The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I want to comment on SOs statement of how MSM reporters are scared to touch the truther end of 9/11. This is so because too many far out concepts have been thrown out there right off the bat. This scares the common man. You can lead a horse to water, but if you try to stampede him to it he's liable to drown in the river.

If a reasonable approach shows enough promise, then there is a likelihood of catching MSM attention to this issue. Whatever the mechanics of 9/11, the important part is who and why and how did they work their scheme?

Support from the "normals" will come when we show them who profited, and how. When we show them the strings that bind some to an evil that resulted in the deaths of so many.

reply to post by NGC2736


Well it's a well known fact that we screwed ourselves by changing sides every 2 years so much that now the entire middle east hates us. Weather or nor it's on purpose seems more and more leaning to purposely done. In any case, I see hatred brewing everywhere. Unfortunately, even if the ones who started it did do for their own monetary gains, the fact still remains that both parties (Muslims and Americans) have bitten the bait and now this false war is a reality. Fact is that most of the middle east views us like the Indians did 2 centuries ago. You cannot change that, and the current generation will die with this hate.

GREAT JOB THERE GOVERNMENT! I SO LOVE WHAT YOU DID WITH MY TAXES!

my view of 9-11..

The US shadow government throughout the 70s-902 has been trying like hell to create a theocracy as many of these high level shadow traitors are involved with a certain religion that bases itself out west, and that theocracy would eventually and subtly tie us back into the monarchy of england bringing us to in the end lose the revolutionary war and satisfy the greedy scottish rite that runs most fo england in my opinion. Over time new plans and ideas likely arose after failed attempts to initialize a start to the process of displacing the american mindset.

My guess is that since Bin Laden was/is a c.i.a asset he was conscripted early with this plan, which im guessing was one of many plans depending on outcomes of other things "they" were looking at. That tie makes my theory plausable in the possibility that on top of waco, o.k city bombing and the false flag attempts to gain more power over religious extremists, fascist liberal socialists and fake conservatives (both evil opportunists) have been fighting using rogues, planted evidences, lies, officials, bribes TAX MONEY etc.. to keep this ball rolling towards convincing us the voters that all is well, and progressing with manipulating the world and america for an end not of the intent or desire of american people but that of a madmans dream of what his false religion tells him to think/do based on words from men, long ago who likely did alot of drugs and of course saw amazing sights..maybe even God..

So bin laden is on the opposite side, working for gloabalists who have interests in the US's resources and workforce, to use us as unwitting guinue pigs in its scientific endeavors, and "transform" it as the military has and is doing currently, into a psuedo socialist lie to service the "do as i say, not as i do" control freaks who also are greedy genocidal freaks. So thats a fragment of my theory, take it or leave it.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by mastermind77]

Originally posted by NGC2736
I want to comment on SOs statement of how MSM reporters are scared to touch the truther end of 9/11. This is so because too many far out concepts have been thrown out there right off the bat.

While the so-called "far out" concepts are somewhat of a factor, it's not the major aspect giving MSM journalists pause... it's the angry radical attitude of the "truthers" that is the primary factor.

reply to post by mastermind77


ya... what he said!

i'd also add, the search for Bin "continues" to maintain the illusion... more than likely, he's either underwraps living at the Hilton or on the run afraid for his life because of what he knows, i.e. it was an inside job... same deal with detainees in Cuba... US forces aren't trying to get information "out" of them, but rather new information "into" them... like ""WE" didn't do it.... you don't know anything... a CIA operative didn't call you and leave a briefcase full of cash on your doorstep..." etc etc...

you think Sadam was discovered? poor dude never even saw it coming.... and of course i use "poor dude" lightly, as he was of course a murdering thug....

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


True enough. The anger turns off so many people that it is hard for reporters of almost any level to take this on. They not only share their own aversion to the anger, but they don't want to be associated with this anger by the reading public.

But if there is to be any headway made on this in the near future, then we who desire a real investigation of 9/11 must rise above the emotional angle taken by so many, and present a "reasonable" approach that John Q can feel is not so hard to accept as his own cause. Something that the "common man" can identify with.

