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.

 

3 common (and weak) arguments defenders of the official story make

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by m1991
 



Bad argument #1: 9/11 truth is insulting to the victims' families

Thats not an argument - just a simple fact. Particularly the brand of "truth" that says the victims don't exist.

Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret

Again, just a simple fact of life. History constantly reifnorces this fact as does everyday life.

Bad argument #3: 9/11 truthers are anti-American

I don't know how this is actually an "argument"; its more of a personal observation. Most patriots don't run around calling their fellow citizens "sheeple" and "morons" and talk about revolution and overthrow of the government and constant generalized claims that basically state that if you happen to work for the government, wear a uniform or were elected to office then you are guilty to proven innocent.


Nobody seriously thinks 9/11 didn't actually happen. Well maybe a few people, but definitely not the vast majority (99%) of Truthers. Explain to me how questioning who did 9/11 is offensive to the families?

Not a fact of life. With a mass media, you can make more than 50% of the general population believe pretty much anything.

9/11 OSers call Truthers "sheeple" and "morons" as well, and not all Truthers are into personally insulting people just like not all OSers are. Also remember, being patriotic doesn't mean you support the government unconditionally. If it becomes oppressive, it's actually a patriot's duty to replace it with a new government. Personally I'm against government overthrow for two reasons: I'm a pacifist, and I realize our government is too militaristic to be overthrown without millions of deaths, and two I'm pretty certain it's on a route to debt-induced self-destruction like we saw in the Soviet Union a score years ago.

I hope whatever replaces it cares more about its people.




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 





Engineers, architects, PHd's etc. these physics tests are made under perfect conditions. In the real world there are margins of error, short cuts, improperly made things, etc. The Titanic was so well built that "Not even God" could sink it. I guess no one told the iceberg.


That is the silliest argument I have ever heard. So you are saying that kerosene can melt steel?


Hey everyone, don't use your kerosene heater this year, it might collapse at free fall speed. I have heard everything now.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by micmerci
 





Engineers, architects, PHd's etc. these physics tests are made under perfect conditions. In the real world there are margins of error, short cuts, improperly made things, etc. The Titanic was so well built that "Not even God" could sink it. I guess no one told the iceberg.


That is the silliest argument I have ever heard. So you are saying that kerosene can melt steel?


Hey everyone, don't use your kerosene heater this year, it might collapse at free fall speed. I have heard everything now.


To me it's actually not even that relevant how the buildings were downed. The main reason I think it was an inside job is because there's no evidence Bin Laden was behind it aside from the government's word, combined with the uncaring nature of the President during the event, the fact the government has planned terror attacks before as a pre-empt to war, and the fact the terrorists were our 'friends' a mere 13 years or so before 9/11 back in the late 80s.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
If you haven't been to ae911truth.org and your an offical story zombie you have NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to the towers falling


Of course I go to ae911truth.org. I go to all the conspiracy web sites to see what they're saying. Unlike the conspiracy theorists, I have the facts on my side so I don't need to cover my ears and say I CAN'T HEAR YOU whenever someone says something that contradicts what I want to believe.

The problem for you is that there AREN'T "thousands of engineers and architects who support the idea there's a conspiracy". There are, however, thousands of people who've been suckered by the deliberately manipulated information Richard Gage has been putting out who just happen to be architects and engineers. Gage relies entirely upon his audience being horribly uninformed about what actually happened on 9/11 and the comments in his guest book left behind by the members all show they simply swallowed the drivel Gage put out and didn't think to corroborate it by their own professional expertise.

I have a question for YOU- every video of the collapse of building 7 shows the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building six seconds before the rest of the building, and you can see from the broken windows that the entire core of the building had collapsed.



Gage can't explain how this happened in a way that helps advance his conspiracy theorie, so he deliberately snips off the section of video showing the penthouse collapse so he can falsely say "it looked like a controlled demolition". It only looks like a controlled demolition because Gage made it look like a controlled demolition. I invite you to provide even ONE example where any controlled demolition in all of history ever demolished a building from the inside out, in the way that building 7 actually fell. More to the point, I invite you to provide even ONE legitimate reason why Gage would deliberately alter the information he provides to us, as he's doing here.

I'm not asking you to blindly listen to me. I'm asking you to stop blindly listening to con artists like Gage and do your own research. If the conspiracy theorists would only hold their own claims up to the exact same high level of critical analysis that they do the commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


1st jet fuel is not kerosene.
2nd steel didnt melt
3rd columns weakened and floor joists sagged til they gave way.
4th not everything happens "textbook" in real life.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 



Nobody seriously thinks 9/11 didn't actually happen. Well maybe a few people, but definitely not the vast majority (99%) of Truthers. Explain to me how questioning who did 9/11 is offensive to the families?

