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.

 

Damn good gerry vid

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Hi there
I dont know if you guys have seen this yet. But its so damn good I couldnt not post it.
www.videocommunity.com...




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
The Germans are masters in the art of propaganda. They know a lie when they see one.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this video. It covers a lot of ground that has been covered in other videos and books and web sites, but it is a welcome addition to the body of work which highlights the absurdity of the official US government version of the events of 9/11/01.

It makes some interesting points with regard to the activities and identities of the so-called "19 hijackers," whether it really has been established that they were even on the 9/11 airplanes, and also points to strange improbabilities connected to the sort of evidence found in their rental car, etc.

It's one thing to hear Alex Jones, or Dylan Avery talking about these things, but when a sober collection of German "suits" are telling you the same thing, it hits even harder. Particularly when you consider that the Germans have got to be considered the world experts on the origins and methods of evil fascist states.

Another point which was highlighted in the film is a passage in the PNAC document concerning the political usefulness of new forms of bio-weapons. That struck a particularly chilling chord with me, given the fact that the deployment of these weapons is controlled by the cast of grotesque characters currently controlling the United States.

The more perspective one gets on 9/11 and the post 9/11 period the clearer it becomes that history as it is recorded in the United States, is going to look back and rank George W. Bush as one of the greatest American presidents who ever lived, the George Washington of fascist America.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by foremanator
 


A star and a flag for you. Only half way through, but it is a very clear and concise movie, and some excellent points are raised, particularly the one on how no one would expect or accept a fire brigade not attending 4 separate fires on the same day, or police not attending 4 separate incidents on the same day, but when NORAD fails to intercept 4 separate planes on the same day, we all accept their excuse for not turning up? Come on.

Ad the way they depict the "miracle" passport found by the Twin Towers reminds me of the "magic bullet" that suddenly appeared when JFK was assassinated. I'd also never seen that photo of Mohammed Atta before which has 2 different time stamps on it!!!???

You know the official story agents will just pass this off though because it's German, and start spilling out all the Nazi connotations, anything to protect the lie.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Foremanator, great find. Only just flicked through the video, seen about a third, but found the parts i did see to be so much more damning of the whole of the cabal of evil political puppets and their masters than the usual 9/11 videos. Will watch it all later.
People need to remember, or even realise for the first time in some cases, that it isn't just Bush and his banking/oil/halliburton/media etc buddies, but the whole of a ruling world elite whose tentacles reach us all in some way.

Boy, those german researchers don't mince their words do they.

Will star and flag you mate, if i can figure out how and if i'm allowed to yet. and quit standing behind me.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by danogee]


[edit on 21-7-2008 by danogee]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
OOOpps. sorry everyone, especially you alethia, I think i just accidently pushed your star button, pardon the expression. Is it possible to do that??

Sorry again if i did.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
What you dont know and what they wont tell you is that what is considered conspiracies in america are known as fact around the world.

Just as in nazi germany. The germans like hitler, backed him and the war, so did the bush family, rockefellers. While the nazi's were slaughtering Russians. Chinese and Europeans, the states sat and watched, then the states vapourized innocent Japanese not once but twice using weapons of mass destruction. They removed hitler, took down the nazi flag and replaced it with the U.N flag. All the german scientists that were sponsored by the americans were returned to the states in Operation Paperclip thus creating, Nasa, CIA, Fbi. Meanwhile they displaced the Palestinians with force taking a large portion of Palestine with the helpRothschild banking family renaming it Israel in the names of the jewish people that suffered.

This goes on for a while. Wake up. The truth lays infront of your eyes.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Only 10 minutes into it...and the deception carried out by the makers of the video is first rate. Lies, misdirection and assumption...pretty typical of "truthers".

Some examples:

The "incubator" story.......had very little to do with us kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. We had thousands of troops in the sand already when that story came out. We didnt go to war because of this story....flat out LIE.

The video totally ignores the fact that we had flight attendants on two flights calling their respective airlines to say what was going on and identifying the hijackers.

Then there is the "living" hijacker story. Amazing that some still buy it, especially since it has been shown that in each case, the media was either misspelling the name or had looked up the wrong guy. Not to mention that the governments of the countries that the hijackers were from...have verified who they were.

More misdirection..comparing fire trucks to air defense.....
Comparing intercepting hostile aircraft inside the borders with the interception of aircraft over the oceans.....again quite typical.....


