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.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 16
218
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Neither of those links proves anything. The first reads like an apology from the BBC to the U.S. government for accidentally reporting that at least four of the "hijackers" were still alive. Just a simpering reiteration of everything they covered -- almost like they were saying, "hey, we faithfully reported all your lies and BS, sorry we embarrassed you." No corrections, no retractions. Interesting how an amazing story like that wasn't reported by the Associated Press or ANY U.S. media.

The USA Today article is a similar diplomatic ass-kissing that doesn't include any details. BTW, none of this is from "conspiracy sites." I asked for evidence that the four "hijackers" who came forward in the BBC article -- specifically identified by exact names, photos, passports and personal information -- were not the individuals named by the U.S. government. Former FBI director Mueller is quoted in that article as saying that some of the identities are problematic.

So which is it? Are the specifically named, identified and very much alive "hijackers" not the right individuals or were the "hijackers" using phony IDs? The only scenario that's not possible is the one you tried to foist -- a confusion of names.




posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DohBama
So they found aluminum and rust in the dust of rubble that was formerly modern skyscrapers?


I don't suppose if they found little Christmas ornaments made of aluminum and iron oxide, you would think those were building debris, too? I think you missed the "highly engineered" references, that are specifically what point to the substance not just resulting from building materials falling around.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 




yup. camera's are also illegal in movie theaters and other public places as well.

Doesn't stop people from leaking them into the public eye.
It's just too funny and curious how people can make such bold statements without EVER having been there, and not a single shred of proof.


Ground Zero was a CRIME SCENE, *Snip*

It's not a cinema, or a place of public recreation for god's sakes where you are only bound by the rules of the particular business.

Have you ever tried to film a crime scene? Ever gone and taken photos of car crashes? Ever waltzed onto a military base and started snapping pictures?

The minute the original author of the photos published them on the Internet, that site hosting them and him (if his identity was discovered, which probably would be because the site would be issued with a subpoena) would be liable for a variety of slap & stick charges and possibly face jail time, or at the least hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and legal battles.

There was extremely tight security around Ground Zero for months after. The CIA had a presence. The FBI set up shop.

The friggin' Army was doing patrols around Lower Manhattan restricting access to Ground Zero from anyone not authorised.

Please... THINK before you speak.

I know on the Internet everything seems so simple and easy and straightforward for you when you're so detached from the real-world, but that's just not the case in reality.

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

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

[edit on 4/10/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 



Ground Zero was a CRIME SCENE, you stooge.


I never said it wasnt.

But we have all these pictures of ground zero...but can't get a single picture of the mythological molten river?

They were either allowed or they weren't. You can't play both sides of the aisle.

And please, seriously? Leave your childish name calling at home. it really brings the argument to the level of a 3rd grader.



Please... THINK before you speak.


Perhaps you should re-read your own line several times, then think your thoughts through one more time.

Either camera's were allowed, or they werent.

If they weren't allowed, then please explain all the photographs. (especially the one above that has a machine picking up debris)

so, again....where's the proof to back the theory?

Seriously....without it...all you have is the substance for a really bad sci-fi novel.



I know on the Internet everything seems so simple and easy and straightforward for you when you're so detached from the real-world, but that's just not the case in reality.


says the godfather of conspira who can't even produce a single shred of evidence.

Here...let me try my hand at your game.


Everyone...i have proof that ATS is part of a government conspiracy to weed out truthers and dispose of the ones who get too close to the truth.

I can't show you this proof because i''ll be killed...but trust me. It's true








[edit on 10-4-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd


so, again....where's the proof to back the theory?

Seriously....without it...all you have is the substance for a really bad sci-fi novel.




The word "proof" is thrown around indiscriminately around here. Check out the new subject headings on any day. In most cases they should say "poof."

On your other point: WRONG! More like a bad disaster flick.

Using scientific concepts and terminology, bending and twisting to introduce elements of intrigue and melodrama. The big bad government and it's secret agencies are the villain.

And lots of self-appointed fiercely independent reporter heroes at great risk to life and limb reading paperback quasi-researches and scouring the Internet for those overlooked smoking guns.



