It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:50 PM
Wow, you mean that someone with a movie about Pearl Harbor would try and boost the promotion of that movie to coincide with the 60 year aniversary?

Who'd a thunk it?

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:59 AM
Howard, either you're someone who's here to deliberately disperse disinfo or you're someone who hates to admit when he's wrong.

Either way, you NEVER address any of the real de-debunking material we provide.

What about Bin Laden, the CIA asset, and Al-CIAda, I mean, Al-Qaeda
? What about Operation Northwoods? What about all the govt officials being warned not to fly to NYC? What about the war games that morning? What about the Lone Gunman episode?

Oh, I see. You and your precious hit piece can't debunk those issues. I read that crap, and all it did was misrepresent ACTUAL conspiracy theories as the mainstream arguments of the skeptics. How come it didn't address any of these issues? Maybe because Pop Mechanics, like you Howard, have no idea what's really going on.

But I'm sure you'll find some minor thing I have said here and talk about that. Maybe you'll defend the article, saying something to the effect that the ideas presented are the main arguments for an inside job. Maybe you'll argue that you do indeed know what you're talking about. Maybe you'll stay on the Pearl Harbor movie.

Either way, you will NOT respond to the CIA-Bin Laden connection, or the war games, or the warned officials, or Operation Northwoods, or the Lone Gunman episode. Then again, I am making all this up, aren't I?

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:29 AM
I have to ask you this? Why do you keep bringing those issues up? Are you trying to change the subject?

I don’t address those issues because they are not germane to the discussion. The topic of this thread is 911 myths. And it deals with some specific myths that have been promoted. Specifically, the “controlled demolition myth,” the “Pod” myth, the “No plane hit the Pentagon” myth, the “cell phone calls are impossible from an airplane” myth, etc. If you notice, the Popular Mechanics article addressed those myths dealing with specific technical issues.

I’ve also noticed that when these types of debates come up, when you are presented with technical and scientific data that refutes your theory, you always fall back on the Bin Laden was a CIA operative” theory. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the above listed myths are flawed and have been debunked.

At this time, I choose not to argue those theories. I am focusing on the application of bad science that has created the myths that we are discussing in this thread. You are trying to divert attention from the fact that the those myths that are based on bad science have been debunked.

How about this. Why don’t you take your political 911 theories and reformulate them on the basic assumption that the PM article is correct. Then I will gladly discuss your other theories. I refuse to do so as long as you theories on 911 contain basic flaws in the application of science, engineering and technology.

Once you correct those flaws, then we can move on to those other subjects.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:42 AM
How is that staying off topic? The very title "9/11 Myths Debunked" gives the false impression that Islamic terrorists were actually to blame. Maybe if they mentioned that this was an inside job, but these reasons do not hold water, I would understand. The problem is that this article misleads people and implies that there was no govt connection.

I don't argue the scientific aspect because it can't absolutely be proven. Then again, I have heard engineers say that the collapse was impossible. I heard these same people jump on the bandwagon later...for some strange reason.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Why did you argue about NORAD, that's not scientific?

As I said, the myths presented are not the main arguments of people who maintain that it was an inside job.

Part of the reason that science can't fully explain it is that all the steel was sold as scrap to China. Why was that? Wouldn't a thorough investigation of the rubble had shed more light on this? All arguments about melted steel and structural failure would have been laid to rest.

This job was pulled off too well for science to solve this one. Therefore, I point out the smoking guns that don't pertain to science.

Clear the air on this one for me, Howard. Do you believe that it was an inside job?

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wow, you mean that someone with a movie about Pearl Harbor would try and boost the promotion of that movie to coincide with the 60 year aniversary?

Who'd a thunk it?

the illuminati, that's who. social engineers. i think i implied that the first time. black hawk down, and a rash of other movies glorifying war and soldiers came out at the same time as the iraq war started.
there are two 'camps' of illuminati, though. both evil, but competing. i heard 'the sum of all fears' really ticked off certain terror planners. you see, howard, the truth makers can anticipate the statistical probability of the emotional and cognitive reaction of targeted demographs . the tools used can be virtual(movies), or 'real'(manufactured terror). a movie like 'pearl harbour' gets patriots lining up in droves, and then they all go through the 'passion'.
'the sum of all fears' diffuses the wisdom of playing out that exact scenarion in real life. it also desensitizes the target audience of fear of the scenario, and heightens their awareness of the scenario.
there are COUNTLESS warnings from hollywood. nearly every single big hollywood production has bin LADEN with illuminati symbolism and numerology.

