It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Muslim USMC Vet Fired For 911 Truth Sign

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:28 PM
This poor guy just wanted to excercise his Right to Demonstrate and

was hassled by Police and fired from his job

He was using a bullhorn and when Police asked him to stop, he did.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by Seany

You are kidding me right? A guy pops up on a Youtube video saying he is a vet and claiming he was fired for his sign....and you swallow it hook, line and sinker?

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Well at least he got the sign correct, which he is holding.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Well at least he got the sign correct, which he is holding.

The sign is correct and he's out on the streets informing people instead of sitting in his chair at home doing nothing.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:42 PM
That is quite enough comments about other members..

Either post on Topic or do not post..


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by Seany

Post a link to his employer with a quote stating that's why he was fired. If you can't
Did he perhaps disrupt work with radical banter? Did he take days off to protest? Was he bad at his job? Good at his job? Did he run around work all day harassing the other workers to get them to join his cause? I see lots of valid scenarios.

I have a radical in my office. He has given me plenty of grief. If I have to lay anyone off, he goes first. Not because of his beliefs, but because he is driving everyone nuts with his inappropriate behavior. I pay him a thousand a week to sit in an office chair for 34 hours and he say's I'm out to get him. Perhaps this is the same situation? My competitor pays half that for the same job with a 50 hour week.

Every person I've ever fired lied about why they were fired. They always have a long history of never keeping a job. Send me this guys Resume and I'll tell you if he is lying or not.

I await the link to the employers side of the story.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

my friend , I listened to the vid and am afraid to admit

I took his story at face value, his reasons for dismissal were that on his vehicle he has a up side down US flag, and was talking anti gov - truther 911

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:39 AM
I had a guy working for me just a few weeks ago. And he showed me a video of himself WITH A BULLHORN on a major intersection here in Toronto, shouting "9/11 was a cover-up"

Alex Jones is the template, and of course this guy worshipped Jones.

A nice enough guy, but the politics were incessant and the fact that he could be so judgement impaired in some areas lowered my confidence in his ability to perform work that involve interfacing with some important business people.

Alarm bells went off for me when he started giving lectures to anyone who came in about the perils of innoculations. Apparently a new US govt and Big Pharma plot against the taxpayers.

Anyway, turned out he was just no good at doing the things he claimed he was experienced in.

I paid him a lot to write up something based on some quick verbal notes I gave. After two weeks all he could come up with was exactly what I said with punctuation and connecting words. This was just representative of how he did things, but was the straw that broke the camels back.

Luckily we hadn't formalized a working arrangement (he stated just before Christmas) so was able to politely tell him I'd call him if I had more work for him.

Nice enough fella, but what you'd call unemployable.

Be wary of guys with bullhorns. Only helps you on the job if you host a talk radio show.


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:59 AM
Honestly. These guys and their leadership planned and executed what was (and I'm sorry to offend) an excellent attack and they gave their lives for God and country. Give them the credit they have earned and may they rot in hell.
There are enough REAL conspiracies people. The US knew something was in the works and didn't do anything, sure. The gov used this as a means to their own end, why not. But the attacks themselves were the work of a handful of psychotic religious extremists. Promoting this paranoid schizophrenic delusion only negates any credibility you MAY have.
And DO NOT make me repeat the VERY SIMPLE physics involved in dropping a building on itself. Its about 3 paragraphs and I forgot to save a copy from the last time I posted it. Get a clue.

Woohoo. My first post to this forum and I hope it's not my last.

BTW. I have no doubt that everybody that this guy works with was aware of his view. It comes with the territory. And given that, I'd drop him the first chance I got.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Grimstad]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:35 AM
EDIT. Well I guess I'm a little behind the wave and it's already been debunked. Well at least WTC7 has. If you'd like to see the truth(yes the government got it right) you can view the video HERE. I leave my rant for your amusement. Damn. I was so proud of myself. Enjoy.

Well. Not wanting to be closed minded about the issue I followed the link to Archs and engineers for 911 truth listed above in bonez post..
From there I ended up on youtube watching the videos from that high school teacher explaining where NIST screwed up.
I'm not contesting that NIST screwed up, the biggest problem was that they tried to cover their mistake (just ask Bill clinton how well that works). So I'm watching the videos, replaying very important parts and examining the video myself and I did catch a couple miniscule mistakes on the teachers part, but mainly I felt there was something going on that couldn't be seen. It looked like the antenna on the roof was starting to go long before the building went. I sat through 2 of his videos and then went looking for the 3rd but couldn't find it. I gotta say that teacher had me going and his logic was sound, His examination of his video totally supported his theory. Mind you this video was downloaded from the net and was looking directly at what I think would be the right end of the building if you were looking at it from the front. So I can't find part 3 so I click on this other video of the same building.
KEEP IN MIND that the whole reason for the controversy is that the teacher observed the building in complete freefall which should not be the case because the building should be hitting the resistance of the lower part as it falls. The time difference for what it should be and what the teacher observed is about 1,5 seconds. The NIST model predicts the right time.
So. I click on this other video and lo and behold, there is the front of the building in all it's glory. And whats that? The LEFT end of the building begins to cloapse then a pause then the center and last the RIGHT end of the building. THE VERY END THE TEACHER WAS OBSERVING. When the teacher observed the collapse the center of the building had already dropped a few floor and was PULLING DOWN on the outside of the building was in fact in freefall finding no resistance because the core was pulling it down.
BAM! CHECK AND MATE! BUHBYE! Whew. I need a cigarette.
See kiddies. Thats what happens when you get a wild hare up yer butt about some [ahem] conspiracy and you lose perspective.
I thought for sure I was right, or rather that you were wrong, but I opened my mind to the possibility that you were right and I was wrong. So I examined it for my self and found the answer in the very evidence that the oposition put forth.
Aliens? Sure. Ghosts?. Why not? But blowing up the WTC on purpose? I'm sorry but that's just plain [how about silly? will that work?].

Man. Thats waaaay better than the 3 paragraphs I had before.

Edit: Sorry for the typos I was getting a little excited.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Grimstad]

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Grimstad]

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Grimstad]


log in