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.
And yet we willingly withdrew from that area ten years prior to needing a public massacre of our own people to usher us BACK?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you should ask the government contractors who are making billions and cheack out who are on thier boards.
If the government let Pearl Harbor happen what is so big about letting a few planes hit some buildings.
Can you give a personal example of how the government has duped you? One that drastically affects your personal life? (I know it sounds like I’m being a smart ass, but I’m sincerely curious. I’ve never understood the stigma of “government as evil controller of minds” because I guess I’ve just never really experienced it myself at the level you’re implying.)
Originally posted by dariousg
You seem to not understand. When did we leave again? As far as I recall we never left. We established a base in the region and stayed put.
Now, fast forward through the events that started to desensitize us to the thought of moving back in.
Well, submit your family willingly to the next deadly test just so your government can learn how they will react. Submit yourself to their psycho warfare techniques so that you can be led like a sheep to slaughter.
We are taught in school from the earliest time of our life to obey leadership.
This is the technique that is being used. "We say it is so...so it must be so." If they say it enough it will be believed and then forgotten. That is human nature.
I have my own experiences and I have already learned a harsh lesson for saying too much.
You will believe what you want. I can't change that. You need absolute and undeniable proof. I can't blame you.
Good luck in your stance and I'll keep to what I know. For now we simply will not see eye to eye on this. That's fine with me.
But ask yourself if it was the agenda of that agency to put you in that position, or was it simply the result of the actions of a single individual.
Originally posted by dariousg
Isn't believing in your government and what they tell you as 'truth' the path of least resistence?
Originally posted by Essedarius
[So the government gets all the risk and the contractors get all the money? Would YOU make that deal?
Don't you mean "carefully orchestrate the controlled demolition of some buildings?" (A lot harder than just surpressing a warning.)
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well for 1 if you would do some research you would see that several government people work on the boards of the governemnt contractors so they make thier share of the money.
Specifically, this law says that you may not work on an assignment that you know will affect your own financial interests or the financial interests of your spouse or your minor child. The prohibition also applies if you know the assignment will affect the financial interests of your general partner, or of an organization that you serve as an officer, director, employee, general partner, or trustee. And it even applies when you know the matter will affect the financial interests of someone with whom you have an arrangement for employment, or with whom you are negotiating for employment.
No, thats not what i said or what i meant, do not try to put words in my mouth to try to make yourself look better... you need to do a lot more research.
I stated that if the government let Pearl Harbor happen then it would have been even easier to just let a few planes fly into some buildings, it gave the government the excuse they needed to go to war.
Originally posted by Essedarius
If you'll take a moment to step out from behind your condescension, let me direct you to the LAW that specifically prohibits government employees from sitting on the boards of contractors they are employing.
Cheney Violates Ethics Law
“These are not times for leaders who shift with the political winds, saying one thing one day and another, the next.” -- Dick Cheney
On the Sept. 14, 2003 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
But, just as Cheney's wild claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be untrue and his claim that Halliburton had no ties to Saddam Hussein was bogus, his denial about profiting from Halliburton as vice president was also a bald-face lie. So while Cheney denied any relationship with Halliburton as vice president, he conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. Certainly, Cheney has a "financial interest in Halliburton" while working as vice president.
When confronted with the proof of his ongoing financial ties with Halliburton, Cheney responded by claiming his deferred salary and stock options are not actually a "financial interest" as defined by federal ethics standards and therefore not a conflict of interest. This prompted the Congressional Research Service to issue a report which confirmed Cheney's ongoing financial interest in Halliburton "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
www.newsmax.com...
During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.
"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Essedarius
If you'll take a moment to step out from behind your condescension, let me direct you to the LAW that specifically prohibits government employees from sitting on the boards of contractors they are employing.
Yes i know what government employees can and can not do since i am a government employee.
But you should look into things some more, specially what you can as a consultant or COR.
www.halliburtonwatch.org...
Cheney Violates Ethics Law
“These are not times for leaders who shift with the political winds, saying one thing one day and another, the next.” -- Dick Cheney
On the Sept. 14, 2003 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
But, just as Cheney's wild claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be untrue and his claim that Halliburton had no ties to Saddam Hussein was bogus, his denial about profiting from Halliburton as vice president was also a bald-face lie. So while Cheney denied any relationship with Halliburton as vice president, he conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. Certainly, Cheney has a "financial interest in Halliburton" while working as vice president.
When confronted with the proof of his ongoing financial ties with Halliburton, Cheney responded by claiming his deferred salary and stock options are not actually a "financial interest" as defined by federal ethics standards and therefore not a conflict of interest. This prompted the Congressional Research Service to issue a report which confirmed Cheney's ongoing financial interest in Halliburton "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
www.newsmax.com...
During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.
"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.
[edit on 8-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by dariousg
Funny how, when presented with solid data showing the link and conflicts of interest (this being only one) that the subject and argument against, is simply dropped.
Originally posted by Essedarius
Thanks for bringing this thread back onto my radar, dariousg.
The fact that Cheney was questioned about his Halliburton connections shows just how difficult it is for a government employee to get away with this type of thing, in my opinion. I mean, if the VP can't get away with it, then who can?
Here's a question that's worth answering:
I have "THE MEDIA" on my list as being in on the 9/11 operation, as does much of the truth movement. Why would news agencies push forward with the Halliburton story if they knew that it would risk exposing the operation?
I thought THE MEDIA wasn't interested in exposing the truth?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you watched the media and read what the media said they handled this case with kid gloves. If it would have been anyone but the VP that did this they would probly be in jail.
Originally posted by Essedarius
What I don't understand is how "THEY" can cover up pretty much every aspect of simultaneously conducting the three largest controlled demolitions ever in broad daylight...but can't keep the VPs name out of a conversation about a company he used to work for.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well have you heard of someting in the governemnt called compartmentalization. It means that people working on a project do not know that completed outcome of the project.
Originally posted by Essedarius
As for the 19 cavedwellers versus a legion of super-trained spooks argument...I believe that the 9/11 operation would not be planned with any section of the operation depending on LUCK. (That's a pretty fair assumption, don't you think?) That means that every APPARENT coincidence on 9/11 was actually perfectly orchestrated sleight of hand.
On a side note, Ultima...upon re-reading this thread I'm noticing that I've been pretty rude to you. Apologies.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i have a probem with people who,
1. Could barely fly a cessna flying a 757 and 767 so well.
2. How did the terrorist who were flagged and set off security scanners at the airport still able to board the planes.
Oh don't worry about being rude, i have had lots of people insult me just for not beleiving the official story.
Originally posted by Essedarius
Why do you think they could barely fly a cessna?
(Not saying they could...just curious...)
So you think that they were "ushered through" by CIA or FBI? If that was the case, then why did they have to walk through scanners in the first place? You would be saying that "THEY" had enough influence to get hijacked planes by NORAD, but didn't have enough pull to get a few guys past the metal detector at the airport.
Originally posted by Essedarius
Do you believe that the planes were flown by remote?