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.

 

911 facts even Alex Jones doesn't discuss...

page: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Does anyone know how to do a file search for "60 Minutes" archives?? I can't seem to get to the right website to run one for the Andy Desperito/George TeBeque (Sp?) story about them going to rescue Port Authority workers trapped in their command center on the 23rd Floor.

TIA.


You aren't a very good investigator, are you?
Link

Use the pull-down menu beneath the search query box.




posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wpetito

Somebody explain this to me, why hasn't one person in 14 pages touched on the low capacity on the flights, why have we consistently attacked the CNN HQ thing when he admits he could have been mistaken, even though no one has truly proven he was.

It has been touched...in about 20 other threads.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
In the past we had many memebers who tried to....fool us.

You'd understand if you'd been here longer...



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Seekerof: How does one provide a "working link?" I am not particularly fond of this cutting and pasting stuff. TIA.

Byrd: GATA may have the information you need on the progress, extent, etc. of this lawsuit. They were basically set up (I believe) to pursue these types of lawsuits. (I'm sorry, I forget what the acronym stands for, but pretty sure the first one is "Gold" and the last one "Association.)

Yes, it is somewhat odd that the FBI is ommitted. There were several floors where the tenants simply are not listed...usually whenever it is a government agency, I suspect.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
It doesn't seem like he's trying to fool you, he simply posted some info that he found (we'll see monday i guess) and wanted a response, he never, from what i've seen, stated that what he sais is the truth, only what he has found.

And if I'm proven to be wrong and he doesn't come up with documents then will humbly apologize.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
O.K. Time for the answer to the trivia question.

On January 31st, 2001 a final draft document was issued by a group calling themselves: "The United States Commission on National Security for the 21st Century." This document is titled "A Road Map for National Security." It may still be available for downloading and printing (as I did) at:

www.dojgov.net/USDOJ_the_dark_side01.htm

In this document we have all laid out for us the blueprint for a "Department of Homeland Security" (This is the first place I have seen the US referred to as "the Homeland"--reminiscent of Hitler's "Fatherland.") with a cabinet level officer (now Tom Ridge, of course)
etc.

These 14 committee staff members (Co-chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman) are all--FOURTEEN OUT OF FOURTEEN-- members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Doesn't it seem odd that a plan for "Homeland Defense" would need to be worked up by the Council on FOREIGN Relations?? (Lee Hamilton is a Biderburger, too, BTW.)

Just another coincidence, I suppose, that this was all put together just a few months before the 9/11 event brought it all into being....


P.S. I suspect this may be somewhere else on ATS, but I doubt if most of the readers of ATS have the CFR membership lists for cross-referencing the names, as I did.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
You seem dead certain in your findings.
Send it to some senator or things, I dunno how it works in America. Or hell write to the New York Times or something. If it's plausible it'll be published, unless there is some grand-media conspiracy against you.
Anything that anyone is certain on should reach the limelight, otherwise it will always be dismissed. Heck, you might find corroberators



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Wpetito,

Ask them to give you links to where this information has been provided previously. I went back and researched passenger capacities on the various Jets, totalled up all of the passenger lists and came up with the figure of about 25% capacity that day. They should have been at least 90% capacity.

They don't talk about this, because the majority of respondents to this thread are bent on one thing...discrediting me. They haven't attacked this point because they can't and it makes them uncomfortable with their current belief system about what really happened on 9/11/01.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
O.K. Time for the answer to the trivia question.
*Yawn* More like the Trivial Question...

In this document we have all laid out for us the blueprint for a "Department of Homeland Security" (This is the first place I have seen the US referred to as "the Homeland"--reminiscent of Hitler's "Fatherland.") with a cabinet level officer (now Tom Ridge, of course)
etc.
Oh my yes, you nailed it! They do seem related...they both have "land" in the word. Good catch!


These 14 committee staff members (Co-chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman) are all--FOURTEEN OUT OF FOURTEEN-- members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Doesn't it seem odd that a plan for "Homeland Defense" would need to be worked up by the Council on FOREIGN Relations?? (Lee Hamilton is a Biderburger, too, BTW.)
Hmmm....possibly because those members would be more aware of (dum-dum-dum) Foreign Policy and might know which nations and or foreign groups pose a threat? I certainly don't want something like this being made by someone dealing with state traffic issues and has no clue about the world.

