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.

 

For those who buy into the OS of 9/11

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The 'first' gulf war left everyone wondering why we stopped short of conquering the whole country, remember?



Not everyone. Only people who didn't do even modest research or follow the story at all.

EVERYONE in leadership at that time, including Dick Cheney, Bush, Schwarzkopf , Colin Powelll , etc. explained that to topple Saddam would have destabilized the entire region, strengthened Iran, exacerbated the Kurdish problem, split Iraq into three parts and required nearly permanent U.S. occupation of the country.

Basically exactly what happened after the second Gulf War.

Don't you remember how the right were loudly into Sun Tzu and the Art of War at the time? Strike with a huge force, have clearly defined goals and then get out quickly? That philosophy was abandoned somewhere along the line obviously.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
But as usual the same questions remain.

Why? Why go to all this effort when all that was ever needed to start a war with a foreign nation was a lie anyway? Iraq kinda disproves the conspiracy theory on that front. If the US wanted to over throw the talib an without 9/11 all they'd need to do was say we've established the definitive concrete link between the USS Cole, the embassies, and various other nefarious deeds. War on.

Who? How many hundreds of people need to know to plan all this? Remember, Clinton couldn't get a blowy with only 1 other person present without the world finding out. People can't keep secrets. The inevitable 1000s of people involved before and after have all stated silent? Not a single mainstream newspaper or media program has laid out the 'truth'? If it was so obviously an inside job why haven't the Russians been openly stating this since day one? What better way to finally destabilise your old enemy than show the people?

How? How do you secretly wire up these buildings and destroy these planes and nobody notices? Why not just make a massive truck bomb in times square on a Friday evening? Why not make your life so much easier? You'd still kill loads and you wouldn't have to hope the the WTC1 and 2 fall down hitting wtc7 on the way. Remember folks, if that doesn't get damaged your left looking foolish as you try to explain why a building collapses for no reason. You need the damage and the fires to occur. Also why bother with shanksville or the Pentagon? Just more chance of stuff going wrong.


I'd give you one thousand stars if I could. The complexity of the day (in my opinion) lends more credence to the terrorists wanting to put on a big show of power, whereas an inside job would have been done much simpler, with few moving parts, and would accomplish the same result, not that we've ever needed much of a reason to go rampaging around the Middle East.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru




So nothing then huh?


Is that what you really think or is that what they want you do think?
Can you even answer the question?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: scottyirnbru




So nothing then huh?


Is that what you really think or is that what they want you do think?
Can you even answer the question?



What is this high school sociology piffle? That is what I really think. You've got a lot of conjecture but zero facts. It's quite a big problem when you're trying to prove something.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel


Strike with a huge force, have clearly defined goals and then get out quickly? That philosophy was abandoned somewhere along the line obviously.

The bottom "line" was oil, other resources, territory, control.

Don't confuse war with rational thinking. All empires fall short of that.

Some jerk with megalomaniacal ambition and pride of self as King, God, whatever. That part is no different.

Personally, the art of war was designed to defeat larger forces from a guerrilla perspective. To defeat empires.


EVERYONE in leadership at that time, including Dick Cheney, Bush, Schwarzkopf , Colin Powelll , etc. explained that to topple Saddam would have destabilized the entire region, strengthened Iran, exacerbated the Kurdish problem, split Iraq into three parts and required nearly permanent U.S. occupation of the country.

The region is destabilized. The military planned it just the way it turned out. A multi phase operation. Iraq was the biggest threat in the region, now its a morass of infighting, spurned on by US arms and car bombs. As long as they are killing each other, they can't unify to defeat the Occupation.

Sun Tzu would be on the Iraqi side.


+16 more 
posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The world is full of charlatans, and liars, and people who promote extremely bad science.

Its also full of people who can't accept reality and want to substitute it with their own version instead

Then there are those who wish to believe that they live in a safe bubble inside the USA, where the rest of the world cannot touch them.

The very essence of 9/11 "truth" is the arrogant belief that something unique cannot happen. That terrorist actions that have affected the rest of the world could not possibly occur in the USA, that the deified military and security services could not possibly ever let such a thing happen and, therefore, the whole incident must have been rigged, because there is no other possible explanation.

Its an invention to comfortably numb a reality. Because the reality is actually quite terrifying.

See... the alternative to 9/11 "truth" is this - the US Military and Security Services dropped the ball and 3,000 people died in an act of wanton destruction in a major US city, and what the populace has been led to believe - that they are safe, and the system will protect them is a facade.

