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.

 

Did Cohen foresee 9/11 and a future attack on Berlin?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Did Leonard Cohen a descendant of Israel's Levite leg of the Cohenim, famous and reknown songwriter, poet and performer for several decades, predict future events involving attacks on New York and Berlin, in his song called "First we take Manhattan" which has a rather mysterious text?

Links to the song
Spotify URI
Spotify http URL

Below is a quote from the lyrics of the song:


They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within
I'm coming now, I'm coming to reward them
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I'm guided by a signal in the heavens
I'm guided by this birthmark on my skin
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

Source: mp3lyrics.org

Did Leonard Cohen know of future attacks against New York at the eleventh of September 2001, and another one in Berlin which hasn't happened yet? And is he implying that Israel is behind these attacks? Or does he impersonate someone else?

Edited bad language and made my point clearer.

[edit on 4/6/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 4/6/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
If someone is a conspiracy theorist, they're going to see whatever they want to see in these messages. This is becuase conspiracy theorists aren't out to learn the truth about anything. They're out to connect the dots out of a bunch of unrelated events to form the picture they themselves want to see, like a Rorschach test.

As for me, all I see is lyrics written by yet another stoned musician. You don't likewise think there are any secret meanings in the "All along the Watchtower" or "I am the Walrus" lyrics, do you?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If someone is a conspiracy theorist, they're going to see whatever they want to see in these messages. This is becuase conspiracy theorists aren't out to learn the truth about anything. They're out to connect the dots out of a bunch of unrelated events to form the picture they themselves want to see, like a Rorschach test.


And you are on this conspiracy board, to point that out to people?

You've got a lot of nerve coming here to insult a large part of the ATS community.

At least we are connecting dots, what are you doing?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


According to a quote on Wikipedia:


The song refers to the "naivety and narcissism" of the West German Red Army Faction, "...designer terrorism by celebrity terrorists, as much about radical chic as about real politics."

Source: (Third note) Wiki Url, footnote no 3.
Supposedly included in Gwynne Dyer, War : the new edition, 2004, p. 406, though I have been unable to find proof.

The same Wiki article says in it's intro:


"First We Take Manhattan" is a song written by Leonard Cohen. It was originally recorded by Jennifer Warnes on her 1987 album Famous Blue Raincoat, which consisted entirely of songs written or co-written by Cohen.

It also shows how atleast parts of the song was recorded in 1986. According to the imdb a film also called I'm your man, and it was released on 8th September 2006, exactly 20 years after the Cohen recordings of his First we take Manhattan from his I'm your man recordings in 1986. Coincident? "They sentanced me to 20 years of boredom..."

Who had the power to bore a man for 20 years?

imdb.com link to the 2006 movie



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
And you are on this conspiracy board, to point that out to people?

You've got a lot of nerve coming here to insult a large part of the ATS community.

At least we are connecting dots, what are you doing?


Please understand that I'm not here to insult you, or to criticize you, or to make you feel bad. I'm here to point out just how badly you're being raped by these damned fool conspiracy websites and the con artists operating them. They are notorious for manipulating and distorting specifically to put a conspiracy spin on it, to the point where you're all paranoid over your own shadow. Punks like Dylan Avery could make the weather report look like Ku Klux Klan hate literature. You yourself are merely the victim in their con.

Come now, even you have to acknowledge there is a heck of a lot of blatantly BAD information being passed amongst the conspiracy theorists I.E. lasers from outer space, no planes, nukes in the basement, and the like. All this garbage had to have come from somewhere, you know.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I'm here to point out just how badly you're being raped by these damned fool conspiracy websites


Such arrogance. I think I can judge what's BS, and what's not, for myself.

Nobody needs people like you pointing this out on a conspiracy site, you know why?

It's trolling.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Such arrogance. I think I can judge what's BS, and what's not, for myself.


