Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?

reply to post by Varemia
"They changed their mind every time" Are you kidding me? Who the hell do you think you are? As long as I have breath in me I will continue to question every post you, and your 'posse' make.

reply to post by dillweed


I'm serious. All the people that I've talked to have changed their ideas because of how I explained it. Maybe it's the hand motions in the air that help, I don't really know why I'm more convincing out of writing.

Originally posted by Varemia
To restate these into statements that can be agreed upon, without the underlying taste of conspiracy:
1. Three long-standing and previously attacked symbolic skyscrapers were destroyed on 9/11.
2. Some people believe that one or all of the collapses were suspicious.
3. Only qualified individuals of their fields can properly investigate the various factors of 9/11.
4. It was the first time that buildings constructed like at the WTC complex had collapsed in the way they did.
5. Experts and people in power have mainly their conscience to rely on when agreeing or disagreeing with the accepted conclusion of how 9/11 happened.
6. There has never been a day with events exactly like 9/11.
7. There are people around the world who don't completely agree with the accepted conclusion of how 9/11 happened.
8. The government has no motive to launch a new investigation.
9. The media does not support the launch of a new investigation, though they will show many programs that support the conspiracy ideas.
10. The events of 9/11 were used to infringe rights and launch a horrific war.

This is in line with the intention of this thread, for the most part I agree with these statements, but numbers 8 and 9 really aren't true and that's not just an opinion. They have thousands of people begging for a new investigation and that is motive, regardless of their past findings, they just have stronger motives keeping them from doing so. As for point 9, if you count this site, or Jesse Ventura's program as part of the MSM then you are wrong. Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. have not ever to my knowledge addressed the core "truther" issues to any degree, except to condescend them. Other than that, you're list looks as good as mine, but are you going to put #11 on the list?

reply to post by Varemia

It's true that many people think WTC7 mimics a controlled demolition at first glance. Once it is explained, the number reduces drastically. I have tested this by explaining what happened inside the building to people who thought it looked like a demo. They changed their minds every time.

Derren Brown would be jealous. What exactly do you say that convinces them WTC7 does not look like a controlled demolition?

reply to post by budaruskie

They have thousands of people begging for a new investigation....

Unfortunately for you there are 1/3 of a billion people in this country, you can always find a few thousand people begging for any number of things from the silly to the sublime. I am sure I can find a "few thousand" people who thinks there is good reason to investigate "the moon hoax" and the JFK assisination, the sinking of the Maine and, of course, the Holocaust.

When your base number is that big (300 million plus) your outlyers get to look huge from the standpoint of the individual.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie

 

They have thousands of people begging for a new investigation....

Unfortunately for you there are 1/3 of a billion people in this country, you can always find a few thousand people begging for any number of things from the silly to the sublime. I am sure I can find a "few thousand" people who thinks there is good reason to investigate "the moon hoax" and the JFK assisination, the sinking of the Maine and, of course, the Holocaust.

When your base number is that big (300 million plus) your outlyers get to look huge from the standpoint of the individual.

Please try to stay on topic, I'm not trying to debate you or anyone else. It doesn't matter how many people live in the U.S. and I could easily point to the number of people living around the NY area that have been polled and want a new investigation. Also, I think you could find well over a few thousand people who believe the "single-bullet theory" is complete bullcrap, one of them is E. Howard Hunt's own son. Your argument is neither on topic or sensible in any way.

I think it can be agreed on that many people will interpret the dots in the way that suits thier interests and the way thier minds have been pre-programmed - this is so in every field of human knowledge from religion to politics and even science.

That no amount of factual evidence, common sense, reason, logic or probability will convince anyone whose mind has absorbed a contrary programming, as axiomatic.


That this tendency of the human mind is such a usefull control technique that it has been used and honed to perfection by those seeking to control us.


Were the buildings demolished? - there is no real evidence to show they were - although it is possible that a few of the supports in them could have been weakened.

