Supporters of 911-Official Story: Explain your method of rationalizing those things that are ignored

reply to post by bsbray11


The average person has very limited resources to use to confirm truths. This makes it difficult to understand things, but there are certain things that confirm themselves. Things that have transparent objectives and purposes.

To ignore the collapse of building 7 is telling. To explain the collapse of three buildings with a theory relevant to only two of them is telling. To observe debate on the 911 topic is also telling. Whether it's between experts or here at ATS, the OS supporters are always noticeably more aggressive. Behaving excitedly makes it easier to deflect and confuse the conversation.

These things typically need no confirmation. The truth doesn't need underhanded tactics to defend it. Wherever you see angry attacks and dishonest methods used to support a belief you can come to only one conclusion.

reply to post by Zerbst


I bet not even 40% of the American population could tell you 3 buildings fell.

Actually I will start the over/under at 25%

Originally posted by Zerbst
To ignore the collapse of building 7 is telling. To explain the collapse of three buildings with a theory relevant to only two of them is telling. To observe debate on the 911 topic is also telling.

I know exactly where you're coming from, but I think most people today are incapable of stepping back and observing the wider movements like that.

Reading individuals you interact with, for example on a date, it's the same thing. Many/most people are oblivious to others' intentions as given away by subtleties of their actions or body language. If you have experience with reading peoples' body language you know what I mean, though many others would probably discount it as evidence of anything at all, and it's the same with the 9/11 discussions. The government can act guilty but people are often oblivious to it, justify it with incompetence or coincidence, or just shut it out altogether and divert to something they are more comfortable talking about.


For example Bush going before the UN immediately after 9/11, before conspiracy theories had gained any momentum at all, and asking the world to disregard any "outrageous conspiracy theories" they might hear about 9/11. That alone raises a bunch of red flags. Or Bush having to have Cheney with him when they testified to the 9/11 Commission, or all the people who testified behind closed doors, or whose testimony was discarded as it coincidentally revealed inconvenient information (such as Giuliani's testimony, which mentioned FEMA being in NYC on September 10th... that was omitted from the commission's report and deleted from their website). Or the fact that the White House stalled to prevent any investigation at all until late October or November, or officials saying we didn't need an investigation at all because "we already know."

I know exactly what you mean... but if someone is already convinced they know exactly what happened, because of what they have been hearing on TV for 9 years, or what a federal agency tells them, or what their favorite JREF'er says he believes, that's good enough for them and you know they aren't even going to bother considering these subtle types of things as meaningful in any way whatsoever.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Wait a minute ! Somethings missing here ! It's conspicuous by its absence ! Oh yeah its the OS Believers !!! Wasn't this thread directed at them ?

Originally posted by ProRipp
Wait a minute ! Somethings missing here ! It's conspicuous by its absence ! Oh yeah its the OS Believers !!! Wasn't this thread directed at them ?

I know there are members here that support the OS despite all the contradictions, yet they haven't offered anything here? I honestly just want to understand how they disregard information?

Originally posted by Doctor G
Man, I don't think I can help you. John Farmer, the General Council for the 9/11 commission says he doesn't believe the 9/11 report and he helped write it. In his book, out last year, he doesn't point any fingers except to say the testimony and evidence given turned out to be 90% false. I always say "follow the Benjamins".
Of the people I talk with who believe the report, they cannot deal with thinking otherwise.

Thanks for the response, Doctor. This is what I mean.

This single statement that their entire investigation was critically flawed is enough to question all of it. To believe the OS you must get past this with a logical explanation. This must be applied to everything without exception. Many people are simply unaware of much of this info, but ATSer's here have this knowledge and still believe the OS?

How?

Reply to post by ProRipp

No. It's yet another ego masterbationary trap set up by those who identify with the movement known as "9/11 truth" to dismissively attack those who disagree with them despite what said disagreers may say. It's a pretty common occuranve around here.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by ProRipp

As is evidenced by the history of this thread.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get a single response that directly answers these questions from an OS believer. The only way an active member here could truly believe in the OS, is out of shear ignorance and denial.

I would bet there's less than 1% of the members here who actually believe the OS, deep down in their heart of hearts. Even less than has been shown in the 911 vote thread.

Reply to post by shasta9600

And you prove my point nicely, thank you.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by impressme

Where are the OS believer? Why aren’t they posting in this thread, this is a good opportunity for them to talk about their side of the OS and why we are all wrong.

Probably because they can't be bothered to keep repeating themselves!

People do not want to believe that their government could do something so evil to them so they choose not to believe it, its not that the facts arent there its that the sheep dont want to believe.

They want to be told they are secure, they want to ruled and told where to spend the little bit of money they earn from their masters. Some people wouldnt believe it if Bush came flying in on a chopper with a megaphone in hand to announce that in 5 minutes the WTC would be hit.

