It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 Truth Hijacked: 911 Perps Created the Truth Movement!

page: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategy for Undermining Freedom
- Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service, From Russia With Terror, FrontPage Magazine, 3/1/04

I believe the people behind the terrorist hijacked the truth and muddied the waters, with their propaganda.

Hmmm...Pacepa cited in FrontPage Mag.
Two words...David Horowitz.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly. In this case, "capital" crime means you can be executed if found guilty. The Brits, do not execute. So, comparing pedophilia to murder, is idiotic.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly Another oft repeated lie.....the stand down. There was never once a stand down order issued that day. The order in question was to take down Flight 93 by any means possible if it made it to D.C.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

It's no secret that the Soviet bloc was operating in opposition to U.S. interests in the ME but it hardly required a secret communist project to turn Arab sentiment against Israel and the U.S. for supporting it. That's like the other NLBS thread blaming the radicalization of Jihadists entirely on the CIA and the U.S.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I saw a documentary a number of years ago that converted me to your point of view. It featured extensive interviews with and a demonstration by demolition experts who said it would have taken many months of work by a very large crew to have prepared a demolition and there is no way they wouldn't have been noticed. Also, the explosions would have spread the remains of the charges used all over the site which also would have been impossible to conceal.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
What can we deduce from the subsequent cover up, destruction of evidence and secrecy after the events?
In my experience, where there is secrecy and an attempt to cover up evidence, there is a crime.
That would satisfy the requirements of most prosecutors; enough at least to begin an investigation, I would think.

But you and I know that nothing whatever will become of it.
Just like nothing became of JFK's murder. Just like the millions of murdered civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc won't see justice. There will be many more millions killed too; sacrificed on the altar of Mammon.

You see, those who have real power are outside of law, outside of any system of government. They rule over it all.
They live, we sleep.
edit on 9-3-2015 by Smack because: redundancy.

edit on 9-3-2015 by Smack because: readability

edit on 9-3-2015 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: jaffo

I saw a documentary a number of years ago that converted me to your point of view. It featured extensive interviews with and a demonstration by demolition experts who said it would have taken many months of work by a very large crew to have prepared a demolition and there is no way they wouldn't have been noticed. Also, the explosions would have spread the remains of the charges used all over the site which also would have been impossible to conceal.


This is so contradicting. You believe they went down without explosives, so why would you think it would need that much work? Maybe the plane impact did indeed half the work and werent anywhere near as much explosives needed as with a normal demo? And they had years to plan something so I find it weird you bring time and effort into the discussion. Maybe a crew of 5 did eveything in 3 years?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263

I don't know how things have changed since the building of WTC but[...]

But steel wasn't different back then.

Neither a plane nor fire would have brought those buildings down in that manner.


A lot has been said and written about the quality and certification of WTC steel back in around 2003-06. But as you say structural steel was at least mostly just good quality steel back then, too. I think the assembling parts, connectors and floor trusses could have played a role if fire lasts long enough (which it didn't), but definitely not the core.

But this would still just all be about trying grasping how the twin towers at all could collapse "in that manner":



The simple thing is that these buildings exploded and mainstream physics had to be adjusted to have the event fit into a new reality - war against terror. In my humble opinion observation indisputably confirms that building 7 "collapsed" and that the twin towers exploded.

Since you've been in the steel business; a short animation. You probably seen it but anyway it gives people an idea:



And14263, we need to ponder about a few things that have been bothering me for a while. I get back to you later and we'll see if we can get a clue..

edit on 10-3-2015 by wotyathink because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: WizardVanWizard
I know it's somewhere between the Official report and holograms...whether the obviously bullcrap theories became too popular organically or with shady assistance, I don't really care. Either way, IMO, looking into that wormhole is nothing but another quagmire that distracts well-meaning people from the search for the original truth....and that can only benefit those we already know are the shady ones.


Well said!


But then, even this thread provokes discussion. And I guess the "debunkers", MSM and any disinfo agents (real or imagined), will still help the topic stay hot? And debate is of course better than silence. It was debate that woke me up anyway.. The "debunkers" and all the rest trying to boycott don't seem to understand that.

But I'm a bit curious about what you understand to be "the obviously bullcrap theories" (somewhere between official and hologram)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: wotyathink

Indeed, the core should still remain standing.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: wotyathink

originally posted by: and14263

I don't know how things have changed since the building of WTC but[...]

But steel wasn't different back then.

Neither a plane nor fire would have brought those buildings down in that manner.


A lot has been said and written about the quality and certification of WTC steel back in around 2003-06. But as you say structural steel was at least mostly just good quality steel back then, too. I think the assembling parts, connectors and floor trusses could have played a role if fire lasts long enough (which it didn't), but definitely not the core.

But this would still just all be about trying grasping how the twin towers at all could collapse "in that manner":



The simple thing is that these buildings exploded and mainstream physics had to be adjusted to have the event fit into a new reality - war against terror. In my humble opinion observation indisputably confirms that building 7 "collapsed" and that the twin towers exploded.

Since you've been in the steel business; a short animation. You probably seen it but anyway it gives people an idea:



And14263, we need to ponder about a few things that have been bothering me for a while. I get back to you later and we'll see if we can get a clue..


Please provide proof (something other than your personal opinion) about the fires not lasting long enough to weaken the steel enough to allow for structural failure. I realize you do not *believe* the fires could weaken the steel enough to cause structural failure, in spite of ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, but I would love to see upon what you base that belief. I swear, some of you guys really seem to think that no matter how long a fire burns in a SERIOUSLY DAMAGED BUILDING the thing will just never weaken or fall, lol...
edit on 10-3-2015 by jaffo because: Content

edit on 10-3-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
Please provide proof (something other than your personal opinion) about the fires not lasting long enough to weaken the steel enough to allow for structural failure. I realize you do not *believe* the fires could weaken the steel enough to cause structural failure, in spite of ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, but I would love to see upon what you base that belief. I swear, some of you guys really seem to think that no matter how long a fire burns in a SERIOUSLY DAMAGED BUILDING the thing will just never weaken or fall, lol...


