Mainstream "truth"

Below some posters are discussing the creation of a "Truth" Party to fight in the political arena on a Truth Movement platform. They suggest that it would reject the more way out theories (NPT, DEW, nukes, I suppose) and imply that a core alternative narrative of what happened on 9/11 would be promoted.

This set me thinking - what is that narrative? What does "mainstream truth" think happened?

I'll have a go, off the top of my head, but other thoughts are most welcome.



The twin towers were flown into by planes, but subsequently were demolished by explosives. Building seven suffered a similar fate - sans planes - later in the day.

The hijackers were aboard the planes as patsies but did not fly them, as they lacked the skill to do so. The conditions inside the planes are unknown because the airphone and mobile calls were faked.

There were no plane crashes at Shanksville or the Pentagon. Those planes must have gone to another location, or did not take off. The Pentagon was most likely targeted by a missile or a drone plane and agents of the conspiracy planted and falsified evidence of the aeroplane. Likewise the DNA evidence of the passengers is fake.

NORAD was stood down, probably by executive order, as it would easily have been able to intercept the planes. A series of complicated war games confused the Air Force further and may even have been used to facilitate the planning of the event.

Senior officials in the administration and business world knew beforehand. They received no-fly warnings and some participated in stock shorting to profit from teh attacks.

Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks. Members of his family were discreetly flown to Saudi Arabia immediately after the attacks.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Below some posters are discussing the creation of a "Truth" Party to fight in the political arena on a Truth Movement platform. They suggest that it would reject the more way out theories (NPT, DEW, nukes, I suppose) and imply that a core alternative narrative of what happened on 9/11 would be promoted.

This set me thinking - what is that narrative? What does "mainstream truth" think happened?

How about who was behind all these crazy conspiracies to begin with? From what I've seen, the highest percentage within the conspiracy community seems to think it was the Jewish world order and Mossad who spent years infiltrating the US to stage the attack and trick us into thinking the muslims did it, so that we'd declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Islamic countries.

There used to be a sizable "it was a gov't plot" theorist population, but they seemed to have lost a lot of steam ever since Bush left office and it became clear Obama wasn't going along with the idea...and accusing Obama of being involved in the coverup was too far-fetched even for them. These remnants are probably the first people the "truther" party is going to excommunicate from their ranks so that they can concentrate on teaching people "the truth" about how bad Israel and the Jews are.

Has the Truther party considered adopting a uniform? I nominate a brown shirt.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Given that "trutherism" ranges from "the government turned a blind eye " to " the government installed nuclear weapons " and " no planes were involved ", then I think there is about as much chance of a universal truther truth as there is of a universal religion.

Especially as there seems to be a psychological need for my truth to be ahead of and distinct from most others.

That's an interesting point about the psychological need to feel one step ahead. Most people into 9/11 Truth seem to me to relish the mantle of initiate, and scoff at the mass of sheeple who aren't wise to the conspiracy. Of course this sits uneasily with the notion that a huge majority of US citizens agree with the TM.

I also think it's interesting that the change in government might have brought about a change in the focus of who the "perpetrators" were. Certainly there seems to me to have been more over anti-semitism in the TM of late, but that's a purely anecdotal observation.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


No one group was behind it as they control all the groups we see on the surface.

But 911 truth is boring as its like ufology today, so rubbished with so many theories. You need to step back and try like ufos stuff to get a core like you guys say.

Stay away from pentagon stuff as you will never get any evidence on that.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

No one group was behind it as they control all the groups we see on the surface.


Stay away from pentagon stuff as you will never get any evidence on that.

Who is "they" in your first sentence? It kind of looks like you mean one group is behind a network of "surface" units, although I may have picked you up wrong.

Why is there no evidence on the Pentagon?

reply to post by Alfie1

Especially as there seems to be a psychological need for my truth to be ahead of and distinct from most others.

Yes, I think that is the key. It's a game of oneupsmanship. That's why the fanatasies are always morphing. How many times have you heard "smoking gun"? And found it only to be the same only tired mined quote or youtube video with a slightly different slant? From remote controlled planes to no planes. From Flight 93 shot down to no Flight 93. Even a "no victims" scenario where all the victims are now famous people.

The name implies they would want truth in politics.

