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.

 

Win 250,000 Points: What Are The Top-5 9/11 Conspiracies?

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Dangit!

I forgot a few important details under sections under:

9/11 Commission Report

9/11 Commission Report: "terrorist threats, was in the tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands."
blog.myspace.com...


Some Examples of Insanely Incredible/Diversionary Issues

Miss-1)
under, Pentagon:
Donald Rumsfeld stated "and the missile to damage this building":
www.the7thfire.com...

Miss-2)
under, Flight 93:
Donald Rumsfeld stated "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania":
video.google.com...

With those 2 cases (Pentagon, Flight 93) whatever really happened is irrelevant, the big story is that either those Rumsfeld claims are true, or they're intentionally toying with us on this most serious matter to create diversion. For those who doubt this view, take GWB's actions as supporting evidence:

Miss-X)
GWB on the day of 9/11:
He claimed that he watched the first plane impact:
www.whitehouse.gov...
And then elaborates on it even further:
www.whitehouse.gov...
On top of all of the confusing controversy already surrounding the school event:
www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=bush

It comes down to this: Critics suggest we believe those 'official' statements are true, or apologists assert we're to believe that those statements are just "cockup". I declare False Dichotomy:
en.wikipedia.org...
With the third solution being that these real-scenarios are merely ploys to create total confusion. In any case, in light of the other case points presented here, the apologist viewpoint is itself "insanely incredible".


Sorry. I crashed right after doing the main writeup and the Osama/USMilitary-history thread I did for this presentation. Exhaustive.


[edit on 5-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Ok I don't think this contest is going to end so I will post this...

1. We know that the twin towers were designed in its construction to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707. The aircraft that were used were a Boeing 767-200, and a Boeing 747-200ER both comparable in size, speed, weight, and fuel capacity. These aircraft did not have a full fuel load having only being fueled enough for the trips they were scheduled to take that day. Upon impact a majority of the available fuel load was used up in the initial fireball. The remaining jet fuel, while being capable of attaining the heat sufficient enough to weaken structural steel did not have the time, nor did it weaken enough of the structure to facilitate the complete collapse of the twin towers. Nor was the available fuel located in the office furniture, desks, chairs, drywall, able to keep the heat level hot enough to weaken the internal core of the building enough to allow the collapse of the twin towers in the classic pancake effect. Also heat does not cut metal as was seen in the aftermath of the collapse.

2. We know that amazingly the only buildings that were destroyed were the buildings at the WTC complex, buildings 1, 2 & 7. Surrounding buildings while severely damaged by the collapse of the twin towers are still standing, and still being used to this day. If explosives were indeed not used, and the collapses were the result of only the impact of the two aircraft, the damage would not have been as severe for one and if somehow the buildings were destroyed by impacts from the aircraft, the damage pattern would have been far different. However we have here a complete and total collapse of these three buildings. To site an example of a building collapse due to progressive structural failure we must look at The Ronan Point Tower Apartment Case where due to inadequate construction this building did have a progressive collapse but it was not a total global collapse.

3. Larry Silverstein leases the World Trade Center Complex for a period of 99 years, longer than his own life expectancy, longer than any reasonable term on a lease, unless the person was to expect to lease the property for the remainder of the usable period of time the property would be in existence. The property a fiscally loosing investment for the New York City Port Authority is not a wise investment for anyone to buy into. The WTC complex cost more to maintain than it generated in revenue, until the attacks, when it suddenly became a quite profitable property for Mr. Silverstein to have invested in. Especially after successfully arguing that the attacks were two separate incidents and thus doubling his return on the insurance on the property.

4. The New York Office of Emergency Management was prepared the day prior to the event for a catastrophe of the magnitude of 9/11. Serendipitously and amazingly ready with the crews needed handle the aftermath of this horrible and terrible disaster.

5. There was a 30 hour power down of the twin towers prior to the attack, during which a unidentified crew was allowed into the buildings for an extended period of time, unsupervised and unrecorded. Elevators in buildings can run independently with the main power off to a building with the aide of backup power as each building was equipped with. Huge diesel generators located in the buildings facilitate the operations of elevators in the event of a power outage. So the possibility that these crews could have brought up the large amounts of explosives needed to wire these buildings to blow.




