All of you 'No-Planers' need to see This :

reply to post by people=oooo


Dear People=oooo,

I agree and commend you on your logical request for sources. I have spent years reading, researching both off the Internet and On the Internet, this 9/11 subject.
There are too many sources to quote but here are a few places to check about
Willie Brown for example, but others too:

www.rense.com...

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

makethemaccountable.com...

Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline offers a complete and thorough history of the many roads that converged on 9/11 - this book is so thorough it is frightening and would be a great resource for your research.

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert

"Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture - an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism - without which 9/11 cannot be understood." (From Amazon.Com book review)

As far as NORAD how did Cheney get to be the one in command when it is supposed to be handled by the Pentagon? The following can explain a few things:

Cheney order to Rumsfeld: check following video

www.youtube.com...

And about the 'put' options on or before 9/11 check out:

www.tbrnews.org...

www.hereinreality.com...

I hope you will take some time to read and check out other sources too; and I can
see why you want more verification. This is a major crime that took thousands of
lives and deserves the utmost scrutiny. You are showing that you want to know more from closer sources. Good luck on your inquiries.

Sincerely

LMD

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Sorry about using the term "Kamikazi" so loosely. You are correct, the Kamikazi flew
later in the war, and not at Pearl Harbor:

www.u-s-history.com...

However, the FOI resulted in documents being released which brought about the following information regarding if we knew in advance about the Pearl Harbor attack to put the US into War:

www.independent.org...

(from source above)
“Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.
“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”
To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise.”


Aircraft carriers on dec 7 1942: where were they?

www.history.navy.mil...

ships in Pearl Harbor and damage:

www.navsource.org...

I am certainly no infallible source but I think it is important to ask questions and be able to entertain the various possibilities that might answer our questions, whether we
like them or not. After all, this is ATS where we are free to do so.

reply to post by gamma 49


Excuse me, gamma49, but NO United Airlines flight hit the WTC on 9/11 as you have mentioned on more than one occasion.
UAL flight 93 crashed in PA.
And United AL uses both PW and GE engines. I really do not have the time and/or the desire to even discuss the misinformation in your posts.
Please check this link:

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks,
Tom

Originally posted by gamma 49
reply to post by AmethystSD

 

THE UNDERSIDE OF BOTH PLANES ARE VERY SUSPECT. TO ME THEY LOOK LIKE A CRUSIE MISSLE.

Excuse me again gamma49!! How many cruise missiles and 757s have you seen in person side by side? Do you have a source for the dimensions of both the cruise missile and the B757 comparisons? AHHHH!!

I am not trying to be disrespectful of your opinions but...I too saw, with my own eyes, the second plane hit. AND three weeks later rode past the Pentagon on my way to Dulles to catch a plane to Syria.
The damage to the Pentagon was tremendous. The MSM and photos do NOT do it justice. Just another thing you have to witness for yourself and not rely on others' opinions or ideas.

I'm sorry I keep replying to your disinformation and garbage. It really bothers me that anyone would put this stuff out there for everyone to see and NOT be embarrassed!!

Well good luck to you...I won't respond anymore and will block you so I won't get upset or bothered by your inane statements.

(To the Mods: I was trying to be as considerate and polite as I possible to gamma 49, promise it won't happen again.)

Thanks,
Tom

[edit on 18-4-2010 by tomdham]

reply to post by tomdham


Excuse me ? Did you just say that no United flight hit the towers ?

If that was a mistake on your part , okay .

If you stand by that , then please explain United Air Lines Flight 175 , that hit the south tower ?

What are you saying ?

Ill tell you one thing, if flying a plane into a building that massive can bring it down it the most perfect way, not just once but twice, then the engineers who demolish buildings for a living would be doing that. Lord knows its a lot quicker than all the work and prep needed to do that the "old fashioned" way. It was surely planes flying into the buildings. That isnt of much doubt. However there is much doubt that hijackers flew the planes. But seriously, planes alone would not have done it. Hell I dont think 5 planes alone into one of the buildings would have done it. There were bombs planted, police and fireman who were there know that. Building 7??? They admitted pulling it. How long does it take to prepare a building to be demolished? Simple questions rip the official story apart.

Originally posted by tomdham
Excuse me, gamma49, but NO United Airlines flight hit the WTC on 9/11 as you have mentioned on more than one occasion.

