9/11 last stand

9/11 last stand-part 1


The events of 9/11 I believe happened all too coincidently and therefore I standout to keep proving my statement that the government had something to do with it. I am giving three main points (hits) and a conclusion (smackdown) on what I feel and believe.

9/11 has been a huge discussion on ATS and other sites all over the internet, and the most talked about part of 9/11 is the conspiracies and tricks of the government, this will always be so, even when John F. Kennedy was killed there was speculation the government had something to do with, but this is no speculation this is pure truth and evidence of what happened that day.

1. 9/11 is the most widely talked about conspiracy within a government ever stated in history and it is constantly growing, in this event I give that the evidence at hand must backed up with sufficient evidence to prove that 9/11 actually did happen in a course of helped actions and premeditated help by the government.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

WASHINGTON - The FBI missed at least five opportunities before the Sept. 11 attacks to uncover vital intelligence information about the terrorists, and the bureau didn’t aggressively pursue the information it did have, the Justice Department’s inspector general says in a newly released critique of government missteps.
The IG faulted the FBI for not knowing about the presence of two of the Sept. 11 terrorists in the United States and for not following up on an agent’s theory that Osama bin Laden was sending students to U.S. flight training schools. The agent’s theory turned out to be precisely what bin Laden did.
“The way the FBI handled these matters was a significant failure that hindered the FBI’s chances of being able to detect and prevent the Sept. 11 attacks,” Inspector General Glenn Fine said.


a. We all know that the government has had pre-intelligence conformations of an attack on the U.S.A and from that you can see that the government could have very well played off on those conformations for a more stable and believable 9/11 attacks.

www.wanttoknow.info...
quote: 1996–2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]

1998–2000: On three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the attack can’t go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]

Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.” [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, more]

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden may have received kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is alleged to have been visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02, more]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] The FBI Director later states, "There was nothing the agency could have done to prevent the attacks." [Senate (Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]

Sep 10, 2001: “Newsweek has learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

9/11 last stand

2. The events of 9/11 always hold a large significant matter at that the government was being controlled by certain political parties and for that to keep in mind which party would best suit the United States for years to come it would only be necessary to have a case come up where the current political office could show there colors for their country.

911proof.com...

Newsman Keith Olbermann, listed numerous instances in which the administration had issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.

911proof.com... -stated

U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated, “the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

a. In this event also the help of internal hands could have been used to help equip these terrorists from other countries, as proving this would be hard due the wide hand the government has on media, we can just see where is has been done in the past.
911proof.com... -

And the New York Times has documented that Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

a. Also the events of 9/11 incurred the U.S. people to feel good about their choices to attack Iraq and at the events of killing many innocent people and now turning to Iran, we could very well see another if not many attacks on the U.S.

3. The events that led up to the attacks on there after having video conformation of the attack on the pentagon and sufficient evidence to believe it could have been staged with enough of the right people on the inside. Also the events of world trade 7 falling down after the two main world trade center fall.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

OLBERMANN: A second commercial suggests that no plane flew into the Pentagon. As ever, when the subject of 9/11 comes up, we‘re fortunate to turn to the most respected authority on the subject, the author of “Why America Slept” and before that the book that overwhelms almost every aspect of the various JFK assassination conspiracy theories, “Case Closed,” Gerald Posner. Good evening, sir.
GERALD POSNER, SCHOLAR: Good to be with you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: What are these ads and who is responsible for them?
POSNER: These ads are sort of straight out of “X-Files.” They are the types of things that warm the cockles of Oliver Stone‘s heart. Who is responsible for them is a multi-millionaire, a fellow, James Walter out of Santa Barbara, California. He is worth about $7 million. Mostly inherited from his family. He had a building construction company in Tampa, Florida. And he has been a social activist in the past, good causes, things like voter registration, prison reform. But this time he‘s gone off the far end.
We‘re talking about ads that in essence are saying, World Trade Center 7, a building two blocks away from the World Trade Center Towers, really wasn‘t destroyed by the damage from the planes that went into the other two towers that day. But somehow, the owner of that building must have thought, gee, you know what? I don‘t have enough people filling that building. I have too many vacancies and sent in a secret team to plant explosives and bring it down on 9/11 with nobody noticing and the government should be investigating that.
And the plane we all thought went into the Pentagon with all those people that died onboard, that‘s just a bit of fiction made up. This is really pretty far down the field. One of his own friends recently described James Walter as an eccentric sweetheart. I can‘t speak to the sweetheart part but eccentric would be a mild term to describe these ads.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

9/11 last stand

As of now you see the conspiracy is in a turmoil of sorts and still to the belief the very possible idea that these two events on 9/11 could have been staged.