Mike





[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one had ever seen or anticipated two airliners near simultaneously being flown at high speed into a cluster of mega-skyscrapers. There was no precendent.

And neither had any steel-framed high-rise office tower in history collapsed due to fire.


I'm not American but have a great respect for many of it's citizens. If the Bush administration and/or the CIA or some rogue governmental types did in fact conspire to demolish those already nearly destroyed building almost a decade ago it effects me only peripherally.

I'm glad to hear that eight long years of a criminal, torturing, war-mongering government didn't affect your opinion of Americans. I tend to agree. And you are correct -- it was a rogue faction within the U.S. government, the PNAC neocons to be exact. Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell calls them the "f'ing crazies". Other military/government officials who were classmates of several neocons at the University of Chicago said all they ever talked about was how they were going to rule the world. I think one of them was retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, a physicist who was in charge of the Star Wars program under Reagan. Presidential candidate Bob Dole's former Chief of Staff Stanley Hilton said he had proof of the conspiracy and tried to sue the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle/Kagan neocon cabal for murder and treason, but the lawsuit was thrown out due to a statute called, "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity" an ancient British law which essentially says "the King can do no wrong."


But standing back, it makes little sense why they would choose to demolish the most critical financial structures in the country when so many other alternatives were available.

What do you know about the asbestos that had to be removed from the WTC towers? It supposedly would've cost a fortune. But fortunately, Larry "Pull It" Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar terrorism insurance policy a month before the attack. Ol' Larry's timing was perfect. He had just signed a 99-year lease before that.


Few realize the economic losses to the US that happened that day. In many ways the collapse of American dominance was set in motion that day. The US has enemies, and they succeeded in doing even more damage than they had hoped for. This is ignored at one's peril.

It's why the Constitution talks about defending the country from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's not a coincidence. The globalists who planned and executed 9/11 have absolutely no loyalty to any country or government. The greed, power and control that they constantly seek transcends all boundaries. There's a reason we're the most armed populace in the world.

BTW, this is nothing new. Historical events from Nero's burning of Rome to Hitler's Reichstag Fire to the 1960s "Operation Northwoods" were false-flag terrorist attacks.

It's just that some of us would prefer not to have to explain to our grandchildren that we were the "good Americans" who didn't do anything to oppose the Fourth Reich.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 




And neither had any steel-framed high-rise office tower in history collapsed due to fire.


Yeah, and we have so many instances of Jumbo Jets crashing into high rise sky scrapers to compare to.

There would not be any in history that collapsed.
Because nothing like this has ever happened before.



That'd be like the Japanese, in 1945, saying:

The atomic bomb could not have evaporated people into dust and charred our countryside like that....no atomic bomb has ever had so much destruction in all of history


First atomic bomb sets the standards

just like this...it's the first time it's happened. You simply PRETENDING that it's happened before so you can doctor evidence to make it appear impossible to collapse, does not, in fact, make it true.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 



But we have all these pictures of ground zero...


Who's we?

If by we, you mean we all have official, Government disseminated photography of Ground Zero, than yes.

It wasn't bloggers and independent journos taking photographs of Ground Zero.


Either camera's were allowed, or they werent.


Yes from FORENSICS teams, investigators, the CIA, the FBI, FEMA, etc.
Half of which we probably never saw.

Do you need it all spelled out for you? Is there a shred of independent thought & free will left within you or do you gulp down every load of propaganda from the government without question?


so, again....where's the proof to back the theory?


No one had the chance to take any substantial proof before the Government closed off the site and shipped it off to China.

So go figure.

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 




And neither had any steel-framed high-rise office tower in history collapsed due to fire.


Yeah, and we have so many instances of Jumbo Jets crashing into high rise sky scrapers to compare to.

Go back to the previous page and read the interviews from the WTC architects, engineers and construction management who explained how the towers were specifically designed and constructed to absorb MULTIPLE airliner impacts. The quote was that a collision would be equivalent to "poking a pencil through a screen."

And once again, thanks for "siding with the people over the government."


