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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 88
10
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I do not believe your premise that the US let or caused an attack to happen to gain support for a war; that much I am certain of.


I did not ask about the support of a war. Please do not misquote me.


You brought up the Liberty as an example of the US attacking itself or allowing attacks to gain support for a war. I'm asking you in what way your example is valid.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But history has shown that the government has allowed or helped cause attacks to gain suport for war. Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty are just 2 examples of this.


You brought up the war. I'm asking you to back up your claim.




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You brought up the war. I'm asking you to back up your claim.



Yes and i did with Pearl Harbor, all you have to do is look up the information, but then again i guess you need to post the sources for you since you guys have a hard time looking things up?

Now why can't you just answer the question that i asked? Is it that difficult?

Why do you have to try to twist and change the question?

How can i make it any simpler?




[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why do you have to try to twist and change the question?

How can i make it any simpler?


I guess you could make it simpler by telling me how the attack on the Liberty was to gain support for a war like you claimed. Or admit you just said that because it sounded good.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I guess you could make it simpler by telling me how the attack on the Liberty was to gain support for a war like you claimed. Or admit you just said that because it sounded good.



Last post on this,

Right after you answer the simpe question i asked. Or do you need more information?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Right after you answer the simpe question i asked. Or do you need more information?


How can you make it more simple? By answering the question.


Your turn:


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But history has shown that the government has allowed or helped cause attacks to gain suport for war. Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty are just 2 examples of this.

When the government allowed or helped cause the attack on the USS Liberty, exactly which war was the to gain support for?
Not that I support your premise, but assuming your premise is true, exactly what war was that to gain support for?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You made the claims, I'm asking you to back them up. If you can't back them up, don't make them.


Why are you guys so afraid to look things up ?



Why are you so afraid of backing up claims you are making. This is one of the requests I've made at the very beginning of the thread. If you aren't interesting in backing up your claims, please don't post here.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
You brought up the war. I'm asking you to back up your claim.



Yes and i did with Pearl Harbor, all you have to do is look up the information, but then again i guess you need to post the sources for you since you guys have a hard time looking things up?

Now why can't you just answer the question that i asked? Is it that difficult?

Why do you have to try to twist and change the question?

How can i make it any simpler?




[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


If you make a claim on this thread, back it up on this thread. If you refuse, please leave this thread.
If you can't play nice, I'll ask the mods to send you home. This is the LAST time I'm going to ask before contacting the mods. Please stay within in the requested topic confines as listed at the beginning of this thread.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you make a claim on this thread, back it up on this thread. If you refuse, please leave this thread. .


Funny how you guys never practice what you preach. I have yet to see you guys post anythingto deabte what i have posted or to support the official story that you claam. How many sources do i need to post before you guys will be adult enough to admit i have posted information to support my claims?

Lets see how many sources i can post to support my claims shall we.

1. Pearl Harbor. Proof that their was prior knewledge fo the attack from intercepted messages. So the governemnt left the attack happen.

www.rooseveltmyth.com...

When the War and Navy Departments Intelligence Divisions were weighing the implications of Tokyo's September 24 dispatch to the Honolulu Consulate, and more especially when they were reaching the only possible conclusions from that message, their minds must inevitably have reverted to a dispatch which had been received in Washington, eight months before. For that reason, that earlier communication is the logical introduction to the Tokyo-Honolulu traffic, which immediately follows it herein.

Ambassador Grew, Tokyo, to State Department, January 27, 1941:


"THE PERUVIAN MINISTER HAS INFORMED A MEMBER OF MY STAFF THAT HE HAS HEARD FROM MANY SOURCES, INCLUDING A JAPANESE SOURCE, THAT IN THE EVENT OF TROUBLE BREAKING OUT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN, THE JAPANESE INTENDED TO MAKE A SURPRISE ATTACK AGAINST PEARL HARBOR WITH ALL THEIR STRENGTH AND EMPLOYING ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT. THE PERUVIAN MINISTER CONSIDERS THE RUMORS FANTASTIC. NEVERTHELESS, HE CONSIDERED THEM OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO CONVEY THE INFORMATION TO A MEMBER OF MY STAFF."
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, September 24, 1941 (#83):


"HENCEFORTH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE REPORTS CONCERNING VESSELS ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES IN SO FAR AS POSSIBLE:

"1. THE WATERS OF PEARL HARBOR ARE TO BE DIVIDED ROUGHLY INTO FIVE SUB-AREAS. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR ABBREVIATING AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE.

