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.

 

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 18
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
These threads always overlook the most obvious problem of them all for truthers. That problem? Simple: We already caught people trying to take the Towers down by explosives once. Everyone knows this. With this being true. . . why would they even need to hide explosives?! Why use planes and magical thermite when you can just do it with explosives and not even have to hide them? I mean really, the method was already tried once, why not just use it the second time and get it right? No need to hide all of the evidence that way. Seems a whole lot easier than faking the planes and hiding the largest controlled demolition in history, witnessed by literally hundreds of millions live.




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

That is a very good and a fair question to ask. The reason is quite simple, because the destruction needed to be publically blamed on a bad guy that could later be specifically identified as an excuse for war, and in this case war ad infinitum. By declaring War on "Terror" instead of a single country, the US war machine could and DID engage in war anywhere and everywhere that it so chooses. The actions of the US Military Industrial Complex in the years after 911 have clearly indicated that by blaming the act on Middle East "terrorist" opens up the entire Middle East as the target of such never ending war and never ending profit.

I was seven when Ike (Class of 1915) gave this speech. I saw it on our own B/W TV:

www.youtube.com...

It's only 2+ minutes but it should be played every day by all Americans>

edit on 18-5-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: Toadd



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: jaffo

That is a very good and a fair question to ask. The reason is quite simple, because the destruction needed to be publically blamed on a bad guy that could later be specifically identified as an excuse for war, and in this case war ad infinitum. By declaring War on "Terror" instead of a single country, the US war machine could and DID engage in war anywhere and everywhere that it so chooses. The actions of the US Military Industrial Complex in the years after 911 have clearly indicated that by blaming the act on Middle East "terrorist" opens up the entire Middle East as the target of such never ending war and never ending profit.

I was seven when Ike (Class of 1915) gave this speech. I saw it on our own B/W TV:

www.youtube.com...

It's only 2+ minutes but it should be played every day by all Americans>


I absolutely love that speech and make friends watch it all the time. But as to the demolition, there is no reason at all why the planes and conspiracy would have been necessary for blame to be placed, in my opinion. A simply bombing of the buildings would have sufficed. After all, no one questioned who was to blame the first time, right?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Previous to 9/11, there were warnings of planes being used as terrorist weaponry. Then, there's Operation Northwood's to give us an idea of how nefarious the top regime can be to incite warfare. Put the two together and it's all the sudden not a far leap in logic as to why they'd include planes as well as demolition. As a pretext to warfare.

I believe planes were entered into the equation to enact new laws (Patriot Act), which, default more control over everyday aspects of American life. 9/11 was a conspiracy that's probably been on the drawing boards for quite some time. And while there are still plenty of unanswered questions, at a mile up, anyone can see what it all ended up being.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Your argument is valid, and this is one reason why I sometimes say that there is no truth, because long after events unfold we, the common man can never really be sure of what really did happen. One thing is certain however, and that is that since 911 we have lived in a constant state of war that appears to be expanding to include us as the enemy and the rights that our founders handed down to us are severely eroded. All in the name of war.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: jaffo

Your argument is valid, and this is one reason why I sometimes say that there is no truth, because long after events unfold we, the common man can never really be sure of what really did happen. One thing is certain however, and that is that since 911 we have lived in a constant state of war that appears to be expanding to include us as the enemy and the rights that our founders handed down to us are severely eroded. All in the name of war.



Well, I think there is a hair to be split here. I think it's very easy to see someone (i.e. the military industrial complex) taking advantage of a situation and automatically assume that they played a role (directly) in creating the situation. DO I think they took advantage of 9/11? Absolutely. Do I think they planned and carried it out? No, not at all. We got nailed, plain and simple. The Ewoks took down our deflector shields when we underestimated them, plain and simple.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo




The Ewoks took down our deflector shields when we underestimated them, plain and simple.

The problem is that conspiracy believers don't want to accept the simplest explanation.
There always has to multiple layers behind any event in their minds.

Look back at history for examples.
General Patton for example. He died 12 days after a slow speed crash because he was unbelted and whacked his head.
Conspiracy! It must have been the Russians! Or was it Eisenhower!
If it was just some dude in the wreck all would say it was just an accident.

For some reason if it's big enough to make the national news then it must be a conspiracy.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

My initial impression was that they let it happen because they knew the result would benefit them, but I later became convinced that at least Dick Cheney and perhaps a small group of spooks were knee deep in the actual work. In either case I think you and I have found some common ground here my friend in that we both view that evil day with suspicious eyes. If our government were not so blatantly corrupt and untrustworthy we might not be justified in our doubts, but considering their waving their sellout natures right under our noses, how can we NOT suspect treachery?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Thank you for posting this video! I find it to be the most comprehensive evidence of what really happen on 911. It continues to amaze me that there are still people out there that believe the so called "official" story told to us by our own Government. They just do not want to see, or believe, that our Government could be a part of the cover-up of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

I believe nothing our Government tells us about most anything now days. Why should I?? Since they have lied about major events since the assassination of JFK.......hell, I could go back to Pearl Harbor, for crying out loud!!

