and there are stories and pieces of evidence that MAY connect us with the murder but nothing that enables the authorities to arrest us, it is just a theory. If I am never arrested, and thereby "get away with it" that doesn't mean that we didn't kill the guy. Yet this is how most "normal" people(especially debunkers) look at 9/11.

The criminals involved with 9/11 that have "gotten away with it" have had years to formulate, modify, withhold/destroy evidence, re-modify again, and refine their stories.

It is a fact that a cover up was instituted immediately to minimize the apparently obvious failures of the agencies tasked with preventing something like this from happening. This fact by itself implies guilt and it begs the question: How far did these cover ups go, what exactly was covered up?

At this point though it looks like we will never truly know how deep the rabbit hole goes. We will be left to eternally theorize and debate the hows and the who's and the whys of 9/11.

But always remember: this doesn't mean that other individuals aren't guilty as heck, they just didn't get caught. Also, just because 9/11 researchers and even the so called truthers have been unable to place blame upon specific individuals up to this point, does not mean that it will never happen.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
(and by normal people, I mean people who have never in their lives broken a law, lied about anything, committed so called immoral acts, and always held a job)


I agree with everything you said, except this one part.

1) I have drove my car around the USA and have been all over, and everyone speeds - thus breaking the law.

2) They are all also liars. I have never met a person that didn't lie. Including myself.

But I am not lying right now. Or am I?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Good post....although I disagree that "normal" people have never broken a law, they just have a way of justifying to themselves why that law was unjust and why it was okay for them to break it, but that doesn't change the validity of your point or your post.

I must admit that even though I don't believe the OS is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; I've kind of distanced myself from the word "truther". I don't mean to tell anyone what to believe and what not to believe, but the really outlandish claims, such as the no-planers, have hurt the truth movement. The more high-tech the theory, the sexier it is and the more sneaky and sinister it seems...but at the same time, those kind of theories really benefit the OS because they harm the credibility of everyone who questions the OS by lumping us all into the category of believing the wildest theories.

I also don't go into the debating the physics, structural integrity of buildings, piloting skills and other such issues as I'm simply not an expert on them. I've studied the OS and I believe that the odds of this entire entire conspiracy going off as successfully as it did without any additional help are too astronomical to believe.

Hani Hanjour being able to take over an airplane somewhere over the West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio borders; turn it around and find Washington, DC alone is hard to believe. How did he know he needed to go Northeast and not Southeast, or to what degree he needed to go? There are no notable landmarks in the area he turned the plane around. Possibly the Ohio river, but no way he could've been sure what point of the river it was.

I believe the simple things, if we keep the truth movement simple, would be enough to bring other reasonable people around to consider asking some questions.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



A basic example:If everyone thinks my friends and I killed someone, and there are stories and pieces of evidence that MAY connect us with the murder but nothing that enables the authorities to arrest us, it is just a theory. If I am never arrested, and thereby "get away with it" that doesn't mean that we didn't kill the guy. Yet this is how most "normal" people(especially debunkers) look at 9/11.


I guess the basic flaw here is the understanding of the term "everyone". If, as you state, "everyone" thinks you and friend did something, that thought did not materialize out of nothingness. There was something, maybe circumstantial, that germinated that thought process. In the case of 9/11 its almost the exact opposite. No one thinks it was an "inside job" with the exception of a few conspiracy fetishists. Everyone collevtively is sataisfied with what I am sure you call "the official story". Mind you, some folks may think there were some in government that should have known more than they did, but that's really about it. In this case there are not even "pieces of evidence" to sway anyone in the direction of "inside job".



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Seeing as how the OS relies on only 2 things for evidence - the "found" passport below the WTC and one of the supposed hijackers car with a koran/flight manual/etc. All things that could easily be planted. The only "confession" comes from a tape again "found" in Afghanistan where someone who doesn't even look like OBL admits to planning it.

There is literally a mountain of evidence, admittedly a great amount of it circumstantial pointing to inside knowledge of 9/11. There is also a great deal of wild speculation, no doubt some of which is generated by the government itself to help discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

A great deal of guilt also lies with those who did not act or witheld information or obstructed investigations into Al Qaeda even before 9/11.

Bush told the FBI to "back off the Bin ladens" in the summer of 2001 and on orders of the Defense Department the entire contents of Operation Able danger were destroyed (a DOD investigation into Al Qaeda with over 2 Terabytes of information).

Where was NORAD? Why was there no air defense over Washington airspace? Where's the black boxes from the flights? Why did the 9/11 commission ignore WTC 7?

I could spend all day doing this.

I agree with the OP. People like my parents nearly disowned me when I told them 9/11 was done by elements within our own government. After years of showing them evidence they no longer believe the OS.

