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.

 

Anybody Gone Back to Believing the OS After Questioning It?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
There's a whole thread about this here:

forums.randi.org...

In it, former truthers tell their stories of just how dumb they were, and how they were lied to.

Almost all of them were teenagers when they became truthers.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
the OS is just the most likely situation for me. It's not a matter of belief, honestly, it's a matter of what makes the most logical sense


Really? It makes the most logical sense?

I don't know.. I think it might just seem like that to a lot of people because of the propaganda-machine that's shaped their worldview for so long. When you look at true history, and how false flag operations have been used as far back as the Roman Empire to further government's agendas, I find it beyond logical that our government would do the same. In fact, I'm surprised it took them so long. We have to remember that those who hold the true positions of power in this world are not like us.. at all. So when you consider all the things that certain power elite had said before 9/11 about what they need to further their agenda, and you consider how our government has acted in the wake of the attacks.. the fact that they would carry out something like this becomes a whole lot more logical than the idea that these men in caves (who, mind you, got their original training, funding, and weapons from our government) were able to plot and carry out a penetration of the most advanced and well-funded defense system in the world... 4 times in one day

IMO



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Once you take the Red Pill you can never go back. I feel this is far beyond what we can comprehend. There are so many parts to 9-11 that doesn't add up and probably never will. A few things to consider.

9-11-1941 – Ground is broken for the construction of The Pentagon. 60 years before the attack on it.
9-11-1990 - Bush Sr. announced the NWO to public. 11 years before the attack on America
9-11-2001 - Little Dubya brought in the start of the NWO.

Peace to all.

edit on 13-10-2011 by Buford2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I have a hard time believing in coincidences and accidents.

The thing about September 11th is I don't claim to know what ultimately brought those buildings down. Maybe it was the planes, maybe it was a controlled demolition, but a lot of people died. I'm less concerned with how they were brought down than who brought them down.

When you look at al Qaeda, the links to the Saudi Royal Family, the wealth of the bin Ladens, the CIA involvement in training them, and all these other issues, it becomes real easy to believe something wasn't right. America has a pretty nasty history of setting up situations to convince our people to go to war.

If you want examples, the sinking of the Maine, the Zimmerman Telegram, our actions in east Asia designed to encourage Japan to start a war (start here for how that worked) as well as being completely "blindsided" at Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and it goes on...

America always has to be the good guy to get into a war, our people demand it and our government provides that. So, the question I ask myself about this conspiracy is why did America want to get into this war? Was it a first step toward Iran? Was it to control the opium trade? Was it just to make the public more pliable?

I don't know if that is the conspiracy people here fear, but it's one I take very seriously. And you're never going to hear anything about that despite the fact history has shown rather conclusively that this same formula pops up again and again with how we approach foreign intervention. So, I can't believe the official story.

I can believe the how. But considering the why was "they hate us for our freedom", that must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

And I also think the plane was shot down over Shanksville. I have friends who live within a few miles of where it happened, and they said they saw it, but then everyone hushed up real quick. But it's a better story as told, and whatever happened, it makes the resistance of ordinary citizens which I do believe no less heroic.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bacci0909
 


Ugh, stop assuming I'm a government loving idiot. I hate having to continuously tell you guys that just because I believe that there were no demolitions, that I still think it was the government's fault. It was either negligence or aide given to the hijackers.

It pisses me off how you guys blanket everybody into one little box that you can go "blah blah blah I'm smarter than you blah blah blah."



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

My favourite one from over at JREF is this one, a former moderator from the "Loose Change Forum" actually went out of his way to come back and apologise. He has my respect.


My Bad



My Bad (Former LCF Mod)
Hey folks, I used to be a moderator at the "Loose Change Forum" back in it's heyday before they went to LCF 2.0 and whatever came after that. My name there was HotDogBun. I used to ban or suspend people from JREF on almost a daily basis. I would always make sure the email message that accompanied the action was as over-the-top insulting as possible.

Well, My Bad. Turns out you were right, and that "the truth movement" was a cult or a religion or...something, something intolerant and dogmatic and worst of all, completely mistaken and in some instances outright deceptive. I bailed out of the whole CT thing a while ago, and have actually become quite skeptical about everything since then. I recently joined this forum to post in the "Do skeptics ever convince believers" thread in your general skepticism subforum, because skeptics did in fact convince me to abandon my irrational beliefs. It reminded me of how I dealt with you folks back then, so i figured an apology was in order.

So, sorry about that.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
As Fox Mulder would say, "I want to believe".

