What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?

Originally posted by ATH911
I had believed in the shoot down theory in Shanksville, that Flight 93 was shot out of the sky but the bulk of the plane still landed in the field causing the crater. A theory espoused by the likes of Jim Hoffman and sites like flight93crash.com.

After thinking about it though, I never could quite understand how debris would only fall past the impact spot, and none before leading up to the crater. The debris pattern seemed to be reversed for a shoot down.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all you're doing is looking at photos, and photographs are notorious for stripping out critical information. If, for example, something was the same color as the background...which is certainly going to be the case at a plane crash site where scorched wreckage is lying on top of a scorched field...you would be able to see it personally while looking at it in 3D, but on a 2D photograph you're not going to see it and instead interpret it as being part of the scorched Earth itself...and how many crash sites have you analyzed in person so that you'd know what to expect and what you would not?

And after critically looking at that odd crater, one like I've NEVER seen before, and the unburnt grass surrounding it, it because obvious to me that the shoot down conspiracy theory was false, but that no plane had crashed in Shanksville instead.

I took a look at the flight93crash.com site, and your own reference is showing this is wrong. Right on the eyewitnesses page it says-

"Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road. Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.


"Bits of metal were thrown against a tree line like shrapnel, said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone of Troop A in Greensburg.

"Once it hit, everything just disintegrated," he said. "There are just shreds of metal. The longest piece I saw was 2 feet long.""

What really clued me in to the theories being false is that every argument requires ignorance from the receiver. You have to not know about the penthouse in building seven. You have to not know the duration of fire, or the firefighter testimonies. You have to not know how physics really function, becoming an armchair physicist within minutes. You have to make assumptions. You have to "believe."

I believe in evidence, and the conspiracy theories (most of them) have none. Probably the only ones I support are the conspiracies to cover up government negligence or even aide to the terrorists, because those kinds of things are easy to do for a government entity, and have been done countless times in the past.

I was a conspiracy theorist for demolition for all of 2 hours when I was convinced by a faulty video. Research proved that I was wrong and that there was a legitimate reason for the collapse.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Most of the theories are easy to see through if you have some basic common sense and understanding of the ideas present in the theories.

My views on 9/11 have always been towards the conspiracy side, but not necessarily in line with most "truther" arguments. Since I tend to disagree with most common arguments I'm either a shill, blind to the facts, or whatever other innuendo delusional truthers have to throw about. (I'm not saying every truther is delusional, but the vast majority of them are.)

I don't support no plane theories, holograms, mini nukes, thermite, space lasers, or the idea that people like Bush were directly involved or behind the attacks, amongst others.

I do however believe that there is far more to the story than Joe Public has been allowed to know. My lines of research and "investigation" have taken me down decidedly different and often unpopular paths than those that tend to consider themselves or otherwise be labeled as truthers.

I support an open and independant new investigation into the events by impartial parties that would focus on some of the aspects of the original "investigation" that were overlooked or ignored completely as well as other concerns or opinions that I have developed over the years.

In many ways my views on the matter have changed over the years based on information I learned or information that was found to be false, from both sides. I consider myself to be objective and open minded and I do not think the government itself is inherently evil and plotting all of our demise. If I could find suitable answers to some of the questions I have and to some of the inconsistencies in the OS I would be "happy" to change my opinion.

I agree with this 100%. Well said.

Love to see this joke blow in your face, still amazed at the amount of truther hate threads, keep it up guys we are getting them more and more on edge.

The real question should be: what kind of brain damage or condition would make you ignore most coherent conclusions? What kind of condition would allow for the conditions happening on that day for you to be considered normal? But we already know you, and your search for the "truth", the fairytaler truth that is.

Dave, we already know who you are, but dont worry, your ignorance is welcome here, and you know that. If not just for the laughs on the retarded face of your avatar.

So, how is your sad thread doing? Will it end up 30 pages and 5 flags as most the fairytaler threads?

Originally posted by Saltarello

The real question should be: what kind of brain damage or condition would make you ignore most coherent conclusions?

You tell us.

Truthers are the ones that exhibit this behavior....

Originally posted by Saltarello
Love to see this joke blow in your face, still amazed at the amount of truther hate threads, keep it up guys we are getting them more and more on edge.

The real question should be: what kind of brain damage or condition would make you ignore most coherent conclusions? What kind of condition would allow for the conditions happening on that day for you to be considered normal? But we already know you, and your search for the "truth", the fairytaler truth that is.

Dave, we already know who you are, but dont worry, your ignorance is welcome here, and you know that. If not just for the laughs on the retarded face of your avatar.

Oh, NO! Saltarello thinks I'm brain damaged for believing something different from what he does! The horrible fact that he thinks I'm brain damaged is keeping me up all night, and in fact this morning I vomited out of anxiety from constanly worrying about what Saltrello thought of me. I'm crying in horrible, horible dispair as I type this- Saltrero, if I promise I will believe everythign you say without question, will you promise you'll take back what you said, and that I'm not really brain damaged?!?