United Airlines Flight 175 was alleged to have hit the south tower on 9/11. Here's one of the best still images to date:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ec8d6a798fd.jpg[/atsimg]


And a United Airlines 767 sitting on a runway:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2454e7147959.jpg[/atsimg]


Whether or not the second plane was an actual scheduled flight with real people on board can be disputed. But what cannot be disputed is that a 757 with United Airlines paint scheme slammed into the south tower on 9/11.

the holograms are powerfull this days just check the sony holograme in tokyo just amazing go to youtube

the holograms are powerfull this days just check the sony holograme in tokyo just amazing go to youtube

reply to post by _BoneZ_


The pic of the airplane hitting the tower clearly has a pod attached to its belly.

www.youtube.com...

This video is another nail in the coffin of the OS.

reply to post by okbmd


Sorry, my bad!! I was just overcome by the inane statements made by '49
I guess I was confused!

Thanks for setting me straight.
Tom

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Sorry all, won't happen again!!! I guess I was just off my game yesterday.
Thanks,
Tom

reply to post by okbmd


Problem: Flight 175 was supposed to be a 767-200ER.Not a 767-300. Like you tell us the part came from. So whats your response going to be, to lie or make stuff up?






[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2866067f816b.jpg[/atsimg]

thanks for doing the hard part on identifying this piece of wreckage. Now can you be so kind as to explain to us how flight 175 turned from a 767-200ER into a 767-300? Enquring minds would like to know.... And how do your conclusions NOT point to conpsiracy?

Cheers-
phil

reply to post by LaMadameDuval


Absolutely. I found the stuff about Pearl Harbour interesting, so thanks for the link.

Notice though that if 9/11 is a "Pearl Harbour"-type event then it is unlikely that the US government had a hand in it, but rather allowed it to happen. Personally I think this improbable, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


" Like you tell us the part came from. So whats your response going to be, to lie or make stuff up? "

Excuse me ? Could you please show me and everyone else here where I said ANY of the parts came from ?

While you are at it , could you also show me and everyone else here where I lied or made anything up ?

I posted a link that shows AIRPLANE PARTS . Are you calling me a liar and saying those aren't airplane parts ?

Are you disputing that those pictures depict airplane parts in the vicinity of the Twin Towers ? Are you saying that I made that up ?

Conspiracy ? Hell yes , there was/is a conspiracy .

No planes hit the towers ? That is a conspiracy in itself .

It would do you well to read carefully what is contained in a thread/post before replying with such enthusiasm and unfounded accusations .


[edit on 19-4-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by vanhippi truthers or not, believe a plane hit the towers It's just a small minority that believe that it wasn't a plane (which is crazy, because it's pretty clearly a plane

)

NO, actually its NOT CLEAR.

And may i remind you that it USED TO BE a MINORITY that BELIEVED 9/11 was an inside job while MOST ridiculed these MINORITY saying these FEW were CRAZY for believing outrageous CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

But of course those who were laughing were really the ones BELIEVING in the MOST INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Now those FEW have turned into MANY and are beginning to wake up and realize this more and more because they finally decided to keep an open mind, engage in intelligent discourse, do real in-depth research, analyze the evidence in an academic way, and use basic common sense.

I GUARANTEE the SAME scenario is happening and will happen as it relates to NRPT.

So go right ahead and laugh or call NRPT crazy all you want... The evidence overwhelmingly has shown its not as crazy or nonsensical as MOST of those ignorant of the evidence, will ever admit. Those laughing offer zero evidence or supporting arguments showing exactly how and where NRPT is BS.

reply to post by Orion7911


You're wrong. It's still an overwhelming majority who do believe the 9/11 "OS" to be substantially true.

No one takes NPT seriously, even large swathes of the truth movement. Indeed I think quite a lot of no-planers are just messing around and trying to see how far they can push a ludicrous internet meme.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Orion7911

 

No one takes NPT seriously, even large swathes of the truth movement. Indeed I think quite a lot of no-planers are just messing around and trying to see how far they can push a ludicrous internet meme.

the only thing thats ludicrous is the fact most dismiss nrpt based on ignorance, denial or without knowing anything about it.

and the only ones who don't take nrpt seriousy, are those who haven't enough real research on it, are ignorant of all the evidence there is, or again, are in denial.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Orion7911

 

No one takes NPT seriously, even large swathes of the truth movement. Indeed I think quite a lot of no-planers are just messing around and trying to see how far they can push a ludicrous internet meme.

the only thing thats ludicrous is the fact most dismiss nrpt based on ignorance, denial or without knowing anything about it.

and the only ones who don't take nrpt seriousy, are those who haven't enough real research on it, are ignorant of all the evidence there is, or again, are in denial.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No one takes NPT seriously, even large swathes of the truth movement.

I think you meant the whole truth movement.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Indeed I think quite a lot of no-planers are just messing around and trying to see how far they can push a ludicrous internet meme.

That's exactly what they're doing. And to think that myself and others treated the no-plane disinfo seriously enough to research, debate, then debunk it.