Why _you_ are complicit in the attacks.

The main objective of the attacks was to seed public discourse.
It has succeeded.

By your constant intolerance of discerning theories and labeling them as 'disinfo campaign' or 'total garbage' you constantly push forward this objective.

The following theories are labeled as such and in some cases even banned from discussion by the forum officials, yet threads attacking the theories remain.

No real plane theory
Video forgery
Directed energy weapons
Nuclear demolition
Fake victims
Pre-demolition / gutted towers

Make of this what you want

reply to post by kybertech


If the past is prologue, this won't last long.

S&F.

Originally posted by kybertech
The main objective of the attacks was to seed public discourse.
It has succeeded.

Please link to a source that provides further details...unless of course this is your opinion, then please explain in further detail.

By your constant intolerance of discerning theories and labeling them as 'disinfo campaign' or 'total garbage' you constantly push forward this objective.

I sincerely hope you are not talking about ATS here, Everyday I read threads that garner a lot of attention, flags stars and many replies that discuss conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks. I have yet to see intolerance, just personal attacks between members.

The following theories are labeled as such and in some cases even banned from discussion by the forum officials, yet threads attacking the theories remain.

No real plane theory
Video forgery
Directed energy weapons
Nuclear demolition
Fake victims
Pre-demolition / gutted towers

Make of this what you want

Again I have seen threads regarding these topics many, many times since day 1 here.

Me? Complicit in the attacks? All of ATS membership? The staff? Yourself?

A bit of advice here, make of it what you want, to quote you...

If you truly believe in something, do not let the complicity of anyone to squash your beliefs. Be true to yourself. If you have complaints about something, lead by example, be the change that you want to see. Create your arguments in a cohesive and well thought out manner. Don't be divisive. You will earn much more respect and your beliefs will also get the attention that you hope they deserve.

reply to post by kybertech

The main objective of the attacks was to seed public discourse. It has succeeded.

You realize, of course, that discourse just means to discuss something. I think you mean discord. Either way it doesn't make any sense.

By your constant intolerance of discerning theories and labeling them as 'disinfo campaign' or 'total garbage' you constantly push forward this objective.

Actually there is no public discord on this matter, so the objective, as you percieve it has not been met.

The following theories are labeled as such and in some cases even banned from discussion by the forum officials, yet threads attacking the theories remain.

No real plane theory
Video forgery
Directed energy weapons
Nuclear demolition
Fake victims
Pre-demolition / gutted towers

The problem is none of those delusions even begins to rise to the definition of a theory. And you can only have "discerning" or alternative theories when each theory is based on the same set of facts.

Make of this what you want

Nothing.

Yeah. Anyone who criticizes the no-plane theories, directed energy weapons, and etc, is guilty -- by disassociation. Or something. Something, something Mods. Something, something something.

I guess that makes me just as guilty as the ones who flew hologram planes into fake buildings, killing thousands of fake people, by detonating pre-planted explosives in the fake ceiling tiles with DEWs and then finishing it off with basement nukes.

Mea Culpa.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Any thread that doesn't fit the approved subject list is deleted or sent to the hoax bin. Threads that appear to get too close to the truth.

The approved subject list appears to be anything that includes tear-jerking stories about America's loss of innocence, and any hypothesis that includes jet fuel causing steel and concrete melting fires forcing mass suicides and horror.

reply to post by kybertech



Not even close OP.

The real reason why so many American.s are so complicant in the matter of 911 is simple.

It is too their advantage too be.

It is easier for them to have other people in far away lands suffer, than for them to be inconvienced by higher gas prices , stronger dollar (US) remains , keeping the US economy more vibrant, than it would be without "nation building".

Anyone that has researched 911 even remotely knows it was carried out by Saudi,s , funded by Pakistan,s ISI,
that countries equivalent of the CIA. So why are we in Iraq , Afgan ?

Think of the US as the father of a poor hungry family, he goes out nightly robbing, stealing, providing the best
he can, its a necessary evil that benefits the family so nothing is said of it. It is a dirty family secret.
My opinion in what I believe is an opinion thread.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Anyone that has researched 911 even remotely knows it was carried out by Saudi,s , funded by Pakistan,s ISI,
that countries equivalent of the CIA. So why are we in Iraq , Afgan ?

Anyone who has researched 911 thoroughly didn't stop researching with the Saudis and ISI.

