New! Operation Terror - 9/11 Conspiracy Dramatization Film, page 2

reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

OR. more proof that someone who sees sinister secret gov't plots behind everything from the rising prices of gasoline to some native in Borneo falling off a cliff while hunting pigs in the jungle will instictively see a secret gov't plot behind the 9/11 attack as well.

You cannot deny that is a possibility as well.

I don't deny that as a possibility. However, I am unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt. All things considered, they really don't deserve it.

Politics is a dirty business, and this is right up their alley.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

A phone call, maybe. One or two phone calls, I'll even give you that for argument's sake. Successfully faking ALL of them, no. No way, no how, and certainly not when it leaves evidence all over the place as in the case of phone records showing a trail from Barbara Olson to phone operators to secretaries to Ted Olson.

Believe it or not, between risking your family and your career or choosing to reveal the truth, most people will choose to save their family and career. They have their kids and 401k to think about, you know.

Which means that when money is involved, no one can be trusted. Remember, the world runs on money - so if you have a few million bucks offered to keep your mouth shut, you close your trap and take the dough. Because that's how you survive. It's a cold harsh reality, but it's still reality.

It's called a moral obligation to the people you care about. All of those records are controlled by people with moral obligations, people who are not immune to bribery, intimidation, and tactful application of government resources.

And that goes for every other source of evidence as well.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

I don't deny that as a possibility. However, I am unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt. All things considered, they really don't deserve it.

...and yet you are willing to give Islamic fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt, even though the very same group bombed the very same target in 1993.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

...and yet you are willing to give Islamic fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt, even though the very same group bombed the very same target in 1993.

Exactly. Given the reaction this time around, it's a little stupid to think that they'd get the drop on us again. I don't care WHO they blame, I don't think it was entirely accidental. Fear is a very easy way to control the masses, to convince the people to lay their lives and liberty in the hands of the government. Would our government be able to resist?

Fear leads to desperation leads to security leads to slavery. And why wouldn't the government want to enslave us? We're the cattle of the farm. We are the drones that make the gears turn. I think there may be a little more than objectivity on your side, though. Perhaps you just don't like the Muslims?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

Believe it or not, between risking your family and your career or choosing to reveal the truth, most people will choose to save their family and career. They have their kids and 401k to think about, you know.

Which means that when money is involved, no one can be trusted. Remember, the world runs on money - so if you have a few million bucks offered to keep your mouth shut, you close your trap and take the dough. Because that's how you survive. It's a cold harsh reality, but it's still reality.

I shouldn't need to tell you that using an unprovable assumption to "prove" another unprovable assumption isn't proof. It's circular logic in that you're just repeating the same thing in different terms in order to explain itself. If you invent enough reasons and excuses that way you can even say leprechauns staged 9/11.

I will state what I said before- Occam's razor says that the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct answer, and it only requires one assumption to presume an attack that has all the hallmarks of being the work of Islamic fundamentalists was actually the work of Islamic fundamentalists. On the other hand, once you start "assuming" the 9/11 attack was staged and "assuming" the passengers never made any calls and "assuming" the phone calls were faked and "assuming" some secret technology even exists to do that and "assuming" the people at the other end of the calls were convincingly fooled and/or all paid off and "assuming" they did it to save their family and career, you're going to need to start writing down all these runaway assumptions to even keep track of them all.

Is this really considered legitimately researching the truth of what actually happened on 9/11 to you? I mean, really?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

Fear leads to desperation leads to security leads to slavery. And why wouldn't the government want to enslave us? We're the cattle of the farm. We are the drones that make the gears turn. I think there may be a little more than objectivity on your side, though. Perhaps you just don't like the Muslims?

Please do not put words in my mouth. If you must know, I have had distasteful experiences in the past with people who were such outer space religiously zealous fanatics that they were literally capable of doing anything, once they invented an excuse for themselves that told them that God approved of it. I know from personal experience such people do in fact exist in the world, so when I hear of people who are such outer space religiously zealous fanatics that they invented an excuse for themselves that it pleased God to fly hijacked planes into buildings and murder 3000 people, my first instinctive thought is "so what else is new"?

