Defenders of the official 9/11 story - A question for you

I have noticed that there appear to be some people who venomously refuse to question the official government 9/11 story.

Why is that?

That's called a paycheck or brainwashing or possibly ignorance.. you choose.

I would guess the 1st and last one if you ask me.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
That's called a paycheck or brainwashing or possibly ignorance.. you choose.

I would guess the 1st and last one if you ask me.

It is a paycheck, no brainwashing and definitely not ignorance. I mean, the information is out there, and much of it has been posted on here.

No, its called looking at the available evidence (and not the goofy conspiracy sites) and then applying logic to arrive at an answer. i.e. a bunch of terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into three buildings, causing complete destruction of two of the buildings.

I dunno, what about pure laziness? I didn't see that one on there. Complacency always worked for me. I start to question things, then think about how I'd rather just worry about stuff in my own world. Government conspiracies are rather tiresome after working a 10 hour shift to pay rent. That's just me though

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
That's called a paycheck ....

It is a paycheck ...

I wonder if it really does come down to the money.

An amazing number of people now recieve government aid, grants, paychecks, and contracts, either directly or indirectly. They may not want to put thier money in jeopardy, by questioning something which may just disappear.

Sadly this may just be the truth of the matter.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
... a bunch of terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into three buildings, causing complete destruction of two of the buildings.

Yes, that is what we are told happened.

Here's a riddle... Terrorist hijack four airplanes and crashing them into three biuldings. Knocking three building to their destruction... How is this possible when the pentagon wasn't destroyed?

This has a deficulty level of "2."

AAC

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I wonder if it really does come down to the money.

I think you missed what I meant. I ment a person who gets paid to back up something that isnt true.

Yes, that is what we are told happened.

Let's see....we have at least two flight attendants call their maintenance centers from the jets to report the hijacks and give the names and seat assignments of the hijackers.

We have radar tracks on the jets (for those who believe the "jets landed and disgorged their passengers and loaded explosives" crowd)

We have video of both the jets that hit the WTC.

We have thousands of witnesses to the events that day.

We have the man who planned it in our custody (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)

I could go on....

I mean, how much evidence do you need?

Oh yes, I forgot, it was this MASSIVE conspiracy that would have had to involved THOUSANDS of people to pull off.......and none of them have talked......

People to prep the jets
People to wire the towers and wtc 7
People to fake the communications made from the jets
People to "plant" the wreckage
People to coordinate
The list goes on........

Here's a riddle... Terrorist hijack four airplanes and crashing them into three biuldings. Knocking three building to their destruction... How is this possible when the pentagon wasn't destroyed?

You are kidding right? I mean thats not even comparing apples to oranges......

For those who believe the Officail 9/11 story. Please find something wrong in these links, make a NEW THREAD, then chat about it. I want 1 person to at least prove something here wrong.

Already did that once, however a moderator removed the thread because I didnt properly format it.

I'm not venomously refusing. I'm just poking holes in CT's. After all there's enough people already poking holes (real or imaginary) of the so-called official story so why would it be forbidden to question CT's as well? Have to say so far found by far more holes in CT's than in official story

Double post, sorry

[edit on 5-9-2006 by tuccy]

I agree, watching the footage of the planes hitting the towers is pretty compelling.
Its good evidence that yes.. planes werer hijacked and flown into buildings.

The government has allowed all this footage be released, and constantly given air time.

yet they still hide the pentagon footage, even when there's so many people speaking out AGAINST that aspecto f the official story

why do they keep showing us what we already know, yet continue to hide the proof that would back up what they are trying to convince us of.

But lets be honest.

Just because you saw the planes hit the WTC, doesnt mean they were full of passengers, and that terrorists were driving them... Thats what we are TOLD happened.

Just becaue u see the towers fall, and debree's going everywhere... doesnt mean something didnt ASSIST them coming down.. this again is what we are TOLD.

And the hum dinger.

You dont even get to SEE the plane hitting the pentagon, or have the government explain so many inconsistancies in the story.. yet we are TOLD to believe a certain story.

Unfortunately for the non-conformists... there's enough 'gulable conformists' to allow the US to continue to hoodwink the public.


Its all been Very convenient since that day.
Everything that has happened has served a prurpose only advantageous to this government, and dis-advantageous to the terrorists.

Yet they are meant to be the ones controlling this terror arent they?

If terrorism has changed our lives so much, and made us live in a certain way.. why is it possible for me to turn off my tv, turn off my radio.. and stop reading my news paper only to live in a world where ' nothing ' has changed.

MY every day life hasnt changed, yet im being told my very existence is on the line.

Seems to me the only thing these ' terrorist ' attacks did was throw petrol, on the fire we know as the US administration.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I wonder if it really does come down to the money.

I think you missed what I meant. I ment a person who gets paid to back up something that isnt true.

Yes I understand, there is a word for government protitutes. They are called shills.

Shill - a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

I wonder how many people have become government shills out of fear. No doubt there are some who are being paid to put out supporting arguments for the government. But I bet they are the minority. I bet the vast majority of the government's supporters are simply afraid of the consequences of revealing the truth about 9/11.

Did anyone else notice how Bush bought off the american churches, just before 9/11, with his faith based inititives program.

reference: Executive Order 13199 created the White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives on January 29, 2001.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Traditionally the churches in america were set up to counter satan (I mean the government), now they are being paid by the government to keep thier mouths shut.

Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government (a guide to the legal responsibilities associated with the receipt of Federal funds)

www.whitehouse.gov...

