Tired of implausible conspiracies making decent ones look bad

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Now, every one is entitled to their opinion, but there are some people with bizaare opinions. Now, on this site, there's a lot of theories about who really did this or that. Like 9/11, for example. I believe 9/11 was funded by the CIA. Bin Laden and the Bush family were allies. But here's where people go crazy: Disputing the existence of the planes that hit the tower. I've got a friend who says that steel doesn't melt at the temperature of an office fire. That there was molten metal at the foundation of the towers. Something about thermite, and this, and that.

Now, I'm not an expert on buildings, but when a plane full of jet fuel meets that ol' immovable object, you can be sure, just as sure as you live that something's got to give. Now, there's a lot of folks that claim that no sky scraper has ever fallen from being hit by a plane. They'll start talking about how that B-52 hit the empire state building way back when. But that was another building constructed in another era. They don't make em like they used to. They built the twin towers in the seventies, not exactly a reputable time for construction.

Now, don't get me wrong: The Government is responsible for this sort of in the same way that it was responsible for Iran-Contra, and all of that. It provided the funding, the training, and turned a blind eye. Only instead of arresting the head honcho after we were done with him like we did with Noriega, we let a fledging warlord escape to fight another day. The middle eastern forces we armed to fight the soviets came back to bite us. Honestly, though, that was probably the intent. We've always got to have a new enemy. I mean, in war time, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but once that particular war is over, all bets are off in regards to alliances.

You know what else I despise in regards to making conspiracy theorists look bad? Remember when Sandy Hook happened, and that was all that could get to front page? Just nothing but debate over gun control and false flags. Now, let's say there's a coin flip's odds that you're right. It ain't too pleasant when the coin flip turns up as the grisly truth of the dead. Mighty distasteful to the dead and their families, to claim they don't exist.

It does seem like there is an overabundance of psychotics and ne'er-do-wells, if you watch the news. That's the thing though. The news is like a feedback loop. The more people give attention to mass murder, the more appealing it may seem to someone who's already deranged, or on the edge.

Now, if we didn't have these sorts of threads clogging up the discussion, we could have a meaningful discussion about the exploitation of the common man by the power elite, and what that means.
There's folks on both sides of the aisle with puppet strings leading back to the same ultra rich old moneyed interests. But instead of talking about the true puppet masters, all we talk about are the puppets.




posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Feel the same way but that's just the way the cookie crumbles around here.

I'll listen intently to someone who has a conspiracy theory..or two...
But someone who thinks every damn thing is a conspiracy has (imo) left the path of wisdom.
It's the "believe NOTHING about ANYTHING" attitude that gives conspiracy theorists a bad name.



edit on 21-10-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Now, I'm not an expert on buildings
Well that means we should take your opinion with a pinch of salt then ?


but when a plane full of jet fuel meets that ol' immovable object, you can be sure, just as sure as you live that something's got to give.
Yep, it was the inbuilt ability to withstand plane crashes. That actualy designed that into the towers!
Also, a thimble full of aviation fuel produces the same temperature as a whole plane full.


Now, there's a lot of folks that claim that no sky scraper has ever fallen from being hit by a plane.
Actually most people claim a skyscraper has never collapsed because of fire.


They'll start talking about how that B-52 hit the empire state building way back when. But that was another building constructed in another era. They don't make em like they used to. They built the twin towers in the seventies, not exactly a reputable time for construction.
Huh!!



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
There are several folks on ATS who would find your view of reality out there, and implausible, regarding those theories you've posited in this thread. Others would say you're far too conservative. Who decides what is plausible? You? Me? Consensus?



You know what else I despise in regards to making conspiracy theorists look bad? Remember when Sandy Hook happened, and that was all that could get to front page? Just nothing but debate over gun control and false flags. Now, let's say there's a coin flip's odds that you're right. It ain't too pleasant when the coin flip turns up as the grisly truth of the dead. Mighty distasteful to the dead and their families, to claim they don't exist.

