It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Theories and the Burden of Proof

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Vushta
Never 'called you out"..You're making that up. There are several topics where you harp on people..."Howard?? response?..Harte?? Vushta??..etc. Anyway, enough of that.

Only once... and only in this thread:

So that would be a single topic.

I hope the mods. delete this entire back and forth personally, but I will not watch you constantly try to get the last word in and revise the history of this board and my postiings.

Do not ignore requests to keep posts On-Topic
Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 7/28/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 11:47 AM
what do you NOT SEE???

its been PROVEN that our government,
was FULLY AWARE that there were (4) airplanes diverting from their course....

its been proven that they also knew about the 1 hijacker ever since he was at flight school...
and reported his suspicions about it, then bugged them about it
again they did NOTHING

its been proven that our military was at FULL ALERT doing drills for terror
at the same time.......that the hijax took place
they even had fighter jets in the air (with the capability ) of shooting the planes down
from OVER 150 miles away!!!
again, they did NOTHING

and after the first airplane hit and they KNEW about it
HOW LONG was it BEROFE the 2nd plane hit

with news helicopters and fighter jets in the air around it

and still they did NOTHING just sat and watched the second one hit it

then how long was it after that, that the pentagon got hit........???

how long do the aircraft control towers let planes divert from their course,
before they call them to see whats going on????.......or
how many miles off course????

why havent they RELEASED the communications from the control towers????????

why did they ship the steel the whole way to china????
america is fully capable, and i'm sure we would have wanted to
USE THE SAME STEEL for the replacement building.......

amd i am POSITIVE that the recyclers' in the us would pay a HIGHER PRICE
for the scrap steel

dont you think it would COST quite a bit of money to ship 3 whole buildings worth
of steel and on how many barges ten thousand miles away to china??????

im sure since it WAS the wtc,, our recyclers would CUT A VERY GOOD DEAL FOR IT
you know to show their support!

you see all theese questions and more, have came up, in this investigation........
and apparently they will not OR cannot give us answers........why is that....?...

because the truth will hurt them??

when the president was told that wtc was just hit, HE DIDNT EVEN FLINCH..
you..i and everyone else was like,,,, whaat??????? are you serious?????????

he didnt even ACT surprised!!

any other leader of a country would have been up and making phone calls

i have to be careful now this is getting a little sensitive,
the thread will be moved or 50 new extremely stupid threads will make this one
vanish tooooo

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by yeah right
when the president was told that wtc was just hit, HE DIDNT EVEN FLINCH..

Dude, he was engrossed in a book. Haven't you ever been so absorbed in a good read that it caused you to be momentarily oblivious to your surroundings?

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:25 PM
[unnecessary quote of Entire previous post removed]

Figures the president I voted for would be "engrossed" by a simple childrens book... I guess there is a good reason to stay away from the old coc aine.

Do you really think this or are you being sarcastic?

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/28/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:41 PM
Maybe both?

It's just interesting to me how many people know exactly how they would, or someone should, act in a particular circumstance. Especially an extraordinary one. And if said person doesn't behave in a prescribed way, something is amiss.

We can say what we think should have occurred after the fact, but no one really knows what they would do until the situation presents itself. This was an extraordinary situation, to put it mildly. There was no boilerplate to follow on what to do. My personal opinion is that if it truly was an orchestrated inside job that Bush was in on, he would've been more prepared to act heroically, presidentially, predictably.


posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:23 PM

when the president was told that wtc was just hit, HE DIDNT EVEN FLINCH..

And how would it help if he started to running around "Sky is falling, sky is falling"?
Or had he immediately rushed to AF 1 and rushed to help remove wreckage?
You know, the system works on the basis that everyone has their duty. You cannot have a president that does everything at once. That ends bad. That's why you have ministers and subordinates. Esp. in times of sudden crisis it's up on them.
Would you criticise good old Winnie for not rushing to personally command the AA defense of London during the Blitz? Instead of say chatting with the people on the street? You'd be amazed how much can be achieved by leaders acting as if nothing serious happens in the times of crisis. They know they have subordinates who're likely to do the best job and most of them will. They know how would it "help" if they'd start to make frantic calls to all possible places shouting advices to all sides and demanding reports every minute. Not to mention even trying to command things directly. Wasn't it better to wait till the image is cleaner?
I'd say you'd condemn the acting of that German staff officer of 7th Army in Normandy who, upon reports of airdrops, just gave out the order "action stations" and then returned to the card game he was having with his colleagues? He knew there is nothing he can do directly at the moment, atleast until the troops are ready for action. He knew any overreaction to the news may lead to nervousness among his men and to mistakes. He trusted his subordinates would perform as needed and even if they didn't, there is nothing he can do about it in next hour. He knew the staff has plans ready.
The same, during the very same night, was Eisenhower reading books. Or admiral Ramsey sleeping.

