Toxic Lies, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 08:29 AM by maxella1

reply to post by -PLB-

The conspiracies I am reading on this board on the other hand, require god like competence. These conspiracies contain RC planes, explosives, thermite, destruction of physical evidence, fake eyewitnesses, fake victims, fake footage, complicit emergency services etc, the list goes on.

God like competence hah...

Like the creation and signing into law the Patriot Act within 6 weeks ?

Mobilizing the military and invading a country on the other side of the world in under a month?

Convincing the whole world that Iraq had WMD's with made up stories, manage to continue the war for years without any accountability even after getting caught that the stories were made up?

Flying remote controlled drones into other countries and killing people and destroying property without creating a conflict like any other country would if they did something like that?

Convincing citizens that we absolutely need to spend hundreds of billions on military even though people are broke loosing their jobs and homes?

Inventing and building the most advanced weapons on earth mostly in secret until the weapons are used?

Secretly spying on US citizens for years before getting caugh and then just make it legal and continue doing it?

Pretty amazing for a bunch of incompetent idiots.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 08:40 AM by maxella1

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Varemia

People knew from day one that there was still asbestos and tons of other really nasty stuff in the air.

I agree.
I think that many of the people involved in the clean up took the macho attitude. Choosing to ignor the obvious in favor of "I'm gonna get this done".

I don't think anyone would think that breathing any kind of smoke for 8 hrs or more a day for weeks is acceptable.
I'll bet they would now advise their children differently now.

If the true contents of the dust were publicly revealed how many and for how long do you think Wall Street people would stay away from there?

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 11:42 AM by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
If the true contents of the dust were publicly revealed how many and for how long do you think Wall Street people would stay away from there?

Not exactly sure what you're asking, but the Wall Street folk are just greedy money-grabbers in it for their own, no matter who gets hurt in the process. If they can make an extra buck by denying toxins and illnesses resultant from 9/11, then they will deny forever. As soon as it stops being profitable (probably when they can leech off the insurance system or something), you see all sorts of diseases starting to be classified under the toxins. Lawyers will especially see it as a moment to strike, making big bucks off of people for not giving coverage to first respondents earlier.

It's dirty and it's wrong, but that's just how greed works.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 03:59 PM by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
If the true contents of the dust were publicly revealed how many and for how long do you think Wall Street people would stay away from there?

Not exactly sure what you're asking, but the Wall Street folk are just greedy money-grabbers in it for their own, no matter who gets hurt in the process. If they can make an extra buck by denying toxins and illnesses resultant from 9/11, then they will deny forever. As soon as it stops being profitable (probably when they can leech off the insurance system or something), you see all sorts of diseases starting to be classified under the toxins. Lawyers will especially see it as a moment to strike, making big bucks off of people for not giving coverage to first respondents earlier.

It's dirty and it's wrong, but that's just how greed works.

Do you think they are so greedy that they would go back to work on september 17 even if they knew how dangerous the dust was?

They might be greedy but I don't think they're suicidal. And that's why EPA lied in the first place. They knew that the rescue workers would still go and do what had to be done, but the average Wall St firm workers would stay away for as long as the toxic dust was in the air and on the ground.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 04:24 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
Do you think they are so greedy that they would go back to work on september 17 even if they knew how dangerous the dust was?

They might be greedy but I don't think they're suicidal. And that's why EPA lied in the first place. They knew that the rescue workers would still go and do what had to be done, but the average Wall St firm workers would stay away for as long as the toxic dust was in the air and on the ground.

This is speculation on a ridiculous scale now, but the dust in the air would have been mostly settled by the 17th. The only way they would be getting high levels of exposure would be if they were sifting through debris themselves or putting it into their coffee, which I doubt.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 04:37 PM by maxella1

reply to post by Varemia

This is speculation on a ridiculous scale now, but the dust in the air would have been mostly settled by the 17th. The only way they would be getting high levels of exposure would be if they were sifting through debris themselves or putting it into their coffee, which I doubt.

Tell this guy how ridiculous you think it is...

Not Just Responders: 9/11 Health Crisis Broadens to Wall St and Beyond

In all the chaos and mayhem, Cosmello felt lucky to be alive. Wandering the locked-down city with a fellow dust cloud victim for the next 24 hours, he finally escaped to his home in Hoboken and then resumed his professional life on the Stock Exchange on September 17th, 2001, when the city of New York pulled back the barricades and declared Wall St and Lower Manhattan open for business. “Everyone in the Financial District watched that cleanup and smelled that stench, day after day,” Cosmello recalls. “It didn’t look right, it didn’t feel right, but the official EPA word was that, horrific as it seemed, it was still safe to go down there.”

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 05:09 PM by Varemia

reply to post by maxella1

Hm, well the only gain I can see from it for anyone is to make money from not covering the first respondents. I'm not sure who you think is responsible for the crime of misrepresenting the danger. Heck, it's possible that the people in charge just plain didn't want to lose another day of revenue from people not being able to get to work.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 05:31 PM by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1

Hm, well the only gain I can see from it for anyone is to make money from not covering the first respondents. I'm not sure who you think is responsible for the crime of misrepresenting the danger.

Hm, You're not sure who I think is responsible..... maybe this will clear it up for you...

EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement

As a result of the White House CEQ’s influence, guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the potential health effects from WTC debris were not included in EPA’s issued press releases. In addition, based on CEQ’s influence, reassuring information was added to at least one press release and
cautionary information was deleted from EPA’s draft version of that press release.

Few written records were available on the process used to prepare WTC press releases. We found draft versions for two of the press releases. However, the White House’s role in EPA’s public communications about WTC environmental conditions was described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy
Administrator’s Chief of Staff to senior EPA officials: All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC [National Security Council] before they are released.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.

Heck, it's possible that the people in charge just plain didn't want to lose another day of revenue from people not being able to get to work.

And how is this different from allowing the attack or even making sure that the attack will succeed because they didn't want to loose the potential revenue from the opium in Afghanistan?

Or do you think that opium is only profitable when sold as a street drug and our government would never ever get involved in drug trafficking?

edit on 21-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 05:50 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
And how is this different from allowing the attack or even making sure that the attack will succeed because they didn't want to loose the potential revenue from the opium in Afghanistan?

Or do you think that opium is only profitable when sold as a street drug and our government would never ever get involved in drug trafficking?
edit on 21-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

What are we even debating? I do think that members of the government helped the attacks succeed, though opium seems a little off the wall. I mean, I wouldn't put drug trafficking past the government, but how far will this conspiracy theory stretch? Adding more complexity when there is a simpler answer is just silly to me.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 06:05 PM by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
And how is this different from allowing the attack or even making sure that the attack will succeed because they didn't want to loose the potential revenue from the opium in Afghanistan?

Or do you think that opium is only profitable when sold as a street drug and our government would never ever get involved in drug trafficking?
edit on 21-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

What are we even debating? I do think that members of the government helped the attacks succeed, though opium seems a little off the wall. I mean, I wouldn't put drug trafficking past the government, but how far will this conspiracy theory stretch? Adding more complexity when there is a simpler answer is just silly to me.

I'm not debating anything, you are free to believe whatever you want.

What I'm doing is showing you that not telling people about cancer causing toxins is the same thing as allowing or helping the terrorist to kill civilians or making up false evidence to go to Iraq. Because all three of these things result in a lot of people dying including their own citizens.

Why would the government want EPA press releases to be cleared by the NSC? Could it be that they were worried that EPA might find something while testing the dust?

It does not add more and more complexity because it is very simple actually. Nearly all of the details that we were told were cleared by some government agency before it was made public.

edit on 21-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 06:16 PM by ANOK

You have to understand the history...

The Opium Trade, Seventh through Nineteenth Centuries

The opium wars were not about drugs, but about China's isolationist economics, and their exclusionary trade policy.

The very same reason we had the cold war, it was not because of "communism". Our government doesn't give a rats ass for peoples freedom. Our governments in fact have put totalitarian dictators in place. There is a rumour that the Rockefeller's helped Stalin gain state power. The wall coming down was not the end of "communism", it was the end of their economic isolationism. They never were "communist" in the first place.

Nothing much has changed. The whole ME issue is about their isolation and trade policies. Not terrorists, or drugs, they are simply the excuse used to keep people passified and supporting the wars.

It's all about the global economy. That is why 9-11 happened, and why it was not carried out by box cutter terrorists, but state terrorists to further western capitalist economic control.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 06:37 PM by maxella1

reply to post by ANOK

You have to understand the history...

Isn't it amazing that some people look at history of all kinds of sick government activity but think that it's irrelevant when it comes to 9/11... Like Operation Northwoods for example. Some people just don't get the point. I love when they say something like "Operation Northwoods was rejected wasn't it?" But miss the fact that in 1962 they actually made plans to do it, and the guy who rejected it was assassinated.

Why would anybody think that they wouldn't keep trying until achieving their objective?

edit on 21-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 06:47 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by maxella1

Why would anybody think that they wouldn't keep trying until achieving their objective?

Exactly! And the Middle East objective has been on going since it started with Britain finding oil in Persia (Iran) in 1908.

It's all about controlling the global economy.

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 07:21 PM by vipertech0596

reply to post by maxella1

There were reports of weapons being shipped from Iraq to Syria before we even went into Iraq. And I'm not sure where "we actually did find WMDs in Iraq" becomes "it's official we didn't find any"...

reply posted on 21-10-2012 @ 08:01 PM by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

There were reports of weapons being shipped from Iraq to Syria before we even went into Iraq.

If this is true how come there were no concerns that al-Qaeda would get them from Syria?

And I'm not sure where "we actually did find WMDs in Iraq" becomes "it's official we didn't find any"...

I'm not sure where

So is it official now that we didn't find the WMD's or "the amount as were originally thought to be there" because it's actually in Syria? How long did we know this exactly?

becomes "it's official we didn't find any".

reply posted on 22-10-2012 @ 08:11 AM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by maxella1

That was a really long post to write, given that you based it on a significant error.

I pointed out that the difference in evidence between a government sending people to Iraq and ground zero on false premises, and "attack[ing] their own people" was marked. Indeed enormous.

You responded by showing that there was lots of evidence for the first two. Like I said. And none for the third. Like I, um, said.

reply posted on 22-10-2012 @ 04:14 PM by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1

That was a really long post to write, given that you based it on a significant error.

I pointed out that the difference in evidence between a government sending people to Iraq and ground zero on false premises, and "attack[ing] their own people" was marked. Indeed enormous.

You responded by showing that there was lots of evidence for the first two. Like I said. And none for the third. Like I, um, said.

I have been posting here for a while now and before that I would just read without making any comments and I learned a trick from you guys. One thing that you all have in common is that you pretend like every post that you don't agree with actually proves that you are right.

So I actually tried it in real life today and it worked! Surprisingly some people actually fall for it...

So if you go back and read what you have been posting you will learn that you really just prove that I am right and you are wrong.