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.

 

Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

page: 15
154
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
9/11 research link is great. A question comes to mind: we had three boeings seamlessly melt into WTC 1& 2, and one into the pentagon. WTC 1&2 after a couple of hours collapsed from jet fuel fires at virtual free fall into dust. Now should that not have happened at the Pentagon? Jet melted into a recently reno'd ring. Same kind of fuel, similar spectacular explosion. Within about 30 minutes only a very small section of the ring fell. There was very little fire, but then again we had WTC 7 completely collapsed from fire, again at almost free fall speed. Yet here is the Pentagon almost pristine facade and unscathed lawn. Why did it not completely collapse? That's some remarkable building material they used.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer

I never claimed to have any knowledge of what happened to the money.


No. But you said that you assumed it had been spent on black ops. So it must have been a surprise to you when one and a half trillion was reaccounted for.


I never asserted anything about anything concerning the money other than the FACT that SECDEF Rumsfeld announced that it was unaccounted for the day before 9-11 happened. You seem bent on trying to make connections that I have not made and assertions that I have not uttered. So, please, wipe the rabid froth from your mouth and relax. Ease down hero.


You claimed that what you wrote about the Pentagon was fact, Although at the time, and apparently now, you're admitting that it's just baseless conjecture.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 




The thing I don't understand about this demolition conspiracy theory is.... why is it so important to make the buildings fall? I mean, 4 hijacked planes, people killed.... HELL one plane to the Pentagon is enough to start a war.


To add one other dimension to your answer, it`s important in seeing the big picture that they would want to convince the entire planet that the US government was really under attack. It was really important to have all the visuals in place in order to make it easier to persuade other nations to form a coalition to return to Iraq. As it was a few nations flatly refused.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface

To add one other dimension to your answer, it`s important in seeing the big picture that they would want to convince the entire planet that the US government was really under attack. It was really important to have all the visuals in place in order to make it easier to persuade other nations to form a coalition to return to Iraq. As it was a few nations flatly refused.


Well, all of them really, bar a couple. So it wasn't all that successful if it was meant as a recruiting tool.

And whoever made the hijackers Saudi probably got fired. Surely would have been a bit easier if they'd been Iraqi?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by Hemisphere
 




The thing I don't understand about this demolition conspiracy theory is.... why is it so important to make the buildings fall? I mean, 4 hijacked planes, people killed.... HELL one plane to the Pentagon is enough to start a war.


To add one other dimension to your answer, it`s important in seeing the big picture that they would want to convince the entire planet that the US government was really under attack. It was really important to have all the visuals in place in order to make it easier to persuade other nations to form a coalition to return to Iraq. As it was a few nations flatly refused.


That's right. You have elected officials that were not in on this and the amount of carnage and destruction was there to sway them and future coalition partners. Would this country and all the others marched off to Iraq for 100, 200, 300 lives? We'll never know but I tend to doubt it. You had a substantial number of lives lost including foreigners. The structures plus loss of life equals enough fervor to ignore the glaring holes in the story.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by aboutface

To add one other dimension to your answer, it`s important in seeing the big picture that they would want to convince the entire planet that the US government was really under attack. It was really important to have all the visuals in place in order to make it easier to persuade other nations to form a coalition to return to Iraq. As it was a few nations flatly refused.


Well, all of them really, bar a couple. So it wasn't all that successful if it was meant as a recruiting tool.

And whoever made the hijackers Saudi probably got fired. Surely would have been a bit easier if they'd been Iraqi?


Speaking of glaring holes in the story, "Saudi hijackers" goes to the front of the line. You're right on. How the hell is it that we didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Rhetorical of course. Bush(es) and the King are butt buddies as we've seen in the MSM and as we've all been through here on ATS. The Bushes are something akin to Saudi Arabian princes with their Saudi oil holdings. Invading Iraq was to provide continued and future protection for Saudi Arabia and Israel.


After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush demanded that the Iraqis leave at once. Saddam, once our ally, all of a sudden was a demon, a threat to world peace and someone who was obsessed with obtaining and building "weapons of mass destruction." The Saudi Arabian Royal Family also privately expressed fear that Saddam (who probably was more popular in Saudi Arabia than the corrupt rulers of the royal family) would turn his military might towards them.

