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.

 

A few thoughts on 9/11 and the sheep who ignore the Conspiracy (building 7 and such)

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I'll preface this rant-esque thing by saying that I'm a member of multiple forums aside from this one as I'm sure a lot of you are, aswell. Now I and a guy on this particular forum started off talking in PM's about guns and then it turned to a conversation about war and he told me a story about a mate of his who saved the life of one of the soldiers under him by shooting an insurgent in the face. He seemed to find that amusing. I started talking about how that was awful because the whole war effort and therefore the killing was a senseless and needless waste of life. Got talking about oil, Bush and WMDs, Usama and 9/11.

Now at this point he was sort of in the opinion that the war, "with the intelligence they had at the time", really was justifiable even if the intelligence was ill-founded.

The conversation went on and he said after awhile that the people responsible for 9/11 needed to be brought to justice in the form of execution.


You [meaning me] wrote: "we don't even know who did it."

I'd like to know who is responsible for my friends' deaths!

I'd like to see the planners punished.


Now that's an understandable feeling from any American who lost almost 3,000 people and the thousands of people who died from the sickness thereafter. But I pointed out the fact that there weren't any confirmed links to Usama by citing the FBI most wanted site and the fact that some of the so-called hijackers were paradoxically still alive. I pointed out that building 7 fell without being hit by a plane somehow.

He then got a bit wussy because I was getting to sound like that stereo typical idealogical youth that he remembered being when he was young but he now seemed a bit ashamed because in his age, he was burying his . in the sand.


M

I hear your passion for truth and hope for a decent world. I can see a lot of you in me, when I was much younger. When I was your age, I wasn't able to question my parents, or the government, but I did, anyway.

I don't have many crusades left in me, though. I've had many experiences and have been many miles. A lot of my old passions have faded away, or are greatly diminished.

I'm at peace with myself and realize that I am but one speck of sand on a beach, so vast and deep, that nothing I can do will make a difference, at this stage.

So, I rarely get involved in political, philosophical, or religious discussions any more.

You seem like a deeply moral and focused fellow, with definite ideas about your interests, political issues, and the condition of the world. I commend you, but I'm afraid I must beg off on more of these discussions.

My world is much smaller to me, now, as is my focus on life. I'm in the latter part of the time allotted to me. I intend to get through it with the least amount of worrying about everyone else, but my inner-most circle.

Thank you for your writing.

If you'd care to share the lighter side of life, specifically sensuality, romantic, or relationship interests, etc, I'm willing to continue.

However, if you don't mind, I'm no longer very interested in who's wrong and who's right, or speculation about things based on conjecture, incomplete bits of information, or theories. I simply do not want to deal with that, any longer.

Dennis


This made me rant.


OK, fair enough. I feel I can understand your position as I consider myself a misanthropist due mainly to the arrogance of people thinking that they and their community is the entire universe when the cosmos and it's contents are far more gargantuan and mysterious than anything on this puny speck of rock we laughingly call a planet. We are but cockroaches here with a minuscule lifespan, doomed because we can't work together. There should be no such thing as military and all that funding should be split up to feed, shelter and educate the poor and then to science to increase the quality of life for us all. I imagine that we have been visited by aliens for millennia who are now watching us with great interest to see if we kill ourselves or somehow, as if by a miracle manage to pull thumb and save ourselves. To them, watching us must be like watching the final episodes of the final season of some mystery/thriller/action/drama. Will the fallout reign?!

I don't want to be labelled a conspiracy theorist but I do believe that there is something going on in the highest echelons of our civilizations, the vantage point from which we are but cattle that can be milked for money, resources and power as our liberties are constricted (flashing back to that closing that Alan Shore gave on Boston Legal which I hoped you liked as much as I did).