Is not? Tell you what - there's going to be this little ceremony in NYC in a couple of days, go down there wearing your "investigate 9/11" t-shirts and see if anyone is offended. Why? Because the "truth movement" is not in the business of asking questions, they are in the business of making unfounded allegations that end in a question mark.

Not a fact of life. With a mass media, you can make more than 50% of the general population believe pretty much anything.

Really? Prove it. Thats a pretty big assumption, I take it you have something to back it up. Besides, its based on the faulty notion that the media is this one big entangled conglomerate that is under the control of a few evil doers. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

9/11 OSers call Truthers "sheeple" and "morons" as well, and not all Truthers are into personally insulting people just like not all OSers are.

Sorry, there's no equivocation here. Its one thing to call someone you may be interacting with in a forum a moron - thats personal and based on that particular interaction, truthers basically refer to anyone that does not share their beliefs "sheeple".

Also remember, being patriotic doesn't mean you support the government unconditionally.

Yeah, but if one of those "conditions" is guilty until proven innocent, than that is unpatriotic. Because, like it or not, your government (I am assuming you're American) is composed entirely of your fellow citizens.

If it becomes oppressive, it's actually a patriot's duty to replace it with a new government.

Thats a really big "IF" and if you should decided unilaterally that the goverment is oppresive and seek to overthrow it, then you are not patriotic.

Personally I'm against government overthrow for two reasons: I'm a pacifist, and I realize our government is too militaristic to be overthrown without millions of deaths, and two I'm pretty certain it's on a route to debt-induced self-destruction like we saw in the Soviet Union a score years ago.

I didn't hear anywhere in there that maybe its jut wrong to want to overthrow a government because you think it should be.

I hope whatever replaces it cares more about its people.

By that I assume you think the government, composed of your fellow citizens, doesn't care about you. That doesn't sound political, that sounds egotistical.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I have a question for YOU- every video of the collapse of building 7 shows the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building six seconds before the rest of the building, and you can see from the broken windows that the entire core of the building had collapsed.


Actually, you do want the inside of the building to go first in a planned demolition. This is called "crimping" and allows the building to fall into it's own footprint. Without the crimping the demolished building debris would go everywhere instead of straight down.

I am not guessing at this at all. I was lucky enough to talk to a demolitions man out of Arkansas when I lived in the Memphis area. I had a website at that time and he would only talk to me off the record. He told me the WTC collapses were obviously planned demolitions.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by m1991

Originally posted by micmerci
I think argument #2 should be that too many people need to make a coordinated effort to pull off such a huge monumental undertaking. I mean our government can't make a simple decision without an act of Congress let alone commit the acts of 911. I am not a truther or supporter of the official story. I think it was the result of inadequacies more than conspiracy. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.


I think they used Islamists as the patsies to commit the kamikaze aspect, since of course the Powers that Be are far too arrogant and self serving to self-sacrifice even to their own cause, but I think Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it. Personally I don't think the US government did either, I think the shadow government (with its plants in the feds including the Bush dynasty) were the people truly behind 9/11.


I tend to agree with you and I have no other reason for this belief than pure gut instinct,having watched the documentary on 9/11(which was, coincidentaly,shown on UK terrestrial TV again last night) I have focussed on the reactions of Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeldt,To me Bush,s reaction showed that he was genuinely perplexed by the news when it came to him whilst he was addressing the Florida schoolkids,he genuinely looks as though it knocked him sideways,lf he was aware of a plan to carry out the attacks,he looked really stunned that it had actually happened.

Cheney on the other hand is either a master at keeping his emotions in check,or his reaction suggests that he was less than surprised at the news.

Rumsfeldt,to me,looked genuinely shocked at the news,but his reaction to the pentagon attack itself was more one of realisation.(having watched a number of slomo videos on the object that struck the Pentagon,I cannot conclusively see that it was a large commercial aircraft,nor can I distinguish what it may actually have been.

Whether this suggests actual complicity in the attacks or an awareness that they had ignored crucial info warning them of an impending attack,I do not know but I do know that it would take incredible skill ,for even a seasoned pilot ,to guide an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 into a target as small as the WTC Towers.

edit on 2-9-2011 by nake13 because: .



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
So all our elected officials are zombies? I don't buy it for a minute. They have access to the same information provided by 9/11 truth. If none of them are raising a red flag, then they're complicit or they're being strong armed not to speak about it.

