Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

reply to post by crowpruitt


I never said that all scientists, pilots, engineers had the same opinion, merely that most don't subscribe to the inside job theory. This goes to show that when a truther tries to say but the following folks say......., that it isn't necessarily the concensus opinion within that community of subject matter experts, or a foregone conclusion.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by adjay

 

What I mainly have to go on are the phone conversations from flight 93. It pretty much disproves the theory of remote-controlled planes and other ideas. It is pretty obvious Islamic terrorists hijacked the planes.

Sigh. 'Islamic terrorists' as in CIA controlled Al Qeida operatives? Yes.

Like I said, they have manipulated the basic emotions of Americans, showing us footage of the planes crashing over and over, along with pictures of stereotypical muslims. They have even made MOVIES about the heroic passengers of said planes to remind us over and over 'it was terrorists, islamic terrorists. innocent people died. it was terrorists. they were muslims'.

I'm sick of it. Sick of hearing the same thing from people. The first method of mind control is repeatition - it really works. They released controlled information like the tapes from airplane, and it gets gobbled up and regurgitated years later as 'proof' that 9/11 was angry muslims and nothing more.

If the government can fabricate disinformation so sucessfully, what hope do 9/11 truthers have in converting the 'skeptics'? None. Like I said, leave them behind.

All the people who believe the hollywood, romanticized version of a highjacked plane? Leave them behind. I'm talking to 9/11 truthers.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

The "9/11 truthers" are a classic example of conspiracy theorists that ignore anything that does not fit their presuppositions.

For instance, bin Laden took credit for the US Embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole bombing during the Clinton administration, but we are not supposed to believe his claim that he executed the 9/11 attacks during the Bush Administration?

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
For instance, bin Laden took credit for the US Embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole bombing during the Clinton administration, but we are not supposed to believe his claim that he executed the 9/11 attacks during the Bush Administration?

You are supposed to apply reason and possibly committ to further research, especially when on September 17 2001 he flat out denies any responsibility for the attacks. To use your logic would mean that after having admitted the Embassy and Cole bombings, he would therefore be extremely proud and vocal if responsible for 9/11. Yet he denies it here, and then, in subsequent "fake" tapes flip flops back to taking responsibility.

It's a mess, the history however is documented and exposes much of post-9/11 articles to their extreme bias and attempts to influence people to believe something, heaven help they find the truth for themselves.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver





I don't believe the 9/11 truth movement should even acknowledge skeptics anymore - that is a personal opinion that other people will most likely decry as unfair or bigoted, for that reason I am only going to say it a third time and leave it at that - the 9/11 truth movement does not need to satisfy skeptics, we should stop wasting time on them altogether and recognize denial and skepticism as a legitimate roadblock that we can overcome - by MOVING ON. Moving past it.

You know,, I admit, I too thought you were a little over the top with this post. That thought lasted just long enough to reference my own experience with "skeptics" or Debunkers. This guy makes a good point, albeit an opinion but it is one I have formed myself about them.

It's common knowledge truthers don't accept the official reason period.
That is why they are still searching, reading, writing about something the debunker squad is satisfied thinking they have the REAL THING defending NIST as "IT"

"IT" being a sufficient amount of data to explain away many of the questions regarding 911 to satisfy them enough to quit looking. I admit I am envious of that clique for just having head start in getting on with life. That's just it however,, the fact is, they don't!

Now while us truthers can be told we are wasting out time or we belong on the short bus en route to belleview, it's OUR time to waste but for some reason that becomes a debunkers cross to bear.

I have heard all they have to say, read all the 10,000 pages of the NIST No. Implosion. Science. Test. Ill never ever believe that all 80 core columns supporting wtc7 collapsed at exactly the same time and that it was anything OTHER then a CD. I won't ever believe that a dozen or so hijackers alleged to be "al-qaeda" or Muslim extremists, terrorist got away with taking commercial jet planes off course shutting off flight transponders and flew some 45 mins while a trillion dollar military complex gets sent on a wild goose chase BY ACCIDENT.

That the alleged mastermind (a person who seems to be the one waterboarded into admitting it) OR Osama Bin-Laden, not once, not twice but THREE TIMES is within smelling distance of being captured and some how he eluded us without a chase.

Ill never believe a U.S. President choosing to sit for 40 mins reading fairy tales to kids in a school after hearing the most dreadful news of the century, would give that priority over a national emergency requiring not just the common sense to excuse himself from the class but with an urgency that would require his immediate attention. NOPE, he sat there looking like anyone else in his "position", concerned ,, yes but content in the knowledge that "everything was going as planned" .

