How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

a reply to: neutronflux

Why did the intelligence community fail so badly?

They didn't fail, they allowed the attack to happen.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please show me exactly which agency had ALL of the information needed to have an accurate idea of what was going to happen? Here is a clue....there isn't one.

The information was fragmented on a couple of dozen different desks in a dozen different agencies. No one, had enough information in one place to put together anything more than the idea "Bin Laden, determined to strike"

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

Why did the intelligence community fail so badly?

They didn't fail, they allowed the attack to happen.

Equally as murderous, but a far cry from being the mastermind.....

So, the narrative of planted explosives at the towers is false, and purposeful created misinformation?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: dfnj2015

Just do a search there is hundreds of threads that have gone over this. Why create a new one just add to one of the hundreds where it has been discussed.

It's strange that it bothers you for people to discuss this in New threads. It's strange that you rather they share their thoughts on this particular topic in a dark musty abandoned corner where nobody will see or hear them. Why is it that you prefer that? Why is it that you seem annoyed that people are discussing this? It's very confusing that you would waste your time to make that comment, because I promise you, nobody is ever going to listen to your foolish advice. No offense.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please show me exactly which agency had ALL of the information needed to have an accurate idea of what was going to happen? Here is a clue....there isn't one.

The information was fragmented on a couple of dozen different desks in a dozen different agencies. No one, had enough information in one place to put together anything more than the idea "Bin Laden, determined to strike"

Sure. NORAD monitors all air traffic I believe. They saw when the planes went off course. They could've shot them down somehow.

Oh but that's right... there was a drill that day. Therefore there's nothing anybody could have done about it. When they hold drills there are no discernable ways to tell the difference between a plane that is part of the drill and all the other hundreds of planes in the sky. Why would they do that?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please show me exactly which agency had ALL of the information needed to have an accurate idea of what was going to happen? Here is a clue....there isn't one.

The information was fragmented on a couple of dozen different desks in a dozen different agencies. No one, had enough information in one place to put together anything more than the idea "Bin Laden, determined to strike"

The fact that the attack happened IS proof it was allowed to happen.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Oh? They could have shot them down? How many years did you spend doing Continental Air Defense? Going to wager you did not. On the morning of 9/11/01, there were exactly 14 fighter jets on alert to protect the Continental United States. That is it. The two F-15s at Otis Air Force Base, were rotating off the runway around the time the first Tower was hit. Too late. Four minutes or so, after this, Flight 175, shut off its transponder making it almost impossible to find on radar and preventing the F-15s from having a vector....which would have been a moot point anyway. Flight 175, hit the South Tower five minutes after its transponder was shut off...again, before the F-15s could have even gotten close enough for a blind missile shot.

This leaves Flight 77 and Flight 93.

Flight 77's transponder was off, making it also impossible to find on a scope...until 9:32 when it popped up on the approach radar for Dulles International, five minutes before it slammed into the Pentagon.


The ONLY flight we had a realistic chance of shooting down, was Flight 93. And, its passengers took care of that.



So, again, HOW would we have shot down the first three?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Evel Kinevel's ghost is asking how you made that jump, since he would have never attempted it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

Part of what problem? Then state what has the most credible evidence for how the towers fell? So I am part of the problem because I shifted through conspiracy sites, debunking sites, researched about everything I could find on physics of the towers, and watched conspiracist vs debunker debates? Tried to validate truth movement theories and found falsehoods and pseudoscience? On what I have argued in this thread that is not backed by fact? Is it false conspiracists pushed photos of cut columns as evidence of thermite when in reality the columns were cut by cleanup crews with thermal lances? Is it false video evidence showing the cores of the towers fell last proving Richard Gage’s assertion the towers fell through the greatest path of resistance is wrong?

Quote where I labeled you “truth movement” because you asked an original question?

If you are not pushing truth movement narratives, what physically caused the Towers to collapse? And what plot resulted in the Towers collapse? Is it proof the US government was the mastermind, or just stood idle, or just the results of government incompetence. A political/military system based on political affiliation vs compentence.

Or what is the most credible counter argument to the towers collapse because of vertical columns bowing and buckling?

Or simply, what is the biggest question in your mind concerning 9/11? Is the question original? Or a truth movement talking point addressed over and over again the last 16 years plus?

I would like to know how the terrorists got into the country? And were allowed to stay? Who was held accountable? Or was this like the EPA induced disasters?

Why were the towers built so cheaply in terms of minimal concrete usage?

Why did the intelligence community fail so badly?


Funny how people get caught up in a literally impossible narrative like Dustification? Like a distraction by design?

All I'm saying is that you did this.

You said. "That is why you have to start with validating the truth movement’s theories?"

Why do I have to validate a Truth movement and Do you think I'm part of some Truth movement? I'm not a part of anything and I sift through various theories and evidence when I have time.

Then you said " And why they would push gross falsehoods? How could anyone buy in to Nukes..." Making it seem like everyone in this so called "Truth movement" Buys into the Nuke theory etc.

