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.

 

Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by bsbray11




Haven't there been internal conflicts in our military between the Navy and other branches, Mr. Lear? I've heard this from different sources, but don't exactly understand the nature of the conflict besides some cout stuff, so if this mirrors your thoughts, any elaboration on the idea would be appreciated.



You are correct. the internal conflict was and is between the Israeli faction (or supporters) who helped engineer 911 and those who were/are against it. The Israeli faction is so strong that some believe it is essentially useless at this point to fight. The faction against the Israeli takeover of the U.S. including Congress and the U.S. Armed Forces were located in the area of the Pentgon that was hit/bombed. I understand it was primarily Navy but it could have been others. The fight is not over and it goes on daily between the 2 factions. But it is going on in near total secrecy.

Things will come to a head soon because U.S. Special Forces have planted about 450 nukes in various parts of Iran mostly around their nuclear facilities. These nukes are to be triggered by an Israeli satellite at the beginning of the war. (The reason the nukes are buried is to limit collateral damage.) Israel will take the blame for dropping nukes even though many of us know that they are already there and that they are 'ours'. All that is needed now is an excuse to launch the war. If the war is launched and the nukes detonated then 'the good guys' lost.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Things will come to a head soon because U.S. Special Forces have planted about 450 nukes in various parts of Iran mostly around their nuclear facilities. These nukes are to be triggered by an Israeli satellite at the beginning of the war. (The reason the nukes are buried is to limit collateral damage.) Israel will take the blame for dropping nukes even though many of us know that they are already there and that they are 'ours'. All that is needed now is an excuse to launch the war. If the war is launched and the nukes detonated then 'the good guys' lost.


That 'catylist' being the Iran nuke issue? I have long feared this time would come where all the chess pieces were in place; but if what you say about the nukes in place in Iran, then indeed, we are closer to the launch of this war then I had previously anticipated.
If we look at the trends of even the last week we can see how close we really are to the 'trigger event'.

IAEA finds traces of highly enriched Uranium washingtonpost.com


Also, traces of highly enriched uranium, which can be used for the core of a weapon, were discovered through environmental samples taken at another facility. Previous traces were found to have been the result of used and discarded centrifuge equipment the Iranians bought from Pakistan.

source: washingtonpost.com


Side Question: Could those "traces" have been put there by those same SF that have been setting up the buried nukes?

The other major event that I have noticed that would lend to the credability of the Pro/anti Israeli factions in our govt.
ynetnews.com


Olmert, Bush agree on Iran deadline

Ynet learns that Bush told Olmert US time limit for action to stop Iran's nuclear program fits Israel's own timetable, but American diplomats make it clear diplomacy will be given chance

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 05.25.06, 08:47

(WASHINGTON) US President George W. Bush agreed that plans for American intervention to halt Iran's nuclear program are congruent with a timetable discussed with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during talks in Washington.


According to Israeli intelligence assessments Iran will acquire the necessary nuclear technology to build a nuclear weapon within a year, Olmert said during the talks.

source: ynetnews.com




This scares the crap out of me... If they are openly letting this out publically, then this cant be good.

thank you for your time,
TONE23


[edit on 9/4/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Snoopy, please give me a reference here and maybe I can help you. Basically the altimeter is set during preflight to the local baromatric pressure so that it reads the exact altitude of the airport. When climbing through 18,000 feet the altimeter is reset to an arbitrary but universal setting of 29.92 inches of mercury so that all airplanes are flying at an altutude from the same reference. Descending back down through 18,000 feet the altimeter is reset to the local barometric pressure at which the airplane is landing.

Please let me know what the question and issue is. Thanks.


Thanks for responding. I guess I don't know the question to ask because I don't know how these things work.So the FDR was concluded the plane was at 180ft, but that because of the altimeter settings it was actually 300ft higher. I am not completely sure how they make this determination. Is it because of the Altimeter clibration? But if the plane is under 18,000ft wouldn't it have to be set to the exact barometer settings of that area at that time? Or is this determination based on an assumption that the altimeter was properly calibrated? My apologies for not asking a specific question, but it's only ebcause I don't know exactly what to ask. Just trying to udnerstand in general how this comes into play/works. Thanks so much!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   


Of the UAV or the missile? Its unlikely that the missile had a radar altimeter per se


Um no John, the Boeing airliner that nearly killed my friend at the Pentagon. The airliner that had its serialized FDR's recovered from the wreckage at the Pentagon (among other parts). The airliner that was observed hitting the Pentagon by hundreds of people. The airliner that had the remains of the passengers and crew recovered by Arlington/Fairfax County disaster response teams. The airliner that hit the Pentagon had a radar altimeter. UAV's and missiles were nowhere near and certainly did not hit the Pentagon that day, NO facts in evidence OR actual physical evidence support that.




