It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Conspiracy: Who Killed John O'Neill?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:01 PM
this film is not about filmaking, or acting, or plots....
it is about spreading truth.

take the time, if you care about the topic, to look into the allegations/connections made in the film. think of it as a documentary, and forget about being entertained.

yes, i have MUCH vitriol in and around this topic.
sometimes hate is a good thing.

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by billybob
this film is not about filmaking,

Yes. This film "is not about filmaking". I wholeheartedly agree.

This film is all about persuasion. Can we be agreed on that?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by twitchy

hey twitchy, that was a fine illustration! i never saw it quite that way. thanx for the enlitenment. may i use it sometime?

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by Tuning Spork

Spork, I don't mean to be rude, but do get off the high horse. Is the video a little difficult to watch? Yes - though the first clip is far more difficult to sit through than the rest. Please do take the time to watch the video, then return with a contextual response.

To answer your first question; No, the plot and summary are not that GWB had O'Neill killed. I'm sorry to disappoint, but there are no cliff notes when it comes to global drug cartel conspiracies.

To answer your second question; Yes, the film is a tad more on the persuasive side than the informative side - though I think it's fairly well balanced. A more relevant fact is that you are a member of ATS. If you want to take information handed to you as de'facto, then watch Fox news - they'll tell you everything you need to know. However, since you are a member of ATS, I expect you will take any information given (including this video) as an offering that you can, yourself, research and come to your own conclusions.

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude or mean spirited. Actually, I'm not. Regardless, please take this only as a neutral statement and request. Let's not derail this with the mono a mono bickering that is found perpetually vomiting on every tid bit of possible truth on this site.

Watch the video. There's good information. I've yet to research any of it - but it does make sense.

Only the best to you.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by transpired

Yes, Please do! It's not my picture, I linked to it, but it's a common enough icon, and a great moral. I don't know where they originated, but one day it just hit me, those monkeys Don't Want to see hear or speak any evil, or they wouldn't be covering their eyes, ears and mouths. Who ever came up with that was a subtle genius.
Those deaf dumb blind monkeys sure play a mean pinball.

Spork, I've been involved with Independent film on and off for about 15 years now both in front of and behind the camera on a dozen films wth three of them in distribution. In my experience I can tell you absolutely, without a doubt, you have to watch a film to know what it's about.

You mentioned you were speaking as a film critic, you do know that film critics usually watch the movies before they review them? If you aren't going to watch it, why in the world would you want to comment on it, that's pretty twisted.
I communicated with Ty Rauber briefly to discuss the film and he sounds like a decent guy. Once you get past the opening scenes, it's actually fairly entertaining, and the guy can act, a true rarity in the growing conspiracy genre. Not to mention the film maker has done all this simply to hand it over to public domain, he isn't selling anything, another rarity.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
This film is all about persuasion. Can we be agreed on that?

No we can't, because YOU by your own admission did not bother to watch the film! You have no clue what it's about. How can you?

Until you do watch the film, and can demonstrate that you have with cogent and reasoned posts about elements of the research presented in the film (it's not an "entertainment" piece) then I formerly request that you cease and desist from your trollish off-topic (because you did not watch the film) activity in this thread.

Before you think of replying or starting an argument over this, I also remind you of the following:

5b) Cooperation: You will, if asked by myself or a moderator, cease posting any content, and/or links to content, deemed offensive, objectionable, or in poor taste by the representatives of the message board. - Terms & Conditions

Act accordingly.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:11 PM
Gools, if you've seen it yet, I'm curious to know what you thought of the film.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by twitchy

I have seen it (twice).

I though it was a great film irrespective of the specific content. In my opinion it's a sort of film school "tour de force" rather than anything entertaining and will be difficult for anybody raised on MTV, x-box or you-tube to watch but well worth the time.

His use of "the cynic", "laptop", "paranoid" and "the history guy" were particularly effective. I found myself often thinking along the lines of the cynic as the information was presented and appreciated having that character voice my thoughts and have my questions answered as the film moved along.

I thought it was a great "artsy way" (

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Gools
reply to post by twitchy

...will be difficult for anybody raised on MTV, x-box or you-tube to watch but well worth the time....