Look, dude, I'm not denouncing your beloved conspiracy claims because it pleases the moon god. I'm denouncing them because all the facts, evidence, eyewitness accounts, and comon sense all ratify the fact that your conspiracy claims are rubbish, PLUS, I've already shown time and time again your conspriacy claims are being invented entirely by these damned fool conspiracy web sites being operated by con artists and crackpots. Jeez, Dylan Avery admitted he started Loose Change as being a spoof and then he found out how much money he could collect off you conspriacy people. That whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" bit was invented by that French guy to sell a bunch of books. You're not attacking me becuase I'm attacking you. You're attacking me because these damned fool conspiracy web sites hooked you up with such an intimate emotional attachment to these conspiracy stories that you prerceive any attack on them as an attack on you yourself.

Do you genuinely think I'm going to spontaneously believe "does the order still stand" actually means "stand down order" and give Richard Gage all my money simply because you're going to accuse me of being brain damaged if I don't? Grow up.

I'm amazed at how these pro OS threads are even written. I guess there must be braille keyboards so the blind can type too.

(No offense intended to actual physically blind people.)

Click here to learn more about this warning.

'What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?'

Um, which ones?

Dave you know me and the whole Pentagon scene, it's what I mainly focus on, so when you talk of false conspiracy stories I never hear you mention this one:

While I was looking at all the Pentagon photos, I happened upon the one that seems show them removing a small wing from the scene, a wing smaller than any on a 757. A wing that some people believe fits the description of a Ratheon A3 Skywarrior jet. What do you think about this conspiracy theory Dave? You think it's false? Can you tell me exactly why it's false Dave? Because so far I haven't realized why this particular conspiracy theory is indeed false.

Me, I don't think thermite or building 7 are the smoking guns, so to speak. No, I think it's the Pentagon.

Why? Because I see 'staging' in it and with thermite and WTC7 who you going to finger? But if there's 'staging' at the Pentagon Dave, then we have people there that can be identified, people on the lawn. We don't know who was on the grassy knoll but we can find out who was on the Pentagon lawn. If it was staged then the photos released were released 'reluctantly' and may therefore show subtle staging. If it's staged we can identify those directly complicit in it.

Because I see staging I can extrapolate, to the buildings likely being purposely demolished and to there never being a new investigation. We don't need a new investigation. What we need to do is to demand they PROVE IT. Demand they prove every single OS claim of 9/11 that we will then subject to independent analysis.

We must demand they prove their OS claims.

Prove a 757 hit the Pentagon... FOR REAL and not just say it, not just show obviously doctored and 'staged' post crash photos.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned
We must demand they prove their OS claims.

Prove a 757 hit the Pentagon... FOR REAL and not just say it, not just show obviously doctored and 'staged' post crash photos.

It's a fair question. Here's a compilation of eyewitnesses who were there and who personally saw the plane hit the Pentagon...

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

...and here is the best simulation I've seen of the attack and presents the evidence on which it is based...



So, right now are you thinking, "hey wait a minute, those damned fool conspiracy web sites never told me about any of this!" or, are you simply going to accuse all the witnesses of being secret government agents and all the evidence manufactured and planted? If it's the former, congratulations, you're starting to think for yourself, and if it's the latter, then why are you wasting my time asking for proof when you're simply going to invent whatever reason you need to for why you don't have to believe it?

I'm still a fairly new member to ATS so I don't how the 9/11 forums were before hand. Though since I came in, it just seems like theres never a thread for a open discussion it just feels like two sides trolling each other. No offense to you goodoldave I know you started this thread in retaliation to the other about "when did you stop believing in the OS" thread. Just my view on it.

OT: I was little too young to jump on the 9/11 truther movement(I'm 19 now so you do the math if you care too) when it first came out, so by the time I got interested in it there was loads of information that had debunked every argument the truthers throw out. So never believed in the conspiracy.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Interesting video... but, frankly, it doesn't seem to hold to the standards of proof held by ATS as a whole. I have seen UFO threads debunked with more reasonable evidence than this.

Personally, I have an issue with it because it expects me to believe that an airliner can be flown a mere few feet above the ground for several 100s of feet by an unexperienced pilot without hitting the ground.. I just have a hard time accepting that. If that is the case, then we are paying airline pilots WAAAY too much money.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
We must demand they prove their OS claims.

Prove a 757 hit the Pentagon... FOR REAL and not just say it, not just show obviously doctored and 'staged' post crash photos.

It's a fair question. Here's a compilation of eyewitnesses who were there and who personally saw the plane hit the Pentagon...

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

...and here is the best simulation I've seen of the attack and presents the evidence on which it is based...

