Could the "truth" about 911 start a civil war?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by TxSecret

One question I have, if any of this is the truth, is WHY, (Besides financial reasons)

IF any of this is the truth, then there are many very good reasons, and the payment of the insurance company is just a nice side-effect. For me, it is very obvious that (IF...) an attack like that would brilliantly help to create a new enemy - the MUSLIM, that is, as the old enemy (the COMMUNIST) has gone more than one decade ago. One very old rule of Masonry is "divide and rule", that means you just have to split the people in two (or even more) parties and the controlling is much easier. Just make them believe the other one is evil, but you are the nice guy, the brave one. Now they are focused on each other, but they can't see anything else - not to speak of things above or beyond their horizons.
To have a new enemy means there is a reason to prepare for war (as one could see, not only prepare but start the war). Therefore you have to build weapons, to equip an (already perfectly equipped) army even more. Now who benefits? Not you, on which side ever. You pay for the weapons with your taxes, and in the worst case you pay in bodies.
There we go: reason number one - profits of the military industry.
Number two - obviously oil, I think that one was discussed enough.
Number three - get more control over YOU (see patriot act).
Number four - get control over the Near East, because at the time, this is the most important area in a geo-strategic point of view. It is very close to Africa (not important today, but maybe in the future) and it is very close to CHINA. To have military forces stationed there, the more the better, seems very vital to todays Western politics. If you open your eyes you'll see why: China becomes the next superpower within the next 10 years. Maybe then it will be the only one, because economically the Western world will not be able to compete.
There may be some more and minor reasons, but for me, this is it, and it's scary enough.
And just to be complete: no powerful government whatsoever would hesitate to sacrifice their own people to get even more power just as long as nobody sees it as it is. As an American you know about Pearl Harbour, and today everybody knows that they had knowledge of the attacks before they started. They could have saved many lifes. But this is how it works: nobody would ever believe that their own government would do things like that - except some weird conspiracy freaks you can't take seriously. This is why they are free to do exactly that. This is what power is all about.

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:53 PM
Getting Back To The Topical Question

“Could the "truth" about 911 start a civil war?”

Using the previous posts in this thread as a guide, as well as observations from elsewhere, I'm comfortable answering “no” to that question.

I have to give that answer not knowing what the actual truth about 9-11 is, but here are the reasons why I am willing to:

1. No one seems to know what the actual truth about 9-11 really is, and with all the obvious disinformation floating around in this thread and elsewhere, that seems unlikely to ever change.

2. The only people advocating civil war seem to be people who have no interest in the truth, so the odds of those two things somehow getting together are astronomically small.

So no, I don't see a civil war starting over the “truth” about 9-11.

This sort of talk is the same old stuff I've been seeing since the '80s, with little more than the names and a few fabricated details changed to freshen the story.

If anyone is interested in changing that, I recommend starting with the truth, because lies and innuendo aren't making a very convincing case for civil war.

Rather, this phenomenon illustrates the necessity for personal integrity on the part of those who would deign think on behalf of others.

My $0.02, take it or leave it as you see fit.

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM
it is a "known fact" the pearl harbor was allowed to happen and that ships were even re arranged in order to limit the damage taken-in essence a skeleton crew was sacrificed-surely as a pretext to test their new "toy"-as far as the demolition theory goes-wtc 7 is the nail in the coffin-two words that describe the evidence are "squibs" and "crimp"--in the video of wtc7 collapse seismic charges called "squibs" can be seen running up the concrete beams -on top of that the building was "crimped" which means that the center beams were taken out first(fractions of a second yet clearly visible) causing the building to collapse within itself into its own footprint--also there were other building closer to the main 1 and 2 that did not collapse(surely because silverstein did not own them)
squib evidence
crimp evidence

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:01 AM
The whole system would fall aprt. Democratic government will be demeeded failures. Whole bnaking, cooperate structure will fall.

People will be looking to build a system that will make sure the manuiplation of media, and money system can never happen again. Control of money will come in.

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:26 AM
scenario: indisputabe evidence surfaces, bush and cheney orchestrated 9/11 to pave the way for war with afghanistan, Iraq, iran, Syria......

reaction : impeach bush and cheney, give them the death penalty for treason......NOT go kill your this a titor thread ?

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
scenario: indisputabe evidence surfaces, bush and cheney orchestrated 9/11 to pave the way for war with afghanistan, Iraq, iran, Syria......

reaction : impeach bush and cheney, give them the death penalty for treason......NOT go kill your this a titor thread ?

thank you for that. I don't know why people think that the majority would go crazy. as crazy as the government has made people, they are still civilized. not all, but most.

another scenario.......

evidence is brought forward, deaths will occur, on both sides. cause they will kill some with the evidence, then kill those who can say that the evidence is true. they will be brought to justice and more than likely, all of them, more than 1,000, will be killed. (I would rather have them in a deep hole and let them experience what Schaivo did; no food or water)

Then, all people will know the truth, meaning things they have been hiding since the beginning. People will be confused, distraught, etc, but a true democracy will form and not this what ever you would like to call it.

"After licensing, which we have, next comes tyranny." - Dave Schippers

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:41 PM
This is what it boils down to. Those who deny the conspiracy place 100% of the blame on Arabs, with the white man remaining blame free.

One of the subtle underlying themes I pick up from the mainstream media is that the life of a white person is inherently more valuable than the life of one with color. I personally accepted my many observations of this phenomena in 2003 when there was an earthquake that killed approximately 40,000 people in IRAN and was mentioned as an afterthought in the national broadcast 2 days later.

Although this observation is probably not evident to the American public, it has to be foremost in the minds of the billions of muslims around the World.

The rift between US/Israel and all muslims reminds me of a Pedro Martinez contact negotiation.

Im white by the way.

I would be eager to hear a few responses to this

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Majic
Logic Problem

Originally posted by Sunofone
the us govt did not ONLY let it happen they "orchestrated" the attack!

Are you absolutely, 100% certain of this?

Let's look at the options:

If you ARE absolutely, 100% certain that your claims are true, then you are almost certainly wrong, unless you are infallible, which -- and I'm happy to be the one to break this to you -- you are most definitely not.

If you are NOT absolutely, 100% certain that your claims are true, then you are misrepresenting them by presenting them as facts instead of speculation, which means you are basically lying to us.

Either way, I'm not seeing anything I would want to sign my name to.

A good rule of thumb: If you are certain that you are right, you are certainly wrong. Hence my continuing skepticism.

Government officials aren't the only ones who lie, and ATS is ongoing documentary proof of that.

Now you are the one whos lying, if you were skeptical you wouldnt be such a smartdonkey on the subject.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:02 PM
Point Of Clarification

Originally posted by motionknight
Now you are the one whos lying, if you were skeptical you wouldnt be such a smartdonkey on the subject.

I don't understand what your point is. Are you willing to clarify it?

Also, you should be aware that quoting entire posts is contrary to General ATS discussion etiquette, and I advise against doing it.

Looking forward to your thoughtful reply...

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in