did you know they digitally removed the twin towers from the end of MIB 2, and rewrote the ending? the twin towers in the original script were the clandestine quarters of earth's biggest space port, with ufo's flying in and out constantly under cloaked conditions.

skynet is a reality. or was. by the time we find anything out, it is literally light yrs. behind us.

i feel you willfully deny to 'connect the dots'. that's okay, though. we all do our parts, either by example, or negative example, depending on what side of the looking glass you're on.

you must admit, we are quite polar from one another, theory-wise. you are a nuts and bolts guy, and, although i understand nuts and bolts, i am more right brained. intuitive. proprioceptive. i'm quite sure that i'm wrong about some of my suspicions. but, i have A LOT of suspicions. they are not all wrong. an 'in situ' test of alleged chemtrails by what i consider to be a fair witness, would convince in that arena, for example.
the most obvious, and undeniable pointers on the conspiracy path are the people with the money, and their connections and effects on the flow of power.

you see, howard, money is EXACTLY like electricity. except, that instead of electrons, it is human blood and effort.
'just charge it'. monad is the human soul. money is the current of the soul.
so, who owns and who runs the electric company? no one. it is a self conscious meme which lives in electricity, but you won't find that out for about a hundred yrs.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:01 PM
Billybob, you have a point about Hollywood propaganda. The Pentagon has basically bought out Hollywood and laces damn near everything with propaganda. Look at shows like 24, Threat Matrix, etc. The situation's even worse in foreign countries.

Don't believe it, anyone? I'm sure yall remember Birth of a Nation. That despicable movie helped set the precedent for racial disrimination against us blacks. The president at the time (can't recall who exactly) said he was SAD but the movie was an accurate depiction of "Negroes."

Yeah, $hit is really hitting the fan now. The next 2 decades are gonna be something else, I guarantee it.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:21 PM
Movies, especially television is the best propaganda machine ever devised. It has shaped our nation into a bunch or sheep that cannot think for themselves. They would never have gotton away with it years ago, people would have asked hard questions right from the beginning.

I often feel that the blacks have experienced the tactics of the elite longer than anyone in our country. The elite are affaid of the blacks because they know through all the crap that has been heaped opon them, that when the you know what hits the fan, the payback will be severe.

Now its divide and conquor driven home to the black people.
They create and secretly foster racial tension. With the help of rap music though I feel it is causing the white kids and black kids to finally see each other as being the same.

Who are the elite? A bunch of evil crooks!!

The government is nothing but the mafia with flags!

[edit on 2-3-2005 by LoneGunMan]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:51 AM
You've only got to look at what they planned to do in the US to gain support for a war against Cuba, to believe 9-11 was or posibly was an inside job. Not to mention Pearl Harbor....

See this thread;

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:36 AM
Just the fact that popular mechanic had to write debunking article just makes it worse. If the government didn't do it? then why debunk it? If they did it, then they would naturally get the most crediable magazine and find creditable people to try shut up the consirency theories.

1. Where is the plane that hit the pentagon?
2. Why did building 7 fall with little fire?
3. Why did larry sliverstein say he pulled the building? he ran up and packed it with expolives?
4. Why did the building fall in demolization state.
5. Why did building 7 have it's middle column brough down first? It's producer for demoltion crew to blow the middle column first so that the building false on it's self.
6. How do u get people with box cutter's to hijack a plane? Not 1 but of 3 of planes. you would of think they would fail at least once.
7. How do u guide boeing in the pentagon, it mabe 40 meter high! . It requires perfect timming. Landing plan requires timming which the computers do not the pilots!!!

Then look athe illogical wars today on iraq? it really makes sense that US government was involved.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:12 AM
Not really; all this stuff has been explained plenty, you just have to go use Google some. Of course it makes sense for Popular Mechanics to debunk the myths, because many people WERE confused voer a lot of that stuff. Doing so shows them the truth.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Not really; all this stuff has been explained plenty, you just have to go use Google some. Of course it makes sense for Popular Mechanics to debunk the myths, because many people WERE confused voer a lot of that stuff. Doing so shows them the truth.

It's all base less article. It has no substance that just guess's what happen and still it can't drop the smoking gun's.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:20 AM
I disagree; you just need to read more man.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
I disagree; you just need to read more man.

Yeah and the more you read the more questions come up that populist mechanics didn't attempt, let alone answer.