Would any group of high level conspirators have sat around a table and planned to wait an hour for the worlds media to show up, film it from every angle then set off explosives on every floor - bang, bang, bang! - really, what sort of complete idiot do you have to be to believe that!


and then for good measure plan to fly a cruise missile into the Pentagon and pretend it was a plane - and yet that is what probably the majority of people on this board actually subscibe to!!

reply to post by budaruskie

It doesn't matter how many people live in the U.S. and I could easily point to the number of people living around the NY area that have been polled and want a new investigation.

Really, thats kind of all that does matter.

Since no "smoking gun" has ever been produced or hinted at the whole thing is simply a popularity contest and 9/11 conspiracies are not popular due solely to their complete lack of substance.

And good luck with that poll. Show me one (poll) where the conspiracies are directly engaged, not the ambigous polling that is measuring dissatisfaction with the Government's behavior regarding security and that the conspiracist glom onto claiming that they are actually refering to controlled demolitions, faked crash sites, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.

Here are a few more things that everyone should be able to agree on...

a) No matter how you slice and dice it, a LOT of things happened on 9/11 that noone has really seen before, and there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Yes it is true thatr this is the first real major terrorist attack on US soil, this is the first time hijackings were pulled off in such a large scale, and this is the first time steel buildings fell exclusively to fire damage.

b) Simply assuming there is some secret sinister plot to murder us all entirely based upon the observation that things noone has seen before had happened or that there are still questions to be answered is being uninformed and ignorannt. Just becuase we don't know why A happened or what caused B doesn't mean there's some secret conspiracy in thr works. All it means is that we don't know why A happened or what caused B. The jury is still out on whether the Hindenburg was destroyed by static electricity igniting the hydrogen, flammable doping on the skin, or sabotage, but that doesn't mean that since we don't know that we should insist it was really destroyed by shape shifting alien lizards.

c) There are a LOT of outright con artists and snake oil peddlers pushing out utter drivel for their own financial gain, and it's poisoning the 9/11 research well. All you need to do is look on these boards to see how the "controlled demolitions" people are bickering with the "lasers from outer space" people who are bickering with the "no planes" people who are bickering with the "it was a gov't plot" people who are bickering with the "staged by MOSSAD" people. Unless the trusters are about to really go off the deep end and claim 9/11 was caused by gov't space lasers that set off controlled demolitions planted by Israel and covered up by holograms of planes created by the Illuminati, someone or another in the conspiracy community have to be wrong regardless of how strongly they believe they're really right.

d) Yes, we need more investigations, but the very horrid behavior of the more thoughtlessly zealous of the conspiracy proponents is giving all other 9/11 researchers a bad name. In case it hasn't occurred to them, their accusing everyone from firefighters to military personnel to the Red cross to even an immigrant from El Salvadow watering the Pentagon lawns of being co-conspirators to some sinister conspiracy and coverup is NOT going to endear them to anyone.

e) innuendo of impropriety is not evidence that proves impropriety. It's just innuendo.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie

 

It doesn't matter how many people live in the U.S. and I could easily point to the number of people living around the NY area that have been polled and want a new investigation.

Really, thats kind of all that does matter.

Since no "smoking gun" has ever been produced or hinted at the whole thing is simply a popularity contest and 9/11 conspiracies are not popular due solely to their complete lack of substance.

And good luck with that poll. Show me one (poll) where the conspiracies are directly engaged, not the ambigous polling that is measuring dissatisfaction with the Government's behavior regarding security and that the conspiracist glom onto claiming that they are actually refering to controlled demolitions, faked crash sites, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.

Its obvious that you are not interested in keeping with the goal of the thread, instead you want to bait me into arguing some trivial point that has little to nothing to do with the events of 9/11 or my thread. If you don't like this thread or me, then don't post, just ignore it (like reality). I have not proposed any "truther" theories at all and still you and others go on and on about things that are not included in my post or anywhere in this thread. Whether or not you realize it, that makes you look incompetant and immature. Those polls I speak of are real and can easily be found on ATS and numerous other places on the web, remember, just because you don't want to accept something doesn't mean it isn't real. The only theory spoken of in my post is the gov't's theory, and I only pointed out that thousands of people disagree with it. If you are denying that, then you are denying reality and your own ignorance....hence....deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by budaruskie

 

but I do not believe they would murder 3,000 fellow Americans in order to do that (or to invade Iraq, for that matter).