-----First sub point event, how much time will it take the government to set up and launch a cruise missile?

3. The BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile was most likely launched from submarine and therefore able to reach the pentagon in sufficient time, also the launch preparation time for a Cruise Missile can be cut down to 30 minutes of the call for launch.

-----Given the time from when the attacks of the trade centers were done, the government had enough time to stage a plane attack on the pentagon. Between 8:45 and 9:40 there was enough time given for a Cruise missile launch from a submarine.

www.chinfo.navy.mil...
Description: SLAM-Expanded Response (ER) is Naval Aviation's follow-on to the SLAM Stand-off Outside Area Defense (SOAD) weapon. It is a day/night, adverse-weather, precision-strike weapon with over-the-horizon range. SLAM is based on the highly successful and reliable Harpoon anti-ship missile, with a Global Positioning System-aided Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) for mid-course guidance, and a Maverick Imaging Infrared sensor and a Walleye data link for precise, "man-in-the-loop" terminal guidance. SLAM-ER, an evolutionary upgrade of SLAM, provides the Navy and Marine Corps with a major improvement in precision strike capability. A modified Tomahawk warhead improves lethality and penetration. New planar wings double the range and allow terrain-following flight. Mission planning time has been reduced to less than 30 minutes, and targeting has been improved via a "freeze frame" command that reduces pilot workload.

------Second Event- Analyzing the building of world trade center could the power of the two trade centers make it fall down?

www.physics.byu.edu...
As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper). The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

-----In this site all possible analytical points were taken and stood upon, though there is a very strong evaluation here, and there is no way this building could have been damaged enough by the world trade center collapse to make this building collapse also.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

We all know (well those who can see) That the government at least allowed this to happen, i'm just waiting for some real substantial proof that they had a hand in it. The CIA meeting with Bin Laden has been rubbished by many but there is usually no smoke without fire. The put options put on the airlines 2 and 1 day before the attack are the clearest sign someone knew when, where, who, but who put the put options on???

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
The CIA meeting with Bin Laden has been rubbished by many but there is usually no smoke without fire.

before google was born, there was something called dejanenews, which they bought & incorporated into google groups. they kept the entire records of these prior groups so you can go back in time, pre sep 11th, and search what was being written.

setting the date to jan 1st 1981 to sep 10th 2001 and typing 'bin laden cia' brings up many, many posts ( bin laden cia )and its worth taking some time to read a few of them.

Originally posted by justyc
setting the date to jan 1st 1981 to sep 10th 2001 and typing 'bin laden cia' brings up many, many posts ( bin laden cia )and its worth taking some time to read a few of them.

Very very interesting

Thanks for the link

That's a really nice find, justyc. Thanks man.

Originally posted by ragster
3. The BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile was most likely launched from submarine and therefore able to reach the pentagon in sufficient time, also the launch preparation time for a Cruise Missile can be cut down to 30 minutes of the call for launch.

So here we have another sizeable chunk of conspiraters.A US sub,hey why not go all out.No need for one lone launch from a plane,right?That would only be two people at most.Once again Occams getting dull.US submariners are probably the most dedicated personel in the armed service,especially at peace time.You really have to love your country to put up with those conditions.Yet they would all know a missile was launched,subs are funny that way.I guess it does fit the logic? Right?

Mod Edit: Quote Tags.

[edit on 17/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

That is great point and I just want to clear it up is all coolness.
What you are trying to state is that, there really could not be a submarine crew that would not know where there target was, my last confirmation, just says, punch in the target codes and dont ask questions, I mean, I could be totally wrong, but they if this ever could have happened, would think it was going to Africa, Iam just stating.

