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.

 

What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: johnquindell. Yes, they had an exercise over what would happen if an airliner hit the Pentagon. Since the Pentagon has airliners flying over it every day as they take off from/ land at Reagan National that only makes sense. As for the anti-Israel/ pro Russia website you use for one of your points....yeah you might want to rethink that.




posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I dont understand what you are trying to say.

Here's a map too.

Flight_paths_of_hijacked_ planes

The plane did not fly straight from Dulles to the Pentagon. They had at least had 30 mins to evac as a precaution because oh, you know ... that huge possible attack on America goin' on. Plus, I think you should concede at least 51 mins notice to get somewhat active. Just because the majority of average citizens saw a "possible accident" in those first minutes does not rationally translate into complacency of the DoD toward a possible threat. I'm surprised any plane was even allowed to take off from any commercial airport 4 minutes after the North tower was struck.

I said Regan because cardinalfan named it. I dont know the airports. I also said somewhere nearby. cardinalfan has just mentioned Anacostia. I looked it up. interesting stuff.

Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling

So One helipad. Attack on America and there's one military helipad in the area. LOL.

So exactly what was/is that bloated Defense budget spent on? It appears the people entrusted with the defending never envisaged an attack on the Pentagon, nor had any sorta decent way to defend these headquarters during an attack, or any security for people as they evac. Maybe they were too busy giggling over our trivial emails with the NSA because there did not seem to be much defending going on. In fact in many ways it appears to have been deliberately allowed to happen. Over the many decades of the Pentagon's existence, a half-way viable emergency response plan for the DoD HQs was non-existent?
And if so, that we should pass it off like that doesn't matter?

Defense. The job they are paid to do. They failed miserably over and over it seems. Normal people don't get away with failing so hard. Defense strategies will never improve unless there is recognition of those failures and some form of accountability.

And I'm sorry, but normal people do not just happen to have jovial friendships with relatives of terrorists who attack their country and murder people. And normal people didn't get private body guards and bundled on nice private charter flights around and out of country, shielding them from any further in depth investigation. This sole act was in itself treasonous to the American people, IMO.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MsVen. How hard is it for you to understand that until the SOUTH Tower was hit, most people considered the North Tower an accident? Oh, and there was more than one helipad in the area, Anacostia, is the only one that has helicopters on alert. That whole keeping aircraft on alert costs a lot of money thing. As for the defensive failures, those started shortly after the end of World War II, when Harry Truman signed the legislation creating the Department of Defense and, making the Pentagon.....which was located next to a public airport and was supposed to be just a warehouse after the war......the headquarters of the DoD. So, wanna dig up Harry Truman and try him for dereliction of duty?

The last part I can only guess you are referring to the Bin Laden family. The common falsehood you are laboring under, is that they were bundled up and flown out of the country on the 11th. Which, is wrong. They were gathered in one spot, the FBI questioned a bunch of them, and they were allowed to leave on Sept 20, 2001.
edit on 9-6-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?


I listed my reasons. The story didn't make sense. How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.

And when they wouldn't release the full video of the supposed airplane collision with the Pentagon, that also raised my suspicions. If it was really an airliner like they claimed, then showing the full footage would've validated their story.


When objects are traveling at high speed it's a different ball game.

For example this posted a few days ago.



Now using YOUR logic that could never happen, the planes basically sheared the column trees at there connections that's why the hole was a strange shape. You can check that against drawings on line.

The bulk of the dust created wasn't steel as claimed it was all the other building materials that produce dust.

Sheet rock, paint, the sprayed on fire protection,concrete from the floor slab,ceiling tiles, the vermiculite behind the cladding panels & even glass!

Then the other classic thing is to show pictures of other building fires. THE ONLY PROBLEM NONE were hit first by a plane, most have reinforced concrete columns/floor slabs unlike the Twin Towers yet with all those other fires the steel did fail, collapse was halted due to concrete.
edit on 9-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Cardinalfan. Its incredibly late here for me. Ive already I said I dont want to repeat myself.

One military helipad. Which you yourself stated was for evac of President and other essential persons.

