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.

 

I DON'T CARE about HOW 9/11 happened, I CARE about WHO did it!!!

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists were to ever examine your own claims in the same stringently high level of critical analysis that you do the 9/11 commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]


MIT was critical of the 9/11 reports. They point out that almost no attention or thought was given to the theory that the South WTC tower would have collapsed based entirely on airplane impact damage.

"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help. This is the point of view that has been given almost no attention or thought."



John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

source: web.mit.edu...




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


Then there's RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" -- the list goes on and on.




You forgot the oil spill in the Gulf of mexico (caused by haliburton), The moon landing (never happened), The election of the first black president (not a US citizen), the bombing of pearl harbor (allowed by the government), JFK (assassinated by the mafia/CIA/federal reserve bank) , and The holocaust (a lie propogated by zionist and the NWO), Al quaida and the anti christian/jewish islamic fundamentalist (all lies and smoke and mirrors from the CIA)

Why is it that every major event in this country has conspiracy theories to go with it?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It's never too early for a consensus when it comes to 9/11. Because even if another 100 posts are added, you're going to get about 50/50, those who believe the party line, and those who don't. And that says enough right there about where this debate will go in the future. Nowhere.

The time for real debate was over a long time ago, long before 9/11. At some point, the nation, some may even come to believe the whole world, was taken over by people so powerful, they would eventually get to the point where they could do virtually whatever they wanted to, right in plain sight, with no worries. Kill a president? Why not. Kill a few thousand in the middle of NYC, not a problem. In fact, these people are so powerful, they can make you believe just about anything that suits them. If for any reason they are having trouble with "evidence" at their crime scenes, no problem, they will just get rid of it before anyone can ever really point the finger.

They even have the almost god-like power to change or even to erase history! But you know what, they have done such a fabulous job of getting our minds, just right, that they don't really even care that much anymore, if their cover-stories are even plausible. They are that powerful.

Let's take one small example: Cell phones. The number one argument why the conspiracy must be all BS, is because someone was just on a plane, and made a call, and it was fine! Hey, how can you argue with that? Except that we've now entered the "historical zone", and they seem to own it. A couple of excerpts:


”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04


“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04


OH, THE UPGRADE ONLY CAME IN 2004?? Who cares! Just change the subject, talk about melting steel! Or the pancake theory / fact!

The one thing that we must not talk about too much is the WHO. My hat is off to the person who started this thread. Sure, the arm-chair experts are all over you for wanting to ignore the "how". They're right, the next guy is right, and those 3,000 are still friggin' dead. I for one applaud your common sense, even if it will get us no where (sadly).

SO why even bother posting about an issue that they have already gotten away with, and that apparently has no hope of ever being justifiably resolved? Simple. In fact, why not say it with me, "The 3,000 are still dead...The 3,000 are still DEAD...The 3,000 are STILL DEAD!!"

By the way, I'm hard-core on this one, far beyond redemption. If you are one of the sheeple who must believe your programming, then do everyone a favor, and go back to sleep. but if you are as pissed as I am, even after a decade, then I recommend turning your anger into something useful. No, you will not beat them now, this battle, they won already. But they WILL do something just as horrible (or worse) again, and again, and again. Maybe it will be you, or your children next? What will it take?

Take a lesson from the Holocaust: NEVER FORGET! And if 9/11 can become our touchstone, our anchor to the grim reality we are now forced to live in, then maybe, just maybe, we will do the right thing, when our turn comes. Perhaps we will be the "one", maybe the only one, who sees what might be unfolding in our own little corner, when the axe is ready to fall yet again. Will we be able to stop it? Probably not. But will lives be saved, and if we then live to see another day, we will be that much stronger for it? Multiply this by millions. We may be slaves, but slaves can revolt!

JR MacBeth
MyBlog: Gathering Storms Ahead



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

In fact, these people are so powerful, they can make you believe just about anything that suits them.