How convenient a popular well read magazine answers a group of questions guaranteed to turn the fence sitters to the government explanation and harden the already hardened government supporters.
Popular Mechanics is part of Hearst Communications, one of the largest private (Illuminati) companies in the world. Do you really think they are not part of the control of the government and thus us?
It's these rich companies that control the whole ball game. Not Bush or his cronies, they just carry out what they are paid to do.
People fall for the lies so easy because they want their government to be the good guys, just like in the John Wayne movies. It's easier to swallow the lie, and ignore the unanswered questions, than it is to demand those answers.
Your government should be forced to answer ALL the questions. If there is even a tiny chance they could have had something to do with 9-11 every citizen who cares about their country should be demanding answers.
Why do you keep making excuses for this group of sorry ass punks?
You are not your government, your government is not you.
This is your country, not their's, take it back...

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:14 AM
I think you are really just too paranoid over certain things such a this. They I seriously doubt has much to do with it.

Of course a popular magazine that is known for technical articles for the layman is going to debunk such myths. People were very confused. And yes it does raise certain other questions that they didn't realize to cover, but they debunked most of the main myths.

I love how the the conspiracy theorists use science to say there is a conspiracy, yet if their conspiracy theories are shot down completely, by real science, they resort to calling everyone stupid to fall for the government's "lies," they start pointing fingers are companies, and making up new theories.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:43 PM
I don't dismiss the idea that the current administration may have had some foreknowledge, maybe even some involvement in the attacks, but a lot of the theories about controlled demolition, global hawks flying into the Pentagon, etc. are just transparently silly and unnecessarily baroque. "Fire can't melt steel"? C'mon
Airliners with giant pods strapped to them, on live TV? Err, why bother? Why bother sending a global hawk into the pentagon? If they did this, where did they hide the missing 757? In a secret invisible aircraft carrier under Chesapeake Bay maybe?

As a person with a suspicious mind, it occurs to me that these theories are disifno, released into the infosphere to discredit any investigation into the real events of 9/11, and make anyone who questions the official line look like an idiot. Instead of chasing shadowy and unnecessarily complex goofy crap like demolition teams settting up explosives in buildings with 50,000 people in them, somehow magically going completely unseen, look into things like the mysterious trades in airline stocks right before the attack, or how NORAD somehow completely failed to react as the country was obviously under attack. Mainly follow the money IMHO. The really arcane stories are just a smokescreen.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by xmotex]

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:55 PM

Apparently, the editor of the Pop Mech article, Benjamin Chertoff, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new head honcho of the govt agencies.

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with this issue.
This isn't strangely similar to dictatorships such as Saddam's, where you have relatives of people in charge distributing disinfo. Like someone else here said, they are owned by Hearst, a company well known for its affiliation with yellow journalism...

Funny how Bush himself said that we don't need to listen to crazy conspiracy theorists...

As for the article, it claims that fighter jets were scrambled onto an off-course plane only ONCE in the last decade. Anyone with a brain knows that this is false. What's worse, the guy who they had saying this was also quoted from the AP as saying that there were like 60 something times that this had happened before 9/11.

If they were lying about that, what makes the rest of the article credible? Sure, they attack some theories that should be attacked, but what about the real $hit? Oh yeah, can't explain that...


posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:34 PM

Michael Chertoff (born November 28, 1953), is the current United States Secretary of Homeland Security.

He previously served as a United States Court of Appeals judge and former federal prosecutor, and assistant U.S. Attorney General. He was nominated as Homeland Security Secretary by President George W. Bush on January 11, 2005 to succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. He was confirmed in this position by the U.S. Senate on February 15, 2005, in a unanimous 98-0 vote, and sworn into office the same day (although a ceremonial swearing-in presided over by Bush took place on March 3).

Now on to Benjamin Chertoff
Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist - the one who never answers the phone.

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

How's the song go? .... "It's a small world after all"

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:27 PM
First of all, this is covered in another thread'

Secondly, George Bush, himself could have written the article for all the difference it makes. It doesn't matter and it wouldn't change the fact that the article effectively demolishes the most common 911 myths.

I noticed that no one has come up with a valid argument against the facts presented in the PM article, Instead they choose to attack the magazine and the staff.

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:35 PM
Why is it that the gas station owner across from the Pentagon had his security camera taken with in 5 minutes after the upposed plane hit the pentagon, the security camera saw just what type of plane hit the pentagon and the FBI in five minutes after the impact came and got the video and till this day has never returned it AND hasn't even brodcast it on CNN or something. ANYbody with "commen sceanse" can see they did that cuz there was NO plane it was an inside job (9/11)

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I noticed that no one has come up with a valid argument against the facts presented in the PM article, Instead they choose to attack the magazine and the staff.

1) Maybe its because the PM article doesn't really debunk any facts.

2) It's not an attack on the magazine and staff but the revealing of a massive conflict of interest! It would be like the cousin of a tobacco company CEO writing a piece about how ciggies are not damaging to your health!

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in