No defense of any other sort on, or near, Pentagon grounds. Its okay, I believe its quite possible. Thats what you dont understand. I also think it outrageous. LOL.

Yes I was alluding to Bin laden relatives. But the 'friends' comment was intended as a generally wider net. I dont think such business relationships are sane - ESPECIALLY if the official story is true - but Im not surprised, judging by the shady types of 'friends' and dealing which politicians have generally. But don't be mistaken by your own presumptions about 'trufers' - whatever they might be. Dont try to label and sort me into a box based on a few lines of text - for I will disappoint you there - and I'll try not to do the same with you.

Im "laboring" under no such falsehoods of family members flying out during the no-fly period. Facts are, they were bandied about the country. Over 100 left soon after flight restrictions were lifted. The questioning was minimal for the extraordinary circumstances and allowing them to leave was irresponsible, IMO. Its quite simple.

Now, I really must get some sleep. I've answered the original question posed by the OP which is all I had wanted to do, and further clarified my position. I do believe I've been receptive to both sides of the the discussion and genuine in my responses. But I've had enough. Much of what I've said in this thread has very little to do with 9-11 conspiracy website narratives. The inevitable grouping of 'trufers' as though we all hold to the exact same narrative is always how these discussions turn - but it is unrealistic and deliberately deceptive. I've repeatedly answered and clarified. However, 14 years later and I've still not seen any satisfactory convincing/rational answers to my initial questions of the day, and so I'd rather move on with my daily life instead of getting bogged down for endless hours in the misconceptions of others about what my opinion might be, over something I will never be privileged enough to know all the answers about. And neither will you.

G'nite.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nope, I have made 58 threads in the 9/11 forums on ATS and posted hundreds of times on this topic, thus I understand when I am wasting key strokes with another ATS member now. I usually do one strong rebuttal post and if that fails then I don't bother anymore. There is no cop-out, it is agreeing to disagree and moving off the hamster wheel of endless video's, quotes and links that we both have to back up our sides of the arguments.

Been there, done that.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: enlightenedservant You posted the links to three stories that go back to the same bull# story. A Paki diplomat who told the Taliban than the US was going to attack them based on a conversation that the Paki diplomat apparently had with himself and not a single, solitary member of the US government. Then, you post a link to a story about Hamid Karzai wanting UNOCAL to come back and build a pipeline. What you fail to see is that, by the end of 1999, the US Government did not give a flying fart in space about a pipeline in Afghanistan. Most of your links, all go back to crap that isn't complete.or accurate.

Oh, and having contingency plans to attack a nation, does not mean you are actively working towards that. Hell, Russia would have been a glass parking lot decades ago if that was true.


You're going around in circles and this is getting lame. As I stated before:

1. You say my sources aren't credible even though you used the same site to support your argument.

2. I said the Afghan pipeline was one reason I doubted the official story. You admitted the new US-backed Karzai government tried to revive the Afghan pipeline but was rebuffed. This means the pipeline was involved in the geopolitical before AND after 9/11, which is what I referred to.

3. I showed 3 links saying the US was planning to attack Afghanistan even before 9/11. You say the events in my sources aren't credible because only 1 person is said to have claimed it, then you turn around in the same post & say the US actually has plans to attack everyone (which agrees with the 3 links I mentioned).

You keep ignoring the fact that you used the same source I did. So if it's bogus when I used it, it diminishes your argument as well. But I'm guessing you don't get that huh?

Anyway, you can just re-read my actual posts to get responses to your points, because you keep repeating yourself.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Still haven't seen a reasonable argument to make me think anything other than the OS is accurate. Not saying the OS is the COMPLETE truth, as nothing ever is, but it's the most logical.

As for those who say they knew the minute it happened, who does that? You can't be serious. You saw it happen live on your television, and your first thought was, "Oh, hell no. I don't care what eventual explanation comes from this, I've already decided it was a false flag, inside job, with absolutely no facts to base it off of, and nobody will change my mind."

Who does that?


I listed my reasons. The story didn't make sense. How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.

And when they wouldn't release the full video of the supposed airplane collision with the Pentagon, that also raised my suspicions. If it was really an airliner like they claimed, then showing the full footage would've validated their story.