1
Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks onSeptember 11, 2001
On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens. For an entire postwargeneration, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat.On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that manyobservers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were thedesignated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose anational security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11
th
attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to providea context for understanding the events of September 11
th
rather than to define exactly what happened that day.Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11
th
other than the total destruction of theWorld Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘aterrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives(as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article providesresearch into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September11
th
attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11
th
.
1
After six years of research, this reportpresents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11
th
attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning thatis consistent with the claims of Eastman
et al
. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11
th
wereintended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund acovert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of theSoviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11
th
also served to derail multiple Federalinvestigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justifiedunder the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources”
2
and consistent with a
modus operandi
of sacrificinglives for a greater cause.The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludesthat the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later
3
– onethen must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by variouswitnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberatelylocated to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a patternemerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in thebasement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollarsof government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government securitybrokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. Asituation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared”without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“emergency powers.” that very afternoon.
4
The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by thosesecurities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.

www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Any thread that doesn't fit the approved subject list is deleted or sent to the hoax bin. Threads that appear to get too close to the truth.

But what is the truth? How can we say that something is getting to close to the truth when there are a multitude of truths that are being presented...

Truths like:

No real plane theory
Video forgery
Directed energy weapons
Nuclear demolition
Fake victims
Pre-demolition / gutted towers

Those?

Which one of these is too close? One? All? None? You cant say that something is too close to the truth when there is no consensus as to what that truth is. And even if you are right, are you suggesting that the ATS staff actually know what the truth is and therefore know when to pull the delete switch?

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Hammering the USSR’s Economy

In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of “national security” and concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father’s spurious activities during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, those records are no longer accessible to the public. [1] The Russian coup plot was discussed in June 1991 when Yeltsin visited with Bush in conjunction with his visit to the United States. On that same visit, Yeltsin met discreetly with Gerald Corrigan, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve. [2]

Because of numerous Presidential Executive Orders, the ethically questionable Project Hammer was deemed legal. Of course, even Hitler’s acts were “lawful,” as he had manipulated the laws to accommodate his actions. Many of Reagan’s executive orders were actually authored by Vice President Bush or his legal associates, and it is possible that Project Hammer was created by Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey, who had directed OSS operations through Alan Dulles in Europe during World War II. Prior to his OSS affiliation, Casey worked for the Board of Economic Warfare which allegedly targeted “Hitler’s economic jugular.” [3] Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles, was the Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. He was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.

Project Hammer was staffed with CIA operatives and others associated with the National Security apparatus. Covert channels were already in place as a result of other illegal Bush activities. Thus, it was a given (1) that the project would use secret, illegal funds for unapproved covert operations, and (2) that the American public and Congress would not be informed about the illegal actions perpetrated in foreign countries. The first objective was allegedly to crush Communism, a growing political philosophy and social movement that was initially funded by the usual group of international bankers who now supported their demise. To this end, the “Vulcans,” under George H. W. Bush, waged war against the Soviet Union. [4]

www.spingola.com...

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Any thread that doesn't fit the approved subject list is deleted or sent to the hoax bin. Threads that appear to get too close to the truth.

But what is the truth? How can we say that something is getting to close to the truth when there are a multitude of truths that are being presented...

Truths like:

No real plane theory
Video forgery
Directed energy weapons
Nuclear demolition
Fake victims
Pre-demolition / gutted towers

Those?

Which one of these is too close? One? All? None? You cant say that something is too close to the truth when there is no consensus as to what that truth is. And even if you are right, are you suggesting that the ATS staff actually know what the truth is and therefore know when to pull the delete switch?

Pre-demolition, fake victims, no real planes and fraudulent video, those. All provable, and all banable. My own post on the easily identified fraud was shouted down with such virulent anger that I wonder if folks think it was I who forged the images.

reply to post by septic

You,ll find in 911 threads you can,t give too much information.
When discussing the "elephant in the room" , the usual suspects will appear , and talk about the colour of the drapes.

I,m firmly in the LITOP camp, minor research into Able Danger will put most people that camp.

I think what he's trying to say here, is look, the official story of 9/11 is BS, anyone who doesn't think so, I won't even respond to anymore, its like someone who still thinks the earth is flat. The problem is nobody does anything about it. Our government just got away with this, and we refuse to believe that they could have done such a horrible thing. Well guess again, you've underestimated your fellow human beings who are capable of the most horrific things. All that glitters is not gold. And as long as we just accept the official story, as long as we just accept things when there are clear contradictions, and cover-ups made by our government, then we'll always be subject to such things. We ask for evidence for everything, yet out of 20 videos confiscated by our government supposedly showing the plane hitting the pentagon, they don't realease it. What possible reason could they have for this other than they're hiding what they have done.

I find it funny that you actually think you know what the motive of the attackers were (whoever they were). If this is your opinion then fine, but don't state your opinion as a certainty.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Any thread that doesn't fit the approved subject list is deleted or sent to the hoax bin. Threads that appear to get too close to the truth.

Many delusional fantasists and pathological hucksters see rejection as encouragement, vindication, even.

Rejection is not an endorsement, ignorance is not a virtue, persistent disruption isn't profound, and marginalization isn't a certificate of competence.

