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.

 

Will the skeptics admit this?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
By skeptics I mean the people who hold that the TRUTH MOVEMENT needs to be challenged and is misguided. Or that the TRUTH MOVEMENT is disgraceful. Okay let us assume for the sake of argument that what the skeptics are saying is true. That Mark Roberts and the 'de-bunkers' are correct. Let us assume this.

Then with that assumption, will the skeptics admit that the Truth Movement is a Powerful Weapon against Bin Laden? Since it causes youth form Pakistan to doubt just "WHO BIN LADEN MIGHT BE"? Since most people have access to the internet these days, wouldn't it be the CIA's Dream to have doubts sowed about Bin Laden? That way less youth would flock to him since they would doubt who he really is working for??
Watch this video
www.youtube.com...


Again I am not saying the skeptics are correct. I am seeing if they can at least be consistent in their reasoning. And with that consistency will the skeptic then thank the Truth Movement?




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Great video. Surprised at no responses. Really hard facts to deny. Fairly convenient that the guy we created is the one who is attacking us. I don't think anyone on this forum could deny that the US could behind him pulling the strings.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Then with that assumption, will the skeptics admit that the Truth Movement is a Powerful Weapon against Bin Laden? Since it causes youth form Pakistan to doubt just "WHO BIN LADEN MIGHT BE"?


I think you'll probably have to supply some good evidence that:
1. The youth of Pakistan are questioning the motives and methods of Osama bin Laden
2. They are doing it more now than they have in the past
3. That the supposed decrease in bin Laden's credibility is due more to the activities of the "Truth Movement," and not other factors, such as Osama's decreased visibility (particularly since his death several years ago).

That's all. Simple.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



Because it pretty well is self-evident. Look at this way, when the second plane hit the south tower, you didn't really need demonstrable proof that what was happening was deliberate. It was obvious. The same can be said with what I am saying for the following reasons.

1. Bin Laden to date hasn't challenged the rumors about him. (although I expect that to change soon) He hasn't gone on video and reminded people that he doesn't work for the CIA.

2. Bin Laden has never answered his about face change, at first denying the 9/11 events, then embracing them.

3. Bin Laden has never tried to deny his "confession" on tape, since technology could have easily been blamed by him. In fact, curiously he never mentions the tape in his rantings.

4. Bin Laden never used the term "AL'Qaeda" until after 2001 when the United States start to use the term often.

5. The Bin Laden family and the Bush family are closely tied.

6. The internet is accessible to a great many people.

7. The military uses deception often--Look at Operation Northwoods or Cointelpro.


Watch the video I linked, the Pakistani Youth are confused.

So what I am saying is basically this. IF what the skeptics are saying is true, then they can thank the Truth Movement for "confusing the pot". But I personally do feel there is enough circumstantial evidence that Bin Laden is actually working for the CIA or some black operation within the United States gov. but that is irrelevant to the point I am making here.

The only other point I would make concerning the youth, is if they were questioning him before 9/11 please show this, and even *IF* they were this then could actually be the 'icing on the cake'. By now giving legitimacy to their long standing doubts.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I personally think you should replace the part about the Bush's and bin Ladens with the fact that Osama was in essense created by the CIA. He was, in every sense of the word, an asset to the CIA.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Nohup
 



1. Bin Laden to date hasn't challenged the rumors about him. (although I expect that to change soon) He hasn't gone on video and reminded people that he doesn't work for the CIA.


Yes Osama is interested in the rants of truthers and Alex Jones.


2. Bin Laden has never answered his about face change, at first denying the 9/11 events, then embracing them.


Agreed...im sure there is specualtion all over, but thats all it is.


3. Bin Laden has never tried to deny his "confession" on tape, since technology could have easily been blamed by him. In fact, curiously he never mentions the tape in his rantings.


He admits and is proud of the accomplishments he scum bags have completed.

4. Bin Laden never used the term "AL'Qaeda" until after 2001 when the United States start to use the term often.

Well, there is no actual proof of this. However, OBL said in an interview in 2001:


The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed


archives.cnn.com...


5. The Bin Laden family and the Bush family are closely tied.


No secert that Bush has ties with Saudi folks. The Bin Laden family has disowned their son. There is not a singel shred of evidence that besides OBL, that any other members of the family have terrorist ties.


6. The internet is accessible to a great many people.


Made up of a great many idiots.


7. The military uses deception often--Look at Operation Northwoods or Cointelpro.


How many American lives were to be sacrificed in Operation Northwoods...and was this plan ever put in place?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Actually, OBL turned down funding from the United States Government during the Soviet-Afghan war.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 





How many American lives were to be sacrificed in Operation Northwoods...and was this plan ever put in place?


Now, I brought up Operation Northwoods to show that the military wouldn't hesitate to use deception no matter the cost. Now you bring up the point about how many people actually died in Operation Northwoods which wasn't to do with my point, however since you brought it up I thought it might be useful to deal with the logic you are using.

It seems by what your saying that *IF* people died, it would have made a difference. You seem comfortable with the idea of the Joint Chiefs plotting murder, even though it was never carried out against their own.

Does your logic make sense?

Say for example I find out my son's school's leadership had been planning something that could cost the lives of the children at school. By your logic, the school leadership is not that bad, since the plan was never carried out!

But now even more disturbingly you forget that the Gov has been guilty in the past of terrible crimes against people. This fact alone answers your objection. Even though Operation Northwoods *WASN'T* carried out, it showed that the Joint Chiefs didn't hesitate in plotting such deception.

Well we don't need to look no further then the HUMAN RADIATION EXPERIMENTS TO SEE HOW PEOPLE DIED at the hand of the Gov, and how others were inhumanly experimented on.

If it is death or terrible acts you want to see by a U.S Secret Covert Operation against their own, well here you go. If the plotting and planning of Northwoods isn't enough, well here is the "blood" you have sought.

www.whale.to...

some of the classified government experiments included:



n 1995 the Energy Department admitted to over 430 radiation experiments conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission between the years 1944 and 1974. Over 16,000 people were radiated, some of whom did not know the health risks or did not give consent.




* Exposing more than 100 Alaskan villagers to radioactive iodine during the 1960s.

* Feeding 49 retarded and institutionalised teenagers radioactive iron and calcium in their cereal during the years 1946-1954.

* Exposing about 800 pregnant women in the late 1940s to radioactive iron to determine the effect on the fetus.

* Injecting 7 newborns (six were Black) with radioactive iodine.

* Exposing the testicles of more than 100 prisoners to cancer-causing doses of radiation. This experimentation continued into the early 1970s.

* Exposing almost 200 cancer patients to high levels of radiation from cesium and cobalt. The AEC finally stopped this experiment in 1974.

* Administering radioactive material to psychiatric patients in San Francisco and to prisoners in San Quentin.

* Administering massive doses of full body radiation to cancer patients hospitalised at the General Hospital in Cincinnati, Baylor College in Houston, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, and the US Naval Hospital in Bethesda, during the 1950s and 1960s. The experiment provided data to the military concerning how a nuclear attack might affect its troops.






posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


We will discuss this later. I do have a ton of information on this subject actually. The united states involvment of the mujahideen, etc.







 
1

log in

join