Americans do you feel comfortable discussing 911 irl?

reply to post by Cassius666

The issue isnt what people say. A lot of things by a lot of people have been said, from terrorists with boxcutters organized out of an hydro powered cave have done it, to Sattelites have done it. Thank god we have you to keep track of each and every post on the topic on the world wide web. Dont get caught at work.

The issue is, what of what is been said, can hold up to scrutinity?

The only thing that can hold up to any examination is what you would refer to as the "OS". By the way, the OS does not include the attack being organized from a hydro powered cave. That is not "OS" that is what is refered to as "BS".

reply to post by hooper

What is the official story of 911 anyway? Can anyone answer that?

I guess Wikipedia is about as close to a government source as any:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TextThe September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11[nb 1], in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day) were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[2][3] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and thousands of those working in the buildings. Both towers collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. A third airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. Hijackers had redirected the fourth plane toward Washington, D.C., targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House, but crashed it in a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to retake control of the airliner.

There were no survivors from any of the flights. Nearly 3,000 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks.[4] Among the 2,753 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority, and 8 private emergency medical technicians and paramedics.[5] Another 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon.[6] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[7]

Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda. Its leader Osama bin Laden initially denied involvement, but in 2004 he finally claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda members, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. It was not until May 2011 that bin Laden was found and killed[8]. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses on reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars' worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.

The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding of the World Trade Center site began in 2002 and remains ongoing. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Yankee451
Interesting story. See, I'm here to try to dig out the truth, but you're here to win arguments. I continue to beat my head against the brick wall of your intellect because I hope readers are following the thread, and are able to decide for themselves who is genuine and who is belligerent.

Interesting. Up until now I thought the point of debate was over who was presenting a credible position and who was not, rather than who is belligerent and who is not. I don't care if people call me names, accuse me of being some super-duper secret gov't agent, or insist that I go around kicking pregnant dogs. All I care about is if anyone can actually show how anything I'm saying is incorrect, and it's telling that not a single person has been able to do it.

Again? How many times will you ignore it?

The evidence doesn't support the official story. Considering jets could not possibly have caused the damage to the towers, there must be another explanation. It is consistent with the corruption revealed In the context of the Black Eagle Trust, Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel, to have the mainstream media involved.

This is about as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. I didn't ask you if passenger jets didn't really hit the towers becuase I know full well you don't believe passenger jets really hit the towers. I asked you how do you explain the hundreds of video and the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses throughout Manhattan who saw with their own eyes that a plane hit the towers. Simply claiming that every single person in Manhattan was a super duper secret gov't agent is being intellectually lazy, so if it wasn't a hologram projection they all saw, then what was it? If you're claiming you're arriving at a logical explanation then what's the logical reason for this?

Is this one of those questions you "don't feel comfortable discussing"?

I do not need to rely on the work of others to prove planes were not used, so please stop lumping me in with other "truthers. I only speak for myself and I have made this clear several times. I can understand how you keep making this mistake, as you seem to speak for so many millions of others, but I am still happy to discuss in detail exactly why you think I'm a damned fool idiot conspiracy monger, however do try to understand I only represent myself.

Then you've got a problem. If you don't accept the (what you refer to as) "the official story" then it becomes your responsibility to supply us with an alternative scenario that better fits the facts, and you're all but admitting the truther movement is nothign but a Tower of Babel of conflicting conspiracy claims and competing culptits, and you're all but getting into knife fights with each other over what the "real" conspiracy is. You're NOT looking at the facts, but instead favoring one pet scenario over another regardless of what the facts are.

Tell me, why is it that person A witnesses the towers falling and they think they're seeing controlled demolitions, while person B witnesses the towers falling and they think they're seeing lasers from outer space? It's the exact same building that's falling in both cases.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Interesting. Up until now I thought the point of debate was over who was presenting a credible position and who was not, rather than who is belligerent and who is not. I don't care if people call me names, accuse me of being some super-duper secret gov't agent, or insist that I go around kicking pregnant dogs. All I care about is if anyone can actually show how anything I'm saying is incorrect, and it's telling that not a single person has been able to do it.

So far all you've said is I'm a damned fool idiot conspiracy monger, and unlike me, you have yet to state your position or provide any corroborating information to debate.

This is about as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. I didn't ask you if passenger jets didn't really hit the towers becuase I know full well you don't believe passenger jets really hit the towers. I asked you how do you explain the hundreds of video and the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses throughout Manhattan who saw with their own eyes that a plane hit the towers. Simply claiming that every single person in Manhattan was a super duper secret gov't agent is being intellectually lazy, so if it wasn't a hologram projection they all saw, then what was it? If you're claiming you're arriving at a logical explanation then what's the logical reason for this? Is this one of those questions you "don't feel comfortable discussing"?

