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.

 

I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther

page: 21
55
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yet, here you sit and only a small fringe minority here supports your opinions by now, see recent survey.

The more you have told people to "wake up" the less support your viewpoints get. There must be something about the message of this fringe minority that just doesn´t fly with the broad public



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I used to think that it was improbable that the Government would knowingly do damage to its citizens.

But then I'd heard that the EPA didn't bother to check for Lead on toys coming from China during the Bush administration. Probably a few thousand dollars into the right pocket did the trick.

I learned that the Pentagon admitted that there was dumping of 50,000 -- or 500,000 tons (forget the amount) of assorted toxins related to nerve gas, nuclear waste, and munitions that it dumped off the coast of New Jersey some 20 or more years ago. "Bygones!"

>> Until the government prosecutes some people, like the head of security for the FAA who admitted destroying RADAR records on that day -- I don't have MUCH confidence like the OP about "they aren't going to hurt us."


Until I see a justice system that can track down a Trillion Dollars and prosecute.

Until I see some war crimes prosecutions of people admitting to enabling a torture policy.

Until I see some "transparency" and an end to "assassinations" -- like the MURDER of Bin Laden when he could have been brought to trial. Excuse me if I don't believe that there was some discretion here about "not insulting Muslims" when he was shot in the face and dumped at sea -- ANOTHER situation where there is no record, no responsibility, and no witnesses.



>> Sorry, but in a Democracy, the Government has a duty to PROVE its case -- not just tell me about it. Whether someone believes the Government "theory" or question it -- I think having a healthy bit of skepticism is warranted.

>> NO it is not true that I can "never" be convinced -- but this government and society has to change before I EVER AGAIN believe that War is not for profit. I do believe in "Government solutions" -- but we haven't had a real attempt in about 20 years to solve anything -- merely window dressing over a healthy layer of corruption and graft.


This is not the government and NOT THE TIME to start believing things. 9/11 was the Last of my innocence being destroyed and you know what? People like the OP and the Government and anyone who want's to tell me that "BP cares about the environment" -- need to change course 180 degrees and bend over backwards to PROVE they are telling the truth before I believe a THING THEY SAY.

Next time there is an attack on this country -- have a third-party oversea it -- maybe from a few neutral countries and one more like Venezuela or Cuba. I actually trust Cuban reports more than US ones because they don't have a dog in the fight. Next time we want to "take out" a bin Laden -- take him to court. It should be EASY to prove him guilty.

However, when I see "terrorists" paraded out with shock collars on them, who've been water-boarded for months, and who are railroaded in court -- that doesn't give me HOPE that I can believe that government or justice system.

>> Good luck with your "seeing the light" and leaving "Trutherism" -- by not deviating from the Common Wisdom, you too can have a job in media or position of power. Adopting a status quo viewpoint is more important than discretion, honor, or intelligence.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Honestly I see your post and I read what you said and all I can think is, "this guy is a disinfo agent."

Your logic is unsound and the NIST explanation of Bldg 7 is a complete and TOTAL joke.. You used to be a deluded truther, now you are a paid disinfo agent or just completely delusional..

The real conspiracy theorists are the people that stand by the official story which is so full of holes its falling apart.
edit on 15-9-2011 by brigand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 




IMO this is one of the easiest and most inconsequential questions about the theory. There's so many ways in which it could happen, all plausible. But...

Answer: No-one knows. It also doesn't matter how, just whether or not it was a controlled demolition. It definately wasn't just fire!


Inconsequential? This is why truthers continue to fail. Take Richard Gage and his AE911Truth for example. Why did he only manage to come up with two demolitions "experts"? Why isn't there a Demolitions Experts For 911 Truth organization if it obviously was a controlled demolitions job? I will tell you why, it's because the real experts know that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

The controlled demolitions hypothesis is an argument from ignorance.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


and then we have this video from the other side of the building that shows fireball ejections of an explosive type coming out of the building from before the penthouse collapse, plus noises of explosions.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
Is it just me, or do people get extremely defensive when people question truthers?

