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.

 

Lets solve the debate once and for all. 9/11 False Flag attack

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Ok CT's this one needs to be paid in full. No half hearted arguments lets finially solve the debate once and for all right here. And seriously too. Lets forget about Reptillians and Elite Masonry for now since we can't do much with that.

In my personal experience with all this stuff I've seen enough holes punched in the Bush Admin story that would make the Titantic look like a bath toy.

So all we have to do is focus on a small handful of the strongest arguments that indicate inside job. Lets just brainstorm for now and see what some of you can come up with. I know that with the things I've looked into I still won't find every smoking gun.

Got it? All we have to do is focus on one part and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't have to throw thousands of bits and pieces at them because I think clearly that confuses alot of people and the forget the major parts that indicate an obvious inside job.

Poke one big gaping whole into the offial 9/11 story and the skeptics don't have a leg to stand on. Then they'll know that they are in denial and afraid to question their government.

We can start with all the people throughout history yesterday and today who have said some interesting things.

Paul Craig Roberts saying 9/11 was inside job...
Eisenhower warning about the Military industrial complex
Sandra Day O'Connors retirement speech saying Bush is going for dictatorship.
Kennedy's proposal to eliminate the Fed and CIA

etc etc etc. Literally hundreds of famous names throughout history have come forward in one way or another on this.

you get the idea. stuff like that. Alot of things have already been proven that 9/11 was an inside job but not everyone is getting the message. And people like Alex Jones might just be a little too scarey for them. Although he's proven beyond a reasonable doubt because he actually does a lot of work to back up what he says. Which is why I haven't seen anyone try to shoot him down anymore. I remember corporate media used to only exclusively rely on the "it's just a conspiracy theory" routine and left it at that thinking it would solve the argument. They just ignore him now and hope he goes away. Bad decision for corporate media since it makes them look like the crackheads.

So do we have a deal? Lets talk about the best arguments right here and show the skeptics that they shouldn't look to the government to protect them and hold their hand.


[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I guess to start it off I'll direct everyone to Timothy McNiven. A Defense contractor who just a few months ago said that in 1976 US army theorists devised an exercise in which the WTc was attacked by hijacked airplanes and terrorists with box cutters. Go figure in 1976.

portland.indymedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Here's a quote from the former head of the FBI, one Mister J. Edgar Hoover.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists"

It's scary that someone in his position would say such a thing.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I have a problem already.

The following is copied directly from McNivens website;

McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target. The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security.

1. Why would something this "big" be entrusted to a Field Artillery Unit?
2. Why would an enlisted person have knowledge of this?
3. Does he have any colaborating evidence from others he served with?
4. If he said he would go public, in 1976, if this ever happened, why didn't he go public then?
5. Anyone can pass a lie detector test.

Lastly, so Bush Sr. was head of the CIA at the time. What's does that have to do with this?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
well I think you'll find that the Bush Empire created by Prescott has alot of strings to pull behind the scenes.

I mean. Prescott Hated Kennedy and spent alot of money trying to get his man Dick as president instead. Then as time goes on we have not one but two Bushs as president when clearly one of them is incompetant. Something doesn't sit right with just those three points and that doesn't even scratch the surface as the JFK assassination thread shows us.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Crowly, i really don't understand your last post. Could you simplify?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Do you see a big George Herbert Walker Bush and the JFK Assassination thread at the top of your screen?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I thought you started this by trying to prove the 9/11 conspiracy?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I did. But you should take note that I can't control what other people say. So lets get it back on topic then eh.

Did anybody here about the FBI agent who was going to arrest osama just a few weeks before 9/11 when he was in hopital for kidney treatment but Bush specifically ordered him off the case?

Kind of odd isn't it? Osama was still the worlds number one man for his terrorist attacks on the Cole.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Alot of things have already been proven that 9/11 was an inside job but not everyone is getting the message.


^ As you posted this in the "9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies" forum I am compelled to require your source and confirmation of such. While I cannot provide proof that 9/11 was Not an "inside job", I have yet to be shown verifiable proof that it was. ?! Interesting quandary, no?

While I do feel there are some rather interesting "timelines", dating back decades, I have yet to be presented with a solid connection throughout. Bear in mind, I am speaking of documented, verifiable continuity encompassing all variables and situations.

Seeking the "holy grail", per se? Yes,
but aren't we all?!

Back on topic ...

