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.

 

Former Syrian minister: US guilty for 9/11 attacks

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Former Syrian minister: US guilty for 9/11 attacks


www.jpost.com

The Syrian government daily Teshreen marked the seventh anniversary of 9/11 this week in a unique fashion: by publishing an article by Syria's former information minister blaming US intelligence agencies for the attacks.

According to Mahdi Dakhlallah, in a piece that appeared Wednesday, the intelligence agencies were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks to provide a pretext for a preplanned US plan to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
(visit the link for the full news article)



+1 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

"These plans were ready and prepared [in advance] - and all that was needed was to find a pretext to begin their immediate implementation," wrote Dakhlallah, in a piece of which excerpts were translated by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute.


The election fraud of 2001 and 2004 makes sense now. In the 30's, Prescott Bush was charged with trading with the enemy by sponsoring hitlers warmachine before and after WW2.

What makes you think anything has changed in that family?

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I am suprised, no opinions.

I guess its true. kinda like that pedophile uncle no one talks about.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
It does make you wonder what other government intelligence agencies think about 911. I mean countries with no connection what so ever with the event, i wonder what they think. There must be countless people on earth trained by governments to do dodgy stuff, and they know some ins and outs of it.

Does make you wonder.....



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Did anyone catch that documentary on The History Channel last night?? I believe it was called "102 minutes"?? I caught quite a few things in there that were.....I don't know how to explain....scripted??

All the videos, from the beginning, had officials/witnesses saying "terrorists" instead of "plane crash" after the first plane. That seems real weird to me. It was on my mind after the first plane.....but my first thought was "PLANE CRASH".

*Maybe just edited into propaganda*



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Starred and Flagged!

It's pretty strange, but the majority of the planet seems to be more awake than most americans to this issue. We STILL have folks actually DEFENDING the gov's fairy tale stories, even here, at ATS!

I don't know whether they were directly behind it or not(although I certainly would not be the least bit suprised with all of the crap I have seen instituted following the aftermath), but at the VERY LEAST they were criminally negligent.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I have made this point as well about the history of this family. At first I thought it was BS but after looking at the evidence, I found that the Bush family has indeed had a crime ridden history.

But, most 'patriots' *heavy sarcasm due to their ignorance of what that word truly means* stand by this man and his family AND their history of hurting this country. It's about money and power. Period. The 'patriots' that support Bush will simply say that Syria is a terrorist state that is trying to push propoganda against the U.S.

Just research your history folks and you will find some very disturbing facts about the man that is this countries president.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The sad thing is, the general public, meaning 99.99% of the population will NEVER know what did or didn't happen that day.

Same as Roswell
Same as JFK
Same as hundreds of events throughout history



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
It does make you wonder what other government intelligence agencies think about 911. I mean countries with no connection what so ever with the event, i wonder what they think. There must be countless people on earth trained by governments to do dodgy stuff, and they know some ins and outs of it.

Does make you wonder.....


I've often thought the same. I dare say 'intelligence agents' are no different than a lot of people in any kind of work. I can imagine them watching media coverage of some kind of event with arms folded, saying: 'well, I wouldn't have done it like that myself'. Maybe even with their co-workers deflating the guy's ego even further by reminding him: 'what? Like that job last summer that took a whole department to clean-up after you?'

As nefarious as a lot of 'behind the scenes' activity undoubtedly is, at the end of the day, the people 'pulling a lot of the strings' are probably more human than we'd like to imagine. Maybe it's as easy for us to 'dehumanise' them as we them.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The most glaring discrepancy to me. w sitting with the kiddies reading the ol gray goat as he was being 'briefed' of the event. I will NEVER forget the look on his face. One of a three year old with his hand in the cookie jar.

Let's face it. In that proximity to the action, the ss would have had him underground in fifteen minutes tops.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
The most glaring discrepancy to me. w sitting with the kiddies reading the ol gray goat as he was being 'briefed' of the event. I will NEVER forget the look on his face. One of a three year old with his hand in the cookie jar.

Let's face it. In that proximity to the action, the ss would have had him underground in fifteen minutes tops.


Oh come on man! That's pure BS and you know it. Why would the SS have placed him into protective cover? Seriously, you need to read up on the policy and proceedure for taking care of a president during the time of crisis. Sheesh. Ignorance just sucks.

Okay, now that I got the sarcasm and typical 'official story' responders words out of the way I must say that, even though it is an old argument, you have hit is RIGHT on the head.

The fact that they let him sit there for so long "So they wouldn't startle the kids" is a bunch of crap. He would have been taken from that location as soon as they got word about the second plane. The problem is, he knew it was coming. It's obvious. He even made up a nice lie to tell people later on. Two weeks after the fact he speaks to an audience about how he watched the first plane hit the tower "because they had a TV there obviously" and how he thought to himself "what a bad pilot".

People, is this what a president really says? Obvious lies like this? WHAT A BAD PILOT? If someone flies a plane like that into a building on a bright and clear morning, it has NOTHING to do with them being a bad pilot. He is full of crap and you all know it. *Speaking to the 'official story' believers here*



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
The most glaring discrepancy to me. w sitting with the kiddies reading the ol gray goat as he was being 'briefed' of the event. I will NEVER forget the look on his face. One of a three year old with his hand in the cookie jar.