[edit on 5-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, its called looking at the available evidence (and not the goofy conspiracy sites) and then applying logic to arrive at an answer. i.e. a bunch of terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into three buildings, causing complete destruction of two of the buildings.

HEY MR. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE...

THREE buildings totally collapsed... not TWO.

IF you take the time, there was a gentleman on the phone with his parents when the plane hit the tower, there was also a FA on the line when a plane hit the tower. Those people were real, and they died.

A big part of CT is denial and arrogance whether they want to admit it. It is too hard to realize that terrorists performed this, so a story is created to make it easier to accept. Classic denial.

All the facts are out there, including the evidence that the towers trusses buckled in the 1975 fire, a fire that was much much smaller than the fires on 9/11. But of course, that thread was closed.

When I said paycheck, I was bieng sacrcastic meaning most people who defend the official story are branded as CIA psyops or uneducated on this site.

Again, take the time and realize that no one is out to get you, they already have you. There are shows on and many articles being released this month because of the 5th anniversary. Any of you on the fence should take a look, or read something other than the same twisted drivel you find on many sites on the Internet.

Originally posted by esdad71
IF you take the time, there was a gentleman on the phone with his parents when the plane hit the tower, there was also a FA on the line when a plane hit the tower. Those people were real, and they died.

And this supports the official story how? Many people actually died that day....does this support the official story then?

A big part of CT is denial and arrogance whether they want to admit it.

I would say the same of the official story believers.

It is too hard to realize that terrorists performed this, so a story is created to make it easier to accept. Classic denial.

It also could be said that terrorists did do this and the US government was complicit. It is too hard for people to accept this so the government's "story" was created to make it easier to accept. Also classical denial.

All the facts are out there,

No they're not. Where are the thousands of videos and photos that NIST used? Not for the public's consumption. Where's the videos and photos of the pentagon crash? I take it you have seen the construction documents for the towers then? So, don't sit there and say that ALL the evidence/facts are out there....because they are, just hidden from the people for some reason.

including the evidence that the towers trusses buckled in the 1975 fire, a fire that was much much smaller than the fires on 9/11.

You have only provided one source (official site) so far (post 9/11) that states that some of the trusses buckled. You have not provided an independant verification for the statements made from that site. Until then, I do NOT believe this. Basically because it has been reported that no steel had to be replaced. Do you know how much damage would be done from buckling trusses (steel)? They'd at least have to replace the steel trusses that buckled....hmm....no steel had to be replaced? But yet some buckled? Someone is lying.....

But of course, that thread was closed.

The reason that thread was closed was because we were talking about the same subject in another thread.

When I said paycheck, I was bieng sacrcastic meaning most people who defend the official story are branded as CIA psyops or uneducated on this site.

Well, it's pretty hard not to when people won't even peek at some "other" theories evidence. Or even acknowledge that now a structural engineer has come forward etc.

Again, take the time and realize that no one is out to get you,

I thought the nasty terrists were out to get us?

they already have you.

The terrorists may have you in fear but I'm not afraid to die....so be it.

There are shows on and many articles being released this month because of the 5th anniversary. Any of you on the fence should take a look, or read something other than the same twisted drivel you find on many sites on the Internet.

You mean there are going to be "official" twisted drivel this month....can't wait. I would also warn of the same twisted drivel out there on "official" sites as well. Everyone has an agenda.

This discussion is in violation of this 9/11 forum policy.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

It has come to the attention of ATS admin and staff that the quality of discussion in the 9/11 forum has been steadily declining over the last few months, and that this has been in no small part due to the derailing of discussion by some members implying or directly stating that those who disagree with their point of view are stupid, "conspiracy nut jobs", or "government agents". Included in this category are posts such as "conspiracy theories are ridiculous bunkum", "only an idiot would believe that...", and the like - comments which have nothing to do with the discussion of the facts and associated theories, but rather are designed to stifle rational discussion through ridicule and intimidation.

In an effort to curb this worsening phenomenon, to improve the quality of discussion, and to encourage the spirit of cooperative research and respectful debate that ATS was founded on, staff have been notified that as of this post a zero-tolerance policy is to be effected in regards to all such comments in the 9/11 forum. Members derailing discussion through such comments will be post banned, THIS IS YOUR WARNING.

Borderline cases will result in first a U2U from staff, but a pursuit of the same protocol for repeat incidences.

The events surrounding 9/11 are complex and myriad, and only through rational, cooperative, adult discussion can we hope to discover the truth, whatever it may be, and whether it conforms with our own personal theories or not. Ridicule, labeling, and blanket aspersions contribute nothing towards this goal. If you disagree with another member, please feel free to explain why you disagree by outlining the facts as you or your sources see them, not by labeling - whether by direct statement or by implication - those who hold certain views as "nutcases", "sheeple", "disinfo agents", "idiots" and so forth. If you think that the investigation and discussion of conspiracy theories is purely a pastime of the unintelligent, the paranoid, and the mentally imbalanced, then perhaps ATS is not the place for you. If you think that the investigation and dismissal of a particular theory from one's personal belief set means that one is a government agent, an idiot, or a "sheeple", then the same applies.

ATS is THE place to come to for informative, adult discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theory. It is our hope through the enactment of this policy and through quality contributions and discussion from YOU, that we can continue to claim that accolade.

All policies are effected with the singular goal of making ATS a more enjoyable and productive environment for you, the members, and hence we welcome discussion of this policy in this thread.

Thank you.

Thread Closed.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by worldwatcher]