The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> Conspiracy Central



Message

phosadaud -> The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/26/2007 4:37:14 PM)

Here is a thought-provoking article that addresses a lot in a short essay regarding the "franchise" of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, their tactics, and their fallacies.

The Conspiracy IndustryBy JAMES B. MEIGS, Editor-In-Chief, Popular Mechanics Published on: October 13, 2006
quote:

Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .”

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.


Any thoughts?



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/26/2007 7:17:32 PM)

I am not big into conspiracies but I am willing to listen and discuss matters with those that are willing to calmly discuss matters.

I am willing to subject these conspiracy "truths" to the same criteria I subject everything else I hear before I accept something as "truth" and form draw my own conclusions. This criteria of mine involves basic journalistic questions I learned in high school; who, what, when, where, why how. Qustions that many present day journalists, and would be critics of our government, do not seem to be able to thoroughly ask themselves or others.

This article points out something that is true of most, if not all, of us humans and a very basic reason why we can not discuss such issues and truely get at the truth. That thing is that when our beliefs are challenged we accuse those that do not agree with us of being guilty of the very thing that they are guilty of-closed minds.

We all need to realize some "truths" and keep them in mind when we go seeking the "truth"

1. Not everything can be explained. There are forces involved in the course of man's history that have nothing to do with some kind of conspiracy.

2. For every conspiracy there exists the possibility that there are other conspiracies, and counter-conspiracies.

3. Conspiraciy theories need some degree of proof, and do not explain everything. Merely casting accusations, doubt and suspicion is not enough to prove one's case that there MAY BE a conspirac to any degree.

4. The government is not going to tell us everything we suspect that they know or as much as we think we want to know/ should know because of VALID nationals security concerns. They certainly are not going to put the full blame for anything on one party or the other, let alone one administration or another.



RingsofSaturn -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/26/2007 10:45:36 PM)

The 911 conspiracy is no longer a theory...as now there is evidence of lying and mis-representation. It is now a Conspiracy Probability.

All the scoffing in the world cannot answer key questions about 911....the questions that are obvious and that we will be asking till we get answers...



USMC10yrs -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 1:27:01 AM)

The initial reason for my questioning the official story is because of the World Trade Center 7 building. I asked myself, “How does WTC7, which housed the FBI, CIA, New York City Emergency Command Center and the Securities Exchange Commission, collapse at 5pm in the same way the twin towers did? No airplane hit WTC7 and WTC6 stands directly in between WTC7 and WTCs 1&2. Also, WTC6 was damaged from the collapse of WTC1 but it was still standing and was later torn down. So how could have this happened?” For over 5 years, the official response was “the investigation into the collapse is still ongoing”. If you want to think that a group of terrorists were able to get in there and place perfectly placed explosives in a matter of hours, be my guest. Also, as I mentioned, this is what initially garnered my interest and since that time I have found MOUNTAINS of supporting evidence to the claims that 9/11 was either perpetuated or completely knowingly allowed by members of our government.

Another interesting point to consider is if there was no conspiracy then why, until VERY recentlyand seemingly because of all the people starting to wake up to the truth, had it not be discussed AT ALL FOR OVER FIVE YEARS ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. The government is now scrambling to try and put forth their own theories, even admittedly they are theories, to try and explain it. All I ask you to do it watch the NBC and CBS footage of the collapse for yourself http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html. I personally like the last video with Dan Rather’s commentary best.

Also, I would encourage you to read my thread on "Operation Northwoods", it has some very similar themes to 9/11.

My best wishes as you search for the truth on this matter.



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 6:11:37 AM)

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.

Now...if you want to talk about "marginalization" and ad hominem personal attacks and such...sadly you need look no further than the posts right here (97% of them anyway). Understand-- I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out the fact. It's further confirmation (to me, at least) that if there were substantial arguments out there...it would be the first thing people would gravitate towards, instead of all the sophomoric baloney.

Somebody who believes he has a lot of strong arguments can't wait for the debate to begin in earnest. He wants all the sophomorics, all the joking and wisecracking out of the way. It's the folks who lack strong arguments...who don't want the kidding and verbal pranks to ever end.