I mean why else would he sit there like that? Why didn't one of his aids have the sense to say errr eh Hem, "Mr President,,, WE NEED TO GO,, NOW." I think I have read some of the most tirelessly debated arguments on this topic and whether they site Occam's Razor or NIST or this science that theory etc. That when it comes to 911,, what have we got to show for ourselves in avenging that criminal act? Ther is no way a U.S. President desiring to alter the country getting such added powers to his Office could have done it without something like 911 to have occurred. I just can't see the American Public going along with it.

We have made Osama's threat to destroy our freedom and our economy, a self fulfilled prophesy. We have lost habeus corpus, much of our privacy, thousands of lives in a war predicated on a pack of lies by an administration that thinks it is above the law in now what seems to be a republic run BY the Government FOR the Government. We have a debt in the trillions with no end in sight. Yet this Government lead by this bumbling bimbosapiene BUSH, insists,,, INSISTS, we stay the course.

Just because he doesn't say it that way anymore,, it is nevertheless exactly what we are doing. From every question he refused to answer using his " I forgot how to talk" garbage to his "Rules of investigation" essentially underfunding the NIST study giving them just enough resources and parameters for investigation to stop short of the most compelling part area that was like many crimes these days,,caught on tape.

That being the video of the Wtc7 Controlled Demolition.

To hell with Occam, I got formula called "If it look like a duck"

Wouldn't ya know it,, the Government that has nothing to hide doesn't even acknowledge it in any "official" findings moreover out of the most suspicious most controversial issues regarding the collapse of those buildings,, and the conspiracy theories surrounding them,, THAT one is so painfully obvious, that not even enlisting NIST's numbers crunchers or those debunkers volunteering unknowingly acting agents of a conspiracy in there own right.

That is to quell the angry mob of truthers who may not know exactly how it all went down.

We sure know how it didn't

Rather then try to explain to a debunker what he willfully won't understand let alone even consider, about a government who has nothing to hide in what they say would be a conspiracy of a magnitude so complex it would be impossible to hide, they are absolutley right.

I guess only those who go too far,,
'know how far they can go.

It was too big to coverup and with each lie they tell, each question they avoid answering,, every eye witness they lable a crack pot, whacko, every truther a debunker trys to shut up and each building they ignore ever existed, You may have gotten rid of most of the crime scene's clues, evidence but what about those witnesses? Oh thats easy,,pick out the most outrageous one and put him on Bill O'Rielly and have him castigate the guy while not allowing him to get a word in edgewise. Then enlist the help of renowned skeptic, James Randi, his sheep will take care of the rest of them asking questions. Well they were wrong about that too.

If you can't coverup parts of the conspiracy,, then,,

deny the evidence exists.

Isn't that unusual?

Hell no, this is

AMERICA

- Con




[edit on 13-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


I deliver you a round of applause.

How does that saying go?

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. Unless you fool me a third time, let that be known as 9/11"

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
By all means. Let the skeptics talk. Let them debate. Let them endlessly dance around the same issues which truthers have been espousing for years... nobody is disrupting their effort.

I'm simply throwing my hands up in the air and declaring them a lost cause. We aren't going to convince skeptics that 9/11 was an inside job. At least... that's how I feel.

I feel the same way towards the truthers, can't persuade them to think that terrorists can't do all that damage by themselves. Arab terrorists are too stupid to think for themselves. I mean look at the war in Iraq where professionally trained soldiers and Marines are having a hard time fighting insurgents who don't fight FAIR, similar to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They used passenger planes for GOD SAKES. Why not fighter jets so the U.S. Air Force can distinguish and kill the bad guys? O yeah they too stupid to afford it, so they hijack a couple of planes instead because it was cheap to them.

reply to post by deltaboy


I see your point here, and personally after lots of reflection, I feel questions and assumptions surrounding the intelligence of terrorists is useless. There is plenty of evidence showing "intelligent" terrorism, it's undeniable. These unprovable things that would not be allowed in a courtroom should be left firmly on the doorstep (or somewhere else for that matter).

What I can't understand, is why there must be "two sides". The evidence clearly shows that things happened that day that do not make sense, and venting either in favour of the "Official Story" or the "Truth Movement" when controversial and uninvestigated anomalies are brought up baffles me. We're all supposed to be in this together, and with so many things being hidden, blocked, and covered up from the general public, I do not understand how so many people are happy to go along like it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't to them, and that's fine, but to some people (like those who lost family, or friends) it really does.

reply to post by sp00n1



Excellent vid spoon!