When objects are traveling at high speed it's a different ball game.

For example this posted a few days ago.



Now using YOUR logic that could never happen, the planes basically sheared the column trees at there connections that's why the hole was a strange shape. You can check that against drawings on line.

The bulk of the dust created wasn't steel as claimed it was all the other building materials that produce dust.

Sheet rock, paint, the sprayed on fire protection,concrete from the floor slab,ceiling tiles, the vermiculite behind the cladding panels & even glass!

Then the other classic thing is to show pictures of other building fires. THE ONLY PROBLEM NONE were hit first by a plane, most have reinforced concrete columns/floor slabs unlike the Twin Towers yet with all those other fires the steel did fail, collapse was halted due to concrete.


Using my logic? Really? "My logic" says the easiest way to demolish a structure is with overwhelming force (like a powerful tornado, powerful bomb, Hulk or Superman, etc). The 2nd easiest way is to destroy whatever supports that structure, such as support beams (like controlled demolitions or termite infestations) or its foundation (like earthquake damage or sinkholes underneath a property).

To take down the massive World Trade Centers, you would need to shatter all of the support beams at the same time, from the top to the bottom of the buildings. Otherwise this happens:

Planes alone aren't going to shatter all of the support beams (as even controlled demolitions have to be executed properly or else they fail, like the video shows). That's why I said I would've been more inclined to believe the official story if it said terrorists used a combination of controlled demolitions & airplane collisions. That would have also explained Building 7.

More importantly though, why do you care what I believe? It's my opinion. We 're all entitled to our opinions. This thread asked when we as individuals "stopped our cognitive dissonance towards the 9/11 OS". I gave my answer to that. So what does my opinion of the 9/11 official story have to do with you? Why can't you just stick to the OP & tell why you do or don't believe the OS?

It's kind of sad how some people here seem so emotionally invested in a government version of events, to the point they can't even stand the idea of other people on a conspiracy website disagreeing with it. That's just ridiculous to me. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on 9/11. But you won't convince me either, especially since I've listed something like 20-30 different reasons I doubted & still doubt the official story. But those reasons support my conclusion on 9/11, which I pointed out as the OP requested.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MsVen




I dont understand what you are trying to say.

Here's a map too.

I'm trying to counter the myth of . .
"The most heavily defended air space in the world."

You cannot defend the Pentagon from an air attack when it's only a few thousand feet from a civilian airport.
Anyone can divert their landing or takeoff and crash into the Pentagon if they wanted to.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I have to agree. My take on the event came in the same as yours. At first, I was in a stage of shock. However it did not take me long to realize the obvious. Like many, I got sucked into the vortex of unending media/news that by design misdirects logic to dead ends.

One thing I noticed in high-sight is after all evidence of a conspiracy from within, is that the American people are again victims of mass fraud and manipulation. The realization that 9-11 is just the latest in a long history within my life period that if/when put together explains in clear understanding of the sinister element within our system to lead mass public opinion to a desired effect. Looking back I can see one event i.e., Kennedy's assassination, morphed into the next event i.e., Watergate, to the next and on and on to the present with many other events that taken together proves my point.

Once you see this in historical perspective and express it openly, one is faced with resistance from the ignorant class to those who have an Axe to grind. However, after all is said and done and you still at the point where it's obvious to you, you can either assume they are right in declaring your sanity, which is not likely, or discovering the height and depth of a well funded, talented group of people from all areas who can work in the same direction to mold society to their preconceived status. Which is likely.

In the land of "America's Got Talent" and Jerry Falwell, who claimed "AIDs is God's wrath towards Gay people and punishment to a country who allows that behavior," most people won't allow themselves to think they are being manipulated by a rogue entity that works against their interests. And do so to the degree we saw in 9-11. Had they followed the evidence that AIDs is the product of Biological Engineering conducted at Fort Dietrich and others, they'd know how deep the rabbit hole is and their numb status of being "entertained" by scripted reality shows offers a escape hole where critical thinking is often avoided.

