The real reason why the truth movement clings to their theories

Originally posted by Paote

Originally posted by trika3000
Unanswered questions...

...

Is there more evil people in the world than good? Or are the good people brainwashed, apathetic, lazy or whatever?

...

The real world is a very scary and crazy dangerous place

There are more good people than evil by far.

If you can't see that, you may be one of the evil people.

I fear you are headed for disillusionment by holding that philosophy. I argued, as you did, and found that as much as I would like to believe it, it does not work-- most likely because it is not true.

Those hundreds of "little things" that "good people" do devastate the lives of others. Few would take any responsibility for the results of their actions.

reply to post by Frira


It is true. Yer crazy.

Love, bro. Nothing but love.

Originally posted by seachange

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by seachange

 

You mean the college educated cave men? Or did you not realize that most of the hijackers were educated?

I think you missed out on the important point. Your conspiracy theory is just that, a theory with little evidence. But Bush stated his involvement in the conspiracy as a fact, so that is a public record. In specific, he stated he watched on his limo TV the first plane hitting the first tower and then was thinking about how terrible the pilot was to do that. Checkmate, with one piece of evidence. But there are actually something like five or six checkmates, so its unfair to refer to the 9/11 conspiracy as a theory when its been factually proven at least five times over. So, why refer to fact as theory?

A theory with little evidence...

After more than one million man hours spent by a few dozen different agencies investigating the events of that day, there is more evidence to support that 19 hijackers, hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and killed almost 3,000 people than there is evidence of ANY conspiracy theory.

Bush never once stated he was part of a conspiracy. He said that he saw that the first plane had hit the towers. He never once said he saw video of it that morning. Not once. For some reason, many people, including most likely you, who make fun of Bush's continual murder of the English language, pick one example of his misuse of words and declare BUSH KNEW ABOUT IT!!!! Sad really......

Bush Admission = Checkmate.

See above, not once has he ever done what you accuse him of. His only coverup, was helping portray the US Government functioning as a well-oiled machine that day, when reality it was a confused charlie-foxtrot that day.

Building 7 Implosion = Checkmate.

Nope, absolutely no physical evidence of implosion...but there is a boat load of evidence (testimony, seismograph readings) that WTC 7 was going to fall all by itself that day.

Swiss cheese metal beams = Checkmate.

And again, absolutely no proof of any sinister reason why that metal ended up that way....but several realistic happenstances in which it could end up that day.

Explosive residues throughout rubble = Checkmate.

Found by who? Oh yes, the super-duper-top-secret military thermite....ummm...yeah.......

Option trading on the three days before 9/11 = Checkmate

Actually it was for about two weeks prior to 9/11/01. All shown to have been based on the media reports from the airlines themselves that suggested due to earnings and other issues, their stock prices were going to drop. And it was not the only time in 2001 that thousands of options were placed on the airlines.

Silverstein said "pull it" regarding building 7 = Strong suggestion.

Truther pipe dream...or actually a driven egomaniac developer who is trying to suggest he had SOME sort of authority that day.

NORAD's operational test of a suicide plane attack on 9/11 = Strong suggestion.

Not quite what was going on that day. But in this case, we will also add the Kamikaze attacks against the US Pacific Fleet on 9/11/44.

Investigations treated as a bad joke = Strong suggestion.

By who? I am sure that the NYPD, PAPD, FDNY, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, NCIS, OSI, CID and assorted other agencies involved would take issue with you thinking their investigations were a bad joke.

Squibs seen during WTC building collapses = Strong suggestion.

Nope. Windows blown out of weakened frames by air pressure.

Destruction of Pentagon videotapes = Strong suggestion.

They weren't. Any videotapes of any evidentiary value were released long ago.

And I'll just stop there as I'm sure that gets the point across.

I hope you dont play Chess, because based on your post, you would be horrible at it.

Originally posted by Paote
reply to post by Frira

 

It is true. Yer crazy.

Love, bro. Nothing but love.

Ha! I tend to agree-- crazy being that I do not think like most others.