The Saudis, as well as the Israelis and others who saw this as a golden opportunity for a U.S. military response, began to raise the specter of Iraq "controlling" the world's largest single oil source. Journalists began to write about the possible reappearance of the dreaded "gas lines," forgetting that the chaos at the gas pumps in the USA during the 1970s was the direct result of government price controls on domestic crude oil and gasoline. The prospect of the U.S. Armed Forces being able to set up permanent bases also appealed to a number of Democrats and Republicans, not to mention Israeli politicians who realized that dragging their best "ally" into the Middle East morass would further cement ties between the USA and Israel. - William L. Anderson


Hell with cementing ties with Israel, that was locked up long ago. The US having permanent bases promised to prevent the likes of Iran and the other fundamentalist states from ever attacking Israel. A permanent ground presence with the promise of ready fuel trumps warships in the Gulf every time.

Here's the piece that came out of, written September 10, 2002:

George Bush I: The Man Who Helped Make September 11 a Reality
edit on 23-2-2011 by Hemisphere because: fix link



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No. But you said that you assumed it had been spent on black ops. So it must have been a surprise to you when one and a half trillion was reaccounted for.

No, I did not say that I assumed it had been spent on black ops. I said that it was likely. There is a distinction.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You claimed that what you wrote about the Pentagon was fact, Although at the time, and apparently now, you're admitting that it's just baseless conjecture.

No. You are trying to make quick connections to statements that are in and of themselves INDEPENDENT. I stated facts. The facts remain unchanged no matter what smoke and mirrors you try to employ to obfuscate the issue. The facts from my original post remain the same, no matter what meandering conjecture you try to implant into the discussion. For those reading this latest post, refer back a few pages to see where all of this began so that your last thoughts are not of TRICKoftheSHADE's attempts to over-simplify and muddy what was originally posted. He and his tag-team partner cast aside strong points and nit-pick minor things in order to dismiss everything that has been presented.

AGAIN: in the 9-11 situation, DEBUNKERS are those who are DEBUNKING the OFFICIAL STORY (OS). "Believers" are those who blindly accept the OS without looking into the facts. Others might try to keep the true DEBUNKERS labled as "conspiracy theorists" or "truthers," but in reality, the people blindly accepting the OS of 9-11 are the believers. And they are very upset when FACTS interfere with their faith.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Speaking of Bush senior, here are the strategies that inspired 9/11. It's found at tbe bottom of page 11 of the
The New American Century

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.


edit on 24-2-2011 by aboutface because: (sorry, it`s late)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Another high-level military official, who appears to have quite the credentials and background, STRONGLY contesting the O/S, and literally calling out TPTB directly, saying they were BEHIND the attacks.

He says after investigating 9 / 11 for FOUR YEARS, he is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT convinced that this was an act of the highest treason carried out by our gov...

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions on his statements and credentials.

Thoughts?



Don't any of you care that he doesn't present any evidence of the reasons why he claims he is 100% certain that the WTC 7 was a demolition?

I don't understand you people here... you question things, but when it comes to someone supporting your theories, you don't seem to question it.

If you follow the links, he leaves 2 links to prison planet, which is Alex "Jar head" Jones scaremonger, who is basically a disgruntled, paranoid middle american male and leaves no evidence that supports his 100% assertion. Doesn't this bother any of you??


Some of you seem like fairly intelligent people... I just don't get it.




Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Good find. Thanks for the read.

Can I ask a question though. The thing I don't understand about this demolition conspiracy theory is.... why is it so important to make the buildings fall? I mean, 4 hijacked planes, people killed.... HELL one plane to the Pentagon is enough to start a war.

What is the significance of complicating the situation and trying to make the buildings fall? The government could care less about public support, if indeed, a terrorist organization just pummeled a plane into the Pentagon alone.

There is always someone "proving" the fact that the buildings could have fell, and then someone right next to him able to "prove" that it is impossible under the set circumstances.



The answer is, IT WOULDNT HAVE MATTERED.