[edit on 3-6-2007 by asala]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
1. The United States of America is under attack. The President is told that the 1st tower of the WTC has been hit by a plane, but yet the President of The United States of America sits there dumfounded still reading to the children in the classroom. 1,2,3,4 minutes tick away then he finally gets up, this does not add up. Excuse yourself immediately get on the phone do something we are under attack!!!!!!

2. Why was the plane loaded with Arabs aloud to take off back to Saudi Arabia right after the WTC and Pentagon were hit with no or little scrutiny when all other planes were grounded?

3. Where are the parts to the plane and passengers that hit the pentagon?

4. What happen to the bodies, belongings, and remnents of the terroists on the plane that hit the WTC and Pentagon? Yes we have been told they were vaporized I do not buy that. Were they really on the plane?

5. What happen to the parts of the plane, and bodies of flight 93 that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania? Almost nothing was found. In reality parts were scattered over a 3 mile area indicating it was shot down. Rik Riley



[edit on 19-4-2007 by rikriley]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
So what ever happened to this thing? Had I known it was going for this long I wouldn't have been so rushed and could have made it more efficient. O well I guess, just stopping in to take a couple of my examples to expand on...



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Honestly I think that SO forgot that this was a contest that was due to end at some point. He is rather busy with an entire website to run. I can't imagine that he has a lot of time to go reading through a whole lot nowadays.

I am sure that it will eventually end and S.O. will announce a winner (if he hasn't already)



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I felt like throwing some stuff together because I was bored.



1. Bush said he saw a plane hit the first tower on tv. LOL...

2. Black boxes not found? Highjacker passport was found. LOL...

3. I cant hardly get a signal in a grocery store but they had cell phone
signals on plane. LOL...

4. Bin Laden escaped the United States of America and its allies. LOL...

5. Only the videos of the pentagon crash without a plane in the picture
were released to the public. LOL...




1. Insider trading

2. Operation Desert Storm

3. Gore-Bush election scam

4. Bush-Laden connection

5. Towers owner and insurance



posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I have something close to ready. It needs some polishing, but a good second draft is up.

The question is, do we submit it here, or elsewhere? I know SO said he would move it, but this has turned into the "Thread That Time Forgot". I just wonder if he still wants submissions. And if he wants them polished and ready before he decides, or if he wants the rougher version.

Well, I'll just keep an eye on this space.

"And goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are."



posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
1. The fact that 9/11 was immediately used to drive preplanned legislation, and has been used extensively since.
2. The fact that PNAC members in power on 9/11 previously wrote the "need" for a "new Pearl Harbour" as signed by Richard B. Cheney amongst others.
3. The fact Norman Mineta's testimony incriminates Vice President Cheney as the man implicitly instructing that the planes be left alone.
4. The fact the Pentagon crash has not been supported by any physical evidence from governmental agencies.
5. The fact the defined 'mastermind' Osama bin Laden has evaded the best efforts of the United States military and intelligence operations since 2001.



posted on May, 27 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
i dont need any links, all i need is your common sense

1. there was a terrorist drill going on at the same time the 9/11 attacks happened.... the math on that was about a billion to one.

2. norad had their head up their asses, these are the people who are supposebly protecting our nation against any aerial attack.... state of the state of the state of the art technology, yet they happened to miss 4 planes going massively offcourse.

3. wtc7 was hit by debris of the plane and had a few contained fires ( i was there for all you people watching it on TV who think you know everything) yet this huge building collapsed in a free fall manner which defies the laws of physics.

4. there were absolutely no debris from a plane at the pentagon, there was a small hole b4 tat part of the building collapsed... anyone with half a brain can figure out that a huge commercial plane with could not have done that damage...... i feel like im preaching to the choir but it is so obvious it is actually painful to attempt to explain for the millionth time\

5. And finally, in conclusionl.... who the hell benifited from the 9/11 attacks, it sure as hell werent the arabs in the middle east, unless they wanted DU as a thank you. Once again i wont preach to the choir, you know who benefited, and you know why we are paying 4 dollars a gallon for oil, and why all of our rights have been taken away.

