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.

 

Rumsfeld & 911

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MRuss

If you think 911 was an inside job , please answer me this....

A) what was the motivation???

Creating the public opinion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they could give the rebuild contract to Halliburton, I assume..Which at least has a perfectly straight “benefit chain” leading from the action, To the payout..


I think the Towers were targeted also for financial reasons, sort of as a win/win for the perps. Lots of financial records were lost, as well as materials and personnel related to some ongoing investigation, I seem to recall. Also I believe the buildings needed some extensive renovations related to asbestos, which turned into a write-off and an insurance claim. This, plus the reasons you stated, made them a tasty dish.



B) how much time, labor, money and risk would have been involved in setting it up???

A whole lot right???


Cost/benefit analysis. That scene in Fight Club comes to mind when Ed Norton is describing "the formula."



C) can you think of an easier, cheaper and less risky way to achieve the same goal????


For example, did it really require coordinating flying 2 planes into the Twin Towers to create the public opinion for the wars??!



I think it did. See D





D) wouldn’t blowing up a couple day care centers in different states, and on the same day give you all the public outrage you needed for the war???



Well, we got two wars, the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, and the TSA all in one fell swoop. The airport security footage(what little we saw) nailed the "19 hijacker" narrative in a lot of people's minds. Remember right after the Oklahoma City bombing the media was all saying Muslim extremists, and it was only until McVeigh got pulled over for expired plates or something that what really happened came into view? I suspect they didn't want to make the same mistake twice.



All WW1, WW2 and Vietnam took was blowing up one American naval vessel...

Lusitania, gulf of tonkin, Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators (first Iraq war) exc..

The US government’s history has a laundry list of false flags to compare 911 with and none of them required that scale of an operation. . And all of them had the same hypothetical goal.. “create the public support for a war.”


Orcastrating 911 to start a war would be incredibly over priced , overkill concerning false flags..


That said the obviously lied and imho them giving Halliburton the multi billion dollar rebuild contract IS and will likely continue to be the most corrupt act in modern American political history..




It would have been a risky plan for sure, but look at everything they got out of it. Plus this was essentially the first time(not counting OK City, to a degree) that they had the Internet to deal with and they had to...you know. Go big or go home. The common thread in all of these false flags is the manipulation of the media, and with such a big and new medium they needed an appropriately big and scary event.




posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MRuss


In hindsight, yes it was necessary in order get their agenda rolling ( TPTB ). Perhaps not the exact scenario, but something of that magnitude.

You realize that 9/11 was arguably the single most significant event of the 21st century thus far right?
It didn't just give BS excuses to start wars. It laid the groundwork for the Military Industrial complex and the global bankers to operate upon every year since then. It provided the reasoning for countless subversive moves by our government, strengthened Zionist agendas, I could go on for days.

Blowing up a few day care centers simultaneously simply wouldn't have had the same effect.



And also the bombed-out sites of a few day care centers wouldn't have become known as "ground zero" - a proxy for the site of a nuclear detonation.
edit on 7-12-2017 by Golden Rule because: accidentally replied before adding text.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun



I think the Towers were targeted also for financial reasons, sort of as a win/win for the perps. Lots of financial records were lost, as well as materials and personnel related to some ongoing investigation, I seem to recall


What records were that ...?

Ever heard of backup sites ? There are numerous one in the area around NYC c - if want can show you couple of them

If want to destroy records lot of easier ways to do it than smash airplanes into building



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MRuss

If you think 911 was an inside job , please answer me this....

A) what was the motivation???

Creating the public opinion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they could give the rebuild contract to Halliburton, I assume..Which at least has a perfectly straight “benefit chain” leading from the action, To the payout..

B) how much time, labor, money and risk would have been involved in setting it up???

A whole lot right???

C) can you think of an easier, cheaper and less risky way to achieve the same goal????


For example, did it really require coordinating flying 2 planes into the Twin Towers to create the public opinion for the wars??!


D) wouldn’t blowing up a couple day care centers in different states, and on the same day give you all the public outrage you needed for the war???

All WW1, WW2 and Vietnam took was blowing up one American naval vessel...

Lusitania, gulf of tonkin, Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators (first Iraq war) exc..

The US government’s history has a laundry list of false flags to compare 911 with and none of them required that scale of an operation. . And all of them had the same hypothetical goal.. “create the public support for a war.”


