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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
BlueSkyes: They could have sent in the Army demo teams but then you'd end up with 100lb of explosive on each floor and a large graphic BOOOOM!
Oh and an army of highly unsuspicious men in the same clothes with the same haircut moving through the building carrying loads of C4, of course unsuspiciously




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
BlueSkyes: They could have sent in the Army demo teams but then you'd end up with 100lb of explosive on each floor and a large graphic BOOOOM!
Oh and an army of highly unsuspicious men in the same clothes with the same haircut moving through the building carrying loads of C4, of course unsuspiciously

what do you think that bombs look nice and round? you know some of them look like sope in aspect and in size, and why do you need all of them to look diferent they are all working for the same company, they can be trusted
so no matter who come's in they have a clearence,hey I am here to fix some security eqiptment, hey I'm here to go to the basement, I need to look at some things,and their in, no need to sneak in.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
And just no-one notices these "here to check security systems" are removing drywalls to get to the columns and making there something? Not a single person? Besides you'd have to place detonators, and to fix them into the system with delays and all that. During real CD's a detonating cord is used for this purpose, which is really hard to overlook, but even if you'd go electric you'd end up with a lot of cables.

EDIT: Oh and I suggest you to re-read the post I was answering to, you'd see why i was writing about the army.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by tuccy]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
tuccy, there is no use. He will continue to throw random claims as he seems fit. You know you are right, as do I.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
yes tuccy we are right and as a true conspirator hes gonna just keep throwing claims...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
yes tuccy we are right and as a true conspirator hes gonna just keep throwing claims...


But you can't deny the entertainment value. . .



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
now you certainly can not



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Okay, question, why would a bunch of arabs atack united states? I see no reason especialy if the are from afganistan, why bite after us gave them weapons to fight off rusians from afganistan?
Why do it when binladen and bush familly had been close friends.
So the question would be, why did they atack united states, I expect a little more than" because they hate our freadoms" because that is crap.
There are no motives when you come and think of it, I can understand insurgents, those are for real, but other things are just imaginary in my opinion.

a bunch of arabs that have recived training at a US military base ,they stayed at a hotel near the CIA building , their flight instructor said they suck, they flunk the class, continiued to pay , they hijacked a plane with box cuters, and then they crashed it because the hate your freedom
talk about a novel howard, you were talking about them

So why would they atack united states?
reasons?
Any?
What am I missing?



[edit on 12-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Why would they attack the united states?

Let's see what they have to say about it.


en.wikipedia.org...

According to a video tape released by Osama bin Laden, his main grievances against the West and especially the United States, include their support for Israel, their support for several dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, and the presence of United States military bases in Saudi Arabia.



en.wikipedia.org...

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad issued a fatwa under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) saying that "to kill Americans and their allies, civilians, and military is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able."


It took me 15 seconds to find that info. I don't think you are even interested in the questions you are asking.

Why would the US gov kill massive amounts of civilians when they could have fabricated a "gulf of tonkin" style incident and accomplished the same thing.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why would they attack the united states?

Let's see what they have to say about it.


en.wikipedia.org...

According to a video tape released by Osama bin Laden, his main grievances against the West and especially the United States, include their support for Israel, their support for several dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, and the presence of United States military bases in Saudi Arabia.



en.wikipedia.org...

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad issued a fatwa under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) saying that "to kill Americans and their allies, civilians, and military is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able."


It took me 15 seconds to find that info. I don't think you are even interested in the questions you are asking.

Why would the US gov kill massive amounts of civilians when they could have fabricated a "gulf of tonkin" style incident and accomplished the same thing.


But that would not make much sence, the date of 23,1998 could not be, the talibans were in the US capitol right before 911 negotiating for a oil pipe line contract with united states.
Is it not true?
, since the talibans were under the direct command of osamma that would not make sence.
You sure it's 23, 1998?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
since the talibans were under the direct command of osamma that would not make sence.



The Taliban was not under the direct command of Bin Laden, where do you come up with this stuff?


en.wikipedia.org...

In 1996, Saudi Islamic dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter.


Please just once I'd like to see a link to this misinformation you keep spouting.


While they had a close relationship and should be considered allies, Osama was not the leader of the Taliban.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   



In 1996, Saudi Islamic dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter.






Please just once I'd like to see a link to this misinformation you keep spouting.

This does not change things alot, if there was an aliance betwen the talibans and binladen then I dont see where I'm wrong, since the talibans were negotiating with the us goverment for a pipe line and this in 2001.
Bush wellcomed them to the white house.
I dont see where is the disinformation?
Your saying this is not true?

The negoriations were about unical ,unical wanted a pipe line in afganistan, the talibans turned down the offer, in couple of weeks they were invaded, the curent president of afganistan is a former unical employ, dont you find this a bit strange?


So if the talibans were in united states on negotiations then I dont see the motive for the attack since they made plans way before it would not make sence to come and negotiate especialy in a time where 911 was just around the corner.



[edit on 12-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
... they hijacked a plane with box cuters [sic] ...