....and remember when we used to get away with harmless things in the pre-9/11 world...... now we are all considered terrorists.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Since this does appear to an ongoing discussion, I’ll add my ‘list’. I’ve been reluctant in the past because mine is a little unconventional, relying not on the events of 9/11 but on prior events or circumstances. To that extent, I’m not sure if this is what the OP intended, but it’s what got me looking.

Apologies in advance for the length – it stretches over three posts due to posting restrictions.


POINT ONE

The first is one that is often overlooked in favour of the Northwoods Document – Pearl Harbor.

Everyone mentions PNAC’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and the infamous reference to ‘Pearl Harbor’. There is more to this than meets the eye. If PNAC was calling for another Pearl Harbor, they were not simply calling for another attack, they were calling for a US-engineered attack.

On October 7 1940, Lt. Com. Arthur McCollum, of the Office of Naval Intelligence, submitted a list of recommendations concerning America’s strategy in the Pacific to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox, two of President Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers. The memo outlined an eight-point plan apparently aimed at provoking Japan into attacking the United States. Throughout 1941, President Roosevelt implemented all eight recommendations and, on December 7th, Japan attacked.

Here is an extract from that memo (emphasis mine).



9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.

B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.

D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.

F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.

H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.


In sum, Roosevelt wanted entry into WWII (see point two, below) and, by implementing McCollum’s recommendations, set about manoeuvring Japan into attacking the US. There is also a great deal of information now available showing that Roosevelt knew when the Japanese planned to attack.


POINT TWO

Following WWII, America set about helping Europe recover with an emphasis on free trade, which would give the US access to markets it had effectively withdrawn from as it adopted a post WWI isolationist stance. The framework within which the US would help a decimated Europe rebuild was The Bretton Woods Agreement. It was implemented in 1944. One commentator said of the agreement that…



[t]o show accurately the crucial role of the United States, it is not enough to point out that the American quota in the IMF, by far the biggest, prevented any decision from being taken without Washington’s consent or even to stress that the new monetary arrangement was in fact a gold-dollar exchange standard, since all currencies were linked to the dollar valued at $35 per ounce of gold. To do it full justice, one must describe the arrangement itself as an instrument of American domination.


US corporates flourished and the dollar became the de facto global reserve currency – much as Roosevelt had foreseen.


PART THREE

The Vietnam War coincided with the emergence of Germany and Japan as economic rivals. This combination of factors led the US into a period of relative economic decline. Dollar-holding countries (of which there were many following the success of Bretton Woods) began exchanging their dollars for US gold at the agreed rate of $35 per ounce. US gold stocks dropped sharply and Nixon was eventually forced to abandon the gold standard.

In order to prevent dollars flooding back into the US, Kissinger persuaded Saudi Arabia to price its oil exports exclusively in dollars. Thereafter, any nation wanting to purchase oil was required to pay for it in dollars. But since Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations could earn more from oil exports than they could invest in their own economies, they bought US Treasury bonds and deposited their surplus dollars in US banks where it was held as reserve currency. These banks then lent the money on to other countries through the dollar-denominated IMF, and they in turn used much of it to buy oil.

The effect of this ‘petrodollar recycling’ is that oil-purchasing countries are required to hold considerable dollar reserves and sustain a trade surplus in order to do so. Conversely, the US can afford to run an enormous trade deficit on the back of its dollar exports. In simplistic terms, the US gets its oil for free. For example the US buys goods valued at $1 from Japan. Japan buys $1 of oil from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia buys a $1 debt instrument from the US. The US can now recycle that $1 to buy oil. Meantime, when Japan has more goods to sell, the US simply 'creates' more dollars. In practice, the US only pays the amounts required to both service the debt and ‘create’ the dollars.

