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.


Martial Law 9/11: Best documentary ever

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:57 PM
Frosty, make statements which have a point. Which show your problems with the guy. The problem over the Convention is not the security, but is the fact they would not give out their badge numbers which is illegal in America.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:03 PM
Where they off duty or is Alex Jones making this up, I didn't see it at all. And I don't believe it is totally illegal. But please explain the relevence of showing 5 minutes of video clips put together that don't correlate with each other as an introduction? Alex Jones is a bigot, explain to me the point in knowing the religion of the people of BG?

Soundweapons? Is that valid point? Would you prefer they use lead? What a dumbass this guy is.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:08 PM
No, the guy was takign photos of the protestors and then going behind the Police lines. They have to identify him and themselves that is why the badges have a number on them, so we can keep track of who each officer is if he attacks someone, etc.

The point on sound weapons was the fact they were the same ones used in Iraq and also the Police Force did not and would not admit to having them there.

How is he a Bigot? I don't see him push one group over another. :| But then by the look of it, you've only watched 5minutes? Well then no wonder.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:14 PM
So you admit it, you'd rather see lead fly? Police don't really have to say (explicit) for the most part. They aren't going to tell you how many clips the have or if there is already a round in their chamber.

And you don't think Jones make a big fuss over peoples religous practices is bigotry? Hitler did the same thing.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:28 PM
Lead Fly? What?

And his problem is the fact what they are worshipping. You need to read up a bit on the "Demon" which they praise. The one that used to have children sacrificed for it. Also the main problem he seems to have is the fact they deny it, not that they do it.

Would you rather not know who your Member of Congress worships?

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:33 PM
Who cares? Christian eat the body of Christ and drink his blood and every eeaster they reinact his cruxifiction, what is the difference? Christians were much worse at oppressing knowledge and burning at the stake those who were considered apostates and heretics.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Frosty
Who cares? Christian eat the body of Christ and drink his blood and every eeaster they reinact his cruxifiction, what is the difference? Christians were much worse at oppressing knowledge and burning at the stake those who were considered apostates and heretics.

Nice change of topic.

Watch the videos, your comments make it clear you have not.

Most Politicions are willing to say if they are Christians or not, which version of Christianity, etc.

Also stop trying to put words into what I say, I never mentioned what I thought of Police using Live ammunition during protests and the point of the video in question has nothing to do with it.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:56 PM
I am not changing topic. I only presented the undertones of paganism in christianity which is practiced by most world leaders, senators, and other heads of state.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:00 PM
It is not the fact they are Pagans it is the fact they are worshipping a Demon which wants them to Sacrifice children.

In the Masoretic text the name is "Molech"; in the Septuagint "Moloch." The earliest mention of Molech is in Lev. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Lev. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation. In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain "that is before Jerusalem." The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practises to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech, and that the place where this form of worship had been practised was at Topheth, "in the valley of the children of Hinnom." This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35. From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech-worship, with its rite of child-sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.

Again, watch the videos instead of passing comment on a few minutes of footage.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:23 PM
Sure, but did they sacrifice any children is what I am saying. No, they did not. In fact, most of the sacrifice went on hundreds of years ago. I don't see anything wrong with this. Muslims worship a god who states to kill all apostates and christians worship a god who would prefer to have the likes of Bohr and Pauling burnt at the stake.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:32 PM
[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:32 PM
Actually, we don't know if they did and their are images going back to as early as 1930 on the video showing them killing black children and sacrificng them for to the "God".

Also if youd watch the video, you'd know they found bones in the area as well.

Yet again, you judge something without the information and here was me thinking the point of the site was to "Deny Ignorance".

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:03 PM
Yeah Frosty you're posts are a waste of space if you're not even going to watch the whole documentary. The first section of it where he's just walking down the streets questioning people isn't even that good, the last 2 sections are were he goes into 9/11, the secret societies etc... but I'm sure you'll just come back on here and say "that's stupid" before you even watch it.

If you're not going to bother to watch it, then don't bother to comment on it. It's like someone writing a review for a movie they haven't seen. Deny ignorance is right Odium.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:55 PM
Alex Jones interviews peoples opinions then gives his own assessment of the 9/11 situation and likes to harass people about their free time. That is not a documentary.

Bush's brother was in charge of security. Big deal. He had no authority over the skies where the plane came. And Jones has no evidence to support his theories of bombs in the building. They found parts of McVeigh's bomb and the original WTC attack bombs. I believe they even found traces of bombs from the embassies in Africa. They are releasing reports of time devices used during the London bombings. No such evidence in New York.

Please, someone explain to me the relevence of the 'pull it' comment made by Silverstein? Is Alex Jones all of a sudden a top paid engineer who knows more than Silverstein's engineers? I did not see the value either in stating that Silverstein took out a record insurance deposit.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:04 PM
Because the word "pulled" can't be used for something that collapsed of its own free will. Also the sentence in which he used it and the reports after all giving mixed views and their is still no official version which takes into account what he said.

You would think the owner of the buildings would know what happened to them?

Edit: Larry Silverstein,
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

FEMA report on the WTC collapse says:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:10 PM
I watched it and thought it was very good and learned a lot. The term "pull it" is a term which means demolition it and in order to take on a demolition it takes weeks of planning not one day. I find it very odd that Bush's brother's contract ended on 9/11. Many top engineer's around the world have said that fire alone could not have made the twin towers collapse. No sky scraper ever had collapsed because of fire the only way they have collapsed is from bombs and earth quakes.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:32 PM
Frosty wrote:
"Bush's brother was in charge of security. Big deal."

Sir, after having read a few of your exchanges, may I kindly suggest that you take your medication again?

"Big deal."
Indeed, it IS a big deal. Especially when you consider when their contract ran out ...

"And Jones has no evidence to support his theories of bombs in the building."
I beg to differ, with all due respect. Many videos show you a classic pull down. If you'd bothered to check, you would have been able to find plenty video evidence and written testemony of demolition experts/architects/firefighters/1st responders.

"I did not see the value either in stating that Silverstein took out a record insurance deposit. "

(sounds of COMSEUR, emitting a big, heaving sigh...)
Well, if you do not see the value of THAT, what can one say to you...?

Cui bono??

[edit on 8/7/05 by COMSEUR]

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:16 PM
Odium, when exactly did tower 7 collapse in comparison to when the fires where put out, if at all? It would seem odd that they would be able to demolish it in such a small time frame. Seems dangerous to go into a building with explosives in hand with such high risk for sudden collapses, auxillary fires, and overall danger.

COMSEUR, I thought Bush's brother was in charge of the twin towers not the whole lot. Maybe I missed this. But I couldn't pick up any audio to support the visual. It would seem obvious to me that Silverstein took out such a policy as they are...well...very expensive buildings and very susceptible to such atrocities, which did occur. So, to me that did not seem unreasonable or the least bit suspicous. I'd've done the same thing.

I am confused here, are we talking about the bombs in the twin towers or bombs in tower 7. It would seem more reasonable to call the demolition devices.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:04 PM
Who says they went in and placed them there after the fires started?

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:07 PM
Who says they were in there at all?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in