Do you think that the whole world would not have been shocked if 4 planes were hijacked and 2 of the flew in to the WTC and 1 crashed in the pentagon and one in the ground.

Do you really think that the whole world would not have been horrified just as much???

Come on people. A controlled demolition was not needed.

What I don't get about some people is they are looking for a conspiracy, in the wrong places.

The bottom line is, disgruntled Arabs flew plans in to the WTC. There i no need to create a conspiracy.

You all take the emphasis off the real issues.

The real issues of the matter are US foreign policy. This foreign policy and the installation of military bases, along with the CIA upsetting democratic elections, is causing a block back effect that Ron Paul talks about.

ITS THE US FOREIGN POLICY that is causing the problems and that is not a conspiracy.

The conspiracy comes in when Bush used this as a context to enter an illegal war, which no one pays attention because they are so concerned with proving the WTCs were a controlled demolition.

Come on people.. think with your heads!!

There is no need for a controlled demolition.

Bush claimed and linked Al-quaeda to Saddam Hussein. He also lied about the weapons of mass destruction to enter an illegal war, that was not supported by the UN and the international community.

ISN'T THIS CONSPIRACY ENOUGH??????

He used this event as a context to start A WAR OF AGGRESSION on a government that was not attacking the USA.

And when you nuts focus on this controlled demolition theory, you are not in the truth movement, you are actually taking emphasis off the real truths that can be proven. And you are also letting Bush and his government off, because YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, NOR WILL YOU EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE AND LINK THAT TO BUSH, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO IT.

All they had to do, was piss people off around the world, and use any event that would happen as a context for a war of aggression.

You conspiracy nuts, need to grow up and start learning to filter your data. Use the scientific method in your research and occams razor. If you did, there would be no controlled demolition theories.


Indict Bush for war crimes

Euston Manifesto



Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


To all of the non truthers.

Why would he perpetrate such lies?
there has to be a reason.
You won't be able to defend your willfull ignorance forever.
the whole house of cards is getting ready to come crashing down on you.
Get out NOW!
I would advise you to begin the lengthy process of reformulating your world view to something that more closely resembles reality or you're going to be in for one hell of a rude awakening soon.

Just a thought.


The simple answer is, he is gullible. If you are wrong, you are perpetrating lies as well...

You need to back and research this and use the scientific method along with Occams razor and get out of your matrix world.

There are many real conspiracies in the world, and most of you seem to have no clue on how to find them.



Originally posted by starless and bible black
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 

The buildings were build to the saturation point with asbestos. Even the cement between floors was mixed with the fire proofing substance. This is why it's a conspiracy, basically. The zionist who missed work that day knew that the cost of fixing the problem was prohibitive. So, owning government has it's perks.

Also, building 7 contained sensitive files about Enron, and back up data on the missing rumsfeld trillions (the original data were in the pentagon, just where the missile blew up).

I thought it was obvious why the bldgs came down.


I would put money on it, that the poster above, has not even read the wiki article on WTC 7. How many have you even did the most basic research and read the wiki article?

Wikipedia on WTC 7

How many of you checked the references that were put by this article?

How many of you have read the Fema pdf report on WTC 7?

Most of you have not even done the most basic research... and its easy to tell. I don't mean to be harsh, but come on people. If I debated most of you on this topic, most have not even bothered to check most of the official versions FIRST and then look at other options... you go at things backwards.

You people are claiming that the firefighters are not telling the truth! That eye witnesses are not telling the truth. YOU DO REALIZE THIS DONT YOU???

Eye witness testimoney and firefighter testimoney on WTC 7

I just don't understand with the mountain of evidence, how people can be so gullible and look in to things so loosely but yet have really big opinions that cannot hold up.

THE DOD was in WTC 7
The United States Department of Defense (USDOD, DOD or DoD, initially briefly referred to as the National Military Establishment or NME) is the U.S. federal department allocated the largest level of budgetary resources and charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government relating directly to national security and the United States armed forces. The Department of Defense is an evolution of the Department of War. The organization and functions of the DoD are set forth in Title 10 of the United States Code.

THE CIA HAD OFFICES in WTC 7

The secret service had offices in WTC 7
The United States Secret Service is a United States federal law enforcement agency that is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security.[2] The sworn members are divided among the Special Agents and the Uniformed Division. Until March 1, 2003, the Service was part of the United States Department of Treasury.

The US Secret Service has two distinct areas of responsibility:

Treasury roles, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of US currency and US treasury bonds notes and investigation of major fraud.[4]
Protective roles, ensuring the safety of current and former national leaders and their families, such as the President, past Presidents, Vice Presidents, presidential candidates, foreign embassies (per an agreement with the US State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security [DS] Office of Foreign Missions [OFM]), etc.[5]
The Secret Service's initial responsibility was to investigate crimes related to the Treasury and then evolved into the United States' first domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency. Many of the agency's missions were later taken over by subsequent agencies such as the FBI, ATF, ICE, and IRS.

THE IRS had offices in there.

You would have to assume that all these organizations or most of them, were in on it!! Don't you think they would do some research if they believed that the WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Do you really understand what you are claiming, when you say this building was a controlled demolition.

All the fire fighters would have to be in on the scam as well... are you really this gullible??
==================================================================

How many of you have done the most basic of research?? Have you read even this full wiki page?
Have you read the FEMA report?
Have you read the NIST report?

Most of you have not done the most basic of research. And it angers me, because you are taking the emphasis off the real conspiracy of 911. It was used as a context to start and illegal war, against an innocent people. Now Iraq is a hot bed for terrorism... but most of you sit with your fingers up your asses, looking at controlled demolition videos on youtube...

You guys just make no sense....

=====================================================================

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[4] The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[4] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[4] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[35] At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[1] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. According to FEMA, structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse;[1] nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point.[15]


Plan view of collapse progression, with structural failure initiating on lower floors, on the east side of the building and vertical progression up to the east mechanical penthouseThe report did not reach conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.][1]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[36] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[37]



=========================
In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA
=========================

You guys seem to be stuck in this matrix like Alex Jones thought, where everything is a conspiracy. Its because you are lacking the most basic research skills and you would rather watch youtbube videos then do some actual scientific research. If you did scientific research, its obvious what has happened.

But yet you have this whole movement. This movement of misdirection.

Its a wasted movement, because you are focusing on things you can never prove!! While the real culprits and real problems and effects of 911 go unresolved.

We are quite silly apes that inhabit this planet earth...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by aboutface

To add one other dimension to your answer, it`s important in seeing the big picture that they would want to convince the entire planet that the US government was really under attack. It was really important to have all the visuals in place in order to make it easier to persuade other nations to form a coalition to return to Iraq. As it was a few nations flatly refused.




And whoever made the hijackers Saudi probably got fired. Surely would have been a bit easier if they'd been Iraqi?


Isn't that funny; nobody got fired for 9/11. Heck, a few of them were promoted. I guess the Peter Principle is still in effect for the govt.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ghpink
 

Wow, you sure are passionate in your beliefs, but using FEMA and NIST reports to validate those beliefs is like asking the Warren Commission who really assassinated JFK.

You correctly state that the real problem is U.S. foreign policy, but do you really think we'd still be involved in a couple of illegal and immoral trillion-dollar wars if it weren't for 9/11?

C'mon, do you really think the events that led to these endless and debilitating wars was all coincidental? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin or the PNAC planning document that called for a "New Pearl Harbor?"

I don't think Col. Razer is the gullible one...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by ghpink
 

Wow, you sure are passionate in your beliefs, but using FEMA and NIST reports to validate those beliefs is like asking the Warren Commission who really assassinated JFK.

You correctly state that the real problem is U.S. foreign policy, but do you really think we'd still be involved in a couple of illegal and immoral trillion-dollar wars if it weren't for 9/11?

C'mon, do you really think the events that led to these endless and debilitating wars was all coincidental? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin or the PNAC planning document that called for a "New Pearl Harbor?"

I don't think Col. Razer is the gullible one...


I don't want to take the words out of ghpink's mouth, but I think what he's trying to say is valid.
In other words, theories of how the WTC came down, or whether that was a missile or plane that hit the Pentagon are actually unimportant. Instead what is important is that TPTB used the incident to promulgate a situation in which they were able to use 9/11 to further their agenda by leaps and bounds. Also known as LIHOP vs. MIHOP.

He is correct when he says that you will never prove that the WTC were brought down by CD. Whether you believe it or not, it ain't gonna happen. TPTB have had more than enough time to cover their tracks and can use science to obfuscate the thrust of investigation.

See for me personally, I want to see a new investigation. Why? Because the OS has been proven wrong. Therefore the OS is the equivalent as the theory that says it was aliens and butterball turkeys that brought down the towers.. They're both wrong. There's really no debate. But people continue to get bogged down in the idea that they have to prove a certain theory. But look at the mission statement from some places (e.g. AE for 9/11 truth). They state they want a new investigation. And that is what we need to concentrate on.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ghpink
 


Well, now. That was special. Deep breath. Flaming people and lumping everyone together says a lot about the way you`re thinking at the moment. Don`t sweat the small stuff. If you`re an intelligent person, you`ll stop generalizing, and maybe take a break and regroup.

I have to say I've read and listened and studied on my own over the past few years without joining a site (until I came to ATS last week) or joining a movement. I who believe that 9/11 was sanctioned from inside came to that conclusion on my own, and I expect that each one, either for or against, has come to their own conclusion from as many various directions as can exist, but we certainly do not agree on every detail. Nor can we, until more stuff comes out. I think collectively though we on ATS are waiting and discussing as best as people know how, (much as people did for many years before some of their horrific medical experiments came to full light.) I am not bothered by whether they got the absbestos out or how much was in there, nor about certain things I`m not qualified to evaluate. However there are experts out there in many other countries who have been interviewed on some specifics for which they are indeed qualified to comment. But sorry, we don`t all use the scientific method, nor is that a prerequisite to join ATS.

I heartily agree that US foreign policy is the pits. The month before it happened, we at our virtual company were reading some article about the latest Bush administration faux-pas and messaged back and forth at how little regard they seemed to hold for everyone else in the world, We watched a program about New York and how it was the center of banking (while the boss` teleconference droned on and on.) The program devoted a few minutes to the WTC and it was apparent that it was a white elephant. We later discussed how and if the towers could be renovated. We then took bets for and against a black ops versus an attack. Only one person thought that nothing would happen, but the rest of us were unanimous that something would happen to justify going after Saddam and getting that Iraqi oil. That was a few months before the towers came down.

So whether this retired Col. really has some inside info and cannot say yet and is pointing everyone to conspiracy sites in the meantime, this is something we`ll have to wait and see. Yes, he could have PTSD or anything else, but we cannot judge him, can we? I personally am not interested in trying to win you over to any particular viewpoint. But I do feel enriched by discussion and I find myself learning things.

There are veteran sites now too who are calling for a new investigation. this one or Veterans for Truth
edit on 24-2-2011 by aboutface because: oops gppfed on the link



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


But you can't really claim that the nationality of the hijackers is a hole in the story. It makes it more likley that the OS is correct, at least in its key areas, because someone designing the narrative with the intention of invading Iraq would have surely made them Iraqi.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer

No, I did not say that I assumed it had been spent on black ops. I said that it was likely. There is a distinction.


What is it?

And do you now concede that it's unlikely, given that most of the cash has been accounted for?



No. You are trying to make quick connections to statements that are in and of themselves INDEPENDENT. I stated facts. The facts remain unchanged no matter what smoke and mirrors you try to employ to obfuscate the issue.


You're providing the smoke and mirrors. You can't seem to decide which of your pronouncements are facts and which aren't. It's not at all obvious from what you've written.

Just for the record, which in your opinion are your uncontestable facts?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club



I meant within the conspiracy. Presumably the person in charge of deciding what nationality to make the fake hijackers didn't last long in their job if they made such a basic error.

Or, alternatively, they really were Saudis.


edit on 24-2-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club[/quote

Or, alternatively, they really were Saudis.


edit on 24-2-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)
[/quote

I know what you mean Trick of the Shade, according to the govt. the terrorists/highjackers were Saudis training in Afghanistan so the first thing they do is invade Iraq. Makes lots of sense. And you and other debunkers want to make fun of "truthers"?




