Really Simple Thought Exercise...

reply to post by ipsedixit


Carefully chosen and thought out wording there. But lets just focus on the few core messages within it:

You point out that It's a heated topic (of course it's a heated topic) -- and that is in fact what makes it all the more interesting to participate in as opposed to a dull topic. Nothing wrong with a heated, or highly debatable topic. In fact, I'm honestly not too heated thus far as a result of it all. So the idea to just up run away from it seems a bit over the top to me at this point.

This is what I take away from your post that hits at the original topic (here we go) --

"Could 911 have been accomplished another way? Maybe"

Of course it could have! But that's not the original question though. Could 9/11 have been accomplished in a lot simpler fashion than the CT's claim it was, yielding just as big of impact on the national awareness when it comes to terror threats? That's a simple question and the answer really is pretty simple in itself; yes, creating mayhem with two commercial airliners under your control is a no brainier really....Especially if you are hell bent on Kamikaze, dive bombing the planes into heavily populated areas.

Wouldn't you agree on as much?

That's enough really to put the fear of God into anybody sitting in traffic, or cooped up in a high rise somewhere (fanatics with two huge aircraft ready to dive bomb down out of the sky to wreak as much havoc as possible?) C'mon now.

Again, this is the key idea. No need for elaborate, shady little capers involving rigging up dynamite and firing off missiles; the planes up in the sky with those fanatic types at the controls is all the incentive one would ever need to create mass hysteria and your day of 'infamy.'

You sit there and refer to the 'perps' as manipulating the strings throughout it all. Yet, you can't really put together a clean scenario (even rough outline) to implicate some sort of proven conspiracy (the Pentagon missile theory is a bunch of nonsense.) The collapse of the buildings has been thoroughly explained in detail not only here, but elsewhere by qualified professionals. The missile disguised as a hologram is just retarded (I'm sorry, but it just is.) Plus, I know John Lear knows better than that (or you would think so anyway.)

The sad part is, hey maybe there was some treasonous happenings going on leading up to those attacks. The even sadder part is anybody really attempting to seriously weed into that is going to get labeled nut (and for good reason.) Holograms??? Case in point right there.

The Nixon administration screwed up burglarizing a hotel room (and that was news in everybody's living room practically the next day.) You honestly believe the Bush administration is capable of pulling off such a complex, interwoven plot which when put to this test by anybody capable of a bit of rational thought simply defies common sense?

It almost seems as if these warped theories about missiles and holograms are straight disinfo designed to discourage any credible person from taking a look at certain key events surrounding the attacks that may shed some new light on some wrong doing. The real investigator would be laboriously examining key people connected to the events, paper trails, intelligence documents and so forth; not the events themselves. It's no mystery what happened that day; commercial aircraft used as flying bombs to kill anybody who happened to fall victim. I'm personally not a CT, but anybody can see that the flawed investigating and sensational nonsense is killing your cause. That is if it's even a valid one, because I see nothing really compelling to make me give up hope here in the free world over some shadowy 'cabal' that is capable of doing the impossible whenever they chose at will.

Heated exchanges? I don't know about you, but I'm having a blast.

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty


I cannot prove to you or to anyone that anything hit the Pentagon that fateful day, because quite frankly all I ever saw from the few videos that were released by the Government was an explosion. Do you see a plane? Does anyone see a plane? Call me crazy but I don't see it.

If you choose to believe the government’s version then that is your right to do so. If I choose not to believe the government’s version and even go as far as to question their version, then I have every right to do so.

reply to post by odzendz


Okay, so, how much of a plane do you expect to see after such an impact? I've seen the explosion too, but I've also seen a devastated Pentagon that looks about right to me judging from the impact and sprawling fire that ensued immediately afterwards. I've also seen landing gear and wheel hub of the exact same type of airliner from within the Pentagon (again, freshly devastated.) I've seen internals for the engine (again, freshly devastated.) Riveted fragments with matching primer to the airliner all over the place. Cockpit internals, autos in the immediate vicinity ablaze and demolished. plus here's what I've learned also. The flight data recorder was recovered. What remains of the victims have been analyzed through DNA and cataloged. Then released into the immediate families possession (along with personal items) and buried years ago. That's nearly all of the victims save for a few (184 in total.)