But such an arrangement can only continue for so long as the petrodollar’s hegemonic status remains unchallenged. Saddam Hussein’s decision to switch the unit of accounting for all Iraqi oil transactions to the petroeuro in 2000 amounted to just such a challenge. Some argue it was one of the key factors behind the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, following which, the policy was quickly reversed. However, a number of other countries have since openly explored the possibility of a switch, including Libya, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and, perhaps most notably in the context of recent events, Iran.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
POINT FOUR

In 1956, Marion Hubbert King, a geophysicist with the Shell Oil Company, presented a paper to the American Petroleum Institute entitled ‘Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels’. He used this paper to make two predictions about the date the US would reach its peak rate of oil production: a low estimate, with a peak in 1965; and a high estimate, with a peak in 1970. Hubbert’s peak theory has proven to be broadly accurate – US production peaked in 1971. He went on to put the date of world peak at around the year 2000.

A post-Peak Oil world presents a potentially grave threat to mature, industrialised nations such as the US, whose manufacturing, construction, and transportation industries all require energy derived from oil. As Colin J Campbell, writing in The Energy Bulletin, points out, US economic expansion has historically been fuelled by debt, with cheap oil-based energy as collateral. But…



…[t]he decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges. The investment community however faces a dilemma. It desires to protect its own fortunes and those of its privileged clients while at the same time is reluctant to take action that might itself trigger the meltdown.


But declining oil production is only part of the problem; security of access is the other, particularly for the US, which consumes 25% of global output. The Hubbert Curve posits that if Peak Oil occurred in 2006 (as many now believe it did) then, absent of any mitigating factors, the rate of production in 2026 will be roughly equal to that of 1986. However, the combined effects of a growing population coupled with the increasing oil dependency of newly industrialised nations will lead to an escalation in resource-oriented competition.

To put this into perspective, in 1986 the rate of world oil production was just over 60 mb/d (million barrels per day) and the world’s population was around 5 billion. If Peak Oil occurred in 2006, then by 2026 the theoretical rate of production would also be around 60 mb/d, however, according to the US Census Bureau, the world’s population in 2026 will have grown to around 8 billion.

More significantly, growth in both population and oil consumption rates has not been and will not be uniform. Between 1986 and 2006, for example, the combined populations of China and India grew by around 31% (source: US Census Bureau), whilst the rest of the world grew by just 19%. Regional variations in oil dependency were even more pronounced, with consumption in China and India growing six times fatser than the overall world rate (source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2006).

Asia’s rapidly growing population and oil dependency thus presents a threat to the ability of the US to meet its energy needs. This threat will be exacerbated by a decline in the relative importance of its traditional sources and an increase in the relative importance of the Middle East.

Historically, despite acquiring around 10% of its oil imports from Saudi Arabia, the US has not relied heavily upon Middle East energy. Nonetheless, as Mamoun Fandy in his 1997 article for Foreign Policy in Focus explains, it has long viewed the region as vital to its strategic interests.



Securing the flow of affordable oil is a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy. The U.S. strategy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq, designed to ensure that neiher [sic] Iraq nor Iran is capable of threatening neighboring Gulf countries, is inextricably linked to Washington’s oil policy. Currently, U.S. domestic oil production supplies about 50% of total U.S. consumption. Foreign sources provide the rest, primarily Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and several African countries.


But dependence upon Canada, Mexico and Venezuela cannot be regarded as a long-term solution to its domestic production deficit. These countries have or are about to experience their own peak. By contrast, the Middle East isn’t expected to peak until around 2011. Furthermore, by 2020, with production rates declining more rapidly elsewhere, the Middle East is expected to produce more oil than all other regions combined.

In 2001, The National Energy Policy Development Group (known as the NEPD Group and chaired by newly appointed-Vice President, Dick Cheney) alluded to this ‘crossover event’ in its ‘National Energy Policy’ report.



By 2020, Gulf oil producers are expected to supply between 54% and 67% of the world’s oil. Thus the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend upon the supply of oil from Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf.


At the time, Gulf oil producers accounted for just over 30% of total world production.

But the Middle East is not the only region considered vital to US interests. The break-up of the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the Afghan-Soviet war has also led to a battle for energy dominance in and around the Caspian Sea. This battle has been termed the ‘New Great Game’, with interested parties competing not only for oil but also for the development of lucrative new transit routes as alternatives to the region’s existing infrastructure. Long-standing US policy goals regarding the now-independent littoral Central Asian Republics were reiterated in a statement to the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations by Doug Bereuter, the Chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. They include…



…fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia’s monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
POINT FIVE

The final point consists of two elements that arise from the same fundamental philosophy – the determination of the US to eliminate the influence of the Soviets in Europe and, if possible, to precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Operation Gladio and The Strategy of Tension.

