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.

 

If 911 is viewed as a crime instead of a terrorist attack, it becomes clear...

page: 10
102
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by comprehension
 


You are just giving me meaningless speculation and your personal incredulity. After 10 years plus you must have something verifiable surely.


After 10 years, we surely do and they know it, and you do too.

Lets air it out and have a public, independent audit of all the DoD records, classified or not. Prove to the world they are justified in occupying so many countries, and placing military outposts in so many others. But we can't do that because they hide behind "national security", don't they.

It doesn't take 700 plus military installations spread all over the planet to "defend our nation", and in spite of the mountains of wartime propaganda masquerading as news and entertainment, this realization is settling-in for the general public. The denial is still strong though, it seems like we're reaching the "violently opposed" stage in the progression of truth.

Because war encompasses the worst of crimes and atrocities, aggressive war was described in Nuremberg as the worst of all crimes against humanity, yet for ten years the US Government has been engaged in aggressive war on patsy nations.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 



lol You keep saying that.Yeah,I get it.Dutch this,Dutch that..I get it!But it also says plainly Fresh Kills!


So what is your problem? Fact that 300 years ago some Dutch settlers named the place and now you want
to drag it into your delusions ...

Explain how name "FRESH KILL" is relevant to the debate, other than place name where WTC debris was taken
to be sorted and examined



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


I pointed out your error about where the plane hit the Pentagon on page 2 and gave you the facts but you still ignore it and re-post the same garbage.

Most of the casualties were Navy specialists in the Navy Command Centre. They had nothing to do with finance.The Army bookeepers killed were working on Army statements for FY 2001 as set out in the March 2002 DoD document I linked you to.

Instead of just repeating something off some conspiracy site please cite evidence for what you are alleging.


Man, if it wasn't such a serious subject, you would be a laugh riot! Your idea of "evidence" is papers put out a year after the fact, by the conspirators involved?

Can you imagine any court of law where that would fly? "Your honor, may we present this week at a glance diary written by the defendant, clearly stating that he was at the movies at the time of the murder" I don't think that would be admissible.

I don't think I'm the one spouting "garbage" here.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Besides, that link doesn't even work. For national security reasons, obviously.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
And Thomas Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said they were "set up to fail"
LINK

IF it was so obvious that this was simply a terrorist act by Al Qaeda, and the CIA, Pentagon or Bush administration didn't HELP THEM -- then why the railroading of the investigation?


Funding for the 9/11 commission - 11,000,000 $
Funding for the "Monica Lewinsky mouth wash " investigation - 30,000,000 $

Now what the # does that tell you.

A secretary gargling with the presidents bodily fluid is 3 times MORE important than the murder of more than 3000 souls.
edit on 31-12-2011 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I've heard of lots of RICO trials where Mafia prosecutors go after Mafia defendants, presided over by a Mafia owned judge, no jury, and only Mafia produced "evidence" is allowed.

Such a thing would be laughed at by pretty much everyone. However, replace Mafia with "government" and everyone just swallows it hook, line and sinker.

Yet they still need people like you to keep the cheerleading going, ten years after the fact. Don't you have anything better to do than hang out on a conspiracy website all day every day? Especially since you think all conspiracies are hoaxes. I think the NFL and NBA are stupid distractions. Do you think I spend all day on the ESPN website telling all the fans what idiots I think they are? Cause I don't . I've got better things to do.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


I pointed out your error about where the plane hit the Pentagon on page 2 and gave you the facts but you still ignore it and re-post the same garbage.

Most of the casualties were Navy specialists in the Navy Command Centre. They had nothing to do with finance.The Army bookeepers killed were working on Army statements for FY 2001 as set out in the March 2002 DoD document I linked you to.

Instead of just repeating something off some conspiracy site please cite evidence for what you are alleging.


Man, if it wasn't such a serious subject, you would be a laugh riot! Your idea of "evidence" is papers put out a year after the fact, by the conspirators involved?

Can you imagine any court of law where that would fly? "Your honor, may we present this week at a glance diary written by the defendant, clearly stating that he was at the movies at the time of the murder" I don't think that would be admissible.

I don't think I'm the one spouting "garbage" here.


And the evidence for your allegations is what exactly ? Do you deny that most of the Pentagon casualties were Navy personnel ? Care to advise us why they were engaged on murky finance ? Got any substantiation at all ?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

And the evidence for your allegations is what exactly ? Do you deny that most of the Pentagon casualties were Navy personnel ? Care to advise us why they were engaged on murky finance ? Got any substantiation at all ?


The government needs less probable cause to impound your vehicle and break into your house. They are a lawless entity the responsibility for which can be laid in the laps of "We The People".

Aren't you even a little concerned about the people who will die today because of 911?