Isn't all of that even a bit compelling to you?

On the other hand here is what I don't see (or hear)

Not one single credible witness, photograph or piece of film depicting any kind of missile being fired. That would have to be a feat in itself really considering it all, wouldn't you agree? No conflicting statements from first responders, or people on scene as to any planting of evidence whatsoever. From what I've seen that was quite a bit of debris. It would take truckloads to transport that into there, plus a crew of guys to spread that stuff around in every nook and cranny.

So, again, I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking you to share the logic in your suspicions. I'm no 9/11 expert by any stretch, but the fact of the matter is when it comes to refuting this stuff; you're at a complete loss to rationally explain, or even counter it. Obviously the DNA remains, wreckage and witness reports all point to a commonality here; that a plane (flight 77) did in fact wind up in that building in some fashion.

So, how do you suppose it all got there? Do you believe it was secretly transported there right under the noses of first responders, eye witnesses, FAA investigators and on and on?

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty

And yet you have no proof of what you just claimed, you only follow the lines of what the Government has told you.

reply to post by odzendz


This little thread isn't about proof; it's about logic...Remember?

I've gone into detail raising point after point as to why it's logical to assume that a missile never struck that building. You on the other hand can offer nothing to refute any one of those points with logic of your own. Instead rather, just choosing to ignore each critical little thought I've brought up to you here and instead type in a simple sentence or two that addresses none of it. That's how you and a lot of CT's operate.

9/11 was never a big past time of mine. I viewed all of the conspiracy chatter with a sort of fleeting interest here and there. Although I will admit; I thought there was a lot more to it than this. Considering that there's a 9/11 "truth movement" in place and this and that going on. I figured these types must be well schooled in this stuff after this long and readily able to counter with in depth logical arguments of their own when it came to this particular subject.

I've had a tougher time debating people who believe that the Amityville Horror was in fact real than you conspiracy supporters up to this point. At least they could supply a somewhat logical rebuttal to a key point about the 'horror' when raised. You guys just outright dodge and ignore key points left and right. It's appalling really, especially when considering what went down that day.

Just like John Lear pointing out how the wings on the aircraft didn't measure up to the 'cartoon' hole in the tower. That about blew my mind really. Him actually uploading diagrams in hopes to convince somebody of that. That's the first thread I scanned over upon signing up for here and couldn't believe my eyes at such nonsense.

Obviously upon impact at those speeds the entire airframe is going to contort to some extent (wings included.) I'd be more amazed if the wings did perfectly line up once you get the image into photoshop (you know what I mean John?)

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty


Is it not logical that the Pentagon, probably one of the most secure facilities in the world, would have clear video evidence of a Boeing striking it?

Is it not logical that NORAD should have done something?

Is it not logical that the U.S administration, which lied to get into Iraq, may have lied about 9-11?

Is it not logical to investigate?

Is it not logical that the Pentagon, probably one of the most secure facilities in the world, would have clear video evidence of a Boeing striking it?

Sure it's logical. Consider your own statement "one of the most secure facilities in the world." Had the Pentagon ever been breached, attacked, or sabotaged prior to that date? Of course not! I bet half the time that security cameras weren't rolling on every square inch of Fort Knox either; because the place is impenetrable by conventional means. Dive bombing a jumbo jet in a suicide attack run was completely unexpected before that date. Furthermore, the gate cam was running at 1 frame per second while the plane is traveling close to 500 mph. I don't see a missile, I see the tip of a wing briefly caught on cam followed by an obvious fuel explosion.

Is it not logical that NORAD should have done something?

Like what? Intercept a civilian airliner and shoot it down? That would be another first in American history wouldn't it? Was there mass confusion going on at the time both on the ground and in the air while planes are being scrambled? I'm sure like never before. Think about it, commercial aircraft just dropping off the screens, two, three, four and maybe more on top of that for all they knew. Communications errors, delayed reactions -- 'mistakes' no doubt abounded. That is logical. I haven't studied the entire NORAD log, but up to this point I really don't feel compelled to.