When's the last time you ever saw Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity sit down for a nice, calm, in-depth discussion with one of the leading 9/11 "Truthers"? I've seen those guys screaming at a couple of Truthers, and shouting them down...but that's about it. There's something very odd about that. There are entire boatloads of bona fide architectural experts, engineering experts, national security experts, government insider whistle blowers...all standing by, ready to have calm, civil, in-depth discusions and interviews.

Instead, they are heavily marginalized, supressed, shunned, on and on. What's that about? If these people are all loopy, goofy lame-brains...bring them and their 'loopiness' out into the light of day. Let the nation watch as they stumble and fumble at the hands of one of O'Reilly's (or the government's ) hand-picked experts.

When there are millions of Americans who don't accept the government's version of 9/11 (42% according to one poll)...why isn't that reflected in the media? That's a big market...for one thing. A lot of advertising dollars in there somewhere. There's no good explanation for the media's behavior. It is very odd, very anomalous behavior. Similar to the burial of the Jeff Gannon story.



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 8:31:52 PM)

What's so funny is you guys don't get it. You talk about the scoffing of you and yet you turn around and spend entire posts telling those of us who disagree with you that we are "refusing to see the truth", "deluded by satan", "don't think for ourselves", etc, etc, etc. You really honestly don't see that you are very condescending and that just blows me away.

In addition, some of us for a long time (this conspiracy stuff has been argued for a long time before some of you even joined this forum - if you really are "new" posters at all) have tried to argue the "facts". No one will discuss the science. None. We are just told to watch you-tube videos, read some book by some guy we've never heard of, or that we should just believe it because some guy with PhD after his name. I'm still waiting for anyone to address some of the scientific facts I have posted in other threads and tell me what is wrong with the science. And still waiting.

You will not hear anything that the PhD's who disagree with you have to say - even though they are in no way associated with the government - but you say they somehow must be a part of the conspiracy because they disagree with you. No evidence, just since they disagree with you, they are complicit. You accuse people left and right of all kinds of heinous things, challenge their very faith in God with standards Scripture doesn't give and with no facts other than they don't support what you are arguing. If you want me to start copying and pasting this garbage I will since you guys think you are so innocent.

As far as debating aspects of 9/11, I'd like to leave that to the other threads so I don't have to keep reposting the same stuff you guys are ignoring in 10 different threads. There is an entire report I know another poster posted in another thread that goes into incredible detail regarding WTC 7 that shows quite clearly (with pictures and all) why the conspiracy theories are simply wrong.

And yes, there is a lot of "fun" posters have with you guys. Why? Because trying to argue facts and science is ignored and people got tired of hearing the same things over and over and over and over and over again and trying to show using science over and over and over and over again only to be completely ignored. So, instead of getting mad, they decided to have fun with it. Sorry, but most of us would love to have an actual debate but that requires both sides to actually discuss the science and physics behind stuff. If you guys continue to refuse to do that, you will continue to get silly responses.



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 8:34:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedStone

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.


Sorry, but that's absurd logic. That would only be true if the government controlled all the independent investigations and experts who studied it. That's simply not the case.

Unless you think 2+2=4 is the "government version" because the government says 2+2=4.



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 9:39:06 PM)

Absurd logic? The government has their version of what happened on 9/11. I would refer to that as..."the government's version. Where have I gone wrong?

Do many others sign onto that version...or in fact build their own "version" which then coincides with the government's version? Maybe so. Whatever you want to call it, I don't really care. So I'm not sure which vital point is at stake here. I like to refer to it as the "Bin Laden in a bathrobe, holding a cellphone, sitting in a cave, 10,000 miles away" conspiracy theory.

And no, you can't slip your "fun" past the biblical principles. If people are mocking and sneering, especially towards other believers, I don't care how much you couch it or re-label it ("fun")...it's still a violation of the scriptural mandate of charitable, gracious, kind behavior towards other people. I have no idea what you're referring to in saying I (or others?) have been abusive. You'd have to provide a "for instance". As I said, I browsed back through previous discussions about 9/11 and such...all I found was bumper sticker slogan shallowness, snickering, cackling and sneering. Again, link me to a place on this board where an intelligent discussion took place. I'm interested.

Actually, I thought you were on to a good and interesting topic of discussion here. I have found the media's marginalization of what should be a huge minority view which rejects the Bin Laden theory...to be inexplicable.

