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.

 

[Video] A 2min Video, a 9/11 Theory I never heard of before but makes perfect sense

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here is the video in question, please watch it
www.youtube.com...

Could the attack on the WT Centers be an attack on globalization?

This may have been discussed here before, but I didn't find such a thread.

Muslims definately fear loss of identity and the middle east being westernized.

What do you think?

Please watch this video, it's extremely well done!

[edit on 1-7-2007 by ModernAcademia]




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The WTC Towers were a symbol of globalism, but this is no coincidence or surprise to me because Rockefellers built them, and David Rockefeller has said autobiographically that yes, he wants globalization. I've even read that they even thought to name the towers "David" and "Nelson" after the Rockefeller brothers when they were still negotiating the complex, but decided against it.

For this particular symbol to then be attacked in the way in which it was attacked (with the devil in the details), I don't see this as a Mid-Eastern plot that hit us out of nowhere. There was an ISI agent telling our FBI in 1999 that they were going to bring down the WTC Towers, and the ISI is the Pakistani friend of the CIA that deals directly with the Taliban for our leaders. That kind of stuff is everywhere.

To me it seems like it would have made a little more sense to say they were attacking globalism, than to say "they hate our freedom" and all of that gibberish.


But then it might actually bring up a debate about globalist policies, whereas the US was traditionally isolationist. Can't have the public forming opinions about that.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Never heard of this theory!?!?

This is exactly what Zeitgeist: The Movie is all about!

Everyone and their brother needs to see this movie



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The visuals of the video rocked but I support Rebuilding America's Defenses.


We have too many people in the world to maitain stability without a watchful eye on the global situation.


Read Rebuilding America's Defenses and you may change your mind about this films propaganda.


We all have bits of the puzzle but so far with what I have I support PNAC.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a few points
1. this is the 'high profile project' they spoke of. im trying to think of a better summary to that than lol, but lol about sums it up.
2. if you are going to mention fascism, you had better be able to back it up if you expect to be taken seriously. they did not give an incling of evidence.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
In relation to globalization, i do believe in the so called New World Order. There is so much definitive evidence to suggest that. In order to get the people of america behind a war, one would need a "false flag" attack.

The Twin Towers are represented as a major symbol of American wealth and power. To hit that with the devastation that we saw on 9/11 put fear and anger in the eyes of the the American Public and the world as we were told by the corporate media elite that Middle Easter terrorists were able to break through a multi billion dollar defense network with the head of the operation overlooking it in a cave some where in, most probably Afghanistan. Quite obviously this was not the case. The truth is coming out whether or not people want to believe it.

Paul Warburg was a German/American banker and early advocate of the U.S Federal Reserve system. Paul Warburg was quoted saying;

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).

David Rockefeller Founder and Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, , An original US founding member and life member of the Bilderberg Group, Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and Honorary Chairman of the Council of the America. There is alot more.

Random House published his Memoirs in 2002.

On page 405 of the paperback edition, David Rockefeller says this:

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." From his "Memoirs"

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Thank you Modern Academia for the link. I've seen that video around and its superbly sweet, best graphics ever! I agree it doesn't itself explain the "Fascism" link to well, aother than that it's not like Hitler's. And while I'm not sure that's the right technical word for it, it's pretty close to what we're getting. Corporatism, state-private partnership, centralized control, nationalism... okay, that's part of where it breaks down, as this "fascism" is to support not so much the US as the US-led globalist system. It's been going on for years, decades, the unannounced wars of empire, the engineering of world politics. But now after 9/11 it's been given a mandate it never had before from the American people (or their reps anyway), to move about the world striking at will, whatever it takes to prevent another catstrophic and catalyzing event. And along the way we've changed governments and meddled in the former Soviet sphere aggressively - which has little to do with preventing terrorism but everything to do with globalization... that's one clue there.


Originally posted by bsbray11

To me it seems like it would have made a little more sense to say they were attacking globalism, than to say "they hate our freedom" and all of that gibberish.


More sense, yes. But who would rally to fight for globalization? How convenient that "the terrorists" (insiders or outsiders) chose to provoke globalization by attacking it, and how deft of Bush and co. to brand this attack as one on our "freedoms." To the common person, this becomes the terrorists want to take us over and replace the constitution w/the Koran. Sure, maybe, but unlikely... they can blow up some things, but that's about it. But now we're out there fighting for the freedoms of a few to run the world. Ain't double meaning great?

And to the few supporting the PNAC, I'm all for defense from actual enemies in a sane world, but in this case it seems about taking the hit first to illustrate to us all why we need the defense. Our sworn and paid bodyguard wanted a bigger gun, more powers, and more pay, somehow fell down of the job, and let us get pummeled by invaders. Then guess what? He got his money and powers and guns. And used them to pursue a "New American Century" with NY still at the center of World Trade (as much as possible), unshaken by the attack. This influence is projected out there by the Pentagon's resolute will, unshaken by the attack. And the good decent heroic self-sacrificing people of rural and urban America are still pouring themselves into the Pentagon's conduits of military power, unshaken by the attacks and inspired by Flight 93, and ready to fight terror on its home turf, as soon as they're told what turf that will be this time.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Beautifully done video and dead on-target.

We live in our consumerist aquarium while the war/terror machine grinds on, occasionally throwing up nasty events like 9/11 to keep us in line.

No wonder the US is polled as the most dangerous nation on earth--outside the US, of course--but then we all know that just means squat.

Sigh.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
who can make war with the beast beast, who is likened against it?

When you see the devil in your lands..flee.

A wise man sees danger on the road ahaed and takes shelter, the fool continues and suffers for it.

All good quotes from the Bible..but relevent. not to preach, it was after all written by mans hand..



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
i see the point the guys trying to make....about the US being constantly at war....but i dont think there's another country in the world that hasnt been at conflict with another country...tribe...itself...for more than a 3-4 year timespan......i am currently looking for history to back this up....



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join