Hi jaffo. Proof is in the "pudding".



Or even better; the "pudding" isn't there. Ask yourself where those progressive pancakes are.

You ask for proof and what you give me in return is "all the evidence ". Beside of the fact that proof is not evidence; where is your proof? And if there isn't any yet; where's the evidence?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
(something other than your personal opinion) about the fires not lasting long enough to weaken the steel enough to allow for structural failure. I realize you do not *believe* the fires could weaken the steel enough to cause structural failure,


I didn't do any guessing about the amount of weakening the fires caused. What I said was -literally:

"I think the assembling parts, connectors and floor trusses could have played a role if fire lasts long enough (which it didn't), but definitely not the core."

*Meaning* it wasn't the whole tower that was on fire = the only thing that could have weakened the floors below impact was weakened floors falling upon unweakened/undamaged floors.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So what is your version of the 'truth'?

We can save that for another thread. This thread is about the people who knowingly fabricated lies to promote and derail the truth movement.



I think you've done a good job of showing a crop of theories being promoted that fail on multiple counts.

What I'm failing to see is any specific evidence that these theories are disinfo promoted by the "911 Perps". I agree that they appear to be disinfo, and MSM has frequently used the worst of them to marginalize any legitimate debate about the events of 9/11.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. However, it's a big leap to go from saying at least some of these theories probably are disinfo to saying that it is disinfo. Even more so to say that those who perpetrated 9/11 created the truth movement.

What has led you to conclude that it's not just "probably" a duck, but that it definitely is a duck?

aHEMagain
edit on 2015.3.10 by aHEMagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: aHEMagain

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So what is your version of the 'truth'?

We can save that for another thread. This thread is about the people who knowingly fabricated lies to promote and derail the truth movement.



I think you've done a good job of showing a crop of theories being promoted that fail on multiple counts.

What I'm failing to see is any specific evidence that these theories are disinfo promoted by the "911 Perps". I agree that they appear to be disinfo, and MSM has frequently used the worst of them to marginalize any legitimate debate about the events of 9/11.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. However, it's a big leap to go from saying at least some of these theories probably are disinfo to saying that it is disinfo. Even more so to say that those who perpetrated 9/11 created the truth movement.

What has led you to conclude that it's not just "probably" a duck, but that it definitely is a duck?

aHEMagain


Met some of them in person through a headhunter looking for people to help spread the ganda. Linked to some high end organizations that were not afghani or iraqi based.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This thread has gotten hijacked multiple times with many doses of off topic comments.

The point of my thread is that the people who posts these nonsensical theories are meant to distract you from real truths and evidence.

If you want to talk about collapse theories or space weapons then the best thing to do is find or make an appropriate thread not this one

edit on 10-3-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I don't think the perps created the truth movement. But as with all grass roots 'movements' imo are infiltrated, and the one's making the biggest impact by telling the truth, or raising good questions become a threat to tptb are either blackmailed, bribed, or disappeared.

I think there were many of us that didn't buy the official story, and saw/heard the narrative being changed. Most of the original eye witnesses all say they heard an explosion, even media personalities. They also say they weren't passenger plane i.e. no windows, small etc... I think they were drones (or maybe they were missiles, can't remember which now), but if you look at pictures of early drones/missiles they could easily pass for small planes.

The Bolsheviks are alive and well and still wreaking havoc using the same game plan from the beginning of time. I think most independent thinkers know the truth, but Hollywood and the Media tell the masses what to believe, and are better weapons for the jwo than ... well... weapons.

Sometimes I don't blame the elite for looking down on the masses lol seriously, I say free vaccines to everyone and more of them to those that stand in line to willingly get them o_0 heh
edit on 10-3-2015 by Rhiannon because: I made a booboo



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

It is evident from your last post that you are still dead set on belittling the research that Judy Wood has compiled. Anyone with an open mind can form their own conclusions based on the evidence. If you were truly concerned with the truth, you would not be attacking her research...

You would assimilate ALL the evidence, not simply that detailing the involvement of Israeli agents and insider trading. There is a larger system behind it all, but you will only penetrate it if you are unbiased as possible.

Thank you for presenting pertinent information about 9/11. Don't do humanity a disservice by biasing the more suggestible, for it will taint your efforts, be they true.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
This thread has gotten hijacked multiple times with many doses of off topic comments.

The point of my thread is that the people who posts these nonsensical theories are meant to distract you from real truths and evidence.

If you want to talk about collapse theories or space weapons then the best thing to do is find or make an appropriate thread not this one


Hmmmm, that's rather close minded don't you think? You almost sound like those nice tv people that would tell you that YOU are being distracting from the "real truths and evidence" with your OP. So how about you make a concise bullet pointed list of what you have deemed is 'The Truth' so we all stay within your requirements, cuz' I sure wouldn't want to be called a 911 conspiracy theorist or anything ;p just sayin'



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OrganicAnagram33

She (Wood) raises a lot of good questions, and makes a lot of good points! i.e. the heat of the ground for months afterwards, how metal and concrete POOFS into dust, yet paper survives, and something about (can't remember the exactly) 'seismic' activity or non-activity.

And there isn't a person alive or dead that could convince me a plane hit the pentagon. I dare say if Jesus himself told me a plane hit the pentagon, I'd probably playfully smack his arm, lmfao and say, 'nice try J, you almost got me' and then we'd both start cracking up that people actually buy that a plane hit the pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join