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.

 

The "THEY" in "They did it."

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   


And yet we willingly withdrew from that area ten years prior to needing a public massacre of our own people to usher us BACK?


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. We never left. Plus, we were losing support for the operation so we had to pull out of Iraq but we simply never left the region.

Now, fast forward through the events that started to desensitize us to the thought of moving back in. Terror attacks. First, OK City and the first WTC bombing. Then, when the big day started, we lost a lot of civilians. Of course we are going to cry out for blood. And right away the story being fed to the news media was that Al Qaida did this. That very same day. No investigations. Then, conveniently enough, we see that Al Qaida has accepted responsibility for it. Then we even see a video of Osama sitting around and clapping with an image of the towers burning on a TV. Yeah right. Anyone with a brain and a single eye could see that it was clearly not Osama.

As for the explanation and fake a*s justification for the tests (without their own knowledge) on our own citizens as helping us to jump 25 to 50 years in medicine. 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.

The information is readily available. Just search for it. You will start to see just how nice SOME of the people in power are.

I guess when I use the term government it appears that I am lumping every single person that operates within it into this category. I am not. Most people simply follow orders. 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. I will focus more on trying to invoke thinking about an issue.

You will believe what you want. I can't change that. You need absolute and undeniable proof. I can't blame you.

As for people not spilling the beans. Well, they have but they have been labeled as crazy, conspiracy nuts, money hungry because they have written books. These are people that actually held positions within the current administration. Again, do some searching. You'll find them.

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.




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you should ask the government contractors who are making billions and cheack out who are on thier boards.


So the government gets all the risk and the contractors get all the money? Would YOU make that deal?

Or...let me guess...all the contractors are in on it too...?


If the government let Pearl Harbor happen what is so big about letting a few planes hit some buildings.


Don't you mean "carefully orchestrate the controlled demolition of some buildings?" (A lot harder than just surpressing a warning.)

Not that I fully believe Pearl Harbor was "allowed to happen", but if it were I would say there was much more significant motive for the government to let that occur considering that the war pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

Things weren't that bad in 2001, were they?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   


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.)


Okay, I guess I have to address this one too.

I can no longer have a private phone call within my own country. My financial transactions can be completely invaded. Soon I will have to have an national ID card just to fly. Soon after that it will most likely be an RF ID card with all of my personal information on it. My president has made it clear that the Constitution of these United States do not apply to him because he is, well, the President. Yes, it has gotten personal and I am not at liberty to give the details.

If you can't understand how the government controls your mind then either you are lucky and don't watch TV or read the news or you just don't realize that you have fallen victim to it.

It's plain and simple psychology. Start training them when they are young and then keep telling them what you want them to believe. It's proven that our history books do not reflect true history but indeed reflect what our leadership wants it to. And that is what our children are taught.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

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.


Back in where? The place we already were?


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.


I would never. My point is just that there is a substantial motive behind the government's actions there...as opposed to 9/11.


We are taught in school from the earliest time of our life to obey leadership.


Sure we are. Not many people actually listen, but that's what we're taught.


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.


False. Human nature is to follow the path of least resistance.

All this "slave to society and government mind control" stuff is complete hooey.

Girls don't go shopping because Tyra tells them to...they go shopping because it will make their days in high school, dealing with their friends, more bearable.

Boys don't try to become football stars because Madden tells them to, they do it because it makes life easier if they succeed.

Everyone has a plan to make their life easier and everyone wants to share that plan with people around them.

YOU tell people what to do just as much as the big bad government does. YOU tell people around you how to act. YOU tell people how to think. YOU want people to follow you.

To ask government officials to not be human is absurd. To attempt to turn them into something more intelligent, more powerful, and LESS human than they are is an injustice to the rest of us, and simply forces us to sit around and listen to accounts of superhuman agents of the government that can knock over 15 light poles next to the Pentagon in rush hour traffic and not be noticed.

YOU give the government its power. No one else.


I have my own experiences and I have already learned a harsh lesson for saying too much.


It sounds like you've had a rough go with a specific government agency. 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.


You will believe what you want. I can't change that. You need absolute and undeniable proof. I can't blame you.


Nor I you. And you and I are perfect examples of why, in my opinion, you are giving the government too much credit.


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.


Likewise. Don't let the man get you down.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   


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.