You think about the op-plans, the emergency systems that failed that day, hell - even the president and the VP weren't evacuated properly according to protocols. If that had been a prelude to something bigger the whole system could have collapsed like a pack of cards.

And that is more terrifying to some people than the thought that the government invented it as an excuse to wage a war, because the war option gives an illusion of control over the world.

And then there's the money that people make pedaling their theories. A veritable industry of books, speakers doing the rounds, advertising space on websites dedicated to it, and an endless round of re-hashed speculation of what people think they know, instead of what they do.

So when I comment on 9/11, its for all of those reasons. That and I am a fully qualified professional civil engineer with over 25 years experience in the field, and 45 years of life experience in total, who lives in a country that experienced terrorism on an almost daily basis in his youth and who understands that 9/11 never happened before 9/11 and therefore what happened that day in unique circumstances, with unique conditions and unique buildings is the rule, and not the exception to it.

And I comment in the hope that similar events are not repeated, but also in the hope that people don't suffer a delusion that the world at large cannot reach out and touch them, because it can.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DelMarvel


Strike with a huge force, have clearly defined goals and then get out quickly? That philosophy was abandoned somewhere along the line obviously.

The bottom "line" was oil, other resources, territory, control.

Don't confuse war with rational thinking. All empires fall short of that.

Some jerk with megalomaniacal ambition and pride of self as King, God, whatever. That part is no different.

Personally, the art of war was designed to defeat larger forces from a guerrilla perspective. To defeat empires.


EVERYONE in leadership at that time, including Dick Cheney, Bush, Schwarzkopf , Colin Powelll , etc. explained that to topple Saddam would have destabilized the entire region, strengthened Iran, exacerbated the Kurdish problem, split Iraq into three parts and required nearly permanent U.S. occupation of the country.

The region is destabilized. The military planned it just the way it turned out. A multi phase operation. Iraq was the biggest threat in the region, now its a morass of infighting, spurned on by US arms and car bombs. As long as they are killing each other, they can't unify to defeat the Occupation.

Sun Tzu would be on the Iraqi side.


You apparently didn't understand my post and you're not familiar with the Art of War. First of all we're talking about two different wars; I was responding to your statement about the first gulf war.

Secondly, the Art of War is about military strategy which could apply to any side in a conflict. It certainly is not written from the point of view of defeating "larger forces from a guerrilla perspective" though the principles could apply. It's as much about preserving empires as defeating them.

edit on 12-8-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Some people just cannot do their own thinking for themselves. They are just too cowardly to even open their minds to the possibility that they could have been lied to by their government. I don't read anything more into it than that.

As for why they post here... bored with no life, disinfo agents, mad and offended that your opinion differs from theirs, refusal to believe the government would lie to them, take your pick.

I tend to lean towards disinfo agents personally.

edit on 12-8-2015 by roncoallstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: roncoallstar

So anyone who disagrees with your premise is a disinfo agent?

That's something of a shallow viewpoint don't you think?

Are you too cowardly to admit that your viewpoint may be wrong?

Are you mad and offended that the government may not be lying to you?

Could you be a government disinfo agent, promoting a story to hide the shortcomings of a national defense strategy and foreign policy system that blatantly failed on 9/11?

Or are you simply a person with a contradictory belief to other people, someone who actually has no real idea what occurred on that day but has a pet theory?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: roncoallstar
Some people just cannot do their own thinking for themselves. They are just too cowardly to even open their minds to the possibility that they could have been lied to by their government. I don't read anything more into it than that.

As for why they post here... bored with no life, disinfo agents, mad and offended that your opinion differs from theirs, refusal to believe the government would lie to them, take your pick.

I tend to lean towards disinfo agents personally.


Is it me? Am I one? Why won't somebody tell me?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: roncoallstar
Some people just cannot do their own thinking for themselves.

Being the majority of "9/11 Truth" followers. A group of people that all too often remind me of the fans of Sarah Palin (no offense to the fans of Sarah Palin).




originally posted by: neformore
Could you be a government disinfo agent, promoting a story to hide the shortcomings of a national defense strategy and foreign policy system that blatantly failed on 9/11?

There have been several confirmed “disinformation agents” who became prominent within the ranks of “9/11 Truth” who spouted some of the most extreme theories.

I know what you’re alluding to with the possibility of a complete failure of a chain of national defense strategies. But I don’t see it that way.

Every known government conspiracy or illegal clandestine operation has two things in common — only a few people were involved in the planning and execution, and something always goes wrong. Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, Iran Contra, Iraq war evidence, etc. It’s a pattern we know. There has never been a documented “government conspiracy” where hundreds, if not thousands of people would have need to be involved — which is what the majority of both compatible and conflicting theories espoused by “9/11 Truth” would require.

