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.

 

Why don't you believe the official story?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The Kickoff to Compliance was an essential means for the NWO to reign in control. Check out the Illuminati Playing Cards published in 95'.
You "officialites" really need to see this. This was all planned for some time.
www.cuttingedge.org...

One merely has to ask oneself that if 9/11 was actually viewed as an attack of a foreign enemy why hasn't airport security improved?...It hasn't!
Why hasn't port security improved ? ...ours borders are more porous than ever. Besides the viewing of Loose Change, In Plane Sight and others I base my disbelief in the manner this administration has behaved since. The attack and death of 3000 Americans has been used as a tool of fear and treason.




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hmmm, I had a quick scan of Steve Jackson's Illuminati - NWO Game Cards the other day.

Considering the game is about the NWO, the content is not that surprising.

I think they are more of a coincidence than real evidence of prior knowledge - just my $0.02 (approximately £0.0114150) worth



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I wouldn't say I doubt it so much as that I simply not convinced yet.

Firstly, I do believe terrorists flew three commercial aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon, and that the fourth was shot down. I do not believe these were UAVs or military aircraft of any kind, and I do not believe any missiles or other ordinance were used. I know that those are popular theories, and some would argue that they are even well supported theories, but my gut just doesn't jive with them. It would be too obvious, and no matter how much media suppression or magic was used to conceal such acts, the risk of exposure would be too great. Besides that, there are more subtle ways of bringing buildings down and blaming it on terrorists than wasting military aircraft and precious ordinance. It just wouldn't make sense to me.

I feel that the various conspiracy theories popular around here and elsewhere share a flaw many conspiracy theories share: they are too visible and obvious to be kept secret. My father - and no I am not claiming to be anything even approaching knowledgeable about these things, but I still need to say it - was in the green barrets, and then worked in the CIA for a brief stint after an honorable discharge (spinal injury), and one thing he has always told me is, "Son, if something happens that don't look quite right, and the information coming out of it makes you suspicious of foul play yet also overwhelmingly implicates one party or person, then you got yourself a little thing called misinformation." That's what I feel has gone on in this instance.

Has anyone else noticed that the high profile officials that tend to get away with the most are also often - at least by all appearances - the least, shall we say, "sharp?" I believe there is a reason for that. They are the most malleable and the most easily manipulated. Let's face it. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. That isn't a personal attack, because I'm not either lol. Granted, I don't agree with Bush's policies, I wouldn't vote for him, I am anti-war, and I would be labeled - if I were to be labeled at all - as "liberal," but I also do not believe he is the evil monstrosity some seem to think he is. The reason I don't is because I can still remember him choking back tears during his first televised address after 9-11 when he spoke the word "children" while speaking of the dead. I'm a very empathic individual, or I try to be, and I don't think he's a good enough actor to have faked that. I find his policies abhorrent, and I condemn the war, but I do not believe he is the true architect of either one of those, nor do I believe he is evil incarnate itself.

It is convenient that everything points to him. His brother was responsible for security policies regarding the twin towers that could have allowed the much scrutinized (and not yet proved without doubt) controlled demolition to unfold, he was a bonesman, etc. We all know these things. That's my point, though. It's too obvious. Equally convenient is how easily he could be held up as the war president - the hero - after 9-11, and how easily he could be made the scapegoat now that things aren't as favorable for him in the public opinion department. As I said, he is malleable, and easily manipulated. I may loathe the decisions he's made, but I feel the real demons in his morbid procession are those we rarely see.

So, having established why - whether correct or incorrect, as the case may be - I don't entirely believe most of the conspiracy theories, I can move on to why I do believe something fishy was and is going on.

Ask yourself this question. What would be easier and of the greatest benefit for the powers that be to pull off, of the following two scenarios?