Is it not logical that the U.S administration, which lied to get into Iraq, may have lied about 9-11?

There's quite a difference between lying (or withholding information that could be perceived as a lie for whatever purpose) -- and masterminding the 9/11 attacks under the noses of millions of unsuspecting American's, congress, investigators, contractors, defense personnel, first responders (the list is endless really.) Am I a champion of the current administrations policies? Not really. But is that enough to convince me that this elected administration pulled of the largest and (would have to be) most complex attack in American (if not global) history without a hitch?...Hardly!

Is it not logical to investigate?

I'm all for investigation. But where has it gotten to this far? I'm for real investigation and not fringe investigation that relies on sensationalism, goofy theories, etc. Sadly that's the norm when it comes to this material and even worse, a lot of you CT gravitate towards it all. So many of these outrageous theories of these self appointed investigator types have been debunked time and again. Problem is these fringe investigators won't step aside (their claims just keep getting even more sensational as more and more earlier ones are discovered to be obviously flawed.) They obviously want the spot light...And the majority oblige them.

So there's a point for point response from my end of it (I've yet to see one attempt from yourself regarding the points I put forth.)

Again, why is the wreckage, data recorder, DNA, witness testimony, sheered off light poles found on that interstate -- all logically pointing to a plane obviously impacting the Pentagon. So where is any sort of logical counter to those important factors from your end? Page two now and I'm still waiting.

Is it just me, or with all the recent activity in the 9/11 issues forum, and all these new members literally just joining, seem somewhat suspicious?
I'm talking, disinfo perhaps?
Maybe it's just me but I can't help that feel some of these new guys have something about them that I can't quite put my finger on.
Any else feel the same?

Although I can agree with the logic the OP states, from my own investigations the evidence suggests it was more complicated than that. With others having provided the OP with some counter arguments, all he is now trying to do is whitewash the affair with falsehoods and rhetoric to the point that no-one bothers replying and he has the last word (and some might therefore think he's won the argument). TBH, I don't think most people are even baited by him and I'm only responding as I feel the balance must be redressed.

A lot of what the OP says is contradictory to many things about 9/11 I have come across via this site & ther sources and these have not been refuted e.g. "But you see, it was hit 'well.' Those towers weren't built for those sort of impacts. Deliberate, throttle up kamikaze runs like that? The structures were 110 stories on top of it all. That's a tremendous impact thrown at them both." - I refer him to 911blogger.com... the Architects & Enigineers 9.11 Truth organisation's view on the matter. Yes they were designed to withstand jets crashing into them at high speed. And if the planes were so fast, would you not expect the aluminium nose to be a bit crumpled by the time it came out the other side??

I could go on pointing things out about his thread that I think are misdirections but I've made one point, the others have been made many times here on ATS. As I say, I just wanted to redress the balance, I don't wish to get involved in the topic any further, so OP, there's no need to give me a breakdown of my thread in reply (I know what you're trying to do and I ain't playing).

I understand what the OP is trying to say. That is the problem that I have had the the whole CT theories all the time. Why this whole grand scheme of controlled demo, hide this, blow up that when following the KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) would have accomplished the same things. Why worry about bringing down the buildings at all? No matter what it is still a attack on a American icon. Why the controlled demo at WTC 7 when they could have just a easy made the building fall into WTC 7 by their estimation of the abilities of the "cabal". The "Well lets cause some damage...but not too much damage" argument just doesnt hold water to me. If you want to inflame the public, the bigger, badder, you make it, the better for your "cause". If it was a CD as stated...Why not have the buildings fall which ever way the gravity takes them? The worse the devestation, the bigger the cry for revenge.

reply to post by UKandScared

Although I can agree with the logic the OP states, from my own investigations the evidence suggests it was more complicated than that. With others having provided the OP with some counter arguments, all he is now trying to do is whitewash the affair with falsehoods and rhetoric to the point that no-one bothers replying and he has the last word (and some might therefore think he's won the argument). TBH, I don't think most people are even baited by him and I'm only responding as I feel the balance must be redressed.