JR MacBeth
MyBlog: Gathering Storms Ahead


If this is true then how can we ever know if what we think is what they want us to think. What if they want us to bicker back and forth about conspiracy theories? What if they planted the evidence supporting the truther theories to cover up some larger conspiracy? How can we ever know who the "sheeple" are and who are not the sheeple? Whatever view or opinion has the most followers are the sheeple? What if they want half the people to believe the debunker theories and half the people to support the truther theories? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! It's kind of scary to think that we may be thinking and doing right now EXACTLY what good little sheeple do and thinking EXACTLY what they want us good little sheeple to think!

Also EXCELLENT sources about the cell phones! Very strong evidence supporting the truther theories about the phone calls! Now if only there was a way we could find out exactly what time the calls were made and the altitude the plan was at when they were called! Any help?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpcAnd yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.


Feeling and hearing explosions going off time and time again and "getting covered in silt" is something else entirely than just hearing loose rumors about bombs.
Your rumor rationalization fails.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Tussilago]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tussilago

Originally posted by iamcpcAnd yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.


Feeling and hearing explosions going off time and time again and "getting covered in silt" is something else entirely than just hearing loose rumors about bombs.
Your rumor rationalization fails.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Tussilago]


I never used the word rumor. Just for the sake of making a point without letting somone use the words "hearing loose rumors about bombs" in refrence to my post allow me to edit it.

"yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters."

Is that better? Again I make my point
(the point of my post was totally ignored)
FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb: Powerfull source
FDNY firefighter saying there were no bombs: Powerfull source
Another firefighter saying something to effect of "there was no evidence of explosives"

The source is the pen and teller bullSH*t episode.


So my conclusion: Firefighters say there was a bomb/explosions. Firefighters say there was no bomb. chalk that one up to disagreeing experts and neither side can touch it because both sides refute each other when citing FDNY as a source.

I don't have the video in front of me so I can't give the exact quote and the name and title who gave the quote. you're going to have to watch the episode yourself.




[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The few actual cell phone calls made from Flight 93 (as opposed to the seat back phones from which most of the calls were made) were made when Flight 93 was at a lower altitude and within vertical /horizontal range of the towers in the area. Someone actually took the time to do that research a few years ago. Of course truthers ignore it.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 

JR MacBeth, kudos for a powerful post. Couldn't agree with you more. As former president Woodrow Wilson said, "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the fields of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."


Originally posted by iamcpc
And yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.

And refuted is exactly what FDNY firefighters saying, after the collapses and conspiracy theories, that there was no evidence that explosives were used good enough for you?

The source is the pen and teller bullSH*t episode.

So you give more credence to a couple of Vegas entertainers than an FDNY firefighter at the scene who warned passers-by that there was a bomb in the building? Then you explain it away by saying he was just parroting other rescue workers? Did you watch the entire video, with dozens of police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC employees, anchors, reporters and eyewitnesses all reporting numerous "secondary explosions?"

Did you not SEE another FDNY firefighter say it looked just like a controlled demolition, gesturing with his hand the floors exploding one after another -- "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom boom?" Did you not HEAR one of these explosions for yourself at the start of the video? My favorite debunker explanation is SwampFox's, who claims these explosions were over-heated "cleaning products."



How much evidence do you need? A better question might be, is there anything you can't dismiss, justify or explain away?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



If this is true then how can we ever know if what we think is what they want us to think. What if they want us to bicker back and forth about conspiracy theories? What if they planted the evidence supporting the truther theories to cover up some larger conspiracy? How can we ever know who the "sheeple" are and who are not the sheeple? Whatever view or opinion has the most followers are the sheeple? What if they want half the people to believe the debunker theories and half the people to support the truther theories?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by JR MacBeth



Originally posted by iamcpc

1.So you give more credence to a couple of Vegas entertainers than an FDNY firefighter at the scene who warned passers-by that there was a bomb in the building?

2.Then you explain it away by saying he was just parroting other rescue workers?

3.Did you watch the entire video, with dozens of police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC employees, anchors, reporters and eyewitnesses all reporting numerous "secondary explosions?"

