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.

 

TIME: Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Ooohhh... this honestly has me fuming mad right now.. I have already written a very informative letter to TIME over their article in the September 11, 2006 issue of their magazine... Let us take a look at the newest form of propaganda to hit the news stands today!

TIME: Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away.

First off, please note that TIME refers to the 9/11 truth movement and the consperacies involved as "Myths" on the front cover.

TIME: I personally think TIME is a middle of the road weekly magazine.. they never seem to far left, never really to far right either.. this issue though seems as if it was printed by Bush's staff! First, their little article on Bush being the greatest president and the best leader for the war on terrorism..

TIME: What We've Learned.

And then I turn through after swallowing that and I read on about the 9/11 truth movement.

I honestly thought "About time the 9/11 truth movement is undertaken by the mass media and throughally examined!" How.. very wrong I was.

They approach the conspiracies around 9/11 as a joke, they refer to those who honestly think it happend by the hand of our own government as living in a second world.




People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.


Right, though they did admit the second world is a rather populated space, a new poll suggest that 36% of the American people think Bush was behind the attacks.




The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.


And they treat that as if the poor second world people have no clue about the world around them, suggest that the internet has inflamed the sense that the government was behind the attacks even though the main stream media will not touch the 9/11 truth movement.

They do not post the side collumns on the internet at TIME.com but they post the questions that the 9/11 truth movement members ask in a dimeaning way, very little thought into it, very short summary and then give a ridiculous claim as a "fact".. which many have been debated here, such as the wings gone at the pentagon TIME claims they broke off when the plane hit the ground, yet of course ignoreing the fact very little damage was done to the ground and no plane wings where ever found..

Another thing they bring up, building 7 which they say conspiracy believers think it was brought down. Short and simple and no explanation on why we think it was brought down, and then state that a leaking emergancy generator leaked desiel and caused the building to fall down, neatly, on it's footpring, at free fall speed.

The intercepting jets that should have been scrambled? Well TIME says they where scrambled, a few actually but the highjackers destroyed the transponders the jets, scrambled within 6mins of the first tower being hit, could not find the incoming aircraft. Right.

I don't know about you guys, me personally I see this as a pre election attempt to dispel the truth movement, cast us all as crazy loons in our own little second world (36% not to small actually..) and maybe even cast us all as crazy left wingers to hurt the opposition as well. I am right wing however, this is bipartisian, this is a crime, and the Bush administration is recognizing it is a growing concern in America, more and more people are learning the truth and more and more are not going to take it and now we will see more and more of this garbage. Notice not once in the main stream has the 9/11 truth movment been taken seriously enough to make a debate, especially on Fox they are almost cussed off stage by fools like Hanity.

I smell fear, they know they cannot hide it forever and they are going to try and make us look like fools as much as they can. I for one am happy they are affraid.

If any of you read the magazine what did you think about the TIME opinions? Or read the links above to TIME for the main body of the article to read for free, just with out the polls and the bargraphs and other pretty bs they throw in there.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Nice job Time.


Why does it make you so upset to see the truth in print?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
...a new poll suggest that 36% of the American people think Bush was behind the attacks.


36% considered it somewhat or very likely that the government allowed them to happen or carried them out. Likely, not absolutely. They admit the possibility, not think it.

The "truth movement" needs to make sure it quotes the truth and not distortions thereof if they expect to keep the "truth" in their name.


A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves.


[edit on 9/6/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Nice job Time.


Why does it make you so upset to see the truth in print?


It upsets me that the truth movement is treated like a diseased animal that no one wants to talk about, some kind of taboo, and when it gets attention it is in demeaning ways that, like this article if you read it, are based on little or no facts and are made to make us sound retarded.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Eagle, when asked "Do you think the Bush administration is somewhat or very likely quilt of carrying out the 9/11 attacks" and you answer YES does that NOT kind of imply you think there is a conspiracy involved with Bush to commence or allow the attacks of 9/11?? Even TIME treats the poll as a source of how many people believe in the conspiracy so I am not sure what you are trying to get at...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I agree.

