Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Reheat
 


Welcome to the illogical paranoid world view of a truther as viewed from mommy's basement

A melange of "the gubmint should known that these Arabs were up to no good the minute set foot on
US soil. we should asked arrested them waterboarded 'em. strung 'em by their thumbs" and
the gubmint is evil, if we speak out will wind up in a FEMA re education camp" paranoia .....


Oh yes the Expert has arrived.... Please explain what the [SNIP] you're talking about..

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 28/6/12 by argentus because: removed censor circumvention




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Dude you're something else. Yes a crime was committed.. people died remember. The government is covering up something for some reason. Innocent people do not cover up their activities prior to a crime. I don't know what they are covering up so don't even ask me. I don't trust the government, history shows that false flags were used in the past by many countries. So in my opinion 9/11 could be an inside job based on the FACT that they are covering things up. This is and always been my position. When I find something that would change my mind I will post it here on ATS and then i can tell me "I told you so".


Just try to stick to one topic at a time. I was responding to your assertion that

"Not somebody should be prosecuted, that is what only debunkers say."

I took this to mean that you thought someone should in fact not be prosecuted, despite your assertion that a crime (although you can't say which crime) has been committed. Now you are again saying that there was criminal activity. So let me get this straight - are you saying that there has indeed been a crime but that you don't want it to be prosecuted?





What are you talking about? I'm still certain that they had enough information to prevent 9/11. My opinion did not change. I know what should be done, but I cant do it. The commission should be investigated to see what they omitted from the report. People should be made to testify under oath etc..


Nobody has said they didn't have enough information to prevent it. That's the whole point debunkers are making when they talk about inter-agency failings. That's what you set this thread up to refute, and now you've come full circle and agree with it!

I think it's pretty clear. You started a thread boasting that you had evidence that the agencies shared all their information with each other. Now that this has collapsed in an embarrassing fashion you are reduced to fact-free rants like the one above about your sincere feeling that something may have been suspicious or criminal. You just can't say what and don't have any evidence for it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Reheat
 


Welcome to the illogical paranoid world view of a truther as viewed from mommy's basement

A melange of "the gubmint should known that these Arabs were up to no good the minute set foot on
US soil. we should asked arrested them waterboarded 'em. strung 'em by their thumbs" and
the gubmint is evil, if we speak out will wind up in a FEMA re education camp" paranoia .....


I don't know about everyone else, I find that a very offensive characterization. Yeah, there are some paranoid kooks in trutherland, but that does not mean that everyone questioning some of this stuff is a paranoid kook. My mother is dead, so no "mommy's basement" here. There are some very intelligent and capable people out there who question how the government was involved historically in the events and individuals that led to 9/11.

As people can tell from my posts, I have no patience for those who perpetuate unsupportable myths about 9/11 (Cheney's "stand down" order a recent example), but I also have no patience for those who put their head in the sand and blindly accept the "we did not tell the FBI because we are incompetent, stupid, hate the FBI, or a whole host of other silly excuses.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know what led to the failures in intelligence/law enforcement. But when in 1995 we had AQ's bagman (OBL's brother-in-law) in US custody, but have his possessions released and him deported to Jordan (where he was almost immediately released back to the Saudi's) I start to wonder. When I find out that the person in the Justice Department who spearheaded all that was Jamie S. Gorelick who somehow ended up on the 911 Commission, I have to wonder if it is more than just incompetence.

I'm not asserting that anyone in the US government was directly involved, but I definitely believe there is a lot more to learn about what led to the 9/11 attacks. Maybe in another 20 years or so some of this stuff will finally be declassified. But, I'll most likely be gone by then.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





I think it's pretty clear. You started a thread boasting that you had evidence that the agencies shared all their information with each other. Now that this has collapsed in an embarrassing fashion you are reduced to fact-free rants like the one above about your sincere feeling that something may have been suspicious or criminal. You just can't say what and don't have any evidence for it.


What has collapsed? They shared information and worked together prior to 9/11. What are you here to do? Do you think I should know what was shared and what wasn't? Am I supposed to know who is responsible for not sharing information?

Let me be clear...

I THINK THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT AND I WANT ACCOUNTABILITY. I THINK THAT WTC 7 HAD EXPLOSIVES IN IT. I THINK THAT CHENEY GAVE A SHOOT DOWN ORDER AND UNITED 93 WAS SHOT DOWN. (in my opinion)

Any more questions?
edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


What would they arrest them for ? You cant even get someone who actually threatens you arrested until they make a move. This is America, we dont go around arresting people just because they look suspect.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by maxella1
 


What would they arrest them for ? You cant even get someone who actually threatens you arrested until they make a move. This is America, we dont go around arresting people just because they look suspect.


Immigration.

they had more than enough of probable cause.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Okay. So, what weapon was used to shoot down Flight 93?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Reheat
 


Welcome to the illogical paranoid world view of a truther as viewed from mommy's basement

A melange of "the gubmint should known that these Arabs were up to no good the minute set foot on
US soil. we should asked arrested them waterboarded 'em. strung 'em by their thumbs" and
the gubmint is evil, if we speak out will wind up in a FEMA re education camp" paranoia .....


I don't know about everyone else, I find that a very offensive characterization. Yeah, there are some paranoid kooks in trutherland, but that does not mean that everyone questioning some of this stuff is a paranoid kook. My mother is dead, so no "mommy's basement" here. There are some very intelligent and capable people out there who question how the government was involved historically in the events and individuals that led to 9/11.