Are you totally blind and naive or just a traitor?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

What do you know about the asbestos that had to be removed from the WTC towers? It supposedly would've cost a fortune. But fortunately, Larry "Pull It" Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar terrorism insurance policy a month before the attack. Ol' Larry's timing was perfect. He had just signed a 99-year lease before that.




OK now I can say you don't know what you are talking about. These are outright Truther lies.

The asbestos in the towers was limited to the lowest 38 floors of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 . Removal is not legally mandated. They had foam covered what was required by law, a small fraction of which had been installed during the earliest construction.

I won't bother to dig it out as you refuse to acknowledge any properly documented research. It has been shown unambiguously that Silverstein lost a ton of money, make that rivers of money, even with the insurance pay out. Lost revenues from rental, etc.

I'm no longer enjoying these exchanges as it becomes clear that you are neither open-minded on the subject or have done any real research as claimed. Rehashes of the retreaded BS from conmen who eke out a living pandering to gullible conspiracy theorists is not investigation.

I'm sure you're a fine and intelligent person sincerely looking for some answers. But when you choose to debate a serious topic, make sure you've at least sampled and synthesized the full spectrum of the material available on the subject, not just what conforms to conclusions you share with others looking for an axe to grind.

No reply is necessary.


Mike





[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
OK now I can say you don't know what you are talking about. These are outright Truther lies.

The asbestos in the towers was limited to the lowest 38 floors of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 . Removal is not legally mandated.

Sorry, I'm afraid it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about. Are you still getting your information from Debunking911.com? Let me guess, they said asbestos removal was a 9/11 Truth lie, but they never mentioned the $600 million asbestos abatement lawsuit that the Port Authority lost?

This business journal article was published by Dunn & Bradstreet in May 2001:


Port loses claim for asbestos removal. (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)
By Mcleod, Douglas
Publication: Business Insurance
Date: Monday, May 14 2001

NEWARK-Asbestos abatement costs are not covered by an all-risks property policy unless an actual asbestos release or an imminent release leaves a property useless or uninhabitable, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.

www.allbusiness.com...


It has been shown unambiguously that Silverstein lost a ton of money, make that rivers of money, even with the insurance pay out. Lost revenues from rental, etc.

Absolutely untrue. Where are you getting this stuff? Larry "Pull It" Silverstein has already been paid $4.6 Billion on his initial investment of $14 Million for a 99-year lease that started six weeks before 9/11. Not a bad return. And what amazing timing!

From Wikipedia:


In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[14] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right to rebuild the structures should they be destroyed and should he comply with the onerous financial obligations of the lease.[16]

Now Silverstein is suing everyone for another $12.3 BILLION in damages, the trial hasn't even started and the judge is already skeptical. LOL -- Silverstein losing a ton of money. That'll be the day!


Developer Sues to Win $12.3 Billion in 9/11 Attack
The New Yprk Times
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: March 27, 2008

Larry A. Silverstein, who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack.

Mr. Silverstein, the developer of ground zero, sought the damages, whose amount was not previously known, in a claim filed in 2004, that says the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking the planes used to destroy the buildings.

His case was consolidated last week with similar, earlier lawsuits brought by families of some victims of the attack and by other property owners. But in seeking $12.3 billion, he is by far the biggest claimant in the litigation.

The size of Mr. Silverstein’s claim was revealed last week at a status conference on the litigation in United States District Court in Manhattan.

The claims by the parties involved total about $23 billion, and Mr. Silverstein’s claim for such a large chunk could jeopardize claims from other businesses and property owners, according to defense lawyers. A lawyer for the victims’ families, Donald Migliori, said he was confident that their claims would not be affected because they would take priority over the property claims.

A lawyer for the airlines, Desmond Barry, said that if Mr. Silverstein won his claim, he could push the total claims beyond the amount of insurance that the airlines and security companies have available. “There ain’t that much insurance,” Mr. Barry said.

The federal government has capped the liability at the amount of available insurance, to avoid bankrupting the airlines. The exact amount of insurance available is still being explored in the court proceedings.

