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.

 

debate about: The truth of 9/11 poll

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
just for you bsbray

(reference thread for all those not knowing what's going on:
www.abovetopsecret.com...)


ThatsJustWeird, when I say, or anyone else here, says "inside job," or "government involvement," we're not ignorantly suggesting that all government employees orchestrated 9/11. What we mean, just so you know, is that the higher-up officials and heads of intelligence, etc., were involved in its planning an execution. "Government" is just easier to say than all of that jazz. It goes understood that everyone knows what we mean.

I know that most people mean that, however there are quite a few who don't know the difference. I'm making sure you know.


You say the Bush Admin couldn't have brought in so many corrupt people with it, because only so many changed when Bush arrived.

I never said that...
I simply stated that the Bush administration was not even complete by 9/11. I mentioned NOTHING of their corruption. Nothing.



I agree with AlwaysLearning, as would any educated person, and say the gov's been corrupt for years, citing examples of scandals.

Please show me in any of my post where I said the government wasn't corrupt.


Thereby you totally switched points, and therefore this is totally irrelevant

No no no. We were talking about the Bush administration. You all starting going off topic talking about how corrupt the government is. I brought it back to the Bush administration.


for the majority of the rest of the post, please go back and read how this all started.
I asked people did they realize they're saying that the incomplete Bush administration had less than 9 months to carry out the greatest attack on American soil yet carried it out perfectly. Extremely unlikely.

Then you said
"You said it yourself. Bush Administration. Not just Bush. Can you say... intelligence and other select agencies?"

I was just explaining that the Bush Administration only included the heads of intel and other select agencies, not the whole agencies themselves.
That's all I was explaining. Period.

I never mentioned anything about corruption or whatver...

I'm making sure you know that difference.



didn't think that was too hard to understand

What I didn't understand was the:
"At any rate, the CIA alone could do it if you think al Qaeda could"



Do you deny that Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, or Waco took place?

Of course not. I never even hinted that none of those took place. Do you believe you were born?


If not, do you think all 3 million employees participated in each event?

Of course not. What argument are you trying to make?

edit: title of topic changed from Re: the truth of 9/11 poll

[edit on 12-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I asked people did they realize they're saying that the incomplete Bush administration had less than 9 months to carry out the greatest attack on American soil yet carried it out perfectly. Extremely unlikely.


I agree it is unlikely. However, what later became the Bush Administration has been working together on party dominance since the early 1990s:

PNAC
Primer



In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.


I think it's pretty clear to most people on all sides of the political spectrum that George is simply a harmless, malleable figurehead; someone who will do as he's told to impress his daddy. They chose well.

I don't think these people orchestrated 9/11. But once it was in the pipeline and they found out about it, they seized on the opportunity to gain emotional support from the people for their plans, which we are witnessing every day.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
What is the truth of that 9-11 poll?

What are you saying on this new thread that couldn't have been said in the original one?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What are you saying on this new thread that couldn't have been said in the original one?


I believe this thread was started as a 'debate' area for those who answered in the poll. Because:


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
While you should feel free to add a comment with your vote, I also humbly request that we keep this thread free from debates on the issue itself and thereby attempt to avoid an atmosphere where members feel intimidated for their vote.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I see... wonderful.

It appears to be misnamed.

Should probly say Debate: somewhere in it. But that's just a suggestion.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Yes, I think the title may be a bit misleading.

Debate: the truth of 9/11 poll has a nice sound to it.
I also think this topic is more Slug Fest:

State your case, defened your position, stand up for your ideological stance. Debate forum for political ideologies.




[edit on 12-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

I know that most people mean that, however there are quite a few who don't know the difference. I'm making sure you know.


And I thank you for your concern over my knowledge of the government.

Cutting out all the crap, it boils down to this:

You began suggested that if anyone in the government knew about 9/11 before it happened, all 3 million people would have to know about it. I base that claim on the following statements:


Dude, that's what I'm saying.
There are over 3 million people in the federal government (not including contractors and military). YOU'RE the one saying those 3 million+ planned and carried out the attacks if you're blaming the government.



The government has close to 3,000,000 employees. You didn't think all 3 mil are part of the Bush admin did you?


And I responded with the following:


ThatsJustWeird, when I say, or anyone else here, says "inside job," or "government involvement," we're not ignorantly suggesting that all government employees orchestrated 9/11. What we mean, just so you know, is that the higher-up officials and heads of intelligence, etc., were involved in its planning an execution. "Government" is just easier to say than all of that jazz. It goes understood that everyone knows what we mean.