1) Have the brother of the president of the United States make it feasible for demolition-grade explosives to be concealed in the WTC, doll up four military aircraft to look like commercial airliners, fly them into the twin towers and Pentagon, have one of them shot down or crash, remotely demolish the buildings, rapidly conceal most evidence of this conspiracy, produce and doctor media footage, and get the nation behind a protracted war on terror.

or

2) Relax security enough to allow those who were already trying their best to hurt us to do so, and manipulate an easily manipulated president into carrying out the policies that advance your hidden agenda until such time as his popularity wanes, at which point the abuses perpetrated under your guidance can be pinned solely upon him.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush is some innocent who can do no wrong, and, again, I have deep moral distaste for many of his own decisions (as many have distaste with my own, which is their prerogative and shouldn't be cause for enmity - which is something many here seem to forget, in my opinion). I contend, however, that the number one reason why this whole scheme has worked, is because they have manipulated his ideological leanings into the sword with which to cut down the obstacles to their broader plan, and the simultaneous patsy who gets stoned while they escape into the night. It's convincing because it's what be truly believes - even if I sharply disagree with it - and it works because all he thinks is that he's following that, and the advice of people who appear to agree with him look like precisely that: validating advice, rather than manipulative leading. Those people are the ones we should be looking at, though, particularly in an administration that delegates tasks that are traditionally more hands-on affairs.

End act one.

What will act two be? That's what I'm really worried about. I fear the Bush administration is the beginning, not the end. This isn't about party, and it isn't over yet, I fear.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
How about the firemen who said that the fires in the Twin Towers were pretty well under control?

I have the videotape from CNN "America Remembers." One anchor said that he'd fully expected that the fires would be put out--he hadn't expected the buildings to collapse!

How could WTC 7 have been damaged by the Twin Towers' destruction? It wasn't hit by a plane and it was ACROSS THE STREET from the rest of the WTC complex! I think the Verizon building was next to it or pretty close to it, and it wasn't destroyed!



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
The Kickoff to Compliance was an essential means for the NWO to reign in control. Check out the Illuminati Playing Cards published in 95'.
You "officialites" really need to see this. This was all planned for some time.
www.cuttingedge.org...



I love the Cutting Edge site! That guy has plenty of info!

Also check out Last Trumpet Ministries.

I can't remember which of those web masters it was (one of those two sites, I think Last Trumpet), but one of them had a vision of the Twin Towers on fire a month before it actually happened.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
"Now let me ask you a question: if someone believes in the official 911 story then why does such a person hang around here? "

Hi, Deny.

Perhaps it's to learn more. Perhaps it's to understand other points of view on a topic. Perhaps it's because sometimes, investigation is interesting. I came upon this site because it was used as "proof" that a conspiracy happened...and stayed around because the conversations are mostly interesting. Do I believe ATS more than other sources? Does my staying here, registering and posting on occasion, mean that I believe all the conspiracy theories out there? Does it mean that I don't think for myself and explore all options? No...it simply means that this site is an avenue to explore, to perhaps learn from, and is most definitely interesting.

Why shouldn't those who believe 9/11 happened because of Al Qiada and OBL read, post, and engage in discussions here? I'd rather be happy that people are looking at all points in an argument, because that means people are thinking for themselves, and coming up with their own opinions and reasons for those opinions. And that's never a bad thing, even should I disagree with others' positions...thinking people are interesting people, no?

Regards-
Aimless



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
How about the firemen who said that the fires in the Twin Towers were pretty well under control?


On the lowest of the impact floors only. The fires were still raging a few floor above that.



I have the videotape from CNN "America Remembers." One anchor said that he'd fully expected that the fires would be put out--he hadn't expected the buildings to collapse!


Since when is a talking head an expert on anything but hair spray?




How could WTC 7 have been damaged by the Twin Towers' destruction? It wasn't hit by a plane and it was ACROSS THE STREET from the rest of the WTC complex! I think the Verizon building was next to it or pretty close to it, and it wasn't destroyed!