Richard A. Williamson, a lawyer for Mr. Silverstein, said at the court conference on March 18 that Mr. Silverstein was seeking damages to compensate him for continuing losses at the site. Mr. Silverstein, through his company, World Trade Center Properties, has a 99-year lease, worth $3.2 billion, on four buildings at the site, including the fallen twin towers. He signed the lease in July 2001, just six weeks before the attack.

Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.

Mr. Barry, speaking for the airlines, contended that Mr. Silverstein had been more than compensated by the nearly $4.6 billion insurance settlement, reached after almost six years of litigation. He argued that Mr. Silverstein was entitled to the market value of the property, which he said had been established by the $3.2 billion lease.

Judge Hellerstein expressed skepticism about Mr. Silverstein’s claim, and asked why he had not stemmed his losses by just “walking away.”

Turning to Mr. Williamson, Judge Hellerstein asked: “What’s the nature of your recovery?”

To which Mr. Williamson replied, “For damages suffered by the events of 9/11, not value. Damages.”

Without living in the U.S. and knowing which sources to trust, you keep getting deceived by false and misleading information. What is this, the third or fourth time today? Now you know what kind of propaganda Americans have to endure. If you want the truth, stay away from government debunking sites like Debunking911.com and 911Myths.com.



[edit on 10-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 



Who's we?

If by we, you mean we all have official, Government disseminated photography of Ground Zero, than yes.


We, as in we, the people in this discussion. Ya know...the one you claim isnt happening?

You have produced not 1 single shred of evidence, all conjectures.
Just because YOU claim something happened, doesnt make it true.

You need proof.
You are unwilling to try and produce this proof.

So, your theory is moot and your conspiracy debunked.

Until further notice.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Go back to the previous page and read the interviews from the WTC architects, engineers and construction management who explained how the towers were specifically designed and constructed to absorb MULTIPLE airliner impacts. The quote was that a collision would be equivalent to "poking a pencil through a screen."


So when "Expert A" agree's with you, he's credible
But when "Expert B" says you're full of *snip* ... he's an idiot blind fool who buys into the group think of the moronic masses.

As spock would say....

Captain....that is not logical



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 

If you've got better information than the architects, engineers and builders of the WTC towers, then bring it on. Or if you'd rather be deceived so you can sleep better, that's fine too. Not everyone can handle the truth.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


A wide distribution of particles sizes, partitioning of materials in multiple laminae, and unanalyzed binding materials, do not add up to a "highly engineered" descriptor. This entire paper was bad science from beginning to end which is why it was published in a vanity journal.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Without living in the U.S. and knowing which sources to trust, you keep getting conned by false and misleading information. What is this, the third or fourth time today? Now you know what kind of propaganda Americans have to endure. If you want the truth, stay away from government debunker sites like Debunking911.com and 911Myths.com.





Sorry this a totally incorrect assumption on your part and in line with your general approach to facts. I have worked as a journalist in a dozen countries including the US. I am in regular communication with many people in the US with many different perspectives and beliefs. I even know some people working in intelligence here in Canada.

I use the 911 debunking site as I bookmarked it for convenience. I'm lazy about going to a library or bookstore to look up bits of data.

The site has it's errors I'm sure, but for me and others it has proven to be reliably informed and infinitely better researched than 99% of the 911 Truth sites and books I've read or perused.

On points like the asbestos in WTC, your tactic of finding an article about the subject and suggestive of a claim does not nullify specifics for which you have no direct knowledge like any outstanding health and safety improvement orders. Similarly, throwing around big numbers in relation to Silverstein does not represent a balance sheet of any kind. Receiving money does always not mean benefiting after costs and expenses. General Motors may gross many billions every year it doesn't mean it's making money.

This kind of discussion shouldn't be a battle of who can out quote who or disparage a source, but it is.

I try to avoid tactics where one can dismiss 9/11 Truth info as being "the scientific evaluations of a Doctor of Theology"or "from the people who brought you the No Planes Theory." But there is just so much Pure Bunk being spun as data it's hard to respond to so many outrageous claims dispassionately.

It may come as a revelation but the vast majority of scientists, government workers, media professionals, journalists, are hard working unassuming ordinary people. At best they are hoping to keep their jobs, maintain families, and avoid problems. Characterizing them by their chosen fields as arch-criminals silently complicit in mass murders and cover-ups for political and corporate gain is a terrible injustice.