I remember seeing these experiments before. I guess these "skeptics" would never consider the possibility that these expert engineers, physicists, etc., would believe the official theory due to conformity.

For those that missed it...



And yes, these are actors doing a reenactment and not the actual experimentees. But this is based off real experiments.

For those of you that think that professional physicists, structural engineers, scientists, etc., would have too much integrity to go with the flow of conformity, I would advise you to think again.


[edit on 13-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

Originally posted by adjay

You are supposed to apply reason and possibly committ to further research, especially when on September 17 2001 he flat out denies any responsibility for the attacks. To use your logic would mean that after having admitted the Embassy and Cole bombings, he would therefore be extremely proud and vocal if responsible for 9/11. Yet he denies it here, and then, in subsequent "fake" tapes flip flops back to taking responsibility.

You should be interested in this, then:

"Major Jihadi Cleric and Author of Al-Qaeda's Shari'a Guide to Jihad: 9/11 Was a Sin; A Shari'a Court Should Be Set Up to Hold Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri Accountable; There Are Only Two Kinds of People in Al-Qaeda – The Ignorant and Those Who Seek Worldly Gain"

www.memri.org...

reply to post by adjay



Thank you.

Were the Mujaheedeen in Afghanistan in 1985 attacking the U.S. with terror tactics? I know this may seem odd to you but history has a way of making for strange bedfellows. I don't not dispute that when we were supporting fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets that were weren't very picky about who was doing the fighting for us. I am quite sure we had the Afghan drug lords on our payroll too. We didn't really pay much attention to the Mujaheeden after the Soviets left and that quite honestly was a very big mistake.

I don't see how you make the stretch from

What changed them from Freedom Fighters, to Terrorists? The blame of 9/11

however. A.Q. were focusing on America well before 9/11, it's not as if they suddenly turned on us on Sept. 11 2001. They were already very much on the naughty list.

You also state that:

was a quote from 1985, talking about "Al Qaeda", when they were on the Americans side!

He was talking about the Mujaheeden in general and named one leader specifically:

In making mention of freedom fighters, all of us are privileged to have in our midst tonight one of the brave commanders who lead the Afghan freedom fighters—Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq, we are with you.

en.wikipedia.org...

Abdul Haq (born Humayoun Arsala; April 23, 1958 - October 26, 2001) was an Afghan Pashtun mujahideen commander who fought against the Soviets and Afghan commmunists during the Soviet-Afghan War. He was executed by the Taliban in October 2001 while trying to create a popular uprising in Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

He was not speaking about A.Q. and Bin Laden specifically as you claim.

Originally posted by jthomas
You should be interested in this, then:

"Major Jihadi Cleric and Author of Al-Qaeda's Shari'a Guide to Jihad: 9/11 Was a Sin; A Shari'a Court Should Be Set Up to Hold Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri Accountable; There Are Only Two Kinds of People in Al-Qaeda – The Ignorant and Those Who Seek Worldly Gain"

Not really.. I skip all the books on the shelf in the supermarket too as they are all biased towards somebody trying to make money. Real news is where it's at, when you can find it, and from as many sources as possible, to balance out the inherent bias again (it's inescapable, but without a financial factor, and a usually obvious (if present) political factor, much easier to find a middle ground).

This book doesn't seem worth the paper it's printed on, even if I did fancy lining the pockets of a supposedly converted radical Islamic prisoner trying his best to get out of jail.

It's not really related to my point about Bin Laden's denial of the attack. Unless you meant that by denying it, he was doing something similar to this guy and having a change of heart.

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by jthomas
You should be interested in this, then:

"Major Jihadi Cleric and Author of Al-Qaeda's Shari'a Guide to Jihad: 9/11 Was a Sin; A Shari'a Court Should Be Set Up to Hold Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri Accountable; There Are Only Two Kinds of People in Al-Qaeda – The Ignorant and Those Who Seek Worldly Gain"

Not really.. I skip all the books on the shelf in the supermarket too as they are all biased towards somebody trying to make money.

Actually, I was serious. I'm sorry you're not.

Originally posted by pavil
Thank you.

Were the Mujaheedeen in Afghanistan in 1985 attacking the U.S. with terror tactics? I know this may seem odd to you but history has a way of making for strange bedfellows. I don't not dispute that when we were supporting fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets that were weren't very picky about who was doing the fighting for us. I am quite sure we had the Afghan drug lords on our payroll too. We didn't really pay much attention to the Mujaheeden after the Soviets left and that quite honestly was a very big mistake.