I resemble that remark!
At least the first third of it... although, MTV today isn't exactly the MTV I remember growing up with.

Doesn't the majority of the thesis rely on guilt by association? I know this point was made in the movie - but I watched it while working (2 monitors allows for multi tasking; one for working and one for goofing off) and therefore may have missed something. I

don't mean to imply that it should be taken any less seriously due to this...

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:48 PM
*sees an ad at the beginning for American Express sponsorship*

Oh crap, they've invaded ATS! O_O

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by memoir
Doesn't the majority of the thesis rely on guilt by association?

I don't know about "majority" but some links do rely on "guilt by association".

That to me is a bit of a cop out or straw man though.

We use "guilt by association" in many ways and for many things in society including both with positive and negative connotations. e.g. You have a radical opinion? Must be a liberal"/"neocon". You don't like what Israel is doing? Must be an anti-semite. You go to church every Sunday and carry a bible? Must be a good person. You volunteer at the food bank? Must be a tree-hugger. You know the mayor? Must be mobbed-up. You know the banker? Must be rich like them. You know the doctor, you must have a god complex personality as well...

Unless you believe that companies like Kroll, AIG or organizations like the CIA, ISI and all of the people mentioned in the film (who all seem to now each other and are constantly within each other's sphere of endeavour and influence) are working in your best interest (
), then I would suggest that guilt by association is a legitimate tool of investigation, especially for anything involving 'conspiracy' which requires association. I'm sure we have some members in law enforcement that would confirm this assertion.

Remember, if you smell smoke there could be fire and you owe it to yourself to at least check that there is no fire before going to sleep thinking it's an impossibility.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by SonicInfinity

That's called "paying the bills"... We have zero control over what ads get shown and the advertisers have ZERO control over what titles we play.

It's a good system.

This way, as long as we avoid titles with porno, illegal activities or images of Pee Wee Herman we can show anything we want on ANY subject.

NO direct sponsorship means nobody can threaten us with "pulling the ads" if they disagree with a title's message. This is inline with our agnostic editorial stance here at ATS.

As long as something meets the requirements of the TAC and our particular "production quality" specs it's good to go.


posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:32 PM
Ok, I've watched about two and a half parts of this video, while the video is entertaining and somewhat informative there is still the discrepancy that I meantioned previously. The video tries to lay the creation of radical Islam strictly at the feet of the U.S, when historically, that is as inaccurate as inaccuracies come.

November 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti: ""To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory. Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"


However, after over 700 years of peaceful coexistence, the true start of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be dated to 1920 and the rise of one man, Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem. As grand mufti, al Husseini presided as the Imam of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the highest Muslim authority in the British mandate.

History shows Al Husseini to be a brutal man with aspirations to rule a pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East. He rose to prominence by actively eliminating those Jews and Arabs he considered a threat to his control of Jerusalem's Arab population, and he heavily utilized anti-Jewish propaganda to polarize the two communities.

In 1920 and again in 1929, Al Husseini incited anti-Jewish riots by claiming the Jews were plotting to destroy the Al Asqa mosque. The riots resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Jewish civilians and a virtual end to the Jewish presence in Hebron.

The 1936 Arab revolt against the British is believed to have been at least partially funded by Nazi Adolf Eichmann, and Al Husseini again ordered armed Arab militias to massacre Jewish citizens.


When British authorities finally quelled the rebellion in 1939, Al Husseini fled to neighboring Iraq and helped to orchestrate a 1941 anti-British jihad. As in Jerusalem, the British successfully put down the rebellion and Al Husseini fled to Nazi Germany.

Al Husseini found the Nazis to be a strong ideological match with his anti-Jewish brand of Islam, and schemed with Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy to create a pro-Nazi pan-Arabic form of government in the Middle East.

Dr. Serge Trifkovic documents the similarities between Al Husseini's brand of radical Islam and Nazism in his book The Sword of the Prophet. He noted parallels in both ideologies: anti-Semitism, quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi führer).


