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.

 

Wikileaks Cables Describe 9/11 attacks as 'Bombings'

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Greetings Folks,

Whilst perusing the wikileaks cables with a key word search I noticed that one of them referred to the September 11th attacks as 'bombings'.

Since the media have constantly referred to this terrorist act as an 'attack' and since saying bombs were used will bring on attacks in many forums, I find this to be peculiar and worthy of your attention.

Is it not true that one can see people being attacked on ATS for suggesting that bombs were used on 9/11?

Here is the relevant excerpt, referring to the September 11 attacks as 'bombings':



(SBU) Judge Garzon is considered a critical threat
profile Judge due to his on-going oversight and involvement
in highly-visible terrorism cases including the September 11,
2001 Trade Tower bombings as connected to the Moroccan
Al-Qaida cell known as the Barakat Yarkas group.


Here is the link to the relevant cable:

91.214.23.156...



*And now we can all argue over whether or not 'bombings' means 'bombs' were used.




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Well the planes were used as big jet fuel bombs I don't see any need to argue..

It is a fact that they used planes as bombs... End of story



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 



I already thought of that.

Good point though - but we all know that 'bombing' means 'bombs' - or at least it would in any other context but 9/11.

That is why we call them the '9/11 attacks', and trash people who say there were bombs, yes?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think you're taking it too literally, Planes=bombs.
S



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


So we are playing semantics games?

The FBI called the attack on Pentagon - PENTBOMB

just because someone uses the wrong term does not mean it is so - just that someone used wrong terminology



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


So we are playing semantics games?



I don't know, are we?

I thought that calling something a 'bombing' implied a bomb was used. We cannot just pretend otherwise, right?

....Maybe the rules are different when discussing 9/11?




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well spotted, OP. Thanks for posting it. All these little anomalies add up.

second
edit on 13-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well, if you want to be that literal then where is the "Trade Tower"? Never heard of that. Could they possibly mean the World Trade Center North Tower and South Tower? And since both were attacked then why only the singular Trade Tower? And since it says only 2001 and no specific date then maybe they were refering to some other tower that was bombed in 2001?

See how far you can go with this?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I will now point to this wikileak cable when people argue with me whenever I refer to the 9/11 attacks as bombings.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What were the planes used as flying projectiles?


Or flying bombs.......

I go with the later



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Grasping at strings, are we?

Wikileaks, while releasing cables that indicate real conspiracies that need to be ridiculed and scorned by the American people/citizens of the world, has released nothing that indicates a conspiracy on 9/11. Because of this, most truthers are claiming that Assange and wikileaks are somehow involved, or that they are members of the NWO, or puppets for Mossad, or, heaven forbid, JEWISH!!!

Or they grasp at strings, as you have done here.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
When the concorde blew up, was that a bomb or a crash? TWA800, bomb, or crash? I think a jet liner crashing is a crash, regardless how it was used or what it crashed into. I would say they are refering to what a good majority of people have been suspecting for years, that there were bombs. I know, you know, we all know, so stop playing dumb, those who insist it meant the planes. so all those passengers are just explosives now huh? please.. planes crash, and bombs bring buildings down.

eta. more important, in thos cable, why is the judge overseeing 9/11 cases considered a threat?
edit on 13-12-2010 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


Oh come on. Let's see, how many nouns and adjectives can a simple airliner have? They used to be called jets.
Then on 9-11 they were conveniently upgraded to 'missiles' and now you're telling us they can also be referred to as bombs?
These were (supposedly) passenger jets (supposedly) en route to other parts of the country so these should be typical hijacked planes crashing into building and nothing more!

Even when that hijacked Ethiopian plane crashed into the Indian Ocean, that wasn't dubbed a torpedo!

Stop making excuses. The official story about 9-11 is a total lie!!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Everybody who has posted, above, who are usually on the side of the so-called "truthers" were quick to 'applaud' your "find"....

....but, which of those knee-jerk responses noted the nationality of this Judge Garzon???

I suggest one take a look...and then see that, indeed, this entire thread is a HUGE grasp at straws, using the vagaries of language and cultural differences in a disingenuous way, in order to make something out of, virtually, nothing!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
So what were the airplanes used for, you can not deny that 2 planes slammed into the wtc...

You can call it whatever you want.

If a plane crashed, it is being said it crashed because it was a accident....

While the planes did smash into the wtc it was not an accident, the planes were used as a huge jet fuel bombs.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Grasping at strings, are we?

Wikileaks, while releasing cables that indicate real conspiracies that need to be ridiculed and scorned by the American people/citizens of the world, has released nothing that indicates a conspiracy on 9/11. Because of this, most truthers are claiming that Assange and wikileaks are somehow involved, or that they are members of the NWO, or puppets for Mossad, or, heaven forbid, JEWISH!!!

Or they grasp at strings, as you have done here.


No, they grasp at straws, not strings. At least get your metaphor right even if you get your argument wrong.

There is nothing inconsistent in regarding released cables that speak of bombs on 9/11 (there are dozens of press/TV reporters and fire fighters stating this) whilst at the same time believing Assange is part of a CIA psy op operation. Those behind this release are not afraid to release such cables because no one in the media that the CIA manipulates is going to take them seriously. Plus many people are so dumbed-down that they would not realize the significance of such statements. That seems to include some here



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 



eta. more important, in thos cable, why is the judge overseeing 9/11 cases considered a threat?


" Judge Garzon is considered a critical 'Threat-Profile' judge ..."

He is not considered a threat . He is considered a critical "Threat-Profile" judge .

See how that works ?
edit on 13-12-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecinic
So what were the airplanes used for, you can not deny that 2 planes slammed into the wtc...

You can call it whatever you want.

If a plane crashed, it is being said it crashed because it was a accident....

While the planes did smash into the wtc it was not an accident, the planes were used as a huge jet fuel bombs.


a crash is a crash. if it was an accident, its an accidental airplane crash. if terrorists crash it, its not a bomb, its still a crash, it would probably be a forced crash, or deliberate crash. a jet will never be a bomb, yet a bomb can cause a crash. Was the london bombings, a subway crash? no it was a subway bombing. oh and you could still have accidental bombing, like in the case of Israel bombing US ship. so maybe the plane crashes were accidental.. in which case its not a missile...

im rambling now. i still dont get why some cling to OS like its their mother. if GOD came down and said it wasnt how we describe it the OS, you still would claim bs and say no way.. GOD s just lying.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Myendica
 



eta. more important, in thos cable, why is the judge overseeing 9/11 cases considered a threat?


" Judge Garzon is considered a critical 'Threat-Profile' judge ..."

He is not considered a threat . He is considered a critical "Threat-Profile" judge .

See how that works ?
edit on 13-12-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)


oklahoma, good to see ya.. so we can just throw in punctuation and hyphens into other people work now? i see no breaking up of words like you put them in.. thanks for your great editing job



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I thought that calling something a 'bombing' implied a bomb was used. We cannot just pretend otherwise, right?

....Maybe the rules are different when discussing 9/11?



No, they aren't.

Actually, people have been calling missile strikes and artillery barrages "bombings" before then, and this is no different.

Trying to take things to a literal extreme seems to have failed for you.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join