I don't believe I can make a difference, my vote doesn't count for s*#t in a general election (which is why I vote for small parties like legalise cannabis in an effort to spread not the wealth, but the power among the parties to destroy the monopoly). But it's the principle of the matter. If people just worked on principle and spoke out against such tyranny, disregarding the impotency of the individual then the collective consciousness of society will begin to function more harmoniously. It's an outrage that the powers that be can go to war without the support of the people and the know we can't do anything about it because we just flounder, picking out noses watching Idol on TV. It's not a democracy any more - it's an oligarchy however you slice it.

And I say fine, you have every right to pull your focus in and concentrate on the good things of your life (and I'm not being sardonic or patronising, I do mean that). But if that's how it's going to be then I find it a bit hypocritical that'd you'd say this:


You [meaning me] wrote: "we don't even know who did it."

I'd like to know who is responsible for my friends' deaths!

I'd like to see the planners punished.


I get that you're going to just go with the flow but this kind of nationalist anger is what the PTB will leverage to further their agendum because they speak to your and those like you and point at something - "Them! It was them! The Iraqis, Saddam and the Afghans! We'll rage at them! We'll have blood for what they did to us!"

That's exactly how Hitler rallied the Germans against the Jew's and Commies, he just said that they were the source of all their problems.

This is a delicate issue, and I get that and I get that you and your countrymen were angry about the ~10,000 people who died directly or indirectly because of 9/11 (I'm talking about all the response people, police; firemen; ambulance workers and volunteers who got sick and died due to lung issues afterwards in addition to the 3,000 that died on the day) but rushing .long into war isn't how to get justice.



I thought this was suitable to share to you guys. The hunt for facts, the free inquiry, the right to be skeptical and criticize government - standing for these things is a matter of principle more than anything. No-one can make a difference, no one can make a difference, but many can and standing down because you are alone is exactly the wrong thing to do.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I agree. I doubt that what I do will have have a direct impact on the lives of others across this globe that are not in contact with me; however, I feel that by living by a good standard and standing up for what is right and just, I will help proliferate a moral upright quality that will be reciprocated to myself and to others. In doing so, at some point this understanding will make it's way across the globe.

Perhaps that is very optimistic, but I do feel that people need to know they do have a say in things...if we all put in the effort to say something.


Now on the topic of 9/11, and being Canadian, regardless of whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, I feel the US administration (Bush and co.) were completely out of line in their pursuit of war.

Afghanistan was merely a stepping stone for taking on Iraq, and now we have two devastated countries that need policing and invested military support.

Afghanistan has pretty much been abandoned by the US and I now see my fellow countrymen and those of other allies dieing there on a regular basis...for what?

So that the US could invade Iraq? - The disgusting part of this is we had no say in this decision whatsoever.

I don't know, that's my input I suppose. Now we DO have to deal with the problems our governments have forced on us...like the tragedy of losing a loved one for a cause which had no reason for existing.

1 song I would recommend any reader of this to listen to is:

Old Crow Medicine Show - Big Time in the Jungle



[edit on 18-8-2009 by makinho21]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and I don't pretend to know a great deal about 9/11.
However, I agree Bush (and company) jumped the gun.
Maybe there was a specific reason for this or maybe it was just the pressure to take action.
Either way, it's evolved now into a whole new monster.
Apparently stopping a needless war is a bazzilion times harder than starting a needless war... Still haven't quite figured that one out yet
.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
As Welfhard knows, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. My interaction with ATS is as a devil's advocate and a provider of reality-checks. I know I'm not always welcome among the believers, but I think it does them good to have their belief systems challenged. And of course, it amuses me to do so.

I am an elitist: that is, I believe elites are a natural and necessary part of human society. I know they are natural because other species of social animal have them too (terms like 'alpha male' and 'pecking order' illustrate this), and I believe they are necessary because it is plain to see that the majority of folk do not think or act as intelligent and responsible members of society; they need, for their own good as much as anybody else's, to be ruled and led.