No problem. No, they were attacking the occupying Soviets, with $2 billion backing from the US/CIA over the 1980's. History does have a way of making for strange bedfellows indeed. I think the lesson to be learnt from it all is that when engaging in behaviour such as this, repercussions can be felt a long way down the line.

Originally posted by pavil
however. A.Q. were focusing on America well before 9/11, it's not as if they suddenly turned on us on Sept. 11 2001. They were already very much on the naughty list.

I probably did stretch a bit with that one, but I think it holds on the reporting front. Yes, there were attacks on America well before 9/11, Cole and the Embassy bombings for instance. But 9/11 was the MSM turning point that thrust the name "Al Qaeda" into every observers head, acting as if the members had been born and raised as Anti-American terrorists without a second thought for another career path. Quite far from the reality.

Originally posted by pavil
He was not speaking about A.Q. and Bin Laden specifically as you claim.

Hmm, but he was. It gets heavy but read this source again very carefully.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

While Bin Laden wasn't an Afghan, nor leader of the Afghan Mujahadeen, he was one of the freedom fighter's Reagen speaks of. This is where it gets interesting, and a quick look at a number of biased (for very obvious reasons) articles on the net (wikipedia is great for this, check discussions page too) show you the effort that has gone into hiding these key factors:

Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.

Some links you may well find interesting supporting the CIA link:
Osama Bin Laden - CIA asset "Tim Osman"
Fake Al Qaeda (great links at the bottom)

edit: tidied links

[edit on 13-12-2007 by adjay]

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, I was serious. I'm sorry you're not.

If you meant did I read the article? I did, and I think he's trying to commute his jail sentence.

If you meant buy the book to read; see my previous comment! Given the circumstances, it strikes me as fiction, of which I am not a fan.

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, I was serious. I'm sorry you're not.

If you meant did I read the article? I did, and I think he's trying to commute his jail sentence.

Yes, of course I meant the article.

In other words, you dismiss it.

Have you read the other articles on MEMRI? If not, I'd recommend learning what's coming out of the Middle East

reply to post by adjay



Again, he was not specifically talking about Bin Laden, though at the time, I will grant you that Bin Laden was an ally of convenience, just as we were to him. He would have been included in those "freedom fighters" but was not exclusively signaled out in the speech. There were many different factions in the Mujahideen, Bin Laden's group was one of many.

I don't dispute that the overall strategy of backing Fundamentalist Islamics from around the Middle East to help fight the war in Afghanistan was not the best strategy in the world. Basically, we knew they were as much anti-western as they were anti-Soviet but we just looked the other way for the moment.

The real critical error IMO was not making sure that all the top Radical Mujaheeden leaders at the end of the Afghan war met with deadly "accidents". You don't leave such live ammunition around, you dispose of it. I know that sounds callous, but when you are using people to your own ends who would just as soon slit your own throat, you do what you have to make sure you are safe. Not getting rid of those leaders as the Afghan/Soviet war wound down was the big mistake.

Originally posted by jthomas
Have you read the other articles on MEMRI? If not, I'd recommend learning what's coming out of the Middle East

What's coming out of the middle East? Or from Colonel Yigal Carmon, late of Israeli military intelligence?

I'm afraid I must dismiss this source as being more than terribly biased.

reply to post by adjay


Are you telling us with a straight face that you reject MEMRI articles because they're biased, and then linking to a site called antiwar.com?
Could you please give your definition of what objectivity is?

reply to post by Conundrum04



Couldn't the same be said about the Truth movement in general? What if it is your side that is conforming to the peer pressure of believing 9/11 to be an inside job? I call it the Mulder "I want to believe" theory. I've seen how your side quickly dumps someone who once was on their side but then questions a certain theory. Your side readily disowns them and starts going after them personally.

Neither side is immune or exempt from peer pressure.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by pavil]

reply to post by BlueRaja


My point is, I wouldn't listen to an Arab talking of Israeli things, nor an Israeli talking of Arab things.

Would you prefer to hear American news reported by an Iraqi? Trying to corner me with an "objectivity" statement is rather poor form, I know what you're trying to do but it doesn't work like that. And you know this.

edit: and the source is irrelevant, I didn't include it for its viewpoint, I included it as it showed the Israeli link, and I already gave my opinion on the book (and I used more then memri to base that on)

[edit on 14-12-2007 by adjay]