Whoa... nelly! The point is, they would know when they launched,dud'nt happen often.Not to mention ,the statement the whole sub would know it went down.Again, these are the consumate patriotic bleed the color americans.Living in Das Boot splendor,for one reason.To protect the good O'l US of A. Any way, I'm just saying why not use a plane, only two people in the launch consrpracy.These numbers start multiplying on the exponential level.Jeeze Louise ,just trying to help.You do the math,but show your work!




These Are Not The Droids You're Looking For !!!!

Damn,After I noticed your pic,and the Africa comment.I get it.You were being facetious.Ya got me!

With the aircraft, I see your point but there is also more than two at it that would know, you have your Awacs controll aircraft (10 people), air combat controllers (2-3), and probaly someone in an angency giving the flight commands (2-3), from that you have FAA air controllers and radar screen advisors(10-15), with the aircraft attack you have more people and more evidence9computers and people), the most safest and secret way is a sub, that is why they are designed, so no one even would know where it came from (silent killers), it would all look way to obvious to launch an air attack. Even if the stealth aircraft are used, people would still see that black dart shoot across the sky, in that the launch range for an aircraft can not be anymore than 10-15 miles at the most, a sub can clear 100 miles easily with a cruise missile, thats all. Iam not any longer trying to prove this happened, but if it did, it was most likely a sub marine.

Originally posted by ragster
With the aircraft, I see your point but there is also more than two at it that would know, you have your Awacs controll aircraft (10 people), air combat controllers (2-3), and probaly someone in an angency giving the flight commands (2-3), from that you have FAA air controllers and radar screen advisors(10-15)

Come on it was top secret,remote air field to low for radar untill needed.Besides how do you think they track missiles?A whole sub.Repeat whole sub complement in the hundreds.Again just trying to keep those numbers down,thought you might like that.Just trying to help.Occams razor and all.


--Plus expanded expl. above.

Mod Edit: Quote Tags.

[edit on 17/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Duhh]

I still understand what you are saying, it is great the point you are making, and you are right, the entire crew of the Submarine would know a missile was launched and so on, but I do know, the brigde crew can keep a secret just as well as the crew does from the officers when a fight breaks out, either way, people would know, no matter how many does, it really does not matter, and if the goverment knew they were going to say anything or knew about it , some guys in black suits would probaly kill them, when it comes to internal affairs, it goes very deep, past alot of levels, so from an air strike to a sea launched attack there would be witnesses. Just as there was the witnesses on Flight 77, no one is alive now from that to say what happened. And problaly if it was with a an goverment attack, not many people would be here either.

But I your point is well taken and thank you for explaining yourself and your view, if you are confused, ill try my best to explain further again.

Cool,I guess.We just don't agree with each other.I do understand your point.I just don't buy the all powerful MIB thing.
Peace sells,but who is buying?

yeah you are exactly right, hmmmmmm....... who are the people that are wanting peace and getting it, the people who are dying for peace, or killing for peace?

[edit on 17-7-2006 by ragster]

Does it make any difference that people did not see a missile--they saw a plane.
The flight movements of a plane vs. missile are totally different.

If you were there on 911 and looking up ..would you confuse a missile for a plane? It just doesn't seem credible.

Originally posted by Vushta
Does it make any difference that people did not see a missile--they saw a plane.
The flight movements of a plane vs. missile are totally different.

If you were there on 911 and looking up ..would you confuse a missile for a plane? It just doesn't seem credible.

What people?

A vast percentage all claim to have seen heard something DIFFERENT.

What are your sources for the above claims?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


What people?

A vast percentage all claim to have seen heard something DIFFERENT.

What are your sources for the above claims?

Again with answering a question with a question.

I gotta call you on this one tho'

A vast percentage all claim to have seen heard something DIFFERENT.

oh..reeeealy?

What are your sources for the above claims?

Originally posted by Vushta
Does it make any difference that people did not see a missile--they saw a plane.
The flight movements of a plane vs. missile are totally different.

If you were there on 911 and looking up ..would you confuse a missile for a plane? It just doesn't seem credible.

It could be optical camo and as you said the flight movements of a plane vs misisle are totally diff and as the flight mov suggest the thing that hit the pentagaon cannot be plane,it has to be a missile or someting hybrid
there was a post at ats about the manuvour of the flight 77 which only meant that this had to be missile.