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.

 

You must think I'm a fool...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
This is for the criminals running our country, their lackeys pushing the official story, and for anyone who supports the official story. I speak for myself, as everyone's thoughts differ, but I suspect that others here may share some of my sentiments.

You must think I'm a fool...

- If I'm to believe that 19 dudes would attack the US because they thought there was even a remote chance of them defeating us. What a crock of feces. These guys are going to attack Mr. Nuke himself because they think they can defeat the Great Satan. It's like going up to a silverback who has nukes in his hands, feet, on his shoulders, around his waist, in his mouth, and in his ass with a spitwad shooter.

- If I'm to believe that these dudes were able to shut down NORAD. Especially when a) the power to scramble fighters was taken from the generals and given to Cheney and Bush b) that actor Payne Stewart (or something like that) was nearly shot out of the sky for flying over restricted airspace and c) when a fighter eventually shot down Flight 93.

- If I'm to believe that these guys attacked us because they hate our freedom.


- If I'm to believe that the ringleader of the biggest terror attack in US history is not a concern for the Pentagon OR the president. I've actually heard Buzzy Crongard and Lord Bush say this.

- If I'm to believe that Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran needed to be attacked after 9/11. Especially when a) 15 of the 19 hijackers, including Tim Osmond himself, are from Saudi Arabia. If anyone needed to be attacked, it would have been the Saudis. But no, they won't be attacked because of their cozy relationship with Bush and friends. Hell, our "great leader" HOLDS HANDS with the royal Saudis.
But hey, he also goes to Bohemian Grove...
. b) The PNAC plan outlines a list of countries to be invaded "after a new Pearl Harbor event" and the list has been followed to a T so far.

- If I'm to believe Bin Laden was responsible when a) practically no American has more ties to Bin Laden than Lord Bush b) Bin Laden has CIA ties c) at one point, the media was calling him noble and urging Bin Laden bashers not to bash him too much and d) they make such a big deal over those fake videos.

- If I'm to believe the official story when a) the investigation was an utter joke. They sell evidence, block testimony from people saying there were bombs, admit from the jump that they will not investigate govt role, try to put Henry Kissinger as the head of it, and don't even discuss WTC 7. b) it is full of more holes than Madonna, and c) govt people, firefighters, survivors, family of survivors, cops, video/audio evidence, and my FREAKIN BRAIN tell me to believe otherwise.

- If I'm to believe that the solution to the terror problem is to a) leave our borders wide open b) give up civil liberties so domestic terrorists will be easier to track down c) give Lord Bush unlimited power d) torture terror suspects, but throw the actual torturers in prison e) attack weak countries with no nukes while ignoring countries with nukes that threaten to use them on us f) wage another Crusade on Islam.

That's it for now, but I'll add more later...




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Oh, I forgot the main point.

You must think I'm a low grade moron if I am to believe all this. How dare you insult my intelligence like that! Do I look like Forrest Gump? Do I have "gullible idiot" written on my forehead?

What kind of a stupid ass fool would I be to believe professional liars who CONSTANTLY lie on TV!?! How dumb am I supposed to be to believe pathological liars? Do you think I'm that dumb? Especially when I KNOW that the Pentagon puts out fake news, here and in Iraq?

I would have to be retarded to believe this crap (no offence to the mentally handicapped, it's just an expression). I would literally have to be a drooling idiot to believe the official story on itself, not to mention with what's going on in the world today. I am shocked and disgusted that you think I have the mental capacity of a rat turd.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I don't think you're a fool or a drooling idiot, just a guy out to found the truth behind the most dreadful act of mass murder ever.

I myself have reservations about the official version of events but unlike you don't believe that my doubts amount to a full scale cover up of the mammoth portions that would be needed.

So my question is really, if it was proven that the official version of events was proved to actually be true would you believe it?

Truth is a simple concept and is not driven by emotions, but is based on proven facts. The difference between what actually happened and what is perceived to have happened is a massive gulf.

I do not mock or laugh at other peoples opinions and respect yours. So in searching for the truth it is unwise to dismiss peer approved scientific analysis but it is wise to question it.

The truth will come out but I really don't believe it will be the truth you are seeking.......so, will you accept it?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   


So my question is really, if it was proven that the official version of events was proved to actually be true would you believe it?


That is an invalid question, since the "official version" includes the identities of all of the suicide hijackers, some of whom have since been found alive and well...

Unless it can be proven that some of the so-called hijackers were ressurected from the dead, then the official version can never be proven true.