Ive seen so many accusations of "you believe anything the government tells you!". Why im not sure. I certainly distrust my government and certainly dont believe everything they tell me. That being said, pulling off 9/11 simply to make war is preposterous.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration overlooked important intel that would have allowed them to prevent 9/11. If it was simply justification for them to invade Iraq, somthing MUCH less complicated could have been cooked up as a false flag. There simply was no need for the massive operation undertaken. An anthrax attack on US citizens blamed on Iraq (thus justfiying the WMD claims) would have sufficed.

Another poster made a good point. If this was all justifcation to go to war, why did the US not "plant" WMD in Iraq to bolster their claims? It would have certainly made the Bush administration look like gold. Seems like a simple little thing to do after pulling off the massive 9/11 operation.

So to review things. I dislike the US government, but i dont for a minute believe they orchestrated 9/11. [/quote


Don't take "defensiveness" as evidence of a weak argument. It's about emotional investment in most cases.

>> pulling off 9/11 simply to make war is preposterous.
Why would you say that? When has someone in power pushing for a war or conducting a False Flag EVER been brought to trial? The Pentagon is on RECORD as saying that both the Vietnam and North Korea wars were based on "exaggerated events" -- meaning the Lusitania was not attacked and things like that.

We even had a Vice President and a defrocked Colonel smuggle drugs from Latin America to pay for weapons to an adversary in the "Iran/Contra" -- did Ollie North, Poindexter or George Bush go to prison?

"Operation Northwoods" was not just a "speculative exercise" it was presented by the Joint Chiefs to JFK -- and it's speculated that his assassination was BECAUSE he failed to take on Cuba -- speculation aside, the Northwoods project detailed remote-controlled passenger airplanes being crashed into buildings in the USA and blamed on Cuban terrorists.

"Preposterous" requires that such an idea was not possible or ever planned in my book.

An "anthrax attack" might have sufficed. Do you remember we HAD ONE? It was tracked back to the same Lab the "Bush Government" used to determine if it was from Al Qaeda. It was blamed on one crazy lab scientist who unfortunately committed suicide. Maybe more spectacle is required to move the masses -- I don't make these decisions.

>> There is a "theory" that the US DID try and plant WMDs in Iraq -- and they were caught by the CIA group; "Brewster Jennings" -- which was engaged in preventing WMD proliferation and tracking Saudi resources. The "outing" of Valerie Plame may have hurt her career -- but it totally BURNED her covert agency.
Here is a LINK if you want to learn more.



>> So for all your "preposterous" things you mention -- I've read a quite a few examples of our Government having done something very much like them. Maybe there are more Bad Guys and Rich Guys conspiring in this world than some people think.

I certainly don't think that some little group without a Bank or a Military is really pulling the strings in this world. Sure, maybe they got lucky and did some damage -- I figure there are a LOT of people who hate the USA for the crimes of our military (or if they were justified-- people still hate being bombed).

But I don't think 9.11 is an example of that -- I really don't. The PNAC group needed a disaster, and they benefitted from the disaster. They had plans for Iraq and Afghanistan drawn up before Bush took office. Cheney was pushing the NSA to hook up to the backbone with AT&T and they were extensively spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11.

>> We were being led by Fascist Crooks who don't like the "Liberties" the common folk in this country have BEFORE 9/11 -- and all they've done since then is consolidate power. 9/11 is the least of their crimes -- but I don't see the NeoCons and Fascists getting in trouble for ANYTHING.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Cecilofs
 




IMO this is one of the easiest and most inconsequential questions about the theory. There's so many ways in which it could happen, all plausible. But...

Answer: No-one knows. It also doesn't matter how, just whether or not it was a controlled demolition. It definately wasn't just fire!


Inconsequential? This is why truthers continue to fail. Take Richard Gage and his AE911Truth for example. Why did he only manage to come up with two demolitions "experts"? Why isn't there a Demolitions Experts For 911 Truth organization if it obviously was a controlled demolitions job? I will tell you why, it's because the real experts know that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

The controlled demolitions hypothesis is an argument from ignorance.



During the Salem Witch trials -- there weren't too many outspoken Atheists either.