Operation Gladio was originally conceived by Allen Dulles, who went on to become the first civilian Director of the CIA. It was the Italian code name given to NATO’s clandestine stay-behind armies, which were left across Europe after the war to better train partisan groups to counter the threat of Communist expansion. Initially, these armies were coordinated solely by the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) until, upon the orders of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR), a second command centre was formed in the shape of the Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC).

These stay-behind armies later became key backers in what was known in Italy as the Strategy of Tension. This right wing, anti-Communist programme was aimed at preventing the increasingly popular Italian Communist Party from participating in a governing coalition. It lasted for over a decade. Throughout the campaign, Gladio members employed both violent and non-violent methods to manipulate public opinion against the Party, often committing false flag attacks and then blaming them on Communist insurgents. These were conducted indiscriminately against both civilian and non-civilian targets, and included the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, the 1972 Peteano car bombing, the attempted assassination of former Interior Minister Mariano Rumor and the 1980 Bologna massacre.

Gladio first came to light in August 1990, when then Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti gave testimony to a Senate subcommittee investigation into terrorism in Italy. Andreotti revealed that the secret army had been hidden within the Defence Ministry as a sub-section of the SISMI and its predecessor, the SOIS, Italy’s military secret service. This revelation infuriated the former Director of SIOS, Vito Miceli, who had “gone to prison because I did not want to reveal the existence of this super secret organization.” An organisation, which according to Vincenzo Vinciguerra, one of the 1972 Peteano car bombers, was required to “attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game [in order to force] the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.” Subsequent investigations have since revealed that Gladio-style armies also operated in Belgium (SDRA8), Denmark (Absalon), Germany (TD BJD), Greece (LOK), Luxembourg (Stay-Behind), the Netherlands (I&O), Norway (ROC), Portugal (Aginter), Switzerland (P26), Turkey (Counter-Guerrilla), Sweden (AGAG), and Austria (OWSGV).

Following these disclosures, the European Parliament issued a Joint resolution condemning Gladio.

Operation Cyclone.

In 1978, Nur Muhammad Taraki, the Secretary General of the Communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), became the first Communist leader of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Taraki’s government immediately began the process of reform. It laid out a Marxist agenda, which included land and education reforms, as well as more liberal attitudes towards women. These were seen as an affront to the traditional rural and feudal Afghan way of life; they were also seen as an attack on Islam. By mid-1978, mujahideen insurgents had already established a base in Pakistan and had turned to the West, in particular the United States, for support.

In September 1979, Taraki was killed and Deputy Prime Minister, Hafizullah Amin, took control. Soviet leaders soon began to question his loyalty to Moscow following reports that he was purging the opposition of Soviet sympathisers and that he was a CIA agent. Indeed, the Soviets strongly suspected that the CIA had, for some time, been active within Afghanistan. On 27th December 1979, they intervened militarily in support of the Communist revolution.

The Soviet’s suspicion was later confirmed by the then US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur in January 1998.



Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the National Security Adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.


The CIA’s support of the Islamic mujahideen (Operation Cyclone) relied heavily on the intermediation of Pakistani secret service agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Much of that support, whether in the form of recruits, finance or equipment, was distributed by the ISI to the mujahideen via Maktab al Khidamar (MAK), which was founded by Dr Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden.

Between 1979 and 1992, the CIA is said to have helped train over 100,000 Islamic insurgents at a cost of up to $20 billion. In his book, ‘Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism’, John Cooley reveals that some insurgents were recruited in the US and sent to the CIA’s spy training camp in Camp Peary, where they received paramilitary training.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Impressive yo, but you went way over the guidlelines. I probably did too, with my first post.

My strategy, based on what S.O. specified, was to do one post that had my 5 main views, and then the following post (it ended up growing on me) was to follow up with all of the links to backup the 5 views. In total, people probably thought I was insane with such a huge entry, but my interpretation is the first post is the one if size concern. My 'explanation' entry is probably too long as it is. Actually part of my strategy was in writing up seperate threads that fully detailed the tidbit mentions in the first part, as thats what several of the links ended up being.