That's involves individuals who KNOW that a plane is coming, where it's coming, etc. You also have to take into account where these witnesses were located, as this will tell a whole lot as to whether some are fabricating their story


Hundreds of people telling the same lie? Not likely. The ones fabricating their stories are most likely the ones that werent there that day (like the gentleman who was (is) dying of cancer and told some whoppers that had some people on this board frothing at the mouth)




But was the plane a Boeing 757, engine fully-throttled at 400 feet?


2smooth, you have me there, for us it was E-3As, C-17s, Mirages, F-15s, F-16s, CF-18s and F-22s at full throttle that had us looking. (and yes you could see crewmen in the cockpits of the C-17s, E-3As and the various jet jocks in their fighters.)



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
You are correct. the internal conflict was and is between the Israeli faction (or supporters) who helped engineer 911 and those who were/are against it. The Israeli faction is so strong that some believe it is essentially useless at this point to fight. The faction against the Israeli takeover of the U.S. including Congress and the U.S. Armed Forces were located in the area of the Pentgon that was hit/bombed. I understand it was primarily Navy but it could have been others. The fight is not over and it goes on daily between the 2 factions. But it is going on in near total secrecy.


This is interesting because only this evening I ran across this article by James Casbolt which takes an oddly parallel view of the situation...


There is currently an internal war raging in the global intelligence community regarding the alien agenda. This is between negative and positive factions. From my understanding one of the main negative factions is a group centred around MI6 and the CIA called ‘Aquarius‘. This group is covering up the truth, blatantly lying and discrediting or murdering anyone who gets too close to exposing what is going on. There is also a positive group centred around naval intelligence called ’Comm 12’ which is leaking accurate information regarding the alien agenda into the public arena.

When the missile (not plane) hit the pentagon on 9-11, it hit the naval intelligence section of the building. This was part of the internal war between Aquarius and Comm 12 being played out.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I have seen much speculation on WHAT caused 9-11 and HOW the attacks were done.

but not much on the WHO...

After analyzing the scope of the plan that John, and other researchers have laid out...

it seems apparent to me (seriously) that the ones responsible for 9-11, are pretty much the same "crowd" (and their successors) that killed JFK... that performed Iran Contra, Panama Invasion, and negotiated with Saddam to rid of us of the previous muslim menace...(iran) as well as control a very good portion of illicit money from various crime syndicates.
Someone has been putting this together for some time, and we are just seeing the one game piece on the board, not the whole board... that someone has the earmarks of the NWO...

any comments from John?

In other words...
anybody capable of planning such a huge plot, and carrying it through, has been around for awhile, and has been used to organizing various elements of "assets". This is all combined with an obvious attempt at coverup of some crucial investigations, meaning some form of permission from the top...

That secrecy would require either a mafia type loyalty, or a national security one (or in this case, both)...
I think that all the groups that play a part in building the NWO (both willingly, and unwillingly) have had a part in this... (by permission, or actual aid)



[edit on 5-9-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
It was the PNAC's desire to have a new "Pearl Harbour" in order to advance their global domination agenda:

www.newamericancentury.org...=%22PNAC%20rebuilding%22

Who they got to carry it out and who led the operation is up in the air.

I think Cheney was in the driver seat given some quotes from the day in question.

Bush is just a taliking head. electable via. name recognition then able to appoint PNAC members to all important positions and 2 supreme court judges.

PNAC/Cheney could have used CIA or Mossad to carry out the operation with a VERY small force. (tens of people).

I second that, definately PNAC and their sick "New Pearl Harbour" wish. They masterminded the attack and used their old friend Osama to carry it out. he might have been even unwiting accomplice in a sense that he didn't know he was being steered by the PNAC.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mf2hd
I second that, definately PNAC and their sick "New Pearl Harbour" wish. They masterminded the attack and used their old friend Osama to carry it out. he might have been even unwiting accomplice in a sense that he didn't know he was being steered by the PNAC.


Why bother actually involving him? why not just use him as a scapegoat?

Why do we not see any video of the "19 hijackers" boarding any planes? Why are they not on the manifests? Why was their DNA not recovered?

They wanted to go to Afghanistan and he was already implicated in the 93 bombing... so the perfect scapegoats... Osama and Al Qaeda.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by mf2hd
I second that, definately PNAC and their sick "New Pearl Harbour" wish. They masterminded the attack and used their old friend Osama to carry it out. he might have been even unwiting accomplice in a sense that he didn't know he was being steered by the PNAC.


Why bother actually involving him? why not just use him as a scapegoat?

Why do we not see any video of the "19 hijackers" boarding any planes? Why are they not on the manifests? Why was their DNA not recovered?

They wanted to go to Afghanistan and he was already implicated in the 93 bombing... so the perfect scapegoats... Osama and Al Qaeda.