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by yeahright
My personal opinion is that if it truly was an orchestrated inside job that Bush was in on, he would've been more prepared to act heroically, presidentially, predictably.


I actually agree with this. But, to play devils advocate, maybe that's why he didn't act in this way. You know...."reverse psychology" and all.

BTW, it was really confusing you answering a thread by yeah right. I was like...why is he/she answering himself/herself and contradicting him/herself in the next post. That is until I realized that you are yeahright and not yeah right.

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:31 PM

The difference is that when under direct attack, the president of the United States should be escorted under the most heavy security to Air Force One in this case and have the president secured. Do you think that sitting in a classroom in Florida is the most secure place to have the president when the country is under attack?

Or did they know that Bush wasn't a target and it didn't matter where he was?

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:34 PM
Considering the attacks were carried out using hijacked planes...
Won't the AF One be a pretty well recognisable target?
While it would be hard to find and hit the school (not a landmark like WTC or the Pentagon), AF One is rather large, well visible and relatively easy-to-recognise target.
What's better: rush the Pres to the AF One and then check whether there isn't a threat around or leave Pres for a while where he is and where the area is already under surveillance and search first for any possible threats about AF One?
For soemone paranoia is an illness but for the Secret Service it's a profession and art

[edit on 28-7-2006 by tuccy]

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 04:01 PM
ok, griff , tucci,,

then why do they insist on those multi billion dollar
bunker/ bombshelters.............

why did they not go????

cause they knew what was going to get hit??

and they werent in any danger????

the country is under attack by who knows who
and they did not stuff the pres. into cheyenne mountain........

this is just 1 more question.....that they cannot answer

now in an investigative mind, more and more questions, are pointing to a different suspect.........or conspiracy, aiding,,,,

i heard a while back that they also knew about pearl harbor. (beforehand)
didnt they have radar back then???? that i hafto lookup

after all the years of government scandal, corruption, then 40 years later they
admit using american guinea pigs without their knowledge.........

it just keeps piling up on the THEY KNEW side.........

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 04:34 PM
Erm, you know, to get President into any of those shelters you actually have to get to the location.
How will you do it?
Correct, by Air Force One.
What will you have to do first?
Check out whether there isn't a threat. There are rather few things more vulnerable to any kind of attack than a large aircraft taking off. And it doesn't even have to be a hijacked jet. A single guy with Strela missiles will do.
In case of an ICBM strike, they'd try to get airborne ASAP.
This wasn't the case. Bush was at a rather safe location concerning a terror attack, with a standard protection. What if the attackers have counted on him rushing immediately away? There was even a thing like automatic Strela launcher with four missiles. You set it up close to airfield, set the timer so it turns on in the correct time.
So you'd need time to search close proximity to threats.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by tuccy
And how would it help if he started to running around "Sky is falling, sky is falling"?

IT is SOP for the secret service to get him the F out of there ASAP. No argument. Their SOP is to grab him and SPLIT... NOW... Kids or no kids... book or no book HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHEIF and must be protected AT ALL COSTS. You do not ignore fifty procedures in place to maintain governmentnin a time of crisis.. YOU DO NOT. It goes against EVERYTHING the Secret Service and Military are trained to do.

End of story.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:00 AM
It is also illegal for the Vice President to take precedence over the President (Commander in Chief) when it comes to anything regarding military actions or preventing them. End of story. VP is granted no military authority.

There has been eyewitness testimony to Dick Cheney hiding in a bunker in Washington, giving military orders (the infamously suspected 'stand down' orders in relation to the Pentagon attack). He also had direct communication with the SS, FEMA, and military agencies (Where was FEMA, btw? Can you say, Tripid II
), whereas Bush should not have. But then again, maybe Bush did, since he did state twice that he watched the first plane hit on live television, which would require telecommunications above and beyond most everyone else on the planet, unless the SS was expecting a plane to hit WTC1 that morning.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:53 PM
Some people on this thread should go talk to the people that were in and around that school that day. It would be very enlightening about just what the Secret Service was doing that day. Small hint, they were busy ensuring the area around the school was still secure and prepping other measures.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:06 PM
Here here SF ! The teacher is interviewed in Fahrenhype 9/11 ! She was no Bushie, but was quite pleased with how the Pres maintained his composure! There is no way, they were gonna go running off half cocked, in that situation ! I am glad for that! But I do enjoy the fiction!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in