4. Did you not SEE another FDNY firefighter say it looked just like a controlled demolition, gesturing with his hand the floors exploding one after another -- "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom boom?"

5. Did you not HEAR one of these explosions for yourself at the start of the video?

6.How much evidence do you need?

7.A better question might be, is there you can't dismiss, justify or explain away?


1. No I didn't give more credance to a couple of vegas entertainers than
an FDNY firefighter at the scene.

I give equal credance to an FDNY firefighter on that video as another FDNY firefighter.


"There is no evidence there were any types of explosive devices or bombs"

"when you enter 10k gallons worth of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel truss construction like the trade centers did they warp and bent and gradually it was more than the building could sustain"

Dan Daley (spelling may be incorrect) the retired fire chief from the fire station closest to the twin towers. He was there on 9/11 when the towers collapsed."

Glen korban assitant fire chief and assistant professor of fire science and technical editor of fire engineering magazine

SOURCE: the pen and teller BS episode
www.youtube.com...

2. I retracted that statement. Please read all of my posts. I only compared FDNY firefighter testimony to FDNY firefighter testimony

3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.

4. Yes I did. Did you compare the WTC collapse to a demolition? I can't help but notice the ones that I would use BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM to describe.

WTC towers:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I was not sure if I could hear any explosions.

Demolitions:
www.youtube.com...
I had to listen again. I couldn't believe my ears. Could the difference between the WTC collapse and this demolition be that HUGE.

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.

I decided I had to watch another one.
www.youtube.com...
Flashes all over the place. again BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM although not quite as loud as before but 293857293857987 times louder than anything i heard in the WTC collapse.

Why on earth did the WTC towers look so much like demolitions but not sound like them?

5. Yes I did. Was that explosion after the collapse of one, two, or all three of the WTC towers? Why didn't i hear those explosions before or during the collapse?

6. How much evidince do I need to what? I have enough evidence to say that there are many experts and scientific evidence to support many of the truther theories. Alas I can also say that there are many experts and scientific evidence that support debunker theories.

7. The truther theories have already presented me with evidence that I can't dismiss, justify or explain away. Alas I can also say that debunker theories have presented evidence that I can't dismiss, justify or explain away.

If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are? It's becoming increasingly obvious that they want us to bicker back and forth about dust and booms and experts just to blind us from finding the truth.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc1
3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.

Thank for acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for numerous secondary explosions. So tell me, what do you think were the sources of these explosions? I remember the early government party line was that jet fuel had traveled down elevator shafts and ignited in the WTC sub-levels. Good one! My other favorite explanation was the debunker SwampFox's -- igniting cleaning products!


And what about the WTC workers who heard explosions before any plane impacted?


Originally posted by iamcpc1
If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are?

Easy, the ones who mindlessly swallow whatever the government/MSM tells them without thinking for themselves.

Hope you're not one of them.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Thank for acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for numerous secondary explosions. So tell me, what do you think were the sources of these explosions? I remember the early government party line was that jet fuel had traveled down elevator shafts and ignited in the WTC sub-levels. Good one! My other favorite explanation was the debunker SwampFox's -- igniting cleaning products!


You conveniently ignore other explanations- electrical transformers exploding from the heat of the fires. I know for a fact that electrical transformers explode when overheated becuase one exploded in a building across the street from where I used to work, a number of years back. It went off like a bomb and rattled my own building, and set the building across the street on fire.

I know electrical transformers explode like bombs becuase I've seen it, and I know the towers were chock full of electrical transformers, particularly in the maintenance floors close to where the planes hit. IF you're attemtping to claim that electrical transformers don't explode when on fore, or that there weren't electrical transformers in the towers, then you will be lying.


And what about the WTC workers who heard explosions before any plane impacted?


There is no way, shape or form that anyone would know whether any explosions were (before* the planes hit. If they were inside the building, there's no way they'd know what was happening outside the building, and if they were outside, then there's no way they'd know what was happening inside.

Not that it matters, since there's only one person making any such claim. There's no such thing as quiet explosives that only one person would ever notice.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by iamcpc1
3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.


