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.

 

Prior knowledge of 9/11 attacks overheard in Hebrew

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Hang on a second guys. What would a group of Israeli's 'disguised' as movers be doing with a film camera in the morning? Also, I doubt that the people that appeared on the show trying to tell their story are the actual people that were there in NEW YORK. IF they were truly agents, wouldn't their identity be kept secret?



We were there, to document the event


That's what they were there for. Are you impying they may have lied and made this up on the talk show? And then made up they were there to "document the event" ?

Sometimes, doing things obviously is the best way to carry out covert ops, it wrestles with logic and wins due to the incredibility of it.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


See I don't get this part... I thought the U.S. government was responsible for implementing the terrorist attacks. Not the JEWS. Does the U.S. govt. called Americans as some other people?


Say the British secret services used the IRA to perpetrate certain events in the UK , the IRA's agenda would not change, they would still speak of the mission in the same context , it is the British Govn't that utilizes and harnesses that intent to a certain end goal that is diserable to both parties . But a common end goal does not also mean a common cause, purpose or agenda, hence it does not mean that the parties involved adhere (ie converse in this case)on all levels to the top level plan , or for lower levels even to know of a common purpose.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   




It's a myth that they had explosives.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   




You are taking that phrase out of context. It's like saying " I was born to be a policeman."

It's a poetic thing. Serioulsy, if they had admitted to being sent there there would be uproar.

They didn't. Most people take their phraseology in context.

You don't because you are biased.

"So yes, they were filming before the attack. "

Prove it.

They saw the first plane hit. They had a camera and they started filming.

They thought it had been an accident, that is why they were celebrating. Due to the spectical and because they caught it on camera.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by talisman
Hang on a second guys. What would a group of Israeli's 'disguised' as movers be doing with a film camera in the morning? Also, I doubt that the people that appeared on the show trying to tell their story are the actual people that were there in NEW YORK. IF they were truly agents, wouldn't their identity be kept secret?



We were there, to document the event


That's what they were there for. Are you impying they may have lied and made this up on the talk show? And then made up they were there to "document the event" ?

Sometimes, doing things obviously is the best way to carry out covert ops, it wrestles with logic and wins due to the incredibility of it.


They were tourists as well as working there. Why wouldn't they have a camera? It's a weak argument.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Prove it.

They saw the first plane hit. They had a camera and they started filming.

They thought it had been an accident, that is why they were celebrating. Due to the spectical and because they caught it on camera.



Actually, why don't YOU prove it. But wait...you can't. You know why? Because their video tape has never been released. So, how do you know for a FACT that they didn't tape the first plane hitting the first building? You can't.

Oh, BTW. So much nested quoting. Lucky there isn't a mod around to warn you for it like they did me.

That is just a friendly warning....not a jab at the mods around here.

[edit on 12/19/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 12/19/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I saw a documentary about it. It showed the film and it showed them thinking it was an accident.

I can't prove it right now. Nor can you disprove it.

Debate over with.

Your rely on an ambiguous statment. That only a few conspiracy theorists have noticed.

"we were there to film it."

To you is an admission of guilt?

That would be like O.J Simpson, during the trial, admitting he killed his wife and her lover....AND NOBODY NOTICING IT.

Nobody but a few conspiracy theorists hear "we were there to film it." and see any admission of guilt.

Think about it. These five guys go on live TV to refute that they had been sent there to film the collapse and INADVERTANTLY ADMIT TO DOING SO?

And nobody noticed or made any trouble over it?

Why? Because you have taken the words out of context.

Simple as that.

If they had admitted being sent there, ON LIVE TV IN FRONT OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA HUNGRY FOR ANY 9/11 STORY, there would have been major trouble. This would have been the story of the century.

But magically, only a few conspiracy websites seem to be seeing it the other way.

I'm really not surprised.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
High Fiving, Dancing and Cheering with box cutters, large amounts of cash and traces of explosives, while the largest single disaster in US history unfolded in front of them, just exactly what 'context' do you suggest we take "we were there to document the event" in?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join