For all who think reality is the culmination of unrelated events and conspiracy theories are the result of misguided souls who wear tin foil hats that they should consider conspiracy related crimes hold the highest rate of convictions in both State and Federal cases brought before the bench. Every policeman, detective, prosecuting attorney and elected official deal with conspiracy on a daily basis. There is always suspicions of conspiracy in all areas of life. Those who scoff at accusations of conspiracy by stating conspiracy is rare and those who look for it are paranoid by nature and should be avoided as much as possible are often the same people who often claim a conspiracy was committed when they, or theirs are the target of a perceived injustice. Conspiracy is around every corner and under every rock on the road and recorded history illustrates that point beautifully.

So, America suffered it's own Reichstag fire and is now the elephant in the room everyone wishes to overlook. Obviously it's easier to deny the obvious out of fear rather than confront the possibilities. Either way, the truth will make you free and demanding truth from our elected officials should be paramount. As far as I'm concerned, the left vrs. right argument is nothing more than tool used by CIA type bureaucrats to create division while criminals run off with the bank. What is more offensive is their determination to destroy the freedom and way of life our ancestors lived.







a reply to: FissionSurplus



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
"What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?"

1963



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I began to think the USG let 9/11 happen after reading perhaps 7 different books and watching a couple key interviews. Most people go into denial when I go into the details.

Motive:

Both "liberal" and conservative foreign policy advisers mapped out a plan in the late 1990's for continued US hegemony into the 21st century. Multiple high rankling officials and advisers urging the Pentagon to expand US military presence on the Eurasian continent. The future of the USA absolutely depends on it's ability to maintain military dominance. This includes economic dominance. The US dollar must be maintained, trade must be "regulated" by US friendly institutions such as the World Bank/IMF and resources must flow cheaply into western corporations hands. The post WW2 arrangement cannot be maintained with Russia, China and Iran challenging US hegemony. They were very clear about this.

If you know anything about history, objective history, then you understand the role the middle east played in WW1. The role oil played in Britain's downfall. The Middle East has always been a prize for competing nations. If Russia/China/Iran were allowed to expand into the region and gain access/control over vast oil supplies the USA would be finished.

The "liberal" and conservative advisers saw the fall of the USSR as the only opportunity for the US to expand it's global power base, before any other nation steppe into that void. They urged the Pentagon/Washington to push a massive military modernization project. For the US to gain full control of space (militarily). To gain control of the internet. To gain an advantage on the Eurasian continent, where most of the world lives. Where most of the resources are. Where most of the consumer base lives.

They essentially advocated avoiding new cold war. That the USA make preemptive moves in an attempt to cement another century of US hegemony. Both groups said, specifically, this plan would not be possible unless the USA was attacked. Because US citizens would not support expanded militarism on the Eurasian continent. Two years later the USA was attacked.



Opportunity:

What most people don't know, or attempt to deny, is the CIA knew an Al Qaeda attack was coming. The NSA knew an Al Qaeda attack was coming. They had spied on a top level Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia. They had the names of top level Al Qaeda operatives who were planning an attack on the US. These men entered the USA and the CIA had full knowledge. They were tracking them in the US and supposedly "lost track" of them. This information comes from Richard Clarke, head of US counter-terrorism at the time of 9/11. Richard Clarke demolished the "intelligence failure" lie. He demolished the lie that it was an accidental "lack of inter-agency communication" which allowed the attack to succeed.

This interview changed my mind. This interview made me look into 9/11 more. Not "Loose change" or some video about the towers allegedly being demolished but the so called "intel failures".

www.youtube.com...

The "intel failures" being debunked by Richard Clarke himself made me look into the NORAD failure on the morning of 9/11. NORAD lied to the 9/11 commission multiple times. Lied to congress. U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart, head of NORAD on 9/11 acted very strange. He has been the person doing most of the lying post 9/11 as well. Along with General Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott.

Important on the NORAD failures is the time they were notified.They have changed their story four times. FOUR times. They eventually blamed the FAA for not notifying NORAD in time. These were very sloppy lies. Lies that eventually were latched onto by the 9/11 commission. Once the story was panned out. FAA officials have constantly insisted they shared "real time" information with NORAD. Real time information documenting (and I quote) "loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.”. The actual time NORAD was notified is key.

