911 Spotting RED HERRING Posters!

Originally posted by argentus
I guess you'd better add me to your hallowed list. I've committed the [apparently] unpardonable sin of disagreeing -- politely, with conflicting evidence.

You set up a situation where to disagree is in itself construed as "anti-truther". Why do we need the labels? I consider myself neither truther or debunker. I just want to find out what happened.

Yes, I believe that the OS was incomplete. Can I prove it? Not yet. No, I don't believe that holograms fooled the ground observers. Can I prove it? Not ever.

I agree. However, if you do debate against a point in a polite and controlled manner then it's fine. What I think the OP is pointing out are the posters that come back and slam evidence stating that it is bogus. However, when they are asked to provide the evidence that supports their point they resort back to goding or making blanket statements like "you still haven't answered my question." and so on.

Oh, I guess I better find one of the hologram threads because I have never truly considered the other alternatives out there.

I saw planes hit the buildings. I know they did. I know they weren't holograms. However, what I don't know is how 80+ floors of undamaged structure would give out with zero resistence to 20+ floors collapsing on it. You see, that's my sticking point. I have YET to see a valid answer with valid data backing it. EVEN from NIST. The same for WTC 7.

You know how many times I have asked for some skeptics to give me that data? DOZENS UPON DOZENS. You know how many answers I was given that actually pointed to this evidence?

Zero.

I received replies like "It's been discussed. Do your research." and so on. Yup, I can see what the OP is stating. Because I have been in many threads focusing on these points that have YET to provide valid evidence. The only thing that is close is the NIST report and it has so many gaps and insinuations that I wouldn't give it credit.

Originally posted by dariousg
However, what I don't know is how 80+ floors of undamaged structure would give out with zero resistence to 20+ floors collapsing on it. You see, that's my sticking point. I have YET to see a valid answer with valid data backing it. EVEN from NIST. The same for WTC 7.

Well as far as WTC the NIST original computer model stated that NEITHER the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.

As far as building 7, NIST failed to recover any steel from the building for testing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by dariousg
However, what I don't know is how 80+ floors of undamaged structure would give out with zero resistence to 20+ floors collapsing on it. You see, that's my sticking point. I have YET to see a valid answer with valid data backing it. EVEN from NIST. The same for WTC 7.

Well as far as WTC the NIST original computer model stated that NEITHER the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.

As far as building 7, NIST failed to recover any steel from the building for testing.

Exactly. Yet the skeptics hang onto NIST as a viable source for proving that the original story or 'official conspiracy' is true. In order to get the towers to collapse in their models they have to create the perfect scenario and then add to it. Just ridiculous. If one tower fell that day and they explained it in this way then we probably would have to buy it even if it didn't make sense. Since both fell in the same manner then it is absolutely unbelievable and yet the skeptics buy this NIST story. Garbage. Then WTC 7 still has no report. And the skeptics still support NIST? Why would WTC 7 take this much longer for them? Oh, I know. BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT'S WHY!

reply to post by dariousg


Respect. I have the same issues. I want to be able to compare information, line by line, and find the truth of things. Part of the problem is much of this is so infused with vitrol that the real data doesn't get discussed.

Also, I believe the REAL "disinfo" is spread by folks purporting to be "truthers"..... as you mentioned with the hologram stuff. I think intentional wild stuff is introduced as a way of finding a flaw in a particular arguement, and thus can be inferred against the whole.

I don't accept the OS, so far. I've not seen sufficient evidence thus far that suggests that the whole thing was a con either. People died. I find it very difficult to contemplate that the planes were remote-controlled. It would be hard enough to make those strikes under manual control, but these thoughts are NOT evidence, they are logical conclusions. I think much of what we work with are logical conclusions, and we don't all formulate our logical variables in the same manner.

IF we were all willing --- and it would have to be moderated by an impartial arbiter -- I think we could do some real good by pulling together and talking it all out. Now, I know this has all been done before on ATS and a myriad of other sites I've frequented. What they've lacked, IMO, is an arbiter that calls folks on logical fallacies. I think our Mods do an excellent job of keeping these forums within the context of the T&C.