Lets solve the debate once and for all. 9/11 False Flag attack



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It's a matter of opinion I guess. I've poured over everything that Alex Jones has said. I've read every document he's cited and I can't bring myself to say it's just a conspiracy theory anymore. There is just too much circumstancial evidence that has piled up against the Bush administration. There is so much that combined it could equal physical evidence 9/11 was an inside job.

You do bring up a good point and that is 9/11 is what you choose to believe.

Personally I can't go with the Bush story because there is almost no physical evidence to support it. There could have been physical evidence had Demolition Inc. not destroyed all of the WTC wreckage so quickly. That would have proven once and for all that there were bombs planted before 9/11. Possibly on the weekend before when powerwas down, sniffer dogs removed and security cameras out of commission.

The only other thing is those passports that are in perfect shape and perfect condition Atm cards from the pentagon. But thats just way too suspicious.

Bush's administration relies sorely on the nation seeing the video footage of only one aircraft and the corporate media. And for the Pentagon if indeed it was a 757 then why has the FBI refused to release the videos overlooking the pentagon and the interstate?

We only saw one 757 on television. The FBI could show us a second one and prove once and for all that it was indeed a 757 but still they refuse even after all the demand for the videos.

I can't understand why it's so hard for some people to believe that false flag terrorist attacks occur. We've seen it with Hitler and the Bush Administration fits perfectly into that historical mold.

Fake an attack, blame a foreign enemy, introduce legislation that undermines the constitution and voila police state. We're just one terrorist attack away from a police state. I think that after the next "terrorist" attack it'll be self evident that there is more to the picture then meets the eye.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
9/11 False Flag attack

As I can see already from some of your comments and evidence presented, your apparently a heavy reader and believer of Webster G. Tarpley and Thierry Meyssan?




seekerof



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
First off is that a good thing or bad thing.

Second I've never heard of those people before.

I've been reading stuff like Spychips, blackgold stranglehold, energy non crisis, RFK jr's book( good read btw he really outlines how Bush's corporate industrial america is destroying the country)...Solomons Secret, Celestine Prophecy.

But now that you've mentioned it I'll probably look into them in the not so distant future.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael C Ruppert. It's recently been added to the Harvard Business School's Baker Library. There's enough evidence in there to suggest complicity by Cheney and his cabal without delving into the tricky world of physical evidence. For every indepedent expert suggesting complicity, the government can find 10, 20, a hundred that will contradict their points.



[edit on 11-5-2006 by uknumpty]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
I guess to start it off I'll direct everyone to Timothy McNiven. A Defense contractor who just a few months ago said that in 1976 US army theorists devised an exercise in which the WTc was attacked by hijacked airplanes and terrorists with box cutters. Go figure in 1976.

So all we have is his word that this took place. No documatation.

Supposedly an artillary group (stationed in Germany) with zero training for this type of operation is tasked? Why not Special Forces, Rangers, or SEALs? People that are trained to think in terms of "unconventional" warfare would be far better suited.

In the end, it not provable but I digress...


Alot of things have already been proven that 9/11 was an inside job but not everyone is getting the message. And people like Alex Jones might just be a little too scarey for them. Although he's proven beyond a reasonable doubt because he actually does a lot of work to back up what he says.

You state this at the start of this thread. A lot of things have been PROVEN. Name one.

Alex Jones has "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" what exactly?

No evidence. No court case. No solid proof, so the whole of this line of thinking is flawed from the start.


well I think you'll find that the Bush Empire created by Prescott has alot of strings to pull behind the scenes.

[and]

Then as time goes on we have not one but two Bushs as president when clearly one of them is incompetant.

Now we get to more of the heart of the matter. The "Bush Empire." The "incompetent." Perhaps there are other reasons for your motivation. When wording such as that is use, I am always skeptical of reasoning that follows. It's usually a case of the cop that just "knows" people are bad and makes the facts fit the crime.


Bush's administration relies sorely on the nation seeing the video footage of only one aircraft and the corporate media. And for the Pentagon if indeed it was a 757 then why has the FBI refused to release the videos overlooking the pentagon and the interstate?

I don't think it's just video. What about the hundreds of witnesses or are they all suspect too? Perhaps the Pentagon video would show others how to do this same sort of attack. Perhaps it shows people in the windows and the horror they were in, and their families deserve more than having it paraded around by thousands of so-called experts.

I guess if we can speculate that it was an inside job, then we can also speculate that terrorists actually did it too.