Where is it written you get to ask all the questions and ignore answering any? I'll happily explain it to you on one of the threads I have. This topic is asking whether Americans are comfortable discussing 911 in real life; your responses are pretty much textbook for what one receives when they do broach the subject in real life: evasion, deflection and ridicule.

I'm tired of constantly defending my position while you ignore direct questions. Come to my thread if you want to discuss the details, lets not hijack this one.

reply to post by hooper


Yes, I know its BS BS fed by among others, Donald Rumsfeld.



But anyway, this is not the topic of the thread. The topic was more exposing an the kings invisible clothes situation.

reply to post by Cassius666


Oh, burn!

Originally posted by Yankee451

So far all you've said is I'm a damned fool idiot conspiracy monger, and unlike me, you have yet to state your position or provide any corroborating information to debate.

When have I ever said that you were a "damned fool idiot conspiracy mongor"? Please, point that post out to me.

Where is it written you get to ask all the questions and ignore answering any? I'll happily explain it to you on one of the threads I have. This topic is asking whether Americans are comfortable discussing 911 in real life; your responses are pretty much textbook for what one receives when they do broach the subject in real life: evasion, deflection and ridicule.

A) Everyone already knows where I stand so I doubt anyone really needs to ask me any further questions.

B) I already addressed the OP; I an American and I don't have the least bit embarassment about discussing 9/11, so if the OP meant to post this question solely to American conspiracy theorists, that's his failure, not mine.

C) I also addressed Cassius' observation that 9/11 conspiracies aren't as much as an emotional issue for Europeans as it is for Americans, the same way that the holocaust deniers and Nazi collaboration are a much more emotional issue for Europeans than it is for Americans. I doubt that either the 9/11 attack or the holocaust are much of an emotional issue for Islamic nations, the same way newspaper cartoons of Mohammed aren't an emotional issue for Europeans OR Americans. It's not a very cosmopolitan minded question.

D) I haven't ready any of your other posts so I don't have full familiarity of your position. But then, I don't need to read your other posts because you're right here to answer any questions we have. I don't know whether you're an American, but the only discomfort I'm seeing over the discussion of 9/11 conspiracies is coming from you, as it's akin to nailing jam to the wall to get a straight answer out of you on anything.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason you'd be uncomfortable discussing 9/11 conspiracies ISN'T because of any perceived gov't persecution, but rather because you're embarassed as hell over the things you're saying?

Originally posted by Yankee451
I guess Wikipedia is about as close to a government source as any:

So what in that entry do you consider false? Are you saying there really were survivors from the four hijacked flights or that the towers really didn't collapse?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

When have I ever said that you were a "damned fool idiot conspiracy mongor"? Please, point that post out to me.

source

idiotic conspiracy monger propaganda

On the same thread where I'm urging people to do their own research and lead their own movements, you lumped my work in with the work of other sites which you consider to be

"damned fool conspiracy sites".

You go on:

Everyone already knows where I stand so I doubt anyone really needs to ask me any further questions.

I only know what you disagree with, namely everyone who is investigating alternative hypotheses. I for one would like to see you create a thread which states your position and provides your reasons for it, but then you'd be opening yourself up to scrutiny, which takes guts.

You go on to slip in the holocaust. Propagandists always like to appeal to emotion rather than logic; anything to direct attention elsewhere, which is the real reason you won't read my work or comment on my posts. Because it would attract attention to them:

I haven't ready any of your other posts so I don't have full familiarity of your position. But then, I don't need to read your other posts because you're right here to answer any questions we have.

If you won't read my posts, why should I read your questions? Why should I give you the respect you refuse to show me me or the OP of this thread? If you're too lazy to read my work, why should I allow you to hijack the post of another?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by Cassius666
What kind of repercussions? Do you fear that you might lose friends you made among your coworkers, or do you fear it will negatively impact your career or even get you fired?

I don't know about Yankee but do you know who Rashard Mendenhall is? He is the starting running back for the Pittsburg Steelers. He hinted about Osama not being involved in 911 and questioned about 911. He got shunned by the MSM and lost some endorsement deals also. So speaking your beliefs can lead to negative repercussions.

edit on 29-7-2011 by blackrain17 because: spelling

Oh I see. So its like think what you want, but keep it to yourself.

