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: 23
154
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 



My assertion was SIMPLY that SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld announced a situation concerning an unaccounted-for sum of 2.3 trillion dollars of defense spending ONE DAY PRIOR to 9-11. You are trying to create drama and confusion around this simple fact. It is NOT working despite your efforts. Your carbonated drinks are sure to be flat.


You've seen my posts re 9.11 so you know I don't believe the OS for one second..
But the missing 2.3 T was known before 9/10..Though Rummy did say it on that day also...




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


No, you are the one that is trying to create a "story" involving what is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to the events of 9/11. Not me. I am pointing out that the truth movement use Rumsfeld's speech as some sort of proof that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job.

Obviously a great many people do not consider this a "non issue." For YOU it may be, but that is surely because it is an inconvenient coincidence that hints that something else might have been going on beneath the surface of public awareness. What are the chances that a somewhat important public figure in an administration (SECDEF) makes such an announcement and then the very next day just after breakfast that particular section of the Pentagon is hit? It's nearly, if not so, astronomical. THERE IS A GORILLA SITTING IN THE LIVING ROOM. It's time that *believers* in the OS finally acknowledge it.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Its a complete non-issue in regards to 9/11/01. What does it take for you to get it through your head that it was a problem known about in 1999? That it had been an ongoing issue throughout 2000? That Rumsfeld was asked about it at his confirmation hearings in Jan 2001? That he was discussing it with the media throughout the summer of 2001? That, even after the events of 9/11/2001, they were STILL working on resolving it? That, in the summer of 2003, they had revamped and networked enough of the computer systems that they had recovered and reconciled the majority of the records?

For people like you to continue to claim that the 2.3 trillion in reconciliation entries made without adequate documentation (because thats what the issue was) had ANYTHING to do with the events on 9/11/01 is dishonest at best



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Its a complete non-issue in regards to 9/11/01. What does it take for you to get it through your head that it was a problem known about in 1999? That it had been an ongoing issue throughout 2000? That Rumsfeld was asked about it at his confirmation hearings in Jan 2001? That he was discussing it with the media throughout the summer of 2001? That, even after the events of 9/11/2001, they were STILL working on resolving it? That, in the summer of 2003, they had revamped and networked enough of the computer systems that they had recovered and reconciled the majority of the records?

Again, with news links to prove it, just YouTube it and you'll see dozens (and more) links that show news stories, articles and the SECDEF himself. The SECDEF made the announcement September 10th, 2001. What is a non-issue is how much time that led up to the announcement. It simply doesn't matter. What matters is that the day after the announcement was made, in a startling coincidence, of all of the places a supposed 757 could strike in the entire region... accounting offices and personnel are destroyed and killed.

It wasn't two days later, not three days later, not a week, not a month, not a year. The precisely the day after. The location wasn't next to the accounting offices, it wasn't in an adjacent wing of the Pentagon, it wasn't a nearby building or somewhere else in DC or the region. It was the location of accounting offices and personnel in the Pentagon.

Make whatever connections that you will, or not. That's obviously entirely up to you and everyone else. Again, it doesn't matter if it took 20 years for 2.3 trillion to go missing. The event happened precisely the day after the SECDEF made a prominent public announcement, and in the location of accounting offices of accounting/bookkeeping personnel.



Originally posted by vipertech0596
For people like you to continue to claim that the 2.3 trillion in reconciliation entries made without adequate documentation (because thats what the issue was) had ANYTHING to do with the events on 9/11/01 is dishonest at best

You are making connections. I merely stated FACT. The announcement took place 9-10-01. The attacks happened 9-11-01. I never said that there was a connection. Do you remember hearing the word coincidental? If you are making connections, that's fine. Just realize that YOU are responsible for the conclusions that are clearly coming to mind.
edit on 28-2-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Associated Press reported on it in 2000. The media touched on it in January 2001. The media touched on it over the summer of 2001.

You act as if Rumsfeld's speech was the first time anyone knew about the problem and you are dead wrong. Then you bring up the "it hit where the accountants work" There are offices that deal with accounting all over the building. You would have to drop a nuke on top of it to kill all of the accounting people and destroy all the records.

Again, its a 9/11 non-issue, and very much an age old Pentagon issue.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Why do you suppose Rumsfeld talked about it on 9/10 if it was a matter so serious it required mass murder to try and obliterate ?

You keep going on about targetting of that area of the Pentagon but it was in fact the Navy Command Center which suffered the most casualties.

So far as finance staff killed I showed you the DoD document of March 2002 proving that they were engaged on audits in relation to Army matters for fiscal year 2001.

You are just flogging the proverbial dead horse.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Associated Press reported on it in 2000. The media touched on it in January 2001. The media touched on it over the summer of 2001.