I'm not sure if box cutters are the same in the US as they are here but just as an example, my Dad sliced the top of his finger off with a box cutter. Those things are sharper than I think most people are giving them credit for.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa

I'm not sure if box cutters are the same in the US as they are here but just as an example, my Dad sliced the top of his finger off with a box cutter. Those things are sharper than I think most people are giving them credit for.



I have to add, boxcutters don't fuel as much chaos as say guns or explosives, not by any means.


[edit on 6/13/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by blatantblue
i dont get it
i didnt give explinations about fake ids. i said the fbi was doubtful, thinking the hijackers used fake ids, then cemented their belief later on, and said THOSE were the guys.
the whole fake id thing is speculation

so if everything is speculation we dont know for sure who it was.
so if they used faked id's we for sure dont know who the real atackers are
so with out any evidence how come up to this conclusion.




bro youre not backing up much. im just supposed to take your word for it

FBI statement


So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.

They dont even know who did it.



if they did use them, you can still find out who they are! you have them on video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On video where in the plane?
No matter if they were arabs, the question remains, from 100 pasanger list how do you know they did it?
Or are you insisting that just for the fact that they are arabs they did it.
Because there is no evidence of arabs crashing the plane in to the building, it could of been any one from the pasanger list.
Even if they board the plane it does not prove anything, it just proves they are passangers.
So how do you prove they crashed the plane?
1 they are all dead, you cant ask them, hey did you crash it.
it's being inocent untilproven guilty.
There is no evidence.


There IS evidence that the arabs hijacked the planes. Phone calls made from the passengers described them as middle eastern. On flight 93, one of the terrorists is heard saying he has a bomb and tells the passengers to sit down. The voice heard was a middle eastern accent, and when flight 93 crashed, the black box was found and the cockpit voice recorded, and you could hear the sounds of the pilots and passengers fighting, and the pilots shouting in arabic. I'd say thats solid proof.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay, question, why would a bunch of arabs atack united states? I see no reason especialy if the are from afganistan, why bite after us gave them weapons to fight off rusians from afganistan?
Why do it when binladen and bush familly had been close friends.
So the question would be, why did they atack united states, I expect a little more than" because they hate our freadoms" because that is crap.
There are no motives when you come and think of it, I can understand insurgents, those are for real, but other things are just imaginary in my opinion.

a bunch of arabs that have recived training at a US military base ,they stayed at a hotel near the CIA building , their flight instructor said they suck, they flunk the class, continiued to pay , they hijacked a plane with box cuters, and then they crashed it because the hate your freedom
talk about a novel howard, you were talking about them

So why would they atack united states?
reasons?
Any?
What am I missing?



[edit on 12-6-2006 by pepsi78]


They were responding to the 1998 fatwa put on America and all friends of America



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I loved "Screw Loose Change". Proves every point used in "Loose Change" wrong.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by nt327]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
I loved "Screw Loose Change". Proves every point used in "Loose Change" wrong.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by nt327]


Congratulations! You've only been here 2 days and have become to first person ever on my ignore list! It's obvious from each thread I've seen you in that you have an agenda to disprove anything on the CT side of things, and the way you use "factual" information on your side is ridiculous. So welcome to never being noticed by me again, loser.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
screw loose change video did make a lot of great points...but one thing with the loose change video i would like to see investigated more is the purchase of all the put options..



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by blatantblue
i dont get it
i didnt give explinations about fake ids. i said the fbi was doubtful, thinking the hijackers used fake ids, then cemented their belief later on, and said THOSE were the guys.
the whole fake id thing is speculation

so if everything is speculation we dont know for sure who it was.
so if they used faked id's we for sure dont know who the real atackers are
so with out any evidence how come up to this conclusion.




bro youre not backing up much. im just supposed to take your word for it

FBI statement


So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.

They dont even know who did it.



if they did use them, you can still find out who they are! you have them on video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On video where in the plane?
No matter if they were arabs, the question remains, from 100 pasanger list how do you know they did it?
Or are you insisting that just for the fact that they are arabs they did it.
Because there is no evidence of arabs crashing the plane in to the building, it could of been any one from the pasanger list.
Even if they board the plane it does not prove anything, it just proves they are passangers.
So how do you prove they crashed the plane?
1 they are all dead, you cant ask them, hey did you crash it.
it's being inocent untilproven guilty.
There is no evidence.


There IS evidence that the arabs hijacked the planes. Phone calls made from the passengers described them as middle eastern. On flight 93, one of the terrorists is heard saying he has a bomb and tells the passengers to sit down. The voice heard was a middle eastern accent, and when flight 93 crashed, the black box was found and the cockpit voice recorded, and you could hear the sounds of the pilots and passengers fighting, and the pilots shouting in arabic. I'd say thats solid proof.

There are a few problems with your statement.
1 Cell fones dont work up at higer altitudes.
2 If they were so terified of the terorists how come they were able to make calls, this is the first time in history when pasangers from a hijacked airplane are alowed to make fone calls.
3 Material of the black box was never relised, if they have it I would like to hear it.
When you look at it it smells fishy, again coincidences ocur like the whole 911.
In fact most of the 911 factors ocur by coincidence.
And you know, in some countrys I dont know if united states, voice recording is not reconised as proof, because voices can be faked, so if you record some one and go to cort with it, it is not reconised.
So I would say, where is the proof again?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join