It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by hdutton

I just brought them "into the mix" as an example. The issue to me, relative to 9/11, is that there are more than a few fingers in the so-called "truth movement" that like to point to the Mossad and justify their suspicions by noting real or imagined behavior on the part of that security force. I just meant to explain that the Mossad is not alone, by any stretch of the imagination, in the bad behavior arena yet you rarely (if ever) hear about conspiracy fanatasies involving any other agencies besides the US and Isreal.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:44 PM
Just a friendly reminder that we should stay focused on the issue/evidence at hand and not me mislead by straw man arguments. I'm not saying that this is being done here, but for those that don't know already, many trusters or official conspiracy theorists will often use an apparent tactic of distracting or derailing the discussion, so that any casual readers or information seekers may become disinterested and move on. One of those tactics is to steer the discussion away from the topic at hand and grasp at straws such as anti-semitism or by throwing in wild disinformation theories like "alien death-rays" or "10,000 conspirators", in an apparent effort to dismiss hard and probable evidence along with those unfounded and baseless theories. Sadly, all too often people fall into this trap and waste page after page defending themselves against anti-semitic accusations or refuting disinformation theories such as "no-planes" or "alien death-rays". Nobody is immune, myself included, as it is a natural reflex to do so. However, cooler heads almost always prevail and achievements come from only those who stay focused.

You may ultimately prove your point that you aren't anti-semitic or never have supported such silly theories as "alien death-rays", but most people figured as much anyway and the person leveling those accusations has then accomplished what s/he has most likely set out to do in the first place, distract from the discussion through straw man arguments. Straw men are used to displace intellectual debate and shift the focus away from the presented subject matter. Again, I'm not saying that this is being done here, but it is something we should all watch out for.

Here is a hint, almost everyone who would accuse you of being an anti-semite simply because you disagree with or question Israeli policies and/or Mossad tactics, probably already knows the definition of what a semite is and most likely won't change his/her mind simply because you explain it to them. In fact, chances are that the accusation is being used as a discrediting, distracting and/or derailing tactic and just like with quicksand, if you wiggle, you will only sink further. There is almost always an agenda behind such an accusation, especially when leveled for erroneous reasons and I have personally found that the best way to negotiate such an obstacle is to simply refute it once and then leave it alone (or better yet, ignore it outright). If you ignore it and the poster keeps at the accusations, it will appear that s/he is the irrational one and it will expose the accusations for what they are, not to mention that it will deflate the very purpose of those accusations. If you argue back, you are basically taking a defensive posture and your opponent often gets what s/he is after in the first place. In other words, you will have taken the bait.

I think it is extremely important to not be lead down a path of straw man arguments, as it almost always leads nowhere, ultimately underscoring its effectiveness for those that would use it in the first place.


posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Just out of curiosity - what tools do you use to distinguish between "wild disinformation" and "serious intellectual debate"?

For instance, you dismiss the "10,000 conspirators" as wild disinformation but would 1000 conspirators be considered wild disinformation? How about 800? 600? Where and how do you draw the line? Death rays vs. nano-thermite coated structural steel? Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and then government moles planted plane wreckage and downed light poles with the hydraulic pincers? Is that disinformation? Shoot down over Shanksville vs. no plane crash at Shanksville?

For the record, anti-semitism is real and still ugly after all these years. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by airspoon

I guess I'll never learn when to and when not to add some information or opinion to the conversation.

NAH ! I am much to old to learn or really care.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by airspoon

benazir bhutto announced nonchalantely in an interview with the bbc, that osama bin laden was long
since dead. this was shortly before her own untimely and suspicious death. the interview was subsequently
edited to remove any reference to bin laden. great piece but i am amazed in all pieces regarding 9/11 that
very little, if any reference is made to dimitri khalezov's thesis on how the twin towers and building 7 were brought
down by three underground thermonuclear explosions, explaining everything observed (dustification, molten steel pools etc.) on the day and also completely accounting for later revelations and developements (1000 1st responders dead, building 7 free-fall collapse etc.) look up under 911thology. to me, if this was more widely seen and quoted, it must shock the decent into action.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:34 PM
"Here's more pictures of engine debris at the pentagon" . Really? That's it? That's what you call 'evidence' that an airliner crashed into the pentagon? And you wonder why we don't believe the official story. For the life of me I can't understand what you have to gain by wasting so much time and effort educating stupid people like me. Why does it matter to you? If you're satisfied with the OS then none of this should even matter to someone as intelligent as yourself. I would think that someone as smart as you would have a host of things more satisfying to do with your time. I apologise for being so dimwitted. My bad.
edit on 15-12-2010 by dillweed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by pshea38

You know, we don't really need to prove what happened on 9/11, only what didn't happen. The problem with trying to get folks to believe some theory you may have as to what happened, is that this is no different than the official conspiracy theory and believe it or not, most people think that the media and government is much more credible than some "truther". I don't think we will win a lot of hearts and minds by trying to get people to believe in this theory or that theory, in regards to 9/11. Instead, we should just educate our neighbors on the evidence, then allow them to connect the dots. It does seem to work much better that way, as people will almost always believe their own logic. Remember, it is a much higher bar to meet to prove what did happen, than what didn't happen, thus we should stick to proving what didn't happen.

