No Alternative Theories are Required for 9/11 to have been a Conspiracy

Yes it is true that they are far more scrutinized as they are far more numerous. The threads started by "debunkers" usually don't have a lot of controversy, unless they are the trolling type in which case it turns into the normal 9-11 thread flaming back and forth.

What do you expect when people hop into threads and scream things like:

"The WTC exploded with bombs, and anyone who is blind enought to not see the truth is a sheeple or a disinfo agent."

How can you argue rationally with a statement like that.

I see far more of it from the "ct'ers" but again that is because they are more numerous on this site and more committed to their "cause"/beliefs.

Most of the people who disagree with the theories don't hang around too long because they get tired of the same wrong information being brought up and proven worthless time after time, and they get tired of people calling them disinfo agents and sheeple.

I was once very active in these threads, but now it's like a broken record with the same misinformation being presented as truth again and again, while any relevant info is drowned out by the nuke/bomb/thermite/energy beam/magic/no plane/cgi plane/etc. .

And you get tired of posting one thing and having one or two people chime in to start a discussion, and then having ten posts in a row calling you a moron, a disinfo agent, or a sheeple.

Not to mention the newbies who complain about other points of view being presented. If you don't want to discuss both sides, ATS is not for you.

/rant


[edit on 1-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

I get really tired of (whoever it is, whichever side you want to put them on) far too many threads degenerate into covering the same groups of points. For example in the thread I've just been posting in about what a building falling from structural collapse looks like, someone refers the "micro nukes theory" that's currently going on in another thread. It's not helpful, nobody brought it up in that thread so far, but yet the 'debunker' feels it's a necessary point to make?

I think we need to call out this behavior consistently whenever it happens, keep threads on track more, that way those of us who want intelligent discussion can actually find it.

I agree innanamute, the best way to stop people from bringing up discredited or silly theories is for ALL of us who want intelligent discussion to call them out for it. Too often people are in favor of one side or another and allow the trolls on their side free rein.

And it is unfair to blame the "debunkers" for bringing up these theories when many of the most recent threads are about the same theories that slapnuts wants us to ignore.

Just look at the 9-11 forum, at least half of the threads are proposing that bombs/nukes/thremite/mininukes are what brought down the towers.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

I agree, I'm not blaming one side specifically, except in the one instance I was referring to, where my basic discussion of physics was being "debunked" by someone telling me that I thought it was mini-nukes..

personally i find one other problem along these same lines.

not sure im going to articulate this properly so cut me some slack lol

the problem ive seen is that, for instance someone disagrees with the official story but has some REALLY out there theory about it. oh, dragons...many of the other alternative theory minded people will defend this person and go out of their way to support said theory (dragons was arbitrary you know what i mean)

and the same goes with what are starting to be referred to as "debunkers". someone agrees with the official story but has these REALLY far out there points to try to argue the alternative theories, again, could be dragons. and the "debunkers" will back them to the hilt just cuz they are trying to disprove an alternative theory

i mean im all for solidarity but come on....

its no secret what i think about explosives in the WTC. but when i debate the issue with anyone i at least try to bring verifiable facts to the debate and let those guide my opinion not the other way around. because of this ther are those in teh alternative theory camp taht will support my posts. but if i start posting that i think energy beams are silly with nothing more than my opinion those same people would call me out on it wanting to know WHY i think energy beams are silly.

and THAT i think, is fair.

i think if we all start holding everyone to the same standard of, not even so much proof or evidence but at least articulate opinions, then i think we can get past all this petty bickering and have intelligent discussions on the topic.

but thats just my opinion, i have nothing that validates it other than my own thoughts on the matter.

Excellent thread Pootie!!


It's not that important to find out every single details of the conspiracy, all that a person should realize is that we are being lied to.

yes, we can expect politicians to lie to us, after all that's what politicians do. But what people should realize it that the whole of the mass media is categorically refusing to show the footages of the WTC7 collapse. In fact, the mass media consistently refuse to even mention the collapse of WTC7, almost as if didn't exist. Ask yourself why?

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Pootie
Well... my topic on NO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES sure has take the ATS DEBUNKER side road.

How is that?

