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.

 

9/11 DEW / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

[SIZE=4]9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline[/SIZE]

By CB_Brooklyn


Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."


There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:


1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.

2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.

3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.



Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.

Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?

Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?

Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge.
SOURCE



Continued here:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

mod edit to add external link quotes

 

Please review the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to when joining Above Top Secret.


ATS Terms & Conditions


1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from AboveTopSecret.com LLP). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.
(italics added for emphasis)


3a) Content Distribution: You will not copy material from these discussion forums to post on other websites or quote in offline research in a manner that does not comply with the ATS Creative Commons Licences that specifies the author's member name as a member of AboveTopSecret.com, includes AboveTopSecret.com, LLP and the member as owners of the content, provides the title of the thread, and a full URL to the board thread.








[edit on 11/26/2007 by benevolent tyrant]




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


I apologize for the 1 line post but:

Fail.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Holy McShizzlenits!!! CB_Brooklyn this was an awesome post.

I am always confused as to what to beleive on 9/11 as with most others, but i just stick with one story (not gonna say it to derail the thread) and just beleive in it unti there is hardcore evidence, until then, its all speculation.

Here it is folks, for noobs like me and others who are new to the 9/11 conspiracy scene are 3 easily chosen but definetly intricatly webbed options broken down to the ultimate Laymens terms. I like!

Gives me the down and dirty straight up point of these 3 options, and on the link there are many artciles that are linked to the one of 3 options.

Very good here, and well researched info. to let others know to determine their own mind.

Flagged and starred, i should let the others who are more knowledable about this reply more, but great nevertheless.

AND

Who are you to say, Sublime620, that this is an abysmal failure.

The onlyl failure is you for not sharing your opinion on this. Shame man, ATS s slogan is to DENY IGNORANCE and your being very ignorant towards CB_Brooklyns thread. Have some respect......



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
So basically your post is a promotion of your website?

Speaking of which, where is the discussion on the timeline mentioned in the title (both here on ATS, and your website)?

While we're on details, according to point 3 there is "actual evidence" of the use of DEW. Mind showing me where this is? Had a look on your website, all you have is tenuous links (such and such has a professional affiliation, such and such ambushed debate, and so on) rather than anything that consitutes actual evidence.

I hate to say this, but option two is orders of magnitude more likely than option 3. And when it comes to all three, option one is still the one that has the majority of evidence, laws of physics, and common sense attached to it.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jarheadjock
I am always confused as to what to beleive on 9/11 as with most others, but i just stick with one story (not gonna say it to derail the thread) and just beleive in it unti there is hardcore evidence, until then, its all speculation.

Here it is folks, for noobs like me and others who are new to the 9/11 conspiracy scene are 3 easily chosen but definetly intricatly webbed options broken down to the ultimate Laymens terms. I like!


You realize that you're swapping convenience for a real understanding of the issues, right? If you "pick a side" this way, what is the point in defending it against any kind of rebuttal if you can't form any personal sense of what's really logical/realistic and what's not on your own?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
From lurking I've done here in the past, I know for a dead fact that it's posts like these that lead to the flashing disclaimers at the top and bottom.

OP, prepare thyself for banning, I won't cry when you're gone.


MOD EDIT: Leave the Moderating to us please

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26-11-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I just meant i am not ready to actually defend my position because i have a limited knowledge of the issue, and making claims left and right in defense would make me look like an imbicile, i'm not ready to risk that trial and error that fast!

For the record, i think that 9/11 was an inside job, that the WTC towers were rigged with explosives and was a CD, and that the planes were remote controlled. For the Flight 93, i beleive it either landed somewhere or was shot down on purpose for some strange reason. The pentagon, it was a missle.

Thats all i got to say about that.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I think jarhead was being sarcastic... err I HOPE he was!

And to the guy who said option 1 was the most likely scenario: FAIL.

The whole story falls apart with BUILDING 7. You might as well not even bother debating the twin towers, were they hit by planes, bombs, holograms, directed energy beams from the Death Star, dragons, alien ringwraiths?

Building 7 is your answer. Did anyone ever successfully disprove that building 7 was demolished??? even though the obviously lying rat Larry Silverstein had to admit something along the lines that it was demolished???

Study the testimony of THAT guy, and it becomes all the more obvious how important building 7 is to unravelling the whole official story.