And I'm not sure who you're complaining about with regard to evidence. I certainly am a 9/11 evidence buff. The subject greatly interests me...but that doesn't seem to be the specific subject here.



Backpacker -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 9:52:40 PM)

quote:

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.



Red Stone,

David Ray Griffin has ripped Popular Mechanics to shreds.

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/de9de.html



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 11:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedStone
Absurd logic? The government has their version of what happened on 9/11. I would refer to that as..."the government's version. Where have I gone wrong?


Did you miss my example?

quote:

And no, you can't slip your "fun" past the biblical principles. If people are mocking and sneering, especially towards other believers, I don't care how much you couch it or re-label it ("fun")...it's still a violation of the scriptural mandate of charitable, gracious, kind behavior towards other people. I have no idea what you're referring to in saying I (or others?) have been abusive. You'd have to provide a "for instance".


Is anybody out there reading the Bible?

useless arguements with those who will not hear the truth.
....the slumbering American Christian

Interesting that you refer to these yellow “stars” the Jews had to wear in the Nazi ghettos. I made a similar reference in an email to the folks who run this place…in describing their possible intention to create a conversation board “ghetto”
.... It’s a pretty sad and astonishing spectacle
….adults, supposedly of the ‘Christian’ variety, acting like 5-year olds....

(this was directed to me in why they were refusing to discuss evidence I had presented)
I will listen to evidence provided by intelligent people.

I have here two pills you can take; you take the red pill and wake up to reality or you can take the blue pill, and continue your life as mindless zombie.

This after 5 pages of people citing science and reports to discuss the collapse of WTC 7:
Since jumping on this thread not once have I seen any of you people who hold to the official story actually reply in an intellectual fashion and then address the evidence that is presented point by point. You all reply in the same fashion, which is to ignore the evidence placed in front of you and resort to ridicule.


Then there are the ones that have been since deleted by the mods in fact one pretty recently that I was going to respond to but it disappeared before I hit post....

Then there are the attacks on non-posters which are beyond mean-spirited and not supported by any facts. A few favorites:

I also want to say that American Christians do not support Bush and do not consider him a Christian. Some say he worships Lucifer and thus is a Satanist since he is a member of skull bones and many U.S. officials attend to the Bohemian grove where they conduct to a Moch human sacrifice of a human in front Molach an owl God I think that is forbidden to be worshipped in the Bible. So, Bush, does not care about the conservative religious right, he is just a devil worshiper.


So basically, even when we discuss the facts, the science, the history and the evidence, we are told that we are idiots who refuse to see the truth or look at the facts. Others in the public eye are accused of some of the most heinous stuff I can imagine - no evidence, nothing to back it up, just wild accusations and questioning the faith of public figures.

So, the next time you want to say we never discuss the facts and such, you may want to note that we have... a lot... and we still get insulted for being mindless zombies who won't discuss anything.



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/27/2007 11:26:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Backpacker

quote:

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.



Red Stone,

David Ray Griffin has ripped Popular Mechanics to shreds.

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/de9de.html


Why won't any of you discuss Popular Mechanics instead of telling folks to read some book or watch some you-tube video. If the facts are so bad, this should be something we can DISCUSS why those facts are so wrong and what is wrong with their analysis and yet no one has yet taken me up on that offer.

Edited to add this is not the thread for that discussion, but I have asked for a response in this thread .



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/28/2007 1:13:04 AM)

I see you've tried to cite me as an example. As a new poster I was treated to an avalanche of ridicule, insult, and snickering, cackling nose-thumbing...yes , just like a bunch of five-year olds. Do you deny that? And now you want to indict me for voicing complaint...and claim that my complaint about this outpouring of childish behavior...is wrongful? That's about as fair as charging a mugging victim with slander for calling his mugger...a "mugger". Talk about 'convoluted'. Holy smokes.

I don't know how you're missing the fact that every time somebody here introduces a new topic, it is treated to ridicule. Look at the recent comment from "USMC" who says he plans to do an analysis of Michael W. Smith. Sure enough, the "cackle brigade" showed up. I don't know what else to call it...other than "cackling". Maybe we could come up with a politically correct term for it, so that those who are ridiculing others won't have their own self-esteem damaged. We could say they are "humor-empowered" or something?