Thanks again.......star and flag well deserved.




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Champagne
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Thank you for posting this video! I find it to be the most comprehensive evidence of what really happen on 911. It continues to amaze me that there are still people out there that believe the so called "official" story told to us by our own Government. They just do not want to see, or believe, that our Government could be a part of the cover-up of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

I believe nothing our Government tells us about most anything now days. Why should I?? Since they have lied about major events since the assassination of JFK.......hell, I could go back to Pearl Harbor, for crying out loud!!

Thanks again.......star and flag well deserved.



You lose any credibility you would hope to gain the minute you mention Pearl Harbor. Just sayin. . .



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I've got to tell you that my 86 year old father who has never been any kind of conspiracy theorist, referred to Pearl Harbor as a government cover up earlier this year during a discussion with me and he lived through it. Obviously the Japanese did all the work and did in fact sail their attack force on their own volition, but Dad told me that he always knew that they let it happen to have an excuse for war. The smoking gun was the last minute orders to Admiral Halsey who was captaining the Enterprise to turn back to sea when his vessel approached Pearl a day or so before the attack. The only ships that were sunk or damaged during the assault were old cans that would have been useless in the coming war anyway. The fact that not one single aircraft carrier was there told Yamamoto that his war was lost before it began. The Congressional investigations into the cover up make an interesting read as well, not nearly as BS as the Warren or 911 official reports.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




The only ships that were sunk or damaged during the assault were old cans that would have been useless in the coming war anyway.

Another case of you not knowing what you are talking about.

Battleships:
Pennsylvania , West Virginia , Nevada and California were all raised and returned to active duty.
Cruisers:
Helena , Honolulu , Raleigh repaired and rejoined the fleet by July.
Destroyers:
Cassin , Downes , Helm , Shaw repaired and rejoined the fleet.
Minelayer Oglala repaired and rejoined in 1944.

Shall I list the smaller ships???

If these ships were useless why did we spend the money to repair them?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Be kind my friend, it is a difference of opinion not ignorance. The Arizona class battleships were old, heavy and slow remnants of the replacement class for the Maine type ships of the Spanish American War. The Iowa class that went into production in 1939 were already slated to replace these because they were faster, better armed and all around more suited to the carrier group warfare model that the Navy had foreseen as the future. But even at that, the last two battleships of this class were cancelled before the war ended because mobile artillery was not nearly of as much value as carriers. Air power was the future and it is what won the war in the Pacific. Of course many of the damaged vessels were repaired because it is always faster to refit than to build from scratch. If Halsey was not turned away from Pearl with the Enterprise, we would not be having this discussion Roosevelt knew the attack was imminent and as he said himself, "Nothing in government happens by chance, it has all been planned". In fact, as the Japanese offensive began well before 1939 against China and the rest of Asia, I am sure that the Roosevelt and his staff wondered how far they would go and at what point the US could actually actively stop them. We couldn't just launch an offensive against them like DC does today, they needed an excuse and Pearl Harbor was it. It was a stupid move by the Japanese as Yamamoto knew well, but orders is orders. No, we did not plan the attack at Pearl, just made sure that it served the purpose while our leaders limited the damage. All in all it was a pretty good move except perhaps on a moral basis, but then there are those in power that have always believed that it is a soldier's duty to die for the effort regardless of how or why.
edit on 22-5-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: To add



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
We did not "need an excuse to go to war." We did not want to join the war, it's just that simple. Japan planned and executed an attack designed TO MAKE SURE that we could not enter the war even if we wanted to by destroying our Pacific fleet and hence giving them total domination of an entire hemisphere and the ability to actually invade mainland America. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in any form which backs the claim that it was a conspiracy to "allow" PH to happen as a pretense to a war we had no desire to enter, just like the previous one. In fact, the entire thought of this conspiracy utterly and completely flies in the face of logic and reason. Here's the thing: The "theory" is that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen so that the evil corporate machine could get the war it wanted. The problem? The way they supposedly decided to accomplish this was to allow nearly our entire Pacific fleet to be destroyed. That makes no sense at all. From a military standpoint it would be near suicide. The blame for Pearl Harbor lies solely with Japan. They did a great job of nailing us, they just didn't count on how quickly we could recover. And really, if the evil U.S. wanted war. . . why did we not immediately go after Stalin as Churchill wanted to at the end of it all in '45? My God, you want war without end? Invade mainland Russia, lol. And we could make more nukes too, take over Russia and dominate the entire globe had we wanted to. But that's not what happened. We helped get the job done, shut it down, and came home. Sorry, but the whole PH theory is completely defeated by logic and reason.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Au contrair Mon ami, there is plenty of evidence, not proof perhaps, but if you are in the legal field you must certainly realize that proof never materializes, evidence just adds up to convictions or acquittals:

www.independent.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: jaffo

Au contrair Mon ami, there is plenty of evidence, not proof perhaps, but if you are in the legal field you must certainly realize that proof never materializes, evidence just adds up to convictions or acquittals:

www.independent.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



Nah, there is ALWAYS proof if an act did occur. Whether you can find it or not is another matter. With all due respect, I place no value on that author's theory. He starts with the answer and works backwards. Again, the theory makes zero sense from a practical standpoint. But hey, it's a free Country and folks are certainly free to their own opinion. You ever find a true smoking gun and I will gladly admit that to be the case.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
And I have to say that for me, the guy twists things around to fit his preconceived notion. Saying that we "wanted Japan to commit an overt act before declaring war" does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that there was any conspiracy afoot to get us into war. For me, all that means is what it says: That unless and until Japan committed an overt act of war, we were not entering the conflict. Which, of course, would have been moronic. I mean really, what were we going to do? Sit there as the Nazis and their fascist and Stalinist allies took over Europe and encircled us? Really?! What the hell kind of allies or friends would we have been to Britain if we had done that? Yeesh, people forget that the other side of WWII straight up wanted to rule the World and was taking it by direct force, murdering millions in the process, exterminating those they found less than worthy. The amnesia of folks who want to forget that like it or not the Allies and the U.S. ABSOLUTELY were the "good guys" is really insulting to a lot of people, myself included. Because at the end of the day, whether we knew it or not, Japan did what they did, both here and in China and in many other places. They threw the first punch, whether they telegraphed it or not. Heck, let's say that we hurried up and moved the fleet. Great, now they know that we broke their codes and now they have committed an act of war. How do you think the rest of the conflict would have gone had we given up that edge? So for me, even if we did *know* that it was coming, our "allowing it to happen" is far more of a strategic move than any nefarious conspiracy to drag us into a war that we, quite frankly, needed to be in anyway. You don't always get clear "good guys and bad guys" when it comes to war, but you sure as hell did in WWII. And the Allies were the good guys. People need to remember those facts.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Ok, lol, last point. I got to that point where the author claims that FDR "engineered this attack" and pretty much exploded. That right there is an utter garbage statement. JAPAN engineered and carried out the attack, not FDR. I mean, come on man. . .



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I understand your beliefs and would never try to convince you otherwise, the force is strong with you. Did you ever serve in the military, because I have. In fact I am a West Pointer and after having been extensively trained and employed, I have got to tell you that the US military has and has always had phenomenal resources, intel, and capabilities to know what's up, what's going on and what will happen next. It is unnerving to say the least. All I can really say is that after being privy to what I have seen, I can NEVER buy the line of garbage that the politicians spew out of "incompetence" for the occasion. Oh they know alright, they are just not allowed to react, that is how the game is played and a few thousand lives means NOTHING in a game where life is cheap and weapons are expensive, (profits too).



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

There is still one thing i dont understand. and the videos dont touch on this.

IF you put me in a cockpit while the plane is in the clouds mid flight. put me in the pilots seat and tell me to fly to a specific city... I dont doubt my joystick handling skills :-).... BUT, how the hell would i know which direction/bearing to fly in? its just clouds and a small window in the cockpit that gives you a view towards the stratosphere as opposed to the ground direction.
Unless the hijackers were well trained in co-ordinate navigation (commercial aircraft nav), i dont see how they could have gotten to their targets. Did they force the pilots to fly the long haul and just take the pilot seat when they could visually identify their targets? I dunno, still seems kinda hard if u ask me.
When i fly (as a passenger, im no pilot) i find it hard enough to spot landmarks in my own home town. So, granted that maybe the WTC towers are relatively easier to view from a cockpit window, but how does one even manage to identify a low building like the pentagon from high up in the sky with nothing but a cockpit window and relying on ones own eyes!?
i've sat in a commercial cockpit many times pre 9-11, and believe me (as im sure you'll agree) the physical view is more limited than one might expect.

So to summarize: did hijackers use navigation to attain targets, if not how did they home in to their targets with relative ease considering their view was challenging (to say the least)?




top topics



 
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join