I see MANY flaws in the Time article: In the sidebar on page 47 they have four topics of contention, for which they present "The Claim" (the conspiracy "theory"), and "The Facts" (the supposed truth). The author's (Lev Grossman's) "facts" are extremely weak. This smells like just more propaganda, but hey, at least the truth is finally being presented (almost fairly) in the mainstream media...

1) The article says (regarding 'The Towers Collapse', under "The "Facts": "...a misquote of a demolition expert propagated the explosives theory...". Gimme a break. One misquote is producing ever-growing volumes of increasingly believable evidence that explosives brought down the towers?!! ONE MISQUOTE?! I guess not one of the hundreds of individuals doing extensive research bothered to fact-check the quote for accuracy. Not likely. In fact, just on the surface, most likely statistically impossible. A very weak rebuttal.

2) Holes in the Pentagon: "The Claim": "...the size of two holes (in Ring C and Ring E) were too small to have been made by a 757, which has a wingspan of nearly 125 ft...". And "The Facts": "Witnesses saw the 757 hit the Pentagon. The plane lost its wings when one hit the ground and the other slammed into the building's west wall before the Boeing's fuselage tore a 75 foot hole...". Let's stop right there. So we are supposed to believe that witnesses' account's are more believable than actual video footage? Let's throw out instant replay's in televised football while we're at it. And I suppose the witnesses' memories get sharper as more time passes (and the more they're threatened, coerced, bought off, etc...all from war on terror funds i.e. taxpayer money, of course). And of course, there's the corroborating footage from the gas station and hotel across the street. No, wait, the goverment confiscated those. I wonder why. Secondly, what happened to the wings that were supposedly torn from the plane after one hit the ground and one hit the wall?... C'mon Lev, I'm on the edge of my seat here. Paint a picture for me of how the wings vaporized from the intense heat of the jet fuel burning. The Jet fuel burning...INSIDE THE BUILDING. OK, so they were torn off. And then....what??!! He just leaves the reader hanging. He doesn't address the fact that the wings were never found. Then he tries to make an emotional appeal: "But to question Flight 77's demise is to question the fate of the 64 people onboard; the remains of all but one have been identified". I guess Mr. Grossman has never heard of the Witness Protection Program. Hey, give me a brand new name, job, life, more money than I've ever seen in one place before, for the rest of my life, I'll play mum too. And I suppose that whenever people die, we should never inquire into the actual cause of death, never investigate potential foul play? What does that accomplish? This is just more propaganda.

3) This one is just comical. "The Facts": "...F-15's were scrambled...". "Because hijacker's had dismantled the plane's transponder's, the F-15's could not identify the endangered aircraft." OK. Let me see if I remember from my Navy days...A transmitter transmits signals. A receiver receives. A transponder does both. So, we're supposed to believe that modern F-15's don't have some sort of radar capability of detecting a plane 'flying silent'? Do modern rules of engagement require that enemy planes emit signals to our F-15's basically saying "here I am! Over here! Come shoot me This is just too far-fetched, too weak.

Although Mr. Grossman's article was written to please his politically sensitive editors, no doubt, I personally believe that he presented "The Claim" and "The Fact" under each heading in such a way as to convey, to the discerning, hardheaded, rational reader that he much more believes "The Claims" than "The (supposed) Facts". Because he doesn't actually refute The Claims. He has done us a service by bringing the argument into the mainstream. Fin



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
He has done us a service by bringing the argument into the mainstream. Finally!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Nice job Time.


Why does it make you so upset to see the truth in print?


Really esdad? I thought you were a crazy conspiracy theorist also because you believe flight 93 was shot down? Please explain.



People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.



I'm glad you think Time did a great job at calling you, esdad, a crazy conspiracy theorist.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Very very nice post.

I really need to start getting back into the 9/11 stuff!

If I was a mod i'd appluad ya


Im still not sure what i beleive about these things, but hopefully with the help of posts like this i can start to make up my mind



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Griff, why the hostility?

