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.

 

Vice Magazine Predicted 9/11 Years Before It Happened!!

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Vice sorry "photoshop" is completely wrong it was in the actual magazine buttttt it was published in 2009, these guys have a pretty sick sense of humor, it was in an issue that was supposed to be based around things that happened in 1994, that was the name of the issue this is a list of all the articles in the issue 1994




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Wow, thanks for posting this.

Just read the first short paragraph on the right page, it answers the question so many idiots pose at a certain point in arguments about the wtc's controlled demolition; "Ok, let's assume the government WAS in on it, how in the world would they stand to benefit from the buildings actually collapsing?"

edit; replied before I saw the post above me... so nevermind
edit on 18-2-2011 by alaskan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Yes, it is definitely one of the strangest TV "coincidences" regarding 9/11. So damningly similar.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
GUYS! This was published in 2009, it was in an issue that was supposed to be set in 1994! it wasnt written in 1994, but the youtube clip from the lone gunman is genuinely uncanny, i do not believe towers came down that day without help from controlled demolition and government knowledge, im just saying, this particular article is notttt proff of prior knowledge



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by taters2468
 


so it pretty much was going to be in a 1994 article but it wasn't? Huh? But how do you explain the magazine then?

And this person who I will link below who claimed to be flipping through a magazine and discovered it?

www.b3ta.com...


im going to bed now later ATS
edit on 17-2-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Guys n gals,

We all know that there is something fishy about 911 but the truth is buried in so much crap.

Yet there were no weapons of mass destruction.

At least 50,000 kids from the US and 1.5 million from other countries are dead because of it.

The US is committed to "eternal warfare" with no actual threat to its nationhood (according to one retired US General).

... and even the current prez won't release the "detainees" (most of whom, I bet are innocent) from Guantanamo, nor will he recall the troops.

It wasn't blood for oil, it was blood for no apparent reason at all!

We need to spread this message and finally get rid of this stain on humanity.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 


The issue of the magazine that that article was published in was published in 2009, look up at the top of the article is says publish date october, 2009



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gixxer
some things are just coincidence nothing more, not sure what your trying to unveil here.


You're right. Some things are just coincidence, nothing more.
But how many coincidences can one event have?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by alaskan
Wow, thanks for posting this.

Just read the first short paragraph on the right page, it answers the question so many idiots pose at a certain point in arguments about the wtc's controlled demolition; "Ok, let's assume the government WAS in on it, how in the world would they stand to benefit from the buildings actually collapsing?"

edit; replied before I saw the post above me... so nevermind
edit on 17-2-2011 by alaskan because: (no reason given)


They were laden with asbestos. They needed to come down or be completely revamped.
Effect would be the one thing that comes to mind.
What would be better to get America's attention. The Worlds attention.
Crash a couple planes into two buildings...or....crash a couple planes into two buildings and have them collapse?
More casualties. More devastation. More sensationalism. More support for the government in every aspect.
American citizens would DEMAND retaliation.
Bush then gets to invade Iraq, just under false pretenses. Something he wanted to do from the get-go.

But you ask what would 'they' stand to benefit?
Symbolism.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
the Beavis and Butthead picture is just great. think about it, were the planes remotely controlled? or did beavis and butthead figure out how to fly a commercial jetliner 500 mph at sea level into a skyscraper 2x. 9/11 was always an inside job, most likely bankrolled by the same people that stood to profit from it. If I had to point fingers I would say Bush didn't know what was happening, but Cheney? Halliburton? Who knows. The problem stems from the Military-Industrial complex that owns America. If they want war, then by golly we better have ourselves a war. How many years will go by that people sit idly by and send their children to die in meaningless wars so that the rich can be richer.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by taters2468
reply to post by fordrew
 


The issue of the magazine that that article was published in was published in 2009, look up at the top of the article is says publish date october, 2009



I think you didn't read the first picture. If you read it then it would make no sense after 9/11.

The article was published ONLINE in oct 2009.
edit on 18-2-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I really think you guys are reaching here, vice is and has always been like mad magazine but with some news in it. I mean are you guys tring to say that Vice mag had something to do with it or what. Its been common knowledge that the US Govt had senario's of planes flying into the twin towers going back to the 60's. I dont think it was much of a prediction to say in 94 that Al Quida was a gruop to watch out for, and planes have always been an interest in terrorism, not to mention the arabs have always looked at New York as an American icon. I really think you guys are reading too much into this.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
omigawd guiz, a magazine said terrorists were interesting in hijacking planes? THIS MUST BE ABOUT 9/11
Did you know that terrorists hijacked planes in the 70s,80s, and probally 90s? guess not



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by alaskan
Wow, thanks for posting this.

Just read the first short paragraph on the right page, it answers the question so many idiots pose at a certain point in arguments about the wtc's controlled demolition; "Ok, let's assume the government WAS in on it, how in the world would they stand to benefit from the buildings actually collapsing?"

edit; replied before I saw the post above me... so nevermind
edit on 17-2-2011 by alaskan because: (no reason given)


They were laden with asbestos. They needed to come down or be completely revamped.



Lots of buildings have asbestos, and no one is blowing them up by the masses. your point is invalid
edit on 18-2-2011 by thedeadwalkk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The ending of this movie about the first world trade center attack was one of the first things I thought of on 9/11:


edit on 18-2-2011 by Boreas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadwalkk


Lots of buildings have asbestos, and no one is blowing them up by the masses. your point is invalid
edit on 18-2-2011 by thedeadwalkk because: (no reason given)


Lots of buildings do have asbestos.
But how many are as a HUGE as the twin towers were and given a time line to get rid of it?
How many of those buildings were just recently purchased (100 year lease) for an extraordinary amount of money?
How many of those buildings was it deemed cheaper to demo than to repair?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
What strikes me as odd is how they are holding up the baphomet sign,

Thats illiminati not bin laden?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I know others have said it...but I'll say it again.

THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN 2009.

Here is the link to the article.
www.viceland.com...


Here is the link to the magazine issue...named "1994"
www.viceland.com...


You can clearly see in both links....PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2009



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
I know others have said it...but I'll say it again.

THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN 2009.

Here is the link to the article.
www.viceland.com...


Here is the link to the magazine issue...named "1994"
www.viceland.com...


You can clearly see in both links....PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2009


Here is another page for verification.
IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2009.
VOLUME 7. NO 10.



Item specifics Condition: New: A brand-new, unused, unopened and undamaged item. See the seller's listing for full details. See all condition definitions- opens in a new window or tab Issue Type: Monthly Publication Name: Vice Month: November Publication Year: 2009 Subject: Music/Fashion/Art/Photography/Interviews Language: English


cgi.ebay.ie... E-MAGAZINE-VOL-7-NO-10-1994-ISSUE-Brand-New-Sealed-/250760189357?pt=UK_Magazines&hash=item3a6278d5ad



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
William Cooper did as well but closer to the actual date on 6/28/2001. Then he was promptly killed at his home on 11/5/2001.




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join