Without at least some popular support we can never be more than a voice crying in the wilderness. That support will not come unless we are calm and reasonable.

reply to post by NGC2736


at one point in my life, i did a lot of campaigning for the "left"... I'd go to meetings and watch everyone pat each other on the back and agree with each other's position, wear sweaters and sandals and talk about disrupting the local economy of traffic flow into the core... i very soon understood that in order for the movement to have any "legs" it needed to have a different face and as I would say to "team leaders"... "the last thing the general public wants is to be associated with you!" needless to say, i wasn't offered any communist coffee talk afterwards...

though passionate presenters do well to grab headlines, they move the quietly undecided further away from wanting to be considered in the same breath... it's all about style and perception... most people really don't care about the truth, they just want to look like they care about the truth.... after all, aren't we all living a lie?

reply to post by never_tell


Well, I don't think I'm a passionate headline grabber. I want to let the truth speak for itself. I want to tap the enormous power of the ATS collective mind, and as dispassionately as possible bring the information to the attention of the MSM.

I'll gladly let someone else ride the truth to fame and glory, as long as I know it's out there and changing the world that my grandchildren will live in. And there will be plenty of jockeys, once the horse proves it has some bottom.

reply to post by dk3000


Having found my way to this thread, I would like to chime in and commend NGC for doing such a fantastic job.

Not sure if I know how to 'pull' text out of other's posts, so if it didn't work I'll tell you this is to clarify for non-airline workers something mentioned in dk3000's post on page 4. It's not right in front of me, but his gist was about airlines 'always' downgrading less-than-full airplanes.

Firstly, dw3000 stated that none were downgraded to a DC-10. Well, a DC-10 is bigger than a 767. (that likely was a mis-type, probably meant DC-9). Secondly, scheduling airplanes and crews is very complicated and cannot be done willy-nilly. Thirdly, passengers aren't always the only payload on the airplane. Cargo can account for a good portion as well, and a 767 holds a lot more cargo than a DC-9 (or 757, for that matter).
Besides, as to scheduling again, yes one leg, say Boston-LA will have a light load, but the same airplane will be turned and sent on its next leg which might be booked to capacity. All of these facts are taken into decision. Finally, a DC-9 does not have the range to fly non-stop from East to West coast anyway.

Someone mentioned the danger of picking out minutae to attempt to bolster one's case in an argument. Since the airline business is one thing I do know about, I thought I'd help clear up any misconceptions mentioned in the user's post.

Thanks, I look forward to reading and learning more.

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by never_tell

 

Well, I don't think I'm a passionate headline grabber. I want to let the truth speak for itself. I want to tap the enormous power of the ATS collective mind, and as dispassionately as possible bring the information to the attention of the MSM.

I'll gladly let someone else ride the truth to fame and glory, as long as I know it's out there and changing the world that my grandchildren will live in. And there will be plenty of jockeys, once the horse proves it has some bottom.

i was speaking more about the Michael Moore's and Alex Jones' of the world... while i do agree that forums like this are exciting places full of cutting edge thought and insight, i also believe they do the "movement" a dis-service... if we were really here to change the public's perceptions, i would suggest, we speak to then in a language they understand, which IMHO doesn't involve talk of alien abduction, 911 holograms or reptilian shape shifters...

that said, this is a great forum, and i'm very glad to have found it and have a chance to read some well thought out research and leads to further... sadly though, as always, some of the most imaginative and insightful minds get pressed into the recesses of the "media" world only to sing to the choir... what we need to do is buy a TV station, find advertisers "crazy" enough to sponsor and anchor-people willing to dodge the bullets of corporate america.... a tall order, I'd say..maybe then.... but only maybe

Hello Copernicus

Originally posted by Copernicus

...they dont sit around comparing the official story with what really happened, like scientists, researchers and other highly credible people have in the US? Most people know the official 9/11 story is a fairy tale because they have questioned it and found it to be untrue

I respectfully suggest that you consider that others may have thoroughly researched this issue for many years, spoken to scores of key witnesses and examined evidence in detail - amounting to many thousands of hours of open-minded analysis - and might at the end of the day come to a conclusion other than the one you have arrived at. Admit the possibility that you might not be right about everything, and you might not be aware of everything.