I cannot speak for you yourself, obviously, but I can certainly speak for many of your conspiracy compatriots here when I say, no, most of you CAN'T judge what's BS, and what's not, for yourselves. Take a look at this thread posted elsewhere on ATS:

Bush unprotected as he boards Air Force One

The original poster posted a heavily edited photo of Bush entering Air Force One and attempted to interpret this as being low security, which in turn was used to imply Bush was involved in the 9/11 attack and he didn't have a care in the world. Now, everyone who knows anything about Air Force One knows the plane is constantly ringed by Secret Service and law enforcement, so most people really don't have a care in the world when every rooftop has a SWAT sniper team protecting them. This guy didn't know any of this. Why? BECUASE THE DAMNED FOOL CONSPIRACY WEB SITE HE GOT THIS DRIVEL FROM DIDN'T TELL HIM THAT.

There are too many other examples, from "Silverstein ordered WTC 7 pulled" to "NORAD was ordered to stand down", to ignore the fact that you conspiracy people are being fed a non-stop diet of rubbish specifically to get you all paranoid over shadows, when all it takes is a 30 second Google search to find out that it's hogwash. If you don't appreciate the fact that I'm pointing this out to you, well, I can't help that.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





If you don't appreciate the fact that I'm pointing this out to you, well, I can't help that.


This is what you said originally:




If someone is a conspiracy theorist, they're going to see whatever they want to see in these messages. This is becuase conspiracy theorists aren't out to learn the truth about anything. They're out to connect the dots out of a bunch of unrelated events to form the picture they themselves want to see, like a Rorschach test.


You are trolling obviously, you generalize all conspiracy theorists, on a conspiracy site. You insult or ridicule a large part of the community on the very nature of the community itself, therefore, you are a big fat troll.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
You are trolling obviously, you generalize all conspiracy theorists, on a conspiracy site. You insult or ridicule a large part of the community on the very nature of the community itself, therefore, you are a big fat troll.


On the contrary, I don't insult or ridicule anyone, or at least if I can help it. I have the truth and the facts on my side so I don't need to insult or ridicule anyone, and besides, the moment I insult or ridicule someone they're going to immediately shut me out and any further discourse will be pointless.

The only thing I generalize about conspiracy theorists is that they're otherwise intelligent people and that deep down I know they mean well, but they're simply getting all their information off these self serving conspiracy web sites. All you need to do is see the huge amounts of "the 9/11 commission report claimed the fires melted the steel", "the military was ordered to stand down", "Silverstein ordered them to 'pull it'", and other bogus claims that's been debunked time after time after time after time to recognize they're simply repeating what others had told them. You conspiracy people certainly aren't stupid, it's simply the case you accept whatever you read on those damned fool conspiracy web sites as gospel without checking to see if their rubbish is even true.

Here's a thought for you to consider- Rather than my actually insulting you, are you simply perceiving my attack on these conspiracy claims as a personal attack on you yourself?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Unless you didn't know, most of this board's members are conspirasy theorists in one way or the other. This is a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y website.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





The only thing I generalize about conspiracy theorists is that they're otherwise intelligent people and that deep down I know they mean well, but they're simply getting all their information off these self serving conspiracy web sites.


Again, with the subconscious insults. They are otherwise intelligent people? So considering a conspiracy theory is unintelligent? Stupid maybe?

Deep down they mean well? So generally they mean harm?




If someone is a conspiracy theorist, they're going to see whatever they want to see in these messages. This is becuase conspiracy theorists aren't out to learn the truth about anything. They're out to connect the dots out of a bunch of unrelated events to form the picture they themselves want to see, like a Rorschach test.


Not it's not the only thing you generalize about.




Here's a thought for you to consider- Rather than my actually insulting you, are you simply perceiving my attack on these conspiracy claims as a personal attack on you yourself?


You attacked conspiracy theorists.




I have the truth and the facts on my side so I don't need to insult or ridicule anyone


No you don't, and you are.




"Silverstein ordered them to 'pull it'", and other bogus claims that's been debunked time after time after time after time


By whom? The debunk attempts are bogus themselves.




You conspiracy people certainly aren't stupid, it's simply the case you accept whatever you read on those damned fool conspiracy web sites as gospel without checking to see if their rubbish is even true.


What about taking the gov's word as gospel?

I'm sorry, but again an insult against the ATS community. I think research and discussion are what make this site great, and most people here accept nothing at face value.

Actually, ATS is one of the biggest, if not the biggest conspiracy site out there.