I don't know what you're referring to in saying you can't get anybody to discuss topics with you. I hadn't seen you weigh in until a couple of days ago. My advice-- Create a thread and start a discussion. You yourself dumped off a link to this Popular Mechanics article some time ago...so I don't understand the complaint about "links".

If, as you say, you have also suffered abuse in the process of discussion...let me be the first to offer my guarantee of civility and of an intense interest in actual, civil, calm, thoughtful discussions. Let's go for it.



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/28/2007 4:28:12 AM)

On second glance, I guess the comments about "USMC" weren't too bad. But I've encountered a virtual wall of derision in my short time here. Maybe things will settle down and take a turn for the better?



RingsofSaturn -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/28/2007 11:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud

quote:

ORIGINAL: Backpacker

quote:

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.



Red Stone,

David Ray Griffin has ripped Popular Mechanics to shreds.

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/de9de.html


Why won't any of you discuss Popular Mechanics instead of telling folks to read some book or watch some you-tube video. If the facts are so bad, this should be something we can DISCUSS why those facts are so wrong and what is wrong with their analysis and yet no one has yet taken me up on that offer.

Edited to add this is not the thread for that discussion, but I have asked for a response in this thread .


The PM article sites sources...about three of them. ALL government agencies.....ummm...DUH, like we're supposed to believe that?

Please. A non-partial, non-governemtn agency needed to discuss it...not a slanted, government pumped magazine article.



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/31/2007 8:26:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedStone

I see you've tried to cite me as an example. As a new poster I was treated to an avalanche of ridicule, insult, and snickering, cackling nose-thumbing...yes , just like a bunch of five-year olds. Do you deny that? And now you want to indict me for voicing complaint...and claim that my complaint about this outpouring of childish behavior...is wrongful? That's about as fair as charging a mugging victim with slander for calling his mugger...a "mugger". Talk about 'convoluted'. Holy smokes.

I don't know how you're missing the fact that every time somebody here introduces a new topic, it is treated to ridicule. Look at the recent comment from "USMC" who says he plans to do an analysis of Michael W. Smith. Sure enough, the "cackle brigade" showed up. I don't know what else to call it...other than "cackling". Maybe we could come up with a politically correct term for it, so that those who are ridiculing others won't have their own self-esteem damaged. We could say they are "humor-empowered" or something?

I don't know what you're referring to in saying you can't get anybody to discuss topics with you. I hadn't seen you weigh in until a couple of days ago. My advice-- Create a thread and start a discussion. You yourself dumped off a link to this Popular Mechanics article some time ago...so I don't understand the complaint about "links".

If, as you say, you have also suffered abuse in the process of discussion...let me be the first to offer my guarantee of civility and of an intense interest in actual, civil, calm, thoughtful discussions. Let's go for it.


The point I'm making is there is nastiness on both sides and has been since the beginning. Somehow you think you have an excuse but there is no excuse for those who are sick are the derision from your side. The fact is, some of us find it highly offensive to accuse anyone and everyone of all kinds of evil and such with no evidence or nothing but speculation and innuendo. Then, if we don't buy it, we are called idiots who "refuse to see the truth". Let me tell you, there have been some extremely bizarre ideas posted on these boards - and not just in current events. Some come from trolls. Some from people who are probably mentally ill. Some from people who are simply deluded. And some from people who must find satan under every rock. And some from those who are not even believers. If you don't get a sense of humor about it (both sides), you won't last. We've been dealing with this kind of garbage for a long, long, long time on these forums. So, you can do what some of us do and learn to laugh and not take things so seriously or you can get angry and bitter.

Neither side is innocent. Neither side is just a victim. Neither side is just a perpetrator. It goes both ways. So, if you find something to be TOS, report it and move on. And recognize that those people you find to be so offensive have been called every name in the book and made fun of and insulted too. I know I have - many times. In some of the chat threads, we actually joke about all the nasty things we get called to help us brush it off and not be so easily offended by someone who could be 14 years old halfway around the world just trying to stir up trouble.



phosadaud -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7/31/2007 8:32:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RingsofSaturn

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud

quote:

ORIGINAL: Backpacker

quote:

I guess I would say I'm not sure what Popular Mechanic's point is. The FACT of the matter is the government has produced an "official" version of events. So...it's a proper way of referring to it, I would think.



