To all Believers of the Official Story:

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Thanks, but what part do you find reasonable? What I said about Eddie Stull?

reply to post by Boone 870


What was the conclusion of the PNAC report, in your opinion?

Are you serious about the WMD and Bin Laden stuff? Here you go, one of the many videos:

nl.youtube.com...

nl.youtube.com...

You don't like your rights being taken away from you? Can't you see they did just that after and because of 911. If something happens now, you are stripped of all your rights, and they have absolute control. You're not scared you say, that would scare me the most.
No war with Iran? Just look at the media before the Iraq war, it was the same rethoric and warmongering as now.
History repeating. False flag attacks are very common throughout history, and people fall for it everytime.

[edit on 11/1/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Are these your own words in a prior post?:

"Yes I'm complaining as I don't speak german and the narrator was talking over the mayor. My point was that I wanted to hear exactly what the mayor said and how he said it."

Those words reflect you did not hear what was said in your own words. Either you heard every word the mayor said or did not by your own words.

And if you continued posting my next sentence, you would see the following:

I listened to the interview several times and I believe you simply took what he said out of context.

This is how I am receiving it, regardless of the way you intended to mean it. Please keep in mind. The people needing to understand the intent and meaning, of your words, are those with whom you are attempting to communicate.

You did not hear what was said, because you do not speak German. You could not hear the one interviewed, because the German narrator was overriding the person you wanted to hear. However, you listened to what you could not hear several times. Therefore, the person to whom you responded must have taken it out of context.

If you could not hear it, how would you know if someone took something out of context or not?

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Do you understand there is no way to positively ID that part goes to any alleged Flight 93? What, if any, ID number to any plane, alleged to be Flight 93, might be on the other side of that piece, which could fit into any plane someone calls a Boeing 757, 767 etc? What airline colors? I do not see them, do you?

That is the inside of something resembling a piece containing passenger windows of any model plane that part might fit. It is not positive proof it belongs to a particular flight number. Where was it located? With all the other debris alleged to have been found 1 to 10 miles away by the Pennsylvania Turnpike? If it was, no plane parts would have gone 1 mile away much less 10 miles away. That indicates planted parts not actual parts from a physically proved crash site.

False flags of history, including the US. "Those ignoring history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana:

209.85.165.104...:4XQLJJ40KzIJ:austin911truthnow.org/ffterrorism.pdf+Nazi+false+flag+operations&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

1931

The Mukden, or Manchurian Incident. Colonel Seishiro and Lieutenant Colonel Ishiwara plan an attack on Japan’s Manchurian railroad. Their plan involved ordering Japanese guards from the south Manchurian railway to set explosives under the tracks. Nearby Chinese soldiers were blamed for the attack.

1933
The Reichstag Fire. Nazi documents show that Hermann Goring, leading member of the Nazi party, started the fire that burned down the German Parliament building. Soon after, the Nazi party produced a patsy, which culminated in a show trial and public beheading. Hitler used this attack to seize even more power over the people of Germany, using it as justification for the confiscation of civil liberties. He passed laws similar to those found in the USA Patriot Act and established the homeland, reminiscent of Homeland Security.

1939
The Gleiwitz Incident. Heinrich Himmler planned the next false-flag event, which came to be known as Operation Himmler. This time, the Germans took a prisoner and dressed him in a Polish soldier’s uniform, took him across the border and executed him. The Nazis staged the scene to look like the “soldier” was attacking a German radio station. Hitler then used propaganda to build the case to invade Poland and World War II began.

1941
Pearl Harbor. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in Europe but could not overcome the resistance to “Europe’s War” felt by most Americans and their elected officials. In October of 1940 an eight-point memo was written for Roosevelt on how to force Japan into war with the U.S. Roosevelt took these steps, including an oil embargo against Japan, thus systematically and deliberately provoking the Japanese into an attack. In preparation of this attack, Roosevelt restructured the military at Pearl Harbor, including stripping the base of fifty fighter jets, thereby reducing her defenses by 40 percent – defenses that, Roosevelt was warned, were already inadequate. History now shows that the Japanese code was cracked 9-12 days before the invasion and Roosevelt
knew the exact day it would occur because he was warned of the specifics by Churchill.