Is ATS one of those "damned fool conspiracy sites"?

It must be then. So what brings you to ATS, except, like I pointed out before, trolling?

Pathetic!



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Wait a second. In the next verse he implicitly mentions the Madrid bombings!!

I'd really like to live beside you, baby
I love your body and your spirit and your clothes
But you see that line there moving through the station?
I told you, I told you, told you, I was one of those



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Unless you didn't know, most of this board's members are conspirasy theorists in one way or the other. This is a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y website.


No, actaully, this place is more of a conspiracy clearing house, where the proponents of any and every conspiracy from 9/11 to JFK to moon landing hoaxes can come and discuss them. ATS doesn't have an in-house conspiracy they're promoting at the prejudicial exclusion of all other viewpoints, as Dylan Avery and the Loose Change con artists are doing. If you don't believe me, log onto the Loose Change web site and start pointing out all the flaws in their flick, and see how quickly they ban you. For me, it was about three weeks.

The ATS people to their credit understands that censorship is still censorship, regardless of who's doing the censoring. Comparing ATS to a conspiracy web site is like comparing your local librarian to Josef Goebbels.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Deep down they mean well? So generally they mean harm?


Yelling, "conspiracy" without tangible evidence to back it up is fostering false public unrest. It's akin to yelling, "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The intention to protect people from being burned up may be there, but being crushed in a stampede ain't any better.

We've already had one case where one 9/11 conspiracy theorist drove cross country to shoot up the Pentagon so you can see right away how horrobly irresponsible these "the gov't is out to murder us all" conspiracy stories can be.





"Silverstein ordered them to 'pull it'", and other bogus claims that's been debunked time after time after time after time


By whom? The debunk attempts are bogus themselves.


No, by the original sources of the information. The conspiracy web sites ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS selectively quote only those individual tidbits out of context to make things appear more sinister sounding than they really are. Case in point- Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. do a Google search on the original quote, and you'll see that Silverstein didn't say HE ordered WTC 7 to be pulled. He said THE NY FIRE DEPARTMENT ordered WTC 7 to be pulled.

Remember, Silverstein says this means to withdraw fire fighters from a dangerous area. It's your conspiracy web sites who say this means to blow up with controlled demolitions.



What about taking the gov's word as gospel?


So who does this? Certainly not me.


Actually, ATS is one of the biggest, if not the biggest conspiracy site out there.

Is ATS one of those "damned fool conspiracy sites"?


As I said in another post, ATS isn't a conspiracy web site per se. They're more of a conspiracy clearing house where anyone can come and have their say, meaning they don't have an in-house conspiracy they promote at the prejudicial exclusion of all alternative viewpoints. If this place were a true conspiracy web site, they'd have banned me a long time ago.


Pathetic!


I don't particularly care if you think I'm pathetic, or if I'm an idiot, or if I go around kicking pregnant dogs. All I care about is if you can show why anything I post here is incorrect.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Yelling, "conspiracy" without tangible evidence to back it up is fostering false public unrest. It's akin to yelling, "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The intention to protect people from being burned up may be there, but being crushed in a stampede ain't any better.


Jeah, you're just looking out for us. Conspiracies exist, as history has shown, people looking for answers have nothing to do with causing panic.

It's just a gross exaggeration, absolute drivel.

Do you deny that conspiracies have ever existed in human history?




We've already had one case where one 9/11 conspiracy theorist drove cross country to shoot up the Pentagon so you can see right away how horrobly irresponsible these "the gov't is out to murder us all" conspiracy stories can be.


Already one case! How convenient for you.

Some people go crazy for whatever reason. I think the white house has also been shot at before 911, for whatever other reason by some guy.




Case in point- Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. do a Google search on the original quote, and you'll see that Silverstein didn't say HE ordered WTC 7 to be pulled. He said THE NY FIRE DEPARTMENT ordered WTC 7 to be pulled.


Did I claim anything that was disputing that?




Remember, Silverstein says this means to withdraw fire fighters from a dangerous area. It's your conspiracy web sites who say this means to blow up with controlled demolitions.


Jeah, that's what Silverstein says. They said they ordered to "pull it".

Not "pull them out", or "pull them", no "pull IT".

