9/11 For Dummies

This is the most comprehensive source of information I have found concerning the 'before during and after' of 9/11 .

Although it may not contain everything , it certainly provides an excellent starting point for those who wish to do their own research .

It provides detailed information from every angle , and as far as I can tell , it addresses all of the issues I have seen discussed here on ATS .

It presents information that could possibly suggest 9/11 was planned decades in advance ., which I believe it was .

The site is also very articulate in providing sources for the information found there .

I am posting this mostly for those who are new to ATS , to give them access to information that could answer questions they may have .

I know that when I first joined ATS , I didn't know what to believe . Trying to follow most of the threads tended to confuse me even more , trying to decide which post was 'right' and which post was was 'wrong' .

To anyone who is uneducated in the background of events leading up to 9/11 , all of the arguments and mudslinging may only serve to turn them away , as it almost did me.

This site I am linking will provide them with educated , well-informed sources of information that will allow them to form their own opinions and prejudices , without having to wade through arguments and counter-arguments to do so .

Hopefully , it will then allow them to present their own opinions and arguments of 9/11 , here in this forum , while having sources to validate their presentations .

This can only serve to strengthen the drive towards Truth , as well as cast ATS in a more favorable light to newcomers .

It is a fact that there are those who are 'lurking' and don't join simply due to the sub-standard presentations found in some of the 9/11 threads . I have seen them say it theirself , once they do sign up .

And please , no attacks on me for posting this thread , as I am not arguing anything in it .

Newcomers , welcome , and don't be discouraged by the fangs that you will see bared here from time-to-time .



www.historycommons.org...

reply to post by okbmd


That's a great website archiving all kinds of relevant information.

Global Research is another research website like this that's in a league of its own.

reply to post by okbmd


That's a great resource. Weird, I have been there so many times and never saw that story about how in 1968 an advertisement was run in the NY Times showing a plane hitting the World Trade Center. Talk about pre-planning and a 30year conspiracy as Senator Bob Kerry said; See Senator Kerry's youtube here;



That's as good a place as any for people to start.

Cheers-
Phil

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


Yes , I myself had been to the sight and had never seen that story either , until recently .

Probably has something to do with the site being constantly updated as more people find new bits and pieces here and there that they contribute .

Agreed , it is a great site , and I am still looking into the Kerry angle .

Anyone else having trouble with the site? When I go to the link my computer freezes up and I have to close my application.

reply to post by hooper


no problems on my end hooper , I've been in and out of it all morning .

Went and checked it after seeing your post , and still no problems for me .

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


And. "Boom!" goes the dynamite! (Yet again. This is getting to be embarrassing...)

Weird, I have been there so many times and never saw that story about how in 1968 an advertisement was run in the NY Times showing a plane hitting the World Trade Center.

1968?

Really?

Considering as how the Twin Towers weren't yet built, oh please find that image, and share.

Pretty please?

(Chin in hand, eagerly anticipating...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACTS, to chew on...

Instant Landmarks

The north tower was opened in Dec. 1970 and the south tower in Jan. 1972; they were dedicated in April 1973.

www.infoplease.com...





[edit on 20 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by okbmd


OK, thanks. Might have something to do with java script.

reply to post by okbmd


OK, thanks. Might have something to do with java script.

It never fails to amaze me how these conspiracy people always paint the US gov't as having almost supernatural powers to orchestrate world wide secret plots, manipulate events that happen thirty years in the future, and generally get two plus two to equal five, all with the sheer perfection that rivals an act of god...and may actually include acts of god, depending on whether you believe the stories that the CIA controls the weather and has earthquake machines. Yet, when the president outs a CIA agent, He can't even stop hordes of journalists from tracing it back to him.

Of course.

reply to post by weedwhacker


If you would have read the very 1st paragraph on the link you would have saw it was a group protesting it being built - it was not built yet. You might want to read the info first if you are going to comment on it.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center opposed the building of the WTC in 1968. The leader of the group was one Lawrence A. Wien , a real estate mogul (owner of Empire State Building), whose main concern was that it would glut the market .