Let's face it. In that proximity to the action, the ss would have had him underground in fifteen minutes tops.



I couldn't agree with you more, that IMO was a dead give away. They would have wisked him away and had him safely underground within minutes of the attack. Isn't that after all their main priority, to keep the president safe above all else?

The really sad thing is that even if the proof is ever found and revealed, it will still amount to nothing. The ones who had anything to do with it will never be held accountable, they will just find more scapegoats to hold accountable for their actions.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
The most glaring discrepancy to me. w sitting with the kiddies reading the ol gray goat as he was being 'briefed' of the event. I will NEVER forget the look on his face. One of a three year old with his hand in the cookie jar.

Let's face it. In that proximity to the action, the ss would have had him underground in fifteen minutes tops.


This has always bothered me about the 9-11 story. If Cheney and the gang were really that deeply involved i can't for the life of me believe that they would have had George Bush sitting with a bunch of kids reading a book and looking stupid and utterly incompetent for 15 minutes while the second plane was on it's way.

Neocon propaganda has in my reading always been fairly crude so it's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have had the president at hand near the scene of one of these crashes to 'save' some civilians or do something similarly presidential.

I am fairly sure that the Bushes were involved in covering up who really did it but i am leaning towards a military style 'coup' attempt which would best explain the NORAD training exercises and the demolition of the WTC's, lack of interception by fighter aircraft.

This would also in a way help to explain the invasion/occupation of Iraq with such insufficient troop levels... Either way there are far too many things that doesn't make sense and wont add up so feel free to ignore my rambling.


Stellar


[edit on 15-9-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


You trust the word of Syria?
Come on dude, you have to be kidding. They are like that Iraqi Gen on TV saying the Americans are loosing the war with a US tank rolling by in the backround. Arabs are liars. They lie like we eat fast food.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
One thing that bothered me, was the speech where the following was stated: "Let us not accept any outrageous conspiracy theories", at that time, I think, the whole world still was in shock, so why would that be mentioned? -

He likes to give cryptic statements like:

www.nationmultimedia.com...

What's going to be your legacy once you step down from office next January?

"I don't know. I will be dead by the time they figure it out."

How do you want history to remember you?

"Somebody who took on tough challenges and didn't shy away from doing what he thought was right.

"But there's no such thing as short-term history, so I am very confident in telling you that I'll be long gone before somebody finally figures out the true merit and meaning of the Bush administration."

Who are "they" he is referring to?
Obviously the "larger" picture will not emerge in the near future.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
it's hard to believe we're still talking about this! I guess in a culture where we're still trying to "prove" JFK was assassinated by his own government, its not surprising. That said, I've yet to hear a convincing arguement that 911 was the result of "terrorists"... seems everyone who argues that later does it on faith and disbelief that their own leaders could do such a thing. But we all know what "rich powerful" people are capable of... don't we?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 



And you trust the word of Bush and the Neo Cons?Its actualy a little bit racist saying all Arabs are lying sunhine.I think what you ment to say was anyone in Politics lies
No matter their colour or faith



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You know stellar, that does kind of add up.

Many people heard explosions on the lower level, they found things that had seemed to be from a thermal explosion. In my oppinion... Military Operators.

Also yes, NORAD Failed to respondas quickly as neccessary, although there were a lot of planes in the air that day and their was no way of knowing which ones were HiJacked.

Bush was playing with the kiddies, the act in itself was a cover up. Everyone loves kids and everyone respects people who try to read and teach them.... Bush had that planned a long time before. The event was covered all over the news and it had no real signifigance.

Someone also noted watching a documentary that involved interviews right after the first plane where people were claiming terrorists... That owuld be a fine assumption but nobody used that word very much, they would have used something like...a hi jacking more so to explain the plane.

A lot doesn't add up and a lot of countrys are writing in their news that the U.S. invented the event... why would 3 nations say this if there wasnt some evidence to back it up?

I dont have an oppinoin of all of it because I bounce back and forth. Deffinately very interesting stuff.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

This has always bothered me about the 9-11 story. If Cheney and the gang were really that deeply involved i can't for the life of me believe that they would have had George Bush sitting with a bunch of kids reading a book and looking stupid and utterly incompetent for 15 minutes while the second plane was on it's way.


I've always thought the actual 'reading with kids' part was genius. In theory, it paints the President as a father figure; someone nurturing and helping the little ones. The 'fifteen minutes' part was where that image crumbled though.


However, I think one thing that perhaps occasionally gets lost when theorising about conspiracies is that perhaps, no matter how big, clever, dangerous the men behind the curtain may be, sometimes things don't go to plan even for them. If the popular thinking behind the involvement of Bush et al is true, then the orchestration must have been massive. As with anything, the more complicated something gets, the more likely something can go wrong.

Personally, a dozen things can go wrong for me within the first hour of waking in the morning, imagine the potential for failure in a plan as big as must have been behind September the 11th.

I've always believed that those 15 minutes were 'things not going to plan' as it were. Perhaps, 'it' happened sooner than expected, later than expected or something else was supposed to happen in response before Bush was (publicly) informed and he just waiting for the next 'stage direction'. It's sad - and pretty pathetic - that we'll never really know for certain.




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join