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.

 

I found another conspiracy.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The conspiracy to mislead the American people about govt. involvement on 9/11.



Listen to what he has to say, but he never mentions the damage and the burning on the other side.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Listen to what he has to say, but he never mentions the damage and the burning on the other side.


You have to understand that he was thinking in the old pre-9/11 mind frame. They hadn't developed the double-think for WTC7 yet.


When have asymmetrical damage and fire ever symmetrically collapsed a building at free-fall acceleration? Never? There's the solution.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

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.


11Bravo, I don't give a dam about what grade system you use on me since it ain't going to affect me. And I can post more videos of people who wants to spread the conspiracy about the 9/11 govt. involvement. Hold up.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Hey Delta, I'm not sure if this is the proof you need, but yes, IF there's such a campaign, Eric Hufschmid, whose voice that is, has gotta be part of it. He acts more like a paid clown than a real researcher. Look up some info on him, like his interview with Sam Danner or with Penn and Teller, and you'll see what I mean. Jimmy Walter too, Karl Schwarz, Dave Von Kleist, and to a lesser extent, the Loose Change kids. Whatever the truth, "9/11 Truth" is mostly, as Fintan Dunne says, "psyop."



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic LogicWhatever the truth, "9/11 Truth" is mostly, as Fintan Dunne says, "psyop."


I've thought about this too, but I can't figure out what their outcome would be.

Often propaganda psypops are based on getting people to believe a common presupposition by presenting two alternative stories, one official and the other "rumor."

For example, did the terrorists defeat U.S. defenses on 9/11, or did Bush know about the attacks and let them happen? Both of these scenarios require the presupposition that terrorists attacked the U.S.

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? 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?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Oops about getting that all in the quote box.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Great post. I think you've summed up the entire situation very well.

Tony Robbins calls events like 9/11 "Significant Emotinal Events."

The theory is that these events install mass beliefs across everybody in society that was part of the event. One belief that was installed by 9/11 is like what you said:

"We are helpless to protect ourselves from either outside forces, or from our own government."

This leads to the belief that, "We better do what our government tells us."

So what's next? A flu pandemic with compulsory vaccinations and martial law? The United North America with SPP leading the way? Military attacks of Iran and N. Korea, justified by the claim that we are preventing another 9/11 from happening?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Heres a couple nuggets and 2 of my cents.

"In June 1999 Giuliani completed his $13 million emergency command bunker on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7. This reinforced emergency control center — complete with its own air, water and power supply — was intended to provide a secure command post for leadership should such a disaster (as 9/11) occur" Source LookingGlassNews.Org

So this building was DESIGNED to withstand an attack. Structurally it was over-engineered but a few fires were enough to make it unstable?


Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC's) states the following in an interview on PBS "America Rebuilds", aired in 2002:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Source: WhatReallyHappened.com

Now by the term "pull", he means a controlled demolition.

How was it possible for the "er" NYFD Explosives unit to get in and plant demo charges in this inferno?


IMO Silverstein is talking out of his (reinforced gl) ass. The building was rigged before the planes had even taken off, and he knew about it.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by IntoTheVoid]




top topics



 
0

log in

join