So, right now are you thinking, "hey wait a minute, those damned fool conspiracy web sites never told me about any of this!" or, are you simply going to accuse all the witnesses of being secret government agents and all the evidence manufactured and planted? If it's the former, congratulations, you're starting to think for yourself, and if it's the latter, then why are you wasting my time asking for proof when you're simply going to invent whatever reason you need to for why you don't have to believe it?

Um, no, actually I was thinking, "Man what a ridiculous little animated video!" It basically just parrots in animated color what was told to us on 9/11... but I did watch it and I have a few things to say about it.

1. I notice that though it shows some still images of the scene that day at the very end, it fails to include the one I mentioned seeing of them removing a small wing, likely from an A3 Skywarrior (which you failed to address from my above post.) That's too bad because I'm kind of fond of that pic.

2. That animated smoke trail looks goofy done in/with animation. Ok, the old 'engine hits the light pole and starts smoking' trick... could be, could be. You want to know what else it could be? It could be a missle fired from an A3 Skywarrior into the wall that after it penetrated would make a pretty decent sized, even somewhat circular hole in the interior of the Pentagon. So, a damaged 757 engine smoking or a military type jet firing a hole making missile prior to its own crash into the Pentagon wall? Hmm If we add the hole to the maneuver the plane performed prior to the strike, the fast sharp descending circular turn... well which plane is built for that kind of thing really, do you think?

3. Looking at the video from the parking camera it's clear there is something zooming across the lawn with a white smoke streak below it, there is then an explosion at the wall, but if you look real close you can see that most of the black smoke appears to be billowing out of that generator on wheels (or whatever it is) in front of the wall in the obstruction area, er, I mean the construction area.

4. Don't even get me started on the light poles!

As for the list of witness accounts, it's very late and I only read a few, but you can rest assured that tomorrow I will read it all to see exactly where 2 1/2 witnesses in that list mention the smoke trail billowing.

Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


You know, it would help considerably if you could find this "wing" picture so that it can be judged accordingly. I'm tired of seeing your opinion on the matter and would like the opportunity to see for myself whether this is a small wing or something else.

If they can't prove it is true then why give a damn?

Of course, just because it can't be proven true does not necessarily mean it is false.

But lucky guesswork isn't worth anything if you can't tell it is lucky.

psik

I realized they were false, well, soon as I heard them. Really, when someone tells you, quite sincerly that they think secret government ninja agents snuck into the WTC towers and planted explosives so the buildings would collapse dramatically and give the Administration a pretext for military action, well what else can you do but laugh?

Originally posted by hooper
I realized they were false, well, soon as I heard them. Really, when someone tells you, quite sincerly that they think secret government ninja agents snuck into the WTC towers and planted explosives so the buildings would collapse dramatically and give the Administration a pretext for military action, well what else can you do but laugh?

You can ask if the Japanese did it. They are the only people with good ninjas.

psik

I too was once a big time 9/11 truther and proponent of the existence of the NWO. My consensus in the past was that 9/11 was a plot by the NWO designed as a catalyst for perpetual war between the west and the east to firstly boost arms and oil sales and then secondly to pave way for a eventual western takeover of the Middle East with a view of eventually establishing a one world government.


I read a whole load of books and watched a bunch of online videos that all backed up this theory, then one day I realised that my whole believe was based on a one sided argument. The only sources I ever looked at came from conspiracy literature and revisionist history that often came with a biased conspiracy view. I became aware that the conspiracy movement that I regarded myself to be part of where reaching their conclusions first and then fitting the facts around them to back up their preconceived conclusions. So I looked to the other side of the coin.


There I discovered for instance that the jet fuel didn’t need to melt the steal support columns rather only weaken them, I found a reasonable explanation as to why the flight 93 creator looked the way i did and I also discovered that it was possible that the plane did hit the pentagon as the official story claims. For me however the clincher for my 9/11 believe was that I found it difficult to understand Al’Qa’ida, I couldn’t understand the phenomenon of violent Islamic extremism. I thought it was possible that even if the official story happened just as we are told it happened it was still impossible for Al’Qa’ida to be responsible. One day I was offered to undertake a few extra modules on the history of terrorism at university, there I discovered that there was a much deeper ideological and theological undertone the violent Islamic extremism. I began to understand the nature of the threat, I began to accept that it was not only possible but inevitable that individuals who followed the dogma of violent Islamic extremism would eventually succeed in a massive terrorist attack against the west. I became so fascinated by violent Islamic extremism I decided to read up more on it and terrorism in general, that was a good few years ago and I have read so much about it that I now understand. I am no longer ignorant.


From my own personal experiences I feel I am equipped to argue that at the source of all 9/11 conspiracies lies the curse of ignorance. 9/11 truthers only get their information from other 9/11 truthers, they all believe each other’s lies, they all twist facts, they all here what they want to here and if you don’t agree with them your either a idiot or a disinfo agent. There persona sometimes is comparable to that of a schizophrenic, to the people who are looking in their conspiracies are crazy, but they themselves don’t see it.