So basically, we should refrain from considering the likelihood of a scenario or theory by whether it has enough merit to sustain itself. Instead, we should base our conclusions on how much it offends the senses, and/or the families of the dead. If it offends, it is a bad theory, and therefore has no truth to it. If it does not offend, it becomes the most likely and acceptable scenario.

The use of "emotional objectivity" doesn't work very well as a tool for determining the likelihood of a given hypothesis. Nevertheless, it gets used a lot to shut people up, and police their thoughts.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

VoidHawk

They'll start talking about how that B-52 hit the empire state building way back when. But that was another building constructed in another era. They don't make em like they used to. They built the twin towers in the seventies, not exactly a reputable time for construction.
Huh!!

I think he meant to say B-25 when it hit the Empire State building in 1945.


edit on 21-10-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Fair enough, I appreciate your tenacity. I did make a few over generalizations. I'm just a lay man, and you ought to take my observations with as you said, a grain of salt. One should take everything with a grain of salt these days. Now, I don't mean to tell you what you can, and can't believe.

Just how certain are you that it's a false flag though? Certain enough to tell an apparent parent in grieving that she's an actress, her kid wasn't real, and that this is all a government operation to steal our guns? Somehow, I don't think folks would.

Now, the moon landing conspiracy, I can understand people debating, regardless of actual merit. But some psycho kid shooting up the school of the month, that's not even news these days, much less a conspiracy.

The real conspiracy lies in what is making kids gun down their class mates. Some combination of prescription medication, underlying mental conditions, and the ever reaching influence of violent, sensationalist media.

"Hey, folks! You see this guy's picture? This BIG picture we have plastered across the TV? This guy's famous now! Real famous. Yall want to know what he did? Oh, he shot a bunch of kids. Shot a bunch of unarmed school patrons. Details at eleven."

And that's on every channel, following one of these sorts of things. Just inept attempts at piecing together why the kid did it.

Then, some unhinged loser elsewhere sees the coverage that the psycho got, and decides he wants to be famous too.

We can lay this at the altar of false flags and wash our hands in the ceremonial waters of "the government did it". Or we can confront reality, and discuss the actual underlying psychological trauma that society inflicts upon people as part of the daily grind.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Grifter42
But here's where people go crazy: Disputing the existence of the planes that hit the tower.

There was actually a hoaxer who made those "theories" up, and some people ran with it. You'll find some of those "no-plane" threads in the HOAX bin.



Grifter42
I've got a friend who says that steel doesn't melt at the temperature of an office fire.

That is 100% correct. Normal office fires don't melt steel, and normal office fires have never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse, totally and completely, before 9/11 or after 9/11.

Yet, it happened on a single day, and 3 times on that single day. The odds of that happening are astronomical.



Grifter42
That there was molten metal at the foundation of the towers.

Again 100% correct. Multiple witnesses, pictures and video confirm this.



Grifter42
Now, there's a lot of folks that claim that no sky scraper has ever fallen from being hit by a plane.

Actually, no steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed totally and completely due to office fires. Or any other kind of fire, for that matter.



Grifter42
They'll start talking about how that B-52 hit the empire state building way back when.

It was a B-25, and it was in 1945.



Grifter42
But that was another building constructed in another era.

It had nothing to do with the "era". The Empire State building was constructed totally differently than the towers, and made out of different construction material. The two incidents are not comparable.



Grifter42
They built the twin towers in the seventies, not exactly a reputable time for construction.

Actually, it was. The towers were constructed to withstand the impacts of jetliners comparable to the ones that crashed on 9/11.

The cores of the towers were constructed with massive steel columns connected vertically and horizontally, with diagonal cross-bracing. The cores were a fortress of constructed steel.




edit on 21-10-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: *sigh* sp again :/



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


There's a first for everything. It's possible that they cut the main support at sometime after impact, I'll grant you, but who would volunteer to cut the support? It's a suicide mission. All these folks talking about how they heard someone give the firefighters an order to "pull it" in regards to the towers.