Oh, these guys are good...weaving a little bit of evidence with a bushel of BS......

"If I were....." not evidence
"If I were in charge..." not evidence
"If I was Secret Service...." not evidence


Half of what I have seen so far, seems to be Germans offering their opinions of what they think people should have done.

Yep, its an amazing piece of BS.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Only 10 minutes into it...and the deception carried out by the makers of the video is first rate. Lies, misdirection and assumption...pretty typical of "truthers".

The "incubator" story.......had very little to do with us kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. We had thousands of troops in the sand already when that story came out. We didnt go to war because of this story....flat out LIE.


Once again you miss the point, distort and manipulate the context, and prove that the only liar, disinfo agent, and misdirector is you.

First off, the point being made about the "incubator" story is that the story itself is a lie

query.nytimes.com...

www.hbo.com...
and that the US government habitually lies and engages in war propganda to get the minds and hearts of people set on a war agenda.

The context it is in is to show that the government was intentionally LYING and presenting false information to garner support for a war against Iraq. Does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, Bush Snr lied to go to war with the use of this false story, and Bush Jnr lied to go to war by using false evidence that Iraq had purchased uranium from the Niger (which the CIA later claimed to be false), and that Iraq had WMDs and could launch them within 45 minutes (false UK evidence).

www.washingtontimes.com...


So, the context, which you somehow miss or choose to ignore, is that there is a pattern in the false flags being presented to us to enable the government to go to war against Iraq, and furthermore, a pattern of Bush's lying to the Senate and UN and presenting false evidence to gain approval of their war agenda.

Secondly, you claim that we didn't go to war based on the "incubator" story. Let's dig deeper shall we. 7 Senators stated that the reason they voted for the use of military force was based on the testimony heard on the "incubator" story. 7.

www.guardian.co.uk...


The vote for military action against Iraq was won with a majority of 5. That's right 5. So if 7 voted for the war based on the testimony of this false flag, and the majority for approval was 5, then yes, this story tipped the balance in favor and it was the reason we had the Gulf War.

Your intelligence level is very disappointingly low for someone who claims to know what really happened.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Once again you miss the point, distort and manipulate the context, and prove that the only liar, disinfo agent, and misdirector is you


Believe what you want. The incubator story was first published in England Sept 5, 1990. At that point, there was already 250,000 US troops either in Saudi Arabia or on their way, those movements started three days after Saddam invaded Kuwait. The decision to go to war had been made. Under law at the time, the President could commit us to battle without the approval of Congress, their vote merely ensured that there wouldnt be any problems with the War Powers Act. In other words, President Bush had committed us to war....before the incubator story broke.




Bush Jnr lied to go to war by using false evidence that Iraq had purchased uranium from the Niger


Ah yes, Joe Wilson rears his head....you do realize that he was caught lying to Congress about Niger right? I wont go into the couple tons of uranium that we have secured and removed from Iraq in the last couple years....




The vote for military action against Iraq was won with a majority of 5. That's right 5.


Yep, those five ensured that the War Powers Act would not come into play....and as smart as you are, Im SURE that you know the War Powers Act means that the President has to notify Congress that our troops are starting military action within 48 hours.......and that without Congressional approval, we can only be engaged in battle for 60 days.

So, as I said, the decision that we were going to kick Saddam out of Kuwait was made on August 5, 1990. That is when the President ordered us to start moving our troops and equipment to Saudi. Congressional approval, was nice to have, but not necessary.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Believe what you want. The incubator story was first published in England Sept 5, 1990. At that point, there was already 250,000 US troops either in Saudi Arabia or on their way, those movements started three days after Saddam invaded Kuwait. The decision to go to war had been made. Under law at the time, the President could commit us to battle without the approval of Congress, their vote merely ensured that there wouldnt be any problems with the War Powers Act. In other words, President Bush had committed us to war....before the incubator story broke.


Ah yes, the president has already made a decision to go to war before even getting the opinions or approval before anyone else. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, baby Bush had committed to going to war in Iraq way before telling anyway else in the Senate or UN about it. What a funny coincidence.

Again, you miss the point, or deliberately don't address it, or are just dumb enough not to see it, is that there is a history of Bush's being committed to war, and then concocting stories about babies or WMDs to then garner the Senate and public support for a war. I know, and I will assume that you also know, despite the lack of intelligence you display in your posts, that no government would ever go to war without Senate and public approval, and therefore the incubator story was concocted to gain that support.

