Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 Journey for Truth

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


In that case, you have failed. That drone was not there because "Bush" had his eye on Iraq. It was there because we had our eyes on Iraq since 1991.....as part if the Gulf War.cease fire.


US Warplanes bomb air defenses in Iraq

Here's a clipping from a newspaper dated 9/5/01... 6 day's before 9/11. So explain to me again how the drone shot down was part of the cease fire? Also explain how these US warplanes bombing Iraq 6 days before 9/11 is also part of the cease fire, as well.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


There was barely a month that went by from March 1991 to September 2001 that we DIDN'T drop ordinance somewhere in Iraq. Or were you not paying attention, like most Americans?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


There was barely a month that went by from March 1991 to September 2001 that we DIDN'T drop ordinance somewhere in Iraq. Or were you not paying attention, like most Americans?


Oh okay, so despite the 935 lies which were told by Bush and his entire administration, spy drones over Iraq, the war planes dropping bombs you still believe an invasion of Iraq was not on Bush's agenda? Are you serious?
edit on 9-11-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



Oh okay, so despite the 935 lies which were told by Bush and his entire administration, spy drones over Iraq, the war planes dropping bombs you still believe an invasion of Iraq was not on Bush's agenda? Are you serious?


Attack on WTC/Pentagon - Sept 2001

Invasion of Iraq - March 2003

Thats 18 months separation of the two events



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by homervb
 



Oh okay, so despite the 935 lies which were told by Bush and his entire administration, spy drones over Iraq, the war planes dropping bombs you still believe an invasion of Iraq was not on Bush's agenda? Are you serious?


Attack on WTC/Pentagon - Sept 2001

Invasion of Iraq - March 2003

Thats 18 months separation of the two events


So what?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by homervb
 



Oh okay, so despite the 935 lies which were told by Bush and his entire administration, spy drones over Iraq, the war planes dropping bombs you still believe an invasion of Iraq was not on Bush's agenda? Are you serious?


Attack on WTC/Pentagon - Sept 2001

Invasion of Iraq - March 2003

Thats 18 months separation of the two events



lol you're hilarious. Have you forgotten a part of these 935 lies is that the Bush administration's falsified connection between Al-qaeda and Iraq and their alleged role in 9/11?? I'm glad you managed to add up the months between both events, greatly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


There was barely a month that went by from March 1991 to September 2001 that we DIDN'T drop ordinance somewhere in Iraq. Or were you not paying attention, like most Americans?


Oh okay, so despite the 935 lies which were told by Bush and his entire administration, spy drones over Iraq, the war planes dropping bombs you still believe an invasion of Iraq was not on Bush's agenda? Are you serious?


The fact that Bush and friends were chomping at the bit to depose Saddam Hussein does not automagically mean that the WTC was destroyed by lasers from outer space (or nukes in the basement or hologram projectors or whatever internet conspiracy it is you subscribe to). It simply means they used it to their advantage.

The one ugly detail the conspiracy proponents cannot get away from is that the 9/11 attack was traced back to Afghanistan, NOT Iraq, and Afghanistan is every bit as screwed up a place as the mass media portrays it. Heck, the Taliban even tried to murder some 14 year old Pakistani girl for speaking out against them.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



The fact that Bush and friends were chomping at the bit to depose Saddam Hussein does not automagically mean that the WTC was destroyed by lasers from outer space (or nukes in the basement or hologram projectors or whatever internet conspiracy it is you subscribe to). It simply means they used it to their advantage.


Kinda like a lottery jackpot windfall, once in a lifetime lucky coincidence. Bush and friends were trying to figure out how can they get enough support to get Hussein since day one . Actually it's like winning two jackpots in the same day because Bush was going to sign a detailed plan (essentially the same war plan they used) for a worldwide war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan just two days before 9/11. Just imagine how much easier it was to persuade other countries to cooperate and without sharing intelligence with anybody.



The one ugly detail the conspiracy proponents cannot get away from is that the 9/11 attack was traced back to Afghanistan, NOT Iraq, and Afghanistan is every bit as screwed up a place as the mass media portrays it.


So The plan for war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan worked out pretty well for Bush and friends, but it turned out that it was harder than expected to link al-Qaida to Iraq, luckily Hussein didn't want to cooperate with the UN and the WMD's inspectors. But since we already had one war to fight at the time American people wanted more proof that Iraq had the weapons.