All right, since I shared, it's your turn now- when did secret government agents ever actually try to murder you for no reason for you to instinctively believe the gov't was secretly behind the 9/11 attack?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

Except for the fact that Cell phones don't work at high altitudes... Oh, and building 7 collapsed perfectly due to debris from WTC, except for building 4 and 5 that were still basically standing even though they were right next to WTC. Not to mention that The Murrough Federal building in OKC was bombed directly and only lost it's face. But, WTC 7 just happened to fall like a planned demolition...because of debris? That falls on rediculous.

reply to post by dave_welch

---

lol....I know....you see at least 50% of the building gone in Oklahoma....yet the towers and WTC7 experience total global collapse...from minimal localized asymmetrical damage, and no supporting evidence the fires present failed any remaining vertical support to cause it as hypothesized.........go figure!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by WWu777

---

Then obviously, we must ask what happened to the civilian passengers who supposedly died in the crashes. What happened to them? Mass execution, to tie up loose ends? What does ATS think?

And another point I really, really want to make - I believe this point should be recognized, and I really hope that someone in the industry will eventually see it and understand it. If too many movies speculating on alternative versions of 9/11 are made, it will muddy the waters to the point that, should we actually hit it on the head, we will be unable to recognize it. Furthermore, the more alternative views that are introduced, the more likely the public will roll their eyes and say, "Yet another outlandish theory. Who would've guessed?"

Basically, the more movies that are made, the more it will look like we are trying to shoot in the dark without having any idea of what we're aiming at. We will look desperate and uninformed. And in all honesty, that's exactly the impression we want to avoid at all costs.

edit on 2-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Good question. But no one knows what happened to the people on the flights. Maybe they were fictional. Maybe they were executed somewhere. No one knows because there's never been a real investigation.

But it's also unlikely that four airliners would crash without leaving any significant debris other than a few vague photos that anyone could have photoshopped.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WWu777
Yes, the clips showed that the people on the flights were taken off and drone planes were used. Otherwise, normal planes can't move at 400mph at sea level or hit skyscrapers. No one on a flight simulator was able to replicate the attack. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the producers of this flick have to fall back on the intellectually lazy "everyone is a sinister secret agent" excuse to make their scenarios float. I daresay the surviving relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attack would certainly be disgusted to the point violence if they knew these producers were accusing their family members of being accomplices to mass murder. Especially the parents of that 14 year old girl who was on a field trip to California that died on flight 77.

Also, I would very much like to know where the heck you were told "planes weren't able to hit skyscrapers" since it's in the historical record that a world war 2 bomber hit the Empire State building and went halfway in, despite the plane travelling only half the speed, half the size, and hitting a concrete reinforced steel building. The claim sounds suspiciously like the self serving rubbish Rob Balsamo is pushing on that damned fool conspiracy web site of his, and after the stunt those characters pulled here on ATS, "self serving" and "damned fool conspiracy web site" are descriptions that every ATS moderator is thinking as well.

edit on 2-11-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

Actually you got things backward. The families of the 9/11 victims are asking for a new investigation because they know that the official story doesn't add up.

Airlines can't hit skyscrapers at 400mph at sea level because it's aerodynamically impossible. You can'f fly that fast unless you are above the clouds. If you tried to, the plane would spin out of control.

There are many expert pilots that can explain it to you. See a list of them here:

patriotsquestion911.com...

See this interview with Col. Ralph Colstad, a veteran pilot who flew 100 combat missions for the US Navy and flew commercial airlines during his career as well. He will explain it to you so you can get educated.

reply to post by dave_welch

---

No, the ridiculous part is, there are still people that think the phone calls all came from cell phones. The only successful cell phone calls came from Flight 93, and even then, when the plane was within 2,000 feet in altitude of the cell towers, well within their performance envelopes.

reply to post by WWu777

---

Do we really need to repost the videos of airliners going over 400 mph, less than 500 feet off the ground? The idea that it is aerodynamically impossible, is in error.

reply to post by dave_welch

---

Except for the fact that Cell phones don't work at high altitudes...

Just one problem - most of the calls were made from seat back AIRFONES which were designed to work
on aircraft

The few calls made from cell phones were done at low altitude

Of the 2 cell phone calls from Flight 93, both were made when aircraft was at approx 7000 ft, that part of
PA is mountainous and the cell towers are at approx 3000 ft ASL (above sea level)

Kind of falls apart when the facts are introduced.......

reply to post by hgfbob

---

leaving 240 intact fireproofed vertical support remaining....

What supports were those....?

The fireproofing was knocked off the support columns by the aircraft impact

Unless you are claiming that the fireproofing can resist the impact of an aircraft at 500 mph and the blizzard
of secondary missiles from the impact

The fireprrofing was very friable and frequently dislodged by building motions from the wind - every spring had
to reappply fireproofing which had come off by the building being rocked back and forth by wind from winter
storms

9/11: Criminal Incompetence and Ass-Covering by the Bush Administration
  Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags

Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags

NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags

The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags

Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags

Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: