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:
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!"
"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
"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
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
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.