Now what kind of nonsense is that? You agree with the logic, yet for whatever reason I must have some sort of group behind me just to arrive at these conclusions? I'm flattered really, but it doesn't really take a whole lot of effort for one person to consider a claim (especially when it's ungrounded really in the simple principle of basic common sense and retort with one that is.)

As with the Pentagon, the collapse, intricate plot design laid out throughout the common CT views on the subject and so forth. As far as 'the balance' goes, I've been right here since my initial post and replied time and again to any one of you CT endorses that steps up to bat (which keeps on growing in number by the way.) Nobody has sprung to my defense on the issue and for obvious reasons; because the majority of the points I've made on the matter are just left avoided. Pretty apparent honestly for any that are following along up to now.

A lot of what the OP says is contradictory to many things about 9/11 I have come across via this site & ther sources and these have not been refuted e.g. "But you see, it was hit 'well.' Those towers weren't built for those sort of impacts. Deliberate, throttle up kamikaze runs like that? The structures were 110 stories on top of it all. That's a tremendous impact thrown at them both." - I refer him to 911blogger.com... the Architects & Enigineers 9.11 Truth organisation's view on the matter. Yes they were designed to withstand jets crashing into them at high speed. And if the planes were so fast, would you not expect the aluminium nose to be a bit crumpled by the time it came out the other side??

Actually, you're the one that's wrong on that particular point. The Towers were designed years before (conceived in the late sixties and completed in '74 if I remember right.) -- Designed for 707 aircraft that may inadvertently encounter the structures: i.e.: due to loss of visibility as the obvious common assumption on the designers part. Big difference from purposeful, kamikaze runs in fully fueled, modern day aircraft of the type as which was the case on 9/11. As for the nose cone emerging out the other side, as I pointed out before -- look at the velocity! Roughly two and a half football fields per second! 208 feet isn't a whole lot of distance to transverse at that rate with that much inertia behind it.

Another great example, foam debris from the shuttle at high velocity is incredibly destructive (have you witnessed the tests conducted following the shuttle disaster?) Plus, what would the nose cone be transiting through on that day once it emerged out of the other side of those buildings? People, chairs, desks, drywall (not a whole lot when you consider the physics involved.)

I could go on pointing things out about his thread that I think are misdirections but I've made one point, the others have been made many times here on ATS. As I say, I just wanted to redress the balance, I don't wish to get involved in the topic any further, so OP, there's no need to give me a breakdown of my thread in reply (I know what you're trying to do and I ain't playing).

You don't want to address any of the points I make, fine. You don't want to get involved in this particular thread, that's quite okay too. After all, it's not as if me, or Mr. Lear are forcing you to do anything here against your will. But when it comes to me breaking down a post to get a point across on the topic at hand, well then that's just how I'll go about it boss. Sorry if that seems unfair to you for whatever reason.

I think the OP should do more research if he takes this topic seriously. By his own admission he hasn't studied the topic in depth. It comes through clearly. When you have been in the trenches a long time on a topic, I think the best thing to do is to direct an inexperienced person to the reading material out there, whether in book form or on the web.

OP, you are all over the map with your arguments and you are not very convincing. In a word or a phrase you dismiss arguments and hypotheses put together by people who are far more intelligent and subtle than you are. That's not a put down. People like David Ray Griffen took decades of hard work to become what they are.

The way you dismiss the idea that the Pentagon security cameras should have footage of whatever crashed there is frankly not worth even acknowledging. It makes you look either simple minded or dishonest. That's the general tone of my reaction to your posts. I don't want to believe you are either so I just have to assume that you haven't really assimilated a lot of the material or that you just are not aware of how the Bush administration has massaged their story from the beginning.