I have said all along that if some actual proof can be shown, fine. Start a legal case. If not, then stop breaking the Constitution (which most claim Bush is doing and it's soooo wrong) and let the innocent, BE innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Presumed guilt is as bad or worse, then some of the claims that come forward.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
In my personal experience with all this stuff I've seen enough holes punched in the Bush Admin story that would make the Titantic look like a bath toy.

Okay here we go... I think it's time for a new installment in the "Overlord Lecture" series. Class, take out your notebooks...


History: If there's one thing that history has taught "serious" conspiracy researchers, it's that government tend to conspire to deceive those they govern. In some cases, a conspiracy of deception or coverup may have noble intent... I can image there are some hard-working patriots deep within the CIA working hard on ethical but secret projects that are for the general benefit of the nation. But, as we've all learned, the "leadership" of any nation develops habits of conspiratorial deception of unethical and grand scale. If you've held an interest in "conspiracy theories" before 9/11, you're first reaction that day was very different from everyone else. "We" know there are likely a myriad of intricate connections between dozens of complicit parties within those we should trust to protect this country.

But while many of we "conspiracy theorists" may feel we're benefiting from the Internet's ability to connect us and help us reveal these theories, I contend that we're loosing the battles.



All we have to do is focus on one part and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is our collective problem. What part will that be? I'd love nothing more than to find a singularly focused attribute of this event that can rally all noble critical thinkers to a theme that will eventually open the floodgates of truth. But where shall we start?

The Grand Conspiracy: Since 9/11, I firmly believe that a subtly more nefarious conspiracy has been systematically perpetuated on we "internet regulars" with the specific goal of preventing exactly what you're asking for. That conspiracy is the expert creation of dozens (if not hundreds) of conflicting and sometimes wild conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 events with the intended goal of creating so much confusion on the topic, any effort to decipher the truth will be nearly impossible.

This atmosphere of "manufactured deflective disinformation" is pervasive throughout clandestine groups, and honed to art form via UFO "disclosure". Within learned conspiracy circles, it's rather well-known that the Ash-Shiraa story on Iran Contra was researched and fed via the small but growing subculture of online BBS systems (dial-up back then). The current strategy to counteract a repeat of that exposure is to feed an overwhelming amount of disinformation into the "Interweb" as a tactic of coverup. And you don't have to believe me, this is a growing lament from deep within the "911 Truth" investigators and researchers.



Poke one big gaping whole into the offial 9/11 story and the skeptics don't have a leg to stand on. Then they'll know that they are in denial and afraid to question their government.

There was once a growing hole that has long since disappeared from online availability. Within the first six months of the attack, there was some interesting information surfacing about a factional feud within the Pentagon. Reasonably well-connected sources were discussing the likelihood that the Pentagon attack was an aggressive act by one faction to end the operations of the other. The entire event, according to those tracking down this angle, was designed to "look like" a terrorist attack (even in NYC). However, the researchers claimed that they believe no one expected the severity of the NYC attack, and a coverup strategy was being developed.

The Timing is Suspect: At the time (3-6 months after the attack), no one questioned a 757 hitting the Pentagon. At the time, no one presented theories of bombs in the WTC. Nearly all serious conspiracy thinking (back then) was focused on how those planning this attack organized and deceived the hijackers... or how the planes may have been remotely controlled. And everyone was talking about the "coming coverup." Well, within 6 months the Internet exploded with a massive amount of all manner of 9/11 theories and claims.

In my mind, any research into this needs to focus on the "low hanging fruit" to have any hope of gaining traction in the general direction of truth. With that in mind, I think it might be easier to locate and expose disinformation efforts, then move up the chain from there.

What do you think?


Hands?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Hello everyone.
Let me start by saying I love coming here and reading all the threads and topics on ATS.So I figured I would start off posting in this thread.
This might be a dumb question but can't you get the passenger lists from the planes that crashed or might of crashed(as some would have you belive) into the WTC and The Pentagon and check and see if there identities check out?I guess what I am trying to say is if they just used bombs on the Pentagon and made up the story about the 757 crashing into it then get the passenger list from the plane they said crashed into it and see if those people really existed and if there were funerals etc.and check up on it.

Hope I didn't sound to to dumb with this being my second post.My personal veiw is the Planes crashed into the WTC and as for the Pentagon when I saw the damage there I thought that there would be more damage to it then what was shown.I am no explosives expert or plane crash expert.Its just I thought there would be more damage to the pentagon.

Lastly I enjoy the ATS and I hope to post more replys in the future that are up to par with everyone elses



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join