But Building 6, which was between WTC 1 and WTC 7 was destroyed.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark



How could WTC 7 have been damaged by the Twin Towers' destruction? It wasn't hit by a plane and it was ACROSS THE STREET from the rest of the WTC complex! I think the Verizon building was next to it or pretty close to it, and it wasn't destroyed!


But Building 6, which was between WTC 1 and WTC 7 was destroyed.


Oh, please.


Sure building 6 was destroyed...AFTER 9/11! Seriously, I gotta wonder about some posts...



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
So...

I'm noticing some trends, or themes, if you will, here.

1st, it's good to see so many people doubting the official story. Now, I'm going to list some things that keep coming up in this disbelief.

WTC 7 - this seems to be the biggest thing for most people
The fraud of an investigation
The subsequent crackdown on civil liberties
The holes in the official story
The fact that the govt lies constantly



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka


Sure building 6 was destroyed...AFTER 9/11! Seriously, I gotta wonder about some posts...


www.terrorize.dk...

That isn't destroyed?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   


The fact that the govt lies constantly


And yet you blindly follow the "truth movement", whose own reports are chock full of errors and outright lies. Makes sense to me



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   


And yet you blindly follow the "truth movement", whose own reports are chock full of errors and outright lies. Makes sense to me



The difference is; the I don't pay taxes to the "truth movement" and they aren't a controlling factor in my life. I hate to be lied to by the people that are supposed to have my best intrest in mind who ever they might be. And I don't blindly follow anyone.

See the difference?

[edit on 6-4-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Thanks for that one, whaaa. Great answer!



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
ThichHeaded, to answer the question in your sig about proving one point wrong, just lookin over the list I can find two items (5 and 10) that I can explain to you and everyone else, and it isn't about 9/11 prep.

5 - A MASCAL (mass casualty) exercise about a terrorist incident involving an explosion is conducted at Fort Belvoir near the Pentagon to test first team's "external response."

Explaination - Military bases routinly conduct these exercises/drills at different bases all over the world. They do these to keep their skills sharp for a worse case situation. It gives medical, fire, law enforcement, and other base agencies a chance to see how they react a to mass casualty event.

10 - A "garrison control exercise" was being conducted at Fort Belvoir, less than 20 miles from the Pentagon, to "test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack" and a team there was conducting classes about rescue techniques and then were one of the first responders to the Pentagon.

Explaination - Like I stated above, bases conduct exercises to help their people. This type of exercise is done ever so often to see how quickly key base agencies can respond to a increase of alert at a base...and I am not talking about getting planes armed and ready to take off, they are rarely ever left like that...I am talking about increasing patrols, rerouting traffic and parking, plus many more things I rther not get into.

If you don't believe this, fine, but you offered a challenge and I took it.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Is that all you got, I believe what you said good start, but not good enough. thanks tho.. I was hoping to see some of the harder questions answered.

Also HowardRoark you aren't going to answer my question earlier??? Or is it to hard for you??

I will say it again.

So what about the Firefighters, Police and witnesses that said it looked like a controlled demo, and heard bombs right before and after the planes hit and right after the towers fell?

Still would like an answer.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by truthseeka


Sure building 6 was destroyed...AFTER 9/11! Seriously, I gotta wonder about some posts...


www.terrorize.dk...

That isn't destroyed?





From what I understand that was an explosion.

[edit on 4/6/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
for fecks sake the government got rid of all the evidence in no time, what was that all about...

if you have nothing to hide, you.....well.....have nothing to hide.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

I am still amazed to read things like " oh the buildings shouldnt have colpased"... for Heaven sake and the love of pupiies... the buildings were HIT BY PLAINS !!!! JET PLAINS !! the Top of the building was cut off and than fell on top of the rest ...like a domino effect... is this so hard to see ?? is this place so full of geniouses, that they're all blinded by their own inteligence ?

UNREAL !


Uh...

What are these flying jet PLAINS? I didn't know PLAINS can fly. I thought PLAINS grew grass and stuff, but apparently, they can also be flown into buildings.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Also HowardRoark you aren't going to answer my question earlier??? Or is it to hard for you??
No, I missed it. Is that too hard for you to understand?



