How a conspiracy starts,Montreal shooting.

We probably have all seen the tragic event in Montreal unfold. At the start it was widely reported by the news media,eyewitnesses,city officials,police etc. that there was 3 or 4 shooters. Also there was 4 or more dead and twenty or more wounded. It was even widely reported that one of the shooters was "neutralized" by the police. All these very important facts were WRONG. Why,because of the chaos,confusion,anguish and terror that was in the air. Now, think back to the World Trade Center. The first strike was many times more frightening than Montreal,Immediate casualities in the hundreds. The second strike multiplied that fear and chaos expotentially.Now we have an island with millions of people,many in skyscrapers worried if thier building was next.The terror was extreme. So why are the conspiracy buffs taking comments and newscasts from that day and accepting that as irrefutable truth? If so much was reported wrong in Montreal, I'm sure the same,likely much more, happened in NYC. We owe the victims of 9/11 our sympathy not a constant poke in the eye.

Which facts, that were reported in the news immediately after 9/11, do you think might be untrue?

Allright listen up. I did not start this post to debate the intellectually barren and immature conspiracy fools. I started it to show how easily facts are distorted during a crisis.

All I did was ask which facts may have been distorted. Simple question. Why not elaborate, give us some concrete examples? How can you show us how easily facts are distorted without showing us which facts may have been distorted?

Sorry to offend you. The distorted facts and I don't know them all:a missile hit the second tower,a missile brought down flight 93,93 was hit by jet fighters, bombs were heard going off in wtc.etc.etc.

Where are the rest of the "BUFFS",cat got your tongue or once again are you cowering when confronted with the truth?

Yes, I agree that there are distorted "facts" but most of them have nothing to do with news reports on September 11th. For example, I assume the theory that a missile hit the towers was developed after 9/11 (but I could be wrong). Was it ever reported in the media immidiately after 9/11 that a missile hit the towers?

The example about people hearing bombs going off is a good example which I hadn't thought of (which is why I asked). That is a good example of chaos and confusion potentially getting in the way of facts. On the other hand, most of the conspiracy theories and arguments for those theories, have nothing to do with media reports immediately afterwards.

And just to clear up any confusion....no I am not a conspiracy theorist.

I concur. My post was about how this crap gets started. It is the downhill snowball theory. The people that made" loose change" and may I say very loose, use many comments made that day. They portray a smoking something coming out of the tower as a missile. I disagree. The main "theory " is that the buildings collapsed differently as they would if they were "really" hit by planes.This is based on the "vast" empirical knowledge of how buildings collapse when hit by planes, If anyone out there can show me another example of this ,I will kiss their ass in front of the world.gc,take care and an open mind.

IA. I don't remember hearing there were missiles. Nor do I think all these alternative theories were formed entirely from initial reports. It's a given that "facts" are going to change as time goes by and things settle down. Nobody is going to focus on what's reported at the very beginning to the exclusion of everything else afterwards.

Intelligent posts about 9/11,oh how I crave this.There has been many "theorists" using the yahoo in Penn. who says he saw an explosion before the plane went down.Looooooose change used the absence of airplane parts scattered around the crash site as definitive evidence of a cover-up. The phone calls from the plane "never" happened because the technology wasn't available. Try telling that to thier families.Honestly.if someone was telling the nation that my last phone call from my wife was a "cia fake" I would shove a cellphone so far down his throat.

Certainly initial reports may not be accurate. In the initial panic, people cant oversee the entire picture. DUH.
But to try to equate this with the subsequent development of conspiracy theories is not viable. Conspiracy theories develop out of the subsequent analysis of events. And as for 9/11, the very initial news reports were of a plane that had got mixed up in its flight path. Then with the second plane, it was realized it was a terrorist attack. Who suggested it was Al Quaeda???????? The Oval Office. Maybe they were the ones to start a conspiracy theory about it being Arab terrorists.

Deny,deny,deny,IT WAS ARAB TERRORISTS.

A more traditional officially sanctioned conspiracy would be for the feds to link vampires with Al Qaeda, Iran and mushroom clouds.

The initial reports were that a small plane had hit the North Tower, by the time news agencies arrived at the site, the second plane hit the South Tower. After these two events, rumors started flying in the streets that the Supreme Court got hit, Congress, other planes heading towards New York. This is understandable in state of panic.

The conspiracy theorists didn’t lose much time however, Ground Zero was still burning when French “author” Thierry Meyssan started putting up websites as early as October 2001 claiming he knew the “real” situations. Guided planes, missiles, you name it, he spewed it.

The rest is history.

I remember on 911 hearing that the flight 93 was shot down. This I just took to be speculation on the part of the media trying to make sense of the events. Everybody thought that fighter jets would start shooting down airliners if more attacks were going to happen. Makes sense that they would to avoid more successful attacks. The truth was reported when it became known. The facts are reported as they become known.