This is the problem with the arguement. Your jumping ahead of yourself and making the assumption the government did it.

Can you agree 3 buildings fell due to fire, and such a feat never occured before in history?

It's a yes or no question.


It's not a "Well Golly Gee, them wiley truthers are trying to pull a fast one again bubba..."

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveAll you need to do is look on these boards to see how the "controlled demolitions" people are bickering with the "lasers from outer space" people who are bickering with the "no planes" people who are bickering with the "it was a gov't plot" people who are bickering with the "staged by MOSSAD" people. Unless the trusters are about to really go off the deep end and claim 9/11 was caused by gov't space lasers that set off controlled demolitions planted by Israel and covered up by holograms of planes created by the Illuminati, someone or another in the conspiracy community have to be wrong regardless of how strongly they believe they're really right.

I fully agree. IMO I think we should all at least be in agreement that at the very least, it was allowed to happen. The exact same thing happened in 1940, a surprised attack on the West, but 60 years on we now know it wasn't a surprise to some, and they got public support for the war. Society in the fourties was more naive and easy to patronise back then, society in 2001 had come a long long way and instead of accepting what we were told happened, finally started to question it.

I had awoke a few years before so naturally questioned it, but 9/11 brought a new wave of people who were finally waking up, along with the dis-info artists who have entwined all kinds of wild theories with 9/11 which has made it a joke. We're now seeing the fraud in the banking industry being brought to light, but the same wild theories haven't been attached to to it, why, because it involves real people who have acted against the interests of the people, as did other real people before on and after 9/11, but given the complexity of the system today, in turn making the 9/11 conspiracy quite complex, and it's easier for people to debate the absurd than focus on real facts, and I believe, if the roads led anywhere else that people wouldn't be bickering like they do.

911, Iraq, PNAC , All roads lead to Israel

I also think that WikiLeaks has something to support it. Assange has stated about 9/11...

“I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

...well if he has evidence to support financial fraud and information showing the Governments conspiring to create war, the more plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory may just be proved right in the near future rather than 60 years from now.

reply to post by Neo-V™


What surprise attack on the west in 1940 ?

Can you elaborate please ?

reply to post by Alfie1

Sorry, that should have read 1941, and I'm referring to Pearl Harbor.

Originally posted by Neo-V™
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Sorry, that should have read 1941, and I'm referring to Pearl Harbor.

OK, thanks.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


[quot]Can you agree 3 buildings fell due to fire, and such a feat never occured before in history?

You don't think that in all of human history, before 9/11/2001, 3 buildings have never collapsed due to fire?

Really?

reply to post by hooper


On an historical note ; the Great Fire of London 1666 consumed 13,200 houses, 87 churches and St Pauls Cathedral.

reply to post by Alfie1


Yeah, but obviosuly they didn't collapse, that never happened before 9/11/2001 in New York City. Never, ever, nowhere at no time.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by hooper

 

On an historical note ; the Great Fire of London 1666 consumed 13,200 houses, 87 churches and St Pauls Cathedral.

Yes, and not one of them built of steel and concrete, with modern engineering, or more than probably 30 ft tall. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you and yours purposefully derail these threads with trivial points. Since you guys have been so fond of posting CD videos lately and amusing us with the "reasons" why it isn't anything like what we saw on 9/11, why don't you find me a video or any proof at all of a modern high rise building that caught on fire and totally collapsed to dust. One will do.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by hooper

 

On an historical note ; the Great Fire of London 1666 consumed 13,200 houses, 87 churches and St Pauls Cathedral.

Yes, and not one of them built of steel and concrete, with modern engineering, or more than probably 30 ft tall. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you and yours purposefully derail these threads with trivial points. Since you guys have been so fond of posting CD videos lately and amusing us with the "reasons" why it isn't anything like what we saw on 9/11, why don't you find me a video or any proof at all of a modern high rise building that caught on fire and totally collapsed to dust. One will do.

edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: forgot to put modern in front of high rise for the morons

I would love to, but your requirements are for s***, in all honesty. It wasn't fire alone that took down the buildings, and I think that's been repeated a million times. Find me a building that's been damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11 with an ensuing fire, then come back to me about precedent.