Just because I know Flight 93 was shot down does not make me a conspiracy theorist. Now, thinking that the WTC was filled with thermite and struck with holographic planes while the passengers were given new lives in Tahiti, now that is conspiracy.

I was asking the poster why it mad him so angry to see truth in print? If I disagree with one point, one line, in the entire article do I dismiss it all? To do so would be ignorance, and here that is what we attempt to deny, right? I was asking a simple, non-partisan question about a Time article.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The biggest problem of the article is that it shows a ignorant bias, and doesn't consider the other side of the argument. Poorly written, and poorly researched, it's laughable.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


Just because I know Flight 93 was shot down does not make me a conspiracy theorist. Now, thinking that the WTC was filled with thermite and struck with holographic planes while the passengers were given new lives in Tahiti, now that is conspiracy.

I was asking the poster why it mad him so angry to see truth in print? If I disagree with one point, one line, in the entire article do I dismiss it all? To do so would be ignorance, and here that is what we attempt to deny, right? I was asking a simple, non-partisan question about a Time article.



I think he was saying that the Time article infact calls you out as a Loony, crazy, nutbag commie-pinko liberal Conspiracy wingbat. THen it punched you in the gut and stole your lunchmoney.

Point is, your claiming that flight 93 was shot down, with no evidence, and proclaiming us to be crazy. According to Time, we're all in the same boat, your a conspiracy wingbat loony commie-pinko liberal Conspiracy Theorist too.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
This is the standard strawman. They find a weak point in the arguement, one that may even prove to be untrue (missile at the pentagon) and run with it like it's the whole conspiracy.

They don't mention Building 7 at all, which was the deciding factor for me. It's the piece of the puzzle that throws te whole thing out of whack. They avoided it completely.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Griff, why the hostility?


No hostility. Just am wondering why you don't consider yourself a conspiracy theorist? You say you believe Flight 93 was shot down. The official version is that the pasengers took it down. You don't believe the official story....therefore according to Time and others....you my friend are a conspiracy theorist. Understand where I'm coming from?


Just because I know Flight 93 was shot down does not make me a conspiracy theorist.


Yes it does.


conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


Source: dictionary.reference.com...

Your theory is to explain a disputed case (flight 93)....hence a conspiracy theory.


Now, thinking that the WTC was filled with thermite and struck with holographic planes while the passengers were given new lives in Tahiti, now that is conspiracy.


Funny how you call others CTers but don't think you fit in that category. I guess you aren't really trying to find the truth then?


I was asking the poster why it mad him so angry to see truth in print?


Truth in print? According to who....you?


If I disagree with one point, one line, in the entire article do I dismiss it all?


No. But I guess you haven't realized yet but any deviation from the official line is considered a crazy conspiracy theory. You my friend are a CTer....face it.


To do so would be ignorance, and here that is what we attempt to deny, right? I was asking a simple, non-partisan question about a Time article.


Well, your question can be summed up with this answer. I'm assuming it makes the OP mad because he doesn't feel like you do that the article is full of facts and truths? Pretty much a retorical question to start something if you ask me. Still no hostility here.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
This is the standard strawman. They find a weak point in the arguement, one that may even prove to be untrue (missile at the pentagon) and run with it like it's the whole conspiracy.

They don't mention Building 7 at all, which was the deciding factor for me. It's the piece of the puzzle that throws te whole thing out of whack. They avoided it completely.


The article was pretty weak imo. It was more like "We say this" and "No, your wrong, because the government said so. haha. PWNERZ J00!! We're TIMES! J0UR N0T!1!1!!! IN J00 FAACE!"



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
The biggest problem of the article is that it shows a ignorant bias, and doesn't consider the other side of the argument. Poorly written, and poorly researched, it's laughable.


Just to add to this.

Do you guys notice a trend that these pieces always tend to attack the CT'ers mental faculties?
source: Time.com


People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first




Way to go Time


Personal attacks about CT'ers mental status does NOT reinforce your arguement.
MODS can we get a warn on TIME please...