You act as if Rumsfeld's speech was the first time anyone knew about the problem and you are dead wrong. Then you bring up the "it hit where the accountants work" There are offices that deal with accounting all over the building. You would have to drop a nuke on top of it to kill all of the accounting people and destroy all the records.

Again, its a 9/11 non-issue, and very much an age old Pentagon issue.

There is no "acting" involved. Unless all of the major news networks were acting. It seems that you feel that it is important to get in the last word on this issue. Have at it. You know what they say about arguing with someone foolish, after a while people won't know the difference.

The FACT is that the SECDEF announced this FACT the day before accountants and bookkeepers were killed. Sure, others were killed too. No one ever suggested that ONLY accountants died. However, just because others died does not mean that accountants and bookkeepers did not die. They surely were victims no matter how you may try to minimalize their demises. It is an inconvenient coincidence for people who believe in the OS as gospel because it makes them think, ---only just before they really start to look into this strange coincidence, they fall into conditioned programming, or are guilty of trying to minimalize a startling chain of events.

There are other items as well, including a proper amount of wreckage for a 757 jet liner. Further, a 757 should not have penetrated through steel reinforced support columns and numerous walls as a bunker-buster would have. Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible, yet a poorly trained pilot was able to accomplish this. Finally, all surveillance footage was confiscated and the only one released shows absolutely NO 757. The reason that the footage won't be released is because the footage reveals what really hit the Pentagon, and it was not a 757.

OS of Pentagon attack DEBUNKED.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


You havent debunked anything, you just keep parroting falsehoods. Have a joy joy day.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


You havent debunked anything, you just keep parroting falsehoods. Have a joy joy day.


You are defending the OS and yet accuse me of parroting falsehoods? Really? Good day to you, too. Cheers.

The facts stated at the end of my last post are enough to open a grand jury investigation if this were a court of law. But, we won't see that because so much has been based on the events of 9-11. In the tradition of corporations being "Too big to fail," the 9-11 OS (Official Story) is a ***LIE*** that is "Too big to for truth."



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 





There are other items as well, including a proper amount of wreckage for a 757 jet liner. Further, a 757 should not have penetrated through steel reinforced support columns and numerous walls as a bunker-buster would have. Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible, yet a poorly trained pilot was able to accomplish this. Finally, all surveillance footage was confiscated and the only one released shows absolutely NO 757. The reason that the footage won't be released is because the footage reveals what really hit the Pentagon, and it was not a 757.


Still looking for anything resembling a fact in the above paragraph. Nope, not finding one.

Proper amount of wreckage...there was.
Should not have penetrated....thank GOD they had revamped that section, or else it would have done a lot more damage to the Pentagon.
Aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground nearly impossible....umm, yeah...............again, not true.
Only one released.. Um, no, I know of at least two possibly three that were released...you know, the only ones that conceivably could have shown what happened......but not in the right angle or not actual motion cameras so, no , they didnt show much.

Again, what were these "facts" you were speaking of???



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Proper amount of wreckage...there was.
Should not have penetrated....thank GOD they had revamped that section, or else it would have done a lot more damage to the Pentagon.
Aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground nearly impossible....umm, yeah...............again, not true.
Only one released.. Um, no, I know of at least two possibly three that were released...you know, the only ones that conceivably could have shown what happened......but not in the right angle or not actual motion cameras so, no , they didnt show much.Again, what were these "facts" you were speaking of???

Proper amount of wreckage: photographic proof shows a startling LACK of wreckage.
Aluminum jets should not penetrate that far into a reinforced building with steel-reinforced concrete support columns, let alone steel and concrete walls. No matter how much one might insist otherwise, the Pentagon is not and was not anything like a Hollywood movie set construction.
Aeronautical physics DOES make flying a 757 just feet off the ground nearly impossible --especially for a poorly trained foreign "pilot."
Okay, sure there might have been a couple more videos released of which I was unaware, but I guarantee they don't show a 757. There are still dozens (or more) other videos CLASSIFIED TO THIS DAY that will never see the light of day because if so, we would know exactly what happened. Why hold on to them and keep the controversy going?
Ergo, a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. OS debunked.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

At this point, it's worthless to even quote you, as you have descended into a weird kind of elaborate screenplay complete with fabricated dialogue. You KNOW that the educated guess is correct. I will leave it at that.

