VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 45 times


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 09:17 AM by joeflow
reply to post by enigmania


I don't really care what the "official story" is, at least as far as any government is concerned anyway (baring in mind I am British so my government has made no official claims regarding the events). I have examined the NIST report, I have read people's attempts at debunking the NIST report, I have watched the videos, I have looked at the photos, I have listened to eyewitness accounts, I have examined the science, I have read independent white papers regarding the various dynamics involved, I have analysed the information with rationality and logic, and I have come to my own conclusions. Both towers were perfectly capable of collapsing (without assistance) as a direct result of the impact and resulting damage and events. Such a collapse does not violate any laws of physics or any established well accepted science. There is no need for a conspiracy so there is no reason to suspect one without reason. The government would gain minimal if any benefit at all from carrying out such a conspiracy and any such benefit would be overshadowed by the cost and effort involved in pulling off such a conspiracy and keeping it hidden. Any government capable of pulling off such a conspiracy would be quite proficient at what they do yet the current US government have blundered many proportionally simpler tasks. Any government with the audacity, will, and capability of pulling off such a conspiracy would be perfectly capable and willing to plant WMDs in Iraq, and yet there were no WMDs found in Iraq, which was a rather large egg on the current US government's face in the minds of the public. Don't you think that any government who would conspire to effect the events of 9/11 in such a cruel and heartless way, would also plant WMDs to be found in Iraq to save face?


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 09:31 AM by NovusOrdoMundi
Why can't a 9/11 debate be civil in the least bit?

Listen, debunkers, this is how it is, and the sooner both of us realize it, the sooner we can end the drama. So here's how it is:

You'll never believe us

We'll never believe you

Sucks, but it's the truth.

I wish we could all be mature about the issue of 9/11, but it appears some, a lot even, cannot do such a thing.

I've seen some very educated, level headed, calm believers of the official story that I have enjoyed debating. During those debates, it would actually happen (if you can believe it) where we would be discussing a theory and debating the evidence, and one of us would change our mind about that theory after said evidence was presented and discussed, and actually, you know, AGREE with each other.

That is how you accomplish something through debate. If only more people could do this.

BOTH sides: the conspiracy side, quit thinking up the stupidest theories possible, and fact check your current theories. It doesn't have to be some grand event to be a conspiracy. Two or more people executing an unlawful event. That's it. 9/11 could have been a simple operation, and you're turning into something grand. Stop looking for something that isn't there because you're only pulling yourself further from the truth.

Official story side, you're going to have to realize, and admit, that not every one of the points you believe is correct. A lot of you still live back on September 12, 2001, and you spew the same propaganda that was known then. Facts change, new evidence is uncovered, historical facts are uncovered because they're now being looked for, new anomalies in videos and pictures are discovered. Adjust to it and review what you know and weed out the garbage.

And most importantly for both is to start debating in a way that is presenting facts and facts only. Present it in a way that you welcome the other side to debate what you've presented, and at least act as if you want to actually accomplish something with that debate.

It's not a popularity contest, people. It's not about who can come up with the biggest conspiracy theory, and it's not about who can feel the toughest by calling Islamic extremists every insulting name they can think of and claiming they attacked us because of our freedoms.

Just start working together and talking together and cut out the drama. It's not worth it.

[/lecture]





[edit on 10/26/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 09:47 AM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by joeflow
The government would gain minimal if any benefit at all from carrying out such a conspiracy and any such benefit would be overshadowed by the cost and effort involved in pulling off such a conspiracy and keeping it hidden.


That's incorrect

The benefit was not only taking away freedoms here in the United States, but also increasing military spending, and moving in to the Middle East to establish a natural gas pipeline for Unocal through Afghanistan, and eventually move into Iraq to control the oil fields.

When World War III starts, the Middle East and it's oil supply will be important in countering Russia and China.

It's interesting to note, also, that Karzai, the Afghan president, used to work for Unocal. So that adds a little to the theory that this was for a natural gas pipeline, because this pipeline could not have been built with the Taliban as the acting government.

Also, the cost doesn't matter, because it's all at taxpayers' expense. Driving up the national debt is good for them.

Originally posted by joeflow
Any government with the audacity, will, and capability of pulling off such a conspiracy would be perfectly capable and willing to plant WMDs in Iraq, and yet there were no WMDs found in Iraq


That is true that they'd be capable. But willing? No.