As people can tell from my posts, I have no patience for those who perpetuate unsupportable myths about 9/11 (Cheney's "stand down" order a recent example), but I also have no patience for those who put their head in the sand and blindly accept the "we did not tell the FBI because we are incompetent, stupid, hate the FBI, or a whole host of other silly excuses.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know what led to the failures in intelligence/law enforcement. But when in 1995 we had AQ's bagman (OBL's brother-in-law) in US custody, but have his possessions released and him deported to Jordan (where he was almost immediately released back to the Saudi's) I start to wonder. When I find out that the person in the Justice Department who spearheaded all that was Jamie S. Gorelick who somehow ended up on the 911 Commission, I have to wonder if it is more than just incompetence.

I'm not asserting that anyone in the US government was directly involved, but I definitely believe there is a lot more to learn about what led to the 9/11 attacks. Maybe in another 20 years or so some of this stuff will finally be declassified. But, I'll most likely be gone by then.



It might NOT be a case of incompetence either.

IF... policy at the time is to not share all info as directed by the "wall", and those that could have taken action if that "wall" wasn't there, but didn't, then who acted in a manner that should result in a demotion/firing/head rolling?

Again, Gorelick was a nobody, and she didn't make any policy. Clinton did. And if you believe that this "wall" resulted in 9/11, then the blame lands squarely on Clinton's shoulders...

BUT..... Clinton was pres and made policy, so there is no one to demote, etc. If anything, your excellent research might lead you to believe that all the FAA, NEADS, etc people acted in an outstanding manner. The same might also be said of the CIA and FBI guys. They have stated that something should be done, but procedure was followed. What if there is no shoe dragging, etc on their part either?


Then IMHO it comes down to policy.

And Clinton.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Okay. So, what weapon was used to shoot down Flight 93?


I don't know.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Well, let's see, US Air Force fighters carry three types of weapons. A cannon, heat seeking missiles and radar seeking missiles.

Using the cannon......well, on an airliner, you could empty the drum on the airliner and not cause enough damage to bring it down. Not really a good choice...

Heat seeking missile.....would home in and blow one of the engines from hell to breakfast. Crash scene recovery indicates that both engines were in one piece when the jet hit the ground.

Which leaves us with a radar guided missile, which would home in on the biggest return it had, the fuselage and blow it apart. Again, we know from the crash scene recovery that this is not the case. The fuselage was intact until impact wit the ground.

So, the evidence, physical, electronic and human rules out the weapons used by the Air Force to shoot down aircraft. So, again, I ask, what weapon was used?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


You know planes have wings right? Why would you have to shoot anything but one wing with any of the weapons you've mentioned? It would turn into a stone glider.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Well, let's see, US Air Force fighters carry three types of weapons. A cannon, heat seeking missiles and radar seeking missiles.

Using the cannon......well, on an airliner, you could empty the drum on the airliner and not cause enough damage to bring it down. Not really a good choice...

Heat seeking missile.....would home in and blow one of the engines from hell to breakfast. Crash scene recovery indicates that both engines were in one piece when the jet hit the ground.

Which leaves us with a radar guided missile, which would home in on the biggest return it had, the fuselage and blow it apart. Again, we know from the crash scene recovery that this is not the case. The fuselage was intact until impact wit the ground.

So, the evidence, physical, electronic and human rules out the weapons used by the Air Force to shoot down aircraft. So, again, I ask, what weapon was used?



And again the answer is I don't know.

So far I can't find a convincing explanation of multiple debris sites, and Cheney and Bush both admitted that the order was given. On 9/11 right after United 93 crashed people were saying that the plane broke up in the air.

I came to a conclusion that if it looks like a shot down with multiple debris fields and the order was given, and first impression was that it was shot down, but the next day Bill Crowley from the FBI held a news conference and said that he was wrong, and there were no military involvement. I personally do not believe him because he wasn't very convincing when he said that. This is my opinion only.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


You know planes have wings right? Why would you have to shoot anything but one wing with any of the weapons you've mentioned? It would turn into a stone glider.



Oh, you want to shoot a wing off? Okay, where was the chunk of wing found? Not to mention, that kind of damage would cause the plane to hit the ground much differently and wouldn't produce the crater we saw at Shanksville.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Where was any of the wings found?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


And your opinion, does not mesh with ANY of the facts. The "multiple" debris sites is a misnomer. The ONLY debris found any significant distance from the crash site, was lightweight and blown by the wind.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


In and around the crater. Which, indicates the plane was intact at impact.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


In and around the crater. Which, indicates the plane was intact at impact.


In an around? There was a lot of "around" debris.
The plane was shredded and you claim to know the location of the wings?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


In and around the crater. Which, indicates the plane was intact at impact.


In an around? There was a lot of "around" debris.
The plane was shredded and you claim to know the location of the wings?


Yep. I actually researched the subject and talked to people who were there helping recover the debris.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


And your opinion, does not mesh with ANY of the facts. The "multiple" debris sites is a misnomer. The ONLY debris found any significant distance from the crash site, was lightweight and blown by the wind.


Yes they found pieces of paper with passengers names on it 8 miles away from the crater. I can believe that but it seems strange to me that people 8 miles away found these pieces of paper and for some reason decided that it came from the plane and gave it to the FBI.

I found a empty envelope with peoples name on it should i call the FBI just to make sure it didn't come from a crime scene 8 miles away? ( not a true story )

See where I'm going with it?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 



You know planes have wings right? Why would you have to shoot anything but one wing with any of the weapons you've mentioned? It would turn into a stone glider.


Problem here is that the engines are attached to the wings, blew off wing and come up on engines short

We know that both engines were intact and running up tp moment of crash


Try again.......






top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join