"AREA A. WATERS BETWEEN FORD ISLAND ANT) THE ARSENAL.

"AREA B. WATERS ADJACENT TO THE ISLAND SOUTH AND WEST OF FORD ISLAND. THIS AREA IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ISLAND FROM AREA A.

"AREA C. EAST LOCH.

"AREA D. MIDDLE LOCH.

"AREA E. WEST LOCH AND THE COMMUNICATING WATER ROUTES.

"2. WITH REGARD TO WARSHIPS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU REPORT ON THOSE AT ANCHOR, (THESE ARE NOT SO IMPORTANT) TIED UP AT WHARVES, BUOYS, AND IN DOCK. DESIGNATE TYPES AND CLASSES BRIEFLY. IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE MENTION OF THE FACT WHEN THERE ARE TWO OR MORE VESSELS ALONGSIDE THE SAME WHARF."

(Decoded in the War Department, October 9, 1941)
Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, September 29, 1941 (#178):


This message was in answer to Tokyo dispatch #83, and set up a two-letter code designation for each of the five prescribed Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the Navy Department, October 10, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 15, 1941 (#111):


"AS RELATIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE MOST CRITICAL, MAKE YOUR 'SHIP IN HARBOR REPORT' IRREGULAR, BUT AT A BATE OF TWICE A WEEK. ALTHOUGH YOU ALREADY ARE NO DOUBT AWARE, PLEASE TAKE EXTRA CARE TO MAINTAIN SECRECY."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 3, 1941)
Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, November 18, 1941 (#222):


This was a lengthy report of U.S. vessels in the different Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the War Department, December 6, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 18, 1941 (#113):


"PLEASE REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS AS TO VESSELS ANCHORED THEREIN: AREA 'N,' PEARL HARBOR, MAMALA BAY (HONOLULU) AND THE AREAS ADJACENT THERETO. MAKE YOUR INVESTIGATIONS WITH GREAT SECRECY."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 5, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 20, 1941 (#111): [1]


"PLEASE INVESTIGATE COMPREHENSIBLY THE FLEET . . . BASES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE HAWAIIAN MILITARY RESERVATION."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 4, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 29, 1941 (#122):


"WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING REPORTS FROM YOU ON SHIP MOVEMENTS, BUT IN TILE FUTURE WILL YOU ALSO REPORT EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO MOVEMENTS."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 5, 1941)
There is nothing more significant connected with the Japanese surprise attack than the foregoing decoded dispatches on the Tokyo-Honolulu circuit. They gave unmistakable evidence of the Japanese intentions to deliver such an attack upon the U.S. Fleet in Pearl Harbor.


2. USS Liberty. Proof that the governemnt either left the attack hapapen and or covered it up.


…Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War. For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation…….




"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.


www.ussliberty.com...

Captain Tully launched jet aircraft to support the Libery moments after the attack started. Those were recalled without explanation by order of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara while the attack continued. Men on Saratoga's bridge could hear Liberty's radiomen calling for help byradio while rockets burst in the background. Here Tully desribes the second launch of rescue aircraft:



I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANYONE THAT DOES NOT PSOT INFORMATION TO DEABTE THIS INFOMRATION OR POST INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. I WILL ALSO ASK THE MODS ABOUT REMOVING PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POST INFORMATION WHEN ASKED OR ANSWER QUESTIONS.


[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANYONE THAT DOES NOT PSOT INFORMATION TO DEABTE THIS INFOMRATION OR POST INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. I WILL ALSO ASK THE MODS ABOUT REMOVING PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POST INFORMATION WHEN ASKED OR ANSWER QUESTIONS.


Feel free to handle your posts any way you wish as long as it stays within the confines of the discussion topic and doesn't include personal attacks.

Also, please keep in mind that if someone doesn't want to answer a question, that is their right. You cannot force a discussion with someone who doesn't want one about a particular topic or question so I doubt the Mods would ban someone for not talking.

I would request to everyone who doesn't want to be involved in a particular discussion or answer a particular question to tell the other poster(s) that they are simply not interested in furthering this portion of the discussion at this time as this is common courtesy.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Feel free to handle your posts any way you wish as long as it stays within the confines of the discussion topic and doesn't include personal attacks.