It is for this reason that I will present the evidence and allow the reader to decide what happened, based on his or her own logic when weighing all of the evidence. It almost always turns out that people will connect the dots correctly when making an informed judgement based on all of the evidence, as opposed to only the evidence that the official conspiracy theory relies on, the evidence that the government and media doesn't try to ignore.

With that being said, I don't believe that nukes were used on the twin towers any more than I believe that alien death-rays brought the towers down or even 19 cave-dwelling arabs with the luck of the universe on their side. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, only that it is a theory, just like those other theories and just like those other theories, there is evidence contradicting such a theory.

Again, I think that at this moment in time, it is only necessary to focus on what didn't happen because if we can get people to realize what didn't happen, then we have taken the biggest leap towards the truth. I'm not against anyone's theory, so long as it is based on the evidence and doesn't require one to ignore said evidence. What I do care about, is that people have all the evidence. This is why I never try to "plant" theories in peoples' heads and instead, I'll just present the evidence and allow the reader to build their own theory on that evidence. What has happened, is that evidence is being supressed and ignored, leaving the general public to build or believe in theories based on only the evidence that certain influences or establishments want them to believe. I simply want people to make informed judgements based on all of the evidence because anything other than that, is the very definition of ignorance.


posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by airspoon

excellent man!

cant believe its been so long already...

i remember growing up and hearing about JFK then thinking.. how are they still talking about this.. then reading into it..

but having lived through all these lies & BS, I will be searching for the truth till the day I die...

great info .. thanks to you and your friend...


posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:32 AM
The likelyhood for the events to unfold the way we have been told is of a such low degree of probability it would take several miracles in a row beating almost insourmountable odds for the events to have unfolded the way we have been told. That is more than enough for me.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:46 PM
Text Blue You state some interesting facts, but there is one thing that irks me. If they could go through ALL of that to make it look like terrorists, I mean LOTS of work, then why wouldn't they plant WMDs in Iraq to make invading them look justified? It would be very easy to plant a little uranium or a nuclear device, heck, even some germ bombs. I feel the lack of any WMD's in Iraq is enough evidence to prove there was no 911 conspiracy.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by solekollectah

It's really not "that" much work, as everything builds like the snow-ball affect. I mean, they have had some practice with pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people before, then getting the establishment to cover it up. Think Gulf of Tonkin and Iran/Contra/hostages/coc aine affair with it's Tower Commission. On the other hand, it's really not so easy to plant uranium or WMD in Iraq, as that stuff is traceable and strictly tracked. Furthermore, why would they need to plant WMDs in Iraq? They got away with invading Iraq on a lie. It's not like anyone is in trouble for invading Iraq and it certainly isn't like the American people didn't quickly forget when the next American Idol aired. "They" already got away with Iraq and I mean scot-free.

When people start thinking like that, where they say, "well the evidence sure does look convincing but "XYZ" is what throws me off of the whole thing", it tells me that they are allowing pre-concieved notions to influence the data. It means that people are then trying to fit the evidence into a pre-concieved notion, instead of the other way around, where you allow the evidence to build the theory. I use to do the same thing, when I was allowing my biases to influence my thinking on 9/11.

In fact, this is the number one handicap that I find official conspiracy theorists to have. It's usually something like, "Well sure there are is a lot of convincing evidence pointing away from the OS but that evidence implicates the government and there is no way that the government could have been involved" or "There is no way that the government could have been involved because it would have taken thouands of people and someone would have talked by now". There are many other "excuses" that people use too, but you get the idea. Both of those excuses listed above are not only based on flawed logic, but also bias. They require someone to have a pre-concieved notion that either the government (or elements within government) is looking out for their best interests and would never purposefully sacrifice an American life, or that the government isn't capable of keeping secrets and doesn't use a process called compartmentalization. Unless you know how classified government projects work, then you would probably think that it would take thousands of people knowing about the attack to plan it. It basically amounts to forming an opinion without having all available information or wrong information. Sometimes, just a step back with a clear mind can do the trick.


posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:44 PM
I still don't see why they would go through all the trouble to setup a attack in their own country, but then not plant something, anything, in Iraq to justify the war and get the world on there side. If you had the ability to attack your own country and make it look like terrorists, why not plant something?

