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.

 

Either 9/11 Was An Inside Job Or Complete Morons Ran Our Country

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Ah Bruce good on you!

The facetious nature of my comment flew up and over your head!

May I ask what search engine you used to debunk the thermite study?

If an element of our government orchestrated the attacks, do you think it would be that difficult to get an editor to resign through coercion? I am not even sayin that is what happened, however let me give you a link on debunking the debunkers!

debunking the debunkers!

Thank you for the thread you linked me to, upon reading comments I dug this other posters response and found a thread he put together, where he painstakingly goes through a connecting of the dots of sorts, names of those potential conspirators!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like Bush Jr. said, it was a New Pearl Harbor, strangely enough I believe that PNAC had wished for something like back in 2000 in order to see the decade of middle east conflict we have seen, gotta love coincidences!
edit on America/ChicagoMondayAmerica/Chicago01America/Chicago131pmMonday7 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Complete morons ran our country, that right there is the conspiracy! The Moronic Circus Conspiracy! Polka dot polka dot circus!



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: kloejen
Question: Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane?


There is, so why do you think there should be better photo's or videos?


Why the secrecy then? it took five years to release the footage, showing nothing...


originally posted by: hellobruce

Question: Who handled security at WTC on 9/11 ?


John P. O'Neill


That is correct, but just months earlier the little brother, Marvin Bush, of the POTUS was part of that, and that's gotta make some eyebrows go up... ?

Here he is on ATS, in a kinda of a whitewash some would say?
Marvin Bush

Just noticing , how this story did came about.
So, it's just a coincidence that the little brother of the POTUS had prior partnership with the security team of the WTC, that was destroyed in 2001 ?



John Patrick O'Neill (February 6, 1952 – September 11, 2001) was an American counter-terrorism expert, who worked as a special agent and eventually a Special Agent in Charge in the Federal Bureau of Investigation until late 2001. In 1995, O'Neill began to intensely study the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of that plot.

He subsequently learned of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and investigated the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen. Partly due to personal friction he had within the FBI and federal government, O'Neill was pushed out of the Bureau in 2001. He became the head of security at the World Trade Center, where he died at age 49 in the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2002, O'Neill was the subject of a Frontline documentary The Man Who Knew, and cast as the protagonist in the television miniseries The Path to 9/11 and the 2003 book, The Man Who Warned America.

source

hmm ?

Question: Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?
Question: Who gave the decision to give him (John O'Neill) a security job at the World Trade Center?
Question: Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th? Who is John Walker Lindh?


edit on 12/1/2015 by kloejen because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/1/2015 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kloejen
That is correct, but just months earlier the little brother, Marvin Bush, of the POTUS was part of that, and that's gotta make some eyebrows go up... ?

Here he is on ATS, in a kinda of a whitewash some would say?
Marvin Bush


Did you even bother to read that thread? As if you had you would have seen:-


Only problem is that’s based on a lie, a lie perpetuated by some prominent truthers because Marvin Bush was not head of security at the WTC nor was some guy called Wirlt Walker III working for Securacom (later Stratesec). The truth is that the man in charge of security on 9/11 was actually John O’Neil who was working for Larry Silverstein and started that job on August 23rd 2001 and other than that it was the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) who had the responsibility of maintaining day to day security in the area around WTC.
........

So why do people then seem to have this bazaar belief that some company called Securacom has responsibility for WTC security and has Marvin Bush as over all head of security for WTC?

Its clear that PAPD had overall responsibility for security and Silverstein had hired John O’Neil as his head of security for the WTC complex.

Well it is true that Marvin Bush did indeed hold a senior role for a company called Securacom who had an open contract with PAPD to handle some security matters at WTC since 1996.

However....
Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
In other words, Marvin stepped down from his job over a year before the attacks of 9/11.


Bush was only one of the directors of the company that did some security work at the WTC, and stepped down more that a year before 9/11....



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Bush was only one of the directors of the company that did some security work at the WTC, and stepped down more that a year before 9/11....