Oh, I love this one too.


And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.


It surely wouldve involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel? WHY? Why would it require hundreds? On what grounds would Time base this arguement on?
Did they sit around and think of how many teams of how many people it woould take? How many crews it would take how long to rig the WTC buildings? etc...did they? Because, to me, it seems they make a broad sweeping generalization and use it to reinforce thier own point. It may have only taken a handful of individuals(depending on the govts level of complicity) or it may have taken "hundreds" the problem is we dont know. But, regardless of all of this circumstantial evidence one way or the other. The govt. could easily lay it all to rest by releasing the other myriad of security video(and not the pathetic 1 frame per second crap; because if you expect me to believe that the most important military building in the world has got only a few one frame persecond cameras watching the Pentagon then I think it is the likes of Time.com that is living in a different reality) that they surely possess. This alone would go along way in making sure that there is one version of the "truth" which at the end of the article Time claims to hope for.


You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.


yeah you would think so.. wouldnt you; Time. But why dont you ask the pentagon and the Govt to release the Pentagon cameras....ALL of them!

Indeed, Time, we all want to live in the same "reality"; we all want "one truth".. but the only way that is gonna happen is when the GOVT. once again brings out the evidence that can lay it all to rest. ANd BTW with their comparrison to JFK... try asking Bush Sr. Why he resealed the JFK files again..if its one crazy gunman.....

Time can respectfully kiss my a$$...


thank you for your time,
Tone23



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Sorry, i do not see the conspiracy, I see facts. I understand your points and they are very good. Thank you. Everyone is a 'conspiracy theorist' according to your description, so it is a pretty broad stroke if you ask me.

I am a disbeliever in the offical story of Flight 93. I offer no conpsiracy theory, only the path to find the truth.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, i do not see the conspiracy, I see facts. I understand your points and they are very good. Thank you. Everyone is a 'conspiracy theorist' according to your description, so it is a pretty broad stroke if you ask me.

I am a disbeliever in the offical story of Flight 93. I offer no conpsiracy theory, only the path to find the truth


Well according to TIME you ARE a Conspiracy Theorist.

Look at it this way, there had to be some kind of government complicity to cover-up the truth about Flight 93 if you do believe it was really shot down, does that not go against what the official story states? Doesn't that make you "one of us", even if you don't believe in the more popular govt. involvement theories?

Also, since you do think they covered-up Flight 93, don't you think they'd be capable of covering other aspects of that day up as well? I mean I see where you're coming from and I absolutely agree that "Let's Roll" is a joke and Flight 93 was missiled, but why stop there? Doesn't that only fuel the fire of discredibility in whatever they say about that day? The whole thing absolutely stinks, this sure as hell opened my eyes to more than just 9/11 too, I hope this government knows that many of us are "woken up" for life now thanks to 9/11.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Gooble Gobble Gooble Gobble- Esdad will be oone of us.......

The funny thing about this article is that it uses the JFK assassination as a comparison, because wacky conspiracy theorists believe that that was a conspiracy too. And as it goes, 2/3 of the American people believe that there was a conspiracy behind the kennedy assasination.

So, now, 2/3 of American people have a mental illness or deficiency of some kind



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I will not go to the dark side of the conspiracy
.

To me there are conspiracy theorists, and conspriacy nuts. Sad part is that when you are a true CT who has an idea about a broader aspect of what has happened, and not one part of a greater , it is harder to explain to someone who is a conspriacy nut who tells you that nuclear tipped missles were on the underside of holographic planes. Yes, it makes no sense and chips away at the credibility of someone who may put forth a theory that may lend to some breakthroughs in an investigation.

This is where disinfo comes into play. If you make the hardliners the norm, anyone on the fringe is automatically labeled a nut. You see, since i beleive the official story of the WTC, I am automatically labelled as anti CT. Trust me, I am far from a Conservative pro-life gun toting right winger who believes the spoon fed drivel his party feeds him, but at the same time I don't knock our administration. They have fared well for what has occured during the last 6 years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join