Red Stone,

David Ray Griffin has ripped Popular Mechanics to shreds.

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/de9de.html


Why won't any of you discuss Popular Mechanics instead of telling folks to read some book or watch some you-tube video. If the facts are so bad, this should be something we can DISCUSS why those facts are so wrong and what is wrong with their analysis and yet no one has yet taken me up on that offer.

Edited to add this is not the thread for that discussion, but I have asked for a response in this thread .


The PM article sites sources...about three of them. ALL government agencies.....ummm...DUH, like we're supposed to believe that?

Please. A non-partial, non-governemtn agency needed to discuss it...not a slanted, government pumped magazine article.


All I see in the link is a review for a book. And if the article is soooo bad, it should be easy to discuss the science of why it's so bad on these forums and stop making ad hominim attacks with nothing to back them up (ie - you won't convince anyone of anything by stating "it's a fact" and "that's slanted or garbage" but you might convince folks if you actually explain what the logical and scientific issues are that lead you to that conclusion). For the life of me, I can't understand why people won't discuss this article. I've discussed plenty of stuff I thought was garbage and gave scientific and logical reasons why the article I thought was so bad was garbage. I don't get why you guys won't? You expect us to read your "articles" and "proofs" but won't discuss ours (which don't seem to include science but rather someone we've never heard of saying that "such and such" just can't happen which isn't science -that's called opinion). Then you wonder why people don't take you seriously....



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/1/2007 12:28:16 AM)

phosadaud--

There has been no 'nastiness' from me. Any such description in regard to myself would be a false accusation. In fact, I can point to the restrained and non-retaliatory way in which I handled myself after essentially being accused of being the devil himself...and let my behavior in those kinds of situations speak for itself. I'm not sure how many times you have been equated with Satan here at this board...but I would think it takes at least some commitment to Christian character and principle...not to respond in kind.

When I complain about an avalanche of childish insulting behavior...for you to suggest that is 'wrongful' of me, is hugely unjust. It's like saying I can't call a mugger...a "mugger". Nonsense.

I don't answer for others here. I will say I saw precious little 'insulting' comment from "Truthers" when I read through previous discussions (including the discussion you directed me to)...but on the other hand, an avalanche...a steady stream...a flood..of ridicule and insults from the opposition.

It's still going on to this very moment (over at the "demolition preparation time" thread)...sophomoric cackling and ridicule. That's too bad.

If you want to say this or that about folks you have debated in the past...fine. But what I went through here at a Christian discussion board as a brand new poster...was a disgrace. The "Queen Elizabeth" thread was just unbelievable. They tore that thing to shreds. I've haven't seen anything that comes within a thousand miles of that...from any "Truthers" here.

It would also be a false accusation to say I declared any individual to be a Satanist. (And I'm not sure you're going so far as to say that exactly.) I only stated the facts of Bohemian Grove. I stand by those facts-- Many of our (Christian Evangelical) national leaders meet at this place and particpate in druidic rituals. Some of our top leaders are members of another ccult group-- Skull and Bones. I also cited the incredible occult testimony of a prominent US governor. There's a lot more where that came from.

I suppose I could carefully sift through "phosadaud" comments over the last many months to see if you're "guilty" of anything but alas...I have absolutely and utterly no interest in such. Like I said, the guy who thinks he has the strongest evidence can't wait to get the"preliminaries" over with...and embark upon a calm, civil discussion.



Dancre -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/2/2007 8:49:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud

Here is a thought-provoking article that addresses a lot in a short essay regarding the "franchise" of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, their tactics, and their fallacies.

The Conspiracy IndustryBy JAMES B. MEIGS, Editor-In-Chief, Popular Mechanics Published on: October 13, 2006
quote:

Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .”

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.


Any thoughts?