Which we totally agree on!
You really don't find that fact a little bit suspicious ?

ok

Which leads to the questions about John O'neill, which you lead this too, can you answer them please ?
Question: Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?
Question: Who gave the decision to give him (John O'Neill) a security job at the World Trade Center?
Question: Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th? Who is John Walker Lindh?
edit on 12/1/2015 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColCurious

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The US government is NOT in the wrong countries or wrong wars if you look at all said actions through the lens of retaining and solidifying geo-political hegemony over the world. That includes needing to redefine the MIddle East and knock out all remaining proxies of enemies such as Russia (Syria, Libya, Iran, former Ukraine leader, etc). One big chess game.


Unless you are a neocon PNAC-fascist, hellbent to push the 'Wolfowitz-doctrin', then yes, yes they are!

I realize this is isn't very widely known, or televised by the MSM, but today the main source of funding for Sunni-terrorism is the House of Saud.

It is also pretty much known amongst our military that our intelligence services assume the Al-Muchabarat al-'Amma (the Saudi Intelligence Directorate) are really working WITH their alleged enemy: ISIS (which of course means it is safe to say the Americans know too).

Also, if you believe in the official story: 15 of the 19 terrorists of the 9/11 attacks were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

And that is just the beginning...

So yes: wrong countries, wrong reasons, wrong strategy.


Again, that doesn't address the military strategy to attain geo-political hegemony and knock out all clients/proxies of such countries as Russia. That explains in part Libya, Syria, Iran, etc...

I am against all that.

But why do you think from a fascistic unethical military planning viewpoint that this is stupid? It's not stupid, it's just unethical.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: kloejen
Question: Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane?


There is, so why do you think there should be better photo's or videos?



Question: Who handled security at WTC on 9/11 ?


John P. O'Neill
because the FBI released 'two' different camera angles and it turned out it was the same footage doctored. Why do that?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills
Star & flag. It had to be one or the other. As an addendum:

- They knew planes could be used that way. A private airplane was flown into the WH during the Clinton Administration. Further, Bush visited Europe earlier in the year and stayed on board a USN ship instead of in a hotel. One of the reasons given for that was to prevent a jet being used in a possible assassination attempt. Condi Rice was lying.

- On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.

- Pacifica Radio reported that Condi Rice was the source of the call to S.F. Mayor Willie Brown advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. That was 8 hours before the attack.

- No one ever lost their job over this admitted screw up at nearly every touch point in the U.S. anti-terrorism defenses. A general was court-marshaled over Pearl Harbor, we couldn't find one person that messed up.

They knew something was up.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
because the FBI released 'two' different camera angles and it turned out it was the same footage doctored. Why do that?


Care to link us to the FBI where they released these 2 footages? No, I did not think you could!



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: sg1642
because the FBI released 'two' different camera angles and it turned out it was the same footage doctored. Why do that?


Care to link us to the FBI where they released these 2 footages? No, I did not think you could!
? They're (or rather it is) available in the public domain.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
They're (or rather it is) available in the public domain.


The person making the claim has to back that claim up. That is how things work here and in the real world.

So as expected no link to the FBI, as they do not exist!
edit on 13-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I just re-read your reply to my first post again... and I misread you.
My bad. You're right.

I think we're basically on the same page here:
If they're NOT incredibly stupid - they're abysmally evil.
edit on 13-1-2015 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

Top Pentagon Officials did not cancel squat. On 07 September, the State Department issued a revision to a 23 May advisory that added US Military Personnel in Asia to the warning. You would be hard pressed to find a time in the late 90s-early 2000-2001 where there WAS NOT a warning in play. Besides, "top Pentagon" officials flew on military aircraft, NOT commercial flights. And again, it is just one more example of the idea that anything that happens...will happen OVERSEAS, not here.

"Pacifica Radio" Source? A source perhaps? Because it was not Condi Rice.

Then Pearl Harbor. Yes, we court martialed a General and an Admiral.

In 1999, the U.S. Senate issued a resolution...

" On May 25, 1999, the United States Senate, by a vote of 52–47, passed a non-binding resolution to exonerate Kimmel and Short and requested that the President of the United States posthumously restore both men to full rank.[6] Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), one of the sponsors of the resolution, called Kimmel and Short "the two final victims of Pearl Harbor." Neither President Clinton nor Presidents Bush or Obama after him did so. The Senate enquiry in 2000 issued a lengthy exoneration of Kimmel's conduct."

After almost 58 years, they decided that the General and the Admiral, made the best decisions they could based on the information they had and should not have been punished.


YOU are asking for the same scapegoating.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: sg1642
They're (or rather it is) available in the public domain.


