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: 7
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 

If you're not an agent, you're missing your calling.
I suspect you have not missed your calling though. Thanks for the < great > video Agent Smith.


edit on 14-9-2011 by TruthSeekerMike because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


I don't understand why he just discounted the possibility of there being any sort of cover up because he personally realized that there was no demolition. I think there is something fishy about it, but never really believed in the demolition.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
and a need to believe.


Oh yes, I "need to believe" I love being a truther, I love how everyone thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist for what I believe in, and even when I can convince them I am right, I love how they quickly change the subject and make excuses as to why they don't want to focus on the real evils of the world and instead on something bad that happened to them at work. And I absolutely love arguing with people on a conspiracy website about how there's no such thing as conspiracies, saying they are 'fed up' with the so called lies the truthers spread, and all the while I can't call them a disinfo agent because that would be against the T&C's, so yeah, being a truther is so glamorous, I just need this "theory" to believe in. It's so boring looking upon my country with overwhelming respect and pride that I just NEED to pretend like the CIA has mind control programs and takes part in assassinations, cause that's just a heck of a lot more fun to do.

End sarcasm.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 



According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8



At 8:42, Flight 175 veered off its planned course, and began flying south. 3 According to NORAD's June 18 timeline and prior press reports, at 8:43 the FAA notified NORAD that the flight had been hijacked. 4 5 6 At 8:46, Flight 175 stopped transmitting its transponder signal. 7 According to the NTSB Report on Flight 175, the plane started a turn to the northeast at 8:57 and descended from 28,000 feet as it approached the World Trade Center. 8


Thats plenty of time to respond to a hijacked plane with known protocols by the FAA, the military, etc...

why are do people insist that everyone working that day forgot how to respond to a hijacked plane?

why do they insist on incompetence in the air traffic controllers, the Air Force, etc...?

are people not confident in their Military? except in this regard...

everyone is so willing to say they messed up at once...

but not willing to admit 47 military drills going on that very day confused everyone..

everyone knows they follow the chain of command...

but no.. not one mention that these people were competent and have procedures in place to handle this exact

type of situation..

no no..

had to be 19 hijackers with box cutter taking orders from a guy in a cave..

who never got charged in a court of law...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


The notion that 200-ton airliners could reduce 500-thousand ton skyscrapers practically to dust and demolish all steel structure, both external columns and central ones - in seconds - , is just not in touch with physical reality at all. Any belief in this official fable is thus purely faith-based.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Cool story bro not even gonna waste my time,

Unicorns will soon also be moving in down the road.

Seriously though Dis-info Agent much???



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Firefighters For 9/11 Truth

firefightersfor911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 



1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. Examine the list for yourself. Then, look at the 750 (better credentialed) names at dissentingdarwin.org, and ask whether the latter list puts biological evolution in serious doubt.
(c) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."
(d) Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building. It is difficult to ignite, so it needs to be piled and ignited from the top and allowed to burn downward by gravity. It would not burn sideways to cut a vertical column.
(e) Rigging a large building for demolition requires weeks of wall removal, drilling, cutting, and wiring. It cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(f) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.
(g) No alternate theory has been offered showing how the building(s) were intentionally demolished. Conspiracy believers just keep raising the same questions and hope you won't look for the answers.

2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.
(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy believers do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.
(f) "Why bother demolishing with explosives when you can just light a fire?" Most demolitions are of old concrete structures where this would not work. In an all-steel structure like WTC7, fire could in fact be used. But detonation is more predictable and controllable.
(g) "You are working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence, merely because it fits the believer's worldview. Not an effective way to get closer to the truth.

3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent: "The government must have also lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."


Ah and here we are, the "you're a racist card". Evidence has been put forth, you just close you're eyes too it. I mean why is it hard to believe that Islamic terrorist couldn't pull this off? Despite trying numerous times before.

www.infoplease.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant

Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination.

We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”.

There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!

-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.

firefightersfor911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Wow, all the truthers on this forum are a bunch of condescending closed minded assholes.
The first page consists of OP thinking critically and everyone else calling him an idiot or sheep.