And then boom! A light-bulb lights up above their heads.. > Iraq definitely has anthrax ... We know because he used bio weapon before (and we gave it to them).

Bush and friends should play the lottery because they are really, really lucky.
.
edit on 13-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

Kinda like a lottery jackpot windfall, once in a lifetime lucky coincidence. Bush and friends were trying to figure out how can they get enough support to get Hussein since day one . Actually it's like winning two jackpots in the same day because Bush was going to sign a detailed plan (essentially the same war plan they used) for a worldwide war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan just two days before 9/11. Just imagine how much easier it was to persuade other countries to cooperate and without sharing intelligence with anybody.


You are struggling to prop up your conspiracy theories with conjecture and we both know it. Our major NATO allies like France, Germany, and Spain joined us in the war in Afghanistan but they refused to join us in the war in Iraq. That's because they had their own intelligence agencies and they confirmed the 9/11 attack was sponsored by Al Qaida but couldn't confirm that Iraq had WMD.



And then boom! A light-bulb lights up above their heads.. > Iraq definitely has anthrax ... We know because he used bio weapon before (and we gave it to them).


...so when I say the conspiracy theorists go out of their way to obfuscate the fact that the 9/11 attack was traced back to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, how are you proving me wrong, exactly?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




You are struggling to prop up your conspiracy theories with conjecture and we both know it. Our major NATO allies like France, Germany, and Spain joined us in the war in Afghanistan but they refused to join us in the war in Iraq. That's because they had their own intelligence agencies and they confirmed the 9/11 attack was sponsored by Al Qaida but couldn't confirm that Iraq had WMD.


No I'm not struggling at all, It's really easy to find this information online. But it actually props up your coincidence theory because what I post is fact. Your type theorize that these facts are only coincidences.

I would love to see your source about the NATO allies confirming it was Al Qaida, please post a link. The only thing I can remember regarding NATO is this. A classified briefing by the United States.


This morning's briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies. Today's was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details. Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.




...so when I say the conspiracy theorists go out of their way to obfuscate the fact that the 9/11 attack was traced back to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, how are you proving me wrong, exactly?


I am not trying to prove you wrong and I can't even if I wanted to. Because that is what they told us.. 19 terrorists mostly from Saudi Arabia were traced back to Afghanistan. I'm just saying that these mostly Saudi terrorists couldn't be traced to Iraq. Personally I think that It became difficult to trace them to Iraq because the world realized that they were lied to regarding Afghanistan. So the WMD story was created and reinforced by the "Iraqi" anthrax attack.

There's an old saying in Tennessee that goes something like this:



And that's why the allies refused to join us in the war in Iraq.
edit on 13-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

I would love to see your source about the NATO allies confirming it was Al Qaida, please post a link.


Of course. Here's a link to the very page on the NATO web site. It says-

"Frank Taylor, the US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism briefed the North Atlantic Council - NATO's top decision-making body- on 2 October on the results of investigations into the 11 September terrorist attacks against the United States. As a result of the information he provided to the Council, it has been clearly determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

At a special press conference, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that since it had been determined that the attacks had been directed from abroad, they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty."


..so yes, we shared our intelligence with our NATO allies, and they found the information we gave them to be credible. This isn't some second or third hand news report. This is coming from NATO itself.

NATO announcing the invocation of Article 5




I am not trying to prove you wrong and I can't even if I wanted to. Because that is what they told us.. 19 terrorists mostly from Saudi Arabia were traced back to Afghanistan. I'm just saying that these mostly Saudi terrorists couldn't be traced to Iraq. Personally I think that It became difficult to trace them to Iraq because the world realized that they were lied to regarding Afghanistan. So the WMD story was created and reinforced by the "Iraqi" anthrax attack.


All leads on the Anthrax attack point to the guy who was in charge of the lab that produced it because he supposedly stood to make huge personal profits from selling a vaccine against it. There is no mysterious, shadowy "they" who said it came from Iraq. He himself was the guy who told authorities that the anthrax came from Iraq, and it was one of the charges they were going to slap him with.

I do not know if this is accurate or not. It is simply what I have read on the guy...but nonetheless, you are still stretching the facts to manufacture your own proof to suit your argument.

Wikipedia article on Bruce Edwards Ivins



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



"Frank Taylor, the US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism briefed the North Atlantic Council - NATO's top decision-making body- on 2 October on the results of investigations into the 11 September terrorist attacks against the United States. As a result of the information he provided to the Council, it has been clearly determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.