"Pull it", a demolition term.


Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement; "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]




In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [wmv download] There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.


whatreallyhappened.com...

You will probably want to attack my source, but it's just how it went down.

You just think it's bogus because you don't believe in conspiracies, when it's a proven fact that conspiracies exist.

You are either in denial, or you have ulterior motives.

There is so much good evidence out there that shouldn't even exist, if the conspiracy never existed.




So who does this? Certainly not me.


No, you just believe the OS. I can't see how an objective person could not see at least one thing very wrong with the OS.




If this place were a true conspiracy web site, they'd have banned me a long time ago.


So you do admit you are actually trolling against a major part of the ATS community.

I rest my case.




I don't particularly care if you think I'm pathetic, or if I'm an idiot, or if I go around kicking pregnant dogs.


Jeah,....that's a sane thing to say.....



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Unless you didn't know, most of this board's members are conspirasy theorists in one way or the other. This is a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y website.


I'm a conspiracy guy too.

It's just that I prefer to point out just how dumb and illogical the 9/11 ones are.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I have recently registered here.

These people here enjoy posting about the possibility that things may not be as they seem & it's very entertaining.

One day they are going to discover the truth, I have learned some really interesting things here & some dumb things too.

It's very addictive the chatter here, a bit like the x-files used to be, but some here really believe it all, it's like having a hotline to Fox Mulder.

If you think it's mad here you should go read (god like productions) website.

All the best Andy



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Do you deny that conspiracies have ever existed in human history?


Of course not. There have been lots of conspiracies- Watergate, Iran-Contra, Tea Dome scandal, the $64,000 question TV show fraud, and so on. The problem you're facing is that every conspiracy has an iron clad, inviolate rule- the more people who know about it, and the more illegal it is, the greater the likelihood that it will be revealed. These conspiracies you're describing are so monstrously sinister and would require so many co-conspirators to pull off, that it's practically guaranteed it would be exposed, if not from whistleblowing, then from clumsiness. Sheesh, Bush can't even out a CIA agent in retribution without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him.




Already one case! How convenient for you.

Some people go crazy for whatever reason. I think the white house has also been shot at before 911, for whatever other reason by some guy.


That does not disprove the fact that these ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy stories are attracting unsavory charactors for the extreme antiestablishment outlet it provides them.



Did I claim anything that was disputing that?


You claimed that the debunking has in turn been debunked. I am giving you an example which shows your statement to be wrong.



Jeah, that's what Silverstein says. They said they ordered to "pull it".

Not "pull them out", or "pull them", no "pull IT".

"Pull it", a demolition term.


Noone but the conspiracy people has ever claimed "pull it" is a demolition term. that's another bit of rubbish these conspiracy web sites are using to muddy the waters.

Pull it is firefighter lingo to extract firefighters out of a dangerout area. It comes from the days before radio, when the firefighters would give the hose a good sharp pull as a signal to the crews inside to get out quickly. I've had TWO firefighters independently confirm this to me. Silverstein said that he received a call from firefighter command when this whole "pull it" discussion came up, so it's obvious where Silverstein got the phrase from.



In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [wmv download] There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.


Talk about cherry picking. Yes, they definitely pulled WTC 6...as in WITH CABLES. They fixed steel cables to the building and they pulled it down becuase the structure was such a mess that they didn't need explosives to demolish it. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It's not any lingo for anything. It's the description of the actual physical act.

I'll wager your conspiracy web sites left that tiny little detail out.


No, you just believe the OS. I can't see how an objective person could not see at least one thing very wrong with the OS.


Mostly, becuase the "evidence" you're using to justify your reasons for the "OS being very wrong" is mostly bovine scatology being spoon fed to you by these damned fool web sites to deliberately get you all paranoid over shadows. So far, your last few examples have NOT shown this to be incorrect.

Doesn't it strike you just a little odd that despite my supposedly being a troller, I know all your own conspiracy claims better than you do?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





These conspiracies you're describing are so monstrously sinister and would require so many co-conspirators to pull off, that it's practically guaranteed it would be exposed, if not from whistleblowing, then from clumsiness. Sheesh, Bush can't even out a CIA agent in retribution without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him.