So, what I probably should have written is this-- and it IS related to the topic:

A very few people, when under stress, will be expected to do the right thing as regards anyone but their own self-interest. I refer to the North American culture. There are other cultures which are vastly different in such behavior. My background in this is in reading lots of sociology on my own-- not in formal study. However, I have a graduate degree in pastoral theology. There is no escaping it when you do counseling.

People hide who they really are, disguise what they really do, and justify whatever they do-- even when they know it was wrong.

Get a man or a woman stressed that a job loss will cost him or her the house-- they will, literally, lie, cheat and steal. If they can set-up a co-worker to take the fall for their own errors-- they WILL do it if the stakes are high. "Everybody has a price" may or may not be true, but in recent times, the average price to buy a person to do what they know to be wrong, is very cheap-- keeping a job will suffice. I don't recall the exact numbers but padding a resume is so common as to be generally assumed, now.

Several reasons are at play, not the least of which is the change from cultural and social expectation of a career to dismissing relation between employer and employee. For example, loyalty is not an issue anymore. Being a remember of a community is unheard of. How many of us are in the town of our birth? Not many. Churches are no longer about community, they are about status and networking-- and how the churches know it and cater to that!

For those without the power and control of hiring or firing, or without control to influence the markets in which the operate-- facing the unknown requires a sense of understanding. It is human nature.

When faced with a problem which must be resolved, the human mind will focus upon it. We are intellectually tenacious. If it cannot be resolved, but is considered imperative, bad things happen in our minds. Wider scope of wilder speculation sometimes finds an answer, but if not, fantasy or depression may settle in.

Either fantasy or depression can provide an answer: "I cannot do anything about it." Fantasy such as discussed here, may prefer, "Others have control and conspire" whereas depression is more likely to accept, "No one can change things."

The conspiracy may be true, but if really believed, the person has an answer-- for example, to become a part of the conspiracy-- join them.

But that is not what we usually see happen. We see wild speculation, looking for an answer, and then a presumption that any nay-sayer is not also looking, but and rather, is a conspirator. So, like depression, it is to have given up on the imperative task of finding a solution, but unlike depression (leading to despair), the fantasy will reject any answer which suggests a path to follow.

How many times have we all read words beginning with, "Nothing will convince me..." Why would one declare being convinced in such absolute terms? Answer: Because the solution they have decided as acceptable is any excuse to stop looking for control.

The depressed person has given up, and despair forces the depressed person to grasp for any hope. Still looking for some control, but doubting it will be found. Past that, things get real bad.

What bothers me about conspiracy theories as seen on ATS, is the prevalence of fantasy over reason. Reason will be rejected as a attempt to deceive. On the other hand, fantasy may be preferable to depression-- at least preferable to the worst sort of depression.

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Bush never once stated he was part of a conspiracy. He said that he saw that the first plane had hit the towers. He never once said he saw video of it that morning. Not once.

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
George W Bush
December 4, 2001

"when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on."
George W Bush
January 5, 2002

Nobody else saw the first plane going into the first building on 9/11 on TV. Only George Bush and whoever he worked for saw that.

Checkmate. And thats only one of five. I won't waste my time disputing the other points because you've already lost the debate on point 1. US government complicity is a conspiracy fact based on George Bush's own implicit admissions.

Unless of course you think that either A) within a month after 9/11 Bush had forgotten where he first learned about the attacks or B) George Bush was merely boosting his PR by appearing to learn about the attacks on TV instead of for example a personal phone call. Both scenarios are possible but unreasonable given that A) nearly 100% of us who were adults at the time of 9/11 knew exactly how we learned of the attacks and would NEVER mix up learning of it on TV vs. being told by another person and B) it really does not have obvious PR value to learn about it on TV vs. being told on the radio, though a socippathic liar (who psychologists say that is a sign of weak ethical values) may make such a statement.

Oh and now that his story has changed this year to merely have heard about it and then adding a line about wondering if the weather was a factor. The obvious reason why he didn't really have to wonder about the weather before when he was telling the truth is that he really did see it on TV.