Is there no room for people with different views on this forum? You discredit him like the sheeple you conspiracy theorists hate so much do to you.
I'm not asking for much, all I ask is that you don't be such close minded dicks when someone else comes with a different view, even if a person has no evidence.

This is like the only forum on ATS where people act this way.

edit on 14-9-2011 by Segador because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Segador
 


Well, it´s a matter of record

see recent poll

that you and other followers of the official fables are in a small minority here.

Faith-based arguments don´t work. Proving falsehoods is by definition impossible,
which obviously means that your numbers will keep shrinking.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

I was a deluded OS believer once.


At one point in time, I fell for the official theory. I even praised Bush and supported him, the wars, everything. But that only lasted a few years until I started seeing people questioning 9/11. That's when I started doing my own research. The rest is history.

Once a truther, always a truther. That's how strong the evidence is. If someone chooses not to be a truther anymore, then they never were a truther in the first place. But, that's what happens when people don't do the exhaustive research.

I see alot of false information about truthers and the truth movement, so I'm going to be responding to several of you below:


Originally posted by Submarines
You took the words right out of my mouth when you talked about this movement taking away from those who were killed and their families

The truth movement was started by the families. There are many families that are very active in the truth movement to this day. Who disrespects the families the most is those who attempt to speak for them when they have already spoken for themselves.



Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Also, I wonder if you are the same folks who believe our government is trying to kill us/alter us by spreading chemicals in the air via any type airplane

Nope. I've debunked many "chemtrail" hoax claims.



Originally posted by DBCooper71
If the evidence is so overwhelming, that the bush regime committed 9/11, then why doesn't your beloved Ron Paul back you up.

Easy: political suicide.



Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
9/11 truthers only get their information from other 9/11 truthers

This is a flat-out lie. There may be some that very well may, but many of us have done our own research.

I've done my own research and discovered the identity of the white plane seen flying low over Washington DC shortly after the attack. The discovery of that plane and the questions that followed, (and denial by the government that that plane was even airborne) caused CNN to do a story based in-part by my research, and a book was written based on my discovery of that plane as well.

Furthermore, I've done my own research on the construction of the World Trade Center towers, and my own research into controlled demolition. I do my own research based on the facts of 9/11. If there is a research organization that supports those facts, then I support them. But I follow no one and I believe no one unless and until their claim is verified (or not).



Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
they all twist facts

Really? I've never once twisted any fact and I challenge you to prove otherwise. There my be some bad apples that do, but most don't.



Originally posted by Junkheap
It is dangerous, because eventually someone's going to snap and innocent people are going to get hurt.

There's nothing to "snap" about. If someone "snaps", it is due to something else going on in their life, completely unrelated to 9/11.



Originally posted by Junkheap
Ironic that it's the "truth" movement that contains the most disinformation and lies.

I'd love for you to start your own thread about this claim and show some proofs so that they can be thoroughly countered.



Originally posted by micmerci
There is NO WAY that the explosives could have been put into those buildings undetected.

Then you might want to see my thread here:

Secret retrofitting of the World Trade Center for explosive demolition was very possible.



Originally posted by micmerci
There is no way anyone could have planted the explosives without being confronted by someone, anyone.

As layed out in my thread, the above is very possible. WTC construction workers have also stated that there was construction going on somewhere at the WTC at any given moment. WTC workers were used to seeing construction workers coming and going all the time.



Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have a rather bad habit of decimating ignorance on the terrorism forum.

Which forum would that be? I don't see such a forum on ATS. Must not be the 9/11 forum because I don't see you post here much, and you've never "decimated" anything that I've posted. Of course, few have.



Originally posted by Six6Six
I have yet to see real Evidence from the truthers.

That's because you don't know what types of evidence there is. We have evidence in the form of audio recordings, video recordings, and witness testimony. You don't need the physical murder weapon or sometimes even the physical body to prove murder, so you don't need anything physical from 9/11 to have "evidence" either.