They started out with "The dog ate my homework." and progressed to "Because of unprecidented stresses and heat applied to the homework, for the first time in history it fell to the sidewalk at just over the rate of free fall and burned up dozens of cars blocks away." Funniest of all people actually believe them.

Since you have been 'in the trenches' when it comes to this topic (pro) -- I'm honestly not really impressed with how you avoid addressing the subject matter itself given you have the open opportunity here. Especially key points brought up by a 'laymen' like myself. (You'd think that would be no sweat for a researcher of your supposed caliber.)

Also, being such an admirer of David Griffin, you'd think you would at least have the correct spelling of his last name down in your noodle...And, no thanks. Griffin's just another CT that believes in controlled demolition within the towers, the Government murdered three thousand people on that day (your basic CT argument.)

And again, The Bush administration may be negligent on a lot of things. Even so, it's quite a jump to assume they masterminded 9/11 and actually carried that out. As far as the Pentagon lot camera goes, there's good reason to believe that the plane was actually caught on camera. Case in point here with this scale animated recreation.

www.youtube.com...

Makes a whole lot more sense to me than a missile being fired off considering the upended highway posts, eye witnesses, wreckage (well, I've been over the 'why' now three or four times. Chances are you will just ignore those points as usual.) But then again, this is an open forum for all sides to address the issue. Problem is that I haven't heard any convincing arguments to refute anything I type on the matter really from yourself, or others when prompted here.

9/11 breaks down into the following:

A network of middle eastern Muslim extremists who are convinced that the elimination of westerners by whatever means necessary (wether they be far left conspiracy theorists, or far right Bush supporters. Man, women, or child) -- they believe that it is their divine duty to end your existence on this planet, even if that means sacrificing their own.

That's not conspiracy theory, nor exaggeration; that's a fundamental fact of life. The chants of 'Allah' as they bore those jets into those towers resulting in mass tragedy, is a lot more terrifying to me than your unfounded CT theories and speculation; because that is the reality of the matter.

These wild and speculative CT theories (that are easily proven flawed) aren't just the result of healthy speculation regarding the events; they're an insult to the victims and surviving relatives of that day. The real American spirit (which is still alive and well despite it all) -- resulted in one of those planes not arriving at it's intended target on September eleven. None of your CT theories come even close to being a halfway legitimate reason to question the heroics of those lost American's who decided to fight back against those extremists in the air over Pennsylvania that day. Instead (and for whatever reason) -- you find it more of an attractive idea to simply overlook that and substitute your own Government instead as the scapegoat for those fanatics. Fanatics who wouldn't think twice of beheading you and each member of your immediate family if given the opportunity.

....Wise up. If you truly believe your own Government orchestrated all of the death that occurred on that day, it's time for you to relocate away from here then. Simple as that. A lot of your 'theories' have essentially become extensions of the attacks themselves. As in the case of the loud mouth punks behind all of the disinfo they packed into that 'Loose Change' doc. Going so far as to implicate the pilot of flight #77 (Charles Burligame) as being one of the terrorists involved in those attacks. Which of course is a complete lie and even obviously so; that sort of disrespect to the memory of a victim seems readily acceptable to you CT supporters.

You know that's bunk (and can easily be proven as bunk) -- yet as pointed out, it's acceptable on your quest of 'armchair' investigation into the matter. It's as if he (and surviving relatives) have become victims twice over; once due to the attacks themselves and second due to your unfounded speculations running wild.

Great job again at avoiding any one of those key points brought up multiple times now by this 'know nothing' laymen. I'm really impressed with your knowledge acquired in the 'trenches' of armchair investigation.

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty


Apologies to David Ray Griffin for the spelling mistake.

OP, you are ignoring vast amounts of discussion on a multitude of threads in the ATS forums. Discussions are conducted at different levels, to the degree that people are familiar with the material. You are not familiar with the material.

No-one can force you to do your homework, but when you dismiss so many arguments is such a slipshod way, while minimizing the conduct of a very deceitful administration, an administration who could not meet the standard in court of a reliable witness on anything, you put people in the position of not being able to take you seriously.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

OP, you are ignoring vast amounts of discussion on a multitude of threads in the ATS forums.