I hardly see much challenging of "common wisdom" in the Media. What Engineer would look forward to the professional and social ostracism that results from being a "truther"? Paul Krugman merely MENTIONED that our response to 9/11 was shameful -- and the response was massive.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cross8712
reply to post by SteveR
 


and then we have this video from the other side of the building that shows fireball ejections of an explosive type coming out of the building from before the penthouse collapse, plus noises of explosions.




Which has been proven to be a complete HOAX
Read all about how quickly and easily ATS debunked it. Great job ATSers

New HOAX WT-7 video thread



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Yes, like these real faith-based experts who claim that super-heated jet fuel can melt steel:

"""Don't take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There's a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building.

Now, with regard to Building 7, we believe that it was the aftershocks of these two huge buildings in the very near vicinity collapsing. And in the Building 7 case, we think that it was a case of flames setting off a fuel container, which started the fire in Building 7, and that was our theory on Building 7.

Now we're not the experts on this, we talked to the engineers and the architects about this at some length, and that's the conclusion we reached."""

--- Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 faith-based commission

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

www.911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yet, here you sit and only a small fringe minority here supports your opinions by now, see recent survey.

The more you have told people to "wake up" the less support your viewpoints get. There must be something about the message of this fringe minority that just doesn´t fly with the broad public



Yet here you sit with 'us'
The truth is the broad public only have what the media tell them, I'd know I was one for a long time too.
Ask the broad public what a false flag attack is or whether the government would ever use nefarious means to go to war. There is your answer. Joe public watches CNN or Fox or BBC with their lovely studios and well spoken robots and thinks 'why would the lie' like the newscaster had first hand knowledge of all subjects.

Newspaper and media outlets have been proved to lie and use plausible deniability as there backdoor when proved wrong. Its not like we see retractions.

I'm neither a CT nor a debunker I am probably both if anything, I do not see myself on either side. I will listen, research and evaluate.
I can also admit when I'm wrong, I'm sure many on here are the same.

When we have footage of Indians celebrating on the news being reported as Libyans ( not a small mistake for such a powerful news source) I get nervous and would prefer to know why instead of rolling over.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Hi galdur: I would like to add - as I pointed out earlier, it would seem to me, as I watched the second explosion (sorry - didn't see the plane) MOST of the jet fuel ignited and blew up in a massive fireball OUTSIDE the building...let's not forget that too...

CJ



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


WTC 7 collapsed because it was the only building in history to burn "uncontrolled". Ahhh, so thaaaaats why.

But wait, what about:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire: burned for 18 hours.

The First Interstate Bank Fire: burned for 4 hours.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire: burned for 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire: burned for 17 hours.

The Windsor Building Fire: burned for almost 24 hours...

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire, during the fire:

After:

And guess what, they were uncontrolled and they didnt collapse...

I will say it. Checkmate.


edit on 15-9-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



Checkmate indeed, well put.
2nd



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Yes, and the rest of the fuel burns up in virtually seconds, leaving a regular office fire which certainly isn´t capable of melting steel.

In the interview Mr. Hamilton describes how everything that was put in the report had to be approved by all commission members. This explains why it´s such a contradictory and impossible hodge-podge of silly bunk that fewer and fewer people take seriously. It doesn´t age well at all.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 



Don't take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings.


Good suggestion Mr. Hamilton! Maybe we should all go over to the NIST site and see what they have to say!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Well, on the LAST video you showed, clearly that is a buidling made out of straw and sticks - the WTC was made of steel - much easier to burn and melt.

CJ



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Your examples were not hit by massive amounts of debris from a nearby collapsing 110 story skyscraper.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I think people want real information in touch with physical reality, not faith-based government propaganda. It shows very well in the meager support those official fables have here.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Ok so all those architects, engineers and scientists are all stupid? They learned different things in their respective schools versus the ones that toe the line for the government's official story?

Look alot of filthy rich people do some bad deeds on the way to amassing their great wealth somewhere along the line. Do you really think killing 3000 people they don't know fazes them one bit when they are going to make billions in manufactured wars?

Cmon people, this entire event oozes of greed and corruption, anyone who can't see that must be living in world of puppy dogs and ice cream cones.




top topics



 
55
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join