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.
L'Effroyable imposture (or "The Horrifying Fraud") is the original French title of a highly controversial 2002 book by French journalist and political activist Thierry Meyssan. Its English edition is entitled 9/11: The Big Lie.
The book argues that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were "false flag" operations directed by right-wingers in the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex who sought a casus belli for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. A publishing sensation in France, the book has also received severe criticism over its factuality in both the French and U.S. mainstream news media. The U.S. government has publicly denounced the book and considers it a significant international misinformation threat. The crux of the criticism emphasizes that the book contradicts much eyewitness and forensic evidence and so cannot be accepted as a factual account.
He claims the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a guided missile fired on orders of far right-wingers inside the United States government. Further, he says, the planes that struck the World Trade Center were not flown by associates of Osama bin Laden, but were programmed by the same government people to fly into the twin towers.
What really interests him, though, is what he sees as the conspiracy behind these actions. He contends that it was organized by right-wing elements inside the government who were planning a coup unless President Bush agreed to increase military spending and go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq to promote the conspirators' oil interests.
...(skip)....
A Pentagon spokesman said, ''There was no official reaction because we figured it was so stupid.''
Very riveting and very wrong
I know the truth and that is, the 'truth' is a lie.
One day you'll have an epiphany and will realize how utterly naive and trusting you've been.
There is no such thing as an "OS". It is a term made up ("coined", actually, just a few years ago) by the so-called "truth movement".
The "TM" has gone off the rails....did so a long time ago.
Evidenced by the fact that Jesse Ventura is JUST NOW (apparently) deciding to get involved. Like many before him, once they are exposed to this garbage that is calling themselves the "TM" and their slew of inconsistent and illogical "theories", HE has fallen hook, line and sinker.....influenced by the pseudo-science that is commonly used in the "questioning" of events of 9/11.
SO FAR, not one assertion, nor innuendo-dropping "question" that has been proposed by those in the "TM" has been based on fact.
Instead, it is ALL a compilation of false assumptions, and poor research, combined with a tendency to simply accept what OTHERS have told them...again, accepting rather than researching.
There is ONE potentially valid nugget of "conspiracy" that surrounds the events of that day...and that nugget includes several elements that preceded 9/11....serious missteps, mistakes, grievous disregard for the warning signs. And why? Call it incompetence, hubris, arrogance....a lot of things.
Because, a little unbiased research is all it takes to cut through the crap spewed by the majority in the "TM".
It is most likely the case that THAT is what "smells"....and the few who began all of this, once they sensed it, then went WAY beyond the pale, in ever widening circles of ludicrous "alternative theories"...each more ridiculous than the next.
AND, it is important to note, there are always nutjobs after ever major event, and the Internet encourages them....
but, what really sparked the most insane "theories" was because of a French author!! That's right....some French author, hardly well-known at all, decided that HE, and he alone, thought that the Pentagon, and everything else, didn't look "right".
The book argues that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were "false flag" operations directed by right-wingers in the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex who sought a casus belli for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. A publishing sensation in France, the book has also received severe criticism over its factuality in both the French and U.S. mainstream news media. The U.S. government has publicly denounced the book and considers it a significant international misinformation threat. The crux of the criticism emphasizes that the book contradicts much eyewitness and forensic evidence and so cannot be accepted as a factual account.
(BTW...interrupting myself here, with an observation. Take a moment, and review ANY NUMBER of the posts made by ATS members who try to make a case for the "TM". You will notice, hopefully, a pattern: Many common "catch phrases" will be seen, and repeated. Over and over again. Think of them in the same way you would the much-discussed "talking points" that are a trademark of "Fox News"...watch Fox contributors make the rounds on pundit talking heads shows, and listen to the way they ALL follow the same script, on any given day. SAME thing with the "TM"...aka "truthers"...).
What is particularly despicable about "Monsieur" Meyssan is how QUICKLY he trotted out that piece of fifth he calls a "book"!! It was out by the SPRING (early summer, at latest) of 2002!!!
Shows the kind of "in-depth" research he undertook.....
He claims the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a guided missile fired on orders of far right-wingers inside the United States government. Further, he says, the planes that struck the World Trade Center were not flown by associates of Osama bin Laden, but were programmed by the same government people to fly into the twin towers.
What really interests him, though, is what he sees as the conspiracy behind these actions. He contends that it was organized by right-wing elements inside the government who were planning a coup unless President Bush agreed to increase military spending and go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq to promote the conspirators' oil interests.
A Pentagon spokesman said, ''There was no official reaction because we figured it was so stupid.''
NINE years on, and the same old, same old....recycled crap, from people who should take some time to LEARN a few things, rather than just lapping up whatever the "conspiracy" sites spoon-feed them......
