Just to define 'conspiracy theorists' as different from 'official 9/11 skeptics'. Does this clear things up?

Question

Below is a link to describe the 'hologram' theories as loony as they are. We ALL know planes hit the buildings on 9/11. The 'no plane' Theories are fringe theories and, just as there are fringe crazies on the left and right (or any other group that has some kind of support), there are crazies in the 9/11 truth movement.

We want a thorough investogation, one which the 9/11 panel admittedly didn't yield. Questions are unanswered and to say that things that are plainly sci-fi-ish (ie - no planes hit the towers) does nothing but insult our intelligence.

This article is for you avid supporters of the official story to hopefully clear up any ideas that 9/11 Skeptics rely on space aliens, possession, holograms - anything other than collected data, and holes in the official story. Thank you guys and please don't flame each other.

This is mainly a post for use as a resource. Take care and God Bless!!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/fringe_theories_harming_911_truth_movement.htm

ddey is, i'm sure, one who assumes such and hasn't actually looked into sources. infowars is only ONE such site. scholars, 911blogger, so on and so forth.

If it were so fringe, FOX would not have spent so much time in the last month attempting to debunk along with popualr mechanics' article and book. If it is fringe, why the attention. Wake up. Its nicer in the real world.

Thanks Carteir for the input!

Rockandroll, yeah the pics aren't working now, but they were of plane rubble and parts and trucks dedicated to the removal of those bits. No-planers are simply rediculous.

http://www.seafordtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=509&ArticleID=1741597

Answer 1

Skepticism is good. Unfortunately I've seen too much garbage being brought out as fact, such as the controlled demolition theories, that they actually made be believe the official story.

Only a reality challenged person believes the hijackers who piloted the planes were the flight school dropouts paraded in front of the media. They had to know how to program the flight computers in flight for their targets. The way the planes banked and manuevered close to the ground indicate not just a veteran jumbo jet pilot, but most likely a pilot with fighter jet experience.

Thanks for the link, I'll read the articles, with a healthy amount of skepticism because I'm jaded by a lot of the other crap out there.

Answer 2

It's unfortunate that you have gone so far down the path, yet stopped short.
I cannot understand why you say that the no-planes theory is sci-fi-ish.
It is just one step nearer the truth.
The link below gives a lucid and logical argument why those who do not support the 9/11 Conmission report should carefully consider the no-planes theory.
In analysis it is far more logical than a theory involving planes.
Please look at the article below very closely.
I have worked with this guy, and can assure you that he is probably the most thorough researcher in the whole 9/11 truth movement.
If you have any constructive criticism, he will be pleased to address it.
Its the only logical explanation of
NORAD stand down.
Hijackers still alive
No black boxes
No plane parts
No passengers relatives claiming compensation
Hole on Pentagon too small, and lawn undamaged..
Untrained pilots performing impossible manoevres
How can 19 hijackers with box-cutters overcome 200 people.
Transponders turned off
Mobile phones didn't work at 30,000 feet in 2001
Inconsistent passenger lists

and a host more unanswered questions.
It clears away a whole lot of confusion, and is therefore more likely to be true.


The article showing that the TV news video of a plane hitting a tower being a fake is at

http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

Answer 3

One of your criticisms is that the questions raised by conspiracy theorists aren't answered, then claim as credibility for those theories the fact that credible news outlets make an effort to answer them (debunk the claims).

There is an old saying: "a lie can travel half way across the world before the truth puts is shoes on". And these days, with the internet, it should be "all over the world". The reason is because it's very easy to start a myth by simply making something up that sounds good. And, to the extent that what is said resonates with certain types of people, it will spread quickly. To debunk the myth takes time, effort, money, research. But, for something of this magnitude it's required.

I can see why conspiracy theorists - who are making it their mission to prove it was an inside job - would want to distance themselves from the really kooky ideas: they know it detracts from their credibility, and to prove their theory they need at to project as much credibility as possible. When you say "We want a thorough investigation", I have absolutely no doubt that the only result of such an investigation you would accept is one that points a finger at the government. People who constantly think in terms of government conspiracies have already reached their conclusions - many reached them on 9/11/01. Any conclusion that supports the idea that it was Muslim terrorists alone can be tossed aside as a government cover-up.

Example: Area 51. There are people who believe that there are alien spacecraft being kept there. I've heard people say "just open it up and let us see the truth for ourselves". Right. Even if the government gave full tours of the facility that yielded no alien spacecraft, the people who believe could simply say "they obviously didn't show us everything". It's usually easier to raise questions than answer them - especially if to answer the question you need to prove a negative.

I'm sorry, but I've looked over the evidence and I don't see any holes in it. I do see people claiming there are holes, but inevitably they are due to a lack of knowledge coupled with (I think) an intense desire to believe in governement conspirisies.

Answer 4

Why is it so hard to believe the obvious? Two towers impacted by two hijacked aircraft fully loaded with fuel create such damage that the heat from the fires caused enough additional structural damage for them to collapse. No strapped on bombs, no detonation charges or anything else. Crash, file, and collapse.

Answer 5

hear hear

the reason people come up with theories, stupid or not, is because they failed to explain what happened... there was never any decent investigation.

yeah, planes hit the building... but they went down suspiciously easily, right? it's perfectly legitimate to ask that information on this be made public, and that it be investigated


why wouldn't they do it? how much could it possibly cost, if they don't have anything to hide?

Answer 6

My sister was in Tower 2 on Sept 11th and I will take her accounting of things.

Answer 7

I like the link, but the pictures didn't come on.The link cleared things up. These idiots tin-foil hats are strinking
what gray matter they have left.

Answer 8

"Infowars.con-job" as I like to call it is rarely a valid source for anything. What it refers to as "the truth movement" IS a fringe theory.