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 U.S was prepared for 9/11

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Tripod II was planned for the 12th and never happened an wouldn't have happened by the 12th regardless. I was an exercise for a biological attack for NYC employees and had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

The CIA event Ivan is referring to was a drill for the event that a small plane that has run out of fuel hits the building. It was an exercise to ensure a proper fire drill and that everyone be able to get out of the building. Once again, absolutely nothing remotely like the events of 9/11.

And the last one he mentions is drill patrolling for Russian bombers over Alaska. once again, absolutely nothing even similar to the events of 9/11. It took them 30 seconds to cancel the exercise when the attacks began. But once again, nothing remotely similar to the events of 9/11.




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


spot on IVANAZANA,

We knew well in advance thanks to our Mossad spies that a terrorist attack was going to occur.
We had CIA and FBI watching alqaeda operatives at the airfields.

We tailed them from city to city, hotel to hotel, atm to atm.

We kept in contact with all important governemnt officials, advising them on what days to avoid air travel.

All the while we had the spin machine in full tilt monitoring Iraq and preparing for the attack.

We knew well in advance 911,

We had Ramzi Yousefs Laptop, which detailed bojinka and plans to hijack multiple craft and slam them into buildings.

we held the drill specifically to ensure our air defenses were trained elsewhere, and to create a cover of ' confusion '

I mean, how could the US let an airborne attack go on for over an hour WITHOUT defending?

Cheney ensured nothing happened to cease the attack early.

Maybe it was only 3 planes the whole time?... evidence of 2.3trillion $ of stolen money makes for a good target..

was that pensylvania plane destined for the pentagon?
when it was revealed it went down, did they decide it needed to occur anyways? thus throw in a missile?

911, is the single biggest shame on Americas proud history.
Not because government executed it, but because the public didnt question it.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Snoopy is a terrorist and aides them aswell.

His methods are weak. His type should be ignored.


So those who dare question a lame and transparent attempt to link unrelated drills as part of some 9/11 conspiracy is a terrorist in your world? And you expect to be taken seriously by anyone not blinded by the conspiracy orgy that regularly takes place here?

Sorry my friend. You've got nothing.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I find it curious how suddenly a rash of new and/or inexperienced members with low points have suddenly come crawling out of the woodwork all at once to attack a member who clearly has done plenty of research.

I think you may have struck a nerve somehwere Ivan.

[edit on 4/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I think you must simply not understand what research is. Copy/pasting from low grade tabloids is not research. Research in this case would involve finding out what these drills were really about and getting to the bottom of them. Not copy/pasting them as a group and trying to mislead people into thinking they are one big event. that would be fraud.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why the OP has gone on an attack on truth rather than why people here point out his mistakes and deceptions. Maybe you should ask yourself why he needs to use cheesy rhetoric instead of real facts to then back it up. Calling people evil and terrorists is not going to win such a debate, truth is. When he learns to actually do research, he might have better luck. But he will also realize his current claims are simply wrong.

And kid, you have no business calling people inexperienced when you're the newbie here. Some of us have been members since this forum began. For some of us the acount dates would go back a lot further if there hadn't been many times where everyone had to re-register due to changes in the forum. but for someone who registered a few months ago to call others unexperienced members? Who are you kidding?

[edit on 6-4-2008 by snoopy]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



Maybe you should be asking yourself why the OP has gone on an attack on truth rather than why people here point out his mistakes and deceptions.


I have seen no such thing. What I have seen are members with very low participation come out and attack the OP and the theory presented without any evidence of their own, and resort to personal sniping that is immature to say the least.



Calling people evil and terrorists is not going to win such a debate, truth is.


Take up Ivan's comments with Ivan. In the meantime, I am interested in what facts you can present to refute the data that has been provided thus far.



And kid, you have no business calling people inexperienced when you're the newbie here.


Yes, well, it seems this is another one of those weak immature personal attacks I was referring to. You obviously have no idea who you are talking to. I see that you have had far less experience here on ATS in all the years you have been a member, than I have had in my months of posting.

So please, let's stick to the subject now, shall we?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Tripod II was planned for the 12th and never happened an wouldn't have happened by the 12th regardless. I was an exercise for a biological attack for NYC employees and had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11.


You obviously missed the point. I even just said myself that TRIPOD II never happened. Why do you have to repeat me, like you've some kind of stock debunking mantra you've learned and can't break? Because you're not reading/thinking about what I'm actually posting?

The point is that it had FEMA in WTC7 the day before 9/11 occurred. What a coincidence!! Maybe they should have made the exercise about planes flying into buildings and then being blown up before you would get the picture? No, then you'd just say it was irrelevant because it wasn't planned for the 11th, right? They were already setting everything up so that FEMA's representation could take immediate control of the entire WTC situation as soon as the planes had impacted.

