For those who buy into the OS of 9/11

a reply to: intrptr

I have no problem saying that the Bush administration took advantage of a bad situation from 9/11 to expand military operations in the region (that's obvious to anyone), but to try to link the Bush administration's activities AFTER 9/11 to the events of 9/11 as a false flag needs more substantial evidence to adequately make that connection.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

here's a list for you...
www.ae911truth.org...#

OK, 2,000 from around the world. Now tell me what percentage of the total people in the A/E field that represents. Then we can see what percentage that is. My bet? It's not a high percentage at all.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

why are OS believers so active on this site, and in the 9/11 forum?

This question really annoys me, it gets asked allot and I personally think that the only people who ask it are the people who do not fully understand 9/11.

It annoys me because first of all it implies that you only want to read threads and posts from people you agree with. How closed minded is that!?. Basically you are saying in this thread that you really would rather that anyone who does not believe that there was a grand false flag behind 9/11 to go away. You might not want to admit to it but 9/11 conspiracy theories, like all other conspiracy theories need a debunker to test out those theories and expose them for what they are. Otherwise all kinds of nonsense would be running rampant on this forum unchecked.

Another reason this question annoys me is that it assumes that anyone who disagrees with the general conspiracy false flag version of events must automatically believe the OS 100%. So yeah, I do not believe the government were involved in 9/11, I believe that terrorists belonging to a group called Al-Qa'ida flew planes into buildings that lead to the destruction of those buildings. But do I believe 100% of what is written in the 9/11 commission report. Not a chance!. I believe for example that the Saudi Government may have played a role in the attacks for example. Additionally everyone can agree that there are 28 pages of the report that have not been made public so the American government are omitting some of the truth.

But to get to the core of your question.

Why do I bother posting OS stuff on a conspiracy website.

Quite simply it is because I chose to do so, just like you chose to post your conspiracy stuff. There are two sides to the conspiracy coin, those who believe in these theories you and your kin advocate and those who seek to disprove them. Also I like to post on ATS because it challenges me, it promotes my own learning, I have learned loads about 9/11 just through what i post on ATS. And 9/11 is a subject i am very passionate and interested in, and I have a particular interest in 9/11 conspiracies even though i dont really believe in many of them.

If you really think people like myself are crackpots, as does most of the world, so why do you work so hard posting on here, when you think the conspiracy is silly?

I do not think you are a crackpot, I do not work that hard on ATS (at least anymore) and I do not think the conspiracy is silly, i actually find it very interesting.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Good thread.

I believe it is about damage control. The OS believers have done little to no real research on the topic.

They are convince that our government could not be complicit in a False Flag Operation. It defies their beliefs system.
Then you have trolls who love to disrupt a good debate on many 911 threads, because 911 is an emotional events.
It seems many OS believers will not accept the fact that our governments can be criminals, it defies their logic and belief system.

There is only one way to support the official narrative of 911 and Truth will not work. Because science trump their fallacies. So the only thing left to support the OS believers arguments is to ridicule the facts, specially calling one a Truther because to them it is a negative, coin by the CIA in the 1970's

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The OS believers have done little to no real research on the topic.

That's baloney.

As for myself, I originally believed in the false flag theory and that the Bush administration was behind this. I did a great deal of research and eventually changed my mind.

a reply to: Informer1958

The OS believers have done little to no real research on the topic.

AHHHHHH!!!!!

WHAT!!!

This is just total crap, and I am calling you on it right now!

To say that those who believe the OS have done "little or no real research" is a totally unfounded claim, I have written quite a few in depth threads on this site on the subject of 9/11 and addressing some of the claims made by those who believe in the conspiracies.

Its almost insulting you claim that I and the others like me have quite simply not don enough research and the exact same claim could be made about many of the "truthers" on this site.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Sorry that I insulted you, that was not my intent. However I am in a thread now in the 911 forum. What I am witnessing on this WTC 7 Topic is the classic denial of real science, personal attacks by a OS believer who is dead set on pushing the OS narrative on the casual ATS readers. This OS believer has ignored ALL the science that has been introduce to him, he demonstrates such ignorance, and thumbs his nose at everything that proves scientifically that his OS narrative is wrong.

The only way one can support the OS of 911 is by fallacies.

The fact is 911 was NEVER investigated, but only covered up by NIST and other government Reports. Their reports defies logic, and physic and common sense. Yes there are some Truth to the OS but very little can be proven.

a reply to: Informer1958

The OS believers have done little to no real research on the topic.

Then it is quite obvious you've not bothered to read or listen. The fact that people can come to differing conclusions based on the exact same research is hardly unheard of.

There are people on this site who've been involved in the 911 story since day one, who've done the research and who couldn't be farther apart.

For you to make such a baseless accusation is just wrong.

I venture to guess I've done more research/reading/listening than 90% of the "experts" on the side of the "truthers" (for lack of a better name...), yet I disagree with most of their "findings". Please do not attempt to tell me I've done no research, for the sole reason we may disagree.

originally posted by: Informer1958
There is only one way to support the official narrative of 911 and Truth will not work. Because science trump their fallacies. So the only thing left to support the OS believers arguments is to ridicule the facts, specially calling one a Truther because to them it is a negative, coin by the CIA in the 1970's

Exactly...

The robot from "Lost in Space" comes to mind...

Most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind’s critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides" is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead-ends a person’s thinking, and terminates debate or examination of the topic. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" usually solicits a slide response with many people.

members.iimetro.com.au...

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover

a reply to: seagull

I venture to guess I've done more research/reading/listening than 90% of the "experts" on the side of the "truthers" (for lack of a better name...), yet I disagree with most of their "findings". Please do not attempt to tell me I've done no research, for the sole reason we may disagree.

Your not the only one on here who has years of research on 911. I am empressme! go pull up my avatar I have been around for years on ATS and have created many threads on all aspects of 911. I left a few years ago because my partner was dying and I needed to take care of him. He died. I am back under a new name because I have a new internet server and could no longer log in my old account.

I have been up against many OS supporters, many on ATS, not all, can not get their heads out of their make believe reality.
Many believe everything that propaganda media regurgitates to them are facts, but not everyone.

Like I said, there are some truth to the OS narratives of 911, however many cannot be proven.

I don't like the name TRUTHER It is a deliberate insult, coined by the CIA to discredit anyone who does not go a long with the government narratives. It is a form of ridicule.

I did not target you, so don't get all emotional about my post it has nothing to do with people who have done real research on 911 topic. It has to do with die-hart OS believers who are dead fast in supporting the 911 fallacies.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I am sure you have been through all of this many times may i ask when it was approximately,or how long after the event did the "far out" theories come into play,do you by any chance remember when the first type of mini nuke,lasers from space type of stories started appearing ?

How does the nullification of NORAD fit into the scheme that the government wasn't involved in? And the evacuation of the Bin Laden family before the event?

For those on both sides of the argument, search youtube for "9/11: The New Pearl Harbor"

Yes, the documentary is in favor of the truth movement. But it's the most thorough and in-depth look at 9/11 produced to this day..IMO

They also present plenty of 9/11 de-bunkers who support the OS and show their arguments pretty fairly. Its long. But worth the time.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I am sure you have been through all of this many times may i ask when it was approximately,or how long after the event did the "far out" theories come into play,

The first bits were on the day after; faces in the clouds type stuff -- nothing serious really.

The serious conspiracy theorists online were never originally focused on any of the hokum. Those who were paying attention suspected some type of pretext event. Much of it is lost forever, but some still exists. Such as this from the Web.Archive.Org from a time when RumorMill News was relevant:

"In taping an interview with Stew Webb, he mentioned that his government sources feel we could see war in this country possibly as early as August. Stew said his sources definitely think it's coming before the end of the year. I heard Mr. Webb speak on WLW 700am on Sci Zone www.scizone.com... last night and he said, he has proof we will be attacked in August 2001, and it's a conspiracy of our govt."

His was off by mere days.

That, combined with the awareness of Operation Northwoods within conspiracy theory circles (prior to 9/11/2001 link ), tended drive the speculation in more sober directions. Essentially a new Golf of Tonkin that ended up being more catastrophic than intended.

For the first six to eight weeks, the majority of speculation and research focused more on the probability that someone or some group within the US government initiated events such that an adequate event would happen, which would be a pretext to re-engage Iraq in war. No one serious was discussing bombs, TV Fakery, holographic planes, missiles at the pentagon, controlled demolitions, yadda yadda.

Then came the "Frenchman". Slickly-produced 90 second spots appearing on late-night TV in major US markets proposed the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon. It used computer generated images along with a computer generated Pentagon to prove the point -- complete with "there's no holes from the wings!" In a scholarly French accent, he was pushing a book and video that could be ordered via an 800 number for $29.95, six to nine weeks for delivery. He claimed the material had taken the French press "by storm."

Only -- there never was any book or video. Lots of people ordered it. None ever arrived (and no credit cards were charged according to those I talked to). Since I was in advertising at the time, I was able to find out the name of the PR firm that bought the airtime in New York City - LaMonte Public Relations in Dover, Delaware. The firm was created days before the first airtime buy, and dissolved by the time I was doing the research (about three weeks after the last ad aired).

Lots of people saw the videos. Screen captures appeared all over the web. Crappy GeoCities websites started popping up left and right, each taking the nexus of the ideas in the Frenchman's videos, and running in all kinds of new directions. The 9/11 Conspiracy Meme was born from a disinformation television commercial.

Soon after that, the WebFairy appeared, who was the patient-zero for nearly all the popularized fantasy theories. And soon after that, the 9/11 Truth Meetings at St. Mark's church in lower Manhattan devolved from scholarly research, to shouting matches about bombs in the buildings, mini-nukes, lasers from space, holographic planes, and so on.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
For those on both sides of the argument, search youtube for "9/11: The New Pearl Harbor" Yes, the documentary is in favor of the truth movement. But it's the most thorough and in-depth look at 9/11 produced to this day..IMO

One of my favorite documentaries on 9/11 is "ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11".

I remember when I first watched it, it removed ALL doubt concerning what really happened.

The first 2 minutes are a MUST watch for those who haven't seen it yet.

"This is the film that makes it impossible to accept the "official" version of the "911" tragedy any longer. So the question really comes down to: who's telling the truth - the government or this group of Italian/French/German producers? I would say, go with the one that hasn't lied to you. And that only leaves one choice."

BAD LANGUAGE WARNING @ 1 HR 3 min 50 sec

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That gives me a little more to work with when i try and piece the information together....Very interesting about the french guy and his bogus book,almost as if he was part of the plan to plant the seeds of doubt....

Thankyou for taking the time to explain that to me

Evaporating jetliners of course!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Essentially a new Golf of Tonkin that ended up being more catastrophic than intended.

Couldn't put it more bluntly.

I really can't believe in putting too many people in the secrecy: they'll be leaks. Why not just finance foreign organisation instead and ignore/downplay incoming threat reports t'ill SHTF? Then simply discredit any truth seeking movement by planting a few well voiced/organized/financed voices, over exaggerating anything and everything to discredit it all. If any heat goes to the few high ranked culprits, they'll plead 'misinformation' and play musical chair with their agency's directors.

But as usual the same questions remain.

Why? Why go to all this effort when all that was ever needed to start a war with a foreign nation was a lie anyway? Iraq kinda disproves the conspiracy theory on that front. If the US wanted to over throw the talib an without 9/11 all they'd need to do was say we've established the definitive concrete link between the USS Cole, the embassies, and various other nefarious deeds. War on.

Who? How many hundreds of people need to know to plan all this? Remember, Clinton couldn't get a blowy with only 1 other person present without the world finding out. People can't keep secrets. The inevitable 1000s of people involved before and after have all stated silent? Not a single mainstream newspaper or media program has laid out the 'truth'? If it was so obviously an inside job why haven't the Russians been openly stating this since day one? What better way to finally destabilise your old enemy than show the people?

How? How do you secretly wire up these buildings and destroy these planes and nobody notices? Why not just make a massive truck bomb in times square on a Friday evening? Why not make your life so much easier? You'd still kill loads and you wouldn't have to hope the the WTC1 and 2 fall down hitting wtc7 on the way. Remember folks, if that doesn't get damaged your left looking foolish as you try to explain why a building collapses for no reason. You need the damage and the fires to occur. Also why bother with shanksville or the Pentagon? Just more chance of stuff going wrong.