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.

 

War plans ready to go, days before 9-11 !

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Apology accepted.

I did not claim it proved anything. I claimed it was a piece of evidence that would fit perfectly within the 9-11 conspiracy.

However it seems that not everybody saw the same thing...




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


What you really need is something that says "We want to go to war but we don't have the necessary support". Not "We want to go to war and and will."

The latter just suggests that they actually didn't need something like 9/11 and probably therefore didn't plan it.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Where I'm going at here ?

I'm claiming that the US government has lied about the catalyst for the the war on terrorism. As this was what they had in mind to start anyway.


It is not a lie to say that 9/11 was a reason to go to war, regardless of how you're slicing and dicing it, becuase it WAS a reason to go to war. Congress gave Bush war powers specifically becuase of it. Besides, you're not even quoting your own sources correctly. War wasn't the ultimate goal of the pre 9/11 plan. It was to pressure the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden by any means including war.



What they did not have yet was the approval of the rest of the world. 9-11 has happened at an awfully convenient time for them to launch their plans with the approval of the world.


DING DING DING! INNUENDO DROPPING ALERT! It's clear you're misrepresenting yourself here when you make statements like, "awfully convenient" becuase you obviously have somethign you're tryign to say, but can't come out and actually say it. It gives you plausible deniability, so when you're called on it you can say that's not what you meant.

Sorry, but innuendo dropping doesn't work on me. Please come out and say what you mean to say.


Al Qaida has been said to be of CIA origin and these articles do not proof that Al Qaida is not responsible for the terrorist attacks. What they do not proof either is that is that the US has given Al Qaida the orders to attack.


Whoever said Al Qaida is "of CIA origins" is being horribly fast and loose with the facts. Al Qaida started getting together with the mujahadeen when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and the mujahadeen was receiving CIA support, but Al Qaida only began their anti-west crusade during the first gulf war when foreign troops were in Saudi Arabia. At best, all you can gripe about is US policy makers' inability to predict the future.

May I ask which of those damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites you got this claim from? I know you didn't come up with that yourself.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Apology accepted.

I did not claim it proved anything. I claimed it was a piece of evidence that would fit perfectly within the 9-11 conspiracy.

However it seems that not everybody saw the same thing...


Do a little research on ATS regarding the members who are arguing with you on this thread and you'll see they are card carrying members of the official story defenders' club.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Do a little research on ATS regarding the members who are arguing with you on this thread and you'll see they are card carrying of the official story defenders' club.


(Sigh) rather than doing all this research on the critics here in some vain attempt to "get us", how about doing research on your own claims to see if they're even true?

I've said many times that if you conspiracy theorists were to only hold your own conspiracy claims up to the same exacting high level of critical analysis that you do the commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long. I have yet to see anyone prove the statement incorrect.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Apology accepted.

I did not claim it proved anything. I claimed it was a piece of evidence that would fit perfectly within the 9-11 conspiracy.

However it seems that not everybody saw the same thing...


Do a little research on ATS regarding the members who are arguing with you on this thread and you'll see they are card carrying members of the official story defenders' club.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by dubiousone]


So what? You automatically reject someone's opinion because of who they are? Even if it's logically cogent?

Odd way to conduct yourself.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dubiousone
Do a little research on ATS regarding the members who are arguing with you on this thread and you'll see they are card carrying of the official story defenders' club.


(Sigh) rather than doing all this research on the critics here in some vain attempt to "get us", how about doing research on your own claims to see if they're even true?

I've said many times that if you conspiracy theorists were to only hold your own conspiracy claims up to the same exacting high level of critical analysis that you do the commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long. I have yet to see anyone prove the statement incorrect.


Those whom you paint with the broad brush label as "consipracy theorists" have addressed the events in minute detail and with a high level of scrutiny and critical analysis. It is their probing analysis that has led them to the conclusions that you refuse to acknowledge. They have proven your statement incorrect countless times and continue to do so as we interact on this thread.

But let's not follow this pointless mode of debate any further. You simply refuse to face the overwhelming evidence and choose, rather, to swallow the official pablum whole and close your mind. A very comfortable place of repose, I'm sure.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Those whom you paint with the broad brush label as "consipracy theorists" have addressed the events in minute detail and with a high level of scrutiny and critical analysis. It is their probing analysis that has led them to the conclusions that you refuse to acknowledge. They have proven your statement incorrect countless times and continue to do so as we interact on this thread.