Dave I'm going to use a phrase you like... You are being intellectually dishonest here... I asked you for a source for what you posted which is this:


Our major NATO allies like France, Germany, and Spain joined us in the war in Afghanistan but they refused to join us in the war in Iraq. That's because they had their own intelligence agencies and they confirmed the 9/11 attack was sponsored by Al Qaida but couldn't confirm that Iraq had WMD.


But your source says that Frank Taylor, the US Ambassador briefed NATO and as a result of the information he provided to the Council, it has been clearly determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

So you changed your story, Now you're saying that they shared intelligence, where is the part about France, Germany, and Spain confirming with their own intelligence agencies? All I see is that they were briefed by the US and nothing about confirming anything.



All leads on the Anthrax attack point to the guy who was in charge of the lab that produced


Yeah and he killed himself before he was arrested. But you're again being a little bit intellectually dishonest because you know that Collin Powell presented Anthrax To the UN when he was making the case for Iraq war.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I posted a wrong video.
This is what I wanted to post.

edit on 15-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

So you changed your story, Now you're saying that they shared intelligence, where is the part about France, Germany, and Spain confirming with their own intelligence agencies? All I see is that they were briefed by the US and nothing about confirming anything.


Ummm...I'd say that would be the part where they were quoting German Intelligence agencies reporting that Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida operatives while in Hamburg. You know, like how it was referenced in the 9/11 Commission report? The book that it was your obligation to read to know what all the "lies in the official story" supposedly even are?

I keep saying this over and over- all the information in the 9/11 commission report came from outside sources, so if you're criticizing the report it only means you're necessarily criticizing those outside sources. I keep stressing this but you don't seem to get it.



Yeah and he killed himself before he was arrested. But you're again being a little bit intellectually dishonest because you know that Collin Powell presented Anthrax To the UN when he was making the case for Iraq war.


Excuse me but have you forgotten that this whole Iraqi Antrax thread is nothing but desperate innuendo dropping on your part to begin with? You're essentially claiming Colin Powell's UN address was a conspiracy that was part of an overall conspiracy to kill people with Anthrax in a conspiracy to falsely put the blame on Iraq to promote a conspiracy to invade Iraq, which apparently was the real conspiracy behind a smokescreen conspiracy to invade Afghanistan by using a conspiracy to stage an attack on 9/11 in a conspiracy to falsely put the blame on Afghanistan. Naturally, the 9/11 commission report was a conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy that Bush was part of all these other conspiracies. I can't even add Bin Laden to the equation because I'd short circuit trying to keep track of all these conspiracies.

...and you're saying I'm the one being intellectually dishonest? I mean, really?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Ummm...I'd say that would be the part where they were quoting German Intelligence agencies reporting that Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida operatives while in Hamburg. You know, like how it was referenced in the 9/11 Commission report? The book that it was your obligation to read to know what all the "lies in the official story" supposedly even are?


Okay I read the commission report but it's possible that I just forgot about a quote from German intelligence agencies. So I just did a search and the phrase "German Intelligence comes up once...



Page 183

The available evidence indicates that in 1999,Atta,Binalshibh, Shehhi, and Jar= rah decided to fight in Chechnya against the Russians. According to Binal= shibh, a chance meeting on a train in Germany caused the group to travel to Afghanistan instead.An individual named Khalid al Masri approached Binal= shibh and Shehhi (because they were Arabs with beards,Binalshibh thinks) and struck up a conversation about jihad in Chechnya.When they later called Masri and expressed interest in going to Chechnya, he told them to contact Abu Musab in Duisburg, Germany. Abu Musab turned out to be Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a significant al Qaeda operative who, even then, was well known to U.S. and German intelligence, though neither government apparently knew he was operating in Germany in late 1999.When telephoned by Binalshibh and Shehhi, Slahi reportedly invited these promising recruits to come see him in Duisburg


Can you please post a link to that quote? I will appropriate it very much.



Excuse me but have you forgotten that this whole Iraqi Anthrax thread is nothing but desperate innuendo dropping on your part to begin with?


Excuse me.. Did you not read the article I linked? Did you not see Collin Powell holding a little glass vial with anthrax in the video I posted? Did you not hear him say that a teaspoon of anthrax shot down the US Senate in 2001? If you really didn't see it please do so.

You can call it anything you like but the facts are facts. Anthrax attack was used as an example of how dangerous Iraq is since they have so much of it and it takes so little to shot down the government and kill people.