Something that was not present before, during, or after 911.

I don't think they are saying they know the truth about 911, they are saying they want truth.

@Dave: We know Pearl Harbor was a MIHOP operation. To say that we don't know 911 was is ignorant.

It's interesting that not a single "Truther" has taken a stab at this.

I suppose unified theories don't sit well with the TM method...

Originally posted by jprophet420
The name implies they would want truth in politics.

Something that was not present before, during, or after 911.

I don't think they are saying they know the truth about 911, they are saying they want truth.

If you read elsewhere you'll see that the party is designed to grow from the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. It's not based on a more general notion of openness in political discourse, although I imagine that's something they would endorse.

I like the concept of mainstream truth. Mainstream truth would be ideas that are agreed upon by the largest number of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

You give a pretty good list of such ideas. Do you think that the idea that agents of the FBI were steered by higher ups in the FBI around and away from the conspirators, thus avoiding a roundup that would have thwarted the plan, is a mainstream truther conviction? I think I might have included it if I were making such a list.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

Mainstream Truth

This thread is now tagged with doubleplusgood-think.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Possibly. To be honest it's not something I've read a lot about, even here. "Who was involved" is an area that the Truth Movement tends to avoid tackling as a subject in itself.

Partly I guess this is because it's hard to know - well, impossible, in my opinion, since there was no conspiracy - and partly because any serious examination of it leads you to the conclusion that so many people would have to be in on it that it's very unlikely to be true.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Below some posters are discussing the creation of a "Truth" Party to fight in the political arena on a Truth Movement platform. They suggest that it would reject the more way out theories (NPT, DEW, nukes, I suppose) and imply that a core alternative narrative of what happened on 9/11 would be promoted.

This set me thinking - what is that narrative? What does "mainstream truth" think happened?

I'll have a go, off the top of my head, but other thoughts are most welcome.



The twin towers were flown into by planes, but subsequently were demolished by explosives. Building seven suffered a similar fate - sans planes - later in the day.

The hijackers were aboard the planes as patsies but did not fly them, as they lacked the skill to do so. The conditions inside the planes are unknown because the airphone and mobile calls were faked.

There were no plane crashes at Shanksville or the Pentagon. Those planes must have gone to another location, or did not take off. The Pentagon was most likely targeted by a missile or a drone plane and agents of the conspiracy planted and falsified evidence of the aeroplane. Likewise the DNA evidence of the passengers is fake.

NORAD was stood down, probably by executive order, as it would easily have been able to intercept the planes. A series of complicated war games confused the Air Force further and may even have been used to facilitate the planning of the event.

Senior officials in the administration and business world knew beforehand. They received no-fly warnings and some participated in stock shorting to profit from teh attacks.

Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks. Members of his family were discreetly flown to Saudi Arabia immediately after the attacks.

My God. The leaps of faith and flights of fancy and the wholecloth in this passage are legion. Not one iota of evidence for 98% of that exists. You might as well come up with a story of a bald-headed Elvis returning to earth in an invisible flying saucer shaped like a taco that dispenses bar-b-qued Italian sausages out of a 3 mile long tube painted a striped purple and fuchsia. It would make more sense.

Its entertaining, though! Thanks for the effort, but the fiction writing auditions are over *there*.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Possibly. To be honest it's not something I've read a lot about, even here. "Who was involved" is an area that the Truth Movement tends to avoid tackling as a subject in itself.

No mention of even the Israelis?

Partly I guess this is because it's hard to know - well, impossible, in my opinion, since there was no conspiracy - and partly because any serious examination of it leads you to the conclusion that so many people would have to be in on it that it's very unlikely to be true.

Surely, even in the Bush administration's view, there was a conspiracy. You're a rarity. The one thing that debunkers and truthers agree on is that there was a conspiracy.

The question is who were in on it.

Truthers question the Bush administration's over reliance on bin Laden and the 19 hijackers plus go betweens and bagmen. They don't think those folks could get every thing that needed to be done on that day done. That's where the notion of an inside job comes up.

There are numerous reasons to suspect an inside job on 9/11. It's not at all unreasonable to entertain the thought. If you look more deeply into it you may see some of those reasons for yourself.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by trebor451


I'm guessing you haven't read many of my posts here! No worries, it's not incumbent upon you to have done so.