1. Thank for acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for numerous secondary explosions. So tell me, what do you think were the sources of these explosions? I remember the early government party line was that jet fuel had traveled down elevator shafts and ignited in the WTC sub-levels. Good one! My other favorite explanation was the debunker SwampFox's -- igniting cleaning products!


2. And what about the WTC workers who heard explosions before any plane impacted?


Originally posted by iamcpc1
If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are?

3. Easy, the ones who mindlessly swallow whatever the government/MSM tells them without thinking for themselves.

Hope you're not one of them.


1. I am not able to ignore evidence. This is why I am being pulled in two directions. Why would FDNY firefighters say there were bombs/explosives and FDNY firefighters say there were not bombs and explosives? It's almost like someone WANTS us to bicker back and forth.

2. I have already admitted that I agree that there were 298537293875928375 witnessess that heard explosions.

I don't know what caused those explosions. I have accepted that I don't know and I never will know. No one will ever know but there sure as hell are 15 different theories pulling people like me in 15 different directions to keep me chasing my own tail in my research. Even if we invaded the pentagon with pitchforms the papers labled "top secret" (if they even exist) would be burned long before I would ever read them.

3. What if the government wants half of us to believe the OS and half of us to believe in the conspiracies? Then only people like me, who think that something is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VEYR VERY wrong when FDNY firefighters contradict FDNY firefighters and engineers and physics professors contradict engineers and physics professors, are not the sheeple Then in that situation the REAL sheeple are the people who mindlessly believe that the WTC towers were demolished or mindlessly believe that they collapsed due to airplanes and fire without questioning why there is so much conflicting evidence.

Why did one FDNY firefighter at the scene say there was a bomb in the building and another FDNY firefighter at the scene say there were no bombs? And don't you dare accuse someone who risks his life every day (and devoted his entire life to helping those in need) to save innocent people of lying to cover up the MURDER of thousands of innocent people and is close personal friends, his fellow firefighters.

I notice that when someone claims

"At some point, the nation, some may even come to believe the whole world, was taken over by people…these people are so powerful, they can make you believe just about anything that suits them. They even have the almost god-like power to change or even to erase history!... If you are one of the sheeple who must believe your programming, then do everyone a favor, and go back to sleep."

SOURCE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

They can say anything. I even, in my research, came across someone who honestly believed that the entire 9/11 coverup was that New York City didn't even exist on 9/11/2001. Basically I pointed out tons of evidence that supports the theory that New York City was real and did, in fact, exist on 9/11/2001.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alas the almost god-like powers of those people who took over the world could instantly refute any evidence I could ever present. According to him anyone who believes that new york city existed on 9/11/2001 are the "ones who mindlessly swallow whatever the government/MSM tells them without thinking for themselves."

So some think the sheeple are the people who think that it is possible that the WTC towers collapsed from damage and fire. I have found overwhelming evidence supports the theory that Steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire alone (just like overwhelming evidence supports the theory that New York City was real and did exist on 9/11/2001).

Some think that the sheeple are the people who think that it is possible that New York City existed on 9/11/2001. They believe that the ones who mindlessly swallow the "LIES" that the government/MSM spread that New York was real and did exist are sheeple.

Some people think that the sheeple are the people who believe that man has walked on the moon.

I have a slighly different definition of sheeple. I think the ones who mindlessly swallow whatever ANYONE tells them without investigating for themselves are sheeple. I believe that anyone that does not question why so many experts disagree (and even FDNY firefighters who were on scene) with what caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

I believe that in the phrase UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. I also believe that if the government (or a small group of people) were able to secretly demolish the WTC towers then that same government (or small group of people) could start conspiracy theories to DIVIDE the american people. The government has been studying the spread of information over the internet.

SOURCE:
www.cnn.com...
"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the MIT team was the first group in the contest to report the latitude and longitude coordinates of all 10 balloons, which were scattered across the United States."
"DARPA is the U.S. military's research arm."
"The agency said it plans to meet with teams to discuss their approaches and strategies used to build networks, collect information, and participate in the contest."