Well, start with "stiney" on the first page and his usual MO then "iandavis" (first post page two) and his usual derailing bull crap and watch as this starts us down a page that is the slippery slope... thankfully, the thread does seem to recover quite swimmingly.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Pootie]

I agree, those posts are there, but you are ignoring the "cters" who jumped in first and in fact brought up the alternative theories in your thread.

For instance:

Third post calls debunkers government agents.

Sixth post calls you disinformation and claims that the planes were CGI.

And then Stiney responds to the outlandish theory presented by someone else.

Stiney did not bring it up out of the blue to derail the thread, it was brought up by CB_Brooklyn, who by the way, thinks that you are a disinfo agent for not believing in CGI planes.


Iandavis howver did bring up unrelated things to the thread, however both sides are guilty of it in this case making it disingenuous of you to blaim it on the "debunkers".


You are ignoring those on your own side to point out faults in the other side.

That kind of thing is what I had hoped you had started this thread to prevent.

If you can't hold the people you agree with accountable, and only wish to complain about the debunkers, then this whole thread is pointless and is just a veiled attack.

Hopefully the rest of us can hold to what we thought was the intention behind this thread: promoting meaningful conversation instead of mindless bickering.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Third post calls debunkers government agents.

Though I disagree with this statement it could be considered gremane to the topic.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sixth post calls you disinformation and claims that the planes were CGI.

Yeah... He should not have posted that here...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And then Stiney responds to the outlandish theory presented by someone else.

"If all of your friends jumped off of a building..." lol

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Iandavis howver did bring up unrelated things to the thread...

That is his/her MO.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You are ignoring those on your own side to point out faults in the other side.

I have no side... though I am quite opinionated. I think debunkers think of this as some kind of team sport... what I post here are my tho thoughts and external sources. I am not "teaming up" with other posters to make any points.

That kind of thing is what I had hoped you had started this thread to prevent.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Hopefully the rest of us can hold to what we thought was the intention behind this thread: promoting meaningful conversation instead of mindless bickering.

US as in not me? ouch.

Originally posted by Pootie
I have no side... though I am quite opinionated. I think debunkers think of this as some kind of team sport... what I post here are my tho thoughts and external sources. I am not "teaming up" with other posters to make any points.

This is a good observation. Although, I think it happens on both sides.

Originally posted by Griff
This is a good observation. Although, I think it happens on both sides.

Agreeing on a topic, as you and I occasionally do, is very different than the gang bang tactics used by a certain group of "debunkers" here that will agree to disagree on ANY and EVERY alternative theory or alternative interpretation of a piece of evidence.

"They" are a team... "CTers" generally do not reach consensus on anything except that the Gov't story has some serious issues.

I like to think of myself as a whole separate group, neither debunker, nor CTEr.. I'm a curious rationalist :p.

Originally posted by Pootie
Agreeing on a topic, as you and I occasionally do, is very different than the gang bang tactics used by a certain group of "debunkers" here that will agree to disagree on ANY and EVERY alternative theory or alternative interpretation of a piece of evidence.

"They" are a team... "CTers" generally do not reach consensus on anything except that the Gov't story has some serious issues.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The so-called "CTer's" do it as much if not more so than any of the so-called "debunkers".

I disagree with the tactics no matter how they are used, I am just asking that ALL of us hold ALL sides of the debate to the same rules.

While there are people who disagree with any and every alternative theory, there are just as many who embrace any and every alternative theory and call someone a sheeple for not believing it.

BTW, what is the singular of sheeple? Sheerpson?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
BTW, what is the singular of sheeple? Sheerpson?

Goatboy? Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Great thread and discussion! Left Behind thanks for keeping up. It helps to have rational folks around. As for the others, on boths sides, who just spew,
IGNORE
quick, efficient slap-ddowns maybe - the doors are all open, anyone could step in here now and call us all tools of satan pushing lies or whatever. Some people are just silly. Some are agents or bots I suspect, tho I can't prove and don't care who exactly. Judge them by their fruits. I make a point as logically as I can, they sidestep and push on, I realize they aren't for real and move on. Anybody for eal can read the thread and see who's said what. The rest will have to take care of themselves.