To be clear, I don't believe any of these things.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
No mention of even the Israelis?

I think on reflection you're right - the "Israelis", with their dancing and bomb-filled vans and bloodthirsty zionist agenda probably are part of mainstream "Truth".

What I meant was that beyond a vague swipe in the direction of Mossad and the NWO the TM often purposely veers away from the question of who is ultimately responsible because it forces them to confront uncomfortable facts about the practicalities of the operation.

Some people get frustrated by this - witness the exasperated thread here opining that the poster wanted to know WHO was behind it all. But it's a necessary component of "Truthseeking" that the perpetrators remain obscured.

Surely, even in the Bush administration's view, there was a conspiracy. You're a rarity. The one thing that debunkers and truthers agree on is that there was a conspiracy.

I was using the term as shorthand, and admittedly a bit derogatorily, as in "conspiracy theorist".

The question is who were in on it. Truthers question the Bush administration's over reliance on bin Laden and the 19 hijackers plus go betweens and bagmen. They don't think those folks could get every thing that needed to be done on that day done. That's where the notion of an inside job comes up.

But that notion is then stretched beyond breaking point. I'm pretty certain the administration lied to the American people, as all government lie, to try and present themselves in a positive light and to push their agenda. But were they involved in the conspiracy? No.

There are numerous reasons to suspect an inside job on 9/11. It's not at all unreasonable to entertain the thought. If you look more deeply into it you may see some of those reasons for yourself.

I've never seen any. I've seen evidence that the commission was a bit of a whitewash and that the Bush government used the attacks for questionable activities. But I've never seen any evidence for any of the stuff I posted at the top. Even "mainstream" truth is pretty much all nonsense.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But I've never seen any evidence for any of the stuff I posted at the top. Even "mainstream" truth is pretty much all nonsense.

In criminal cases what constitutes evidence and what constitutes proof is decided by processes of the court. Sometimes juries have to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying. There are a lot of convincing liars in this world and often they are very ably represented in court. It's not always easy being a juror.

Unless evidence and proof are very clear cut and easy to see, juries have to be able to weigh evidence, make judgements and have to be able to think.

There is a reason that the 12 person jury system evolved. It has proven effective over generations, at weighing evidence.

Here is your list of things for which you have seen no evidence.

1.

The twin towers were flown into by planes, but subsequently were demolished by explosives. Building seven suffered a similar fate - sans planes - later in the day.

This particular item has been the subject of a huge amount of discussion on ATS. I won't go into every aspect of it, but it is a fact that no-one on any side of the argument says that WTC7 was hit by an aircraft. It is generally agreed that WTC7 was structurally damaged by flying debris from the towers and had scattered fires on more than one floor.

When WTC7 came down, as anyone can see on video of it, it dropped, basically into its own footprint in a symmetrical collapse.

Asymmetrical damage should produce an asymmetrical collapse, but in this case it did not, which means that some other agency was the cause of the collapse, not the fires or structural damage from the other buildings. This is simple and solid reasoning. No amount of bafflegab in court is going to fool a jury on this point.

Truthers are right on this one. There is evidence, cited immediatley above, of a controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11. Numerous consequences follow from that fact.

2.

The hijackers were aboard the planes as patsies but did not fly them, as they lacked the skill to do so. The conditions inside the planes are unknown because the airphone and mobile calls were faked.

This item is one which it is more difficult to address for the truth movement, but people have advanced opinions expressed by pilots that based on the training they received, the hijackers could not have flown the missions. Well, sometimes people perform beyond their abilities. However there have also been informed opinions expressed that the aircraft path flown at the Pentagon is impossible for more than one reason.

This is a case where a jury in court would have to weigh the evidence and make up it's mind.

The issue of the phone calls is one where knowledgeable people have argued that cellphone calls were impossible for technical reasons and that the airphones had been removed from the aircraft types in question at that time. Both of these areas of interest should be the subject of further inquiry.

From a truther perspective, it turns out that what should be solid evidence supporting the Bush administrations's explanation of events is not so solid after all.

3.

NORAD was stood down, probably by executive order, as it would easily have been able to intercept the planes. A series of complicated war games confused the Air Force further and may even have been used to facilitate the planning of the event.