I often think of conspiracy theorists as somewhat of a paradox, on the one hand they appear to be very intelligent individuals with a sharp cynical mind yet at the same time appear to be a the gullible child who believes in the existence of the tooth fairy just because the child has been told it is real.

Originally posted by Junkheap
Pretty much as soon as the first conspiracy theory came out. Nineteen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings still remains the simplest explanation.

Also, no whistleblowers ever surfaced. If the government can keep 9/11 whistleblowers covered up, why can't they keep Fast and Furious ATF whistleblowers covered up?

edit on 30-9-2011 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

Occam's Razor....the simpliest explanation must be it. I agree. Now, having stated that, while I do not believe the attacks were planned by the U.S. Government, I firmly believe the Bush Administration and the various intelliegence agencies were aware that "something" involving terrorists, planes, etc, was probable. I think the Bush Administration did little to counter the threat. Bush needed his war so badly, needed a reason to invade Iraq, to finish what his father started. I don't think they quite imagined the large amount of casualties. Its clear that intelligence agencies were watching most of the 9/11 terrorists, we knew they were in-country. The funny thing is that the American public never questioned the fact that we invaded Iraq but none of those terrorists were Iraqi or trained in Iraq. Most of them were Saudis. But we were so bent on revenge we never questioned it. They lied about WMD's. They fabricated the intelligence they needed to invade Iraq. Now, this is not to say that Hussein wasn't a bad guy and needed to be taken out.

I think the most disturbing part of the 9/11 attacks demonstrated just how vulnerable the U.S. is. We have this fallacy that our defenses are impenetrable. The FAA dropped the ball, the Air Force dropped the ball, as well as NEADS, and so many others. We allowed a jet liner to penetrate the air space around the Capitol and Pentagon and attack us. Its insane. What if a nuke had been on one of those planes? The whole East Coast may have been only a memory. Its scary to think about. Our strategic and planning is still lagging in Cold-War era thinking, when we need to start thinking like guerillas.

Originally posted by NWOwned
Um, no, actually I was thinking, "Man what a ridiculous little animated video!" It basically just parrots in animated color what was told to us on 9/11... but I did watch it and I have a few things to say about it.

Ummm, did it ever occur to you that it "parrots what we were told about 9/11" becuase this is actually what happened on 9/11? It's like saying "Gone with the Wind' just parroted what we were told about the south losing the civil war, but that's neither here nor there.

1. I notice that though it shows some still images of the scene that day at the very end, it fails to include the one I mentioned seeing of them removing a small wing, likely from an A3 Skywarrior (which you failed to address from my above post.) That's too bad because I'm kind of fond of that pic.

Would you mind terribly posting this image that you're referring to, since you're so fond of it?

2. That animated smoke trail looks goofy done in/with animation. Ok, the old 'engine hits the light pole and starts smoking' trick... could be, could be. You want to know what else it could be? It could be a missle fired from an A3 Skywarrior into the wall that after it penetrated would make a pretty decent sized, even somewhat circular hole in the interior of the Pentagon. So, a damaged 757 engine smoking or a military type jet firing a hole making missile prior to its own crash into the Pentagon wall? Hmm If we add the hole to the maneuver the plane performed prior to the strike, the fast sharp descending circular turn... well which plane is built for that kind of thing really, do you think?

I'm sorry, but I have to go by evidence, not baseless speculation on what you think "could" have hit the Pentagon, and the evidence from the recovered black boxs and eyewitnesses says it was a passenger jet. Skywarriors and the missiles skywarriors would carry are too small to create the huge amount of damage we're seeing at the Pentagon, nor would it leave the type of wreckage found all over the place. If you object to the way the animators portrayed the smoke in this animation, I can't help that. It was meant to portray the events of the day, not to be an artistic masterpiece.

3. Looking at the video from the parking camera it's clear there is something zooming across the lawn with a white smoke streak below it, there is then an explosion at the wall, but if you look real close you can see that most of the black smoke appears to be billowing out of that generator on wheels (or whatever it is) in front of the wall in the obstruction area, er, I mean the construction area.

The photo was taken too far away for you to be able to make any such distinction between the smoke coming from the generator or the Pentagon itself.

4. Don't even get me started on the light poles!

The fact that lightpoles were knocked over are a verified fact, and this animation even documented where they were and how they laid when they fell, whether you wish to "get started with them" or not.

As for the list of witness accounts, it's very late and I only read a few, but you can rest assured that tomorrow I will read it all to see exactly where 2 1/2 witnesses in that list mention the smoke trail billowing.

...and while you;re at it, you can read the dozens of witnesses who specicially say it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, which makes all your remaining objections moot.