Great writeup in anycase.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
coughymachine, Excellent, and I meant the big 'E"!! I retreat in the face of your submission. I would not even accept being picked, as if that could happen now, over your fantastic presentation.

I grant that it does not exactly fulfill the basic idea, as I understood it to showcase 9/11 itself, but the fact that it lays the basis for understanding the hidden need and past actions of the role players in this drama, it does fulfill the spirit of the contest, IMO.

My hat is off.


I cast my vote for you to "represent" ATS in this matter. ( I know, full and arbitrary judgment is by SO alone. But I speak in this only as a partisan.)



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736I grant that it does not exactly fulfill the basic idea, as I understood it to showcase 9/11 itself, but the fact that it lays the basis for understanding the hidden need and past actions of the role players in this drama, it does fulfill the spirit of the contest, IMO.

Thanks for the feedback.

I appreciate it’s not necessarily what the OP was looking for, and is therefore likely to be invalid as a ‘entry’, but for me these issues are key to answering some of the lingering ‘challenges’ surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories.


What was the motivation?

The need to develop and protect US energy interests in the Middle East and the Caspian Basin, coupled with the need to either preserve the petrodollar’s hegemonic status or else oversee a smooth transition away from it. It’s not possible to overstate the importance of both oil and the dominant position of the dollar to the US economy.


The US would never kill its own citizens.

Well, Roosevelt’s implementation of the McCollum Memo recommendations and all the information that demonstrates he knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in advance, say otherwise.


Too many people would have to have been ‘in the loop’.

There are two responses here.

An extraordinarily large number of people must have known about or participated in Operation Gladio and the subsequent decade-long Strategy of Tension. This extended well beyond the US, and involved many European countries’ intelligence services as well as NATO.

The other angle is that others can be brought on-board to, perhaps unwittingly, do your bidding. Operation Cyclone offers a good example. Brzezinski essentially admits that the US sought to draw the Soviets into a confrontation with Afghanistan through its support for the mujahideen. At the same time, many of these ‘soldiers’ believed they were fighting for their own cause.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
1- Buildings falling at free fall.
2- Bin Laden cia operative & Al Queda cia created group blamed. Bush Senior having CIA links and being Director at one time. Bush Senior Bush Junior linking together and also linking to Al Queda.
3- People listed as the hijacker's acknowledged by media and government are still found alive throughout the world and had no part in it.
4- Pentagon reinforced the very area hit week's before.
5- WTC7 No Plane and falls like WTC1 and WTC2.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
As far as I know, all of these are things that were made public, and are widely known, so they should be easily backup-able.

1. Wargames/drills on that day conflicting with the whole "we had no idea any of this was possible" story

2. No footage of the penatgon when there were clearly cameras everywhere, along with the confiscated gas station or whatever footage that everybody knows about.

3. The fact that that such unexperienced pilots were able to find new york, let alone singular buildings first try, and that they were even allowed to stay in the air that long (not being shot or otherwise brought down.)

4. No proper crime scene investigations...
No FBI or NTSB crime scene reports on any of the 911 planes.
No proper debris field or reconstruction of any of the crash scenes.
No NIST report on the actual cause of bilding 7 collapse.
...I stole this one from another poster, but only because they put it in better words than I could.

5. WTC7 being a controlled demoltion. The average person doesn't believe this, but if you get a chance to show them video of it, then videos of other demolitions, and then the pbs footage of that larry guy (and others) admitting that they purposely brought the building down, you can help them put it together that if one building had preset explosives, it's very possible that the other two did as well.
Then you can get into all of the videos that prove/show "secondary" explosions and other inconsistencies.

I've run out of points.