When I speak of elites, I don't mean secret societies and shadowy puppetmasters behind the actions of governments and corporations. I don't believe in such things. I mean, simply, individuals who have acquired power and influence through merit, ambition or inheritance.

In particular, I have no truck with 9/11 conspiracies. I am completely satisfied that the 'official story', as you folk like to call it, is true.

I admire 'Dennis' for having realized that his problems are not to be solved by changing the world, but by changing himself. I certainly don't think we should all be like him; the world needs its Welfhards, or rather its Alexanders, Che Guevaras, Florence Nightingales and even its James Joyces. But such people are exceptional, and they are certainly not conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy theorist is a person in flight from reality, not in engagement with it.

I realize how this must sound to many of you. I beg your pardon. As ever, I merely speak my mind.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


It is harder, because they have invested so much money - so much of their financial resources - in their military and "homeland security" that they have to be in war to justify the debt they have incurred.

The military-industrial complex is very much alive and well in America.

It has changed form from the days of President Eisenhower...but it still drives what little economy the US has at the moment.
They fight because it makes them money, but it makes them money because they fight.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oddly enough, I feel I truly agree with you. It would be deemed "politically incorrect", I think, to say that some members of society need a superiority to govern them and lead their lives for them.
But it is entirely true from my viewpoint.
Simply because one recognizes this does not mean we are egotistical or we support tyranny...I think it is a matter of efficiency.
However, I do feel everyone should have some sort of say in things like war and elections and law.
But then, overdoing democracy could be potentially hazardous and not very effecient.

Now I'm starting to confuse myself


Bleh...as in my first post. If I maintain principles that I think are just and beneficial to society, I hope these are harnessed by others and so forth. If not, it's not really a big worry. I live the way I wish to.

I am not entirely sure I mad alot of sense there but we'll see haha



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Just thought I'd add a few things here. Firstly to embed that Boston Legal video.




I'm not a Ron Paul 2012 revolutionist type because many of them strike me as spineless but the Dr himself has said a lot of good things. He said (and I tried to hunt for the youtube video of it) something like:
"You can't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. If we want the mid-east to adopt democracy we should focus on improving ourselves as a nation and make those countries want to emulate us."

I must confess I like the old fella. He's still there, still voting no on propositions he knows will go through in the end, anyway. His message has been consistently fiscal-conservative, constitutionalist as well he's been Just-War advocate from the beginning.

Surely the very least a citizen of a country is obliged to do is to exercise his or her liberties, to go to protests and rallies carrying signs, to vote responsibly, to speak freely so they know what it is that they have. But instead we've grown apathetic to it all.



There is a threat here, in your country and mine, and as always it's born out of the people not appreciating what they have and so it is lost. Surely this is the ugliest side of our nature, we have to learn time after time after time the folly of our ways and as always it cost lives.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 

Your post made plenty of sense to me. The confusion you feel is derived from the fact that when most people adopt a position on an issue, they pick one from a menu of choices present in popular culture (what people on ATS wrongly call 'the media'). These positions are simplistic and mutually exclusive, often adversarial. Each of them is a package: if you accept A, you must believe in B and C, but not in X and Y, which go together with the opposing postulate Z.

Now wonder anyone who tries to understand the world from a set of well-founded first principles or intutions feels confused when they try to map their own individual outlook onto these cartoon positions.

The thing is to ignore political correctness and test received wisdom carefully against whatever you feel sure is true.


Some members of society need a superiority to govern them and lead their lives for them... this does not mean we are egotistical or we support tyranny...

Exactly. These are plain facts to which some are blinded by faith or ideology.


I think it is a matter of efficiency.

Like Mussolini, who made the trains run on time?


It's more than a matter of efficiency. It's a matter of individual well-being and collective safety. Most people need to be led and guided. This is true even of the leaders themselves, which is why democracy is a good thing.


I do feel everyone should have some sort of say in things like war and elections and law.