Instead, it was a small group of ultra-secret people, setting events into motion that would cause a terrorist attack — by actual terrorists — on American soil, in collaboration with their known agent, Osama Bin Laden. Only, something went wrong, things got out of hand, and it was significantly more catastrophic than anyone expected. That’s what I believe… because it fits all we know about history.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




The bottom "line" was oil, other resources, territory, control.

I don't think so.
Oil was becoming less of a problem even back then.
I think it was more of plain old politics.
We wanted more countries to friends with the US and less toward Iran.
To be a friend to us you must be moving towards democracy.
But that's our flaw. Not all countries are ready for democracy.
We can't seem to recognize that two bit countries need two bit dictators to be stable.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Just make'n sure!



What is this high school sociology piffle? That is what I really think. You've got a lot of conjecture but zero facts. It's quite a big problem when you're trying to prove something.


You asked why the murderers running this gov.
would do all, when all, they had to do
is lie to go to war? Well guess what/
Not everybody believes that was the entire
agenda. Here you go Scottee
Like the answer or not pal? There's far more to it than
you're try'n a make believe. Read up, and post some more disbelief
in the face of common sense.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Just make'n sure!



What is this high school sociology piffle? That is what I really think. You've got a lot of conjecture but zero facts. It's quite a big problem when you're trying to prove something.


You asked why the murderers running this gov.
would do all, when all, they had to do
is lie to go to war? Well guess what/
Not everybody believes that was the entire
agenda. Here you go Scottee
Like the answer or not pal? There's far more to it than
you're try'n a make believe. Read up, and post some more disbelief
in the face of common sense.


No. Linking to your own thread as form of proof? Behave. I think we have much different standards for what counts as proof.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I didn't think you were capable of an actual conversation.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I didn't think you were capable of an actual conversation.


I don't even know what you want to talk about. Pose a question



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel


First of all we're talking about two different wars; I was responding to your statement about the first gulf war.

Its all one big 'gulf' war. Aggressive war waged by the US (NATO) upon every single country that is the recipient over there. The ruse they planted in your mind is that these (wars) are separate, unrelated events for different reasons.

They are invasions (not interventions), with goals of conquest and exploitation (not humanitarian reasons), for domination and subjugation. All the propaganda tools (terms) spouted like, war on terror, regime change, humanitarian intervention, extraordinary rendition, no fly zones, buffer zones, humanitarian corridors, etc. are all camouflage to put people off, getting everyone to buy into it.

Just like the term the "first" gulf war.

Well you may not buy it, most probably don't. Easier that than doing anything about it. Feigning ignorance is safe, maintains the status quo.

What are we going to do, become "terrorists"?
edit on 13-8-2015 by intrptr because: spelling, change



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent


But that's our flaw. Not all countries are ready for democracy.

That is the biggest flaw in western thinking. Our system has voting and elected representatives with central governments. Theirs is completely different, they don't recognize man as an elected head of a state. To them Islam is the system and Allah the head. The will of Allah, revealed by elders (mullahs) who earn that regard and status over a life time is their method, their "state".

They see no need for central government. Something we don't understand and what causes all the conflict. By imposing our "democratic" procedural state upon them we violate their belief in the will of Allah.

At the core of every religious fervor is a god head, challenge that and you get war to defend their God. By placing man at the top (elected officials) we violate their religious beliefs and become infidels resulting in Jihad , which presents as suicide bombers as long as there are able bodies to carry the explosives. We can't win against that.

We are stupid to even try.

And it is the oil we're after…

edit on 13-8-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Just make'n sure!



What is this high school sociology piffle? That is what I really think. You've got a lot of conjecture but zero facts. It's quite a big problem when you're trying to prove something.


You asked why the murderers running this gov.
would do all, when all, they had to do
is lie to go to war? Well guess what/
Not everybody believes that was the entire
agenda. Here you go Scottee
Like the answer or not pal? There's far more to it than
you're try'n a make believe. Read up, and post some more disbelief
in the face of common sense.


I went back and read the 5 pages that make up that thread. It's a whole load of dystopian hokey that you made up. There is not a single fact in that whole entire thread. It's beginners Sci fi. It's all in your mind. I'm willing to admit that may change but right now it's nothing.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




The will of Allah, revealed by elders (mullahs) who earn that regard and status over a life time is their method, their "state".

Won't they be pissed when ET lands next to their mosque and tells them there isn't a god.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join