I'm saying use common sense. If you are a pubic figure and make statements on Twitter, you'll get crucified for having an opinion. For example, if Mendenhall Twitted, "Obama is a War Mongerer!!!!" Though that statement is true, he'll get a negative feedback from the media. Like I said before, there are time and place for everything, use your common sense.

reply to post by Cassius666


So please show me the part where they claim that was the organizing location for 9/11. While you're at it please advise why a hijacking could not be organized from a "cave"? Isn't NORAD in a "cave"?

reply to post by Cassius666


Yes, please show me where they said 9/11 was planned in a cave.

Don't keep telling me they have caves, show me where you're getting your information that 9/11 was planned in a cave.

reply to post by hooper





That cobra hideout presented by Rumsfeld is actually not real, except in the GI JOE universe maybe. So I am not entierly sure what you intend to discuss, but I am very curious. Whatever it is, I dont think it will be the thread topic, so why dont you open up a thread and we can take it there?

reply to post by Cassius666

....from terrorists with boxcutters organized out of an hydro powered cave have done it...

You started it, in this thread with the above quote. You presented as fact that 9/11 was organized in a cave. I asked you to prove your statement. You in turn presented a video wherein the then Secretary of Defense stated that AQ and the taliban had caves. Not sufficient to prove that 9/11 was organized from a cave, as presented by yourself.

Originally posted by Yankee451
idiotic conspiracy monger propaganda

All right then, are you saying that you're the one who's creating all these outright lies that the conspiracy theorists are passing around as fact? Are you inventing the claim that sunlight gleaming off the wings of the aircraft were really secret missile pods firing at the towers before the collision? Are you inventing the claim "does the order still stand" really means "stand down order"? Are you inventing the claim flight 93 secretly landed in Ohio? Up until now it was simply my impression that you didn't understand that the materials you were getting from said conspiracy websites and were passing around were incorrect, but if instead you're one of the people who's actively creating these lies (I.E. Dylan Avery lying that a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon was really a secret tarp covered object being brought out of the Pentagon) then you're right, you ARE an idiotic conspiracy monger.

I know this isn't the case, however, as I see right away you're not asking for donations or trying to sell T-shirts to anyone.

On the same thread where I'm urging people to do their own research and lead their own movements, you lumped my work in with the work of other sites which you consider to be "damned fool conspiracy sites".

You never did answer my question- where ARE you getting your information from? The claim that the conspirators probably "removed all the urinals out of the towers to prevent them from becoming shrapnel" is so mind blowingly idiotic that I know it didn't come from you. Someone merely presented it in a way so that it appealed to you.

I only know what you disagree with, namely everyone who is investigating alternative hypotheses. I for one would like to see you create a thread which states your position and provides your reasons for it, but then you'd be opening yourself up to scrutiny, which takes guts.

I have stated my position many times already, and I'm sure that I'll be posting it again in the future. I have no intention of "creating a new thread which states my position" because ATS wasn't set up to cater to my personal whim, and besides, that sounds rather narcissistic.

If you won't read my posts, why should I read your questions? Why should I give you the respect you refuse to show me me or the OP of this thread? If you're too lazy to read my work, why should I allow you to hijack the post of another?

It has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with, in the viewpoint of the truthers, "getting the truth out that the 9/11 attack isn't what we were led to believe", and getting the truth out necessarily requires addressing people who you may not respect. If you're genuinely expecting everyone else to sit down politely and be your personal audience before you tell anyone anything, then you might as well go find another hobby right now.

Welcome to the Internet, my friend.

So I wondered, do some of you feel uncomfortable discussing 911 irl, do you fear repercussion for your professional life?

I personally do not mind discussing the matter.....But to tell you the truth, no one really speaks of it....Most of the professional people I work with never really mentions the government, unless it is taxing us to death........

I did tell them yesterday that I was a member of an alterative news conspiracy site......One guy is 60 and the other is a few years younger than me......Pretty much we are all too exhausted after working our butts off and they are usually in bed before dark......Not alot of time to worry about things when you have to drive a couple of hours to the jobsite, work 8-10 hours in the heat (elements) and drive a couple more hours home.....

I did tell them about the anomaly on the bottom of the ocean thread (possible UFO)............They took it rather well.........They all like me, so I will bring a few more "stories" to their attention on down the road....

I approach with caution, I do not wish to be labeled a nut, as some of my friends think

9?11 never gets discussed around here anyways.

PS: Sorry, I did not read the whole thread. I just thought I would barge in here and give you my opinion on the matter

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm not sure why you insist on hijacking this thread, and why you can't ask your questions on a more appropriate forum.

Are you having trouble reading? Are you seeing double? How many fingers am I holding up?