Tired of flaming? Don't be flammable. The truth is out there, there's only one, and we're getting closer to it.

Singular of sheeple: sheeperson sounds right. Lots of erding on both sides. I like to think I'm off in the woods somewhere by myself and in no herd, but who knows.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I like to think I'm off in the woods somewhere by myself and in no herd, but who knows.

When does the non-herd actually become a herd itself? Both sides have the herd people in them. I like goatboy myself. Obviously, I'm an SNL fan.

Posting in this forum is over and above my ability. That being said I need to know if this video holds any weight or is it B.S. I don't know why I need to know but it seems to be very important to me at this moment. I would greatly appreciate some structured insight from ATS members whom I have come to respect and admire.



::footnote please ignore this guys obsession over totovader please::

[edit on 5/7/07 by Rhain]

Originally posted by iandavis
1)Where is the security video tape showing the demolition team planting the bombs in the WTC? Where are the credible eyewitnesses who claim to have seen them? Where are the friends, family and/or colleagues of the demo team, who must’ve knew something?

The security camera system was turned off as reported by nearly all the towers security guards, and there is no footage. They also pulled all bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before 911 from the towers. Well who you ask, Marvin Bush's company Securacom, that carried the contract on security for the wtc complex that's who.

Originally posted by iandavis
2)Where are the missle fragments and wreckage from the Pentagon? Where is the clear, definite, undoctorer video of the missle that 95% percent of the public would agree actually looks like a missle?

I don't mess with the pentagon other than to say if the rest was a setup so was the pentagon, and besides Mineta said it was allowed to be hit by Cheney that morning in testimony. I don't know what hit the pentagon, I suspect a plane did, because of the next question, but I wonder why there is said to be over 200 some cameras that would have caught the attack but the govt. has released 6 frames... WTF??? They could prove this was a plane in two seconds if they released ome video, but THEY refuse so the people can only speculate.

Originally posted by iandavis
3) Where did the airline passenger’s disappear to on these flights?

This is why I think plane hit it, to not have it be that plane means that they either shot the plane out of the sky that morning or hey landed it and executed those people. The execution of those people on the ground would require to many people and could not have been covered up. I don't know about this other than to say, if they did one of those things GOD DAMN THEM.

Originally posted by iandavis
4) Who are the government agents behind this plot? Where is the evidence showing that they knew something?

The agents are a very small cabal, I imagine some NSC, CIA, NRO, and some military would have to be involved with the Cheney/Rummy PNAC group. The evidence that they knew something is everywhere, take your pick. The 911 final report says they were warned about the attacks and ignored them, read chapter 8. There is sucha multitude of information out there about this one can't believed you asked.

Our own Reichstagg and right under our noses, and why not, they did Kennedy in front of our faces and on tv too.

Originally posted by iandavis
…and the whole planet saw the planes fly into the buildings and the first pancake of each tower occur at the same level the planes had impacted. Anyone who’s seen a real demolition can tell that the twin towers were not brought down by explosives. A demo’d building does not pancake from top to bottom like the twin towers did.

I'll ask the obvious: then why do so many people "on the whole planet" do not buy the line you're attributing to them?

As a form of rhetoric, the "everybody knows" argument is taught in any decent secondary school as the weakest of arguments, because it simply isn't true and is only based on the psychological comfort of being part of the group.

And your assertions about how the towers fell and the nature of that collapse are on the same level. The evidence of CD is there in the collapse itself, which is simply impossible without the use of explosives.

Unfortunately, most of "the whole world" is quite ignorant of building construction, statics, and basic physics. Such ignorance allows you to make such preposterous assertions, but they are just that, no more.

All one needs to debunk this is a functioning brain, this knowledge, and several collapse videos. Unfortunately, besides the videos, one or both of the other vital components are usually lacking.

Originally posted by ANOK
That's as good as the 'F-4 hitting the concrete wall' used to try to prove the 757 would have dissintegrated on impact...

Not to derail but that video actually shows the wing of the F-4 slicing through the concrete.

So, planes slice through steel at the towers and slice through concrete in that video but they fold into themselves at the pentagon?

This is why we need the evidence that is withheld from us.