Orcastrating 911 to start a war would be incredibly over priced , overkill concerning false flags..


That said the obviously lied and imho them giving Halliburton the multi billion dollar rebuild contract IS and will likely continue to be the most corrupt act in modern American political history..




In hindsight, yes it was necessary in order get their agenda rolling ( TPTB ). Perhaps not the exact scenario, but something of that magnitude.

You realize that 9/11 was arguably the single most significant event of the 21st century thus far right?
It didn't just give BS excuses to start wars. It laid the groundwork for the Military Industrial complex and the global bankers to operate upon every year since then. It provided the reasoning for countless subversive moves by our government, strengthened Zionist agendas, I could go on for days.

Blowing up a few day care centers simultaneously simply wouldn't have had the same effect.

Remember the countless videos you've seen of the plane crashes and the towers collapsing. The sheer horror. The media storm. The displays of emotion.
All of that became embedded in the American psyche in a very calculated way.

They used the world as a stage to portray a very convincing drama. The scale was needed.


Absolutely. And, I would add, it had the rather convenient effect of vaporizing the building that stored all the records that were being kept as evidence in the investigations into Worldcom, Enron, etc. Cases with the potential for bad outcomes where certain individuals in that administration were concerned....


Yup! That was another "fringe benefit."

In fact, this is giving me inspiration for an upcoming thread. "50 ways the elites benefited from 9/11"

The gears are turning..



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

9/11 plot took 2 years from time of first probes in 1999 (lookup America West Flight 90 , activities of 2 Saudi "students" )

The planting of some 19 operatives and training to fly aircraft took lot of time and effort

Plot almost came apart at several points - from arrest and deportation of 20 th hijacker at Miami airport, FBI agent in
Phoenix becoming suspicious of large number of Arab foreigners taking flight training, arrest of Moussaoui in Minnesota
(wanted to fly planes, but not land...) Were several opportunities to break up the plot.

Bureaucratic incompetence and indifference allowed then to continue - In January 2000 CIA was able to trail 2 of the
hijackers from terrorist conference in Malaysia. Unfortunately failed to notify FBI of the 2. FBI showed it wasn't
interested in tracking down terrorists ......



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRuss

But what really interested me was that he states he picked up a piece of the plane and kept it and hung it on his office wall.




Before leaving the scene, Mr Rumsfeld picked up a piece of Flight 77 that was several inches long. It is now mounted in his office in Washington, close to a bust of Winston Churchill presented to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Would love to see a pic of that piece of airplane!



Picture of the Flight 77 wreckage that Rumsfeld picked up.

archive.defense.gov...

archive.defense.gov...



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Gee if they did such a bang up job of destroying the records, then why did most of top management at ENRON
wind up in jail or face other civil penalties ?



Lay was accused of selling more than $70 million worth of stock at this time, which he used to repay cash advances on lines of credit. He sold another $29 million worth of stock in the open market. Also, Lay's wife, Linda, was accused of selling 500,000 shares of Enron stock totaling $1.2 million on November 28, 2001. The money earned from this sale did not go to the family but rather to charitable organizations, which had already received pledges of contributions from the foundation. Records show that Mrs. Lay made the sale order sometime between 10:00 and 10:20 am. News of Enron's problems, including the millions of dollars in losses they hid, became public about 10:30 that morning, and the stock price soon decreased to less than one dollar.

Former Enron executive Paula Rieker was charged with criminal insider trading and sentenced to two years probation. Rieker obtained 18,380 Enron shares for $15.51 a share. She sold that stock for $49.77 a share during July 2001, a week before the public was told what she already knew about the $102 million loss. In 2002, after the tumultuous fall of Enron's external auditor, and management consultant, Andersen LLP, former Andersen Director, John M. Cunningham coined the phrase, "We have all been Enroned."

The fallout resulted in both Lay and Skilling being convicted for conspiracy, fraud, and insider trading. Lay died before sentencing, Skilling got 24 years and 4 months and a $45 million penalty (later reduced). Fastow was sentenced to six years of jail time, and Lou Pai settled out of court for $31.5 million




posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Well, my understanding is that they were records which were related to massive, suspicious transactions that occurred just prior to the attacks.