I want to believe the OS because it would make everything much simpler and convenient.

Sadly, I just haven't seen anything that sways me back to the other side.

Even if everything went down exactly as they said it did. Even if there was no controlled demolition, even if Al Qaeda did it, even if it was the jets they said it was....even then, I just can't believe all the "coincidences" and the reaction from the world (Iraq and Afghanistan).

I mean, maybe if there were one or two strange coincidences or things that didn't quite add up, but not the plethora of them which make up 9/11.

As for why conspiracy theorists rarely have huge amounts of data and maths to back them up - mostly because a lot of the evidence was either destroyed or kept from public sight, so we are supposed to rely on the official numbers and data which for all we know were completely fabricated. Even just that alone puts a huge "SUSPICIOUS!!" sign on it in my mind.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


Try an exercise one day. Take an innocuous event and start looking into it really deeply. I promise you that you'll find a tons of coincidences and unlikelihoods. Believe it or not, anything in the world seems unusual if you over-analyze it. That's why you simply have to step back and remember that you can't assume anything is inherently unusual. If there's an innocent answer, then it will be able to be found. So far I haven't been disappointed any time I've looked for the answer behind peculiarities.

The coincidences are merely normal stuff that you could probably find in just about any situation. For example, I could say that there's a conspiracy afoot because my father died and left me financial aid for school. He had mysteriously just recently applied for certain benefits, and it seemed as if the doctors intentionally killed him. Is that really the case? No, not at all, but if you look into it deeply enough, you'll convince yourself completely that it has to be an evil conspiracy. Really, it's all based on faith, and no evidence.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bacci0909
 


Ugh, stop assuming I'm a government loving idiot. I hate having to continuously tell you guys that just because I believe that there were no demolitions, that I still think it was the government's fault. It was either negligence or aide given to the hijackers.

It pisses me off how you guys blanket everybody into one little box that you can go "blah blah blah I'm smarter than you blah blah blah."


wait, what? first off, I never assumed you were a government loving idiot, and I never said I was smarter than you.

secondly, you kind of shot yourself in the foot by saying you thought the OS made the most logical sense. If you think there was negligence, and especially if you think aide might have been given to the hijackers by our government, then you my friend do not believe in the official story. it's not either you believe in the official story or you believe that there was controlled demolition, or no planes or whatever.. either you believe exactly what they're saying, thus believing the official story, or you don't



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


eehhh.... I get what you're saying. But this is geo-politics, and governments have a history of doing things like this. This is like 'everybody wants to rule the world' type of $heit



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bacci0909
 


It is kind of pointless one way or another, 99.999% of OS'ers I have come across do not display a coherent understanding of the OS, how can you expect them to understand the problems with it and why that implies the converse.

It is like that funny thing about hyper-religious nuts in any religion, when you sit down and really discuss things with them you soon discover that they have not read their own holy writ with understanding. They invariably latch on to a single glimmer, a word or a sentence that they believe justifies their position.

Of course Popper understood this kind of verificationalism very well: cla.calpoly.edu...

It is not hard for me to understand how people can come to believe the OS to be true, and also how people can revert back to the one true religion after falling for the temptation of doubt. You simply invert the process. The bible isn't written by god. it IS god. The OS doesn't TELL the truth, it IS the truth.

I fear for me my only savior is doubting Thomas himself, but not many people are comfortable like that.

Of course the whole "converted truther" shill is a time honored technique, and as a Machiavellian I do not oppose it in essence. But one must retain one's sanity and substituting fantasy for reality is not the way to do it I fear, so whatever you "believe", you must BELIEVE what is true.

And what is and will remain true is that OS is crock of stinking horse manure dressed up as haute-cuisine. Eat up fellows, don't miss the chewy bits.
edit on 14-10-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bacci0909
 


Sorry, I guess I get confused because in every thread where I argue about the planes bringing down the towers, I get tagged as an OS'er. Kind of a force of habit now, and not really meant to mean I believe everything about the official story. This site just gets more and more aggravating as I stay on it. Maybe I should take a few month break again and get away from the insanity.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
You're right about one thing, this site does aggravate me, and you're one of the most aggravating people that post here. In my opinion there is no math or science to back up the biggest lie ever told by our govt. People here have pointed out exactly the opposite to be true, and yet you act as though you are being mistreated, because you do nothing but repeat the same things, every day. People such as yourself hamper the possibility of a new investigation, and you know that's true. Because of that single fact, I consider you and those like you enemies of truth. When I get struck down by the 'mods' it's because I lose my cool over people like you, but that won't stop me from pushing for the truth. If this stays up, thanks. If not, I got it off my chest.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
You're right about one thing, this site does aggravate me, and you're one of the most aggravating people that post here. In my opinion there is no math or science to back up the biggest lie ever told by our govt. People here have pointed out exactly the opposite to be true, and yet you act as though you are being mistreated, because you do nothing but repeat the same things, every day. People such as yourself hamper the possibility of a new investigation, and you know that's true. Because of that single fact, I consider you and those like you enemies of truth. When I get struck down by the 'mods' it's because I lose my cool over people like you, but that won't stop me from pushing for the truth. If this stays up, thanks. If not, I got it off my chest.