There is plenty of very compelling evidence, and its not manipulated. But you didnt really check did you? Like most skeptics, you think you know what happened without checking into it yourself. The truth is horrible, but you are not helping anyone but the criminals by choosing to ignore what really happened on 9/11.

Again, how very perceptive and clairvoyant of you to KNOW EXACTLY what I have researched and studied, which witnesses I and others have pursued, telephoned and interviewed, when you have never met me and do not even know who I am.

Nope, not ignorant and not incompetent at all. They have gotten exactly what they wanted, what their think tank planned for even before the Iraq war. Things are going exactly according to the plan outlined in the Project for the New American Century, and the event they called the "new pearl harbor" has been executed successfully.

If 'the plan' is to destroy the credibility of the USA around the world, degrade the economy and the plunge the value of the currency down to a level not seen for 50 years, and place American citizens in palpable danger all over the planet wherever they travel, then I agree with you the plan is a great success, and the designers 'have gotten exactly what they wanted.'

Not to mention the thousands of US servicemen butchered in the Iraq carnage to no result, either now or in the future.

New American Century? You are joking, yes?

New Chinese Century, more like.





[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by NGC2736

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I want to comment on SOs statement of how MSM reporters are scared to touch the truther end of 9/11. This is so because too many far out concepts have been thrown out there right off the bat. This scares the common man. You can lead a horse to water, but if you try to stampede him to it he's liable to drown in the river.

Perhaps it's the other way around. If it's kooky, kitschy, nutty, it's safe. People can vent by dismissing from without, and giving up in frustration from within the movement. Realistic, plausible, stuff - none of it proof but darn chill-down-your-spine believable/coherent - that's dangerous. Luckily they don't have to touch it.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Dear weedwhacker,

Thank you for that clarification on the question of airlines "downgrading" to smaller aircraft that dk3000 raised.

I did a little digging and found it's come up in other forums (www.911timeline.net...). Yet aside from your elaboration I haven't seen anything else on it. This is probably a dead end issue, as you indicated. However, it would be nice to know what the average passenger count was prior to 9/11 and what, if any, official policy the different airlines had at the time in this regard. In other words, I assume they would have to carry at least X passengers over Y time to make any particular route profitable. Otherwise I would assume they would discontinue it, or adjust costs of that particular route by downgrading aircraft?

Thanks again weedwhacker, you're tops...

reply to post by GreenFloyd


Thanks, Green.

As I pointed out, IMHO this is a fascinating thread started by NGC - incisive and thoughtful with excellent research to corroborate.

Regarding passenger loads on the routes in question, pre-9/11:

I didn't work in airline marketing, I was in the Flight Operations side of a major airline (pilot). However, I do believe historical passenger data is likely available thru DOT records...or even, possibly, old Annual Reports submitted by the Corporations themselves. (likely to be more general, not specific).

The competitive nature of the airline business (what business isn't competiteve?) means, of course, many decisions must be played close to the chest. This includes data of what are called 'advance bookings'. If a competing airline could discern what its rival is doing by observing equipment swaps on a regular basis, it could be bad for business.

I do know there are a myriad of desicions about route markets that can appear contradictory on the surface, i.e. 'slot' allocations (usually related to International), airport gate leasing arrangements, and, as I pointed out, the complexity of scheduling 500+ airplanes and 9,000+ pilots and 25,000? flight attendants. Of course, on any given day, X number of airplanes are down for scheduled maintenance, Y number are scheduled to get to a facility where they must conduct scheduled maintenance, due FAA deadlines. Naturally, the flight and cabin crewmembers have days off, vacations and, one other contributing factor in the equation...Union work rules. Not to mention the FAA regulations that determine maximum times on duty...I will stop here. Suffice to say, a major airline will not always have carte blanche to mess with their aircraft schedule ON AN HOURLY BASIS without serious downline repercussions that can propogate into more serious service disruptions.
(one caveat to the above - unexpected weather or mechanical difficulties).