I don't know what you believe you've presented, but what you actually have presented is a never ending stream of circular logic, facts deliberately taken out context, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Yes, some of you attempt to take a stab at going into the physics but it quickly becomes apparent that these people are simply posting gibberish. Between, "Bush knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew HITLER" and "The towers had infinite resistance at rest", it's blatantly obvious that you conspiracy theorists are grasping.


But let's not follow this pointless mode of debate any further. You simply refuse to face the overwhelming evidence and choose, rather, to swallow the official pablum whole and close your mind. A very comfortable place of repose, I'm sure.


I don't understand why I need to keep repeating this...my position is if you don't accept the 9/11 commission's account, then it becomes your responsibility to provide a better scenario which better fits the facts. So far, you've given us nothing but a nonstop stream of Rube Golberg-esque schemes from "they created a false flag to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan", to "they created a fake crash site in Shanksville to fool us...and then covered up the fake crash site they created to fool us" to the whole "lasers from outer space" bit. It's as if the organizers of these conspiracies are a bunch of stones high school kids.

I keep giving you people the opportunity to prove your case and you consistantly blow it. If you genuinely think anyone outside of your private little conspiracy monger cliques takes these conspiracy stories seriously, you're deluded.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hi

I'm sorry it took a while to respond. I've written one already only to see it fade away pushing a wrong button or something. I always have to recharge when that happens I never seem to be able to remember what it was I wrote down exactly.

I'm not going inuendo on you. Please feel free to correct me when I'm wrong. That's why I'm here.


Everything I've read about 9-11, I read almost exclusively right here on ATS.

As I do not usually cross path with anyone that simply does not sees a conspiracy in the event and accepts the conclusions given by the commission that provided the report about 9-11. I assumed my intentions were clear.

I believe 9-11 stinks and the official explanation does not explain everything. I did not make my conclusions from the 9-11 conspiracies around, as I mentioned I do not think the topic is very interesting.
What I do think is interesting are the ways used by governments to implement power and/or consolidate places of interest. What I've found out was that almost nothing happens by chance and is planned long before it takes place. I learned this through a various of subjects I am or was interested in.

Well backed up, full of evidence and proof information crossed my path. I know that history did not happen exactly the same as we are taught and that there are connections between between all major events and governments from at least just before the crusades.

Proof of 9-11 being a conspiracy, I can not give you but there are a lot of signs it is.
I'm convinced but I would rather not be and I would appreciate anyone that could make me change my mind.
 


Back on topic.

Why did I claim this was a lie:

I'm not saying that the event was a lie or that it was not a good reason to start a war.
What I'm understanding is this : 9-11 was said to be the reason to start a war and invade Afghanistan. But... what this article suggest is that they would have started the war anyway and it was planned and ready to go, only waiting for the president to give his approval. This is IMO proof of the following war taking place didn't need a 9-11 yet they said 9-11 was the reason for this war to take place. It was not, it would have taken place without 9-11 happening at all, as the president only had to give his approval to start the war.

Why do I think 9-11 was a hoax :

Rules and regulations were implemented giving the government the power to investigate its own citizens without the problem of human rights to be bothered by.

These freedoms have to be freely given by the citizens to its government or it will not be accepted. They will not give any without a good reason and the fear of terrorism is a pretty good reason for a lot of people.

I've seen terrorism been used and hyped far beyond a realistic point. I've learned about a lot of reasons for the war on terrorism to take place.
Strategic and economic by nature instead of protect and serve that was given as reason.

Not one of them were IMO good enough to invade foreign countries and kill countless of innocents and cause the death of countless of soldiers.
Moral has never be an issue, or countries like North Korea, China, Somalia and so on would be on top of the list.

I'm sorry if what you read makes no sense or does not show you what I was thinking about. I do not have the intention to inuendo you. I also do not say stuff deliberately in a way I could deny I said it. I will admit that I'm wrong when or whenever this turnes out to be the case. Really I do.

I'm also sorry that you had to read this non disclosing explanation, I tried to do it in less words... As you see. I failed.

Kind regards.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join