So again, what you're missing is the context. The context and position being conveyed in the movie is that Bush's have a war agenda, and lie and provide false evidence to garner support for war. [Also note, Bush Snr. addressed congress with his plans for war on Iraq on September 11th, 1990, that's right, 9/11 - does that date sound familiar?]


Ah yes, Joe Wilson rears his head....you do realize that he was caught lying to Congress about Niger right? I wont go into the couple tons of uranium that we have secured and removed from Iraq in the last couple years....


No, no, no, please do go into it, please do show us your claims of Wilson being caught lying and of the tons of uranium removed from Iraq because that proves that Bush was right (which is odd, because you'd think they would want to promote the fact they we're right but they haven't. Instead, as shown in the reports linked to in the above post, they've admitted they were wrong).



Yep, those five ensured that the War Powers Act would not come into play....and as smart as you are, Im SURE that you know the War Powers Act means that the President has to notify Congress that our troops are starting military action within 48 hours.......and that without Congressional approval, we can only be engaged in battle for 60 days.

So, as I said, the decision that we were going to kick Saddam out of Kuwait was made on August 5, 1990. That is when the President ordered us to start moving our troops and equipment to Saudi. Congressional approval, was nice to have, but not necessary.


Again you miss the pint, or deliberate dodge it. As already pointed out, he would never have gone to war without Congressional approval and you know it. Are you seriously suggesting that it is acceptable for a President to go to war without approval? Can you show an instance where this has actually happened?

My God, you spout such nonsense it disgusting. There's dumb, dumber, then there's Swampfox.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   


My God, you spout such nonsense it disgusting. There's dumb, dumber, then there's Swampfox.


Woohoo, yet another personal insult. Kinda plain though, but Im sure it took you a couple hours to think of it.




Again, you miss the point, or deliberately don't address it, or are just dumb enough not to see it, is that there is a history of Bush's being committed to war, and then concocting stories about babies or WMDs to then garner the Senate and public support for a war. I know, and I will assume that you also know, despite the lack of intelligence you display in your posts, that no government would ever go to war without Senate and public approval, and therefore the incubator story was concocted to gain that support.


I can only guess that you were either a child in 1990 or not yet alive and therefore do not have first hand knowledge of the events leading up to the start of Desert Storm. You can believe all you want to that a President wont go to war without the approval of the Senate or the public, but Presidents can, and have done this.

Then you mention WMDs, either read the whole ISG report, the UN resolutions, and the President's speeches in the weeks following 9/11 or shut up on the matter, because right now, you really do not have a clue about what you are talking about.




No, no, no, please do go into it, please do show us your claims of Wilson being caught lying and of the tons of uranium removed from Iraq because that proves that Bush was right


And it walks off the cliff.....




Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role



The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.





The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."





Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.





According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.


www.washingtonpost.com...

www.factcheck.org...

www.slate.com...



AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq


apnews.myway.com...

From 2004....

U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization
www.usatoday.com...


From 2008...

news.yahoo.com...




Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence


www.breitbart.com...




Evidence does link Saddam to WMD programs and terror groups





Or it could be the Iraq Survey Group had an unusually restrictive definition of what constitutes a WMD stockpile.




The 4th Infantry Division discovered in an ammo dump near the town of Baiji 55 gallon drums of chemicals which, when mixed together, form nerve gas. They were stored next to surface-to-surface missiles which had been configured to carry a liquid payload.


Hmm...chemicals needed to make nerve gas...AND the missiles necessary to carry said nerve gas.......

www.post-gazette.com...


I love this one....




As already pointed out, he would never have gone to war without Congressional approval and you know it. Are you seriously suggesting that it is acceptable for a President to go to war without approval? Can you show an instance where this has actually happened?


Ever hear of the Korean War?



Then, without Congressional approval, Truman -- acting on Acheson's legal advice -- committed American military forces to implementing the UN's resolution.


archives.cnn.com...




In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush responded by sending American troops, without a Congressional declaration of war. As the President talked of escalating the battle, Congressman Ron Dellums, along with several colleagues, filed a lawsuit to enjoin the president from widening the war without a declaration of war by Congress.


Oh damn....that one really hurts I bet......