This war was never meant to be an in and out thing. There was always the intention of an occupation.

Why?

Well think about it, the longer the war, the more money paid to the defense contractors for the weapons. That means this administration's boys in the defense contractors, who dish out a lot in presidential campaign funding, get the favor repaid.

Also, think Halliburton. The more weapons made, the more destruction in Iraq made. So who gets no bid contracts to clean it up and build the military bases? Halliburton. Who owns stock in Halliburton? Dick Cheney.

So capable of planting them? Yes. Willing to? No.

Originally posted by joeflow
Don't you think that any government who would conspire to effect the events of 9/11 in such a cruel and heartless way, would also plant WMDs to be found in Iraq to save face?


Trust me, saving face means nothing. If saving face meant something, they wouldn't still be in Iraq.

Popularity polls mean nothing to them. Bush's approval rating is at something like 15%, with Congress even lower, yet things aren't changing.


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 09:53 AM by joeflow
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I whole heartedly agree with you there. It's just unfortunate that people willing to debate properly are a rarity on this site. I do however believe that people are entitled to a little emotion on both sides of the argument, so long as topic at hand is discussed in a civilised and constructive manner. Unfortunately some times moderators let threads spiral out of control for too long before intervening at which point it's quite often too late.


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 09:59 AM by Cypher
In the spirit of "Denying Ignorance" I would like to present an opposing viewpoint on the video. Interested ATS members can find a specific refutation of the claims made by the 9/11 Mysteries video at the following link:

The 9/11 Mysteries Viewing Guide
911MysteriesGuide.com is the home on the web of the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide, a debunking of the popular 9/11 Conspiracy film '9/11 Mysteries'.


Also, I know this video and the refutation video, "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" has been discussed here on ATS before. I would have provided a link to the the pertinent threads, but the ATS search server kept timing out on me. A quick search should take you to the correct link though, and I will edit this post, with them at a later time.

-Cypher

** On a side note; I've been an ATS member for quite a while, but I rarely post. However, I felt compelled to respond to this one as I was somewhat concerned that the posting of 9/11 Mysteries by SkepticOverlord would be seen as a tacit endorsement of the theories contained in it by ATS itself, especially in light of the glowing endorsement of the video given by SO. While I realize that it would be difficult to get the producers of original content to join in a partnership with ATS if they knew their product was going to presented with links specifically refuting their claims, I still have this nagging feeling that for the purposes of denying ignorance, there must be a better way to present items like this. Ah well... it's food for thought, and this is NOT the forum for that discussion.

Kudos must go though to ATS for continuing to forge partnerships with companies such as the Disinformation Company and for using Bright Cove Studio's excellent player technology to bring it's members an increasingly rich experience.**


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 10:37 AM by joeflow
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi




That is true that they'd be capable. But willing? No.

This war was never meant to be an in and out thing. There was always the intention of an occupation.


The finding of WMDs would have no consequence on how long the allied forces stayed in Iraq, finding WMDs was only half the job, the other half was enabling the election of a stable government and keeping the country sufficiently peaceful for the newly elected government to take over control of security, which is the exact reason the allied forces are still in Iraq. If finding WMDs is enough to convince the public that it is time to pull out, then not finding WMDs would have greater impact on the administration's ability to keep troops in Iraq. That's hardly conducive to the administration's intentions if they are perpetrating the conspiracies alleged.



Trust me, saving face means nothing. If saving face meant something, they wouldn't still be in Iraq.


Saving face means getting re-elected, saving face means keeping the public supportive of their actions and preventing an uprising that removes them from power. Why milk a cow for a day, when you can milk a cow for it's lifetime? Any self respecting deviant would want to keep their power for the maximum possible time. Yet Bush will not be serving another term, and the republicans have lost a lot of potential voters.

Indeed I agree that if it was about saving face then they wouldn't still be in Iraq. It is not about saving face and that is exactly my point.



Popularity polls mean nothing to them. Bush's approval rating is at something like 15%, with Congress even lower, yet things aren't changing.


If the administration cares little about public opinion, why bother enacting a conspiracy that is all about public opinion?