And I say this because that's exactly what happened: FEMA, the OEM, and Rudy Giuliani's office (among other representations) had a bird's eye view of the WTC complex from WTC7, from Giuliani's recently-built bunker (I'm sure you've been exposed to what it featured), and the FDNY and NYPD were all ultimately directed by authorities there.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I have seen no such thing. What I have seen are members with very low participation come out and attack the OP and the theory presented without any evidence of their own, and resort to personal sniping that is immature to say the least.



That's because you are choosing to ignore the evidence and make personal attacks on people. And then you have the balls to pretend that you are some kind of victim. And this coming from you who is probably the NEWEST member in the entire thread. There is no contesting that you are the one being immature here. In addition to that are your absolutely absurd requirements of proof and constantly claiming that no one provides evidence when they do. I think you need to grow up or make a legitimate argument.





Take up Ivan's comments with Ivan. In the meantime, I am interested in what facts you can present to refute the data that has been provided thus far.



No you aren't interested in facts which is why you make personal attack posts calling people names and pretend they are ganging up on people when they DO present facts. Please cut it out and stick to the topic instead of using rhetoric and personal attacks.




Yes, well, it seems this is another one of those weak immature personal attacks I was referring to. You obviously have no idea who you are talking to. I see that you have had far less experience here on ATS in all the years you have been a member, than I have had in my months of posting.

So please, let's stick to the subject now, shall we?




I am treating you the way you are treating others. The fact that you don't even notice your personal attacks and immaturity says a lot. Who do you think you are? You being on here a whole couple of months, wow! Please impress us and tell us who you are since you seem to think you are of some kind of importance that the rest of us should be in awe of you.


Stick to the subject? You mean the subject of you dismissing all evidence? What evidence have you provided for anything so far? Please remind us of it would you?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


You obviously missed the point. I even just said myself that TRIPOD II never happened. Why do you have to repeat me, like you've some kind of stock mantra you've memorized and can't break? Because you're not thinking about what I'm actually posting?

The point is that it had FEMA in WTC7 the day before 9/11 occurred. What a coincidence!! Maybe they should have made the exercise about planes flying into buildings and then being blown up before you would get the picture? No, then you'd just say it was irrelevant because it wasn't planned for the 11th, right? They were already setting everything up so that FEMA's representation could take immediate control of the entire WTC situation as soon as the planes had impacted.

And I say this because that's exactly what happened: FEMA, the OEM, and Rudy Giuliani's office (among other representations) had a bird's eye view of the WTC complex from WTC7, from Giuliani's recently-built bunker (I'm sure you've been exposed to what it featured), and the FDNY and NYPD were all ultimately directed by authorities there.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by bsbray11]


How is that a coincidence? Please show us any kind of tie in that has anything to do with anything. Maybe there was also a boyscout meeting in WTC 7 the week before. Coincidence? Please explain the significance of your claim. Please explain how it is anything beyonf wild conjecture.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
How is that a coincidence?


Oh my god, snoopy, what website do you think this is? Have you ever once in your life put yourself hypothetically in a criminal's shoes?

Can you not see how it would be advantageous to already be there to monitor everything, when both buildings would be destroyed within 2 hours?

How long did it take FEMA to get its game together for Katrina? If FEMA personnel were involved with overseeing this false-flag, or at least being there to "enforce" it, they couldn't wait for the planes to impact and then haul out from their offices, wherever those may be, with whatever equipment, etc. not even set up yet. Are you thinking about this? What are you thinking about, man, when you post this stuff back at me?



Please explain how it is anything beyonf wild conjecture.


What you call "wild conjecture" becomes more like "statistically improbable" and then "intentionally designed" to me when these "coincidences" are present more often than they're not with the people and agencies closest to the actual physical events.

This isn't like a fact that's just thrown at you to accept. This is something to seriously think about, because mathematically those are VERY bad odds. Those NORAD war games alone happen only once a year. One of the 2-3 days happening to fall on 9/11? It's worse than 100 to 1 odds. And then lining up the FEMA exercise, that they were at the very buildings that would also be attacked... by aircrafts... and even what building that pre-planned exercise had them in (again, WTC7)... it's completely ridiculous.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



No you aren't interested in facts which is why you make personal attack posts calling people names and pretend they are ganging up on people when they DO present facts...I am treating you the way you are treating others. The fact that you don't even notice your personal attacks and immaturity says a lot.


I'm interested to see where I have called anyone any names. I am also interested to see where you have linked one single fact.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Oh my god, snoopy, what website do you think this is? Have you ever once in your life put yourself hypothetically in a criminal's shoes?

Can you not see how it would be advantageous to already be there to monitor everything, when both buildings would be destroyed within 2 hours?

How long did it take FEMA to get its game together for Katrina? If FEMA personnel were involved with overseeing this false-flag, or at least being there to "enforce" it, they couldn't wait for the planes to impact and then haul out from their offices, wherever those may be, with whatever equipment, etc. not even set up yet. Are you thinking about this? What are you thinking about, man, when you post this stuff back at me?


Oh, so we're supposed to use imagination as evidence? Because in your imagination you can pretend it's part of some big diabolical caper that it must be true? Have you though about trying to submit that kind of argument into a court of law/ Think it would get you far?