“The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start. Of course it is also possible that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the unusual rise in business volume. It could turn out that Americans went on an absolute shopping binge on that Tuesday morning. But at this point there are many transactions that cannot be accounted for. Not only the volume but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that. There is a suspicion that these were possibly planned to take advantage of the chaos.”

Source - globalresearch.org

The whole article is fascinating, well sourced, and worth the read.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Soooo your argument is that since Enron went down hard, no records were destroyed purposely on 9/11m



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

As pointed out ENRON management wound up in jail .....

Also pointed out in other post that there are backup sites, no doubt SEC had copies of the important records stored offsite
(had some offices in WTC 7) so taking out one building would not totally shut down investigation

Further WTC 7 was not struck by a plane - it was 'Collateral damage" from collapse of WTC 1 which smashed open
south side of building and caused numerous fires

Pointed out that there are quicker, surer means of destroying records than trying to fly a plane through building....


(post by Zelun removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MRuss


The US government’s history has a laundry list of false flags to compare 911 with and none of them required that scale of an operation. . And all of them had the same hypothetical goal.. “create the public support for a war.”




Why do you presume the goal was merely a pretext for war? I would assume it was about something larger like putting the nation in a perpetual state of terror - i.e. introducing the security state in which everything is done in the context of terror, in the name of domestic security, where liberties and rights previously unquestioned is voluntarily given up and sacrificed for the greater good that is "feeling safe".

Because that is what happened.

And blowing up day care centers would not achieve that - that would be horrible, but that is not an attack on the American way of life, that would not put on display the inadequacy of the military that could not respond, the inadequacy of the reach of the intelligence agencies that could not predict this, and it most certainly not would have made for spectacular TV, which, cynical as it is, it was, and neither would it have made possible the tales of heroism and self sacrifice that were spun about the first responders and the passengers of United Airlines flight 93.

Now, I am not saying that 911 *was* an inside job, but if it was, this would be a way more likely motivation than just having i nice little war.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
So, this missing 2.3 trillion was money that had gone missing before the Bush administration (Bush had only been in office a few months when 9/11 happened).

Rumsfeld was onto something....he was about to open a whole can of worms that I'm sure the Clinton administration did not want opened.

The older Bush and the Clintons are/were thick as thieves. No wonder Bush elder didn't like Rumsfeld. The elder Bush probably crapped his pants when he heard Rumsfeld's revelation Sept. 10th.

Next day, boom.
edit on 8-12-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm convinced. Buildings only fall at free-fall speeds when demolitions are involved.


The towers did not fall at the rate of free fall. The towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. WTC 7 only fell for a brief time at the rate of free fall in the middle of its collapse.

Stop repeating truth movement lies.

Ironic a truth movement uses lies and hiding of facts.




www.skeptic.com...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

No! WTC 7 was for the insurance money. right?

WTC 7 was built to self destruct, right?

Silverstein was behind the CD of WTC 7, right?

Or was it because of the WTC 7 gold heist?

What truth is the truth? Stupid truth movement?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
So, this missing 2.3 trillion was money that had gone missing before the Bush administration (Bush had only been in office a few months when 9/11 happened).

Rumsfeld was onto something....he was about to open a whole can of worms that I'm sure the Clinton administration did not want opened.

The older Bush and the Clintons are/were thick as thieves. No wonder Bush elder didn't like Rumsfeld. The elder Bush probably crapped his pants when he heard Rumsfeld's revelation Sept. 10th.

Next day, boom.


Sounds like you’re ignorant of the fact that this had been reported on a couple of times during the Clinton administration.

How does this new information change your view on things?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The security side of that equation is where the money is at.
Homeland Security TSA Backscatter machines at airports
spying on literally everyone. A plenitude of motivation.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

That said the obviously lied and imho them giving Halliburton the multi billion dollar rebuild contract IS and will likely continue to be the most corrupt act in modern American political history..



I'm not sure if another company had the resources to do the job as Halliburton/KBR did/does... and it wasn't a bad job either...The infrastructure, food and logistics in Iraq by 2003ish was very good, a hell of a lot better than Afghanistan even after all these years.


edit on 9-12-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux




“To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.




If the core columns came down last, how did the core, or centre of the building drop first, then 4 corners all fell just after, at the same speed?

I mean, it's not like the planes would have done symmetrical damage, causing this....



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

I just cited a source the vericle columns and core columns that held the load of the floor system fell last. After the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you prove otherwise?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join