True, it might have been easier to just use him as a scapegoat. As far as the question of OSB involvement and actual terrorists being present on the plane I am keeping an opened mind. Still haven't got enough evidence pointing either way to make my mind up (not because there isn't any , but because I did not have enough time to look), just a gut feeling telling me that using people this way is something that Cheney and his gang would enjoy.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
There are some really stupid statements here...........I suppose Bush was responsible for the 1993 world trade bombing also?...the bombing that failed?

Why didn't the 'planted' explosives go off then?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
There are some really stupid statements here...........I suppose Bush was responsible for the 1993 world trade bombing also?...the bombing that failed?

Why didn't the 'planted' explosives go off then?


Actually, after that failed attempt (involving terrorists with some connections to intelligence agecies) would have been when they did install the explosives... (and why)

Probably so that if there ever was another attack, it could be taken down in a controlled way, rather than have it take the next 8 buildings with it also...

Simply a safety precaution... one that would always remain a secret, because who would work in a building (or rent in one) that could be destroyed with a push of a button? but in this case, it probably saved an additional 10,000 lives... (if the buildings would have eventually fallen on their own)

I suspect that many other tall "target" buildings would also have this safety precaution now, after the 93 attack.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Why bother actually involving him? why not just use him as a scapegoat?

Why do we not see any video of the "19 hijackers" boarding any planes? Why are they not on the manifests? Why was their DNA not recovered?

They wanted to go to Afghanistan and he was already implicated in the 93 bombing... so the perfect scapegoats... Osama and Al Qaeda.


There is video footage of the hijackers going through security, but since there is no video footage of anyone ever actually boarding planes, it's an unfair argument. If there were actual video cameras on the gates, then you might have a valid argument, but there aren't. You might as well be askin why there is no video footage of the hijackers inflight.

The hijackers were on the flight manifests, and their DNA was recovered. However only a few were identified by DNA because it requires having DNA to compare to. Without DNA from the hijackers to confirm it. There was however DNA of 5 unidentified bodies from each flight (4 for 93). And a couple hijackers were identified by using skin samples left on the steering wheels of their cars.

OBL also several times admitted to 9/11. Sayins he is a scape goat, while not impossible is pure conjecture.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The "sick new Pearl Harbor wish" is not anything of the sort. What PNAC said was that a massive transformation of the US military wouldnt happen absent an event like Pearl Harbor. It wasnt calling for nor planning any kind of attack. It was merely assessing the political realities of spending the kind of money it would take to transform the military for their assessment of 21st century threats.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The "sick new Pearl Harbor wish" is not anything of the sort. What PNAC said was that a massive transformation of the US military wouldnt happen absent an event like Pearl Harbor. It wasnt calling for nor planning any kind of attack. It was merely assessing the political realities of spending the kind of money it would take to transform the military for their assessment of 21st century threats.


"REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is a statement of a political will and not a straightforward assesment of political realities. It says what should be done and how to achieve those aims.

I agree that id does not propose in plain writing creating "new Pearl Harbour", however it lists it as one of the pre-conditions without which the goals set forth by the PNAC cannot be realised. My statement was therefore an inferrence.

It was however emotionally charged and I cannot back it up with any concrete evidence to prove it or disprove it, since no one can tell what other person wishes until that person admits to it. And I doubt any PNAC representative will ever admit to wishing such a disaster, it's would be a suicide. In the interest of the meritorical discussion I retract my statement, while standing by my conviction, based on many different factors, that PNAC has taken a major part in the 9/11 tragedy and certainly has come out as a major beneficiary of thereof.

Thank you Swampfox46_1999 for your contribution. I will try to keep my post more levelheaded from now on.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Perhaps the PNAC did not suggest the creation of a Pearl Harbor. However they do state that military support could not happen without a 'New Pearl Harbor'. Also look at which corporations benefited most financially from the war and who in the government has ties to those corporations.
In addition, and more importantly, in 1962 there was a plan, called Operation Northwoods...

to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

The evidence is there friends. IMO it’s not too far of a stretch to suggest the government is capable of something like 9/11.


TG

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Dick Cheney Id say. He was pretty much controlling events on that day.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
So then the 1993 world trade center bombing was a plot by clinton?

If not then who? Bush and Cheney?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Here's another vote for the PNAC... this time from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'


... the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.



... believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Sorry for rapid-fire posting again. I get on a roll sometimes and thought some of you might find this interesting. Seems like we're not the only ones who would like to know who's responsible for 9/11 and why nobody has been convicted yet...

Letter From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to George Bush by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


Mr. President, September Eleventh was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September Eleventh was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity, constantly talking about the possibility of new terror attacks and keeping the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work, and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Yeah. Looking at that letter again, you can see why Bush is so keen to get rid of him. The guy's just prepared to come out with stuff that polite people keep quiet about!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join