Then you say, "Oh yeah, I know that. Just making sure you did."

..

So pretty much this debate is already over. We already agree. When someone says government involvement, they usually mean the highest officials, not every damned employee.

The two questions I asked were geared at proving this point. All the scandals/cover-ups I mentioned were orchestrated by the government or one or more of its agencies. They all happened, carried out by the government, but never every single freaking employee. That's what those questions had to do with it. Again, I think this "debate" is already over. There's nothing to argue over.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You began suggested that if anyone in the government knew about 9/11 before it happened, all 3 million people would have to know about it.


You mean I was stating that "all 3 million would NOT have known about it. That's all I was stating.

Ok here's something to debate over...

All the scandals/cover-ups I mentioned were orchestrated by the government or one or more of its agencies. They all happened, carried out by the government

Can you prove that?
Not that there were cover ups in those incidents, but that they government purposly orchestrated all of those.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

You mean I was stating that "all 3 million would NOT have known about it. That's all I was stating.


Then why did you argue with me?!?! That's exactly what I was saying!! God, get your arguments straight!


Can you prove that?
Not that there were cover ups in those incidents, but that they government purposly orchestrated all of those.


You just want to argue don't you? x.x

Teapot Dome - Historical fact; oil scandal from within the President's cabinet:


In 1922, the reserves were still under the jurisdiction of Edwin Denby, the Secretary of the Navy. Denby himself was part of the Ohio Gang, and was easily convinced by Fall to give jurisdiction over the reserves to his department. Fall then illegally leased the rights to the oil to Harry F. Sinclair of Sinclair Oil (then known as Mammoth Oil) without competitive bidding. Concurrently, Fall also leased the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills, California to Edward L. Doheny of Pan American Petroleum in exchange for personal loans at no interest. In return for leasing these oil fields to the respective oil magnates Fall received "gifts" from the oilmen totaling about $400,000. Fall attempted to keep his actions secret but his sudden improvements in standard of living drew speculation.


Article continued here: en.wikipedia.org...

It's obvious that was done on purpose, orchestrated from the president's cabinet.


Watergate - Do I even have to tell you about this? Of course it was on purpose too, and orchestrated by certain Republicans within the government. en.wikipedia.org...


Iran-Contra - Another widely accepted historical fact. The US sold arms to Iran, it's enemy, then gave the proceeds to guerillas who proceeded to destroy Nicaragua. I don't think this one was an accident, either. en.wikipedia.org...


Ruby Ridge - FBI agents shot and killed the wife, son, and dog of the victim, and injured another son, this time a baby. Another historical fact. The FBI was taken to court and sued for this. en.wikipedia.org...


The United States Department of Justice's report recommended criminal prosecution of federal agents, though nothing has come of this. The surviving members of the Weaver family received a $3.1 million settlement.



Waco - Though this one is controversial, it is clearly obvious by any examination of evidence that the fires in the building, resulting in the deaths of about 80 people, was directly caused by the FBI.


The causes of the fatal fire are disputed. Government officials claim that the fires were intentionally set by Koresh and his followers as a suicidal act. Others claim that the fire was caused by the FBI's use of flammable CS gas grenades injected into the wooden buildings. The multiple starting points for the fire were arguably more easily accessible from outside the complex. There also exist claims that the CS gas was mixed with methylene chloride, a chemical that is flammable and can become explosive in confined spaces. Uncontested, however, is the fact that CS gas was employed even though the United States, along with 130 other countries, has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which also bans this gas's use in warfare.


Again, obviously intentional and orchestrated by the FBI. And even if you accept the official story, the FBI still intentionally used illegal weapons, which ironically they were claiming Koresh was doing. That the FBI caused the fires is being covered up by the government because of extreme public disapproval, but as I said, any evaluation of the evidence will show that the FBI's story (of which there were three, lol) doesn't add up.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.public-action.com...
www.serendipity.li...

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
There is far more evidence out there to suggest 9-11 was an inside job than there is to support the government's version. As someone else already mentioned, only a handful of people had to be in on it. Those people would be at the highest levels. Like the Washington FBI guy in charge of gathering and disseminating threats. He blocked several key leads. That was a deadly disconnect. Deflect critical info. and keep others in the dark. Classic.

In spookworld the average right hand never knows what the average left is up to. Only those at the top do. The vast majority of government and military officials were most likely completely in the dark regarding the events leading up to and surrounding 9-11. That's the way its gotta be to pull off a successful operation.







 
0

log in

join