Finally, out of ALL the silly "reasons" to "question" the events of that day, the stupidest is this "Building 7" nonsense.
THINK it through, for a minute.....ALL of the other buildings in the vicinity had to be demolished, anyway, as part of the clean-up of "Ground Zero". WTC 3 (the Marriott Hotel), WTC 4, 5 and 6 too. Seven was GOING TO COME DOWN anyway....it was a foregone conclusion, due to the damage inflicted. JUST AS the others were damaged too severly to be worth salvaging!!
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
Yes pilots firefighters engineers achitects chemists, truther scum the whole lot of them . Butn them at the stake I say.
Okay done. Now who knows how to fly a plane? Cant be that hard :p
FACT: The OS was told by the 911 Commission reports NIST reports, FEMA reports, News media, and members in the Bush administration.
FACT: TM has grown.
You can’t even back your opinion.
FACT: This is completely false.
Most people know by now that the OS is a fraud, yet you still defend the “proven lies,”
Fact: If there was any truth to your allegation, you would have posted hundreds credible sources, to back you assumptions.
Why don’t you show us an example to your opinion?
Like those that continue to defend the OS lies, right?
Circumstantial evidence supports a false flag attack
because the OS cannot be proven
there is no evidence to support the OS
Every piece of information that was told to the American people came from the Bush administration, including the 911 Commission report and NIST, or are you going to deny that simple fact to?
Everyone but you, knows the media is a tool used by our government to keep us misinformed, apparently you have never researched the topic.
If you didn’t like the book why did you even bothering to read the second chapter, much less the rest of it?
And you have absolute proof that not of it is true?
FACT: Most intelligent criminals don’t react when they are being accused of something.
same old recycled OS government claims
these are assumptions, not proven facts.
Yet, you cannot prove WTC 7 was damaged severely by the other WTC.
The “only” hypothesis that supports the demise of WTC 7 is demolition
Well, there was the fact that not all of the hijackers (15 of 19) weren't even Afghan. They were Saudi.
Not to mention reports from survivors of explosions below them seconds before the planes hit above them.
Also, there were thermite remnants from the debris.
There's no "official" story, there's information that is being interpreted, coincidentally, none of it points to an "inside job" of any kind. The 9/11 commission report discussed the non-technical aspects that led up to the events that took place on 9/11, NIST displayed what happened to the towers and the reasons for collapse, and the news reports any new revelations about events that is deemed relevant. It's not like they're reading from the same script so to speak, like you make it seem like, they do their specific jobs and report their findings, it's not that hard of a concept.
1,389 “verified” architectural and engineering professionals and 10,552 other supporters
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality
NIST Simulation Compared to Video of WTC 7 Collapse
NIST: Incompetent or Deliberately Covering Up Evidence of Molten Steel?
Originally posted by cashlink
1. Why has Bin Laden never been charge for 911?
2. Why has there never been any time change out parts from any of all the four airplanes crashes provided as proof to belong to said aircrafts?
3. Why didn’t the Government investigate any of the four airplanes that crash that day?
Airplanes crashes are always investigated.
4. Why will the FBI not release the serial numbers to the black box so we can know they belong to said airplanes?
5. Why did NIST lie to the American people saying they did not look in to explosions at the WTC saying there were no eyewitnesses?
6. Why do FEMA and NIST reports contradict each other however, both reports where done by the same writers
7. Why has there never been a video or photo of an airplane hitting the pentagon?
8. Why was G-Bush not whisked away, while Our Country was being attack why was protocol not followed that morning to protect the President?
9. Why was a Federal crime scene at the Pentagon front lawn disturbed with in minutes of the explosions at the Pentagon? Photos of people with garbage bags picking up debris and putting in garbage bags. Talk about disturbing crime scene evidences!
10. Why did BBC announced the WTC 7 had already fell 20 minutes before it fell?
Meaning who told BBC the WTC 7 was going to come down.
11. Why has the media not investigate or ask all these above questions to our Government and demand some answers? Why is the media protecting our Government?
FACT: This is completely false.
Name one legitimate question about 9/11 that's been chanted by the truth movement.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO FAR, not one assertion, nor innuendo-dropping "question" that has been proposed by those in the "TM" has been based on fact
FACT: This is completely false.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Look at this statement above- "Why, with 85 cameras trained at the building, have only five frames been released". This is nothing but innuendo dropping- the plane hit a blank wall that had no main entrance, and all the cameras were/are trained on high traffic areas like entrances, parking lots, security gates, and the like, so there's no sign anywhere except in the mind of the conspiracy people there even is any additional footage.
Isn't there a heliport on that side?
Surely that would have had a decent camera aimed at it..edit on 16-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now here is a classic case of how the trusters work. * * * *