Now, maybe there's some shadowy cabal that rigged up the building without much notice. That's a possibility. But why even bother flying the planes into the buildings then? Why not just detonate them, and claim it was which ever enemy they wanted to claim it was in the beginning? They own the media, the networks. A bunch of dead terrorists is less useful as a figure for the government to scare people with than a bunch of living ones. Why didn't the government be like, "Hey, they wired the twin towers a day before they skipped town to Iraq. We gotta go and get them now."

There, Casus belli. With the spectre of living terrorists competent enough to wired three buildings and get away with it, the American public would be more terrified by the ramifications. They'd vote for any homeland defense bill that was put in front of them. So, to be admitted, not much different than the present.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


Ahhh, the shooters are actually way more interesting than that. They were all such very smart boys (except for the ones that got caught well before they were going to do their little copy cat runs).

The problem with judging conspiracies based one's own opinion of what is plausible and what isn't is that doing so is actually extremely subjective. Now, personally, I'd say the moon hoax theories are less plausible than say the government possibly doing something with children that eventually makes a small few snap. And the Repitilian O negative theories? I'd say that those are total hogwash and people really shouldn't listen to somebody who is clearly off their rocker. I could go on and on listing what I think is good stuff and what I think is garbage. However, that's just my opinion and those subjects, such as the possibility of Reptilian O negative overlords are, sadly, outside of my particular repertoire (aside from being O negative and definitively human).

In fact, the only time I will bring something to the conspiracy table, especially when I disagree with the particular conspiracy, is when I actually have something of merit and value to bring to that table. So I'm not likely to comment on threads about Chemtrails or the like. My own opinion of such things is my own. If somebody has something to air about an issue and has done some research, more power to them but only if it's effective and applicable research.

I also think the threads on Illuminati symbolism being everywhere to be rather silly. Conspiracy is fashionable, yo! But hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 



We can lay this at the altar of false flags and wash our hands in the ceremonial waters of "the government did it". Or we can confront reality, and discuss the actual underlying psychological trauma that society inflicts upon people as part of the daily grind.

What has brought you to the conclusion, this is always the correct choice? Why not consider both, if there is reason to suspect both?

How soon we forget, our government has publicly admitted to crimes against the American people, and others, several times. And we wonder why conspiracy theorists who study this type of thing have zero trust in the system? Why they scream false flag, and actors? Especially when these incidents become clearly convenient for those with a vested interest?

I'm not saying the more extreme theories are right, in any or all of the cases. I'm saying I don't blame folks for their cynicism and suspicion, even when it runs to an extreme at times. Although I like your idea of a moderate and balanced approach to conspiracy, we can't toss out possibilities we don't like just because they're distasteful, or they don't match our bias. Especially if our goal is some semblance of fact or truth.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Grifter42
There's a first for everything.

You could say that, despite the improbability. But a first, three times on one day and one day only, and never before or after that one day? Astronomical, and virtually impossible.



Grifter42
Now, maybe there's some shadowy cabal that rigged up the building without much notice.

You can check out my thread titled Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company to digest some information related to your statement.


Another thread of mine that is also relative: Secret retrofitting of the World Trade Center for explosive demolition was very possible.



Grifter42
But why even bother flying the planes into the buildings then? Why not just detonate them

So, you're at work one day, the towers just happen to detonate and collapse out of the clear blue, people come out and say "hmm, how did that happen"?

Not very much "shock and awe" there.

A plane hits one tower, smoke billows from the top and flows across Manhattan. People are coming outside with all eyes focused on the World Trade Center, wondering what's going on. Then the "shock and awe" kicks in when everyone outside and on live TV witness a second plane strike the second tower.

The "shock and awe" concludes by everyone outside and on TV witnessing the miraculous collapse of the towers, the first one after only 56 minutes of burning. "Coincidentally", shortly after firefighters were in the process of putting out the fires in that building, and that building having the least amount of impact damage.