That is not to say consensus truth is a desirable alternative, but fortunately this isn't a choice between two extremes. At the very least, when a claimant purports to operate within the framework of science and reason, there are some ground rules to be obeyed. Obstinate failure to comply with these ground rules elicits ridicule, rejection and eventually, isolation, and rightfully so.

There is another dimension to all of this though: and that is deliberate obfuscation, trolling, disinformation peddling and disruption. That can be cured nor corrected, only combated until extinction.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Speaking of the usual suspects...



And just as in the Soviet Union, the most popular tool of the oppressors is to accuse someone of insanity.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This time though, all the shysters in the world won't be able to shout forever. The truth will out.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Yeah. Anyone who criticizes the no-plane theories, directed energy weapons, and etc, is guilty -- by disassociation. Or something. Something, something Mods. Something, something something.

I guess that makes me just as guilty as the ones who flew hologram planes into fake buildings, killing thousands of fake people, by detonating pre-planted explosives in the fake ceiling tiles with DEWs and then finishing it off with basement nukes.

Mea Culpa.

Right.

What I response to it is this:

Think the planes were real?
Fine what about remote controlled drones?

Think the live footage is genuine?
Fine what about daemon faces appearing on the flicks of the explosions aired later?

Think the victims are real?
Fine what about the incompatible victim lists on news sites? Are those just coincidental?

etc...
Not every theory has to apply to every extent. It is entirety possible that some aircrafts crashed into the towers and other aspects of the videos were edited. It is possible that to the people genuinely killed there were identities added /or omitted. It is possible that in addition to thermate some other mean was employed. It is possible that some of the interior was left operational until the event....

Some of it is even considered likely if not necessary. But that is omitted and only some aspects are attacked which aren't even a key part. The whole thing is a ridiculous game.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I find it funny that you actually think you know what the motive of the attackers were (whoever they were). If this is your opinion then fine, but don't state your opinion as a certainty.

Alright, please substitute statements appearing as facts as opinions. Do I really have to make a disclaimer about this?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

And just as in the Soviet Union, the most popular tool of the oppressors is to accuse someone of insanity.

Grandiose victim playing is also a tactic often employed.

What is the distinguisher between persecution and accurate mental health assessments?

The same distinguisher at play in evaluating claims of libel and defamation: factuality.

In other words: not every Tom, Dick and Harry is entitled to use historical analogies and far-flung hyperbole to excuse irrationality. Yet, we see such histrionic comparisons oozing from every pore of the run-of-the-mill fantasist: a screaming persecution complex, appeals to emotion are used as substitutes for science-based argumentation and rational, evidence-based inquiry.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

And just as in the Soviet Union, the most popular tool of the oppressors is to accuse someone of insanity.

Grandiose victim playing is also a tactic often employed.

What is the distinguisher between persecution and accurate mental health assessments?

The same distinguisher at play in evaluating claims of libel and defamation: factuality.

In other words: not every Tom, Dick and Harry is entitled to use historical analogies and far-flung hyperbole to excuse irrationality. Yet, we see such histrionic comparisons oozing from every pore of the run-of-the-mill fantasist: a screaming persecution complex, appeals to emotion are used as substitutes for science-based argumentation and rational, evidence-based inquiry.

Project much?

Originally posted by kybertech
Think the planes were real?
Fine what about remote controlled drones?

Falsification-speculation.

Originally posted by kybertech
Think the live footage is genuine?
Fine what about daemon faces appearing on the flicks of the explosions aired later?

Pareidolia.

Originally posted by kybertech
Think the victims are real?
Fine what about the incompatible victim lists on news sites? Are those just coincidental?

etc...

Furtive fallacy.

Originally posted by kybertech
Not every theory has to apply to every extent. It is entirety possible that some aircrafts crashed into the towers and other aspects of the videos were edited.

True in a strictly logical sense. Nevertheless an attempt to evoke feelings of doubt and uncertainty without evidentiary basis.

Originally posted by kybertech
It is possible that to the people genuinely killed there were identities added /or omitted. It is possible that in addition to thermate some other mean was employed. It is possible that some of the interior was left operational until the event....

Possibility does not equal actuality. Direct evidence is necessary when promoting extremely implausible claims, some of which have been debunked ten times over, and utterly fail the evidence test.

Originally posted by kybertech
Some of it is even considered likely if not necessary. But that is omitted and only some aspects are attacked which aren't even a key part. The whole thing is a ridiculous game.

Yes, a ridiculous game, keeping us all in the treadmill overlooking the less scintillating & titillating facts of 9/11, which are extremely damning and worthy of investigation but unattractive for hardcore conspiracy sensationalists.

To bury 9/11 research under an avalanche of untenable, outlandish jibber-jabber is the ideal cover-up obfuscation and activism-crippling guilt by association device.

None of that matters though, if a collective improvement of information evaluation could somehow be achieved, which is a necessity in itself and a topic distinct from the asking the question "who benefits".