When Obama and Pelosi entered office one of the first things out of their mouths was the investigation of 9/11 and any other investigations of the previous administration was off the table. When I heard that, it was a big red flag in my book. What democratic administration wouldn't want to embarrass or criminalize a previous republican administration? Both parties are always trying to pull each other in the mud, so why would this be a hands-off situation? The amount of criminal evidence on Clinton paled in comparison with the Bush administration.

The actions of that day was criminal. DC being a no fly zone, let alone the largest military air force in the world couldn't intercept these aircraft is highly questionable. Do you honestly believe these government officials would leave the nations capital and the leader of the free world unprotected from an outside attack? The lack of investigations on the debris and the confiscation of security video footage by area businesses and the pentagon is also highly questionable. Till this day, the videos from those businesses have never seen the light of day. What do they have to hide?

Three buildings falling at the same speed into their own foot print is too much of a coincidence. Not to mention the physical impossibility that the top floors did not meet resistance from the lower floors, which were not affected by the planes or fire.

There are too many unanswered questions and our so called "news organizations" are failing to investigate this matter on behalf of the American people. We no longer have checks and balances on criminal wrong doing in our media. Our media has been bought and paid for by government interests.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
Actually, you do want the inside of the building to go first in a planned demolition. This is called "crimping" and allows the building to fall into it's own footprint. Without the crimping the demolished building debris would go everywhere instead of straight down.


You're making that up off the top of your head and we both know it. THIS is a controlled demolition of a building of the equivalent height of building 7, performed by the people who invented controlled demolitions: CDI



They don't destroy buildings from the inside out. They destroy it from the base, so that the upper section will fall in one piece straight down so that it will fall in its own footprint. You can see right away the core of this building fell down along with the rest of the upper section, and wasn't destroyed from the inside out. Please provide me even ONE example of a controlled demolition that ever destroyed the buildling from the inside out in the same way building 7 fell. Any one will do.


I am not guessing at this at all. I was lucky enough to talk to a demolitions man out of Arkansas when I lived in the Memphis area. I had a website at that time and he would only talk to me off the record. He told me the WTC collapses were obviously planned demolitions.


And I am not guessing this statement in the least either- he got his opinion from watching Gage's video, which Gage deliberately edited to specifically make it appear like it was a controlled demolition...exactly like you did. Plus, in the video above you can even see the explosive flashes that demolished it, which Gage's own videos shows did NOT happen with the WTC 7, so Gage is even lying about that.

You're not exactly proving anything I'm saying is incorrect, guy.
edit on 2-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: corrected the Youtube video ID



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You have to be joking.........

Firstly ae911truth.org isn't a conspiracy web site as they don"t debate theories...they debate the facts the the laws of physics were broken that day.

you showed the building 7 video and you STILL believe it wasn't demoed?!?!? I guess some people are to far gone to be brought back to reality.

You obviously didn't go to the website as they clearly show numerous controlled demos that are EXACTLY the same as building 7.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 



...Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret
[...]

 



the Manattan Project spanned a rather lengthly time frame'

the Enigma machine... a code device, was captured & the 'secret' messages were known for another long period of time

so, #2 does not hold water, imo

 


theres the official story-v-the truthers.... but there's a large number of people that side with neither in identifying the perps

i fall into TPTB allowed or even helped the 911 campaign to play out. the mostly zealot Arabs were pilots & the last minute 'strong arms' to hijack the planes for the targets to be slammed into.

the original idea was to crash into high profile targets... the Arab perps had no idea that the towers would pancake into atomized dust. they were satisified to make the WTC towers look like 2 burnt matchsticks which would then need to be demolished by the capitalists that built these Rockefeller gravestones.

in fact.... there was a big spread in the underground newspapers back in June 1969, about the future twin towers being succeptible to a tragic ending as we seen on 911. i can't recall if it was the Village Voice or The Village Other ..or even Screw magazine that did the 2 part expose' but that newspaper got bundled up with my other newspapers from the Washington Free Press & left in the attic of my old Murrells inlet house back in '88...

i can believe a small segment of shadow govt was in on the operation, probably aided with private contractors and possibly 'art students' on visa from Israel from June 2001 until the 'too-little-too-late' electronic communication known as the Phoenix Memo warning of radical Arabs attending flight schools... just before the operation began to materialize.
(middle east chatter aside)
then it went BooM

WTC #7 was likely a afterthought & hastily put together even as WTC 1&2 were still standing..
perhaps using the back-up - still living- agents or indy contractors who were compartmentalized from the pre crash cells & groups attending the "911 attacks by Arab radicals" operation.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   




That would only be offensive because you're not invited. Not because of the matter itself. A lot of victims family members are truthers.