The person making the claim has to back that claim up. That is how things work here and in the real world.

So as expected no link to the FBI, as they do not exist!
or maybe you don't understand as much about this subject as you think you do. Check out the first video that was released. They claimed the bollard blocked out the view of the aircraft. Then when they released the video from the camera on the other side of the bollard (which should have had the aircraft in full view) the frames were viewed side by side at the exact same times in the video. They both showed the exact same footage frame for frame. That's pretty much impossible unless the footage had been edited.

video here

Skip to 2hr 13 mind 40 sec and watch the segment there. It explains it better than I am.
edit on 3571642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


There were, and are, two cameras there. The frame rate is slow enough that ANY high speed object is going to, at best be a blur and at worst, not even recorded. That is a simple fact. The Pentagon, had a police force that was its primary security and the cameras were damned near an after thought.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642


There were, and are, two cameras there. The frame rate is slow enough that ANY high speed object is going to, at best be a blur and at worst, not even recorded. That is a simple fact. The Pentagon, had a police force that was its primary security and the cameras were damned near an after thought.

it may not interest you but watch the video it is worth a look. You might notice something I'm missing.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

And, as a final note on Pearl Harbor...quite a few people...like Admiral Chester Nimitz, were of the opinion that it was a God send that the fleet was in port that day. Had Admiral Kimmel been given the information that the Japanese Battle Fleet was steaming towards Hawaii, he most likely would have sortied his fleet to intercept. Eight relatively slow battleships and assorted destroyers going against the six fast carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, eight destroyers and 23 submarines.........would have not been good for the United States.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: sg1642
They're (or rather it is) available in the public domain.


The person making the claim has to back that claim up. That is how things work here and in the real world.

So as expected no link to the FBI, as they do not exist!
or maybe you don't understand as much about this subject as you think you do. Check out the first video that was released. They claimed the bollard blocked out the view of the aircraft. Then when they released the video from the camera on the other side of the bollard (which should have had the aircraft in full view) the frames were viewed side by side at the exact same times in the video. They both showed the exact same footage frame for frame. That's pretty much impossible unless the footage had been edited.

video here

Skip to 2hr 13 mind 40 sec and watch the segment there. It explains it better than I am.


This is pretty damning! It also goes to show how much hellobruce really knows , or better said really doesn't know while throwing these sort of comments "it shows how much you know about 9/11" at people.

The footage was doctored ,plane and simple. coupled with the 80 camera feeds they still refuse to let people see it is tremendously clear that their official story can't be true just based on these points alone. Lets not even speak about the hundreds of of other points.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I just re-read your reply to my first post again... and I misread you.
My bad. You're right.

I think we're basically on the same page here:
If they're NOT incredibly stupid - they're abysmally evil.


No worries my friend.

I've come full circle to the latter. The elite planners and the military-industrial complex are most definitely not stupid, but instead completely immoral and evil. They put geo-political gain, power, and control over any consideration of national sovereignty outside of the west, civilian casualties, human rights, and so on.

It's quite obvious that Syria and Libya are not about human rights and democracy, but instead next steps in a global chess game.

Look at Ukraine, same thing. Read Brzezinski's quote from the telling book title "The Grand Chessboard:" 'One of the keys may be found by looking back at Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard in which he wrote, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be “unapologetic” in perpetuating “America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.”

Brzezinski delved into the importance of little known Ukraine by explaining in his 1997 book, “Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.”

“Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination." www.globalresearch.ca...

Also just look up the history of the past 60 years of US interventionism. It's all about proxy wars, knocking out non-compliant leaders and regimes (even if they are democracies like in Guatemala), setting up compliant regimes (even if they include iron fisted tyrants with death squads, like Guatemala after the coups), etc.

Also, the whole "7 countries in five years" thing.

I want to reiterate, I am against it all. But as someone who works in international development, with formal training in both development and international politics, but also a lot of private study, the more I learn the more I believe that so-called "real politick" is exactly what is happening.
edit on 13-1-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

All I am going to say is Cheney knew exactly what he was doing that day and why he was doing it.
Bush on the other hand remains an enigma, he played the role of buffoon perfectly, too perfectly.

Look at Bush publicly speaking in a 1994 debate, it isn't the same Bush that was in office from 2000-2008
1994 Texas Debate



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join