You're essentially claiming Colin Powell's UN address was a conspiracy that was part of an overall conspiracy to kill people with Anthrax in a conspiracy to falsely put the blame on Iraq to promote a conspiracy to invade Iraq, which apparently was the real conspiracy behind a smokescreen conspiracy to invade Afghanistan by using a conspiracy to stage an attack on 9/11 in a conspiracy to falsely put the blame on Afghanistan. Naturally, the 9/11 commission report was a conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy that Bush was part of all these other conspiracies. I can't even add Bin Laden to the equation because I'd short circuit trying to keep track of all these conspiracies.


The more you say conspiracy in one paragraph the more desperate you appear.



Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record."I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world," Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation "will always be a part of my record."

Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: "It was painful. It's painful now." Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.




...and you're saying I'm the one being intellectually dishonest? I mean, really?


That is exactly what I'm saying, and that is exactly what you are doing.
edit on 15-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Excuse me.. Did you not read the article I linked? Did you not see Collin Powell holding a little glass vial with anthrax in the video I posted? Did you not hear him say that a teaspoon of anthrax shot down the US Senate in 2001? If you really didn't see it please do so.

You can call it anything you like but the facts are facts. Anthrax attack was used as an example of how dangerous Iraq is since they have so much of it and it takes so little to shot down the government and kill people.


Actually, what I would call it is "strawman argument" in that you know you're getting so exceptionally desperate to sustain your first argument (the 9/11 attack was staged) that you're resorting to arguing over a second argument (the anthrax attack) in the hopes that proving me wrong there will mean it proves I'm wrong about the first argument by proxy.

This is supposed to be relevent to "9/11 journey for truth" HOW, exactly?



The more you say conspiracy in one paragraph the more desperate you appear.


Would you rather that I say "sinister secret plot" instead" Either way, you cannot deny you are inventing a conspiracy as a reason for everything from the 9/11 attack to why you stubbed your toe on a rock in your back yard. Heck, in the next thread over you even claimed there was a conspiracy behind the reason for why some guy working at the Chicago Fed was sacked.

...which gets back to my "you can use circular logic to prove everything is the fault of Leprechauns" argument all over again.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What a bunch of BS. Don't you see that nobody takes you seriously anymore? It's time for you to retire like the rest of your buddies.

The Anthrex story is a lie just like 9/11 and you know it. Your whole argument is not even amusing anymore. I have proven you wrong a hundred times already and all you can do is call me a conspiracy theorist. Try harder Dave because it's getting boring or go away like the rest of the....... you know who...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


See I know you mean well, but your style does not help get the truth out there, that friend is a fact.
You will continue to be marginalized as the most wacky tin-foil group out there, even if you are 100% correct.

What you need to do is focus on promoting the more believable parts of the gateway to 9/11 truth, no holograms as far as we know have ever been claimed to be used on WTC7, why not promote that instead, you will get so much farther in your quest to expose the lie we agree on.

Just some friendly advice.

Unless, it is your goal to intentionally sabotage the gateway to 9/11 truth, in which case, as you were.
And I am not saying you are, as I can't judge a persons motives.
Only that the possibility exists, within the general context of propaganda and misinformation on the internet these days.
edit on 3-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Originally posted by NWOwned
A gif animation of smoky arm guy:



Upon closer examination (if your monitor is not defective) you can clearly see that even smoky arm guy is not totally black and white but also displays blue, the same tone and hue of blue all the others showing blue display.


Is that a real arm on a real guy?

You decide.


Cheers



Honestly, this kind of BS really gets me heated. You're watching people burning and choking to death. You see the smoke bellowing out of those windows, it's all those people can do to catch enough oxygen just to stay conscious. Imagine the terror of hanging out of a window that high up while suffocating and burning. How long could you endure that? You think it's FAKE because you're looking at some low quality recycled images that don't look "real" to you? It's disrespectful. It's disgraceful. It's disgusting what you're doing. You need help.

If you REALLY can't believe those low quality reproductions, ever thought about looking at the high quality raw footage? Here's your FAKE people (set quality to HD):


Below: More "FAKE" people in HD (it must be amusing for you to watch those stuffed dummies falling):

What's my point? This event was gruesome and terrifying. People were murdered in the most horrific way. You shouldn't make light of it regardless of what you believe. So please stop it.
edit on 4-1-2013 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join