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.

 

Breaking: LAX FEMA Rendition Site Confirmed

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ShockTruther
 


But there is so much fodder!!! The levels of gullibility are astonishing, lately:


AtG, ProudBird, and everyone else here that goes onto threads constantly, all day, everyday simply to "debunk".


If people would apply a bit of critical thinking before repeating obvious bunk, there'd be a whole lot less crap to de-bunk!


ATS site motto, remember? Ignorance abounds nowadays, especially on the 'Interwebs'....there are people out there, including Alex Jones, et al....and his ilk.....who delight in putting up the most ridiculous junk, and getting people to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
edit on Fri 27 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I am astonished to think that after the release of the military document;

AR 210–35

Civilian Inmate Labor Program

AR 210–35

Civilian Inmate Labor Program


AR 210–35

Civilian Inmate Labor Program

This rapid action revision dated 14 January 2005--

o Assigns responsibilities to Headquarters, Installation Management Agency

o Makes administrative and editorial changes (throughout).

This new regulation dated 9 December 1997

o Provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor

programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.

o Discusses sources of Federal and State civilian inmate labor.


*Army Regulation 210–35 [url=http://www.apfn.org/apfn/prison_camps.pdf]Link to _/url]


Silly frogs cannot feel the water temperature being raised to boiling.
I'm sure that when the fire starts and there is smoke, you will say it is only steam, and then realise either way, sitting in your pan, your fuc*ed.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The X
 


Taking titles out of context from random documents and trying to use them as proof of something completely unrelated sure does fool a lot of gullible people, especially when those titles at face value contain keywords that could cause people to appeal to emotion. Lets see how many you fool.
edit on 29-1-2012 by is0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Thanks for this info.


It must be pretty important because the same contrail folks are showing up here throwing around the word "gullible" and "reaching". It's laughable.

Do you think you folks will be immune when all this goes down? Just look at how they've called our war veterans "terrorists". Anyone who stops into certain threads to tell us not to worry about aerosols, Fluoride, Big Pharma, and internment camps are part of the problem. You all know who you are. I don't know how you folks all claim to be in aviation when you're on here all the time and can go on and on and on until a thread dies, but you're obvious. I'm starting to believe that trolling is run similar to surveillance. There's covert and overt and the people who travel in packs to insult a believer's intelligence are working overtly.

www.differencebetween.net...

“Overt” means “done or shown openly or plainly apparent” in the Oxford English dictionary.This can refer to all sorts of actions which are done in plain sight or with clear manifestations. Let’s use this sentence as example to illustrate its meaning: North Korea recently showed overt acts of aggression against its sister country South Korea. By using the word “overt” to describe acts of aggression towards South Korea, we know for a fact that there were indeed hostile actions taken by the North Koreans in full display of the public.


“Covert,” on the other hand, means the exact opposite of overt – not openly acknowledged or displayed. This is a very tricky term to use which is why it’s often associated with military and political activities. The word often connotes deception and misdirection which is why it’s seldom used in everyday conversations unless, of course, we are working for the government or some organization that values secrecy. A good example of using this word is this: The CIA is running a covert intelligence mission in Iraq. We know they have an operation ongoing in that area, but we have no details as to what exactly it’s all about.


This topic is serious. If anyone believes that history cannot repeat itself, you are seriously flawed in your thinking. The evil "people" that sprayed '___' on France in 1953 and murdered people in concentration camps during WWII did have successors -- evil people who would sell their mother's soul to the devil for a nice shiny piece of gold.

If I were a real estate agent and knew that a house was sitting on a sink hole, I'd steer customers clear of it because saving a life and sleeping well at night are important to me. Some people just think of the money and will sell someone into inevitable death without thinking twice. These kinds of people are evil and don't possess a conscience.

Times are getting interesting, folks. There is evil out there and those of us that have chosen to look it in the face and consider the evidence are not gullible, stupid, or "reaching". Those who say you are, well, there's a special place for them when the time comes.

Take care and be well, my friends.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I personally think Alex Jones is a kook.
However, if you look past his rambling and "I told you so!"'s, it is pretty creepy. The fact that there is enough footage of people being put in giant cages, essentially, is enough to make my skin crawl, even if it was from 1999 or 2004 or whatever.