In the middle of the attacks the man in charge of NORAD got in his car and drove for an hour. The whole time he "lost use of his phone". General Ralph Edward Eberhart was also in charge of all the coincidental military exercises that day, which had multiple fake hijacking drills. One of which was a highjacking that attacks NYC. Eberhart, for his failure on 9/11, was promoted to head of NORTHCOM. He then retired and went on to serve as chairman and or on the board of directors for various companies profiting from war. You can't make this stuff up.

Why do I seriously question the NORAD failures? Because of the Richard Clarke interview. Although having nothing to do with the NORAD failures he exposed the fact that we did not have intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Richard Clarke showed that the CIA intentionally withed the most crucial information that top level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. There was no intelligence failure. There was an intentional and insidious withholding of crucial information.

Seeing that the CIA intentionally withheld the most crucial information about Al Qaeda, at a time when everyone knew an attack was coming, I have no question NORAD command would also sabotage our national defense, in the same manner the CIA did.

Even more sabotage. Military intelligence had identified top level Al Qaeda operatives in America as well. They were prevented from informing Richard Clarke/FBI counter-terrorism. The US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Able Danger was a joke. A complete joke. None of the key people were allowed to testify. If you cant see how this investigation was sabotaged then you're an idiot of the highest order.

en.wikipedia.org...


So we have the CIA intentionally not telling Richard Clarke that high level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country, then we have Pentagon lawyers actually stopping Able Danger operatives from informing Richard Clarke/FBI counter-terrorism about another top level Al Qaeda cell. Then we have a complete NORAD failure on the morning of 9/11.

These are the three things that every American should be focused on. 24/7. 365 days a year.
edit on 10-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
In short, I think they very well let it happen.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

To take down the massive World Trade Centers, you would need to shatter all of the support beams at the same time, from the top to the bottom of the buildings. Otherwise this happens:

Planes alone aren't going to shatter all of the support beams (as even controlled demolitions have to be executed properly or else they fail, like the video shows). That's why I said I would've been more inclined to believe the official story if it said terrorists used a combination of controlled demolitions & airplane collisions. That would have also explained Building 7.

More importantly though, why do you care what I believe? It's my opinion.


YOU believed softer objects could not damage harder objects so we have already seen your understanding of physics,materials and kinetic energy are WRONG so what else could be WRONG!!!

Well since my FIRST job leaving school was in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company also doing a course of civil engineering while working there and have spent 35+ years in the construction industry mostly on technical roles you are talking BS.

They don's need to shatter beams and like I said if you look at the shape of the entrance holes they match up with the column tree joint system.

If you look at the impact areas and when they fell the South tower was hit second but FELL FIRST, greater load above the impact area, it also fell towards the area of impact.

The Towers did not fall in their own foot print, they did not fall at free fall speed (if you watch the videos debris from above overtakes the collapse) the dust was not STEEL it was all the material I listed before , sheet rock , fire protection etc.

Your entitled to your opinion BUT when you come out with statements that are wrong , someone will correct what you think.


edit on 10-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

But I don't believe I've said anything about it being "The most heavily defended air space in the world." I'm talking about about a basic security response apparatus.

Immediate military security and surveillance on the ground and from the air in helis, is not an unreasonable expectation for a member of the public, to have for the HQ of the DoD. As you yourself pointed out, there was no reason to expect an airliner necessarily, but they may have been able to prevent some other type of attempt. Who was to know what other methods the attackers would try? From my perspective, that just seems an awful lack of basic security around your nation's capital centre.

Perhaps it's because I'm from Australia that I saw the potential for attack from the first tower strike. Certainly Australia's Sandra Sully suggested it before the US media .... she says, perhaps because the Americans couldn't yet bring themselves to admit to possibility they had been attacked. It was pretty traumatic. But I still think your DoD would've been alert and active from the first tower strike, no matter how much y'all try to convince me otherwise.
I find it hard to believe they weren't/aren't 'better prepared for anything', and that's part of the reason the OS narrative is lacking for me.

edit on 10/6/2015 by MsVen because: grammar



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MsVen
and from the air in helis, is not an unreasonable expectation for a member of the public,


Exactly where do these helicopters, fully manned and with their engines running come from exactly?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Anyone care to address Richard Clarke's interview? Perhaps also address the Able Danger issue? While we're at it the whole NORAD timeline. Why did NORAD change their story 4 times? When the FAA consistently said NORAD was given real time updates on all hijackings.