This is why I pretty much try to post things that challenge people to think instead of trying to 'tell' people what's up. It was the result of actions (statements). I should have kept my mouth shut. Now I just try to encourage thought. I was the one that signed the papers stating that I was not allowed to speak of certain things. Lesson well learned.

So, again, I will believe what I know and others will stand by their own beliefs.


As for human nature. I think you may have missed what I was getting at. Isn't believing in your government and what they tell you as 'truth' the path of least resistence?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
Isn't believing in your government and what they tell you as 'truth' the path of least resistence?


Of course it is.

People consciously choose to believe in the government because the alternative is really exhausting...all that thought, all that responsibility, all that ACTION.

So what power really does the big bad brainwashing government have?

NONE.

"Brainwashing" is a very invasive and thorough process that cannot be conducted via a newspaper or a 30 second news clip. But people throw the word around like government officials have some kind of Dr. Xavier mind-control superpowers.

What they have is a bunch of citizens who aren't looking to rock the boat.

Do you think I'm underestimating the influence of our government?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

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.)


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.

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.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

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.


Ahm sorry ULTIMA...I's jest 2 damn stoopid fer yer fancy reserch.

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.

It's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST and it goes something like this:


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.


But let me guess...there's a conspiracy that you've uncovered that I haven't done enough research to understand.


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've already researched making myself look better and, truth be known, holding an extended conversation with a halfwit like you goes against all my findings.


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.


If the government LET Pearl Harbor happen, it probably would have been easiest to just PREPARE for the Japanese attack and actually DEFEND ourselves.

While making a really crappy CONSPIRACY it would, however, save a TON of lives and accomplish EXACTLY the same thing (i.e., bring us into the war).

But hell...I probably need to do more research...



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

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]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

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]


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.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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.


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?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

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?



I also made my point about the governenemt making money along with the government contractors.

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.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

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.


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.

There are a number of "petty" things like this that come to light, and you're not applying the same amazing intellect and power that you attribute to the government in some instances.

Covering a "tiny crime" like the VPs Halliburton connection should be small beans compared to coordinating stolen commercial airliners with a NORAD stand down, shouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

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.


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. Lets take something like the SR-71. Thousands of people worked on the project, dozens of companies built parts. The SR-71 was kept secret for 10 years before the government officially acknowldeged its exsistance.

Also i do beleive that our well trained special ops people could pull off 911 a lot better then 19 poeple with little training. People who could barely fly a small cessna. The same people who were flagged and set off security scanners at the airports.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

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.


When the completed outcome of the project is the world-changing collisions of commercial aircraft with universally known landmarks that are eventually destroyed in a controlled demolition...you can pretty much throw compartmentalization out the window, don't you think?

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.

So the question is, which is more likely:

a) A small group of Terrorists were LUCKY.

or

b) A massive group of intelligence AND non-intelligence individuals were PERFECT.


Personally, I have to go with (b).


On a side note, Ultima...upon re-reading this thread I'm noticing that I've been pretty rude to you. Apologies.

(And no, I'm not "making amends" on a 12 step program...just an observation.)



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

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.


Why do you think they could barely fly a cessna?
(Not saying they could...just curious...)


2. How did the terrorist who were flagged and set off security scanners at the airport still able to board the planes.


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.

Any strange goings-on at the airports points more to a 19 Terrorist attack than a coordinated operation...security would just be TOO EASY to bypass for a government op.


Oh don't worry about being rude, i have had lots of people insult me just for not beleiving the official story.


Won't apologize for them...just for me.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

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.


1. Thier are reports from some of the flight instructors that some of the terrorist had a problem flying a Cessna, 1 flight instructor failed at least 1 of them.

2. I don't know if they were ushered through but it seems strange that even pre 911 that someone who was flagged and set of a securtiy scanner would still be able to board a plane.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Do you believe that the planes were flown by remote?

If so, why would the CIA want to draw attention by having these men "flagged" at the airport. (We can agree, can't we, that the CIA could have gotten those men on the planes without a peep from anyone if they wanted to?)

Also, according to the Who Killed John O'Neill? video, the flight instructor for the hijackers had CIA connections so, really, what would his eyewitness account be worth? (Of course, then why wouldn't he say that they were tremendously GIFTED pilots?)

It just seems so messy to me...



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Do you believe that the planes were flown by remote?


Well i believe the autopilot on the 757 and 767 can be remotely or pre programmed.

Thier are several companies including Boeing that have been working on a remote system for airliners in case they were hijacked they could be remotely taken over. The military has some remote systems.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join