Folks will believe what they want to believe. It's exciting to think the gov had a hand in 9/11, it's boring to think Bin LAden actually planned it. Plus the conspiracy makes Bush look like an evil demon. There are folks out there who love to make Bush look like a loser and will do whatever they have to in order to paint a negative picture. 9/11 conspiracists have one goal, make Bush look stupid. It's got nothing to do with protecting the country. I am sooo amazed by those who buy into the 9/11 conspiracies, yet ignore what the experts have to say regarding 9/11. As the article said, experts say there was no conspiracy and yet the followers turn a blind eye and attack everyone who does disagree. I figured, hey, you want to believe this stuff, that's fine. I stopped trying to bring out the truth. They don't want to hear it, so that's ok. Whatever. It's great stuff for fiction books, though.

kim



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/3/2007 1:38:53 AM)

dancre--

I guess I don't quite understand what you mean about "exciting" and "boring". The whole 9/11 experience was overwhelming anyway you slice it. In point of fact...most people have gravitated to the 'exciting' Bin Laden theory put forth by the government. It's obvious, at least to me, that people have a much harder time believing or accepting that American leadership could have done such an evil thing. We're fed a steady diet from the media and Hollywood movies about the evil jihadists.

And there is a great irony here if you take a closer look at the typical leftist Bush-bashers-- Very, very few of them are willing to believe 9/11 was an "inside job", oddly enough. You can go to some of the most hardcore lefty websites --like "Democratic Underground"-- they want nothing to do with "9/11 was an inside job". Why? For one thing, they don't want to distract from what they think are the more important specific political gripes they have.

And secondly, like the majority of people (so far anyway) they can't bring themselves to believe their own leaders are THAT evil. Again, it's this 'Americanism' syndrome...only those dirty, bearded jihadists could do such evil. American leaders could never ever do such a thing (never mind the fact that Clinton, for example, murdered 500,000 Iraqi children during the oil-for-food embargo).

By the way, dancre-- Here is an entire website of architects and engineers --all "experts" as you say-- who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by criminal elements within our own government...and present huge amounts of scientific (and other) evidence: www.ae911truth.org/



RedStone -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/3/2007 1:36:52 PM)

From: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/020807_mother_ofall_911.html


COMING SOON:THE MOTHER OF ALL 9/11 HIT PIECES

History Channel, Popular Mechanics, NBC & Hearst Publishing team up for smear job as conflicts of interest run rife:

An upcoming documentary entitled The 9/11 Conspiracies, to be aired on the History Channel, may represent the biggest hit piece to date on the 9/11 truth movement and is rife with bias, cronyism and conflicts of interest.

The so-called documentary promises not to look at the flaws in the official story from a neutral perspective but to start out by suggesting that any deviation from the official line is "outrageous".

The program also features so called independent "experts" who are actually in the employ of the program makers themselves who in turn rely on scores of multi-million dollar contracts with the government and the military-industrial complex.

The program, scheduled for Sunday, August 12 at 8:00 PM and Monday, August 13 at 12:00 AM, will feature Alex Jones, the Loose Change crew and other 9/11 researchers such as Professor Steven Jones and Webster Tarpley.


Isn't it interesting that millions of Americans are asking that we take a second long hard look at the "official" story of 9/11 and yet...we get NONE of that anywhere in the media. Instead we get one propaganda extravaganza after the other...all courtesy of the military-industrial complex...just like this upcoming TV show. What's wrong with this picture?



draexo -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/4/2007 4:01:04 AM)

To be honest, I get tired of repeating the same things over and over. I have only believed in the 9/11 conspiracy since about the 5th anniversary of 9/11. Prior to that, I was like everyone else, scratching my head and denying that it happened any other way. It was in fact, the Naudette (spelling could be wrong) brothers documentary that pushed me to reconsider things.
For me, the firefighters were key. The fires were clearly controllable. Most of the jet fuel exploded outwardly. Very impressive, but not very damaging. Look at some of the transcripts of firefighters. It was the testimoney of some of the firefighters that made me say, "Ok, I will look at some of this conspiracy stuff".

Having been a doubter, I know that it is hard to rationalize how this could be a conspiracy. I will also admit that some stuff is "puffed up" by the conspiracy crew... but the bottom line is this - watch Loose Change, watch 911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demoltions, watch Painful Deceptions, and you will see it. It is not a simple thing to explain, but the laws of physics can not be violated, except by God. Those buildings were clearly subjected to controlled demolitions. And watch the videos of building 7. Clearly a controlled demolition. Who would gain? Well, look at the tenants.