Everyone should have their say about everything, but the final decisions must be taken by responsible individuals.


Overdoing democracy could be potentially hazardous and not very efficient.

People often misunderstood representative democracy, the kind that supposedly prevails in Western Europe, America, India, Japan and other civilized countries. It is 'government of the people by the people' only in this sense: that we, the people choose our leaders, put them in office for a stipulated period, let them get on with it, and kick the rascals out when we've had enough of them. It is not about putting people in office and then telling them what to do; the opinion poll and the referendum are perversions and corruptions of true representative democracy, and of democratic institutions none is worse than the New England town meeting. Democracy is not principally about committees and consensus; it is about putting people in office who will do what they deem to be best for us, for the country, and for the world.

In rich countries, and increasingly in the poorer world, the operations of democracy are undermined by things like opinion polling and the power of the media to influence popular culture. The media, who are not in business for their health, slant, oversimplify, sensationalize and trivialize issues because this is what brings in the eyeballs and fattens the advertising revenues. The media are in a conspiracy to give the public just what it wants, and what most people seem to want is dumbed-down pablum that plays to their egos and prejudices.

Opinon pollsters feed the resulting distorted and half-baked views back to the politicians, who, wishing to get and stay elected, promise the people what they want rather than what is necessary. Thus the rabble come decisively to influence policymaking, to its great detriment.

Before the end of the Second World War, the masses tended to accept that they were unqualified to do more than hold an opinion about important matters, and left policy to the policymakers. This is no longer the case; people are no longer so biddable, and respect for one's putative betters has altogether died. So, naturally enough under the circumstances, has commitment to principle in politics.

We are told that the new dispensation promotes transparency in government and makes politicians more answerable to their constituents. But what good is that if the hard decisions are to be left to the constituents themselves? We don't want to go back to the bad old days of smoke-filled rooms and Tammany Hall and people talking about how 'the fix is in', but are the bad new days of idiot populism and turnip-worship any better?

Why are the tasks of health-care and education reform in America, which everyone agrees are necessary and overdue, so Herculean? Why can't California balance its budget? Why are new and more tyrannical laws against victimless 'crimes' added yearly to the statute books, even though the authorities do not want them? Why can't Europe abandon farm subsidies? Why can't carbon emissions be reined in? Why is the sea being reamed out? Whatever ATS pundits might think, it's not the politicians who are to blame for these things - unless, of course, you blame them for not wanting to commit political suicide. No, it's because an uninformed, unintelligent public rules the rich world. In our day and age, 'government by the people' amounts to nothing more than the tragedy of the commons writ large across the face of the globe.

[edit on 18/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


that was pretty profound I have to say - do you write professionally by chance?
I don't think I've come across more eloquent members than yourself and Welf to be honest.

Anyways yes...I confused myself because all of a sudden my thinking had abandoned the normal accepted progressions of policy, like you said:
should you choose side A - you must therefore be in agreement with issue B and so forth.
But that is not how it should work.

I don't even really think of myself as "more intelligent" than the majority of the human horde on this planet, I just think I see things in a broader scope. Which is why I completely agree once again: the problems we face now are because our politicians are busier trying to rally votes compared to actually performing their duties.

And this is a result of the human horde not seeing things in the appropriate light. It's almost more like a sitcom for alot of people.

Is it possible we have been given too much freedom? (I may be misusing the term freedom here.)
By trying to make everyone happy and satisfied, we delay progress in areas that need addressing.
Issues that are "difficult" should not be. Wasted resources could be easily saved.

I would never support something like the Caste System seen in India and Pakistan - a prison, of sorts, to contain and control. A way to maintain power for the few.

However, I would have no problem seeing some democratic nations run in the same manner Rome was in the times of Augustus and Marc Antony
...without the whole "conquer the world" goal, and slavery ofcourse.

Now I'm babbling and attempting to share my thoughts with my limited understanding of philosophy, and I'm sure I sound pretty dumb, but whatever.