Had Bush not said what he did, I may not believe the government was complicit. So, my reasoning behind a conspiracy is not based on fear, but rather it is based on factual (implied) admissions of guilty.

Originally posted by vipertech0596Destruction of Pentagon videotapes = Strong suggestion.
They weren't. Any videotapes of any evidentiary value were released long ago.

Orly? Where can I find the videos of the Plane hitting the Pentagon? From the angle of the cameras on the various buildings around the area and also from cameras on the Pentagon?

Or do they not have "any evidentiary value" because they obviously show a plane hitting and there's no reason anyone in the public needs to see that?

reply to post by vipertech0596


I am getting real bored with these anti truth movement threads. I have lost count of the amount I have seen in the last couple of weeks. All after the 911 anniversary..

Now then.... The real reason the truth movement clings to its theory is because the governments story is lies. It does not add up..


Did you know the same day 911 took place the reason they could not scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes was because at the very same time mock war games were being carried out part of which involved attacks on the twin towers...

Funny that when the 7/7 bombings happened in London. The very same stations that were hit were having mock terrorist attacks carried out on them...

These are no mere coincidences. This is the powers that be covering their butts incase they get exposed... So yes I agree with the poster regarding the possibility of there being links between AL Quada and the CIA.


Explain that away anti truther and I might join your ranks.. But like the rest of you will probably choice to ignore my reply...


So kindly...

jog on...

The real reason the "truth movement" cling to their theories?

The investment they have in their "Cafepress" online store.

PfT Shirts and hats and mugs and stickers and pet bowls and license plate holders!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911

 

Fear isn't what keeps me sticking to the OS, its knowledge that keeps me there.

Funny coz knowledge keeps a lot of Truthers where they are, that and the number of massive holes in the OS (not to mention the smaller than expected one in the side of the Pentagon right where the documents for the missing $Trillions were)

If you have knowledge that fills in the holes of the OS then I think you should share...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well they are not werewolves ...

reply to post by djz3ro


You mentioning the missing trillions shows just how little you know about the subject. Because that had nothing to do with 9/11.

reply to post by purplemer

Did you know the same day 911 took place the reason they could not scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes was because at the very same time mock war games were being carried out part of which involved attacks on the twin towers...

I am getting real tired of so-called truthers who do not have the first clue when it comes to the facts of that day.


Did you know that the US Air Force, did indeed scramble fighters? And that due to the timing and the problems in the communications chain, the only flight that they had a realistic chance of intercepting was Flight 93? Did you know that?

i don't see the government as bumbling idiots at all, i see them as accomplishing exactly what they wanted and still are accomplishing their directives......one only has to go as far as researching the PNAC papers to see this....we might think it's horrible what they are doing everytime we turn around and that they must be idiots because what they are doing isn't good for americans, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing exactly what they want......our government has been infiltrated and the usurpers are not interested in american's interests i promise...if they were we would all be healthy, fed, and dancing in the streets with the joy and happiness....but i don't see that happening, i see us complaining more and more of what they are doing...they aren't stupid...they just don't like americans.......

reply to post by seachange


And again, clinging to what you THINK he meant. Second thought, I would like to play you a game of chess for the deed to your parents house......

reply to post by patternfinder


Ah yes, researching the papers that speaks of the United States military being designed for the Cold War, despite the fact that future wars would most likely NOT be the knockdown, drag out wars of the past. And that there was no way that the United States would spend the money to makeover the US military absent a catalyzing event.

And you think its evidence of a inside job.......

Using your logic, I guess you think it was actually American carriers that launched the attack on Pearl Harbor as a reason to go to war with the Japanese....since there had been a group of Naval officers that had warned the attack was likely..............................

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by purplemer

 

Do not attempt to diverge from the truth. Jets were not scrambled in time to deal with the event because of the mock tests being carried out..
Again I will state the truth both the 911 attacks and the 7/7 attacks in London coincided with mock attacks.. In London these involved the very same stations.
This is the work of governments covering there tracks. I am getting bored of anti truthers posting with no backbone...

TextSeveral different war game exercises were in play on the day of the attack. The limited public information on these exercises shows that they simulated the following events: Hijackings Attacks on buildings using aircraft as missiles Attacks using toxic or infectious substances

and further...

FAA Boston Center contacts NEADS, saying, "We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out."
“Is this real world or an exercise?” asked the military liaison officer?
"No, this is not an exercise," responded the FAA official. "Not a test." 2

911research.wtc7.net...

and agian for the london bombing...

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

(BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005)

www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by purplemer


You can proclaim that jets weren't scrambled because of the exercises all you want.

It won't EVER make it true.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by seachange

 

And again, clinging to what you THINK he meant. Second thought, I would like to play you a game of chess for the deed to your parents house......

Viper, I'm very obviously clinging to what I KNOW he SAID OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH. His words were "when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building". Here is the key phrase by George Bush:

When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.

The first part is: "When we walked into the classroom". Okay, thats George Bush saying that "when" meaning the time that he is talking about, "we" meaning the people who he was with, "walked" as in putting one foot in front of the other repeatedly "into" as in the direction of and past the border of "the classroom" as in a room where people go to learn. Are you with me so far? The second part is "I" meaning George Bush "had" meaning prior to walking in the classroom "seen" meaning what happens to your eyes when you open them, "this plane" meaning a flying thing in the air "fly" meaning going the air for a while, "into" meaning in the direction of and past the border of "the first building" meaning the first building of multiple buildings. As it turns out there were multiple buildings in the World Trade Center complex, and they were numbered. WTC1 was the first WTC building. It was also the first building to be hit. Therefore "first building" refers to WTC building 1 if he meant the first of the World Trade Center buildings, and "first building" also refers to WTC building 1 if he meant the first building to be hit by a plane.

Do I need to further help you out by parsing the grammar out? "When we walked into the classroom" is a dependant clause modifying the simple noun "I". By "I", George Bush is referring to himself in the first person. He is story-telling. Are you with me so far? So, what about George Bush when he walked into the classroom? he goes on: "I had seen this plane fly into the first building". Had is a past tense word. It means that George Bush is referring to something happening in the past at the point in his story where he was entering the classroom. He's talking about something happening prior to his walking to the classroom. Understand? The subject in that independent clause is George Bush. My patience has run out for now so I'll leave it there. Let me know if you're disagreeing with any of these word definitions or grammar. Its all stuff that a 3rd grader can learn, so even if I turn out to be 16 years old I'm twice as old as I'd need to be to help you out with understanding what George Bush said.

If George Bush had actually said: "I was busy that morning planning 9/11 to help the terrorists out so I get to be a war president and finish off what my father started in Iraq." You'd sound JUST AS WRONG saying "You don't know what he meant by that!". I'm not telling you what Bush meant. I couldn't care less what Bush meant. I'm telling you what Bush SAID. Do you get it? I don't care what he meant. I care what he said.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by purplemer

 

You can proclaim that jets weren't scrambled because of the exercises all you want.

It won't EVER make it true.

Again you are diverging from the main point.. The main point being that there were mock terrorist operations occuring on both 911 and 7/7 london.

This is the government covering its backside incase they got caught. The facts speak for themselves the goverment was responsible for murdering a lot of people that day...


You can proclaim to not like truthers all you want. All you are sounding like to me is a fish out of water...

reply to post by Cecilofs

Orly? Where can I find the videos of the Plane hitting the Pentagon? From the angle of the cameras on the various buildings around the area and also from cameras on the Pentagon? Or do they not have "any evidentiary value" because they obviously show a plane hitting and there's no reason anyone in the public needs to see that?

No pictures of the most protected building on the planet... Just a couple of blurry frames.. You know the same thing happened in london on 7/7. The very stations that were hit just happened to be the very stations that never had there cameras working that day... Again no picture...
What about the pictures of bin ladens body... There not about either...

pictures or it did not happen... how can peeps buy that :-#