It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Here is a link to one of Mylène Farmer's videos. I'm not embedding it because it is a little racy, but it might encourage people to look into French pop which has some great material. She's described as a combination of Madonna and Kate Bush. I just use the word yummy myself.
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 3-8-2009 by ipsedixit]
Le 5 février dernier, cet enseignant de géopolitique a été congédié par le ministre de la Défense à la suite d'un article paru dans Le Point. Chauprade est l'auteur d'un livre "Chronique du choc des civilisations" dans lequel il présente avec complaisance les thèses qui attribuent les attentats du 11 septembre à un complot américano-israélien.
The above states basically that the professor was fired from his position at le Collège interarmées de défense (CID) which, I gather is the French equivalent to something like West Point, but maybe snootier, for publishing an article based on ideas developed in a book which support the notion that the 9/11 attack was an American/Israeli joint venture.
Originally posted by Manouche
Legally and morally, Mylène is not yours. She's a human being standing by herself and she can go with whoever she wants. And you may never catch her
Originally posted by Manouche
Martino was allegedly working for the British, French and Italian intelligence services. All 3 have indicated they could not authentify the documents. The only ones accused at one point to have forged the papers are the Italians.
We will never know the truth, too many services are involved in a complicated story of intelligence/counter-intelligence/disinfo.
To me, it is clear Cheney knew this "proof" was forged but wanted to use it anyway, it was too good to go to garbage.
When you look at things, don't forget other countries perspective and own muddling with each other, it's something that is repeatedly underestimated. Without it, you can't get the full picture.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
I might point out though, that the difference between a counterfeiter and one who passes counterfeit money is only a few classes at a technical college.
Originally posted by ::.mika.::
i haven't read the thread properly so in case it has already been mentionned, apologize.
i am french, leaving abroad but in france since a few month now.
let me tell you that, and sorry if it does disappoint your early conclusions about this country:
french people don't have a clue about 911 lies.
this comic has been ridiculed all over the media for its statements. he was also obliged by sarkozy himself to apologize publicly for this,
and anyone who attempts to say something about 911 get the same treatment.
the situation of the french media is overly dramatic as they all belong to weapon sellers (dassault, lagardere mainly), they don't have any editorial independence whatsoever. their content is full of propaganda everyday stigmatizing on whoever would ask question about 911 (sectarism, insanity, personal attacks ect)
the truth about the lies is indeed further away to be revealed in france than it is in the us.
since i'm here, in france, i've been talking about it to many people that pretends to be leftist, informed and aware about politics and social injustice.
for the vast majority of them (i'd say 90 to 95%) i'm a lunatic that has lost grip with reality and their common answer is, when i ask them to see and look for themselves and stop trusting mass media, "i let the seeking the truth job to journalists as they do it better than me". then they try to change discussion topic if they don't get simply too much angry with me, physically running away (i've lost many friends lately i believe because of those discussions, not joking).
so frustratring and terrifying about their condition, i confess i kind of gave up trying to make them aware because otherwise nobody will talk to me anymore; hopefully they'll wake up though... how and when i'm not too sure...
[edit on 3-8-2009 by ::.mika.::]
Originally posted by Militant1
Steel doesn't melt when over stressed it snaps, bends, twist, ect. in order for it to melt it would have to be trapped between two meduims stronger than itself. The pressure would have been enough to melt steel except before that happend the steel would have reached its stress point and failed, there by releasing the said pressure. Of note you might want to link those studies if you can, and its also noteworthy that this melting steel wasn't noticed in any other buildings that collasped, before 9/11.
I'm not trying to win the truthers argument for them, i am an engineer and niether me nor my coworkers have been able to figure out how those towers collasped the way they did. Its not just us but many in the field dare not speak the truth, theres alot more to this than we know. I am sorry to say the overall mechanics is wrong. Its doesn't work on paper and computer models will not recreate it as it happend.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by john124
I go with the facts and evidence, which has been explained sufficiently many years ago.
You are supporting "facts" that are contradictory to observable science.
Originally posted by john124
I accept the evidence
You should not accept evidence...you should analyze it.
Instead of believing...use critical thinking and understand.
Originally posted by john124
I have not yet seen anybody explain what was incorrect with the computer models in any kind of sufficient detail to make me think these are wrong.
Originally posted by john124
I may have assumed certain evidence had already been analysed correctly
Originally posted by john124
I would call it more of a trust in certain scientists that they know how to do their job.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by john124
I have not yet seen anybody explain what was incorrect with the computer models in any kind of sufficient detail to make me think these are wrong.
The explanations are all around you...
Originally posted by john124
I may have assumed certain evidence had already been analysed correctly
Originally posted by john124
I would call it more of a trust in certain scientists that they know how to do their job.
Stop assuming you can trust the government and analyze the evidence yourself...
The only thing standing between you and the truth is preconceived notions and a lack of effort...
Originally posted by john124
I said I put trust in Science, not the government.
Originally posted by john124
I do actually have better things to do than analyse something which appears to be adequately explained already.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.