9/11 was just an upgraded version of "Operation Northwoods" that was written and approved some 40-years earlier. 9/11 was also the "New Pearl Harbor" that the neocons had written about in the "Project for a New American Century", and allowed them to accelerate their plans.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Excellent points. In addition to giving them footage they can replay over and over until its burned into our minds forever, it gives them justification to turn air travel into a police state event. Nobody blinks now when police in combat gear are patrolling airports. Nobody complains about strip searches, being interrogated for looking different or having slightly irregular behavior-now they're even using facial recognition software that detects people's harmful intent based on their facial expressions. We'll have to go around without expressions on our faces if we don't want to get dragged away-just like in Orwell's 1984. Literally. Go back and read it. But we've waived our right to be outraged at this loss of freedom for the sake of liberty. And now that the camel's nose is in the tent, so to speak, anything goes.

The planes were used because they reinforce the Official Story. Whenever these things happen, there is always an obvious trigger man that gets blamed, one that plausibly could have done it, and this trigger man (or men) distract us from the real perpetrators. Oswald is a great example of this. Sure, he was believable as the trigger man-Communist, defector, he even took a shot at a General. He was no innocent. But he was a patsy, for the sake of distraction and they had to use someone believable. Same with Mohammed Atta and Co. Bad seeds, all of them, but they and the planes they took and crashed were for the cameras.

Had a military demolitions team simply wired the buildings, there would have been a great deal more investigation into what really happened. Stealing some planes and changing their directions so they crash into buildings is relatively easy. It's crude and visually effective, and we can accept that a bunch of regular guys did it. But had the buildings simply detonated, there would have been a more serious investigation into the logistics of it-how could regular guys bypass security for weeks and set up hundreds of charges without being detected? They would have to be in charge of security, as well, and that might strain people's credulity. But the planes? Everybody saw that. They saw how it appeared to happen, and most accepted what their eyes told them. The government was allowed to remove all of the evidence from the biggest crime scene in the world, and no one called them on it.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Grifter42
/
Now, if we didn't have these sorts of threads clogging up the discussion, we could have a meaningful discussion about the exploitation of the common man by the power elite, and what that means.


So,
What is keeping you from writing one of these threads?
You could call it "a meaningful discussion about the exploitation of the common man by the power elite"

It's not as if people won't let you have a say.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well, the folks who worked in the towers on 9/11 wouldn't have much to say about the situation one way or the other if the towers suddenly collapsed Timothy McVeigh style, one after the other. They had fourty five minutes for potential witnesses, people who might have seen something out of the ordinary in the building, to escape.

I will agree, Operation Northwoods is some chilling stuff. Makes you wonder. But there's nothing in the false flag handbook that says you can't just proxy attack your own country. Why do all that work yourself when you can arm middle eastern fringe groups to do it for you, and at half the cost?

It's a real Catch-22. If the government did it, and managed to keep it under wraps, then why did they leave a bunch of apparent evidence around? That's not much like the shadow government. I mean, when they did that Kennedy assassination, they really did a good job of cleaning up anyone who could blow the lid off the thing.

But if the government didn't do it, why were they acting so suspicious about it? Why the "war games" that the air force was locked up in? Why'd they tell fighter pilots to ignore airliners that were distinctly out of place? Aren't people supposed to be monitoring the flights?

It seems to me that the sixties and seventies government was a bit better at keeping things like this under wraps. I mean, people knew Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, but it isn't what you know. It's what you can prove.
And when Jack Ruby shot Oswald, they weren't ever going to be able to prove it one way or the other.

Nixon and kin were great liars. Now, I look at the current crop of politicians, and they're just obviously out to grub up as much graft as possible. At least with Nixon, you could always count on him to surprise you with a new low. But the folks on Capitol Hill these days just look so see-through in regards to "shill for the medical industry"... "Shill for the oil industry"... "Shill for the military industrial complex"... "shill for the banking industry". We ought to stop electing politicians across party lines. Just simplify it. Have one party that's owned by Exxon-Mobil, and have the other one owned by Pfizer. Vote for Exxon-Mobil, get an oil change half off with proof of voter's registration! Vote for Pfizer, and get a free flu shot.

I mean, all these puddles of metal and such, if they really had the ramifications that people believe them to, why did they release them in the first place? I've heard things about melted aluminum, that might be it. Or maybe they used thermite, somehow managed to get it burn a horizontal cut in a vertical support.
Maybe they used sideways thermite? Honestly, I think if they did rig the twin towers to blow, they'd have used explosives. Like, real explosives. That still leaves us with the mysterious pools of molten metal though, which is why the thermite conspiracy exists. But thermite does not work like that. It burns straight through nearly anything. It'd be awful to stand under it, but it's not gonna put off the sheer amount of shock necessary to destroy that vertical central column.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


I don't think the "how" is as important as the "who."

I'm not a physics or demolitions expert, so I'm not qualified to address those areas. I think it's interesting that the entire 9/11 discussion has been framed into a "planes vs. thermite charges" debate. One group believes it was terrorists and planes, the other, thermite charges and the government, and that's it. What happens if they prove thermite can't do what its being blamed for? We've put all our cards on that.

What about foreign governments? Foreign intelligence agencies? Why does it have to be either the Bush Administration or OBL? You're given exactly 2 options-just like Left/Right, Blue/Red, Democrat/Republican, etc. You are actually being given two false options by your opponent, and you believe that your acceptance of one or the other constitutes an exercise of your free will.

The information that has been leaked about the "NORAD stand-down" and "Operation Vigilant Guardian" was leaked on purpose. THEY want you to suspect the US government, because they know that distrusting the government disrupts national cohesion. Why would you be loyal to a government that tries to kill you for its own purposes? THEY also want you to suspect Arab terrorists-because these two factions, the Islamists and the US government, are players in the fake conflict that they have made up to control you.
edit on 21-10-2013 by Snsoc because: clarity
edit on 21-10-2013 by Snsoc because: clarity



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
It wasn't all that long ago that germs were considered by learned medical men of their time as a ludicrous proposition, washing of hands between the autopsy room and the childbirth room laughable, that the sun circled the Earth, or the age of the Earth a mere few thousand years, and made by god in a wink... nevermind that those smudged looking stars might possibly be galaxies, or that an atom would look, strangely enough, like a replica of a solar system... history is chock-full of crazy ideas that turned out to be true, and it has been overwhelmingly the snotty 'debunkers' who have been proven lacking in foresight and knowledge. It's their kind who gave us the Inquisition and witch-burning (for their own soul's good, of course).

See, even the most ludicrous 'theories' deserve their day of discussion, hopefully among people who don't have a political axe to grind, money or power to protect, or their sorry hides to keep out of jail. You really never know if the person you're discussing matters with is the same sort of obtuse fool who would have refused to look through Galileo's telescope, or someone actually a tad bit curious about the world and willing to entertain new ideas just to see where they might lead.

As far as 9-11 goes, I feel after hundreds of hours of research that I've solved for myself (the only person who matters to me) how the towers were explosively disintegrated. The South Tower sure as hell didn't fall down go boom symmetrically after a mere 56 minutes of an isolated fire and turning into dust on the way the entirety of office contents, which were never found in the pile. Keep in mind that you have to explain ALL the evidence both during and aftermath, and have an explanation that wouldn't produce effects not seen. Kerosene and isolated underground fires do not account for blast furnace conditions for 99 days afterwards underground. They do not account for a massive I-beam that melted like taffy during the 10 seconds it took for the building to come down. They also do not account for the fission byproducts that were found in the dust, or the missing tonnage of steel (which was weighed as it was sold and about 1/3 was missing...).

If you're really interested, google Jeff Prager's work, or the 'anonymous physicist' or Ed Ward, M.D. You may find that some of the crazies are right.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Snsoc
reply to post by Grifter42
 

I don't think the "how" is as important as the "who."

What about foreign governments? Foreign intelligence agencies? Why does it have to be either the Bush Administration or OBL? You're given exactly 2 options-just like Left/Right, Blue/Red, Democrat/Republican, etc. You are actually being given two false options by your opponent, and you believe that your acceptance of one or the other constitutes an exercise of your free will.you.
edit on 21-10-2013 by Snsoc because: clarity
edit on 21-10-2013 by Snsoc because: clarity


Perhaps I ought to have given more credit where credit was due. You folks have certainly done your homework, that's for sure. It's a decent point you've made. Is anything we ever do truly free?
We live in a very binary society. You're either one or the other. Heads or tails.


signalfirean atom would look, strangely enough, like a replica of a solar system...

Tell you the truth, I have thought that before. An atom being it's own solar system, or galaxy, or universe is an interesting notion, if perhaps a bit far out there.


signalfire history is chock-full of crazy ideas that turned out to be true, and it has been overwhelmingly the snotty 'debunkers' who have been proven lacking in foresight and knowledge. It's their kind who gave us the Inquisition and witch-burning (for their own soul's good, of course).


There's a fair share of crazy ideas that turned out to be true, but then you seem to lump me in with the spanish inquisitors and other folks you term as "snotty debunkers". We're all allies, here. Well, sort of.

We need skeptics with good sense, yet we also need those who seek out the bizaare, and incredible.
Because nine times out of ten, with some manner of skepticism, there's a logical explanation, but for that one time out of ten, you've got something worth looking into.

Keep up the good spirit.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
That's the reality. Most of us have absolutely no idea about engineering or architecture, but SOME of us sure will act like we do. Some of us will also rely on another anonymous source claiming to be an engineering wizard, as long as what is being said falls in line with the preconceived belief.

Me? I'll take every single first hand account of U.F.O.'s or Big Foot over most of the 9/11 garbage. Joe Blow ATS'er might have had an encounter with a U.F.O. but he sure doesn't know as much about skyscraper construction as he claims to, that's for sure.

Even worse, it isn't good enough if you think there are things being hidden about 9/11. You have to believe EXACTLY what Joe Blow ATS'er does or you are a dirty shill.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

usernameconspiracy
That's the reality. Most of us have absolutely no idea about engineering or architecture, but SOME of us sure will act like we do. Some of us will also rely on another anonymous source claiming to be an engineering wizard, as long as what is being said falls in line with the preconceived belief.

Me? I'll take every single first hand account of U.F.O.'s or Big Foot over most of the 9/11 garbage. Joe Blow ATS'er might have had an encounter with a U.F.O. but he sure doesn't know as much about skyscraper construction as he claims to, that's for sure.

Even worse, it isn't good enough if you think there are things being hidden about 9/11. You have to believe EXACTLY what Joe Blow ATS'er does or you are a dirty shill.


True enough; people are as protective of their pet theory as any religious person. I've moved away from arguing the physics, but when I try to suggest to people that maybe they should also back another horse, just in case, I'm called an agent of the conspiracy-which makes me upset, because I'm determined to fight the conspiracy for the rest of my life. I haven't dealt with that on ATS, because I don't have the karma to post in the 9/11 forum yet.

I don't need the physics argument-there are so many other problems with the Official Story, I've got plenty of material to work with. Motive and Opportunity, the two things that real investigators examine when solving a crime, will not steer you wrong. Now I just have to get people to listen to me and not lump me in with the cranks, and that, I believe was the OP's original point.
edit on 23-10-2013 by Snsoc because: accuracy



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Snsoc

True enough; people are as protective of their pet theory as any religious person. I've moved away from arguing the physics, but when I try to suggest to people that maybe they should also back another horse, just in case, I'm called an agent of the conspiracy-which makes me upset, because I'm determined to fight the conspiracy for the rest of my life. I haven't dealt with that on ATS, because I don't have the karma to post in the 9/11 forum yet.