Skippy14 -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/4/2007 2:49:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo

...the bottom line is this - watch Loose Change, watch 911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demoltions, watch Painful Deceptions, and you will see it. It is not a simple thing to explain, but the laws of physics can not be violated, except by God. Those buildings were clearly subjected to controlled demolitions. And watch the videos of building 7. Clearly a controlled demolition. Who would gain? Well, look at the tenants.


The only problem is that both Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries are accompanied by articles that debunk each film, SENTENCE BY SENTENCE. Loose Change in particular features 81 errors of fact and more than 400 errors in total. 9/11 Mysteries is even worse. I'm sorry, but you really have to be a stubborn buffoon to buy into some of the stuff in 9/11 Mysteries. Take the quote from the fire chief who found "two isolated pockets of fire" on the 78th floor, for instance. He never said that these were the ONLY fires in the building, only that he found these two isolated pockets of fire on this particular floor, which so happens to be a few floors below the plane's point of impact. Thus two pockets of fire there isn't all that surprising. But truthers blow this up into "hey, he said 'two isolated pockets of fire', so that's the only fire that was happening!" Seriously, how can anyone buy into that!?



Dancre -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/5/2007 12:35:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedStone

dancre--

I guess I don't quite understand what you mean about "exciting" and "boring". The whole 9/11 experience was overwhelming anyway you slice it. In point of fact...most people have gravitated to the 'exciting' Bin Laden theory put forth by the government. It's obvious, at least to me, that people have a much harder time believing or accepting that American leadership could have done such an evil thing. We're fed a steady diet from the media and Hollywood movies about the evil jihadists.

And there is a great irony here if you take a closer look at the typical leftist Bush-bashers-- Very, very few of them are willing to believe 9/11 was an "inside job", oddly enough. You can go to some of the most hardcore lefty websites --like "Democratic Underground"-- they want nothing to do with "9/11 was an inside job". Why? For one thing, they don't want to distract from what they think are the more important specific political gripes they have.

And secondly, like the majority of people (so far anyway) they can't bring themselves to believe their own leaders are THAT evil. Again, it's this 'Americanism' syndrome...only those dirty, bearded jihadists could do such evil. American leaders could never ever do such a thing (never mind the fact that Clinton, for example, murdered 500,000 Iraqi children during the oil-for-food embargo).

By the way, dancre-- Here is an entire website of architects and engineers --all "experts" as you say-- who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by criminal elements within our own government...and present huge amounts of scientific (and other) evidence: www.ae911truth.org/



If you look at the root and the source of these 9/11 conspiracies, you'll find someone who hates Bush, period. Remember when CLinton was in office and the terrorists first attacked the Towers years ago? It was the terrorists who attacked, not Clinton. Now that Bush is in office, and the terrorists attacked again, it's Bush who took down the towers, not the terrorists. That doesn't make any sense why one time it was the terrorists, then years later, it was Bush. [sm=aside.gif]


Then the story feeds and grows by those who hate bush and others are swept into it. Plus, the thought of the gov trying to destroy the country is more exciting then the terrorists and folks are swept up by emotion instead of facts. Professionals who deal with demolition will tell you there is no way on God's green earth that explosives could have brought down the towers, yet folks refuse to listen to them and instead listen to someone who has no idea how demolitions work.

Then they take quotes out of context and twist what they can. What bothers me is the people whose quotes were taken out of context have to fight to regain their creditibility with their peers. That really shows a sense of irresponsibility and selfishness on the part of the conspiracy starters. They don't care who they destroy in order to start rummors and conspiracies. I, for one, REFUSE to follow such selfish people.

Again, it's exciting to think your own gov is out to get you. It's a Tom Clancy novel come to life. Facts are boring, conspiracies are exciting. FActs use common sense, conspiracies use the imagination.

Have you seen this thread: Debunking 9/11? It has what the professionals say about what happened to the buildings, not someone who thinks they know what happened. It gives you the WHOLE conversation, not just one quote here and one quote there. Why would you believe just one quote instead of trying to find the WHOLE conversation and see the whole context?