I agree with truthseeka.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I don't think you're a fool or a drooling idiot, just a guy out to found the truth behind the most dreadful act of mass murder ever.

I myself have reservations about the official version of events but unlike you don't believe that my doubts amount to a full scale cover up of the mammoth portions that would be needed.

So my question is really, if it was proven that the official version of events was proved to actually be true would you believe it?

Truth is a simple concept and is not driven by emotions, but is based on proven facts. The difference between what actually happened and what is perceived to have happened is a massive gulf.

I do not mock or laugh at other peoples opinions and respect yours. So in searching for the truth it is unwise to dismiss peer approved scientific analysis but it is wise to question it.

The truth will come out but I really don't believe it will be the truth you are seeking.......so, will you accept it?


Hey man,

I'm not so bullheaded that I wouldn't believe the official story if it were proven to be true. In fact, that honestly would be best, as it would squash all this and be the first step to justice for the victims. That being said, there are just too many unanswered questions. I would like for someone to give a DECENT explanation for...

Why certain people were warned not to fly to New York that day.
Why Bin Laden, a CIA asset, has so many ties to our PRESIDENT.
Why PNAC would make a list of countries to be invaded, and magically, the list is being followed so far.
Why there was not the MOST THOROUGH crime scene investigation in US history on 9/11.
Why the Feds confiscated surveillance tapes and won't release them, just like at Waco.
Why there were war games paralleling the attacks, but NO ONE could snap back to reality and do what they have been playing for real.
Why NORAD didn't go after the planes, or at least scramble fighters to attempt to take them down.
Why our leaders had troops ready to go into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.

I have tons more questions, but I'll leave it there for now.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Truthseeka you are totally right
. Someone would have to be completely stupid to still believe the official 911 story even after all the evidence there is that goes against it. Unfortunately that's most of the population
. Actually I guess it's not funny.......but it is
. I wish everyone would wake up.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
So my question is really, if it was proven that the official version of events was proved to actually be true would you believe it?


I would. But you have your work cut out for you if you want to polish that turd up so that I'd believe it.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
wait till terror comes to Canada, and do not think you are immune.

Will we all then be stupid since we believed that 9/11 was actually carried out by terrorists?

No one thinks you are a fool truthseeka, at least not me. I have gone back and forth quite a few times and i see where you seem to be at least wanting know to accept the official story as truth, you just want incontoverable proof.

Big Business did not profit from 9/11. The US economy plunged and the workplace is just in the last year stabilizing and not laying people off. Companies make billions each week, and this was just another work week. Look at the financial trend post 9/11 and it was not good for anyone. Military contractors and "Bushs" friends all made money. Yes, alot of his friends and aquaintances made and make and before made money.

I watched Micheal Moores Faranheit 9/11 when it first came out and that movie made we want to know the truth. The part where the screen goes black and all you hear is the sound still gives me the chills. I have read and researched and there is no hard evidence of ANY demolition, and that is the only thing that would sway me.

This was a real event, people died, and it was the action of Al-qeada, not our country. This is who we should be investigating, and not chasing ghosts that I feel people use to deter the US public from real issues our country is facing.

Go ahead, tear me apart.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Big Business did not profit from 9/11.


I dunno. Silverstein made lots of money and so too did the company that dealt with the cleanup.

However what you can't deny is that many companies have made a lot of money from the resultant Afghan and Iraq wars. In fact, if it weren't for Iraq our friends at Halliburton would be up pooey creak without a paddle.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Saying big business didn't profit from 9/11 is misleading at best. Corporations may not have profited directly from 9/11, but the consequences of it were enormously profitable to a lot of corporations, like Halliburton, and especially General Electric and all the military-industrial corporations. All the money going towards the wars we fight isn't going to Iraq, or disappearing into thin air. It's going to our military-industrial corporations. And when more and more of these corporatons are sending jobs overseas to pay less for workers, that's even more profit from the money they're getting that's contributing to our debt, and less that's recirculating in our own economy.

It's just the same rich get richer and poor get poorer scheme, except with more force after 9/11. Enormous no-bid contracts everywhere you look.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Haliburton and aslo Carlysle would be fine becasue there will always be war, and conflict and countries to rebuild.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Esdad71, I don't want absolute proof that the official story is true.

What I really want is a satisfactory explanation for the anomalies on 9/11. There's just too many for them to all be "coincidence."



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by openfire


So my question is really, if it was proven that the official version of events was proved to actually be true would you believe it?