Another concern was that an airliner could crash into the towers , and subsequently an artist's rendition of an airliner flying into the towers appeared in the New York Times on May 2, 1968.

www.historycommons.org...

The first proposal to build the WTC was in 1946 .
Initial plans were made public in 1961 .
The Port Authority announced Minoru Yamasaki as the lead architecht on Sept. 20, 1962 .
His design was unveiled to the public on Jan. 18, 1964 .
The Port Authority began acquiring the property in March of 1965 .
Demolition of existing structures began on March 21, 1966 .
Ground-breaking took place on Aug. 5, 1966 .
Construction began on the North Tower in Aug. 1968 .
South Tower was underway by Jan. 1969 .
North Tower was completed Dec. 23, 1970 .
South Tower was completed July 19, 1971 .

en.wikipedia.org...

I have found conflicting information as to the completion dates .

[edit on 20-4-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


It never fails to amaze me how the non-conspiracy-types can believe everything the government touts as truth , without the slightest inclination to investigate it to see if it is true .

It also amazes me how all the non-conspiracy-types can believe that their government isn't capable of orchestrating world-wide secret plots , and manipulating events that happen years in the future .

But what amazes me the most about the non-conspiracy-types , is that they believe the U.S. government isn't controlled , directed , and manipulated by forces outside of the 'government' per se .

Originally posted by okbmd

It never fails to amaze me how the non-conspiracy-types can believe everything the government touts as truth , without the slightest inclination to investigate it to see if it is true .

The stale myth that conspiracy mongers cling to that "we all believe everythign the gov't tells us" is not only false, but is getting tiring to debunk again and again and again. The issue isn't that we "believe everything the gov't tells us". The issue is that we don't believe anything YOU tell us, namely, becuase we know all you're doing is mindlessly regurgitating the horse [censored] you got off some damned fool conspiracy web site.

You ignore the fact that if you don't believe the 9/11 commision's account of things, fine, but it therefore becomes your responsibility to submit a better scenario that better supports the facts, but so far, these claims of controlled demolitions, nukes in the basement, no planes, and 100,000 evil secret agents working for some secret cabal dedicated to murdering us all is based entirely upon your own abject paranoia, rather than upon any real review of the facts. Anyone watching the WTC fall on TV and automatically thinking it was destroyed by a giant laser from outer space is, to put it mildly, not entirely grounded in reality.

For one thing, it would help if you all could actually agree on one scenario, rather than get into fistfights amongst yourselves over what the "blatantly a conspiracy" actually is. At least with the JFK conspiracy people, they can at least all agree that JFK was in fact shot, rather than being killed by a bomb and 10,000 secret disinformation agents are falsely testifying to trick us to think he was shot.

It also amazes me how all the non-conspiracy-types can believe that their government isn't capable of orchestrating world-wide secret plots , and manipulating events that happen years in the future .

That part is easy to explain- you conspiracy people are going by some comic book daydream that the gov't is of such infinite omnipotence that the laws of physics can be broken, time can stop, and two plus two can equal five, if the gov't really wanted it to happen. To the rest of us who actually see how the gov't works, we know that a gov't so incompenent that it can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels can hardly pull off some convoluted plot involving secret controlled demolitions, faked airplane crashes, cruise missiles, or whatever, with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act.

It would be an interesting poll to find out whether you experts in everything gov't related even knew that presidential elections were decided by electoral vote before the Bush election.

reply to post by ByTor420


I stand by my post.

A group "protesting" about the constuction (proposed) of a skyscraper (or two) based on the "fear" that an airliner 'might' crash into it?

THAT is ignorance, revealed, at its finest.

End.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I stand by my post.

A group "protesting" about the constuction (proposed) of a skyscraper (or two) based on the "fear" that an airliner 'might' crash into it?

THAT is ignorance, revealed, at its finest.

You are a proven source of common sense and rationale thought and I commend you, weedwhacker, but you are missing the obvious here. Ironically, it's okbmd who gives us the missing piece of the puzzle-

"The Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center opposed the building of the WTC in 1968. The leader of the group was one Lawrence A. Wien , a real estate mogul (owner of Empire State Building), whose main concern was that it would glut the market ."

