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.

 

Stuff The Truth Movement Needs To Get Straight

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Over the last couple years I have done a lot of research into the events leading up to, on the day of, and following 9/11...and I think there are some very basic things that as of late 2005 are abundantly clear that may not have been back then.

I do not think debunking these conspiracies take any credible substantiation away from the 'let it happen' or 'ochestration/complicity'...but I think they need to be pointed out.

1. Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon. Cororners have been able to match the flight manefesto with those found at the scene. also closer examination of all photos shows what is absolutely consistant with the model of plane used. Geez, I mean one of the survivor's who was horrifically burned had jet fuel in his lungs for several weeks. It is frustrating to see people insist on these things, when it takes away from the overall presentation. Saying that yes, Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon doesn't make anything less sinister.

2. There was no plane switeroo, no windowless cargo jets with pods. It was sickening to see on the otherwise informative reopen 9/11 dvd that hour of power guy go on about really retarded stuff. He should tell the family of NBC show Fraiser's creator David Angell noone was in the planes that slammed into the WTC. They say no muslims were on those planes...yet we clearly hear muslims on the FAA recording. It's absurd to think that was faked.

3. Yes, al Qaeda and Osama really do exist...and really do bad things. It boggles the mind how a lot of folks say al Qaeda and Osama don't exist, or are not really a threat. The reality is that the US government trained and funded Osama and what became al Qaeda, and possibly had inappropiate ties throughout the early to mid 90's. I think a CIA agent even met Osama in July 2001. However, through the valliant efforts of FBI agents like the late John O'Neil(one of the only real political heroes of 9/11) and others they saw that Osama was at the very least directly influencing major terroist attacks against US interests and other places. I do agree the neocons needed a new boogeyman post cold war, and that they have overblown al Qaeda's true reach...but these guys were planning whacked out stuff long before Bush Sr.
I do agree the video where Osama admits to 9/11 is a fake.

4. The need to get the updated info. I'm a huge fan of Alex Jones, as well as other folks in the truth seeking community...but they continue to use outdated info, or just partial statements of recycled facts. Like the hijackers. Even Osama on tape and on interview has said who was on those flights, directly correlating with what the FBI said. They show one or two photos of the WTC7, but don't show the WTC7 photos with extensive fire and smoke. I still feel something is fishy with the official WTC7 story but it's important to not just show the evidence that supports your side of the story.
See, this is what the media is doing...totally showing only the side they want or completely blacking out and covering up details and knowlege.

5. The subject of NORAD. It's highly suspicious they were not able to identify
and shootdown these planes given the amount of time they have. And especially not being able to stop Flight 77 via missle batteries or fighter jets.
However, I think the "NORAD simulating 9/11 like drills the morning of 9/11" needs to be clarified. If these drills tied up fighters/added extra blis on FAA screens...that is indeed troublesome. "Is this real world or exercise"...that FAA comment points to known simulations. So on the clairty of the NORAD subject, were they hijacked plane drills like 9/11 on the MORNING of? And were they live fly? Either way the fact these drills happened around the time of 9/11 is bad enough.

6. Explsoives don't automatically mean governmental inside job. Whatreallyhappned.com has a very interesting page or two showing thermal imaging, video evidence and testimony that point to the possibility of thermite or some other explosives in the sublevels of WTC 1 & 2. But does that mean governmental involvement? I believe the testimony of William Rodriguez on this matter, but I'm not sure if it points to who exactly planted the sublevel explosives. Van? suitcase? Etc? We know there was some very fishy stuff with WTC 93 involving the FBI and the informant from Egypt.

So those are just a few of my gripes. So many times we see time and time again conspiracy theory sites promoting fansified and dead horse claims, when the truth is just as bad.(you see this a lot with the anti Mason stuff,
and the more out there items) We know the US government has been complicit thru the CIA with drugs, theyve set up coups, assasinations, lied about reasons for war, covered up who knows what, planned to terrorize the US to blame on Cuba, committed horrible experiments derived from the Nazis, etc.

In conclusion...if a lot of the inside job claims are some day proved totally false...it doesn't mean you are wrong. Because the whole point is that at some level, the US is covering up the truth of 9/11. At the very least they either allowed it to happen(as John O'Neil cryptically eluded to) or similarly made it impossible to prosicute intellegence about it...and then covered that up and hijacked the tragedy to meet goals they set prior to 9/11.
So either way, it's bad news to them. I just think that everyone in the conspiracy theory, 9/11 truth movement and activism circles try and be critical about everything in order to assertain the truth. Because none of us want these things to be true, no matter what the conspiracy is. I'm sure some like there to be some overiding sinister Illuminati and oil cabal thing, but for most people they just want the truth...no matter what it is. I personally fear the idea of a new terrorist attack, and using it as the impetus pretext for an invasion of Syria or Iran(whether if they did it or not)




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

6. Explsoives don't automatically mean governmental inside job.


For explosives to be smuggled into the WTC buildings on such a large scale is practically unthinkable without government involvement. WTC7 was even a CIA asset. There would have to be influence from within the government, I would think, to get government employees off the backs of whoever was having this stuff brought in unchecked, especially with Building 7. It's just wayyy to coincidental for me that this is exactly what the neocons needed, and when they needed it.



 
0

log in

join