It is a big step for those who have trusted government for many years to openly question them. Point is that anyone can change their opinion given enough time and evidence.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I rather agree that ordinary people have difficulty with the idea of extraordinary evil. but it often seems to me that the Truth Movement has too little difficulty with the notion.

I'm often told that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of avaricious, venal mercenaries willing to do anything for profit and power. I'm sometimes told that "everyone has their price", that fear is an unimaginably powerful weapon. That scientists and engineers will do anything to preserve their careers.

I don't see this myself, certainly not in my dealings with people. I also note that the people who hold these views exempt themselves utterly from the moral conclusions; they are implicitly the opposite of evil, and would always act in exactly the opposite manner. They cannot be bought, and neither can anyone on their enlightened side of the divide.

To me this dualist view of the world is unrealistic. Indeed it's more likely that idealists like this are capable of great evil in the misguided belief that they are doing good. I'm not going to compare the TM to the Nazis, but the flavour of idealism is similar.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



Where was NORAD? Why was there no air defense over Washington airspace? Where's the black boxes from the flights? Why did the 9/11 commission ignore WTC 7?

I could spend all day doing this.


I know. And you are part of the handful of conspiracists. That is all. All those questions you posed above have been answered in spades. You have chosen to ignore the obvious answers, thats what makes you a conspiracist. You like to think that you have some special insight, that you have lifted the veil of ignorance and now can see the "truth" of the evil visage of the government. But there is another word besides "insightful" for seeing things that no one else sees.

Just for the hell of it, try to answer just one of your questions with something other than conspiracy.

Lets take for instance, the thing about building 7 and the 9/11 commission. The commission was not charged with doing a forensic analysis of the all the physical damage caused on 9/11, they were charged with reviewing and commenting on the current state of American readiness and the threat of terrorism. Many buildings were damaged on 9/11 at the World Trade center that is irrelevant to how terrorist managed to hijack two planes and crash them into towers 1 and 2.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Just for the hell of it, try to answer just one of your questions with something other than conspiracy.



Isn't that begging the question? I mean - 9/11 MUST have been a conspiracy if 19 hijackers did not carry it out. So why are you derailing sensible discussion about the issue by asking for the impossible? It's because you don't want to be forced to admit that you were wrong about what really happened on that day. So you create the delusion that giving conspiratorial explanations to 9/11 is somehow sinful and to be avoided at all cost, whereas in fact it is the only sensible game in town


You turn the conspiracy behind 9/11 into a phony issue because it is the only way you have of making your thoroughly debunked position look respectable. It simply won't wash.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
your definition of normal person, really only describes jesus, and im sure he thinks its an inside job. Everyone commits crimes and immoral acts, and such. But you are somewhat right. the "common" person cannot conceive.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by hooper

Just for the hell of it, try to answer just one of your questions with something other than conspiracy.



Isn't that begging the question? I mean - 9/11 MUST have been a conspiracy if 19 hijackers did not carry it out. So why are you derailing sensible discussion about the issue by asking for the impossible? It's because you don't want to be forced to admit that you were wrong about what really happened on that day. So you create the delusion that giving conspiratorial explanations to 9/11 is somehow sinful and to be avoided at all cost, whereas in fact it is the only sensible game in town


You turn the conspiracy behind 9/11 into a phony issue because it is the only way you have of making your thoroughly debunked position look respectable. It simply won't wash.


I would hope that considering the context (9/11 conspiracy website) we wouldn't all need to constantly define ALL our terms, but if you insist,yes the 19 hijackers make it a conspiracy.

I'm sorry but I don't need to make my position "look respectful" it already is quite well respected by everyone, except, like I said, a handful of dedicated conspiracist who hold that contrary to reason and evidence, the US government secretly plotted and carried out 9/11. My parents have not disowned me because of my views.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


" Seeing as how the OS relies on only 2 things for evidence - the "found" passport below the WTC and one of the supposed hijackers car with a koran/flight manual/etc. "

It is statements such as this , that cause rational people to step back and question the motives behind the TM , as this statement can only be seen as uneducated bias .

Totally absurd .

[edit on 16-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
your definition of normal person, really only describes jesus, and im sure he thinks its an inside job. Everyone commits crimes and immoral acts, and such. But you are somewhat right. the "common" person cannot conceive.


Leaving aside that there's not really such a thing as the common person - indeed the only reason conspiracists love to pontificate about the common herd because it makes them feel superior - I don't think people have many problems conceiving. Especially with IVF.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Normal people don't think much. Normal people didn't do all that well at school. Normal people are tricked all the time by their spouses, by their children, by the insurance company, by commercial advertisers, by their own hypocritical selves. The only truly important thing (from the point of view of the powers that be) that normal people do is vote, and even that is not an insurmountable problem.