I don't need the physics argument-there are so many other problems with the Official Story, I've got plenty of material to work with. Motive and Opportunity, the two things that real investigators examine when solving a crime, will not steer you wrong. Now I just have to get people to listen to me and not lump me in with the cranks, and that, I believe was the OP's original point.
edit on 23-10-2013 by Snsoc because: accuracy


Pretty much. I mean, if you look at who stands to benefit from 9/11, it would seem most clear to me that the military industrial complex wanted this to happen. They wanted a new war, for a new century. A war of perpetual paranoia, against an enemy that is politically convenient to fight. But once you start making more in depth statements about how they went about it, then you leave yourself weak to people picking holes in your theory. When you make it about how the twin towers fell, instead of why, then you're weakening your own argument. The why of the situation is what's important.

We could hang out all day, talking back and forth about how they could sneak thousands of pounds of explosives necessary to demolish the buildings in undetected, and the skeptics could discuss how metal fatigue was responsible, and etcetera, etcetera, but the underlying motivation as to why they allowed 9/11 to occur is what interests me. People poison the well by talking about microthermite, or thermate, or marmite, or explosives planted under cover of darkness. Explosives aren't cheap. But a bunch of indoctrinated folks who don't even know what side they're fighting for are a dime a dozen. If I were the powers that be, I'd pick one or the other to start my false flag war. There's just too much logistical burden on lugging up tons of explosives up however many stories it takes to fully rig up the main supports.

But regardless, it's clear that the administration used it as an opportunity to start a war of aggression against a nation with little to do with it.
"Hey, this guy who's hiding out in Pakistan staged an attack against us! We've got to go to war!"

"Against Pakistan?"

"Nope! Against Iraq! Don't you know Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are best friends? And they told me they did 9/11 together, holding hands while reading the Quran and spitting on Jesus!"

"Uh.. Don't you have close ties to the Bin Laden family yourself, Mr. President? Why are we not seeking Bin Laden out in Pakistan? Why even bother with Iraq?"

"Listen. In a day or two, you're gonna have yourself a car accident. Me, I'll be playing fetch with my dog. So why don't you save all these tough questions for when you're lying in a hospital bed, eating your food through a plastic tube? I got presidential stuff to do... Chief-hailing and all of that."

And so it went. The Bin Laden family and their ties to the Bush family went mostly unspoken, a lot like how the ties to the Hinckley family were left uninvestigated after Reagan was shot. But I digress.

Rationality is usually worth maintaining. I mean, there are times where it's appropriate to go off the deep end. I find that when I'm arguing with zealots, or political fringes that it's usually more effective to just go even further in the direction of whatever political spectrum they claim to support. Make it look crazy by jumping in the deep end of the pool with a pickaxe and a diver's suit, and dig until you hit the sewers. Someone believes Obama is a reptilian? You're never going to convince them otherwise. But you can try to at least challenge their madness by claiming that every president since JFK has been a reptilian, and that they're a shill for singling out Obama when both sides are controlled by snakelike evil forces.

Crazy is as crazy does, but there's a time and a place, is what I'm saying. You're not going to dispel the notion that conspiracy theorists are crazy by talking about crazy science fiction stuff. But people can believe that the government would let folks attack it to justify a bogus war. I mean, there's hinky stuff that happened, but all those theories that go way off the deep end talking about miniature nuclear bombs and thermite, or what ever just make people tune out, and those that don't tune out are either the die-hard true believers who would believe that Bush personally rigged up every demolition charge in the building himself, or they're the skeptics who are trying to talk some sense into them.

A civilized, middle of the road discussion is how you convince others. The American People can be convinced that this was an inside job, but that's a tough task if the only thing they hear about it is far fetched lunatic fringe theories instead of rational, actually could happen theories of the involvement of the powers that be.





new topics




 
2

log in

join