You are right. Modern democracy is based on electing those who will do your bidding. That is different than electing those who will rule for you in a responsible manner.
"Have your cake and eat it too" comes to mind -



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
When I speak of elites, I don't mean secret societies and shadowy puppetmasters behind the actions of governments and corporations. I don't believe in such things. I mean, simply, individuals who have acquired power and influence through merit, ambition or inheritance.


I can see good reasons for an elite to be in power too:

through merit - fine by me
ambition - ok, if someone works hard and can appeal to the populace
inheritance - well, possibly better to be ruled by people born to it than some chippy socialist who just wants to boss people about

But what do you do when democracy just gives you a choice between the lesser of two evils and you're not even sure that they don't both work for the same (hidden) side?

How do you redress the balance when the elite get greedy and leave fewer and fewer morsels for the rest of the population to fight over?

When they start wars and send the children of the lower orders to go and get killed whilst killing the children of foreign lower orders - with whom they've probably got more in common than the elite who sent them?

What do you do when the elite screw the education system, thus making it harder for anyone of integrity to achieve the education and opportunities with which to challenge them?

And the media? They are in the business of persuading the working man that all he is really interested in is football and semi-naked young women. How do they do this without being given the short shrift they deserve? Well, the working classes are being poorly educated - at the behest of the elite - so they fall for it.

Who decided that the arts couldn't be appreciated by people on the lower end of the social scale? Somehow, it's accepted that opera or ballet are for the elite - the very things that could raise a person's spirits after a hard day down the mine


Let's suppose that those in power really can trace their blood-lines back 5,000 or 6,000 years. They've had a fair old crack of the whip and look at the rotten systems the rest of us have had to live in.

I'm not a revolutionary, I'm not even very political, but the idea of ruling by 'bread and circuses' has either had its day by now or the ring-masters need to invent a better circus.

Perhaps the bread is running out and the various diversions we are presented with are felt not to be enough to keep us all quiet - so they've resorted to terror on top of attempting to keep us in ignorance.

Maybe all we really need is better brains at the top. Let's pay the Afghan farmers to grow wheat or oats instead of poppies thus solving the food shortage, learn to negotiate with other countries through trade agreements that aren't detrimental to the locals and make decent entertainment more affordable and accessible so the population can rest easy in their beds again. (Almost impossible to do after a diet of reality TV).

If the elite could manage that they could sleep more easily, too. Back to bread and circuses, which we could all be happy with.


edit to say - I know the Romans (bread & circuses) are later than 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Trying to keep my posts short never works.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by berenike]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 

I don't think you've grasped the point of my post, berenike. You're blaming elites for the collective failures of individual citizens. In a democracy that is an illegitimate argument; the democratic process is intended precisely to prevent the abuses of which you speak.

If you don't believe the system under which you live is fair and democratic, it is your responsibility to change it peacefully through civic action. If that fails you must emigrate or revolt. But unless you can find enough people to revolt along with you, your revolution is going to fail. Again, it comes down to the individual and his responsibilities as a citizen.

Citizens of functioning democracies who blame all their troubles on wicked elites are just transferring the blame for their own failure to act responsibly.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by berenike
 

I don't think you've grasped the point of my post, berenike. You're blaming elites for the collective failures of individual citizens. In a democracy that is an illegitimate argument; the democratic process is intended precisely to prevent the abuses of which you speak.

If you don't believe the system under which you live is fair and democratic, it is your responsibility to change it peacefully through civic action. If that fails you must emigrate or revolt. But unless you can find enough people to revolt along with you, your revolution is going to fail. Again, it comes down to the individual and his responsibilities as a citizen.

Citizens of functioning democracies who blame all their troubles on wicked elites are just transferring the blame for their own failure to act responsibly.


I believe I did grasp the point of your post.

I am not blaming the elites for the collective failures of individual citizens.