That is an invalid question, since the "official version" includes the identities of all of the suicide hijackers, some of whom have since been found alive and well...

Unless it can be proven that some of the so-called hijackers were ressurected from the dead, then the official version can never be proven true.

I agree with truthseeka.


Absolutely certain of this?...Not the slightest doubt whatsoever?

Still seeking the truth or your version of the truth ?

www.911myths.com...

Let me make it crystal clear for all who cares to read my thoughts. I want the truth surrounding this event. I do not want speculation, wild claims or half baked ideas with no scientific backing at all.
The truth is absolute; it does not rely on speculation.
Give me the truth, proven and absolute and stop trying to belittle anybody who believes the official version of events.


[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Hey man,

I'm not so bullheaded that I wouldn't believe the official story if it were proven to be true. In fact, that honestly would be best, as it would squash all this and be the first step to justice for the victims. That being said, there are just too many unanswered questions. I would like for someone to give a DECENT explanation for...

Why certain people were warned not to fly to New York that day.
Why Bin Laden, a CIA asset, has so many ties to our PRESIDENT.
Why PNAC would make a list of countries to be invaded, and magically, the list is being followed so far.
Why there was not the MOST THOROUGH crime scene investigation in US history on 9/11.
Why the Feds confiscated surveillance tapes and won't release them, just like at Waco.
Why there were war games paralleling the attacks, but NO ONE could snap back to reality and do what they have been playing for real.
Why NORAD didn't go after the planes, or at least scramble fighters to attempt to take them down.
Why our leaders had troops ready to go into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.

I have tons more questions, but I'll leave it there for now.


Your questions invalided your entire argument. This sounds harsh but is true, purely because you are unable, or unwilling to answer them yourself.
You could provide scientifically, peer approved answers to your own questions but choose not it. The very fact that you post questions, knowing fully they put the common man on the back foot, shows you do not sympathies at all with the genuine concern and genuine unease regarding 9/11.
Submit answers to your own question, without the mocking undertone you submitted them to me and I will gladly debate them, until them your questions go nowhere near providing the absolute truth everybody is seeking regarding 9/11


[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Your questions invalided your entire argument. This sounds harsh but is true, purely because you are unable, or unwilling to answer them yourself.
You could provide scientifically, peer approved answers to your own questions but choose not it. The very fact that you post questions, knowing fully they put the common man on the back foot, shows you do not sympathies at all with the genuine concern and genuine unease regarding 9/11.
Submit answers to your own question, without the mocking undertone you submitted them to me and I will gladly debate them, until them your questions go nowhere near providing the absolute truth everybody is seeking regarding 9/11


[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]


Man, what are you talking about??
Really?

I notice this is the 2nd time you brought up peer reviewed answers. Are you citing FEMA's report, where they didn't even MENTION WTC 7? Or maybe Stephen Jones, whose demolition paper is currently under peer review? What do you mean?

How do my questions put the "common man" on the back foot? Where's the scientific explanation for the warnings not to fly to New York? There IS none, because it is a FACT that these people were warned. It's not debatable, there's no physics/engineering involved, so where are you getting these scientific answers? Hell, all the questions I asked the 2nd time were of a similar nature to this.

I guess you're too busy giving me a "harsh sounding" response to notice this...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
im on truthseekas side, there are way to many gaps. Something is going on, and apparently we are not invited.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

This was a real event, people died, and it was the action of Al-qeada, not our country. This is who we should be investigating, and not chasing ghosts that I feel people use to deter the US public from real issues our country is facing.


Yes, it is who we should be investigating. But, unfortunately Bin Laden is not our top priority? Talk about chasing ghosts...err past ghosts.....I would say Sadam is Bush Sr.'s BIGGEST past ghost ever. So, sonny boy had to finish daddie's job.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
You mention Bush several time truth so I'm left assuming that you think Bush was behind this. So....
How can one of the biggest idiots in the world carry out one of the most successful terrorists attacks in history?

How do you explain...
The Dawson's field hijackings
US embassy bombing in Beirut
Bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut
US embassy bombing in Awkar
TWA flight 847
TWA flight 840
US embassy attack in Rome
Attack at the USO club in Naples
Pan Am Flight 103
First WTC bombing
Attack at CIA headquarters
Khobar Towers bombing
US embassy bombing in Kenya
US embassy bombing in Tanzania
USS Cole attack
(just to name a few)
....If terrorists don't exsist as you're suggesting. Or if you do think they exsist, why would they just stop at the attacks mentioned above? If you're a terrorists wouldn't you try and do something bigger and better?