Ehm, this is exactly what is happening. Only you make the people that are expossing this, out to look like idiots.




That does not disprove the fact that these ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy stories are attracting unsavory charactors for the extreme antiestablishment outlet it provides them.


No, it proves it may have attracted one single character, who probably already had issues. It's not representative.

Like, I said, it's meaningless, people go crazy for whatever reason, all the time.




Case in point- Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. do a Google search on the original quote, and you'll see that Silverstein didn't say HE ordered WTC 7 to be pulled. He said THE NY FIRE DEPARTMENT ordered WTC 7 to be pulled.


This is what you said, please qoute the piece of post where I am disputing that particular bit of info.




Noone but the conspiracy people has ever claimed "pull it" is a demolition term. that's another bit of rubbish these conspiracy web sites are using to muddy the waters.


Dictionairy definition:


pull down 1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.


This can be found in random dictionairies, so you're completely wrong.

They may have literally pulled WTC6 down, couldn't find proof for it, the term is obviously used for the demolishing of a building, not pulling out firefighters.




Mostly, becuase the "evidence" you're using to justify your reasons for the "OS being very wrong" is mostly bovine scatology being spoon fed to you by these damned fool web sites to deliberately get you all paranoid over shadows.


How do you know what evidence I base my conspiracy claims on? Certainly not on what Silverstein said. You brought it up, I just responded to it.




Doesn't it strike you just a little odd that despite my supposedly being a troller, I know all your own conspiracy claims better than you do?


My own conspiracy claims? Again, you brought it up. The only reason you brought it up, is because it's debatable. I don't care.

I don't base my 911 conspiracy claims on what Silverstein said.

I called you a troller over your comment about conspiracy theorist in general, this one;




If someone is a conspiracy theorist, they're going to see whatever they want to see in these messages. This is becuase conspiracy theorists aren't out to learn the truth about anything. They're out to connect the dots out of a bunch of unrelated events to form the picture they themselves want to see, like a Rorschach test.


But you also said this:




Of course not. There have been lots of conspiracies- Watergate, Iran-Contra, Tea Dome scandal, the $64,000 question TV show fraud,


So you admit that the first statement was total BS, and trolling.

If you admit there are conspiracies, the people that theorize about them, must not be a stupid as you make them look in that statement.




hese conspiracies you're describing are so monstrously sinister and would require so many co-conspirators to pull off, that it's practically guaranteed it would be exposed, if not from whistleblowing


False flag attacks happened thoughout history, and the conspirators usually succeeded.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Unless you didn't know, most of this board's members are conspirasy theorists in one way or the other. This is a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y website.


No, actaully, this place is more of a conspiracy clearing house, where the proponents of any and every conspiracy from 9/11 to JFK to moon landing hoaxes can come and discuss them.


"Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you." Yoda

OK. The following is a quote from "About ATS" on www.abovetopsecret.com...


ATS Background: The Popularity of "Alternative Topics"

While "conspiracy theorists" are often derided or the target of jokes, the fact remains that Americans love a good conspiracy theory. Many of the more popular and highest grossing movies are based on core ideas of UFO's, government conspiracies and related coverups. The phenomenon of the "X-Files" television show and "Da Vinci Code" novel and movie are excellent examples of how these topics have a inherent soft spot in the culture.

The Internet has provided millions of people the means to examine their attraction to conspiracy theories and share their thoughts, observations, and speculative ideas with like-minded individuals around the globe. Indeed, many have postulated that we're seeing a renaissance of conspiracy theory speculation because of the Internet. Magnified by our often troubling current events of terrorist attacks, 9/11, and political turmoil; Web sites that feature discussion boards invariably have one or more sections that touch on some core conspiracy themes. In fact, it's normal to perform a search-engine search on topics such as 9/11 and discover nearly 90% of the first 1,000 returns are conspiracy-theory-related. There has never been a better time for a professional approach toward encouraging discussion and debate on conspiracy and related "alternative topics."


This is a "Conspiracy Website" as it is said in every ATS News edition. Since the board was launched, possible conspiracies have been debated and quite a few new conspiracy theories have surfaced and some, even turning in to Internet Myths, like HAARP being a weather modification tool, most likely originates here.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join