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.

 

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 25
118
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





Ever heard of a computer chip? Do you know what a circuit designed to receive an encrypted code to send an "on" signal to an explosive charge of some sort would look like, when that's ALL it has to do? It sounds like you're actually saying they would need EQUIPMENT to do this, which is hilarious. If you could fit the charge itself somewhere in the building, you can fit such an electronic device on it easily.


How much more are you going to complicate, your already complicated theory? Now you think that microchips were used to detonate the charges. Ever heard of the planning phrase keep it simple stupid? I am going to guess you havent, because your belief flies in the face of it. Relying on a few hundred (thousand, most likely) microchips to perform flawlessly. And hoping that quality control was 100% at the factory....

Just how much more do you want to complicate your story?

No matter, because the small debris was gone through with sifting screens that would have turned up some of your chips.

So what is the next miracle explosive/detonation system you want to use?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Cherry picking the ISG report to support your cause, pretty much disqualifies your post from reality. In reality, the ISG did state that Hussien was violating the cease fire.

However, the ISG, did us a disservice when the passed all the chem weapons we found (and their precursor chemicals) as "agricultural" in nature.

Every farmer I know stores his pesticides in a camouflaged bunker in a military ammo dump..........


[edit on 5-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Yes, actually.

Yes, we sold quite a bit of dual use items to Iraq. They were sold for civilian purposes for the most part. Thats the problem with bio/chem agents, they can be made out of items meant for other uses.

Nerve agents were a byproduct of creating pesticides.

Bio weapons are a byproduct of vaccines.

Should we have sold them to Saddam Hussien, probably not. However, at the time, he was the enemy of our enemy AND he was considered the buffer zone between the rabid form of Islam in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then he invaded Kuwait and the game changed. Its easy to be a Monday morning quarterback isnt it?

If you want to continue in history, I can point out that we trained/supplied Ho Chi Minh during World War II (and he was responsible for far more American deaths than Saddam Hussien)



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here is your quote



If the government said it is so, I will have to believe them, because I know they would never lie don’t you agree? I will gladly bow out of this thread with my head down now that I know that Saddam was going to blow up America with muster gas.


Now, you have already started a thread about the USAF being responsible for 9/11. Then you post the above after it is pointed out to you that the US Army found quite a few chemical weapons and all the stuff needed to make more, and you question that as well.

So that would make the US Army and the US Air Force guilty in your eyes, so my post was entirely justified, because that is the way you present yourself....until you are called on it, of course.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by NIcon
 

Using the ISG, pretty much disqualifies your post from reality. In reality, the ISG did state that Hussien was violating the cease fire.

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of the above. Can you explain what you mean? Are you saying the ISG was pretty much a fantasy report?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Thats what I get typing on two screens at once, reread the edited post. The ISG report is commonly misquoted to state the Saddam was being a good boy. Reality however, was different. In addition, the ISG ignored some discoveries made, or pooh-poohed them as being agricultural chemicals.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



I should have known, you think the entire US military was in on it...........


That is a not true, I never said that.
Where did I ever say the entire military?



Interesting. First Jthomas is telling lies about what people said, then we have Pteridine telling lies about why he really trolls these forums, then MMichael has to lie about someone else and here swampy is lying about what someone said.

Am I the only one that sees a problem with the fact that these OS defenders are caught lying so often in defense of their 'truth?'



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Swampfox,

How many coffee breaks do they allow you to take so you can stretch your legs and get out of that damp basement that they have you working in??

Hope you are proud of yourself..



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Thats what people like you will never understand. It does not matter if they were five days old for fifteen years old. Saddam invaded Kuwait and got his butt kicked by the coalition forces, one of the items on the cease fire was to dispose of all chem/bio weapons and all chemicals/equipment necessary to make more. They were supposed to be GONE, as were all the chemicals, warheads, suits and mixing equipment that we found in the bunker in Karbala. But they werent.



Apparently you completely ignored the article above that explains how many of these exact same types of WMDs are found all over the UNITED STATES because they have been long forgotten and unaccounted for.

Yes it does matter how old they were. If they are not weapons or capable of mass destruction...they are not weapons of mass destruction. How is it that you do not understand all this?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Well I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good boy. He may have violated other aspects of the cease fire, but I thought the discussion was about them finding chemical weapons in Iraq.

So it's good to "cherrypick" the report as it covers many other topics other than whether they found chemical weapons. It's good to "cherrypick" through all their findings to isolate the findings on what was actually found in Iraq. And when I read the report and "cherrypick" their conclusions of what was actually found in Iraq I find that their conclusion is that they were scams by Iraqis either looking for money or for some other reason. I think it's right to "cherrypick" their conclusion that there is no evidence that Iraq weaponized pesticides, so if they find stockpiles of pesticides they came to the conclusion that they were just that, pesticides.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by rainfall
 


Not too damp here in Iraq. Although your concern is noted.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



And you continue to compare apples to oranges. Comparing the United States to Iraq in regards to the WMD issue is not a valid comparision.




Yes it does matter how old they were. If they are not weapons or capable of mass destruction...they are not weapons of mass destruction. How is it that you do not understand all this?


Umm, no it doesnt matter how old they are. Just because they are only potent to kill 100 people as opposed to 10,000, is irrelevant. In addition, the chemical cache found in Karbala, were all the ingredients necessary to make Sarin and Mustard gas. All fresh, all ready to be used, and tucked away in a camouflaged bunker in an ammo dump.

What is it that YOU do not understand about that?



[edit on 5-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


It is really a crying shame the mods just ignore this bunk de bunk crap.
This thread is now the HISTORY CHANNEL.
You all must be debonkers. Ho ho ho Chi Mihn too!
And now the fruit channel.



[edit on 5-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   


I think it's right to "cherrypick" their conclusion that there is no evidence that Iraq weaponized pesticides, so if they find stockpiles of pesticides they came to the conclusion that they were just that, pesticides.


Stockpiles of pesticides, with the gear needed to make the weapons and the warheads needed to carry said weapons....yep, thats innocent alright. Are you this trusting in real life?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You really should try reading all of his posts...before you make ill informed posts like you did. Getting used to that though.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You really should try reading all of his posts...before you make ill informed posts like you did. Getting used to that though.


All of his posts? I named more than one person in my post so I am not sure who it is you are referring to exactly.

I do note that you have not defended the lie you are accused of telling though.

I guess since you were caught being deceptive, instead of back it up or admit you were wrong, you waste my time with this?

Did he say what you claim he said or not?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

No, I'm not that trusting. I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened. Pretty much all I have to go on is reports that are released by the government. So when witnesses contradict a report, I'm wondering who's right. Why would a government report discard certain evidence? Why would a government report come to a conclusion not supported by the evidence found? Just how much should we rely on government reports to know what happened?

So I was all ready skeptical of NIST, FEMA, and the 911 commission. And now you're telling me I should be skeptical about the ISG report. That's good advice.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You used my quote to impressme as start of your post. Try and keep up.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If you want to continue in history, I can point out that we trained/supplied Ho Chi Minh during World War II (and he was responsible for far more American deaths than Saddam Hussien)

While you're at it, you could point out the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, which led to the deaths of 50,000 American troops and millions of Vietnamese.

Sound familiar to any current situations?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If you want to continue in history, I can point out that we trained/supplied Ho Chi Minh during World War II (and he was responsible for far more American deaths than Saddam Hussien)

While you're at it, you could point out the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, which led to the deaths of 50,000 American troops and millions of Vietnamese.

Sound familiar to any current situations?


Nope. Next?



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join