Kim



Dancre -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/5/2007 12:40:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skippy14

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo

...the bottom line is this - watch Loose Change, watch 911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demoltions, watch Painful Deceptions, and you will see it. It is not a simple thing to explain, but the laws of physics can not be violated, except by God. Those buildings were clearly subjected to controlled demolitions. And watch the videos of building 7. Clearly a controlled demolition. Who would gain? Well, look at the tenants.


The only problem is that both Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries are accompanied by articles that debunk each film, SENTENCE BY SENTENCE. Loose Change in particular features 81 errors of fact and more than 400 errors in total. 9/11 Mysteries is even worse. I'm sorry, but you really have to be a stubborn buffoon to buy into some of the stuff in 9/11 Mysteries. Take the quote from the fire chief who found "two isolated pockets of fire" on the 78th floor, for instance. He never said that these were the ONLY fires in the building, only that he found these two isolated pockets of fire on this particular floor, which so happens to be a few floors below the plane's point of impact. Thus two pockets of fire there isn't all that surprising. But truthers blow this up into "hey, he said 'two isolated pockets of fire', so that's the only fire that was happening!" Seriously, how can anyone buy into that!?



This is what I mean by taking the quotes out of context. Now the fire chief has go around and explain himself to everyone who says, Hey, I heard you say . . . How selfish and irresponsible!!!! That's not a godly attribute to take a part of his quote and say it's fact. Tisk, Tisk!!! I refuse to follow such irresponsibility. And if it were me whose quote was misquoted, I'd sue the pants off of those conspiracy starters.

kim



rnershigh -> RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (8/5/2007 1:25:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre

If you look at the root and the source of these 9/11 conspiracies, you'll find someone who hates Bush, period. Remember when CLinton was in office and the terrorists first attacked the Towers years ago? It was the terrorists who attacked, not Clinton. Now that Bush is in office, and the terrorists attacked again, it's Bush who took down the towers, not the terrorists. That doesn't make any sense why one time it was the terrorists, then years later, it was Bush. [sm=aside.gif]



I also think a big thing is fear of not being in control. It's safer to think that it's the U.S. government behind 9/11 than to some faceless enemy (hey, a terrorist that hates you and wants to kill you and doesn't see reason or understanding could be that doctor or that student walking by you, your neighbor, etc). See? How scary and out of control is that? To know that there are people walking among us even now that hate us and the way we live so much that they are willing to kill themselves and the rest of us? That no amount of letting them see how we live and the freedoms we enjoy will sway their minds cuz it won't.

It's scary to know and feel so helpless, that no amount of reasoning or talking peacefully will change the terrorists' mind about us and the way we live. That mantra of, "if we give them economic or social opportunities to better their life" is false as we saw with the UK arrests of the middle/upper middle class doctors and students. And those London bombings 2 years ago? All middle/upper class students (one was even an engineering major I think?). None were being oppressed. All had the opportunities to live in a country that afforded them freedoms they would never see in countries such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, and yet these people still decided to commit terroist acts and get invovled in terrorist organizations to destroy the very country that afforded them these freedoms and rights.

To me that is mind-boggling and stunning and I just don't get it. No one wants to get it because why would someone hate us that much, even after living among us and seeing we're not bad people, that they'd want to be a terrorist and kill? It doesn't make sense to our minds, our perspectives are totally different from the terrorist mind-set, from the environment that harbors terrorists. It doesn't make sense and so we think maybe it's something we did, maybe if we tried harder they'd eventually see reason and live in harmony with us.

This denial of the truth that these people, these radical islamic terrorists would gladly bring about another 9/11 is what causes, I think the conspiracy theories that Bush and the U.S. government set up 9/11. It is so much more simple and easy and within the confines of our rational mind to say the government did it. It's not as frightening. So I think that's why you have certain people that will never believe it was terrorists that caused 9/11. It is why you'll have people that speak out and say that Bush is embellishing the terrorists in our midst, the "War on Terror" is just an excuse for him to erode our civil liberties and so forth. It's easier to blame Bush and the government than some faceless enemy. It's easier to quantify and target. It makes those people who don't want to see the truth safer in their homes. That it's just business as usual, nothing has really changed. That 9/11 shouldn't send alarm bells because it's only the government trying to becoming big brother and enroach upon our lives, not some terrorist organization that is methodical, patient, and very deadly.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI