I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up)

a reply to: RKWWWW

Do you understand that it costs money to run an operation like AE911? You know, website, office staff and the like?


The point you try to make is childish and desperate, befitting one attempting to defend an indefensible lie told 15 years ago and long since proved false.

a reply to: cuckooold

I believe that ''conspiracy' theory's are only called that to subliminally create doubt in the public's mind, almost instantaneously too. As soon as that name 'conspiracy' comes up people just shut off, and they don't listen (the mass public anyway). If they were simply a theory then maybe more attention would be paid... i don't know...

I have looked into conspiracy's for a few years now, the first was 9/11. It was the one that made me believe the government are capable of killing their own people, which means they are capable of anything.
There is video footage of firefighters walking inside the building and explosions are going off in the basement, and they are shouting 'its in the basement'...
The is building 7, a building that went down not far from the twin towers, on the same day as the twin towers, in the same way as the twin towers...but it was a controlled demolition.
Then there is the twin towers terrorist insurance policy taken out shortly before the attack...
they make up just one percent... ive looked at many other governmental conspiricys, for instance MK Ultra, which was a real mind control program, theres so much more than meets the eye when you dig a little deeper

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: RKWWWW

Do you understand that it costs money to run an operation like AE911? You know, website, office staff and the like?


The point you try to make is childish and desperate, befitting one attempting to defend an indefensible lie told 15 years ago and long since proved false.

It's childish and desperate to answer a question of how a protruther makes money?

In your heart of hearts you know that in 15 years truthers have never made any significant gains trying to advance their hare-brained fantasy. If the scientific studies that were performed on the 911 structures had been proven false, you wouldn't be here butt-hurt and thinned skinned.

originally posted by: Georgieb
a reply to: cuckooold


There is video footage of firefighters walking inside the building and explosions are going off in the basement, and they are shouting 'its in the basement'...

Both towers had several express elevators that plunged all the way to lobbies and basements. Each tower had an electrical substation in their basements. The arrangement of substation equipment is the same in both towers. Each had 4 air-cooled transformers feeding 4 circuits through 4 breakers. There were several witness who were present in the lobby when the plane hit that describe hearing the plane hit, the elevators crash, and loud bangs from the basements. None thought they were hearing a bomb explosion, though I suppose the noise they heard could have been interpreted as an explosion.

a reply to: cuckooold

I don't hope to change the mind of anyone, I think this is nigh on impossible, but when I hear people being called out as 'shills', and 'government agents', it angers me.

And it angers me deeply that tax dollars are wasted on PR management and similar PsyOps to master the Human Domain, so what?

Ask yourself, who coined the term truther in the first place? That's not a very intelligent preposition to handle the case of 'lost' GIANT KILLER tapes adequately, just to cherrypick a little detail that deserves some scrutiny. Tell me you've heard that before or I'll claim a lack of education on your end of the keyboard.

...This city’s a trap my partner
Under the lights of they choppers
Bodies tools for they coffers
Not worth the cost of our coffins
I stare at a future so toxic
No trust in the dust of a promise
Won’t mark the name on a ballot
So they can be free to devour our options
And just like you I’m a target
Ill defined by the guap in my pocket
But the stage make figures
As quick as it off em
What Marley and Pac get?
I put these caps in capitals
Leave minds blazed in they capitols
I step with a fury so actual fact
That my offense could be capital

www.azlyrics.com...

(Warning: TL;DR ahead, but I promise it's worth the effort)

a reply to: Georgieb

I believe that ''conspiracy' theory's are only called that to subliminally create doubt in the public's mind, almost instantaneously too. As soon as that name 'conspiracy' comes up people just shut off, and they don't listen (the mass public anyway). If they were simply a theory then maybe more attention would be paid... i don't know...

Well, it's pretty widely-known that the CIA got the term 'conspiracy theorist' into common circulation in the 1960s, in order to discredit the JFK assassination sceptics.

But the reason that the CIA reached for that particular phrase in the first place is an aspect of forgotten history.

Back in the day - pre-WWI - conspiracy theories were completely normal. There was an entire genre of literature called 'Secret History', which dealt in backroom rumours, intrigue, and plots. If you look on eBay you can often find centuries-old examples about the reigns of particular monarchs.

What happened, unfortunately, is that conspiracy theories as a concept and genre were so acceptable that they caused two world wars. Seriously, if you look back WWI was sparked by a conspiracy theory (that Archduke Ferdinand's assassination was an international plot) and Hitler's conspiracy theories about Jewish influence - with roots in that conspiracy classic, Protocols of Zion - led indirectly to the outbreak of another world war and (more directly) to the Holocaust.

After the end of WWII, there was a sort of tacit agreement that what was called 'The Conspiracy Theory of History' was extremely dangerous. Arguably, the 'Whig Interpretation of History' assumed dominance (and still has not receded entirely) in reaction to this suppression of centuries of conspiracy theorising.

So when the CIA dusted off the term 'conspiracy theory' they were deliberately evoking this dangerous and forbidden way of thinking, that leads to madness, conflict, and murder.

The CIA's little smear overshot its target, and the label 'conspiracy theory' is now applied to just about any fringe belief. I've seen the Loch Ness Monster described as a conspiracy theory, which is just bizarre. The 'Niburu' nonsense is another example - what conspiracy is being alleged there? I'm sure other posters can think of similar illustrations of this point.

The current situation, ironically, isn't the result of a conspiracy as such: The CIA's resurrection in the mid-1960s of an undesirable label for sceptical minorities has simply entered popular parlance and spread uncontrollably, acquiring new applications as it goes. What internet users would nowadays recognise immediately as a 'meme'.

a reply to: RKWWWW

In my heart-of-hearts, though it took me several years, I realize I was grossly deceived on 911. I realize now the magnificent sleight-of-hand that was pulled off. Magnificent malignance, a fine false flag operation in the best of military traditions.


And all these years later, I also understand that many of my friends and acquaintances are also coming to the realization that we were all deceived on that day, and by the subsequent cover-up.


Indeed, most members of the 911 Commission knew and commented about how they were misled, mostly by the Pentagon and other parts of the Executive Branch.


You might not know you were fooled yet, but many people do know they were fooled.

a reply to: cuckooold

I like evidence and logic. It all says Bush did 9/11. I've never been capable of deluding myself the way others do.

There really isn't a good point to a big long discussion. Bush told us the truth that he SAW the FIRST PLANE going into the FIRST BUILDING while in his limo at the school on TV. 99% of us who were adults all remember getting the news. Bush remembered too and spilled the beans. So that alone is all the evidence we need... just what Bush himself said. I mean just that proves the conspiracy. Just his own words. But then we have all the evidence that all points to a complicit conspiracy.

We all have all the evidence to paint a really detailed and complete picture of what happened, so "conspiracy" doesn't really give it justice. Its more like hey, here is what happened and we know this. We know Silverstien is the guy who made it all happen and we know he turned millions into billions. We know he made terror attacks a big deal with the insurance policy. And we know he talked about demolishing WTC7 with the fire department. Oh my God, what do you want a confession? Its all there man. We know what happened.

Personally I go with all the evidence, about how the explosives were planted by Israel while the patsies were funded by Saudi Arabia. As for Bush he was and is and idiot, so of course he didn't know the whole story... just enough for him to give them the green light.

They didn't get away with it. We know what happened. We know why it happened. We don't know the fine details and personally I don't care. We know the means, the motive, and the opportunity. Thermitic explosive, money & power, owner's permission to plant the explosives. Means, motive, opportunity. The weirdest part of the whole thing is how people say "they could never get away with it". Uh, yeah, they didn't. Its all there as good as any other case with a guilty verdict that doesn't have a video of the confession.

a reply to: fractal5

We all have all the evidence to paint a really detailed and complete picture of what happened

No you have conjecture.
Evidence can stand up to scientific cross examination.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: fractal5

We all have all the evidence to paint a really detailed and complete picture of what happened

No you have conjecture.
Evidence can stand up to scientific cross examination.

Well wrong, George Bush's own words prove a conspiracy fact:

I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in and I saw an airplane hit the tower... you know the TV was already on, and I used to fly myself and I said well there's one terrible pilot and it must have been a horrible accident but I was wisked off there and didn't have much time to think about it

This alone proves conspiracy fact without any need for further conjecture. We can stop there, but do let me know if you need any further evidence. Which do you need? The means, the motive, or opportunity. I can give you all the evidence you could ever need to make an informed conclusion. The means was explosive. The motive was money and power. The opportunity was permission by Silverstein to plant explosives in the WTC.

Everyone is on the record with confessions, so everything is a solid fact. Just tell me what you need and I'll do all the work of finding the evidence. I mean seriously, its all there and there is no conjecture required. Not sure where the questions are or why there would be any left except for the fine details. All the evidence is there within seconds of a web search. Why bother talking about conjecture, there is little left except the details.

a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

The "logic" goes like this: Bush is dumb enough to blurt out a supposed national secret, but yet not dumb enough that any other explanation is possible. Yeah. Really. And then after that brilliant conclusion is reached you continue with the Mother-Of-All extrapolations.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

Here is your train of thought:
1. We know Bush didn't do 9/11
2. Therefore his memories were false.

See the problem there, you're logic is messed up. Actually most memories are true, therefore George Bush's memories are true. 99% of us know EXACTLY what was going on when we heard the news. Its burned into us as the strongest memories of our lives. So if we don't know about that we know nothing. Your theory is a very weak shot in the dark that counts on something that rarely ever happens.

I don't know how many of YOUR memories are false, but I know most of mine are true. And while George Bush was an idiot, I'm sure most of his memories really did happen. So if most of your memories are nonsense then perhaps I can understand why you would think most of George Bush's memories are false.

Humans can't actually function if most of their memories never happened. Oh 1 + 1 = 2, that is a faulty memory. No.



Oh right, he was not in the plane that was hit by an RPG. I forget that too. Sometimes the car in front of me gets in an accident and I think it was me who got in an accident when I recall the story. NOT. But I'm sure that is the first thing you ask someone when they got in an accident. Oh gee are you sure it wasn't the car in front of you who actually got in the accident and not you because people misremember accidents all the time? Is that what you say?

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

The "logic" goes like this: Bush is dumb enough to blurt out a supposed national secret, but yet not dumb enough that any other explanation is possible. Yeah. Really. And then after that brilliant conclusion is reached you continue with the Mother-Of-All extrapolations.

Okay LOL, sure, nobody knows what happened on 9/11. We all forgot. OMG LOL. Yeah if if it were not for the video tapes nobody would know what happened on 9/11 because we'd all have false memories. Oh you are rich. His statement would make perfect sense to someone ELSE who watched the event unfold. Perfect sense. But he wasn't in a position to have done that. The problem with this is that it makes perfect sense as an intentional lie by a stupid person. Everyone who deals with liars on a regular basis can sniff them out. Why can't you?

There is no extrapolation here. There is a lie. And it is mixed in with a serious problem of truth that he was in his limo watching the first plane going into the first building. The only reasonable way they would have gotten a camera on that is in a covert ops. How else? You explain since you know so much about what happened LOL. You explain.

Here is your mother-of-all extrapolations logic:
1. We know Bush didn't do 9/11
2. Therefore he mis-spoke when he admitted it.

Oh sure they all just mis-spoke when they admitted it. So many politicians mis-speak a lot its problem we have isn't it? But not lies that isn't a problem... those sweet innocent people oh dear. Now here is my train of logic

1. We remember when we learned of 9/11
2. George Bush remembers when he learned of 9/11
3. It was when he was in the Limo that he found out what he signed off to.

I'm going to go with the probabilities on this that actually people do remember learning of 9/11 that were adults at the time. But apparently that is beyond reason for you?

a reply to: fractal5

But he wasn't in a limo. He was just about to walk into the classroom where he was famously filmed reading 'My Pet Goat' with a bunch of kids when the second plane struck.

He has previously recalled (on video!) the moment he heard about the first plane.

"At first I thought it was a light aircraft. My reaction was, man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot [...] I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City, whatever help they needed, to take care of this incident, and then walked into the classroom."

originally posted by: Phage
A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

wow, you and sarcastic humor?....nice touch

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

But he wasn't in a limo. He was just about to walk into the classroom where he was famously filmed reading 'My Pet Goat' with a bunch of kids when the second plane struck.

He has previously recalled (on video!) the moment he heard about the first plane.

"At first I thought it was a light aircraft. My reaction was, man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot [...] I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City, whatever help they needed, to take care of this incident, and then walked into the classroom."

The first airplane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., as the president's motorcade crossed the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort on Longboat Key.

Source: web.archive.org...://www.washtimes.com/national/20021008-21577384.htm as copied by "The Wayback Machine" and cited in "Complete 9/11 Timeline" at www.historycommons.org.../11=bush. So yes people can remember what the source of their news was. For George Bush, the TV was his sources. CCTV with covert ops channel showing the crash. "The TV was on" as George said.

I learned about 9/11 from another person telling me "America is under attack". So that memory is burned in as well as 1+1=2 and the idea I could have made up that memory is laughable. The idea it could have been another medium like TV and not a person is so far beyond reason I'd have to have almost no true memories at all.

The National Geographic interview you cite was 10 years after 9/11 not a few months after 9/11 when the interview where he admitted his involvement took place. Had he given that interview before the botched one, then your ideas would be reasonable.

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

The "logic" goes like this: Bush is dumb enough to blurt out a supposed national secret, but yet not dumb enough that any other explanation is possible. Yeah. Really. And then after that brilliant conclusion is reached you continue with the Mother-Of-All extrapolations.

Okay LOL, sure, nobody knows what happened on 9/11. We all forgot. OMG LOL. Yeah if if it were not for the video tapes nobody would know what happened on 9/11 because we'd all have false memories. Oh you are rich. His statement would make perfect sense to someone ELSE who watched the event unfold. Perfect sense. But he wasn't in a position to have done that. The problem with this is that it makes perfect sense as an intentional lie by a stupid person. Everyone who deals with liars on a regular basis can sniff them out. Why can't you?

There is no extrapolation here. There is a lie. And it is mixed in with a serious problem of truth that he was in his limo watching the first plane going into the first building. The only reasonable way they would have gotten a camera on that is in a covert ops. How else? You explain since you know so much about what happened LOL. You explain.

Here is your mother-of-all extrapolations logic:
1. We know Bush didn't do 9/11
2. Therefore he mis-spoke when he admitted it.

Oh sure they all just mis-spoke when they admitted it. So many politicians mis-speak a lot its problem we have isn't it? But not lies that isn't a problem... those sweet innocent people oh dear. Now here is my train of logic

1. We remember when we learned of 9/11
2. George Bush remembers when he learned of 9/11
3. It was when he was in the Limo that he found out what he signed off to.

I'm going to go with the probabilities on this that actually people do remember learning of 9/11 that were adults at the time. But apparently that is beyond reason for you?

Excuse me, did I mention something about false memories in my post? No? Then let's not waste each other's time talking about something I didn't say. We can also rule out talking about my extrapolations from Bush's statement, because I haven't made any extrapolations from the his statement. I'm not making any claims as to what he meant. You are, remember?

When you heard Bush's statement and concluded it was proof of foreknowledge, what was your competing hypothesis(s) and how did you rule them out?

a reply to: fractal5

Thanks (!) for providing that History Commons resource, which only has a mere 72 pages and around 10,000 different entries to choose from...

I did eventually find this, on page 31, but since it appears to contradict you, I'm not clear why you're adducing it.

Could you clarify your position, please?

8:15 a.m. September 11, 2001: President Bush Prolongs Briefing about Planned School VisitEdit event

Sandy Kress, President Bush’s unpaid education adviser, meets with Bush in his hotel on Longboat Key, Florida, to brief him on their planned 9 a.m. visit to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in nearby Sarasota. With them are Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove, and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Kress goes over some key points for the talk Bush is due to give to the press after reading with the students at the school. However, Kress will later recall that the “president is a very punctual person,” and “I’ve never known him to be late.” Yet, “we finished the briefing on that fateful day, and we continued to talk for another ten minutes about people and politics in Texas. The time to leave came and passed.” Kress adds, “That struck me as unusual.”

[KESSLER, 2004, PP. 136-137; DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 9/10/2006] According to the official schedule, the president is supposed to leave the resort at 8:30 a.m. for the drive to the school. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 7/4/2004] Yet, according to one account, he will not leave until as late as 8:39 (see (8:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WASHINGTON TIMES, 10/7/2002]

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: fractal5

I'm lost. How does Bush's obviously-faulty recollection prove foreknowledge?

I mean, he definitely didn't see the first plane hit WTC, so he's confabulated that memory. But he's not alone in that, many people have false memories of WTC (and of other big events, come to that).

But even if he had seen the first plane hit, so what?

The "logic" goes like this: Bush is dumb enough to blurt out a supposed national secret, but yet not dumb enough that any other explanation is possible. Yeah. Really. And then after that brilliant conclusion is reached you continue with the Mother-Of-All extrapolations.

Okay LOL, sure, nobody knows what happened on 9/11. We all forgot. OMG LOL. Yeah if if it were not for the video tapes nobody would know what happened on 9/11 because we'd all have false memories. Oh you are rich. His statement would make perfect sense to someone ELSE who watched the event unfold. Perfect sense. But he wasn't in a position to have done that. The problem with this is that it makes perfect sense as an intentional lie by a stupid person. Everyone who deals with liars on a regular basis can sniff them out. Why can't you?

There is no extrapolation here. There is a lie. And it is mixed in with a serious problem of truth that he was in his limo watching the first plane going into the first building. The only reasonable way they would have gotten a camera on that is in a covert ops. How else? You explain since you know so much about what happened LOL. You explain.

Here is your mother-of-all extrapolations logic:
1. We know Bush didn't do 9/11
2. Therefore he mis-spoke when he admitted it.

Oh sure they all just mis-spoke when they admitted it. So many politicians mis-speak a lot its problem we have isn't it? But not lies that isn't a problem... those sweet innocent people oh dear. Now here is my train of logic

1. We remember when we learned of 9/11
2. George Bush remembers when he learned of 9/11
3. It was when he was in the Limo that he found out what he signed off to.

I'm going to go with the probabilities on this that actually people do remember learning of 9/11 that were adults at the time. But apparently that is beyond reason for you?

Excuse me, did I mention something about false memories in my post? No? Then let's not waste each other's time talking about something I didn't say. We can also rule out talking about my extrapolations from Bush's statement, because I haven't made any extrapolations from the his statement. I'm not making any claims as to what he meant. You are, remember?

When you heard Bush's statement and concluded it was proof of foreknowledge, what was your competing hypothesis(s) and how did you rule them out?

I never bought into the "competing hypothesis" as a science. There are always infinite possibilities, and I select the one that is the most reasonable as the truth. But you're welcome to tell me how competing hypothesis is going to lead me to the correct answers in this specific case. Okay studies are supposed to be proving the negative of their original hypothesis, but the number of bunk studies shows that studies of studies would probably show doing so does not produce any more quality results than simply working with the original hypothesis.

There is an extrapolation that since Bush saw the first plane going into the first building, then he was involved in a black ops project, because that is the most simple explanation by a wide margin of why that event would have occurred. In fact, I can't imagine any other explanation as to why Bush would have seen the first plane going into the first tower on TV while, as the timeline reported by the Washington Post suggested, occurred in his limo before entering the school building.