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.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by godfather420
LOL. Kurt Haskell IS a truther. He's been on InfoWars, and Alex Jones, etc.
As for Patrick Kennedy:
MR. KENNEDY: We — as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we unilaterally revoked a visa — and there was a case recently up — we have a request from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. We came across information; we said this is a dangerous person. We were ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, should we revoke this visa? And one of the members — and we’d be glad to give you that out of — in private — said, please do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.
That is wildly different than a US Agent getting him on a flight.
Kurt Haskell says:
I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.
During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.
Kurt Haskell also never claimed he has proof the "Indian man" was a US Government agent.
HE made the logical leap that:
A) because, at various points, the US, as it's known to do, sells terrorists fake weapons, and then arrests them, B) Umar must be a US patsy and, that
C) the "Indian man" must be a US Agent and that
D) the visa stuff that Kennedy referred to was him admitting that the US intelligence community played along.
But that's a huge number of logical leaps, none of which are backed up by evidence.
Very typical conspiracy theorist behaviour, but certainly not "evidence" of the claims you're making.edit on 20-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tracehd1
reply to post by grey580
What's your reason for lying? I really want to know...
Because... If you expect me to believe 1 piece of tin and a wheel looking object is a whole plane with luggage and people.....
Go look at planes crashing into something.
Try to debunk all the facts.... Like whole windows right next to the hole not broken where a wing should have taken it out...and that's just 1 of thousands of pieces of evidence that a plane did not go threw. I have read 100's of reports from pilots and engineers that know a plane didn't hit.
Men in suits don't pick up a couple tin parts from a deadly plane wreck.
Why DO YOU LIE?????????
Iwish wish wish with all my heart for a thumbs down button!!!! 2nd line..... Said w/ lotzzzzzzzzz of sarcasism...gasp.. Was that my 2 nd line?edit on 19-4-2012 by tracehd1 because: Thumbs down 2 nd line
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
There's tons. You claim the planes would have to hit specific points. Why? The planes hit different places on the buildings with similar results. On top of that, the WTC towers weren't built like any other skyscrapers and therefore there's no benchmark for your basic claim.
You also say that a small number of guys couldn't hijack the planes, due to staffing, but that ignores the fact that the policy for dealing with hijackers is too cooperate. They had no idea the people were planning on crashing the planes, so the staff and the passengers mostly just cooperated. Google it if you don't believe me.
That's just two things, but the whole thing is like that.
EDIT: one final thing: Dick Cheney being a lying scumbag isn't proof of anything past Dick Cheney being a lying scumbag. He had a lot of other reason (as did Bush) for wanting to hide their connections to, for instance, Saudi Arabia, and a Saudi connection to the Saudi Osama bin Ladin.
Protecting Saudi Arabia is as valid an explanation for their behaviour as anything else. So again, it's not proof of anything.
edit on 20-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)
Not everyone who can think outside the box is a "truther".
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by godfather420
No one has proof someone LET him on the plane.
You can choose to believe that, but that's not what the evidence says.
Its not so difficult to predict,when one understands world history and realizes that the numerous medieval crusades were more or less the "western powers" trying to topple the "middle east" and history seems to repeat itself through the ages,meaning the elites like to make it repeat itself...
Originally posted by splitlevel
he predicted an ongoing war to topple all the middle east states on by one etc.
As everyone knows, you only need to look at who ultimately profits from all this.
how could anybody buy all this crap.
On an individual level,people murder their own family members,or pay someone else to kill them all the time,for the monetary gain they hope that persons death will bring them...
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by blocula
When your family dies, and leaves you money in a will, shall we all assume you must have murdered them? Would that be the only logical conclusion, one most people would be too naive or emotionally fragile to reach?