But I support a new investigation. There's nothing wrong with doing another one, as every new investigation can reveal new information.

My qualms lie with the common perception that stating something as true makes it true. You'll notice that when I post I do not make broad, general claims such as "demolitions are completely impossible because it would be backwards physics!" No, instead I say "demolitions are not a likely scenario because there is evidence for a collapse without explosives. However, I'm willing to look at any evidence for demolitions."

The 'evidence' is usually conjecture (can't believe what happened, happened) or bad facts (molten steel, footprint collapse, anti-conservation of mass, sound of bombs). I say bad facts because I can't find any evidence of them no matter how hard I want the evidence to be there. Trust me, I would be the strongest supporter of the Truth movement if I could just find the real evidence. Unfortunately, it is along the lines of speculation and obfuscation rather than science and objectivity.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
If, as you say, support a new investigation, then why are all your energies devoted to bolstering the OS? This is what convinces me that you are posing as one thing, and behaving as another. We should take your advice, and each take a month off. But, that's problematic for two reasons. You won't get paid, and I won't rest until those that are responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice. I don't buy a single thing you're selling, but if you choose to continue, expect my derision because you are not helping the case for a new investigation.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
If, as you say, support a new investigation, then why are all your energies devoted to bolstering the OS? This is what convinces me that you are posing as one thing, and behaving as another. We should take your advice, and each take a month off. But, that's problematic for two reasons. You won't get paid, and I won't rest until those that are responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice. I don't buy a single thing you're selling, but if you choose to continue, expect my derision because you are not helping the case for a new investigation.



Bolstering the OS? No, I'm just using the evidence presented and used by the OS. What I'm trying to do is correct the factual inconsistencies in the logic of the members here. How the heck do you expect to have a proper investigation if you can't even grasp basic logic?

If by "bolstering the OS," you mean that I don't accept demolition as a likely scenario, then yeah, I guess I am "bolstering the OS."

But like I said, the only part of the OS that I even accept is that the towers fell without the use of demolitions. I'm 50/50 on the hijackers and government involvement, because I simply don't have enough data to draw a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bacci0909
 


Sorry, I guess I get confused because in every thread where I argue about the planes bringing down the towers, I get tagged as an OS'er. Kind of a force of habit now, and not really meant to mean I believe everything about the official story. This site just gets more and more aggravating as I stay on it. Maybe I should take a few month break again and get away from the insanity.


I hear you man, loud and clear. I have to do this site in dozes. I've noticed a pattern develop where I'll be way into it for 2 weeks or so.. then I'll have to step back for a couple weeks, then something happens in the news and I'll come on to it, only to again have to step back. That's just kind of how you have to handle something like this. On one hand, it's super important to be informed and aware of the truth of reality, but on the other.. there are sooo many more things that would be worth consuming your time on this planet..

As far as 9/11 specifically.. yes, it can get extremely aggravating. People talking as if they've uncovered the answer, speaking with such certainty, only to be outspoken a minute later by someone with even more certainty. Though I probably didn't convey it very well, that actually part of the reason I posted this thread. I understand how aggravating all of it can get, and I was kind of wondering if anybody finally just threw up their arms and said "Farcck it! I'll believe what they tell me cause it's easier".. Like I've said before, it's very important to always remember that nobody knows exactly what happened. All you can know is that something's not right, and by all means you can know at least that much with all your heart and soul



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
You've given me all the data I need to reach a conclusion about you, but in the spirit of fairness I promise to quit calling you a liar, because I guess it's possible that you're just a little 'slow'. Wink, wink.
edit on 14-10-2011 by dillweed because: spelling



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bacci0909
 


I agree with that. One of the concepts which I try to defend everywhere I go is that there is always another possibility. New data equals new possibilities.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Isn't calling for 911 Truth at a government level like asking a Pedophile Club to get justice for you because your Dad had sex with you as a 3 year old? Geez.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join