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by ghpink
 

Wow, you sure are passionate in your beliefs, but using FEMA and NIST reports to validate those beliefs is like asking the Warren Commission who really assassinated JFK.

You correctly state that the real problem is U.S. foreign policy, but do you really think we'd still be involved in a couple of illegal and immoral trillion-dollar wars if it weren't for 9/11?

C'mon, do you really think the events that led to these endless and debilitating wars was all coincidental? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin or the PNAC planning document that called for a "New Pearl Harbor?"

I don't think Col. Razer is the gullible one...


I've studied all those incidents in depth.

I never once said it was coincidental at all. I said the opposite. Maybe you should go back and read my post.

How could it be coincidental when the CIA is going in to these countries and upsetting democratic elections and installing puppet dictators????

How could the war be coincidental when in Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, he states that IRAQ and IRAN needed to be taken out, to install a major pipeline and to control the energy of the middle east.

That doesn't sound coincidental to me!!

I just don't believe that they had to orchestrate 911 in order to do it. They just used the event. The event was caused not by some big conspiracy, but factors such as installing military installations in that part of the world, when the Arabs clearly are telling us not to and they fell their land is occupied.

Usama Bin Laden was very clear in his fatima, of exactly why he in angry at the west. Installing military bases, occupying land, upsetting democratic elections, installing puppet dictators.

Do you know what the whole hostage crisis was in IRAN?? How could this be coincidental by any stretch of the word.

I believe that this is BLOW BACK, which is mentioned many times by Ron Paul, AND the CIA. Blow back means that when you # with them, they # with you. Its that simple.

There is no need to orchestrate a controlled demolition, there is no need to claim WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. There is no need to say the planes were re-routed and fake planes were put in their place. There is no need to minimize the struggle of the shanksville disaster, saying that they didn't heroically try to take over the plane. There is no need to say a missle went in to the pentagon!!

Arabs and others around the world hate the USA on their own and for very good reason. And until conspiracy people take responsibility for what the government is doing around the world instead of coping out and saying it was orchestrated by their own government, nothing will ever change, because you will never ever be able to prove 911 was an inside job.

If you think about it, conspiracy people and skeptics, want the same thing. They want truth, they want responsibility from their leaders, they want someone to fess up about what has been going on.

The only difference between the two groups is what they feel is going on.

I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't subscribe to all the silly conspiracy theories that can obviously be proven to be false (like a controlled demolition) IT MAKES NO SENSE and is physically impossible to do and there was no need to do it anyways.

I don't agree with the skeptics, that it was just an attack either and that there is no conspiracy.

I say that there is a conspiracy, but its much more deeper than 911 being an inside job. This conspiracy is too basic, silly and unreasonable if you look at the evidence.

The bottom line is, the USA is going in to countries all around the world and installing military bases. How would you feel if IRAQ installed a base on american soil? NEAR YOU???

What would you do???

The Usa has been doing this for over 50 years!! ITs bound to catch up with them. Along with running drugs and guns, to fund black projects that are not on congresses books, along with fighting russia and the cold war, they have caused ripples that are going to effect us all in the future.

Foreign policy of the USA must be changed. If it doesn't you can bet, its going to lead to a nuclear 911 in the future and this will not be orchestrated by the government. IT WILL BE REAL.

If you study wikipedias terrorist activity throughout the last 50 years, you can see that terrorism has been very slowly growing. Even after 911 terrorism didnt grow that much.

After the IRAQ war, terrorism has doubled, tripled and quadrupled... and its going to grow exponentially. Factions of pissed off arabs all around the world will be trying to get their hands on bigger and badder bombs. It will be only a matter of time before someone gets some nuclear material.

Is this the type of world we want to create? Wake up people...

