Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New! Operation Terror - 9/11 Conspiracy Dramatization Film

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
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.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
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?
edit on 2-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

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



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The questions remain...

Are the Airplanes Hijacked?
YES.

Have the Airplanes crashed into WTC/Pentagon?
NO.

Sadly, the truth is more terrible...



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Judging from the trailer, the movie would seem to uphold one of the key points of the "official story", that being that the WTC towers were knocked down by the action and results of the plane impacts.

That is a very, very serious flaw in this movie from a truther's point of view.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   



Without watching the film, I can see right away that this will be an extreme exercise in intellectual laziness. Such "inside job" claims universally have to be, since for them to promote their claims they need to sweep a lot of inconvenient facts under the rug so than noone can see them.


are you serious?

The 'truth' movement is about asking questions and demanding answers of the official hypothesized claims...what does one need, ASKING others for the evidential support of the 'already' in-place claims, that ARE the official story?
anything else is basically nonsense thrown in by..."shills"...purposely here to...'muddy' the water...




-The US governnemt showed the classified intelligence proving the 9/11 attack was staged by Islamic terrorists to our NATO allies,


[shakes head]...dude....NIST scientific investigation that was bestowed by an Act of Congress to find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11, found the planes they 'flew" caused minimal localized asymmetrical damage to each tower, 14.5%, leaving 240 intact fireproofed vertical support remaining....so technically, the "staged Islamic terrorists" failed!
NIST also couldn't find any WTC steel that did fail from the fires present to cause the collapse of all three buildings as officially HYPOTHESIZED they did.

The scientific investigation did not check for explosives and accelerants, yet years later, they watch less than 30 seconds of youtube video's, say...'NO big BOOMS there" then officially claim that "NO explosives or accelerants were used.....lol...the entire day by watching less than 30 seconds of video????



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
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!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


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?




oh...so according to YOU, that is the only reason for one to question the OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIZED claim?

how about lack of evidence!!!


WOW!!!

what a concept...another avenue to pursue....EVIDENCE!


tell us......where is yours DAVE?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I shouldn't need to tell you that using an unprovable assumption to "prove" another unprovable assumption isn't proof. It's circular logicin that you're just repeating the same thing in different terms in order to explain itself..


kind of like claiming.....plane fly into building...building fall....plane do it!!!

but Dave, it is you that supports the "unprovable assumption"....that FIRE ALONE is HYPOTHESIZED to have cause the total global unified collapse all three buildings on 9-11.....a claim that is BULLIED an NOT proven by science....care to do it?

but you can't so then people like you, steer the direction away from these facts.....to more irrelevant topics that only cause confusion.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WWu777

Actually, you missed something under your nose. Those phone calls on 9/11 from the hijacked planes could NOT have happened. No cell phone calls are possible at 30,000 feet. The government can pay experts like Popular Mechanics to say otherwise, but you can test this yourself. When you are in flight, turn on your cell phone and you will see zero signal. There's no way around it. Above 8,000 feet, cell phones have no signal, even today. There's no way around that. That's a huge glaring hole you ignored.


No, actually, the huge glaring hole YOU are ignoring is that only a portion of the calls made out to the victims were by cell phone. In cases like Renee May (flight attendant on flight 77) she used the plane's own airphone to call her mother, and airphones are most certainly capable of making connections (or else they wouldn't have been on the planes to begin with). In the case of flight 93, the majority of calls were actually from airphones, and since their conversations matched the details that the people using the cellphones were giving, they have to be considered legitimate. Granted, in cases like Barbara Olson it appeared that she tried to call out on her own cell phone several times unsuccessfully as her cell number recorded a connection time of 0 seconds, but that just means she switched to one of the airphones.

Besides, Rene May's mother (forgot her name) defininitively identified the voice of her daughter, and Barbara Olson left a trail of connections from the phone operator to Ted Olson's secretary to Ted Olson himself, so unless you want to wallow in fantasy voice changing gadgets or throw around blind accusations of everyone from Ted Olson to Renee May's mother to even the phone operators of being sinister secret agents, this is a poor argument and you will gain no milage out of it.



Sorry no cigar. NONE of the cell phone calls were possible. Period. Next time you go on an airline, try turning on your cell phone and see what happens. Enough said.

The government has waffled many times about how many of the calls were by cell phones and how many by airphone.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
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.......



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
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





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join