Continued below.....



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
...Continued from above.



Originally posted by Six6Six
what the truthers have is merely speculation and theory.

Kind of like the official theory. We were never shown the DNA evidence for the hijackers, nor were we ever shown the chain of custody for the evidence. You have to take their word for it based on faith.

Same thing with the NIST report. Their "evidence" can't be revealed. They also used guesses, calculations and made-up computer models to come up with their report. Since you can't see their "evidence", you have to take their word based on faith as well. And since NIST used guesses and calculations, their report is only a theory and cannot be taken as factual. Even says so right at the beginning.



Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So what you're saying is that you're willing to completely disregard that there is a complete lack of evidence supporting any of the 911 conspiracy theories

As I told the poster above, it all depends on what you think is evidence, and what is actually considered evidence by definition. There is plenty of evidence by definition that the 9/11 truth movement bases their theories upon.

On the flip side of that coin, the official version is only a theory as well because it also lacks supporting evidence.



Originally posted by Mcupobob
When 9/11 truthers finally give up the demo argument, they head over to the Thermite one.

That argument has never been given up. In fact, that is one of the most strongest arguments against the official theory. It is still alive and kicking. I'm not sure where you get your "alternate" 9/11 research from.



Too many people do too little research, then proclaim they know everything about everything which leads them to throw falsities around as if they were facts. There's alot of research that needs to be done on both sides of the fence.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


I understand how that can make sense. Especially since it happened not once but twice is pretty miraculous, but still it's easier to work your way from the ground up on conspiracies and getting answers on the questions that are more easily handled by the masses is the way to go. It's the same way the media eases the masses into lies, we can ease them into truths that they don't want to believe.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR








I couldn't agree more...


After I....


...studied the peculiarities and technicalities of these claims for [5]five years. In an exhaustive search of sources, way beyond those supplied on the typical truth sites and threads, I can finally say nothing has truly stood up to critical analysis...



...I came across a 3 minute long video that debunks thousands of hours of professionally produced, scientifically researched videos, along with ten's of thousands of scientists, architects, engineers, and eye witnesses...............


"It's that simple..."



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Is that you Charlie?

ALS



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Yes , that scientific research done by all those architects and such.


(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc


With such creditable people like

The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."



There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.

edit on 9/14/2011 by Mcupobob because: redacted



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Op, now that you have truly conformed, do not forget the following.

1) take yearly cold-virus shot.
2) use lots of flouride, when brushing your teeth.
3) succumb to any governmental studies, such as TB, Aids, or swine-bird flu.
4) believe there is a Santa Clause,
5) believe that the Philadelpia convention of 1787 was an opened door, with all Americans involved.
6) Wilson signed the "Federal Reserve Act" into law for your beneifit and all Americans.
7) Fish are safe to eat down in the Gulf of Mexico.
8) The Tokyo plant and it's release of particles pose no threat to you.



Lastly, if your a younger fellow: that there will be a Social-Security check for you in the future



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


According to the official story this was a gravity driven event and it simply isn´t physically possible for reinforced structures like these to fall through themselves practically without resistance and turn to dust in mid-air in any gravity driven event. The energy sink does not add up. So, some kind of extra energy must have been added to the equation.

Those who believe the official story about the collapse of the towers can not also believe that parachutes work. Can´t have it both ways.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Segador
 


Well, it´s a matter of record

see recent poll

that you and other followers of the official fables are in a small minority here.

Faith-based arguments don´t work. Proving falsehoods is by definition impossible,
which obviously means that your numbers will keep shrinking.


I see convincing evidence in both theories, and you are a prime example why I hate truthers and why people don't generally like you guys, you can't say anything regarding the OS without being condescending pricks.
You guys call them sheeples, call them shills, call them idiots, you people are freaking cultists.

Let me make it clear that I do not fully believe either stories or the alternate theories like holograms, I don't really care about it anymore. Both sides have integrated false info into their theories that have made either stories hard to believe.


edit on 14-9-2011 by Segador because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join