Also, please keep in mind that if someone doesn't want to answer a question, that is their right. You cannot force a discussion with someone who doesn't want one about a particular topic or question so I doubt the Mods would ban someone for not talking.


I will remember this post the next time a believer insults me for not answering a question.

Too bad you guys never pratice what you preach.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Feel free to handle your posts any way you wish as long as it stays within the confines of the discussion topic and doesn't include personal attacks.

Also, please keep in mind that if someone doesn't want to answer a question, that is their right. You cannot force a discussion with someone who doesn't want one about a particular topic or question so I doubt the Mods would ban someone for not talking.


I will remember this post the next time a believer insults me for not answering a question.

Too bad you guys never pratice what you preach.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Not sure what this post has to do with that but whatever.

If you want a real discussion here, my suggestion is you drop the attitude/giant chip on your shoulder and conduct yourself in a more respectful manor. If not, there are plenty of other thread in which you can expel your wisdom. If you so unhappy with this one, why stay?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you want a real discussion here, my suggestion is you drop the attitude/giant chip on your shoulder and conduct yourself in a more respectful manor.


You and the other believers might want to take a good look in mirror when you make statments like that.

Becasue i can post a whole page load of quotes that show the attitudes of the believers.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You and the other believers might want to take a good look in mirror when you make statments like that.

Becasue i can post a whole page load of quotes that show the attitudes of the believers.
[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


And we've seen reams of posts from you that are filled with lies, attacks, childish behavior, trolls and other idiocy. When it comes right down to it Roger, I doubt anyone here cares to take a thing you say seriously, but we sure like to see what crackpot thing you'll come up with next.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
And we've seen reams of posts from you that are filled with lies, attacks, childish behavior, trolls and other idiocy.


Thats real funny coming from soneone who cannot pot 1 shread of evidence to deabte me or to suport the offical story.

Oh and thanks for showing how insulting the believers are to people.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats real funny coming from soneone who cannot pot 1 shread of evidence to deabte me or to suport the offical story.

Oh and thanks for showing how insulting the believers are to people.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Actually, I destroyed every single argument you ever made with ample proof. And the only person I've insulted is you, because you are a liar, a fraud, a terrible speller and a pornophile to boot.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats real funny coming from soneone who cannot pot 1 shread of evidence to deabte me or to suport the offical story.

Oh and thanks for showing how insulting the believers are to people.


Pot=Kettle.

Though, you are right; two wrongs don't make a right, I suppose.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats real funny coming from soneone who cannot pot 1 shread of evidence to deabte me or to suport the offical story.

Oh and thanks for showing how insulting the believers are to people.


Pot=Kettle.

Though, you are right; two wrongs don't make a right, I suppose.


You're correct, but two Wrights make an airplane. . . and two airplanes hit the WTC towers, another one hit the Pentagon and there's very little proof anyone could offer as an alternative, because it happened.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
You're correct, but two Wrights make an airplane. . . and two airplanes hit the WTC towers, another one hit the Pentagon and there's very little proof anyone could offer as an alternative, because it happened.


Too bad their is no prove of what planes hit what buildings. And no photo or video evindece of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, only a sad security video that just shows a blur.

Oh as usual the believers are afraid to say anything about building 7.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you want a real discussion here, my suggestion is you drop the attitude/giant chip on your shoulder and conduct yourself in a more respectful manor.


You and the other believers might want to take a good look in mirror when you make statments like that.

Becasue i can post a whole page load of quotes that show the attitudes of the believers.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Although personal attacks are not appropriate, you have most definitely NOT earned the respect you want. You have been given a wide latitude on your posts. I even started this thread as a favor to you so please don't EVER tell me I should look in the mirror, etc... I've given you a lot more respect then you have deserved. So have many other posters which you classified as "believers" .
Just post in a respectful manor and I'm sure the others here will respond in a respectful manor.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You brought up the Liberty as an example of the US attacking itself or allowing attacks to gain support for a war. I'm asking you in what way your example is valid.

I think it was a mistake for Ultima to use the Liberty as an example of false flag for a war as it was a botched false flag. In theory, if the Israelis would have sunk the ship, there would have been no witnesses that could identify who attacked so they could have blamed the Arabs. However, the ship did not sink and there were many witnesses.
The Liberty attack would be equivalent to the planes hitting the towers, but the demolition failed and people found explosives with "US ARMY" written on the sides.
Just my crazy theory though....



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join