Whew! Didn't mean to go on so long, but sometimes a fuller explanation is useful for a fuller understading.

Thanks for the discussion.

Follow-up to myself, getting back to topic regarding whether the airplanes with low passenger counts would 'normally' have been swapped to smaller airplanes...

I will only address UA93, Newark-SanFrancisco. The eight-hundred pound airline gorilla in the Newark market is Continental. But, United Airlines is the 900 pound gorilla in San Francisco. SO, just a thought here, UA operates a flight in a competitor's backyard for incremental revenue, but also steers their own connecting passengers to their important International West Coast hub in SanFrancisco.

That's one example of airline marketing thinking....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank You for giving us the refreshingly candid "take" on this. It is because we, ATS, have such a broad spectrum membership, that such details and insights can be brought out.

Because this site is what it is, we have an advantage over many other investigative endeavors. We as a whole can learn what is, and what is not reasonable.

Again, thank you for your input on this "question" that could have been important in the overall assessment for many people.

ATS-working together. Nothing better.

Great OP. Well Written. Concise, Precise, and smooth flowing - especially when it comes to highlighting the connecting of the dots so to speak.

Great responses. Thought provoking... I look forward to the furtherence of this discussion.

That being said, I think taken as a whole that this may be "The Conspiracy To End All Conspiracies." Could this (the here and now that we are all 'experiencing at the moment') be the result of all other conspiracies before it? The grand 'standing upon the shoulders of our forefathers' conspiracy? Could every mysterious anomaly in the fabric of time (my personal hidden definition of 'conspiracy') have been designed - eather implicit or explicit - to lead to this very moment and what we are currently experiencing?

If so, we must take it to the next step. Logicly that would be that this too, is also a step... a step to the next one, or 'The Big One' (which of course each in their succession is, each in themselves at that given time).

The Question (therefore) that we must ask ourselves is this: What is this leading to? What cloth will these threads weave? Whats the ultimate goal here? What will the building that is being designed look like?

(ps. That question leads us to a tangent question asking ourselves - individually and internally - Where do I fit into it, and what can I do about it? IS there anything I can do? Just live my life in peace? Ride the wave? or affect change? Get involved? - which is truelly what we ask ourselves everyday isnt it?)

Again, GREAT OP. Great topic to share food for thought.

Grock

reply to post by Grock


Thank you, and all the others in this thread who have complimented me on my effort. I too want to see past the veil that is held aloft as official truth in this matter.

I don't know about this being the secret that would unravel all the others throughout time, but it might show how the last 60 years or so have played out under the table.

All I hope to build from this is an understanding that governments cannot be trusted to act humanely towards anyone. They need constant oversight, because they want to enlarge their position all the time. In every nation it is this way. Government is like a fungus that grows to fill every square inch that is not vigorously defended by individuals. We must all watch governments and keep them on a short leash.

Originally posted by Copernicus

No. The US has some of the best air security in the world. Nobody can hijack airplanes and fly them around across the country without some serious inside help.

Hate to break this to you, but even still, six years on, that's not really true:

travel.latimes.com...

Federal investigators smuggled the components of liquid-based bombs past screeners in 19 airports nationwide in secret tests earlier this year, showing that a terrorist could thwart the latest U.S. security regulations.

"Our tests clearly demonstrate that a terrorist group, using publicly available information and few resources, could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of the passengers," concludes a Government Accountability Office report that was released Wednesday night by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Using cheap, easily available components, GAO investigators made an explosive device and a firebomb that, when tested, exploded with sufficient force to cause significant damage. Investigators then used public information on the Transportation Security Administration's screening procedures to devise ways to carry the bomb components through airport checkpoints without being challenged.

reply to post by TimB1


While being able to sneak a bomb onto a passenger plane is a very bad thing, and ought to be addressed, that isn't exactly what Copernicus mentioned. He spoke of the ability to hijack a plane and then have the time to pilot it for some time thereafter in the skies of America, unmolested in any way by the USAF.

You are comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges and wanting us to think these are equal just because both of them stink.