As far as everything else goes, we still have the FACTS:

1. September 10th, 2001, SECDEF Rumsfeld announces that 2.3 trillion dollars is unaccounted-for in defense (Pentago) spending.
2. September 11th, 2001, a section of the Pentagon is destroyed, killing many people; these people were accountants and bookkeepers, these records (soft and hard) were of budgets and Pentagon/DoD spending.
3. All footage of alleged impact was confiscated. Never released. Still classified to this day, except for one released bit which shows absolutely NOTHING to prove what actually hit the Pentagon.
4. The OS states that an aluminum jet-liner (757) penetrated deep into the Pentagon's 5 rings constructed of steel and concrete.
5. A visually demonstrated LACK OF 757 WRECKAGE is painfully apparent.


At least I know when I'm making stuff up. And on the point of knowing stuff, you know what the word is for someone who berates you for doing something, and then immediately - and amusingly in the same post - goes and does it themself.

But I notice you don't answer the point. Which is why an organisation apparently capable of something as elaborate as 9/11 would not be able to cover up the 2.3 trillion is a more prosaic way.

Your "facts" also miss out fairly important data. I'll not dwell on what you've left out, except to ask you what happened. Did the dastardly plan work out? What was the fate of the money? Because as far as I can see 9/11 didn't excise the missing cash from the public record, didn't eliminate everyone "working on it" and had little impact on the fact that 70 per cent-odd of it was found. Hardly a great success.

How did they get the money back if everybody who was working on it and all the computers that stored the data were blown up, by the way? And I don't think "they're lying" will hold much water, because they could - obviously - have just lied in the first place about it being missing.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible


That's just brilliant.

Riddle me this: how do they land planes?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Again??


Aeronautical physics DOES make flying a 757 just feet off the ground nearly impossible ...


NO. IT. DOESN'T.

Sorry, but merely writing it over and over and over again won't magically make it suddenly go from FALSE to "true". It is just absolutely, flatly wrong....

This is an act of desperate clinging to a position that is unwarranted, and easily shown to be invalid.....



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GhostLancer Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible


That's just brilliant.

Riddle me this: how do they land planes?


Not at 500mph or whatever the speed was supposed to be.

Planes start their landing at around 100-120 mph and they use their flaps which give the plane more lift at low speed. It is basically a controlled stall, the plane touches ground when it doesn't have enough speed to give it lift.

A plane going 500 mph will produce too much lift to be controllable it at ground level, the pilot would have to push the stick forward very hard to keep the nose from raising up. The plane would be very unresponsive and any stick movement would not be instant, so flying close to the ground trying to avoid obstacles would be extremely difficult. These planes are designed for lift, not maneuverability.


edit on 2/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GhostLancer Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible


That's just brilliant.

Riddle me this: how do they land planes?


Quite slowly with flaps deployed to keep the plane stable! Certainly not at speeds exceeding 500 mile an hour... And certainly not while hitting lamp posts which apparently did no harm to the plane whatsoever!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 





Aluminum jets should not penetrate that far into a reinforced building with steel-reinforced concrete support columns, let alone steel and concrete walls.


And you base this on what training that you have had? Aerodynamics? Building construction? Training in air launched weapons (because lets face it, when you have a suicide pilot at the stick, an airplane becomes a guided missile)? What training does little ole you have that outweighs that of the witnesses, the recovery teams or the engineers that say it was Flight 77 that caused that destruction??????

The renovation of the Pentagon was to make it more resistant to a car bomb. NOT an air launched weapon. I can take a Kevlar vest and shoot at it and it will stop the bullets (blunt force), if I take a sharp knife I can push it right through the Kevlar. Pentagon walls were reinforced to protect against the blunt force of a blast wave, not to protect it against a high velocity pointy object.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner
 


You expect lamp posts to stop an airliner? Seriously?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Of course I wouldn't know and so my original question as to why we are not being told? My questions are even more relevant with what you've said about asbestos not being used. Why continue building these super-scrapers? It still appears the easy answer is greed. Then again looking at the vacancies in these super-scrapers world-wide, stupidity is gaining ground on greed.

A couple related links:

Asbestos Use in the Construction of the World Trade Center

NYC Tower Buyers Wrestle Towering Vacancy Dilemma

Deutsche Bank in deal to sell NY skyscraper


A price for the 50-story, 1.5 million square foot building
on Eighth Avenue and 49th Street was not disclosed. The
building, whose tenants include law firm Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, is about half empty.

When Macklowe purchased the building, the mortgage was more
than $800 million. But since then, experts have estimated that
values may have fallen by 30 percent. The lack of sales has made
valuing buildings a fuzzy art.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner
 


You expect lamp posts to stop an airliner? Seriously?


Well, if birds can bring down a jet liner why not hitting several lamp poles and trees while miraculously travelling at 500 mile an hour mere feet above the Pentagon lawns? Any slight deviation should have had the plane hitting the lawns and barrelling across the ground into the building. In the past aircraft have been brought crashing to earth by a lot less than steel poles, trees and a traffic sign!



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join