I am blaming the elites for the way in which they manage the societies individual citizens live in. I made the point that a decent education is being denied the individual citizen. Keeping people in ignorance is what enables the elites to do as they wish.

I don't believe that people are being educated to be responsible citizens - and I think it is asking a lot to expect them to think of the idea by themselves particularly with the way society is being dumbed down.

I think democracy is a sham - I think it was given to people with a view to shutting them up so that the existing elite could stay in power.

Every few years we get to vote. We decide to either vote for the right and screw social services or we vote for the left and screw the economy. When they finally, completely screw up everything we get another election and vote in the other side and wait to see how much worse they can make things.

What is more scary - that there is a secret elite managing everything to achieve their master plan or that there is no secret elite and we really are just victims of incompetence?

I think the democratic process is in place precisely to implement the abuse of which I speak.

I am not about to emigrate or revolt. I continue to do what I can to keep my own back-yard clean. And I am finding, as everyone is, that it is becoming more and more difficult to do so.

I am a very responsible person, a lot of people are, but I don't have the capability to mobilise the population.

I have to say that in considering this I think there is some difference between being a responsible person and being a responsible citizen.

I will admit it - I fail as a responsible citizen in many ways. But I will suggest a reason for this - the system is stacked against me. It has to be to prevent any real changes being made.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 


There is definitely an elitist group of men and women who scheme in the background *not being sexist, but its mostly likely more men and women*

Now I do not know what type of influence these people have.
Take the Bilderberger meetings. Turns out they are more tree-hugger than world-dominator.

I remember a clip, however, where Clinton was talking to Bush a year or so before Bush first got elected.

In the audio you can hear Clinton tell W. that "we'll make sure you get in next time" or something. Could be completely out of context, but I doubt it.

The same group of businessmen, family members and fraternal brothers have run the US for a long long time.

I know nothing of Obama's college history or his extracurricular activities, though, so I can't say if he would be part of this gang or not.


Most "secret" societies nowadays are merely for business purposes, and networking.

I intend on possibly joining the freemasons because a. I think it's a great way to get known in the local/national/international business world, and b. I can see myself looking at doing politics sometime in the future and I think such an organization would help me along. Is that hypocritical of me?
To first make accusations of scheming old men working behind the scenes, and then to want to join them?

I suppose...but how else would one find themselves in a position to make a difference, if most of us start off in such an irrelevant and powerless corridor as citizen.

Just like the job crisis in America right now: unless you know someone in the company, you likely won't get hired. It blows, but that's the nature of society and how we interact. We help out our own, and care less about others.
I just recognize to be successful I may have play their game...for awhile.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21

I intend on possibly joining the freemasons because a. I think it's a great way to get known in the local/national/international business world, and b. I can see myself looking at doing politics sometime in the future and I think such an organization would help me along. Is that hypocritical of me?
To first make accusations of scheming old men working behind the scenes, and then to want to join them?


If you can't beat them join them


Or what's that saying about it being easier to destroy / disrupt /improve the system from within?

Remember me kindly when you've clambered over the Clinton's, Bushes, Morgans et al to get to the top



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike

Originally posted by makinho21

I intend on possibly joining the freemasons because a. I think it's a great way to get known in the local/national/international business world, and b. I can see myself looking at doing politics sometime in the future and I think such an organization would help me along. Is that hypocritical of me?
To first make accusations of scheming old men working behind the scenes, and then to want to join them?


If you can't beat them join them


Or what's that saying about it being easier to destroy / disrupt /improve the system from within?

Remember me kindly when you've clambered over the Clinton's, Bushes, Morgans et al to get to the top


hahaha will do. Gotta get my 33rd Degree Masonry first. Then I can RULE THE WORLD! *crazy maniacal laugh* while I perform dumb rituals in a beat up old building downtown, surrounded by old drunk men.

The grandeur of being superior.




top topics



 
3

log in

join