I particularly get riled with the 9/11 Truth movement as I see in giving support and license to vicious international enemies of the US and free nations like the one I live in to commit atrocities with little fear of punishment or censure.

I shudder to think if a city in the US is ever nuked, books will come out and this site will be filled with so-called proofs that it was planned and executed by American citizens.

There are always accusations and collected information demonstrating that the wealthy and those in power abuse authority in planning the systematic exploitation of the masses.

We all know in the long run this is true. But politics, economics, and human affairs are extremely complex. There are always many overlapping interconnected factors, some of which aren't immediately apparent. Not everything that ever happens can be reduced to a simple formula.



Mike


[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Confusion with identical names is entirely possible. The hijackers were identified. If you think differently, prove that the identifed hijackers are still alive. Of course, your evidence must be by videotape with backup DNA or it won't be good enough and I will accuse you of being a 'liar.' Or I could just claim that the tape was doctored and the DNA was faked. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The site has it's errors I'm sure, but for me and others it has proven to be reliably informed and infinitely better researched than 99% of the 911 Truth sites and books I've read or perused.

Except everything you've quoted from Debunking911.com so far has been totally false and misleading. And not by accident or omission (on their part, hopefully not yours.)


On points like the asbestos in WTC, your tactic of finding an article about the subject and suggestive of a claim does not nullify specifics for which you have no direct knowledge like any outstanding health and safety improvement orders.

Did I claim to have direct knowledge or specifics? No. Was it a monumental Truther Lie that there were enormous asbestos liabilities that included a $600 million legal judgment against the NY Port Authority (which was passed on to Silverstein?) Absolutely not. And my sources were the NY Times and Dunn and Bradstreet, not a manipulative snake of a website that appears legitimate.


Similarly, throwing around big numbers in relation to Silverstein does not represent a balance sheet of any kind. Receiving money does always not mean benefiting after costs and expenses. General Motors may gross many billions every year it doesn't mean it's making money.

I think General Motors would be quite happy to turn $14 million into $4.6 trillion or possibly $17 trillion. Again, the point is that Larry Silverstein did NOT lose a huge amount of money. Quite the contrary. He'll probably multiply his original investment by a factor of 1000X. Blood money.


This kind of discussion shouldn't be a battle of who can out quote who or disparage a source, but it is.

It's not about disparagement, it's about demonstrating how someone who's so sure that they know the truth about a situation can be completely wrong.


I try to avoid tactics where one can dismiss 9/11 Truth info as being "the scientific evaluations of a Doctor of Theology"or "from the people who brought you the No Planes Theory." But there is just so much Pure Bunk being spun as data it's hard to respond to so many outrageous claims dispassionately.

Well, you've certainly found the epitome of spin and bunk -- and evidently believe everything you've read.


It may come as a revelation but the vast majority of scientists, government workers, media professionals, journalists, are hard working unassuming ordinary people. At best they are hoping to keep their jobs, maintain families, and avoid problems. Characterizing them by their chosen fields as arch-criminals silently complicit in mass murders and cover-ups for political and corporate gain is a terrible injustice.

Have I done that? Have I even characterized the majority of U.S. government employees as criminals or murderers? No, as I stated, it was a relatively small cabal of PNAC neocons in the U.S. government who were responsible for 9/11. Believe it or not.


I particularly get riled with the 9/11 Truth movement as I see in giving support and license to vicious international enemies of the US and free nations like the one I live in to commit atrocities with little fear of punishment or censure.

Oh I see, it's more of a philosophical personal grudge against people who tell the truth instead of an impartial search for truth itself. How do you feel about atrocities committed against sovereign Arab nations (1 million+ "collateral damage" casualties in Iraq alone), millions more left homeless or displaced and a universal lack of clean water and electricity, not to mention trillions of dollars wasted from a rapidly sinking economy, with no end in sight.


I shudder to think if a city in the US is ever nuked, books will come out and this site will be filled with so-called proofs that it was planned and executed by American citizens.