It is also clear that under the War Powers Resolution, Bush II can engage in hostilities with Saddam without violating either the letter or sprit of the law for at least 60 days. Or like Clinton, he can simply ignore the law, and proceed.


Wait a minute....CLINTON sent troops into battle without CONGRESSIONAL approval? Oh yeah.....Kosovo...........




An often-cited example of the practice of unilateral Presidential warmaking is President Lincoln's commencement of the Civil War while Congress was in recess.


archives.cnn.com...

HOLY CRAP!! Lincoln commenced the Civil War while Congress was in recess????

Do I need to continue posting more evidence that proves what a clueless idiot you are?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Yes, please do continue posting, because what you are posting is ridiculous and proves me right. You yourself state that President Bush wanted to go to war, but had a lawsuit filed to stop him going to war without Congress approval. In fact, the very source you use lists out, in long detail, the case for not allowing a President to go to war without Congressional approval. Your very source supports the contention that a President shouldn't go to war without it, as do I.

Moreover, the FACT of the matter is that Bush DIDN'T go to war without congress approval. Bush Snr (& Jnr for that matter) may have wanted to go to war without it, but they DIDN'T. Hence the false claims of the incubator story & WMDs respectively to get Congress approval.

Why are you discussing what could have happened rather than what actually happened? Lot's of things COULD HAVE happened, but they NEVER DID.

You deal in hearsay. I deal in FACT. You can not say that Bush Snr (or Jnr) would've have gone to war without Congress approval, because they NEVER DID. You ASSUME they would have done, but you're not them, so you are SPECULATING AT BEST. Unless you are now claiming to be George Bush and can categorically state you would have gone to war without Congress approval???????

I want you to post away and lets all of us see what falsehoods and gross speculation you want others to believe and live under.

Your post history on many threads has proven you to be a liar. The hilarity of your perceptions is gut wrenchingly funny, and your beliefs forced on you by the very people you voted for and trust makes me sad for you at the same time. Then again, morons deserve all they get, but at least you make me laugh.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I tried to keep up with the sub titles but... I really would like to see and hear this in english overlay instead reading it... at the movies pace.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
Yes, please do continue posting, because what you are posting is ridiculous and proves me right. You yourself state that President Bush wanted to go to war, but had a lawsuit filed to stop him going to war without Congress approval. In fact, the very source you use lists out, in long detail, the case for not allowing a President to go to war without Congressional approval. Your very source supports the contention that a President shouldn't go to war without it, as do I.

Moreover, the FACT of the matter is that Bush DIDN'T go to war without congress approval. Bush Snr (& Jnr for that matter) may have wanted to go to war without it, but they DIDN'T. Hence the false claims of the incubator story & WMDs respectively to get Congress approval.

Why are you discussing what could have happened rather than what actually happened? Lot's of things COULD HAVE happened, but they NEVER DID.

You deal in hearsay. I deal in FACT. You can not say that Bush Snr (or Jnr) would've have gone to war without Congress approval, because they NEVER DID. You ASSUME they would have done, but you're not them, so you are SPECULATING AT BEST. Unless you are now claiming to be George Bush and can categorically state you would have gone to war without Congress approval???????

I want you to post away and lets all of us see what falsehoods and gross speculation you want others to believe and live under.

Your post history on many threads has proven you to be a liar. The hilarity of your perceptions is gut wrenchingly funny, and your beliefs forced on you by the very people you voted for and trust makes me sad for you at the same time. Then again, morons deserve all they get, but at least you make me laugh.


You asked me for proof that a President would go to war without Congressional approval, and I gave it. Of course, all you saw were the reasons why a President shouldnt go to war without Congressional approval. Not surprised on that really....

You asked for proof that we had been moving uranium (including yellowcake) out of Iraq since 2003, and I gave it.

You mentioned WMDs being a fabrication, and I gave you proof that not only did we find 500 chemical warheads, but we also found a base loaded with the chemicals and equipment to turn those chemicals into weapons.

Side note, I really wish the President WOULD have rubbed your noses in the fact we did find that base and those 500 warheads instead of just saying he wasnt going to rehash the past.

You say you deal in fact, and from your posts, you wouldnt know a fact if it bit you in the backside.

Then you mention my post history and thus cement your standing as one of the more ignorant posters on ATS due to your complete lack of comprehension. Have a nice day.




top topics



 
2

log in

join