The biggest lie is that we had intelligence failures. "miscommunication". This was simply not the case.
edit on 10-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

oh ffs. this is my point.

Why only one military helipad at Anacostia?

Why wasn't/isn't your nation's capital and Defense HQ better serviced and prepared with such defense in the event of attack on your soil?

But it's not just about that. JeanPaul has questioned NORAD's response, the intelligence apparatus, and CIA actions before the attack. These are also concerns I too would like to see investigated properly and accounted for. And there's a lot more. As I said earlier, 9-11 is a vast topic with many branches to consider.

My friend, the high level of incompetence is astounding. It cost a lot of tax payer money for that kind of negligence. I find it difficult to be convinced of it.

And y'all still pay many of same people to make decisions about your defense?

They did not take any reasonable responsibility for their own defense failings and gullibility, and made a world of innocent people accountable instead.

They indiscriminatly bombed people and decided to not just collect emails, but to implement all-encompassing pre-emptive mass surveillance of it's citizens & allies, in order to defend against another 9-11 type attack. Because actually investing in some actual responsive defense strategies to an attack on domestic soil would be just too difficult to keep on stand-by at-all-times? Riiiight okay.

Yeh the official story is just spot-on. Nothing to see here, move along please. Is there also a halo drawn over the picture of the Bush administration hanging in the White House?


Next you'll be telling me there's an embassy in Benghazi and Ambassador Steven's was killed over a badly-dubbed, religiously offensive movie trailer.

Whatever you want to believe, mate.

edit on 10/6/2015 by MsVen because: grammar



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MsVen
Why only one military helipad at Anacostia?


How many do you want?

Why wasn't/isn't your nation's capital and Defense HQ better serviced and prepared with such defense in the event of attack on your soil?

Again, how much do you think it costs to have aircraft and helicopters with engines running 24/7 in case of some attack?

How many aircraft and helicopters does Australia have around Canberra with engines running?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MsVen
a reply to: hellobruce

oh ffs. this is my point.

Why only one military helipad at Anacostia?

Why wasn't/isn't your nation's capital and Defense HQ better serviced and prepared with such defense in the event of attack on your soil?

But it's not just about that. JeanPaul has questioned NORAD's response, the intelligence apparatus, and CIA actions before the attack. These are also concerns I too would like to see investigated properly and accounted for. And there's a lot more. As I said earlier, 9-11 is a vast topic with many branches to consider.

My friend, the high level of incompetence is astounding. It cost a lot of tax payer money for that kind of negligence. I find it difficult to be convinced of it.

And y'all still pay many of same people to make decisions about your defense?

They did not take any reasonable responsibility for their own defense failings and gullibility, and made a world of innocent people accountable instead.

They indiscriminatly bombed people and decided to not just collect emails, but to implement all-encompassing pre-emptive mass surveillance of it's citizens & allies, in order to defend against another 9-11 type attack. Because actually investing in some actual responsive defense strategies to an attack on domestic soil would be just too difficult to keep on stand-by at-all-times? Riiiight okay.

Yeh the official story is just spot-on. Nothing to see here, move along please. Is there also a halo drawn over the picture of the Bush administration hanging in the White House?


Next you'll be telling me there's an embassy in Benghazi and Ambassador Steven's was killed over a badly-dubbed, religiously offensive movie trailer.

Whatever you want to believe, mate.


You are all over the map here. You can't seem to make up your mind whether you just want to insult the U.S. for being so stupid that we did not catch and stop the attack or whether you want to maintain that it's some conspiracy false flag thing. Just admit that you hate America and that this is just an excuse to bash us and we'll all move on with our respective lives, lol. . .




top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join