It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by airspoon
With all of that being said, this has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is about Assange's unfounded claim regarding his own "leaked" evidence and 9/11 conspiracies, which is a huge red-flag as to Assange's intent, imo.
Apparently, the only flight data recorder recovered, according to authorities, was flight 93, while they claim that the other flight recorders were either never recovered or too damaged to read. So yes, one box was recovered and admitted too. I also don't believe that these flight data recorders were never recovered.
I find it odd how "evidence" of the hijackers just happen to be recovered from the pile almost completely unscathed, yet the one thing that is supposed to survive such an incident, didn't. I'm not buying that one bit.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is Exhibit "A" as to why the so-called "truth movement" people are just spinning their wheels. IN every case, when they think they have a grip on a "fact", it is wrong on some level...either because it is just parroted from somewhere else (without fully checking,and digging the details), or is just "off-the-cuff" toss away...guess they're pretty much the same thing, really....
Conspiracies are cognitive devices. They are able to out
think the same group of individuals acting alone
Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate (the conspiratorial
environment), pass it around the conspirators and then act on the
result. We can see conspiracies as a type of device that has inputs (information
about the environment) and outputs (actions intending to change or maintain
What does a conspiracy compute?
It computes the next action of the conspiracy
Now I we ask the question: how effective is this device? Can we compare it to
itself at different times? Is the conspiracy growing stronger or weakening? This
is a question that asks us to compare two values.
Can we find a value that describes the power of a conspiracy?
We could count the number of conspirators, but that would not capture the
difference between a conspiracy and the individuals which comprise it. How do
they differ? Individuals in a conspiracy conspire. Isolated individuals do not.
We can capture that difference by adding up all the important communication
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
Is Assange saying in the above statement that 9/11 WAS NOT a conspiracy for war? Wow! Either the guy isn't too bright or he can't keep his pre-scripted lines straight. Where was he during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, all as a result of 9/11 and the polyester War on Terror?
In any event, Assange is a pretty lousy salesman and an even worse actor who needs to put more time into studying his lines.edit on 10-12-2010 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)
"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."
Originally posted by airspoon
Firefighters For 9/11 Truth Debunk Assange: Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up (VIDEO)
“118 FIRST RESPONDERS HEARD EXPLOSIONS…..”
This is some pretty good information and will hopefully make people think twice about Assange and WL. Don't fall for this obvious trap that is WL. It is becomming more and more obvious to me that WL is not what it seems. Why is the media following Assange?
Then, why would Assange care about 9/11? After all, It is becoming more and more clear to me that WL and Assange has an agenda and that agenda doesn't seem to force tranparency into government, but rather to shape public opinion, such as what Israel seems to be so good at. In order to believe Assange on 9/11, you would have to throw out common-sense and plenty of eye-witness testimony, along with expert analysis (and foresic evidence). However, one has to ask why Assange would be so adamant on 9/11, unless of course he was forwarding some ulterior agenda.