Okay, fair enough. I can't prove that the MSM could make people believe literally anything, however, I do think it's a powerful enough force to counter a large number of whistleblowers. And no, not ALL of the media is owned by the same people, but a lot of it sure is.

Most truthers are polite people who do not run around and call people sheep.

9/11 isn't the only reason our government isn't worthy of being in power. Not even close.

Fellow citizens? What does that even mean? I mean, Ted Bundy was our fellow citizen, right? If you think that our leadership is truly the kind people would want, you are sorely mistaken. Most people feel forced to choose between lesser evils.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You have to be joking.........

Firstly ae911truth.org isn't a conspiracy web site as they don"t debate theories...they debate the facts the the laws of physics were broken that day.


Dude, do you go to the same ae199truth.org I go to? You know, www.ae911truth.org?

Gage says in every other page how the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions and he even says the media, NYFD and NYPD all had foreknowledge of the collapse. For him to claim that controlled demolitions were secretly planted in the towers BY DEFINITION it means he is propogating conspiracy theories, and for him to claim the media, NYFD, and NYPD had foreknowledge BY DEFINITION it means he's accusing these people of being actively involved in these imaginary conspiracies and actively covering them up. Plus, when Gage has to manipulate the collapse video of WTC 7 to his liking, BY DEFINITION it means he has to resort to manufacturing his own evidence because he knows what he's saying is false. Your not liking the fact that Gage and ae199truth.org are a bunch of conspiracy mongers in no way makes the fact any less of a fact. Good GOD how servile can you possibly be to Gage and his bunch to be so blind to what they're doing? It's right there on that web site in black and white.

This is the last post I will make on this thread, as you're steering the topic away from the OP. If you want to continue discussing how Gage is a conspiracy con artist, then start a different thread.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   




Firemen know what an explosion sounds like, it is part of their training, or didn't you know? That makes their personal accounts of explosions that sounded like bombs pretty damn credible. They are trained to recognize different types of explosions in their training. Gullible people are the ones that believe the OS. The problem is with you, and the rest of the sheep in this country. I'd like to remind you that the OS is also just a theory



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 



They are trained to recognize different types of explosions in their training.


Huh? Really? They are trained to identify explosions by their sound? Where did you pick up that little tidbit of "information"? Please provide some kind of evidence for this assertion. That is a good one though.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
If your plan is to CD a building(WTC7) and make people think it wasn't a CD why not make it fall sideways? Why even try to keep it within a footprint? Less explosives so less chance of finding evidence.

If you want to get the public to support a war by taking out WTC 1&2 why CD them to the ground?
Why not blow the supports to the floors above the impact point and let it crush to the 85th floor? Some on here think the top can't crush the bottom so why try? Two buildings with their tops in rubble and a third on it's side makes as big a statement as three on the ground.

Why use all those explosives? The truthers say many people heard lots of explosions. So there must have been at least one charge for each explosion. And if you have to blow the supports for half the 110 floors that's 55 floors to wire. How many charges per floor?

That's a lot of potential evidence!


And yet we have none.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by deadmessiah
 



They are trained to recognize different types of explosions in their training.


Huh? Really? They are trained to identify explosions by their sound? Where did you pick up that little tidbit of "information"? Please provide some kind of evidence for this assertion. That is a good one though.


Tell me about it. My nephew is a firefighter, and my brother is a former firefighter. I'll have to ask them what their expertise is in explosives and how they can recognize the types of explosives from their detonation, because they neglected to tell me they knew how to do that. I'm sure their knowing how to do that will come as a surprise to them, as well.

Which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites is going around telling people firefighters are also explosives experts? These people can't have invented this bit on their own.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Here you go: www.workingfire.net...

What better source than a 42 year veteran firefighter from the FDNY?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by m1991

Bad argument #1: 9/11 truth is insulting to the victims' families


Bad argument #2: A million people can't keep such a big secret


Bad argument #3: 9/11 truthers are anti-American


Two of those aren't arguments in the sense that I think you mean. They are statements of opinion that are admittedly weak when applied to the truth about 9/11. But they're not designed to prove or disprove the facts of the case.

The other - your second - is a good argument, at least in essence. True, you distort it slightly by using a hyperbolic figure ("a million") but it remains substantially true that if people as low down the food chain as British TV journalists are to be involved the conspiracy must be enormous. And the chances of it remaining watertight are basically nil.

I'd add a similar "argument" to your first two - one often made by Truthers: the notion that in order to support a traditional view of 9/11 one must be some sort of government loyalist or worse a paid informant. It's of exactly the same character as the gambits you're mentioning and one sees it far more often.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join