Survey Results: The 9/11 Attacks & Conspiracies - September, 2011

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Why would the government even bother to do that? It flatters the conspiracy theorist to believe that their internet postings could somehow be a threat to the dark forces against which they rail. I think what's happening is that someone disagrees - admittedly quite angrily - about what other people are posting. How much posting history does a member need before they can go against the prevailing consensus?

There's alot more to the whole "you're a government shill!" thing than you think.

They go on to propose that, ”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,[19] where they suggest, among other tactics, ”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”[19]

Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2009 President Obama appointed Harvard law professor (and personal friend) Cass Sunstein to the post of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In June 2009 Sunstein published an essay in The Journal of Political Philosophy entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he provided an “analysis” of conspiracy theories, viewing them, as his title indicated, as “caused” by psychological conditions and requiring “cures”, i.e., elimination. The article led to an outcry by civil libertarians of all political stripes, who especially singled out for protest Sunstein’s call for covert “cognitive infiltration” by government agents of organizations the government deems “conspiracist”.

So a guy gets appointed by Obama, then writes a paper detailing how to undermine conspiracy theories. Bush wasn't too peachy about these "malicious lies" either:

Then consider the corporate media that constantly bashes conspiracy theories by calling them crazy, referring to believers as stupid, disrespectful, or unpatriotic, and so on.

Then these same arguments seen used by the MSM are constantly seen on this website, usually among a small group of the same members. I'm not saying all official story believers are government paid agents or whatever, but there are some that I suspect legitimately are.

Come you folks. Lets be nice and pay attention to truth. 1 it happened. 2 people died 3 the government didnt do it 4 It was ben laden who had it planned and brought about. 5 with his own money for his people in saudi arabia(not there government)
Now folks pay attention, 1 No the 2 planes as big as they were and as full of fuel as they were could not have brought down the building. 2 the concrete had a material that when heated and was put in major stress caused it to egnite causing it to have explosions as each level pancake upon another. 3 electric and gas also caused fires.4 up drafts caused heat to intensify melting the iron support 5 these factors caused the massive failure of the towers.

reply to post by samiant


Faith-based bunk, totally out of touch with physical reality.

You bible-bangers are on the very fringe in this discussion. Deal with it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Just because the man writes a paper doesn't mean Obama believes or approves, or that it's policy. Just because some people seek to debunk conspiracy theory doesn't make them paid agents. This is the scientific method - test your own theories first, to destruction. Join the dots isn't enough. As it happens, I think a lot of the thought processes which are involved in conspiracy theory resemble those that occur in religion - weaving a concise, organised narrative out of cherry-picked items of information. Random events are very frightening - they give the impression that human lives are very small in the total scheme and mostly incapable of influencing what happens around them. Any opportunity to prove otherwise is therefore very attractive, even if it means the forces supposedly controlling events are working against you. After all, it's a reason, isn't it?

...and I'll say again - why does someone need a certain number of posts to justify going against what I should have called the prevailing *orthodoxy* of conspiracy?

I participated in the survey, and read through results, and I think it was very interesting. Many thanks to ATS for organising this.

It made me think of an interesting question that I would like to poll. The question would be to choose the statement that best sits with you :

A) I believe in the official story. I consider myself very well researched and informed of what people believe to be holes in the official story.

B) I believe in the official story. I consider myself somewhat familiar with what people believe to be holes in the official story, but I have not investigated personally in detail.

C) I believe in the official story. I am not very familiar with what people believe to be holes in the official story.

D) I do not believe in the official story. I am not very familiar with what people believe to be holes in the official story.

E) I do not believe in the official story. I consider myself somewhat familiar with what people believe to be holes in the official story, but I have not investigated personally in detail.

F) I believe in the official story. I consider myself very well researched and informed of what people believe to be holes in the official story.

I know it’s a bit long winded, and could probably do with some rewording, but I think that if a large and fair sample were acquired, it would draw some interesting results. It would also serve as a self reflective comment on the participant. It may even prompt people to start doing research themselves, which is always a good thing in my book.

I don’t know if any one knows how to make a poll here on ATS, but any help would be great. I am not good with these things.

Any feedback would be great!

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by tom1701
All this 9/11 stuff is a big huge pile of crap.....

How many hours have you "ATS'ers" put into this????

And what have you proved? Nothing.......

Get a life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can tell a Paid troll.dis Agent an Strictly debunk er just from looking at their newbie recent or very low count

of Posts Stars & Flags and 0 threads and One Subject Profile and No backup of what they talk about !

Especially when it comes to 911 & Skunk Work projects , GOVT Operations Projects , they come out of the Wood Work

Why would the government even bother to do that? It flatters the conspiracy theorist to believe that their internet postings could somehow be a threat to the dark forces against which they rail. I think what's happening is that someone disagrees - admittedly quite angrily - about what other people are posting. How much posting history does a member need before they can go against the prevailing consensus?

Why would the Government do that

you heard of repetition ! ?

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed...

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it...

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
-- Adolf Hitler

It flatters the conspiracy theorist to believe that their internet postings could somehow be a threat to the dark forces against which they rail

Well Especially if they are close ! to the Mystery
IT Just needs one to expose the Big Lie ! but it takes a group ! to Confirm it and Expose it to the Press !
and that's the Big question getting a News Reporter and his Company to Expose it all..

Much like the Exposure from 2 Reporters in 1972 Woodward and Bernstein from the Washington Post
the Exploded the Watergate Scandal ! and helped caused a President to be Impeached !( NIXON )

The Woodward and Bernstein lives were at stake surprisingly they are still alive ..

Watergate scandal
en.wikipedia.org...

how much history !

well besides never giving any info of resources to some evidence of what they are implying
with the bare minimum one liners !


then if you look into a Members background (Profile) and see all negative and mostly towards only ONE Topic Subject say like 911 and nothing else ! with just a few strands ! and only comes on with that type of topic ..

Actually I think it was Josef Goebbels who proposed the repetition of lies being taken as truth.

It depresses me all the counter-culture/alternative political energy being thrown at very shaky, unproven ideas, when there's plenty of very real, concrete dastardly stuff going on in broad daylight, without any attempt at concealment. But that's somehow less attractive than attacking insubstantial shadows.

Woodward and Bernstein? Quite. The difference with them is they used solid journalistic skills and real, verifiable evidence to press their case. The conspiracies about controlled demolition etc don't, by and large. They aren't even consistent with each other in what they theorise or the motivation for the conspiracy. The truth is not a democracy, it's not a venn diagram of events or parallel realities. There was only one sequence of events which led up to the attacks on 11/9/01, and one sequence of events that happened on that day. The question is what was that sequence of events? So many people are busy trying to prove their own theory instead of actively trying to uncover the truth, whether that's something which matches their ideas or not, and whether they like what they see or not.