We know, or at least have a very strong suspicion, in the case of the first item that, according to Norman Mineta, who was in the White House command center at the time , the vice president did in fact appear to be preventing the shoot down of the aircraft heading for the Pentagon. The famous "Does the order still stand?" exchange.

There is no question that there was confusion about what was going on vis a vis the wargames and the hijack situation. It is amply attested and even present in at least one recorded telephone exchange.

The truth movement is standing on firm ground here.

4.

Senior officials in the administration and business world knew beforehand. They received no-fly warnings and some participated in stock shorting to profit from teh attacks.

There were copious warnings of this attack, even one from the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The thing that bothers truthers and raises their suspicions of an inside job is the degree to which people in high positions ignored the warnings and frustrated those bringing the warnings. This is also amply attested.

The issue of the stock shorting is well known and was investigated by the SEC. It happened and in one case profits from the speculation were never collected. Why? The SEC report claimed not to have found any suspicious trades. People in the truth movement are sceptical of this report.

Bottom line there is no doubt that the events cited in this item happened. They raise suspicions in the truth movement. When you talk about this sort of thing you enter the area of preponderance of evidence, at least circumstantial evidence. The "walks like a duck" sort of evidence, which might not, in itelf be a slam dunk convictor, but garnishes the salad, so to speak, and fits the scenario that one suspects took place.

5.

Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks. Members of his family were discreetly flown to Saudi Arabia immediately after the attacks.

bin Laden, in his first response to the attacks, said that he had no part in them and believed that they must have been done by someone in the United States for reasons of their own. Every other leader of a middle eastern militant group like Yasser Arafat, for example, made it clear that they were not involved in the attacks. There used to be an archive of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour program for September 11, 2001, with video taped statements from them all.

Unfortunately, General Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI, wasn't interviewed. I'm sure he would have acknowledged wiring Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to the attacks and just prior to visiting Washington to confer with his opposite numbers in the CIA and other US representatives.

The bin Ladens were in fact as everyone knows flown out of US airspace while it was still closed and were only briefly questioned by authorities. That kind of thing raises suspicion. At the very least it indicates that a special relationship that existed between the Bush administration and the wealthy bin Ladens wasn't damaged in the slightest when one of their relatives became the Bush administration's stated prime suspect in the 911 attacks.

This kind of thing raises suspicions and hackles. It is not at all unreasonable to question the manouvers of the Bush administration in the face of things like this. When a CIA colleague is implicated in wiring money to Mohammed Atta, the CIA itself is implicated and would be subject to criminal investigation in any other circumstances than 911.

There are many substantial reasons to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Why bring courts into this? No offence, but it reads like you're bringing it up to try to sound authoritative. The process of law has very little to do with this debate and appealing to notions of jurisprudence doesn't really inform the discussion at all.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
1. This particular item has been the subject of a huge amount of discussion on ATS. ...
Truthers are right on this one. There is evidence, cited immediatley above, of a controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11. Numerous consequences follow from that fact.

You're right. This isn't the place to rehash these arguments, and I'm not sure why you're bothering to do so.

Suffice to say that there is evidence that WTC7 was brought down by CD, just as there is evidence for Atlantis being real and the world being created in 7 days. It's just not very good evidence. And your notional jury above would probably reject it.

2.

This item is one which it is more difficult to address for the truth movement, but people have advanced opinions expressed by pilots that based on the training they received, the hijackers could not have flown the missions. Well, sometimes people perform beyond their abilities. However there have also been informed opinions expressed that the aircraft path flown at the Pentagon is impossible for more than one reason.

This is a case where a jury in court would have to weigh the evidence and make up it's mind.

The issue of the phone calls is one where knowledgeable people have argued that cellphone calls were impossible for technical reasons and that the airphones had been removed from the aircraft types in question at that time. Both of these areas of interest should be the subject of further inquiry.

From a truther perspective, it turns out that what should be solid evidence supporting the Bush administrations's explanation of events is not so solid after all.

That's just flannel. "Not so solid"... "Knowledgeable people have argued"... "Opinions"... You are aware, I think, that these assertions are pure nonsense, so you're trying to make it seem as if there's a debate in progress, in which the two sides are sort of deadlocked. That's not the case. A look at the facts show that this subject isn't unresolved, or still the subject of unanswered questions.

