It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Listen to what he has to say, but he never mentions the damage and the burning on the other side.
Originally posted by 11Bravo
A friend of mine used to say 'not bad, I'll give you an E for effort'
The reference is to a Letter based grading system ranging from A to F.
I never understood why he said this though because in the grading system there is no use of the letter E!
At anyrate, all I want to say is 'Not bad, I'll give you a D for Delta'.
I give you a D because you offer nothing other than "He didnt mention the damage and the buring on the other side!"
Sooooo...... I surmise that you are suggesting that the 'damage and burning on the other side' caused this otherwise solid structure to collapse evenly?
To clarify, you are saying that massive structural damage on the other side which by definition is not uniform, causes a complete and uniform global collapse?
Your own logic defeats you.
Originally posted by Caustic LogicWhatever the truth, "9/11 Truth" is mostly, as Fintan Dunne says, "psyop."
Originally posted by nick7261
But what about 9/11 truth?
Did Bush let the terrorists attack the U.S., or is it the government that attacked the U.S.? What is the common presupposition here?
I'm late gettin on here tonight and a bit tired... but as for the common supposition there is that the gov. would be willing to do such a thing. We all can see why they'd be tempted, but would they actually do it? That's the presupposition of the "Truth" movement, hich I think irks many. Y'know, why does "truth" have to be something sinister. My take on that is in the search for truth, you can neither be certain of sinister motives, nor can you rule them out as every mainstream investigation has. The only way you can avoid seeing evidence of complicity at least is to TRY not to see it.
That either way we as citizens are helpless against forces bigger and stronger than we are? Could the purpose of the psyop be to condition the masses of people to subjugate themselves to those who are more powerful, who are in control, and who make the decisions for them?
I think that's a pretty good summary of the psyop end of the 9/11 attacks themselves. You are all vulnerable and helpless from attack - intel, law enforcement, airport security, air defenses, even basic rules of architecture and physics no longer protect you - we had a mental choice - accept the gov. claim that they WANTED to stop such a ting but were just as powerless as us (so we're all the same, and then we can give them more power to protect us) or that they were powerful enough to stop such attacks but failed and may have even done it themselves. This is a dark headspace to be in, and until Loose Change or someone else says it first, most people will not let themselves linger there.
As for the aim of the (possible) 9/11 disinfo campaign, the purpose would of course be to sabotage, mislead, distract, and discredit the movement, for those who do not buy the powerlessness paradigm. So they sew stupid theories via compromised agents who appear sincere, get us asking the wrong questions. We do have power, if not to effect a coherent revolutionary change, at least to cause problems and hurt the economy and cause chaos. So they keep us distracted and confused until we forget or fade off. And then, yes, ultimately it corroborates the overarching psyop - we are powerless - we had our chance to break the "truth" but were reatrded about it and blew it looking for the Global Hawk at the Pentagon.
Which conveniently brings us back to Hufschmid, and lets me close this post on a note more relevant to the thread's original purpose.