Any notion that radical Islam is some new creation dating from 1976 is not only false, it is verifiably false. Radical Islam has existed for at least the last 100 years and probably further back than that.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:47 PM
SpeakerofTruth the quote you are bringing up is 'US gave birth to Islamic Fundamentalism', which they did. I don't understand why you feel that is an innacuracy, he isn't saying the US created the entirety of Islamic fundamentalism. Your mother gave birth to you but she didn't create the human race, hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by Springer
This way, as long as we avoid titles with porno, illegal activities or images of Pee Wee Herman we can show anything we want on ANY subject.

Ah come on man, hook us up with some conspiracy related prono

Debbie Does Dulles, or Interns Gone Wild...

[edit on 14-11-2007 by twitchy]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by twitchy
SpeakerofTruth the quote you are bringing up is 'US gave birth to Islamic Fundamentalism', which they did.

I am showing you and everyone else that that is simply not true... Nazi Germany funded radical Islam long before 1976 or 78, whatever they claim was the creation of radical Islam. History speaks much louder than speculation I should think.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
Sorry- double post....Ooops!

[edit on 14-11-2007 by dk3000]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
Skepticoverlord- These videos are truly a marvel of film making on many levels. The immaturity of film making becomes apparent by certain repetitions- which are forgiven of course due to the content. Still the final critique from me is that of amazing.

I am quite grateful you posted them- although some member maybe confused- new members like me appreciate the re-run because we missed it the first time. So thank you for the re-introduction!

I have also traced the John O'Neill connection and have run down several conspiracy paths- in the search for truth of course. I believe that much of the incriminating evidence of shall we say "foul play" is probably reduced to illegible rubble somewhere in the molten footprints of the WTC. This is likely the reason we will never have evidence- and we are left only with conjecture, suppositions, and a wide-range of alternate conclusions- none of which can ever be completely proved- leaving all conspiracies open and the public confused.

The Germans, Catholics and Jews have perfected this mass confusion over the centuries because eventually the people will have to trust someone- and history has repeatedly shown us that the powers that be usually end up with such trust- though they are undeserving of it.

Revolution is the only way out of this mess. As George Orwell accurately said, "In a time of total deception- a person who speaks the truth will be seen as a stark raving lunatic".

Sadly, Mr. Orwell's prediction has come to be.

Thanks again for the most informative and wonderful video series.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by dk3000]

[edit on 14-11-2007 by dk3000]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:22 PM
"Ah come on man, hook us up with some conspiracy related porno

Debbie Does Dulles, or Interns Gone Wild..."

How about a Christmas themed porn called, "Santa Monika"

[edit on 14-11-2007 by twitchy]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 06:52 PM
It took a while to get into them- but worth watching.
No Doubt the ultimate goal is the elimination Human rights throughout the world. the vast number of roll backs to Our rights is indictive of this goal. Bring US down and the world is their oyster.
When it comes down to it the only commodity that is being traded is the human labor market. By placing US in debt- we are at their mercy (recent 'mortage crisis'- they didn't know the bottom would fall out- of course they did, they planned it that way. And who will we and our decendants have to pay this back to? China?
The drugs were andare just a means to an end- money, conflict and submission. Couldn't get everyone on the illegals so the Pharmacutical Co. kicked up the number of 'Anti Depressant' being manufactured and encouraged. If drugs don't mind their minds - how about sex, the great new ED meds. Since when have so many men had so much problems. but hey if their screwing then their not watching the news. Of all the deadly disease and devastating illness- the only knew meds seem to be for 'numbing' yourself.
One person was noticeably absent from this cast of characters- our beloved leader DICK. Missed a string ,hoping to see it on the next video.
No doubt Gov't spygames have ben going on forever- 'double agents' et al. but the last 40 years have seen the sharpest turn downward.
Frankly I don't care if this is true or not- I want all their heads on a silver platter. They are guilt of eveything.
Nov 23, 2007- BUY NOTHING DAY (FRIDAY AFTER T-DAY) hit 'em where it hurts. In fact i encourage people to spend as little as possible during the Holidays- make it from scratch, buy locally made gifts, swap 'White Elephant 'gifts. Kids are hard, but there is no excuse for conspicuous consumption for adult gift ( X-mas gifts are for the kids, adults are supposed to appreciate the season for what it stands for- peace on earth and good will to man.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:56 PM
nice post purple girl.

smart cookie.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in