The people want an evil to focus on, but not one that hits home, Americans know how to kill people in other countries, its what they do. Its the one major thing driving their economy for the last 60 years, i think without war they wouldnt even be a superpower.

War is the US's only power, for if your considered a threat they kill you, economic, milllitary, or socialy threat is treated all the same, WAR is the american economy and lively hood of the poeple. Star and strips on a flag makes for a warfull country to dumbed down to realize they are being attacked. All i can say is the US government is doing their jobs perfectly, divide and conquer has work quite well, and has become very profitble.

You want the answer to 9/11 its the trillions that went missing from the pentagon the day before, that is your money trail.

Look, the US population has other things on their minds than finding the truth. There is the mortgage, the wife/husband, the kids, public/private schools (both with their own set of problems), keeping/finding a job, Britney Spears ... You get my drift. This subject is very low on their radar and TPTB know that and bank on the fact.

Also, about a quarter of High School graduates can't really read and summarize a book. The level of education in the US is very low. This is done for a reason.

The OS doesn't add up, but that didn't stop us from invading 2 sovereign countries. They won again!

Best,

N

reply to post by Zerbst

This excludes explaining building 7's collapse at all?

7 didn't collapse as quickly as the twin towers. The falling columns caused the damage that led to fire and subsequent collapse, and has been shown many times if you google it.

Why on earth would you need explosives to destroy a building that was on fire and severely damaged ?

Please don't post photos of the side of 7 that wasn't damaged and use that as evidence that none of the building was damaged, because that would just be silly. You can google for photos of building 7 showing the damage if you want (or not?), as this would be the best way to learn for yourself rather than quickly glancing at a posted link and then probably dismissing it because you don't like it.

reply to post by Zerbst


If you are seeking a detailed explanation of every aspect of terrifying events which happened at multiple locations and involved tens of thousands of people you are just not being realistic.

In any event, you appear to be a truther so it is pretty hypocritical to complain about some absence of detail. For example, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were rigged for controlled demolition right ? Apart from this bare assertion and comments like " I knew it was a cd right away " truthers have come up with nothing but Prof. Jones dubious "therm*te" in dust. Jones currently seems to be back-tracking and suggesting that therm*te may just have been used as some sort of fuse to conventional explosives.

Truthers have conspicuously failed to provide any explanation as to how the buildings were rigged while thousands worked there. Why the towers plainly fell from the point of plane impact. Why there were not the flashes and loud detonations to be expected from cd. Why absolutely no cd detritus was found in the rubble. These are not details but gaping holes which truthers are not even making a realistic stab at.

So far as your complaints about the Nat. Geo. documentary I think you should take that up with them.

I don't understand your complaint that WTC 7 has been ignored. Did it not have it's own three year NIST study ?

www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Zerbst

 

This excludes explaining building 7's collapse at all?

7 didn't collapse as quickly as the twin towers. The falling columns caused the damage that led to fire and subsequent collapse, and has been shown many times if you google it.

Thank you for at least trying to bring a point up.

- These kind of buildings don't fall by fire.
- Even if they DID, why did the building between building 1 and 7 remain standing?

At least you didn't pull the usual..

Truth: Fact fact fact
OS Believer: Insult Insult
Truth: Fact fact
OS Believer: Insult!!!111oneone

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It's the same thing with aliens, ghosts, and anything else weird that actually apparently exists. (I've encountered both).

For them to admit to the very possible reality around them, would mean they have to change their entire viewpoint of the Universe.

Exactly.

But unlike aliens and UFOs, we have concrete evidence that the 911 cover-up exists, and continues...

An example is the mass media pretending that the 911 families, the 911 1st responders and, and David Ray Griffin doesnt exist

David Ray Griffin

1st responders

911 families


HEY! they exists!
You will never see such a convincing UFO or ghost video

[edit on 6-2-2010 by conar]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by ProRipp

 

No. It's yet another ego masterbationary trap set up by those who identify with the movement known as "9/11 truth" to dismissively attack those who disagree with them despite what said disagreers may say. It's a pretty common occuranve around here.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

My questions contain nothing to do with ego nor any movement. If you can't handle answering a couple of questions without feeling attacked, maybe you're too sensitive? In that case do not participate. The only disagreement here was caused by your flawed profile of me, since you haven't provided anything relevant to the topic to consider, attacking you isn't even possible?

Thanks anyway?

reply to post by john124


What makes sense about Asymmetrical Damage, and a Symmetrical Crash ??


Your logic isn't making sense... Please explain.

reply to post by Alfie1


We are not seeking a Detailed explanation of every event


Just what REALLY happened at every event. There is a subtle difference.