For those who buy into the OS of 9/11

Well, firstly just to be clear, I personally think a controlled demolition was what bought the twin towers down, after years of intensely studying the issue.

But having said that, it makes no sense to me that people who so passionately dispute the OS story, just start ranting on about "shrills" and "trolls" or whatever else when somebody questions your logic. I mean, what does it matter who they are? As a matter a fact, if your theories are so rock solid, then you should welcome a government agent scrolling over conspiracy sites looking to debate against "truthers", or whatever people like to refer to themselves as.

By even calling yourself "truthers" and just insulting anyone who disputes you, rather than engaging in intelligent debate, your just turning the movement of denying the OS into a type of illogical religion.

Seriously, if I was a government agent who was paid to support the OS, I wouldn't even be arguing against it. I'd be on the other side saying the towers were blown up, embed some random utube vid and then say anyone who doesn't believe me is an idiot or a shrill. It'd be a far more effective way to make people think anyone who doesn't believe the official story is just a whack job with no credible evidence to support there claim, than actually denying it.

Anyway.... just my opinion.

originally posted by: intrptr
"Everyone else" doesn't.

Thanks Mr. Literal for not being able to recognize a slight bit of hyperbole that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Who's 'one'?

One is a generic term for anyone who is seriously considering ALL the evidence and possibilities for a given event.

Oh, thats a personal perspective.

Being intellectually honest shouldn't be a personal perspective... But unfortunately you are right. Many can't even RECOGNIZE their confirmation biases, let alone combat them.

So then you "believe" the OS then?

I thought that was obvious?

Theres no need to believe anything. I saw the second plane fly into the tower, live. Theres no conspiracy there. The conspiracy is deflection away from why that happened or why it was allowed to happen.

Those are some good questions, but they aren't the ones that Truthers usually ask or focus on.

a reply to: intrptr

on ATS?

Nope.

I've been here 7 years and have seen the words flung around countless of times, and none that have been substantiated.

Of course, there's been several pro-conspiracy people who have been exposed with an agenda. I've had a hand in exposing a couple, but I wouldn't go as far as calling them shills.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are some good questions, but they aren't the ones that Truthers usually ask or focus on.

I'm not a 'truther'…

wait, isn't everyone looking for a little more truth?

So then the label is misleading, isn't it?

Implying that the truth isn't acceptable? Or just one sides version of it?

I hate labels, they are designed to mislead people.

Truthers, Official story, shills, all designed to start arguments and deflect away from what happened after the buildings fell.

The conspiracy

I knew it,


A thread to imply people with differing opinions and beliefs are shills.


wrote a longer post but deleted it before I posted,

I opened the thread with only the OP and no replies when doing such.


Now with a few more posts its as clear as day.

This thread should be deleted, its a lame attempt to call people shills.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude

This one gets me too. If someone disagrees with your conspiracy, they don't belong here. After all, it's a conspiracy site.

Thats not what he said.

oh and i'm sure there are some paid disinfo agents here also spreading their propaganda.

He said this:

why are non-conspiracy theorists on a conspiracy forum anyway?

to which I said this:

This one gets me too. If someone disagrees with your conspiracy, they don't belong here

Grind your ax somewhere else.

a reply to: Chadwickus

on ATS?

Nope.

No agenda driven content here from the government or the main stream media?
So everyone that supports the "War on Terror" for instance is just repeating some programming they got?

I doubt that. "Officialdom" has got to make sure what they spew there gets here, too.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are some good questions, but they aren't the ones that Truthers usually ask or focus on.

I'm not a 'truther'…

Did I call you one?

wait, isn't everyone looking for a little more truth?

Yea, but we both know what a "truther" is.

So then the label is misleading, isn't it?

I didn't make it up.

Implying that the truth isn't acceptable? Or just one sides version of it?

I hate labels, they are designed to mislead people.

It's more of a love/hate relationship for me. I can see why labels are bad, but they also serve decent purposes when talking about groups of people. Keep in mind, we invented labels because we are at heart a tribal species. We self-group under labels by instinct.

Truthers, Official story, shills, all designed to start arguments and deflect away from what happened after the buildings fell.

The conspiracy

I blame that on the Truther movement itself. I'm not opposed to reopening an investigation into a Saudi Arabia connection or Israel connection. After all, who bankrolled this attack? But questions like that fall to the wayside while we all waste time debating holographic airplanes, thermite, building 7, etc.

a reply to: network dude

Grind your ax somewhere else.

Bossy aren't we? As usual, needs reminding all members are allowed access to ATS. The ones repeatedly telling others to take it somewhere else are the ones that should be shown the door.

I am curious as to why you're saying Building 7 is a waste of time.

Too Metis sort of like a lawyer saying the handgun,which was fond in his client's "smoking" and matching the forensics of the victim's death, was irrelevant to the death of the murder victim.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Anyway, back to you OS believers.

Congratulations, you've been hoodwinked by the "9/11 Truth" brigade into believing their artificial and false dichotomy. (no offense, you're not alone)

In the very early days (I was there, at the meetings) the "9/11 Truth" movement was more concerned with truth. Now, the players involved are more concerned with getting everyone to believe their fanciful and often impossible theories. Part of that strategy is the imposition of a chasm between "OS Believers" and "OS Deniers" with no possibility of anything between. It's not an original strategy, by the way, it's what keeps politics divided and controlled in this country.

The early 9/11 Truth research wasn't focused on the delusions of popularized contemporary 9/11 conspiracies that overwhelmed and controlled the conversation. The early work was much different. But then the Frenchman, Nico Haupt, Web Fairy, and a host of others imposed hysterically-presented fantasies that were designed to resonate with anti-converment counter-culture -- and it worked perfectly.


Anyway, I digress...


What if the vast majority of events of that day really did happen almost exactly as the inept media eventually figured out, but there was still a massive long-planned conspiracy of corruption behind the events?

Isn't that far more likely than holographic planes and real-time special effects?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's more of a love/hate relationship for me. I can see why labels are bad, but they also serve decent purposes when talking about groups of people. Keep in mind, we invented labels because we are at heart a tribal species. We self-group under labels by instinct.

Those inventing or using labels aren't sticking to the topic.

The topic is conspiracy, not (insert label) the messenger.

But I get the need to shoot the messenger… it keeps the truth buried.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I am curious as to why you're saying Building 7 is a waste of time.

Too Metis sort of like a lawyer saying the handgun,which was fond in his client's "smoking" and matching the forensics of the victim's death, was irrelevant to the death of the murder victim.

I'd go into this, but then again I believe this was a thread authored to ask why OS believers post in 9/11 threads and NOT a thread on building 7. Though if you want to derail your own thread into ANOTHER debate about the towers collapsing, by all means be my guest.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude

Grind your ax somewhere else.

Bossy aren't we? As usual, needs reminding all members are allowed access to ATS. The ones repeatedly telling others to take it somewhere else are the ones that should be shown the door.

Like what OP might be implying? Shills if you constantly post here defending it.


That is the answer to their question of why OSers or whatever post here.

Because its open to anyone like you say.

originally posted by: network dude
This one gets me too. If someone disagrees with your conspiracy, they don't belong here. After all, it's a conspiracy site.

But you forget the slogan. Deny Ignorance. If you see it, can prove it, you have the obligation to share it. Enlighten others. Help them learn. We aren't all here to blindly agree with everything, we are here to have logical discussion about the topics brought up. And learn a lot in the process. (as long as you are willing to accept you might be wrong)

everyone is free to post here with an open mindset. but conspiracy theorist bashing on a conspiracy forum is just weird.
like a homophobic hetero hardliner logging on to a gay forum telling them they are wrong.

too much time? maybe some just need a job.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I am curious as to why you're saying Building 7 is a waste of time.

Too Metis sort of like a lawyer saying the handgun,which was fond in his client's "smoking" and matching the forensics of the victim's death, was irrelevant to the death of the murder victim.

Because claims of controlled demolition (implying explosive charges and firing train components) has to include finding evidence of that in the rubble. Investigators are trained to spot these remnants, but nobody has said they saw or shown they found any such thing. Theres no "smoking gun" for your lawyer to hold up.

After real controlled demolition the stuff litters any site where its used.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Like what OP might be implying? Shills if you constantly post here defending it.

Yah, labeling people who disagree to discredit them or their arguments.

Not many actually label themselves as belonging to one side or the other, either.

Others do that for them. It keeps up the illusion of "camps" further dividing people to argue that instead.

Thats key to disrupting any reasonable exchange furthering investigation.

Like witch hunts… just label someone a witch and let them prove their not. If people call witch enough the hapless victim will hang.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I am curious as to why you're saying Building 7 is a waste of time.

Too Metis sort of like a lawyer saying the handgun,which was fond in his client's "smoking" and matching the forensics of the victim's death, was irrelevant to the death of the murder victim.

Because claims of controlled demolition (implying explosive charges and firing train components) has to include finding evidence of that in the rubble. Investigators are trained to spot these remnants, but nobody has said they saw or shown they found any such thing. Theres no "smoking gun" for your lawyer to hold up.

After real controlled demolition the stuff litters any site where its used.

So, here is the basis of your belief. Since no explosives or thermite were officially found, not to mention even tested for by the official investigators, then nano thermite and explosives cannot have be used.

Sort of like ignoring the security fraud, and apparent foreknowledge of 9/11, "because the transactions did not involve Al Qeada". Or, the OS reluctantly admitting building 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds, but having no way of explaining it, nor ever producing a model for its collapse because it "might jeopardize public safety."

In our words, you have unbinding faith in the official story, and in getting the full truth from our government. Inconvenient facts, like a peer-reviewed study showing nano thermite in ground zero dust, are to be ignored.

Got it now. I see where you stand now. Thanks.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not shooting any messengers. I entered this thread to answer the OP's question as to why as an OS believer I may post in a thread about 9/11.

Look, I'd just like to not waste time on already debunked and argued to death arguments that distract from any real questions. If you want to ask a REAL question that doesn't have an adequate answer yet, then by all means. Shoot, but most truthers just end up talking about the already debunked crap. Look I only mentioned building 7 in passing and already one just HAD to know why I dismiss it as valid evidence for the truther conspiracy.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude

Grind your ax somewhere else.

Bossy aren't we? As usual, needs reminding all members are allowed access to ATS. The ones repeatedly telling others to take it somewhere else are the ones that should be shown the door.

Look sport, you can be anywhere you want, but trying to pick a fight where there is none based on previous conversations is juvenile and a bit pointless. Put on your big boy pants and discuss the topic.