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by hooper

I think the reason people tend to gravitate more towards blaming the US/ISRAEL is because they are also the most capable, within the intelligence industry. You can have issues/problems with israel and not be against the idea of jews. just like you can have a problem with the US and still be american.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by solekollectah

plant something in iraq? like what? what purpose would this serve in your opinion?

IMO, they didnt want something they could find. what they want is to be over there, soaking up tax payers dollars and serving corporate interests.
also remember, once they had saddam out of there, they always had/used the excuse that we couldnt leave until their country was stable, it was all our fault. Just another reason that keeps us there.
edit on 12/20/2010 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:32 AM
I agree Von. Because these guys main motivation is obfuscation I'm sure they're thrilled with the 'anti-semite' argument. To them it's just one more arrow in their quiver of dis-information. They are forever trying to pidgeon hole our argument when the fact is we don't point fingers. We don't pre-suppose anything other than what we've been told is totally unacceptable. What we want is an independant re-investigation. Why are they so convinced that that isn't necessary? Because they are bad people, and we all know that bad people DO exist in the world.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

IMO, they didnt want something they could find. what they want is to be over there, soaking up tax payers dollars and serving corporate interests.

Well, in my opinion (and of course we are talking politics so it is only opinion) the big corporate interests don't like little hot wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq. The big money is not in boots and bullets. I know companies like Halliburton, PB, KKR, etc. have made out pretty well serving the troops but in the end the real big money is in new defense systems and unfortunately those kind of expenditures get cut out or cut back during actual conflict. I think your Lockheed, Electric Boat, GE, etc. would like nothing more than to see this thing end and probably wish it never began. Wouldn't even be suprised if they had lobbied against it.

As for "soaking up taxpayers dollars" - to what end?

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by hooper

I dont think thats true, a lot of innovation and adaptation to the current conflict called for expenditure and is still ongoing. Anyway I think thats way off topic. What do you have to say to any of the 50 points that point away from the official conspiracy theory.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by airspoon
---Even if that mandate is imposed by leaders whose policies and orders lead to crimes against humanity?

It is not a soldier's place to question his superiors. That duty lies with the American citizen. In essence, the American soldiers follows orders from his chain of command and in turn, that chain of command follows orders from the civilian leadership who then in turn follows orders from the democratically elected government. It is the publics job to ensure that their government is issuing the correct orders. The soldier is only the fingertips of the hand, while the public is the brain and soul. It is ultimately the responsibility of the American citizen to ensure that the soldier has the correct marching orders and if the public doesn't agree with those marching orders, then it is their responsibility to hold government accountable. You would have a completely inneffective military if every soldier played "chief" and only did what he thought was right. Furthermore, you'd have a military dictatorship if the command only did what it thought was right. We take orders from the government who in turn takes orders from the American people. The disconnect that is there, is between the people and their government, not the government and the military or the military and the soldier.

---The military is no longer a force that defends and fights for justice.

The military is a force that defends the will of the American people, always has been. As of yet, the American will seems to be perfectly fine with the missions that our soldiers are being sent on, as it is the responsibility of the American people to hold their government accountable and they even have all the tools to do so. So far, the American public has proven that they don't really care enough, which is ultimately expressed through their will and carried out by their military.

You are placing blame in the wrong place.

How do you figure since the point is that the people no longer have the ability to control or hold their leaders accountable?

The POWER and CHAIN of command and checks and balances structure are OUT OF BALANCE since the PEOPLE who supposedly elect their leaders, no longer have the power to hold their leaders accountable due to the system being broken and leaders being ABOVE THE LAW of those who you say are supposed to enforce it.

The US armed forces are no longer in or under the control of AMERICAN CITIZENS… the PERPS
or zionists are among a FEW that control EVERYTHING including the US MILITARY who are being USED AS PAWNS and allow themselves to be used to further the NWO AGENDA whether they realize it or not. However, this is the INFORMATION AGE where the PEOPLE and those who sign up for such forces, have an opportunity to inform themselves in a way no other generation has been able to. So with that said and all the QUESTIONS surrounding the issue of 9/11 which is the primary reason for the WAR ON TERROR, most of those who are fighting in it and have chosen to support the USA's pretext for this war, are doing so blindly and have CHOSEN not to inform themselves with the KNOWLEDGE and information in existence that shows this WAR is based on a LIE having everything to do with 9/11 which anyone with a brain doing basic research can see was an INSIDE JOB and being waged by a government they're working/fighting for and taking orders from.

who do you think carried out the orders on 9/11? Who flew the jets that attacked their own country like the one that MINETA was referencing? Who was in the DOOMSDAY Aircraft flying at the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol and Shanksville coordinating the operations? Who was in the Operations Rooms feeding the Networks like CNN, FOX and MSNBC the plane hoax? Someone was giving orders and someone was TAKING ORDERS. Who were these people? Who were the ONLY GROUP that could have designed and orchestrated this BLACK OP from WTC7 to the PENTAGON?