Let's consider this statement which again makes about as much sense as the last one you typed off. I've read all sorts of threads in 'above top secret' and you know what? I've read countless more outside of it. But guess what? As you pointed out right there in the first abbreviation that you typed off to address me; I'm the 'original poster' ....Hence, this is my 'original' thread.

Comprede?

And in it I have chosen to discuss/debate key details that tie into yours (or anybody's) conspiracy theories regarding the key events of 9/11. Why a lot of them don't add up, are baseless in simple logic and so forth. I've gone into great detail here with providing detailed explanations as to why I myself am skeptical when it comes to those key points that I've raised. I'm still waiting here for you to even touch on the subject matter.

Because all the way up to now...

....You have ignored every Single Point That I've Made regarding it all!

Either because you are afraid to engage me on the subject, or simply can't answer the obvious and simple straight forward questions that call your theories into question.

Plus, you have no idea what you're even talking about making statements to this effect --

No-one can force you to do your homework, but when you dismiss so many arguments is such a slipshod way, while minimizing the conduct of a very deceitful administration, an administration who could not meet the standard in court of a reliable witness on anything, you put people in the position of not being able to take you seriously.

Who did we retaliate against as a result of those attacks professor? Afghanistan and the Taliban that's who. Even 9/11 wasn't cause enough in itself (complex cabal pulling the strings or otherwise) -- to get the support of both the Government and the American people into the current conflict in Iraq. The argument made for that was WMD's, 'yellow cake' uranium and so on.

The crafty cabal didn't implicate Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks now did they? Come to think of it; you'd think they would have now wouldn't you? Especially since they masterminded the entire affair supposedly like you or I would plot out a shopping list. There's another new key point entirely now for you to dodge away from. Chalk that one up with the rest. How long here until you dazzle us with your vast knowledge and start making counter claims to any of these simple points professor?


*edit to add

Now I'm really disheartened ATS staff. Unlike 'ipsdex' or whatever his handle is; I've had to go and edit one of my entry's in this thread. Although I should get a pass though. Because unlike him, I'm not editing this post because I'm 'iffy' on the wording or grammar. I'm attempting to throw that upper sentence of (You have ignored every Single Point That I've Made regarding it all!) -- into huge block letters in attempts that it will finally sink in here.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by illuminatinatifofotty]

[edit on 4-10-2007 by illuminatinatifofotty]

You misspelled comprende, understand?

Just teasing. Look, I think it is best if you and I simply agree to disagree on this one. We may agree with one another on another issue. I obviously don't see what point you are trying to make. That's my fault.

This is one time that I have to agree with President Bush when he said "Our enemies spend a lot of time trying to think of ways to hurt us and so do we."

In conclusion I would just like to offer you a verbal handshake, an embrace French style, a kiss on each cheek Italian style, a wave of the bowler hat, a la Charlie Chaplin and with that I will vanish into cyberspace.

P.S: I still like your ATS handle.

reply to post by ipsedixit


But you see, up until this point; your disagreeing with me without explanation. Instead attempting to put forth the argument that I'm not qualified in whatever way to discuss the subject (and for whatever reason.) I mean that is what it is; a dodge.

I'm skeptical and given in depth reasons as to why. You on the other hand aren't, but for whatever reason won't elaborate as to why. This wasn't intended to be an insult debate. I'm just trying to understand what is really convincing you to not be skeptical when it comes to these issues. I don't need Griffin or anybody else to do my thinking for me.

Do you believe that flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon? If not, elaborate as to why you don't simple as that.

See, I think you're even getting a little paranoid on me at this point (that's just my impression attempting to rationalize here from a few posts.) I've already been accused of having some sort of agenda here by others for no reason whatsoever. That I know is sheer paranoia for a fact, because I'm just a lone individual with Internet access who signed up for ATS just like yourself (or I'm assuming as much anyway.)