Unfortunately, based on the history of the U.S. from Pearl Harbor to Vietnam to Central and South America to "Operation Northwoods", 9/11 and Iraq (for starters), it'll probably be true. And don't be surprised someday if it leads to a NAU integration to grab those coveted Alberta oilfields and rich natural resources.


There are always accusations and collected information demonstrating that the wealthy and those in power systematically abuse authority in planning and executing the systematic exploitation of the masses.

Thanks for doing your part to assist in the systematic abuse and exploitation by believing -- and then repeating as unquestioned fact -- lies and propaganda.

As a journalist, you should know better. Unfortunately, you represent the status quo of journalists who aren't willing to challenge the programmed consensus reality.



[edit on 10-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
OK, throwing in the towel. The rules keep changing. You can't be a boxer and the referee at the same time and get someone to stay in the ring with you.

If NYTimes is a valid source for one article and the shill for the CIA at other times, then where does even reported reality start and end? Also how can anyone never in the field doing primary research, ie talking to people and examining document tell which reports are to be considered valid and which are bogus.

My personal demarcation lines, when I start seeing Pearl Harbor and Northwoods reeled into a discussion I know it's time go back into the audience.

I'm sure there's 100 articles out there saying otherwise - but Northwoods was a wonky contingency plan outline not meant to harm any Americans just put the fear of God into some of them. It likely was never even taken too seriously in it's day. There is a world of difference between an action and thinking about it.

As the military likes to pay for things never they never use I'm sure there are contingency plan with charts for how they will deal with the aliens when the drop in. Doesn't mean 6-lobed brains are being picked for advanced technologies at Area 51. Though that's been reported and witnessed too. (See Ret. Colonel Philip J. Corso's THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL for the sordid details)

As for Pearl Harbor - well, in my latest DVD ($19.95 + shipping) full of graphs, slow motion, interviews with hungry historians, I prove Japan and Germany really won WWII. It was all a big false flag operation with Zionist Hollywood producers providing special effects so they could grab this valuable hunk of real estate next to Egypt.

See you in the FEMA Camps.


Mike


[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

I didn't know there were any rules, let alone that I was changing them. You're right that I don't trust the MSM, not so much for what they say, but for what they won't say. When I'm trying refute totally false allegations like asbestos being a made-up "Truther Lie" or Larry Silverstein losing money
(sorry), what are you going to believe -- Alex Jones or the NY Times? These sources were meant more to show you that everything Debunking911.com was feeding you was distorted, at the very least.

This started when you began quoting them to discredit Steven Jones like they were some kind of gospel. I honestly don't know enough about what they're contesting to comment on it. But I guarantee they're distorting Jones' work like everything they had you believing.

It seems you have a basic dislike or distrust of alternative views of history, based on your sarcasm and quick dismissals of events like Operation Northwoods or FDR's documented prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think mainstream historians are close to accepting this as fact. Actually, there are several books written by WW II historians that make a very compelling case. The author of "Day of Deception" was a decorated WW II veteran and historian who spent more than a decade examining hundreds of thousands of documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The story he meticulously documents of FDR and his top advisors in the U.S. "War Department" is extremely damning -- worse than you could imagine. This was a president who repeatedly promised to keep America out of "European wars" while secretly doing everything he could to provoke an attack by the Japanese. This has been documented by declassified top-secret Army and Navy Pearl Harbor Review Board reports. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.

And if you seriously believe that Operation Northwoods was some kind of fantasy war exercise that was never intended to harm any Americans, well you couldn't be more mistaken. When there's a military objective that's considered important enough and it has the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you'd better not get in their way. If you do, you'll quickly meet a disturbed lone gunman who starts firing at you from a book depository.

As a journalist, I'd think you'd have a little more admiration and respect for someone like Steven Jones, who was probably a comfortably conservative Mormon BYU physics professor approaching tenure before he gave it all up for little more than a sense of conscience and patriotism. If you think someone like this (or members of any of the numerous professional 9/11 truth groups would suddenly start having delusional thoughts about elements of their own government being involved in 9/11, then I'm afraid Debunking911.com is making you delusional.

There are greater things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join