Evidence is a measurable quanta of data. It can be circumstantial, it can be anecdotal, but it should be able to have a value assigned to it. I think we rely -- on both "sides" -- on websites that have a vested interest in one view or another. I read the websites, and the proof of their agenda always seems to show itself...... and how can it not?? Who ever created a website to merely determine the truth? ATS. That's who. I think if we all, or those of us that care about the 9/11 tragedy, utilized these tools, with an everpresent determination toward finding the truth, and suspend our preconceptions, I think we'd make progress.

I think utilization of the modifiers "truther" or "believer" or "debunker" artifically cubbyholes people into one side or another. Example, playing upon your statements:

"Do you believe holograms were used in place of actual airplanes, to crash into the WTC?" Yes = truther. No = believer. What kind of crap is that???? There must be hoards of people on both sides that don't believe this, but such statements cause "truthers" to rally around the belief, because it supports the thesis that the OS is a lie. It also causes "believers" to rally around the OS, because it supports the thesis that the "truthers" are deluded.

I think we could take these peripheral issues one at a time, dissect them, and get to the heart of things, by a preponderance of the evidence. Not a slight tipping of the scales of belief, as in sensationalized TV Court, but by a true preponderance.

I just don't know if there are enough that really value the truth of the thing more than the entertainment of the conflict. I am willing to participate. I have done this locally, and we reached a conclusion that was outside of ALL of our preconceptions.

Can it be done?

Originally posted by argentus
"Do you believe holograms were used in place of actual airplanes, to crash into the WTC?" Yes = truther. No = believer. What kind of crap is that???? There must be hoards of people on both sides that don't believe this, but such statements cause "truthers" to rally around the belief, because it supports the thesis that the OS is a lie.

What makes you think this is something that "truthers" believe or that anyone in the truth movement rallies around it? Of all the implausible anomalies in the official story, why would you pick the wackiest, most far-out belief and attribute it to "truthers?" Is it not possible that this is just another government psy-ops to discredit the 9/11 truth movement?

This is the most recent ATS thread that advanced a "no planes" theory: www.abovetopsecret.com... Do you see anyone rallying around it? I was the only who even responded, and it was with skepticsm.

"Respect" isn't falsely attributing wacky beliefs to one side when there are plenty of absurdities in the OS.

Originally posted by argentus
I think we could take these peripheral issues one at a time, dissect them, and get to the heart of things, by a preponderance of the evidence. Not a slight tipping of the scales of belief, as in sensationalized TV Court, but by a true preponderance.

I don't know about you, but I already spent six months doing this. I started out believing the official story. But any amount of serious investigation into 9/11 will lead a reasonable person to a very different conclusion.




[edit on 11-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by argentus


Argentus, I think that's a pretty good idea. I'd be willing to participate also. Could we do it as a research project, or has that been done? Or as a series of debates? Just ideas, remember, I haven't been here very long.

I remember when they called us down the hall, they had the Lobby TV tuned to the news. 60+ people stood in total silence except for the occasional gasp or sob. Some had tears running down their faces, some were already angry. In addition to the people who were directly affected, there were hundreds of thousand of other children and adults who were frightened and traumatized, and many lives were changed forever.

I would like to see it happen that the people responsible for all of that tragedy are held accountable, and in the process a clear message is sent to the rest of the world "It is not worth it to try doing this to America again." But first we have to figure out who the responsible parties are, and be able to prove it. It was a crime, and until we solve it there will be no justice. It's not fair that "we the people" should have to try to solve it, but it's become apparent even to me that the people who should have done it aren't going to.

Isn't this exactly what CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or Architects and Engineers or Scholars for 9/11 Truth, etc. have been trying to do? Look at the firestorm of opposition and debunking that's created when anyone tries to do this.

Look what happens when Craig and CIT try to report their findings. Debunkers who have never posted on ATS before literally crawl out of the woodwork to make 30 or 40 posts in a couple of days on just one thread, doing everything they can to try and discredit him.



[edit on 11-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by Heike


Well said. I think a person could probably say with a fair amount of accuracy that most of the folks that concern themselves with the 9/11 event want to see those guilty of perpetrating that horrific crime brought to justice.

That's where evidence comes in. "Proof" is often a condition established in a court of law.

To Cashlink, I apologize if I've contributed toward shifting your OP off-focus. I've been thinking about this for a while, and your thread just seemed the opportune point to say it. Toward your original post -- I don't know how "red herringists" are identified or rooted out; it seems such an incredibly subjective judgement, I encourage caution on your part should you elect to name names. If you'd prefer I take the previous questions and suggestions to another or my own thread, just say so and it will be done.

Cheers

[eidt for sleplnig]

[edit on 11-8-2008 by argentus]

I am very happy this thread has calmed down.

Some of the topic are good in here.

For me being a truther is always keeping my mind open to both sides of 911.
I agree we dont have all the facts of what happened that day.

I can tell you all that I dont trust our Government t0 tell us what happened.

My "opinion" is I feel they had something to do with 911.

How much, I dont know.

Now the reason I feel this way is because our Government didnt want to investigate or talk about what happened that day, ( they still dont)
I find it very suspicius.

If it wasnt for the Jersey Girls, we wouldnt even know as much as we all know now. ( thank God for those women for pushing Congress for an investigation.)

But there is so much secrecy and covering up of evidence, most of the Government reports about 911 are missing something about all the events that happened that day on each event.

There are parts of the NIST report that does not stand up to Science.
My opinion is our Government hired NIST to cover up what really happened to the WTC. (I did say its my opinion) lol

I have no real proof that NIST is coverning for our Government but life leasons has taught me enough to see through things.

[edit on 8/11/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by cashlink


Cash I am with you amigo.

It is extremely suspicious that they don't want to talk about 911 or conduct a thorough investigation. Remember how bush and cheney wouldn't agree to being asked questions individually? No doubt in fear of giving contradicting statements. If they had no involvement at all they would be more than happy to comply with the public's requests.

It shocks me that there are still people supporting the bush admin. I guess it shouldn't as the media is pretty much the 4th branch of the government these days.

Prominent smoking guns IMO-

1. The Pentagon.
There is no way a 747 made that hole, and where was all the wreckage? Not to mention Cheney angrily rejecting a plea for evacuation, and all the rest of the pieces that don't fit, too many to list, I have to go to work soon.

2. The collapsing of the towers.
Three highrise steel structured buildings (designed to withstand such events) apparently collapse from fire damage. This was the 1st time in history such a building had collapsed. The 6 tonne titanium engines and black boxes somehow vapourise even though it is scientifically impossible.

3. Secondary explosions.
Many witnesses hear explosions after the planes had already hit. A janitor tells of a massive explosion in the basement at the foundations of the buildings. 6 weeks later pools of molten metal were found in the basement. Studies were conducted and the metal found to be mostly made up of iron, a product from a thermite reaction. Thermite, as most of us know, is used in the demolition of buildings.........

4. Hijackers alive.
The FBI released a list of 19 hijackers who supposedly committed suicide. At least 4 are still alive. Waleed Al Shehri was one of them and he told journalists in Saudi and America he knew nothing about it and was in Morocco when it happened. Then there's the paper passport that somehow survived the explsion and floated to the ground in near perfect condition. You have got to be @#$%^&* kidding me.

5. Other flights and NORAD.
Condoleza Rice told one of her government buddies not to board his flight on September the 10th, others were also instructed to stay at home. Why were Norad so late in arriving on the scene? Don't know much about that 1 but surely they should have arrived much earlier.

6. All the rest.
Gotta go but heres a few more in breif. Osama Bin Laden visited by CIA chief when he was in USA hospital in July. Bin Laden's family flown out by the govt on Sept 12. The record number of PUT options placed on United and American Airlines days before 911. Then there's the whole Mahmud Ahmad and Mohammad Atta situation, look that 1 up cos I gotta boost.

7. Patriot Act being released only 20 days after 911!

Please feel free to add to, improve this list or create your own. Believers in the official story it would be nice if 1 or some of you could create a list that supports the OS.

Peace

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Well you claim to have all the answers. Take it to the media, local police, An attorney.

The same can be said for you . You keep stating that you know what happened why don't you go to court and prove what you have been stating?

Try to backup the official story that you believe in so much but can never post and actual evidence to support it.


[edit on 11-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Why would anyone who believes the official story need to back it up?
It has been "backed up" by HUNDREDS of independent civilians!!
It your fantasy peddlers that need to back up your extraordinary claims!

reply to post by TheBobert


This is one of the reason we have trouble discussion 911.