I'm not pro Bush whatsoever. I didn't vote for him and truthfully, I think the man is incompetent as president. But I didn't come on here to debate about him, I came on here to debate the raw facts of the 9/11 events. Plus, I'm not a die hard skeptic. I've read a lot over the years into both assassinations of JFK and RFK which seem to be a lot more convincing (to me anyway) to suspect some sort of conspiracy involved. Way more convincing than the arguments put forth for 9/11 (way more.)

Case in point, I could wander over to an RFK forum and play skeptic and be countered with all sorts of valid arguments that can't easily be dismissed away using simple logic. There's evidence there (persuading evidence) to doubt the official version. Namely an autopsy report that doesn't jive with the official version of events, destruction of key evidence by the LAPD, eyewitness testimony, that fanatical notebook of Sirhan's, etc.

You make it a point to mention how you've done your homework on this issue, so throw me something regarding the Pentagon, flight 93, the towers, eyewitnesses, etc. so I can better understand your personal position on the matter. Until then, I really can't disagree with you one way or the other until you offer up some sort of position and elaborate on the material a bit more.

Now that does make sense and really when you think about it; is the entire point of a 9/11 conspiracy forum in the first place. Simple and straightforward, you could consider my views as skeptical, so why not counter the skeptical views in depth with your own? Especially when you claim to have a superior understanding of the topic at hand. Your reluctance to do so looks like a complete dodge from getting into discussing the matter.

And please don't tell me that rationalization doesn't make sense, because that's as black and white as I could possibly make it out to be.

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty


Essentially you are derailing your own thread, which started as a discussion as to why the government would create such an elaborate scenario as the 911 event in order to mobilize the American people to a war mentality, when a simpler outrage would have sufficed. Now you are shifting to a discussion, in one thread, of the subject matter of hundreds of threads on ATS.

You want to rehash arguments that have already been conducted in those threads. What you should be doing is reading through the threads on the Pentagon for example. The Pentagon incident has been argued up down all around and up the wazoo. Some people think that it was hit by a plane, as shown in the few frames of surveillance video that the government released. Others think that footage was faked and are suspicious that the government has chosen to keep back footage from other cameras which should have given a much better view of the incident.

Do you believe that flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon? If not, elaborate as to why you don't simple as that.

This video, The Pentacon, answers questions about Flt.77. My own view is that a plane overflew the Pentagon and that the damage caused there was caused by some other means. I don't know what caused the damage there. If the government would release the surveillance video footage it is sitting on, it would help to answer that question. (Note: I can no longer find a link to this video on YouTube and had to go to google.video.ca to find it. I've tried to embed it but I'm not sure if the video number from the google.video.ca site will work on ATS.)

video.google.ca...

Google Video Link

A truly independant inquiry into the 911 event is what most "truthers" want. The government resisted investigating this crime for more than a year and then did a poorly funded half-hearted investigation that was conducted by Bush administration insiders and cronies, and was widely derided as inadequate by people from across a broad spectrum of the public.

My response here is typical of the sort of response I would make to other issues you raised. I'm not going to go through these issues, which have been covered in great detail already in other threads. If you want to contest someone's interpretation of something 911 related, you should get into the relevant thread and go to it. Why attempt to have a discussion "in a bubble" away from everyone else who has been involved in the topic?

[edit on 4-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 4-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty


If I may chime in. I think that thier are many issues with the offical story. That thier should be any issues at all should be a red flag to all of America.
To this day Osma is still not charged with the 911 attacks despite confessional tape. A small but nagging fact. Despite the cellphone network being jammed with in minutes of intial reporting many cell calls were able to get through from the planes involved on 911. A small but nagging fact.
WTC 7 fell in a totaly convential style of a controled demoition despite not being hit by a plane while wtc 5 and 6 while suffering Massive damage, much more than wtc 7, remained standing. Yet another small but nagging fact.

The nagging facts got alot worse after I watched a vid called September Clues which goes over nothing but the news footage of the day with a fine tooth comb. And what they pointed out to me, that I was able to verify on my own recordings of the days events, was that alot of TV fakery went down. Give it a view and see if your opinion isn't swayed.