Just another coincidence, I suppose, that this was all put together just a few months before the 9/11 event brought it all into being....
BTW: I had 11 bowel movements the week before 9/11. Just another coincidence, I suppose...but maybe you could "research" that one for me.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
mepatriot, you don't really have to convince me of anything, the things you brought up at the beginning of this post were interesting, i've started doing some of my own research, but haven't come up with anything solid as of just yet, my only suggestion is next time you place a post, don't start off with the word "facts" in the titile unless you are positive they are facts.

As for alot of posts in alot of forums i see, there seems to be alot on this topic that people should be questioning, of all the people who are arguing here, how many believe that there is nothing "under the radar" about 9/11, and how many looked at the three points in this post and dismissed them because they didn't believe the first one.

I personally am a person who believes in logic, I argue with it, I work with it and am rarely wrong when I rely on it. That being said, also the fact of having been in the military, There is, under no circumstance, no excuse for the speed at which we reacted to the planes crashing into the WTC, people have stated about readiness of planes on air force bases. I know for a fact based on personal experience ( I was stationed at the marine air base on Camp Pendleton) that there is never a point where there is not a set of planes that are not prepared for immediate departure, and there are personnel who are on duty status at all times to man those planes.

So as i stated, logic dictates that the excuse that the planes had to be prepared and fueled and the pilots had to be readied is illogical.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Bump for the most important topic of our era.

The Bush administration is guilty of criminal negligence or criminal conspiracy. Either way they deserve prosecution and imprisonment.

Let's deal with this situation before it gets worse.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
sorry again for a stupid question like this, but why would they warn the CNN of this attack?
i would really like an answer.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Thanks wpetito: Yes, it is outrageous, and there should have been court-martial proceedings all over the front pages of our papers for months now instead of Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant.

ZZZ: Since when is absolute dissmissal of one of the most acknowledged high-level conspiratorial agencies in this country (The CFR) a pre-requisite for being a moderator on a site that advertises itself as basically a home for conspiracy theorists?? Very, very odd...

ZZZ...checked off.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
TSM: You'd have to ask them I guess. Who warned the mayor of SF not to fly that day, or the group of Pentagon officials already cited in this thread, or the Israeli PM, or the employees of Odigo Corp? All of these people were forewarned, and it is a matter of record. I am sure hundreds of people may have been warned that we know nothing about.

Ted Turner is a very high level globalist...(and huge contributor to the UN.) Maybe somebody did him (and his) a favor. I do not pretend to have the answer to your question.

You'll notice I never said anyone at CNN was warned. You brought that pssoibility up yourself. All I said was that they were one of the only occupants above the impact points not to declare any casualities.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
i.e. somebody told the CNN staff (which had leased almost the entire 110th floor) to skip work that day.


From your first post... that isnt a claim that they were warned?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Got me...I had forgotten I had added that, but I added it (at least in my mind) more as a possibility "with an i.e. qualfier" than as a statement of fact. Certainly there is that possibility, and certainly that was my implication, but I really had not realized that you might take it as a statement of fact instead of as the provision of a suggestion or possibility. I apologize for leaving the impression.

Certainly I could have worded that first point more carefully. Are we all done yet (15 pages, 300 posts and 6000 views later) beating that wording to death yet?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This thread, also known as a runaway train, has mentioned your motive, mepatriot. Rather than as if you are here to use ATS members as your research assistant, let me ask why you came to ATS.
After reading another of your threads, www.abovetopsecret.com... , I began to wonder about your motives. Could you clear this up, please??



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Tell me all about why you came to ATS and I will answer in kind.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I wish you would reply to my post about midway up the page



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Got me...I had forgotten I had added that, but I added it (at least in my mind) more as a possibility "with an i.e. qualfier" than as a statement of fact. Certainly there is that possibility, and certainly that was my implication, but I really had not realized that you might take it as a statement of fact instead of as the provision of a suggestion or possibility. I apologize for leaving the impression.

Certainly I could have worded that first point more carefully. Are we all done yet (15 pages, 300 posts and 6000 views later) beating that wording to death yet?



for the record... before this post, it's 297 replies and 5407 views... and why would these numbers matter to you anyway, you're only here to spread knowledge .. right.

I can't wait until Monday.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join