I'm not going to jump up and shout "OMFG FEMA CAMPZ IZ REE!!!!" but I will say that they look like they could be. If you look at other sources besides Info Wars and Prison Planet, you can still see people uncovering things similar to the 1940's in Germany.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Dude, calm down.
There's no sense in arguing about this because there really isn't enough proof on either side to satisfy both parties. Every man to himself.
edit on 1/7/12 by Avalessa because: Misuse of comma



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1825114


Guaranteed the majority of the responses this will get will be about how people don't like alex jones.
NOBODY cares what you think of him or his websites, look at what he's covering.


Because he is a moron that spreads mis information and takes personal opinion and tries to make it look like fact. I can always debunk 90% of the crap he comes up with.

He is the Glen Beck of conspiracy theorists.


The videos include clips showing mainstream news sources covering similar facilities and admitting that they're to hold prisoners, so if you deny that they exist, YOU'RE the crazy person.


Because the military is practising on how to use their own equipment? The horrors. I would rather they not do anything and wait till they are right in the middle of an operation to figure out what they are doing.

I saw Marine One take off the white house lawn 12 TIMES, OMG the world is ending and they are shuttling people out of the WO one by one! Get in your safety rooms NOW!!

See I can be Alex Jones too.

He can't even use the correct terminology. lol
If its over public bank buildings, it is not a covert operation.lo

Marine One was practicing take offs from a little lawn during one of the busier holiday weekends in DC.

So which branch of the military do these helicopters belong too?

Or do you take any black helicopter and assume it is a "covert" military operation?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avalessa
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Dude, calm down.
There's no sense in arguing about this because there really isn't enough proof on either side to satisfy both parties. Every man to himself.
edit on 1/7/12 by Avalessa because: Misuse of comma


Then apparently you have not bothered to read the entire thread, which shows the "LAX FEMA/RENDITION" site is the new consolidated car rental facility.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The X
 


I wonder what would actually happen if people bothered to read past the title.

Army Regulation 210-35 - Created in the late 1990's, revised in 2005. A federal program where the US army can use low / medium security inmates from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS for use as labor. The term everyone is more familiar with is chain gangs, where inmates have been used to build buildings, public roads, build items for sale etc, all of which is valid and legal under state and federal law, along with Supreme Court rulings.

When people are convicted of a crime and are sentenced to prison, it doesn't mean its a vacation, although that ACLU has managed to make it one for them anyways. The army policy established detention facilities on army installations, to be used to hold the prisoners who are part of the program.

The document establishes policies on how the program runs, who is in charge of it , who qualifies for it etc etc etc. It also discusses the use of inmates from state corrections systems, again low / medium security. There is absolutely nothing illegal, as I pointed out before, for using convicted inmates in this fashion.

Once their time is up, they are released just like anyone else who finishes up their prison sentences.

Civilian INMATE Labor Program


As far as the question about supposed "FEMA" mass arrest camps for US citizens. Again if people did research they would find -

ICE-DRO Facilities
ICE Detention facilities by Name / State / Region
ICE-DRO Facility Electronic Health Records System Management

There is nothing wrong with keeping tabs on the government. However, dont you think it would be appropriate to learn first? That way when we hold people / entities accountable we actually know what the hell we are talking about?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by burntheships
See that word there, illegal?


Next time try actually reading the information.



4.
Despite being barred by state law, the NYPD fingerprinted every person arrested during the Convention,
including the nearly 1,500 people arrested for minor offenses like parading without a permit and disorderly conduct. This raised serious concerns that the NYPD was using minor arrests to build a fingerprint database of political activists.


Yeah that is VERY clear indeed Despite being barred by state law,


edit on 4-2-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Again if you actually read the statute you would find that fingerprinting in that manner is allowed under special circumstances. You would also know that its permissible to hold people over for arraignment instead of issuing a citation and releasing them.

You would also know that the ACLU report issued did in fact note that the arraignment use was in fact valid under NY law because it was a 2004 political convention which allowed for special circumstances. That allowed the arraignments as well as the fingerprinting. The fingerprinting set off such a firestorm that they were removed from the system.

reading is our friend....



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again if you actually read the statute you would find that fingerprinting in that manner is allowed under special circumstances.


Well no point reading the whole silly thing when the points needed to show its illegal were already quoted...

But since when did peaceful demonstration become an arrestable thing in this country? What's next, they send in the National Guard with real bullets like they did before?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Actually reading would show you it was not illegal. Simply ignoring a fact because it doesn't support your claim doesn't make your argument. When you shut down city streets, destroy / damage personal and public property, its not protesting its rioting.

The fist step would be to completely understand the difference. The second step would be to understand not one person was charged with protesting, simply because protesting is not illegal. They were charged for the various actions above.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join