Originally posted by ThichHeaded

So what about the Firefighters, Police and witnesses that said it looked like a controlled demo, and heard bombs right before and after the planes hit and right after the towers fell?
Still would like an answer.


What firemen and police?

Just because it looke like a controlled demolition, doesn’t automatically mean that it was.

If “A” is like “B,” and “C” is like “B,” does not meant that “A” = “C.”


There are numerous witnesses that reported that there were NO warning sounds whatsoever.

Also numerous witnesses that reported that the sounds of the bodies as people jumped sounded like explosions when they hit the plaza.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
www.terrorize.dk...

That isn't destroyed?


Originally posted by ThichHeaded
From what I understand that was an explosion.

[edit on 4/6/2006 by ThichHeaded]


Well then you understand wrong.

Look closely at that picture. Do you see the wall from WTC 1 leaning up abainst the side of WTC 6?

Look even closer and you can see parts of the exterior wall of WTC 1 in the hole in WTC 6.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

So what about the Firefighters, Police and witnesses that said it looked like a controlled demo, and heard bombs right before and after the planes hit and right after the towers fell?
Still would like an answer.


What firemen and police?


Firefighters

So is what you are saying since these guys say it looked like the BLEW out the floors as they fell, these guys are on crack?

video.google.com...

Police

www.prisonplanet.com...

Notice it says MSNBC.. Must be crackputs here also?

Witnesses

www.williambowles.info...

If i had to say something, (Deleted cause it was mean.) Just because you completely ignore the fact that everyone after the towers fell stated that there was bombs, blowouts, and so on that happened that day. Now they dont say anything. You know why that is??? That is cause the FBI gagged them, Kinda like they gogged alot of people about 9/11.

Think for a minute this is a joke there is massive proof that things happened that day that dont make any sense.

A nice quote to remember man.

You know the best way to hide something from someone, In plain site.

All I have to say is wake up man, not everything is as rosey as you think.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Just because it looke like a controlled demolition, doesn’t automatically mean that it was.
If “A” is like “B,” and “C” is like “B,” does not meant that “A” = “C.”

If it swims in a pond, says "quack quack" and flies away, is it a pig?


Oink! Oink!


There are numerous witnesses that reported that there were NO warning sounds whatsoever. Also numerous witnesses that reported that the sounds of the bodies as people jumped sounded like explosions when they hit the plaza.

But there were many more who consistently reported three, huge explosions, just before the collapse of WTC2. They didn't say, "sounded like explosions". These people were captured on the news stating that they heard huge explosions. Where are the witnesses stating that there were no sounds? Or are you talking about Jon Doe text testimonies on the Internet? There's a reasonable video compilation of some of the witness reportsin this film here:

www.ifilm.com...
www.archive.org...

Enjoy.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
www.terrorize.dk...
That isn't destroyed?

No. It's got a massive hole in the top from the debris which fell on it, after which it was also gutted by fire.




And whadyaknow? It didn't collapse in perfect, symmetrical, free fall implosion. Whodathunkit?



Look closely at that picture. Do you see the wall from WTC 1 leaning up abainst the side of WTC 6? Look even closer and you can see parts of the exterior wall of WTC 1 in the hole in WTC 6.


And lookie here:



The Verizon and the USPO look pretty spic and span, don't they? And you see how the debris on the North (up) side of WTC6 and on the street is sparse? That's because the heavy debris could only fly out horizontally so far, ya dig? Any debris that reached WTC7 would have been light, as is attested to by the existing pics of minor damage, and the NON-existence of any pics showing major damage to WTC7. But WTC6 sustains enormous damage and fire, yet stands strong as the day it was built, even with half the building gone.




OMG, RUN!! This building's about to collapse too!!!



And now, back to your regularly scheduled brain programming.




[edit on 2006-4-7 by wecomeinpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join