To the OP.... come on. We're not idiots.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by indierockalien
 


I think we're all focusing on the wrong thing here. The important part is NOT HOW it was done, it was WHO did it. And the suspicious stock trades leading up to 9/11 and the government's failure to properly investigate them even though it would have been child's play to have done so totally answers that question.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by indierockalien
 


Help me to know where i was , hopefully , being sarcastic? I dont know what ya mean, i will be happy to clarify.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
One problem with what CB is saying is that the power required to do what he's suggesting would be more than the entire world's supply of electricity could accommodate. The science behind this is that the beams s/he's talking about must either be photon beams, electron beams, or else beams of some form of energy completely new to science (in which case there could not possibly be any kind of scientific proof of it yet, of course). Photon beams' power output depends on the power input. So would anything else as long as energy is conserved.

A photon beam damages things by superheating small areas of electronics by bombarding them with energy beams of photons. The technology exists but it requires an enormous amount of energy and does not sublimate or "dustify" or any etc. the electronic components it destroys, it just heats them to failure, which is perfectly possible at a much lower temperature (as an electronics engineering student you should be able to ask me about "thermal runaway" in circuits). Now imagine trying to evaporate (or "dustify" or whatever other terms anyone wants to make up) a building composed of hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, etc., in under 20 seconds. Obviously there are much better ways to bring down a building, or two or three.

Another problem I can't get around, and that CB can't seem to help me with, is where the DEW cuts are at, on the steel that remained. Partially evaporated columns or beams anywhere? Everyone agrees there was tons and tons of steel left laying around all over the place, right? Perimeter columns and core columns mostly. Can anyone show me where the DEW failed them? Most of the core columns were cut (er, "failed") in smooth, even slices in about 3-story lengths or less. Most of the perimeter columns failed at the bolts, and the spandrel plates appear to have sheared, so that most of them came apart into the three-column groups they were installed in.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well there's always the copout answer of "they've got bigass generators up there in space!!" but, for me, the real failure of this theory to be persuasive is that no observatory in the world detected this massive energy event, as they probably all surely would have had it happened.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
Building 7 is your answer. Did anyone ever successfully disprove that building 7 was demolished??? even though the obviously lying rat Larry Silverstein had to admit something along the lines that it was demolished???

Study the testimony of THAT guy, and it becomes all the more obvious how important building 7 is to unravelling the whole official story.

To the OP.... come on. We're not idiots.

dude, not to mention the multi-billion dollar insurance policy taken out 2 weeks before 9/11

Why hasnt anyone investigated him....If i buy some buildings and take out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and two weeks later they get destroyed...guess what, im gonna be under some mass investigation..



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Aren't all those DEW affiliations a bit odd???



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The simpliest of the explanation is always the right one.
The Govt one its a fairy tale...a big fairy tail and its impossible to demonstrate.
The OCT it has some huge Gaps and questions.
The easiest one is obviously TV fakery and the use of exotic weapons, and some drones, this would explain the sincronized charges going off (during second impact and the first tower collapse), the weird laser like lights, the weird missing wings, the weird angles of the so called plane approach, the pulverization of the twin towers, the weird melted cars, the weird Videos, the weird UFO'S the weird helicopters, the morphing flying objects, the meteorites etc... etc...
I just wish to see the stuff they used on 911 more readily available to normal human beings instead than some psycos...



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by piacenza
 


poor spelling, poor formatting, and poor logic.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26-11-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I have my own opinions as to what happened on 9/11 but I can't prove anything.Therefore, I leave my mind open to other hypotheses.
I haven't clicked your link because the snippet I read was clearly biased.Had you written it from a neutral view,included more details other than "some guy", I might have pursued this further.
Just for the record, I don't buy the official story because of too many changes in the story and lack of any real proof.
All both sides have is evidence, NOT proof.
That's my two coppers.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken


poor spelling, poor formatting, and poor logic.


And a poor post on your part. Do you have something to add here at ATS except off topic one liners?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   


Why hasnt anyone investigated him....If i buy some buildings and take out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and two weeks later they get destroyed...guess what, im gonna be under some mass investigation..


Reason Silverstien bought the insurance was that the people putting up
the money forced him to in order to protect their investments. Remember
back in 1993 terrorists set off bomb in basement causing tens of millions
in damage and disruption. Silverstein wanted to insure each building for
1.5 billion - lenders wanted 5 billion on each building, settled for 3.5 bill
on each building. Even then Silverstein had to sue insurers to pay up -
they wanted to declare it as single incident and only pay 3.5 billion
Silverstein said it was two separate incidents and got the full pay out.
Why dont you investigate lenders ? After all they wanted to insure
buildings for more than Silverstein wanted to????



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


It's totally on-topic. I was telling him his post was crap. I don't like your attitude...we're you guys' boss, not the other way around.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join