The concern that pilots were going to mindlessly crash into buildings like drunk drivers was hardly the problem for him, particularly when the only building any plane actually flew into in NYC up until that time was his own. The issue is that the owner of the Empire State Building organized a front organization that grasped at every straw possible to instigate paranoia and false public unrest for an ulterior agenda- to combat the threat of competition that a super skyscraper was going to pose to his own building. The danger that tenants would migrate away to this modern wonder and cause him to lose $$$$ had to have been a great worry on his mind.

Now, just where else have you seen similar cases of phonies who were conjuring up idiotic accusations and deliberately trying to instigate paranoia and false public unrest to advance their own financial benefit, lately? Hmmmm...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"... these claims of controlled demolitions, nukes in the basement, no planes, and 100,000 evil secret agents working for some secret cabal dedicated to murdering us all is based entirely upon your own abject paranoia, rather than upon any real review of the facts. Anyone watching the WTC fall on TV and automatically thinking it was destroyed by a giant laser from outer space is, to put it mildly, not entirely grounded in reality. "

I challenge you to show me , right now , where I have ever espoused any of the 'claims' in your above post .

Controlled demolitions ? I am putting together a piece right now to show the towers collapsed due to fire , as is not so hard to believe if a little research is done .

Nukes in basement ? I've already ruled that out .

No planes ? I've already posted a thread showing how ridiculous that is .

Laser ?

It would do you well to know exactly what it is you are arguing against , before posting in the future .

reply to post by GoodOlDave


" The concern that pilots were going to mindlessly crash into buildings like drunk drivers was hardly the problem for him, particularly when the only building any plane actually flew into in NYC up until that time was his own. The issue is that the owner of the Empire State Building organized a front organization that grasped at every straw possible to instigate paranoia and false public unrest for an ulterior agenda- to combat the threat of competition that a super skyscraper was going to pose to his own building. The danger that tenants would migrate away to this modern wonder and cause him to lose $$$$ had to have been a great worry on his mind. "

'Ironically' , I agree .

I posted a link which gives info on 9/11 . I never made claims of any conspiracy relating to the image of the plane/tower , now did I ?

You , in your eagerness to defend your own opinion , seem to make a habit of mis-construing what has been posted by those who question anything at all concerning 9/11 .

That's why I try to do my own homework , GoodOlDave doesn't have all the answers anymore than I do .

Most of the Horsesh*t I post , does not come from 'some damn fool conspiracy web site' .

How is it that you can ridicule someone who simply posts a source of information for others to use , to do their own research ? Did you even bother to check out the site to see that it doesn't make conspiracy claims but simply catalogs information ?

Do you have a problem with people doing their own research , or do you prefer they believe that goodoldave has all the right answers ?

[edit on 22-4-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by okbmd

I challenge you to show me , right now , where I have ever espoused any of the 'claims' in your above post .

This is one of the failings of the English language- there is no plural, "you" as there is in other languages (I.E. Ustedes in Spanish). My context was to refer to you conspiracy people (in the plural) here, not you personally. It is not for debate that you conspiracy people (in the plural) have come up with some severely half baked accusations to explain the 9/11 attack, the "laser beams from outer space" bit being a sterling case in point.

If I am mistaking you for being one of the more radical of the conspiracy people...it's just that you're simply subscribing to some other half baked accusation...then I apologize and I retract what I said, but I am only going by YOUR OWN POST when you say:

"It never fails to amaze me how the non-conspiracy-types can believe everything the government touts as truth , without the slightest inclination to investigate it to see if it is true .

It also amazes me how all the non-conspiracy-types can believe that their government isn't capable of orchestrating world-wide secret plots , and manipulating events that happen years in the future . "

The myth that we "believe everythign the gov't tells us" is the standard mantra the conspiracy theorists always rely on to rationalize why they're not getting anywhere with their conspiracy claims, and if the gov't genuinely can orchestrate world wide plots and manipulate evenst that happen years in the future, this must mean Vietnam is really a US colony that produces our rubber and coffee, rather than a graveyard for 50,000 US soldiers.

Did I miss the newspaper story celebrating our victory against the Viet Cong, somewhere?