To your credit you do at least acknowledge that the TM is finding it "hard" to address these points.

3.

We know, or at least have a very strong suspicion, in the case of the first item that, according to Norman Mineta the vice president did in fact appear to be preventing the shoot down of the aircraft heading for the Pentagon. The famous "Does the order still stand?" exchange.

You either know it or you have suspicions. They're quite far apart!

Mineta's evidence does look odd, but always seems to me to be of a piece with much of the rest of the government's testimony: a mixture of self-justification and confusion. And I would point out that, in itself, the VP not wanting to shoot down the plane is in no way evidence of a plot, since it is eminently possible that he just didn't want to shoot the plane down. Furthermore the context and detail of the exchange remain unclear.

There is no question that there was confusion about what was going on vis a vis the wargames and the hijack situation. It is amply attested and even present in at least one recorded telephone exchange.

Yes, there was. But the fact that someone is confused by that is not good evidence of a plot. It's circumstantial at best.

The truth movement is standing on firm ground here.

The TM is adding up a lot of weak evidence and innuendo to reach a predetermined conclusion. Not firm ground at all.

4.

The issue of the stock shorting is well known and was investigated by the SEC.

I've read the report, and the independent one previous to it. Both don't suggest anything particularly suspicious to me, partly because insider trading would not itself imply government involvement (or an "inside job"), since the perpetrators would presumably be able to short the stock whoever they were.

Furthermore the trading pattern is not as suspicious as the TM claims. Indeed this is a hallmark of the TM's behaviour on this subject (I'll be charitable and not extend that assertion to every aspect of 9/11). I regularly read of trading movements alleged by TM sources that simply didn't happen, or of timelines altered to maximise suspicion.

Bottom line there is no doubt that the events cited in this item happened. They raise suspicions in the truth movement. When you talk about this sort of thing you enter the area of preponderance of evidence, at least circumstantial evidence. The "walks like a duck" sort of evidence

As you say, the evidence is circumstantial at best. At best. And that evidence suggests that, on volume, someone may have been shorting the stock. Why that person couldn't be someone involved in a conspiracy led by KSM I don't know.

Personally if I'd been on the inside I'd have shorted the dollar, which would be almost undetectable. It seems unlikely that any "inside job" conspirators would have been unsophisticated enough not to know this.

5.

bin Laden, in his first response to the attacks, said that he had no part in them and believed that they must have been done by someone in the United States for reasons of their own. Every other leader of a middle eastern militant group like Yasser Arafat, for example, made it clear that they were not involved in the attacks. There used to be an archive of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour program for September 11, 2001, with video taped statements from them all.

That's not particularly surprising. I'd have been amazed if the PLO had mounted something like this, given the strength of their negotiating hand and their situation at the time. Likewise most "traditional" Arab terror and paramilitary groups.

I have my doubts about OBL's involvement, and I think he provided a useful bogeyman for Bush in the immediate aftermath. However, going on his previous exploits it's not difficult to imagine he might have been involved. He wrote copiously about attacking US interests, and did so on at least two occasions.

Unfortunately, General Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI, wasn't interviewed. I'm sure he would have acknowledged wiring Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to the attacks and just prior to visiting Washington to confer with his opposite numbers in the CIA and other US representatives.

This remains uncorroborated, sourced from - I believe - an article in the Times of India. India hates Pakistan with a passion, so I'm not sure I believe them, to put it bluntly.

The bin Ladens were in fact as everyone knows flown out of US airspace while it was still closed and were only briefly questioned by authorities. That kind of thing raises suspicion.

I've not seen evidence for this, although it may exist. I've seen evidence that some unidentified Saudis were flown out of Florida after the ban on private charter flights was lifted. It didn't seem that odd to me.

This kind of thing raises suspicions and hackles. It is not at all unreasonable to question the manouvers of the Bush administration in the face of things like this. When a CIA colleague is implicated in wiring money to Mohammed Atta, the CIA itself is implicated and would be subject to criminal investigation in any other circumstances than 911.

Not if the evidence for it was as poor as yours.

There are many substantial reasons to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

And yet, when one scratches the surface, they suddenly aren't quite as substantial as they first seem

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I think your reply speaks for itself. I stand by what I have written.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.