You could just say Hey! I believe the OS of 911 and leave the Sarcasm out.

Its almost like you are angry at anyone who dosent believe in OS why is that? Why are you so angry? do you have some real evidents that proves the Government is really telling us the truth?

Originally posted by TheBobert
Why would anyone who believes the official story need to back it up?

Another contender for the most comical post of the year.

Yeah, let's all believe what the government tells us. Even if it has no evidence to back it up, or the evidence presented is flawed, inconsistent and not worth the paper it's printed upon.

Originally posted by TheBobert
Why would anyone who believes the official story need to back it up?
It has been "backed up" by HUNDREDS of independent civilians!!

And seriously doubted by about TWO HUNDRED MILLION!!!

LIVE VOTE

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11?  * 94589 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day. 67%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11. 27%

I'm not sure. 5.4%

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Poll: Majority believes in 9/11 conspiracy

GUIDO H. STEMPEL III and KEVIN CROWE
Scripps Howard News Service

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings, according to a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll.

An earlier Scripps Howard/Ohio University survey, conducted in July 2006, revealed that more than one-third of Americans thought federal officials assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.

Comparing the poll results indicates that Americans are increasinglyquestioning the official government version of the 911 attacks, as time passes.

people.boston.com...

Originally posted by TheBobert
Why would anyone who believes the official story need to back it up?

Becasue in court you would need actual evidence to support your claim not fantasy evidnece.

I would love to see you try to come up with evidnece since we know most of the real evidence has not even been released, you would be laughed out of court.

Face it you would fail at showing any evindece to support the official story, you cannot even post any real evidence to support it on this thread.



[edit on 12-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

this thread will be dead soon I believe ..
what a pity.
once again destroyed by paid concrete heads.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Isn't this exactly what CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or Architects and Engineers or Scholars for 9/11 Truth, etc. have been trying to do? Look at the firestorm of opposition and debunking that's created when anyone tries to do this.

Look what happens when Craig and CIT try to report their findings. Debunkers who have never posted on ATS before literally crawl out of the woodwork to make 30 or 40 posts in a couple of days on just one thread, doing everything they can to try and discredit him.



[edit on 11-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Yes, this IS exactly what they have been trying to do. Now Popular Mechanics and NIST refuse to have an open/public forum to discuss this. They use the excuse like "We have presented our factual evidence and feel that there is no need to discuss it. Read the reports." Instead of getting in front of the nation and making an arse of themselves. Because that is what will happen if they get up there with people who are truly prepared to bring evidence to the table.

Originally posted by dariousg
Yes, this IS exactly what they have been trying to do. Now Popular Mechanics and NIST refuse to have an open/public forum to discuss this.

NIST has been asked several times to have an open public forum debate and they always refuse.

Popular Mechanics has been debunked many times and long ago.

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by cashlink

 

Please feel free to add to, improve this list or create your own. Believers in the official story it would be nice if 1 or some of you could create a list that supports the OS.

Peace

Well, I have something to add. There is the "The Lone Gunmen" pilot that gives an almost perfect simulation of what took place on 911. This was filmed in 2000 and released in March of 2001. It's extremely chilling and the fact that they point out a 'small faction' within the government that pulls it off in order to create a 'war on terror'. Their EXACT words folks! This was months before the real 'War on Terror' started.

Then there's the 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' document that was released by the CFR 1 year prior to 911. The amazing coincidences from that document and what has taken place since is just too much to be, well, coincidence. The exact order as displayed in the document is taking place. They actually list Afghanistan then Iraq and then Iran in order.

You know, I got a better copy of the document now for anyone who cannot find an original from the site. It's no longer 78 megs big. Got it down to 3/4 of a meg. U2U me if you want a copy. It's an interesting read. Especially since it spells out everything that has taken place over the past 7 years.

Another coincidence is that the document states that none of what they suggest is possible within 100 years unless 'Another Pearl Harbor' happens. Then George Bush gets on TV and has the balls to use that EXACT term. Talk about stupid. These people are arrogant. They put their plans out there for people to see and then they do it. It's like they get a thrill in doing things like this.

Anyway, like I said, I have the document for anyone who wants to read it. U2U me.

-deleted for double post-
see other thread
thanks.


[edit on 12-8-2008 by anti72]