Why NORAD didn't go after the planes, or at least scramble fighters to attempt to take them down.

You gotta understand, the system that was in place before 9/11 was HORRIBLE. FAA knew about the hijackings but failed to immediately notify NORAD. The FAA actually did try and contact someone though when they realize flight 11 was hijacked but...
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Around this time, Boston flight control attempts to contact an Atlantic City, New Jersey, air base, to send fighters after Flight 11. For decades, the air base had two fighters on 24-hour alert status, but this changed in 1998 due to budget cutbacks. The flight controllers do not realize this, and apparently try in vain to reach someone......

Two fighters are finally scrambled and there's a lot of confusion as to what all that happens with them, but apparently they still think they're after flight 11 when 175 crashes...


Why our leaders had troops ready to go into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.

Where'd you get that from?
If we did, it's probably because of the agreements we had with the Taliban. They keep the terrorists there in check, we don't come after them. They failed to hold up their end so.....

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

President Bush meets with his full National Security Council in the PEOC beneath the White House for about 30 minutes. He then meets with a smaller group of key advisers. Bush and his advisers have already decided bin Laden is behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet says that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan are essentially one and the same. Bush says, “Tell the Taliban We’re finished with them.”


I know I've asked this before and I don't think I've gotten an answer. What exactly is the "official" story?

And what is the unoffical story? There are tons of conspiricies out there. Most people just post what they think didn't happen.
But what do you think happened truth?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Truthseeka you are totally right
. Someone would have to be completely stupid to still believe the official 911 story even after all the evidence there is that goes against it. Unfortunately that's most of the population
. Actually I guess it's not funny.......but it is
. I wish everyone would wake up.


stupidity is abundant... and blaiming Bush or any American for 9/11 is the proof of that... you wanna believ that ppl of a certain religious fanatical group aren't out to get your head on the wall... good for you... maybe next time you could pay atention to the Iranian "Lord"'s words... or maybe not...living in a shell is much mreo confortable...

Hyde your head in the sand, and keep blaming the vitcims,,, I never knew the Web was so filled of fantastica, amazing, truthfull information... Thank Bush for the Web... maybe i can pin this on him as well.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   



You must think I'm a fool...

The PNAC plan outlines a list of countries to be invaded "after a new Pearl Harbor event" and the list has been followed to a T so far.

- If I'm to believe Bin Laden was responsible when a) practically no American has more ties to Bin Laden than Lord Bush b) Bin Laden has CIA ties c) at one point, the media was calling him noble and urging Bin Laden bashers not to bash him too much and d) they make such a big deal over those fake videos.

- If I'm to believe the official story when a) the investigation was an utter joke. They sell evidence, block testimony from people saying there were bombs, admit from the jump that they will not investigate govt role, try to put Henry Kissinger as the head of it, and don't even discuss WTC 7. b) it is full of more holes than Madonna, and c) govt people, firefighters, survivors, family of survivors, cops, video/audio evidence, and my FREAKIN BRAIN tell me to believe otherwise.

- If I'm to believe that the solution to the terror problem is to a) leave our borders wide open b) give up civil liberties so domestic terrorists will be easier to track down c) give Lord Bush unlimited power d) torture terror suspects, but throw the actual torturers in prison e) attack weak countries with no nukes while ignoring countries with nukes that threaten to use them on us f) wage another Crusade on Islam.

That's it for now, but I'll add more later...


Don't you get it...the investigation....that is usually a joke...like the one for the Assassination of JFK...is where they hide the truth...pull a fast one...use smoke and mirrors to keep the truth from ever totally coming out.

Divide and Conquer...if you Divide the story...fill it full of horse manure...we all know exactly how the Government loves it's manure and spreading it...then no one will ever know if the story is true or not....and you Conquer the supposedly "ignorant masses" by keeping them in the dark.

Of course, they let a few grains of truth...even a mountain full of it through sometimes...but the absolute truth never gets out.

It's kinda like the "Missing Link" (talking anthropolgically...Neaderthal Man type stuff)...if we knew what the "Missing Link" was then we might actually know the truth.

Do you know who else did this type of covering up? The Catholic Church...who was in the majority...responsible for the entire Dark Ages...or Middle Ages...so called the "Dark Ages" because this is when they took knowledge from the people (it was forbidden to read...Mass was in Latin...and they didn't give one flying rats behind if the masses knew Latin or not)and re-wrote the Bible how they wanted everyone believe...forming a stronger "Control Mechanism" over the World.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join