We have every reason to suspect the government and their media and their military were wholly responsible for 911, yet they hold all the cards and can easily hide them any time they wish.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Its nothing to do with murky financing, those who died in the pentagon were just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But maybe some of that 3.4 trillion that went missing went to fund who would later become the enemy, Al qaeda.

The distruction of financial records in the pentagon and all the records that went down with WTC7 was just tieing up loose ends.

As y'all know secret wars dont fund themselves.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by Alfie1

And the evidence for your allegations is what exactly ? Do you deny that most of the Pentagon casualties were Navy personnel ? Care to advise us why they were engaged on murky finance ? Got any substantiation at all ?


The government needs less probable cause to impound your vehicle and break into your house. They are a lawless entity the responsibility for which can be laid in the laps of "We The People".

Aren't you even a little concerned about the people who will die today because of 911?

We have every reason to suspect the government and their media and their military were wholly responsible for 911, yet they hold all the cards and can easily hide them any time they wish.


This is an aspect of truther philosphy that I don't understand. The "government", never mind changes in President, vice-President, Congressman, Senators, officials at every level, is still seen perpetually as some monolithic entity always out to get the little guy. ( and of course to continue to cover up 9/11 but it is not obvious to me why Democrats should go out of their way to protect murderous Republicans.)

Can't any of you people vote, lobby, run for office ?

I think this angst ridden attitude says more about you than the US administration and 9/11.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





This is an aspect of truther philosphy that I don't understand. The "government", never mind changes in President, vice-President, Congressman, Senators, officials at every level, is still seen perpetually as some monolithic entity always out to get the little guy. ( and of course to continue to cover up 9/11 but it is not obvious to me why Democrats should go out of their way to protect murderous Republicans.)

Can't any of you people vote, lobby, run for office ?

I think this angst ridden attitude says more about you than the US administration and 9/11.


This is an example of indoctrination at work. I am pushing sixty and can honestly tell you there is no difference between either party. There has been no change in the policy of the US "government" since I started voting at 18, nor since I stopped voting after the Gore Capitulation to Bush in 2000.

It is the real "government" I refer to, not the corrupt figureheads and the rah-rah red-white-and-blue dreams of democracy and equality. I'm talking about reality.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 



Why hide behind all the verbage and legislative smoke and mirrors if what you are saying is the truth?

Its much more complicated than that.

The truth is truth, its easy to remember and repeat.

It has nothing to do with the "truth", it has to do with maintaining a working political system.

If they can't tell the truth, then something is hidden.

Who says they didn't tell the truth? Because they weren't under oath?

Sorry to make it 3rd grade mentality Hooper but it seems its needed.

This is why 3rd graders aren't allowed to run the country.

It's very apparent you are either working for the very people ats is trying to uncover or you're a blithering idiot.

Really? That's the best you can come up with? You mean until this event you never heard about the separation of powers or executive priviliege? You should wait until you're done with the third grade and get back to me.




So which is it?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
And Thomas Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said they were "set up to fail"
LINK

IF it was so obvious that this was simply a terrorist act by Al Qaeda, and the CIA, Pentagon or Bush administration didn't HELP THEM -- then why the railroading of the investigation?


Funding for the 9/11 commission - 11,000,000 $
Funding for the "Monica Lewinsky mouth wash " investigation - 30,000,000 $

Now what the # does that tell you.

A secretary gargling with the presidents bodily fluid is 3 times MORE important than the murder of more than 3000 souls.
edit on 31-12-2011 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



It means the government is getting more efficient at doing "show trials" in a cheaper manner -- LOL


I'm sure the show trial for Saddam was more expensive than the 9/11 investigation as well. But, the Ghadaffi execution by forced colon cleansing was cheaper -- as well as the "burial at sea" for Bin Laden and then heroes conveniently all get killed by flying in the same aircraft. We might not have more Liberty under Obama -- but we certainly aren't spending too much on the kangaroo courts.

Glass half full... we have more money now to give it to Exxon and BP so they can build a pipeline and make more people in Texas sick with Tar Sands oil processing to be exported to other countries without providing us any tax revenue.

But, on the positive side; we are getting WAY more efficient by dispensing with the "Fake" Democracy in this country!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hoop, of all the things you choose to back regarding the OS this one takes the cake. What Bush and Chaney did was wrong, and you know it. Trying to justify it by quoting 'Executive Privledge' is bs. They both should have testified seperately and under oath. They didn't because they had plenty to hide. If you expect to have credibility here, sticking up for what they did doesn't help. You guys all have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with truth.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Hoop, of all the things you choose to back regarding the OS this one takes the cake.

Actually this has little to do with 9/11. The idea of separate but equal branches of government kind of pre-dates 9/11.

What Bush and Chaney did was wrong, and you know it.