911 was not an inside job. It doesn't describe whats been going on. And when we say that 911 was an inside job, all we are doing is minimizing the struggles of all the people who were in 911 and all the Arabs around the world who are pissed off at the USA. WAKE UP




Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
I don't want to take the words out of ghpink's mouth, but I think what he's trying to say is valid.
In other words, theories of how the WTC came down, or whether that was a missile or plane that hit the Pentagon are actually unimportant. Instead what is important is that TPTB used the incident to promulgate a situation in which they were able to use 9/11 to further their agenda by leaps and bounds. Also known as LIHOP vs. MIHOP.

He is correct when he says that you will never prove that the WTC were brought down by CD. Whether you believe it or not, it ain't gonna happen. TPTB have had more than enough time to cover their tracks and can use science to obfuscate the thrust of investigation.

See for me personally, I want to see a new investigation. Why? Because the OS has been proven wrong. Therefore the OS is the equivalent as the theory that says it was aliens and butterball turkeys that brought down the towers.. They're both wrong. There's really no debate. But people continue to get bogged down in the idea that they have to prove a certain theory. But look at the mission statement from some places (e.g. AE for 9/11 truth). They state they want a new investigation. And that is what we need to concentrate on.



I don't mind you taking the words out of my mouth... this is true.

When it comes down to it... skeptic, or conspiracy theorist. IT DOESNT MATTER. We will never prove it. So as we focus on trying to prove it, Bush gets away with starting an illegal war, the tortue of Abu garab, installing the patriot act, taking away fundamental rights of the great people of the USA and the ARABS.

They are #ing both sides.

Now he is out of power, very rich and look at the vice president... filthy rich. Moving in and out of politics and in to corporations and all the while making millions upon millions, while the taxpayer picks up the bill.

Money that you make is lining their pockets.

Its irrelevant if they orchestrated 911. On the same hand, ITS IMPOSSIBLE to prove even if they did! (i personally do not believe they had to, but it doesnt matter)

The key is the USA's foreign policy and what they are doing in other parts of the world. This is where the focus should be put.

The key is making Bush and others pay for things we can CATCH THEM ON.

WE CAN catch them starting illegal wars. We can catch them telling lies about weapons of mass destruction. They are guilty of telling the public that Al-qiada was linked to Saddam Hussein, where there was no clear link.

We can prosecute them for installing torture camps.

These are all things that ARE DOCUMENTED and a part of public knowledge, but yet people want to focus on a missle being flown in to the pentagon, when this will never be proven.




Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by ghpink
 


Well, now. That was special. Deep breath. Flaming people and lumping everyone together says a lot about the way you`re thinking at the moment. Don`t sweat the small stuff. If you`re an intelligent person, you`ll stop generalizing, and maybe take a break and regroup.


Some people will just never get it. And will consistently focus on issues that are impossible to prove, in an ever expanding and evolving theory that only just wastes effort.

I look at the truth movement and I see many good people. I also look at the truth movement and see many good, but confused people. Confused of which way to point their anger and where to research.

If half of these people would focus on things we can change, and not on things we cannot change, it would actually be a valid movement.

The movement as it stands will never prove anything, yes it will get larger. Yes it will be more annoying and intervene in public events, but it will not be solving any problems, let alone our world problems.

You can request 1000 new inquiries in to 911 and they will put up the same information. As you do this, you are wasting effort and just taking up space.

Why not put your effort in to something that can actually change the world in a positive way... ?

Saying that Shanksville didnt happen and those people who basicially gave up their lives to take down terrorists, is AN INSULT to all the people who died.

Saying that 911 was a controlled demolition, IS AN INSULT to all the eye witnesses and all the firemen and police that died that day.

Why not focus on things that can actually mean something... and change things for the better?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club

I know what you mean Trick of the Shade, according to the govt. the terrorists/highjackers were Saudis training in Afghanistan so the first thing they do is invade Iraq. Makes lots of sense. And you and other debunkers want to make fun of "truthers"?



Well actually the first thing they did was invade Afghanistan. But don't let basic history get in the way.

Let's explore this idea of yours. If the goal was to invade Iraq, why wouldn't they make the terrorists Iraqi?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
There can be a press conference with the President admitting 9/11 was a inside job and guess what? Nothing will happen!

It can't be proven now as I'm sure the loose ends have been tied.



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join