The government knows how powerful the internet is as a tool to spread information (or misinformation). Why does no one think that it's possible that the government spread disinformation propoganda specifically to cause a lack of UNITY. The government knows that UNITED WE STAND and DIVIDED WE FALL.

The reason why no one thinks that it's possible that both truther and debunker theories are government propoganda to distract, confuse, and un-unite the American public is because they are SHEEPLE.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



So, what would your excuse be for the other five or six times that there were large amounts of put options placed on the airlines that year then? Or did you not realize that the options around that time weren't the only time options were placed?



Here's an interesting article from the SF Chronicle.


Suspicious profits sit uncollected




Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data. The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance knowledge of the strikes. "Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days. "This smells real bad." Read more: www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL#ixzz0oaDFQqoa


Options for every month in the calendar year are available well in advance.

Options are actually cheaper the farther out OR the further in advance they are purchased.

The airline segment consists of UAL(United), AMR(American) and DLT(Delta) airlines.

Understandably, the airline segment as a whole was on a downward trend.

The point being made here is that there were 25 times the NORMAL number of UAL and AMR but not DELTA PUT Options purchased in advance of 911.

Additionally,
Of said UAL and AMR PUT options, 2.5 Million went unclaimed.

Apparently someone, didn't want anyone to know who had purchased such a huge windfall profit of UAL/AMR options for fear of being discovered.

My question to you is:

The last time you traded options, or any security for that matter, could you purchase them anonymously ?





posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Thanks GoldenFleece, your Woodrow Wilson quote is awesome, and reminiscent of other famous comments, from Disraeli to Eisenhower. The fact is, those who we universally accept as being "in the know", do say things that sound an awful lot like "warnings". Maybe we should all pay attention to what they're saying.

In this context, I'd like to say something about the generalized notion that conspiracies are inherently unprovable, along with it's insidious cousin, the idea that if "they" are powerful enough to do "X", and powerful enough to make us think "Y", then "whatever" we end up thinking is likely to be what "they" wanted all along. Basically what iamcpc brings up. But the neutralizing conclusion is: Why even try?

Well, if I were to count myself among those who think in such a manner, hell, I might not even bother getting out of bed in the morning! But, to be fair, the notion is brought up often enough, and seems to have sort of a common sense merit, at least on it's face. So back to the issue, maybe we all should self-reflect at some point, and wonder if our conclusions were somehow "intended", or if we were manipulated. After all, "they" do wield immense power, why not just go that next step, and admit that we all may have been duped?

But the answer is going to be more complicated than a one-liner. This is because we must each pass through a series of "logic-gates", to get to the other side. What I've found through experience, is that those who consistently default to the "party-line", inhabit a paradigm that really doesn't allow much for conspiracies to begin with. Think about how that "c-word" affects us all. Some are so "programmed" dare I say, that the mere mention causes an automatic shut-down, they are rendered incapable of further progress. As we go along the spectrum, we encounter the one who admits that an occasional conspiracy has happened, but just can't imagine anything too large, because that would mean "too many people had to keep their mouth shut". And a bit higher, the person who concedes that conspiracies can indeed get large, at least in theory, but is especially vulnerable to any kind of "evidence" that seems plausible. In short, their default might be, "Well, it could have happened that way, and the alternative would mean my whole world would crumble! No thanks!" Exactly. And on finally to the one who may actually have occupied each stage previously, only to finally end where they "know" that conspiracies are in fact the NORM. At each stage, our paradigm shift is significant. Our world literally changes.

I see I have little space here, so I'll try and post another to help answer the question of how we can know if we have been duped intentionally...

JR MacBeth



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


So, to answer the question, could we have been duped? YES, on various points (why not?), on certain levels, of course, but who cares really? Think about it, none of that turns out to be as important as the paradigm itself! Let's ask this: Is it all that likely that "they" will fool us all, all of the time? No. But they only need a "critical mass" of plausibility within the societal context anyway, so we don't expect them to even try fooling us all. Now, think about what this could mean. No, they aren't fooling "everyone", and this is SO important to understand. Why? Because there are those whom we already recognize as already "having to be" much closer to the conspirators than you or your neighbor. These are Prime Ministers and Presidents, former This's and That's, the extremely wealthy, some of whom hardly deny their open positions on various matters.