Factions of, and those who CONTROL and work for the US MILITARY, thats who... and yes these are AMERICAN CITIZENS who carried out ORDERS to MURDER their own country men which includes EVERYONE that conspired or was bought by the PERPS from fake witnesses such as LLOYD the taxi driver, to MIKE WALTERS, to so-called AMATEUR photographers whose video's were used to sell LIES about real planes.

So those in the US Military are blindly fighting for and taking orders from a CORRUPT System and leadership that is now based more upon an agenda of PURE EVIL and crimes against humanity. o

The TRUTH about this War on Terror is available for all to research and examine, and it overwhelmingly proves beyond a doubt that its a LIE and 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB in which case anyone fighting for this country now and do not stand up and refuse to serve, are guilty by association and should be accountable in the same manner as those who fought to enforce the evil committed by NAZI GERMANY and HITLER.

So how is blame being wrongly placed?

I direct your attention to the words of ALBERT EINSTEIN… which appears you either overlooked
or ignored

Originally posted by airspoon
Again, you place the blame with the wrong entity. If people quit shifting blame, maybe some change could be made. However, until people wake up and take responsibility instead of putting it off on someone or something else, the status quo will remain and we lose.

which is exactly what i explained. and yes, the USA will LOSE this WAR… the cost will be the USA's destruction which has already happened for all intents and purposes.

but again, unless those who fight refuse to fight, yes, the status quo remains, but it won't
make them unnaccountable for participating in crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by airspoon
---What do you call a government that stages attacks against its citizens?

I would call it a criminal government. However, let me be very clear here: I'm not yet ready to blame the government for the 9/11 attacks. It hasn't been proven and unlike certain factions within the government, I still believe in the rule of law and our Constitution, thus one is innocent until proven guilty. Sure, I have my main suspects, though I'm not yet willing or ready to throw out the Constitution, which I swore an oath to defend, nor am I willing to subvert the rule of law.

I've already addressed that and shown why that reasoning is wrong

Originally posted by airspoon
The thing that seperates many so-called "truthers" from "trusters", is that these "truthers" aren't willing to conclude without something being proven. It has not been proven that the government or anyone therein, is guilty of the attacks on 9/11.

YES IT HAS BEEN… see above

Originally posted by airspoon
I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that certain elements within government are guilty of a cover-up relating to the same, though it has not been proven that they are guilty of the attacks themselves.

the WAR ON TERROR IS A LIE and the USA has created WARS now that are based on the 9/11 LIE.

Thats all that matters… the US MILITARY is fighting a WAR now that is ILLEGAL which means all
those who fight in this war and do not refuse to fight, are part of the problem that EINSTEIN speaks of.

Originally posted by airspoon
However and with that being said, enough has been proven to warrant a new investigation and if that investigation is viable, then pensing the results, some people should be prosecuted according to the rule of law and our Constitution.

In the meantime, the US Military continue taking orders blindly that furthers the NWO agenda, perpetuates an illegeal war without end, injustice against its citizens and world, and leads to the DEATHS of Millions all for a LIE.

Originally posted by airspoon
We can't really say for sure what happened on 9/11, though we can certainly say what didn't happen.

All a soldier or American needs to know is that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB… its been PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt, and THATS all one needs to know when it comes to their decision to support or join and FIGHT for the United States now.

The lines are being drawn and there will come a time that all those who chose and choose to support and fight for this LIE, will be judged and held accountable for crimes against humanity.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by lord9
My hat's off to you Lord9. Your argument makes all our petty squabbles about details seem silly. Maybe it's because I'm afraid of what we will find after a new investigation, but everything you say makes me very sad. Still, I like the way you've put into words what may very well be what this all turns out to be. Maybe it's time for something other than finger pointing and name calling. What can we do to turn up the heat on congress?

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by airspoon

The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.”

The Bush administration includes over 3000 appointees.

Here are the authors and chairman of the report you are quoting:
Project Co-Chairmen
Principal Author
None of them served in the Bush Admin.

Signitories to the Statement of Principles:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

[Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

I believe only three of them served in the Bush Admin.

So much for FACT #1.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in