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 12:11 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by joeflow
the other half was enabling the election of a stable government and keeping the country sufficiently peaceful for the newly elected government to take over control of security, which is the exact reason the allied forces are still in Iraq.


Well, I disagree with that being the reason why we're still there. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't want to turn this into an Iraq War debate, so if you want to make a thread about the Iraq War, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you there.

Originally posted by joeflow
Saving face means getting re-elected, saving face means keeping the public supportive of their actions and preventing an uprising that removes them from power.

...and the republicans have lost a lot of potential voters.


Unfortunately that's not how US politics works.

The corporations weed out the ones who are not their puppets, and they make one puppet democrat and one puppet republican the finalists, and have us Americans decide which of their people are going to rule us.

So, losing republican votes or losing democrat votes, it really doesn't matter. The corporations set it up so that which ever one that gets elected, their goals are accomplished.

And an uprising that removes a bad leader from power - I only wish that Americans had that kind of energy or intelligence. That kind of fight in the people of this country was left back in the American Civil War.

Originally posted by joeflow
If the administration cares little about public opinion, why bother enacting a conspiracy that is all about public opinion?


All they needed was 9/11 to be convincing enough to get the USA PATRIOT Act signed into law and to invade Afghanistan, and after that, it'd be too late, and public opinion wouldn't matter.


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 12:34 PM by joeflow
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi



I don't want to turn this into an Iraq War debate, so if you want to make a thread about the Iraq War, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you there.


Not at all I was simply rebutting your dissection of my comment on this video.



The corporations weed out the ones who are not their puppets, and they make one puppet democrat and one puppet republican the finalists, and have us Americans decide which of their people are going to rule us.

So, losing republican votes or losing democrat votes, it really doesn't matter. The corporations set it up so that which ever one that gets elected, their goals are accomplished.




All they needed was 9/11 to be convincing enough to get the USA PATRIOT Act signed into law and to invade Afghanistan, and after that, it'd be too late, and public opinion wouldn't matter.


If 'they' have both the Republicans and the Democrats in their pockets, why would they need anything to be convincing? I would think an organisation that controls both parties of a two party political system and cares little about public opinion could just pass law as it pleases.

Now really, after making such a well written post about proper debate, why throw so much unprovable ambiguous conjecture in to the mix. Or was that post just an attempt at dignifying your self as a set-up for the main event?


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 01:18 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by joeflow
If 'they' have both the Republicans and the Democrats in their pockets, why would they need anything to be convincing?


Well, you can't exactly have 9/11 happen and feed a story to the public completely different from what actually happened. It does have to be somewhat convincing to unite the country.

You unite the country behind your cause, then take advantage of that unity once you've gained enough power. That's what was done.

Originally posted by joeflow
I would think an organisation that controls both parties of a two party political system and cares little about public opinion could just pass law as it pleases.


They do pass laws as they please. Read this thread

Originally posted by joeflow
Now really, after making such a well written post about proper debate, why throw so much unprovable ambiguous conjecture in to the mix.


I never claimed it was fact what I was saying, and my post was about debating 9/11. We aren't exactly engaged in a 9/11 debate. It's kind of a mix between Iraq and how the US government works, with a few mentions of 9/11 tossed in.

So I'll say now, what I said above is my opinion, not fact. It's merely the result of the research I've done, and the interpretations I've made, and nothing more.

Originally posted by joeflow
Or was that post just an attempt at dignifying your self as a set-up for the main event?


I'm not trying to dignify myself with anything. And what main event are you speaking of?


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 02:20 PM by lee anoma
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Novus, I bow before you.

Anyone that claims there would be no benefit from a governmental inside-job terror attack should consider what "Operation Northwoods" sought to accomplish if implemented:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba, casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, the terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States."
WRH.com


So please don't think for a second that the very notion is new, let alone inconceivable. Manipulation and control is the main goal. The idea has been thrown around before according to those documents and this is only what we've managed to actually get a hold of.

Who knows what else has slipped under our noses.

Great documentary BTW and I look forward to more. I've learned a few things I actually didn't hear/see before so it was certainly worth watching to me.

- Lee



reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 10:26 PM by lifestudent
reply to post by housegroove23


BTW, ran across another video with additional info and arguments here:
video.google.com...


Google Video Link



[edit on 26-10-2007 by lifestudent]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^