And THAT is the REASON why you CAN "know" (at some level anyway), that the damn thing that walked like a duck, was in fact a friggin' duck! it isn't the lazy slob in front of his TV (or computer!) that we should look to, even if he is the one staring back from the mirror. Can we see that even if we lack ability, or desire to do the "foot-work" to figure it all out, we CAN look to those who's paradigm is LOGICALLY far more in tune with reality than ours? Such as the Presidents and Prime Ministers...

SO, my conclusion is that the paradigm is indeed ALL, but I would further suggest that it isn't mine, or yours that ever mattered. It's THIERS. Listen to what they are saying, go back to the Woodrow Wilson quote. Look up what Disraeli said. And then, and only then, come back and reinterpret the massive "evidence" before you. Their power to deceive may indeed be huge, but let's not cede too much. And please don't be paralyzed by those who would have you think there was no hope of ever knowing anything. It's not just silly, "It's no way to go through life!"

JR MacBeth
MyBlog: Gathering Storms Ahead



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Investigators know exactly who purchased the options. They were interviewed and cleared long ago. Update your information.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
I find it interesting how almost everyone prefers to focus on HOW the twin towers etc. came down, rather than on WHO did it. It doesn't matter HOW it happened, as either way, it happened. Nevertheless, everyone is constantly arguing about HOW it happened. WHO CARES!

The POINT is NOT HOW it happened, but rather WHO was involved with the attacks. So please END your arguments about HOW it happened, and please start focusing on WHO did it. No one can ever prove exactly HOW it happened.

It doesn't matter now if the plane melted the steel, which collapsed the buildings, or if it was all deliberately prepared by those involved with the attacks (aka the government). What matters is how can you prove that the government really did it? Is the manner of the collapse of the towers the only reason?


I think your question is INVALID.

If it is possible for normal airliners to have destroyed the buildings then it is at least conceivable that only 19 Arab terrorists were responsible.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have destroyed the buildings then more people had to have been involved. Whether or not they were Arab terrorists is another question.

So analyzing the building is important to determining if a couple of measly airliners could do it. It has to be determined to decide on the field of suspects. But for the nation that put men on the Moon to not have provided something as simple as a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings after almost NINE YEARS is certainly peculiar.

I have been asking the weight of the floor assemblies which may or may not have pancaked and can't get an answer with a link. I have never seen it specified. There were 84 of them in each tower. So how can anyone claim that a competent analysis of the physics and engineering has been done without information that simple?

So all of our engineering schools have something to answer for after this much time.

psik



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Why is the fact that the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7 a "shade of grey " for you ? What do you think it implies ?



You didn't ask me, but.. I always wondered about this.

One scenario: the plane that either crashed, was shot down, or forced down by hero Americans,.. was supposed to have already hit WTC7. According to the script it was to burn dramatically, then crumble perfectly.. when BBC announced it.

BBC was the actor that didn't get the revised story... I wonder if there are any vids of pre-mature announcements of WTC7 being hit by a plane?.. that'd be interesting.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Why is the fact that the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7 a "shade of grey " for you ? What do you think it implies ?



You didn't ask me, but.. I always wondered about this.

One scenario: the plane that either crashed, was shot down, or forced down by hero Americans,.. was supposed to have already hit WTC7. According to the script it was to burn dramatically, then crumble perfectly.. when BBC announced it.

BBC was the actor that didn't get the revised story... I wonder if there are any vids of pre-mature announcements of WTC7 being hit by a plane?.. that'd be interesting.


I'm 60% sure of this but I have to confirm it first. I think that a plane hitting WTC tower 7 would have been a lot harder than hitting WTC towers 1 and 2 because it was many stories shorter and surrounded by other tall buildings.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join