Please explain to us how a biological exercise allows them to monitor all of 9/11. Give us the good details on this one. You're gonna need to do more than call it a false flag operation based on your imagination.

What am I thinking? I am thinking how can anyone in their right mind pretend that their conjecture and pure imagination can in any way what so ever be considered evidence. How in their right mind would make such claims and think they would be taken seriously. That's what's going through my mind. What's going through your mind when your argument is basically "imagine being the criminal". How am I not supposed to laugh?




What you call "wild conjecture" becomes more like "statistically improbable" and then "intentionally designed" to me when these "coincidences" are present more often than they're not with the people and agencies closest to the actual physical events.



What you are expecting us to believe is indeed pretty much impossible and absolutely absurd. But that's pretty common when you use pure conjecture as an argument.


This isn't like a fact that's just thrown at you to accept. This is something to seriously think about, because mathematically those are VERY bad odds. Those NORAD war games alone happen only once a year. One of the 2-3 days happening to fall on 9/11? It's worse than 100 to 1 odds. And then lining up the FEMA exercise, that they were at the very buildings that would also be attacked... by aircrafts... and even what building that pre-planned exercise had them in (again, WTC7)... it's completely ridiculous.



It's not a fact PERIOD. It's something you made up. It's not something to seriously consider it's simply your imagination. And there is nothing mathematical about it what so ever. How can you even say that with a straight face?!?!

The NORAD war games that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11? The ones that were cancelled in 30 seconds? And the exercises that are being performed constantly throughout the year? Or are you going to pretend that those exercises were the only ones performed by anyone the entire year and that the rest of the year they sit around doing nothing? All you did was note the ones that were performed during that time and pretend that the rest of them throughout the year don't exist.

Yes these claims most certainly are ridiculous. And you have to wonder why these arguments aren't taken seriously outside of conspiracy sites?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


I'm interested to see where I have called anyone any names. I am also interested to see where you have linked one single fact.



Go read the thread. And BTW, were you going to show us where you had provided any facts? And when are you going to impress us with who you are? We're dying to be impressed.

The thread states that the US was prepared. it used false information, I provided the correct information about the exercises. YOU choose to pretend that I didn't. Just like you dismiss anything that isn't a conspiracy and pretend it doesn't exist,l ike you pretend you haven't made any personal attacks.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


Well, that settles it then, you really don't have anything valid to say. Good luck in your quest for the truth.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Yes that's correct it is settled. No one has been able to provide credible evidence that there were war games that mimiced the events of 9/11 or that they interfered with 9/11.

Nice try though. Especially from the one person on the thread who didn't make a single contribution.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Oh, so we're supposed to use imagination as evidence?


I'd say it's more like you're using too much imagination as you read my posts.

Do you think something has to be scientifically validated before it can exist, snoopy? In other words, did F=ma still apply, before Newton figured it out? Do you understand the concept of an "implication," or a "hint," or a "suggestion," a "clue," etc.?

You can cry all night about how I'm just dreaming up something out of my dark, twisted imagination, but everything I posted happened. I didn't add anything. I didn't make anything up. You just refuse to see what it helped allow to happen.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



...or that they interfered with 9/11.


Even the official version of events shows that exercises impeded a proper response. "Is this real-world or an exercise...?" might sound farmiliar.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I'd say it's more like you're using too much imagination as you read my posts.

Do you think something has to be scientifically validated before it can exist, snoopy? In other words, did F=ma still apply, before Newton figured it out? Do you understand the concept of an "implication," or a "hint," or a "suggestion," a "clue," etc.?

You can cry all night about how I'm just dreaming up something out of my dark, twisted imagination, but everything I posted happened. I didn't add anything. I didn't make anything up. You just refuse to see what it helped allow to happen.


Does something have to be proven to exist? Absolutely. If you have some evidence to back up your claim, be my guest. but if you expect your imagination to trump real evidence, sorry. Not gonna happen.


Everything you posted happened? OK, what's your proof? How is it anything but made up? You are claiming that the biological exercise was part of 9/11? OK< show us. Show us somethign that is more than your speculation/conjecture.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


Even the official version of events shows that exercises impeded a proper response. "Is this real-world or an exercise...?" might sound farmiliar.


yeah wow, so for 5 seconds someone asked just to be sure and was told its real-world. Wow, I guess the whole plot would have be avoided had someone not had to take that 5 seconds to ask. You really put the nail in the coffin of that one. An a whole 30 seconds of the day to cancel the single exercise that could have possibly interfered since it involved injections. Wow.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Does something have to be proven to exist? Absolutely.


Ok. I think I've convinced myself that you don't really think too heavily about what you post.


Let's apply what you just (see above quote) to the planet Pluto. Apparently, Pluto did not exist, until we discovered it. Because it was certainly not proven to exist before it was discovered.

Now, if that's what you're trying to tell me, then that is profound. Are you sure this isn't the quantum physics forum?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join