Possible substitue for any of the above- The fact that they identified one of the hijackers by finding his id in the street after one of the planes hit in new york.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by alaskan]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

I grant that it does not exactly fulfill the basic idea, as I understood it to showcase 9/11 itself, but the fact that it lays the basis for understanding the hidden need and past actions of the role players in this drama, it does fulfill the spirit of the contest,

IMO.



indeed It is an enthralling 'story' or narrative, as you will...

but i take the SO challenge as really meaning a presentation which, (figuratively & essentially) points to five (as in the five seperate intergers of a Hand) that unquestionably implicates a cadre/faction
of the government as having a 'hand' in a coup to take over the
national course of the USA...



i see the WTC 1,2 collapses as events that were in the cards, but the lie/cover-up is in the confusion & double speak & disinformation that makes the public entertain the notion & idea that explosives or demolition was the cause for the collapse...
instead of of the government, oversighted, approved, coded & regulated building practices in place...which overestimated the integrity of the 'novel' "Unitized" yet Flexible engineering of the Twin Towers...
The WTC 7 is a seperate issue.



i also see the broad net cast by Condi Rice, who stated officially that
(paraphrased)...Nobody Ever Considered Someone Using Aircraft as Missiles...

Her statement is categorically another un-truth, (i.e. conspiracy),
as I know for certain...[but non existant according to FOIA requests]...
that a 1995 'Tip Letter' to the Phoenix, AZ, FBI Field Office, during May-June, expressed concern that middle-eastern men & zealots were presently
taking flight training at AZ flight Schools and would, at some future date,
commandeer aircrafts into 3 high-profile targets...
Supposedly there was a follow up on AZ flight schools, initiated just prior to that may-june '95 tip-letter, on information from a paid undercover FBI informant,
& there was a Squad16 or Team16 assigned to investigate flight schools...
all that was started back in 1995...and it took till June 2001when an Agent 'Williams' from Phoenix sent the 'Phoenix Memo' to allert FBI department heads & HQs, also the counter-terrorism unit that middle east
men of interest were taking flight training at various schools across the US.

~ 6 years of investigations and the Intelligence community came up blank?



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Go back too sleep and next time read the blog and answer the original intent of the topic. And thanks for making me make the same mistake.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by hal5000]



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Im sure this wont go over well and it will probably get me banned but I must speak my mind.

Was this some kind of joke?
Has anybody 'won' any points?

In my mind, simple as it is, this is what I see.

S.O. visits with NY Truth on or around January 11.
I found this odd because in my time here at ATS I have seen S.O. as one of the more aggressive 'debunkers' reguarding 9/11.

Soon there after S.O. set up The 911 pound gorilla in an attempt to 'brand' and 'market' 911 truth. ?
He says he is working with " the most active/relevant 9/11 Truth Group, with a large publisher, and the largest conspiracy discussion board (us) for a knock-out 1-2-3 punch" but barely two weeks later he says they have 'hit a bump' and the idea is "on hold".

Slightly more then a week later one of the NY Truthers is found dead
I have never heard the official explination of his death.

Less then one week after that and S.O. starts a new thread What are the top 5 9/11 conspiracies? Where he offers a 'reward' or 'prize' for the winner.

No winner was ever announced that I saw, and as the thread is still open I assume no winner was named.

I find it odd that at the beginning of the years ATS seemed poised to finally throw their weight behind the truth movement, then it all just fizzled out with out so much as a wimper.

From my view it seems the 250,000 point game was just a way for 'them', whoever they may be, to isolate and focus on DEBUNKING various aspects of 9/11. The various aspects that most of us listed as our top five reasons for thinking there is a coverup surrounding 9/11.
Has anyone else noticed an increase in mis/dis info this year, or is it just me?

Now, I may be a bit biased, as I dont believe in ghosts or UFOs or remote veiwing or cryptozoology, but in all honesty, do any of those things really matter?
On the other hand, if 9/11 was an inside job, which the evidence suggests, shouldnt that be on the top of everybodies list of conspiracies to uncover?
I mean, 3000 Americans died because of 9/11, and people are dying daily because of the actions America took after 9/11, and there is no end in sight to the death and destruction.
If there was even the slightest chance they are lying to us about what happened then By God WE NEED TO FIND OUT.
Who cares about 'brands' and 'marketing'?

This isnt shoes we are selling, its truth we are telling, and no logo is neaded IMO.

If this post does get me banned, its been nice chatting with you all.
Stay strong and peaceful, it really is the only way.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join