Actually I don't think either one of them should have responded at all, it set a very bad precendent.

Trying to justify it by quoting 'Executive Privledge' is bs.

Well, EP really is more applicable to compelling Executive Branch advisers to testify.

They both should have testified seperately and under oath.

Really? Says who? You really think Congress should have the power to compel the Executive Branch to testify at its command under oath? So much for separate but equal!

They didn't because they had plenty to hide.

Or so it goes in Conspiracy World. Actually, I am sure there were and are plenty of things the President doesn't and shouldn't talk about in public.

If you expect to have credibility here....

I couldn't care less. Credibility "here" is moot. Conspiracist believe what they want. Its the nature of the beast.

....sticking up for what they did doesn't help.

I'm sticking up for a system of government which may not be perfect but is still better than anything else I've seen.

You guys all have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with truth.

So why bother? You know why - because you know I'm right.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





TextActually I don't think either one of them should have responded at all, it set a very bad precendent.


Then you don't believe in separate but equal branches of government, for if you did you'd concede that Bush and Cheney acted above the law, with the blessing of the alleged lawmakers.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by comprehension
reply to post by hooper
 





TextActually I don't think either one of them should have responded at all, it set a very bad precendent.


Then you don't believe in separate but equal branches of government, for if you did you'd concede that Bush and Cheney acted above the law, with the blessing of the alleged lawmakers.

Only in your imagination. The courts decide who is acting outside the law and who is not. Not people on internet forums. The matter of the fact is that Bush and Cheyney were the Executive Branch and Congress does not nor should not have the authority to compel that Branch to testify under oath. Its really plain and simple.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Ok, so I see that this thread has some appeal. I enjoy a good 9/11 debate. I have read through this thread and noticed several people here claim, with absolute certainty, that they have the evidence needed to prove it was a conspiracy. Just 1 quick question. How come there are no peer reviewed documents, experts, or any other official that agrees? How come there is 0 evidence, and after 10 years no other evidence has surfaced?

If someone comes up with the time, I would like someone to lay out an actual theory. I don't mean posting "We're just asking questions and saying there are problems." I mean actually lay something out. Say what you're point is, picking out random inconsistencies to try and prove an over all story makes you look uneducated. Lay out the whole thing. I am very curious to see it.

Thanks,

The plague



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Ha ha, the debunkers are out in force here, what do you know? And the usual suspects, too. Funny how that happens.

Trying to derail the thread in a big way. I stated in the beginning, the HOW does not matter.

Follow the yellow brick road is all you have to do, and it all becomes so obvious.

These three who have nothing better to do on NEW YEARS EVE than to be debunking madly on a conspiracy website, populated (according to them) by mom's basement dwelling tinfoil hat wearing morons. Am I the only one who thinks that's kind of WEIRD?

I mean, I don't like a lot of stuff. They have lots of forums for that stuff. I just don't bother going to them, and telling the people there that they are stupid. Why would anyone want to do that?

I like to go to forums where I learn stuff, not where I think everyone is stupid and I need to tell them so. That's kind of why I come here.

edit: by that I mean I come here to learn
edit on 31-12-2011 by CaptChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by gunshooter
what do you think would happen to this country, and the people in it if the truth about 9/11 came out, like if we found 100% proof (which I believe is there,(that final shred of proof we need) we just haven't uncovered it yet) that our government was in on it, and did this to us to profit. does anyone think that would trigger an immediate violent revolution?


No, because it's only in the conspiracy mongor lexicon that "the government" is some single autonomous entity, like a supercomputer in the basement or or a disembodied brain sitting in a vat of fluid. In the real, non-conspiracy mongor world, the government is made of lots and lots and LOTs of people, from congressmen to unpaid interns fetching congressmen their coffee, and it's physcally, logically, and logistically impossible for EVERY person involved in the government to have been "in on it". The members of gov't who weren't in on it would conduct a witch hunt for the members of gov't who were in on it. This is becauase the gov't isn't comprised of people who march in single hive minded solidarity on their leaders' every whim. The real, non-conspiracy mongor world, everyone is really out for him/herself, and they will gladly hunt down such turncoats if it helped advance their own careers.

Ironically, your question only shows why the gov't WOULDN'T have been in on it- once the list of conspirators grew to beyond two or three people, there'd be no way to keep it secret. I suspect you know that, which is why you prefer to instead entertain these fantasies that the gov't is some single autonomous entity, like a supercomputer in the basement or or a disembodied brain sitting in a vat of fluid.


Good point about the way in which words have different meanings, or shades of meaning, to various people in the same discussion.

I think "the Government" means to most people, instinctively, that part of society that causes change from the top. It's not exactly the government but the net result of all individuals who know the real truth about the staus quo. Most of us don't know who they are or how much control they have. Probably influence rules.



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join