Normal people believe what they are told to believe, by their spouses, by their children, by the insurance companies, etc. When they see evidence to the contrary, they seldom make an issue of it. They choose to look the other way most of the time. They "fuggedaboutit" and move on.

Normal people are not rational problem solvers. Normal people are slackers in that area although they may work like demons at their own jobs (and stay out of other people's business).

If the government were to come up with a scapegoat for 9/11 tomorrow, and saturate the media with the fake details of how this "Washington insider" pulled it all off, normal people would swallow the story hook line and sinker.

Remember, the only really crucial thing that normal people do is vote. The truth movement is a recruitment campaign for votes. How are those campaigns won? Is it by careful discussion of the issues? No. Normal people can't understand the issues. Those campaigns are run just the way that the class president is chosen or the homecoming queen is chosen . . . largely on the basis of personality.

Until the truth movement finds a personality with charisma (not Sean Penn or Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones) and that person gets widespread coverage in the media, normal people are not going to make up their minds and get off their couches to vote truth.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Remember, the only really crucial thing that normal people do is vote. The truth movement is a recruitment campaign for votes. How are those campaigns won? Is it by careful discussion of the issues? No. Normal people can't understand the issues. Those campaigns are run just the way that the class president is chosen or the homecoming queen is chosen . . . largely on the basis of personality.


The problem for you is that you DID go out and vote. The popular vote dumped the Bush policies altogether and brought in Obama...but despite Obama being the exact opposite of everything Bush represented, he still doesn't take your conspiracy claims any more seriously than we do.

So where does that leave you? You either have to face the possibility that your conspiracy claims are nothing but a bed time story becuase noone is pursuing them, OR, you simply declare Obama to be part of the secret conspiracy just like you do everything and everyone who refutes your conspiracy stories, meaning that voting is pointless becuase this secret ruling junta is just going to install another oblidging puppet regardless of who you vote for.

...unless your intention is to pull the gov't down and install a leader of your own choosing at gunpoint...?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Fact of the matter is that the 9/11 commission report is itself a conspiracy theory, so we can throw that phrase out as meaningless.

I don't have any "special insight" into any of the events.
My logical mind screams at me that the OS is full of # as it does many others.
I would much prefer to not even have to think about it at all.
It was too important an event to simply shrug off my misgivings and let it go.
We now have a police state/patriot act + 2 wars to show for it.
If it wasn't an inside job it sure was the most convenient event the neo-cons could have ever dreamed of for making all their insane world domination schemes come true.

I suspect many go along with the OS because they are afraid of their own government, heck they might even get on the "no-fly" list.

In the end it wasn't just 4 airliners that got hijacked - it was our entire country and foreign policy.

If you don't think that invading Iraq and Afghanistan, along with creating a police state (Homeland Security) were serious mistakes then I would question either your sanity, morality or both.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...but despite Obama being the exact opposite of everything Bush represented,


Dave, you were told that Obama was the opposite of Bush. You seem to believe it. In important respects Obama is really the "continuity of government" president, continuing the policies of the Bush administration.

Obama's only real departure from Bush was his health care initiative. When the history of "the Fourth Reich" is written, Bush will be seen as a giant of fascism.

Obama will be seen as a faithful custodian of the Bush legacy.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Double Post.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability, plausible deniability,plausible deniability,



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixitWhen the history of "the Fourth Reich" is written, Bush will be seen as a giant of fascism.


This is just apocalyptic nonsense. There were myriad problems with the Bush presidency and Obama is, you're right, largely a continuation of oligarchic capitalism. On that basis any hope for change is meaningless.

But to suggest that either approaches any type of fascism is rubbish. Indeed it's ironic, because the truth movement embodies far more of the traits of fascistic theory than either Bush or Obama. Notice how, in the paranoid style, the TM is engaged in a Manichean and millenaraian war for the future of mankind. How evil is all around but can, just possibly, be expunged by right thinking, upstanding men and women.

And consider what Hitler or Mussolini would have thought of your comments about the common man.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Dave, you were told that Obama was the opposite of Bush. You seem to believe it. In important respects Obama is really the "continuity of government" president, continuing the policies of the Bush administration.

Obama's only real departure from Bush was his health care initiative. When the history of "the Fourth Reich" is written, Bush will be seen as a giant of fascism.

Obama will be seen as a faithful custodian of the Bush legacy.


Whatever floats your boat...but the question still stands- why do you care so much about "getting out the vote" when you're now admitting that the secret ruling junta (whoever they are) will simply install their loyal minion regardless of who you vote for? The secret ruling junta is going to make sure of it.

The only option I see for your conspiracy movement to go anywhere is for you to pull down the gov't and install a leader of your choosing at the barrel of a gun. Is this really what you support?




top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join