When you can stop labeling and generalizing then we can move forward, I think. Yes ? No?

One thing no one ever does is follow the path of logistics in what it actually takes to pull off a theory. When one does so many theories just ravel away as you soon see the logistics to pull something off becomes insurmountable.

a reply to: amazing

Why do I have to validate a Truth movement and Do you think I'm part of some Truth movement?

Because the truth movement is supposedly the counter argument to the”official narrative.” If the counter argument is based on lies, false narratives, misquotes, photos out of context, ignoring video evidence, and pseudoscience, what does that leave?

The counter argument is BS. It should be where the actual evidence takes you.

What is the evidence, and what path do you think it blazes?

What is your stance on the towers? What physically brought them down?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

Why do I have to validate a Truth movement and Do you think I'm part of some Truth movement?

Because the truth movement is supposedly the counter argument to the”official narrative.” If the counter argument is based on lies, false narratives, misquotes, photos out of context, ignoring video evidence, and pseudoscience, what does that leave?

The counter argument is BS. It should be where the actual evidence takes you.

What is the evidence, and what path do you think it blazes?

What is your stance on the towers? What physically brought them down?

But you see I'm not part of any movement. I'm just a guy with questions. You've already lumped me in with some movement. That's the problem.

a reply to: amazing

Again, what are the questions? Original? Or the same truth movement questions repeatedly addressed for the last 16 years plus? That is heavily covered by conspiracy and debunking sites?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

Again, what are the questions? Original? Or the same truth movement questions repeatedly addressed for the last 16 years plus? That is heavily covered by conspiracy and debunking sites?

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lump everyone in some type of movement. That's like saying everyone who questions the government in anything is a "Conspiracy Theorist" That is only done to insult and be little those who ask questions so that nobody asks questions in the future.

a reply to: amazing

And why are you hesitant to air out your questions in this forum if they are not the rehashing of repeatedly addressed truth movement talking points?

I am not saying don’t question. But you haven’t proven your questions are not the some repeatedly debated issues from conspiracy and debunking sites? Questions that you could develop logical answers to by researching during one afternoon?

You claim I am part of the problem by calling a charlatan a charlatan? Can you quote where I have not provided evidence where I have called out the falsehoods of the truth movement. The original cry of AE was based on falsehoods concerning the towers. Looks like CD? The towers collapsed at free fall speed? The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance? The towers fell in thier own footprints. There was absolutely no investigation into the WTC steel. All false narratives.

You cannot provide one example concerning the physics of the towers for the sake of debate?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing

And why are you hesitant to air out your questions in this forum if they are not the rehashing of repeatedly addressed truth movement talking points?

I am not saying don’t question. But you haven’t proven your questions are not the some repeatedly debated issues from conspiracy and debunking sites? Questions that you could develop logical answers to by researching during one afternoon?

You claim I am part of the problem by calling a charlatan a charlatan? Can you quote where I have not provided evidence where I have called out the falsehoods of the truth movement. The original cry of AE was based on falsehoods concerning the towers. Looks like CD? The towers collapsed at free fall speed? The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance? The towers fell in thier own footprints. There was absolutely no investigation into the WTC steel. All false narratives.

You cannot provide one example concerning the physics of the towers for the sake of debate?

Look, I'm not rehashing old questions. I've got more research to do. Some of what I have questions about has been debunked or addressed and I probably need to reframe or change my questions. I may make a thread later about them but on this one, again, my concern and main point is that you don't paint me into the same corner as these Truthers you talk about. I'm an individual.

a reply to: amazing

I've got more research to do.

If it involves Youtube it's not research.

Some of what I have questions about has been debunked or addressed and I probably need to reframe or change my questions.

That's just a rehash of the same old truther chants.

Do you think you have something to ask that hasn't been asked a hundred times before?
After 17 years the truther movement hasn't moved an inch.

Go ahead and watch YT til you puke or read the conspiracy sites til you go bind.
You will get about as far as a bicycle in the ocean.

a reply to: amazing

I may make a thread later about them but on this one, again, my concern and main point is that you don't paint me into the same corner as these Truthers you talk about. I'm an individual.

Please quote where I labeled you part of the truth movement because you posted an original individual question?

Please quote where you asked an original question that is not a truth movement talking point?

Please cite the material you are using to form your questions and form you opinions?

a reply to: dfnj2015
Star and flag.

It’s part media control, and part not wanting to know the truth. People are either not exposed to the best arguments of 9/11 truth, or the prospect frightens them so much that cognitive dissonance sets in, and overrides their questioning of the facts.

I am hopeful that people are waking up, in mass.

originally posted by: grey580

People keep on beating the dead horse.

There's plenty of good threads on ATS that go over in detail the 2 towers falling.

If you care to read them then it may make some sense to you why they fell the way they did.

That is certainly true, but none of those threads actually validate the NIST explanation. The repetition of the NIST explanation is proof of nothing but Goebbelian techniques--repeating a lie many times.