1945
Operation Gladio. This is an umbrella name for literally hundreds of bombings carried out by NATO and Western governments in Italy, Western Europe, Middle East, Latin America and Asia to blame the events on leftists and communists. These attacks mostly targeted trains, buses and schools from 1945 to 1983. One well-known incident was that of the bombing in Bologna, Italy in 1980, which killed 85 and left 200 dead.

1953
Operation Ajax.The CIA, working with MI6, overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran. Recently declassified documents in the 1990’s show that US and the British carried out terror attacks and blamed them on Mossadeq. Those attacks included or were supported by: propaganda, bribery, agents of influence, bombings and false-flag operations. This resulted in the removal of Mossadeq from power.

#Page 2

1964
Gulf of Tonkin. In 2001, audio tapes were released which reveal conversations President Lyndon B. Johnson had with Robert McNamara and included discussion of how to use staged attacks as a pretext to expand the war in Vietnam. Declassified documents in 2000 show that claims of Vietnamese attacks on US ships were completely fabricated, revealing that the United States provoked the Vietnamese who did not retaliate even when provoked. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed in the wake of this covert operation blaming the Vietnamese led to our involvement in the Vietnam War, which resulted in the deaths of 58,000 Americans and 1,500,000 Vietnamese.

1967
USS Liberty and Operation Northwoods. L.L. Limnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concocted a false flag plan in the early 1960’s called Operation Northwoods, which included details of fake attacks including hijacking of a plane and using remote control to crash it and blame it on the Cubans. Kennedy rejected the plans, but LBJ went operational with Northwoods in June of 1967 during the 6-day war between Israel and the Arab Nations. LBJ send the USS Liberty to collect electronic information off the coast of Israel, and the ship was later attacked with a barrage of fire from 3 unmarked fighter jets and Israeli torpedo boats. During the struggle, the Liberty called
for help and the White House recalled any help that was dispatched. The idea was to sink the ship, blame it on Egypt and use that as justification for the US to enter the war. The ship, however, did not sink.

1976
Cubana Flight 455. C-4 explodes on Flight 455, killing all 73 on board and representing the deadliest act of hijack terrorism in the Western Hemisphere until 9/11. Declassified CIA and FBI documents show that the hijackers were working for the US government. In 2005, BBC reports that the plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles was a CIA agent.

2001
September 11 th.The most televised incident to date, marking the culmination of The Project For a New American Century’s (PNAC) plans for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event” and a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to gain public support to go to war in the Middle East, secure the oil fields there and build permanent U.S. bases. In this incident nearly 3,000 people from all over the world died. Securacom, the firm providing security for Dulles Airport and the World Trade Center, had as its CEO at the time one Wirt Walker III, cousin to George W. Bush, and Marvin Bush, younger brother to Bush also served on the board. Prior to 9/11 security protocol was changed, lifted, and a planned, unprecedented power shutdown occurred. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC complex, was awarded over $7B from insurance claims. No formal investigation has been conducted into either party.

2001
Anthrax scares. This was reported as the work of terrorists. Later, it was revealed that the specific strain of Anthrax used was a rare weaponized version of Anthrax, whose strain originated from Fort Detrick, Maryland at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Remember, too, that this coincided with the debate over the Patriot Act and resulted in the closing of the House and Senate buildings until after it passed. Two democratic Senators who questioned the Patriot Act and or called for revisions to it were targeted to receive tainted letters.

2003
Yellow cake and WMD’s. As confirmed in the trial proceedings, the yellow cake story was a fabrication supported by forged documents which described Saddam Hussein as buying "yellow cake" from Niger, allegedly for the production of nuclear weapons. The trial also showed that Libby was acting on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, who is believed to have instigated the "yellow cake" psyop. According to US media reports, Bush's adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were also involved. This was largely used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq, as was the terror climate created by reports of “known” weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq.

2004
Madrid Bombings. The bombings on trains throughout the city of Madrid were first blamed on Al-Qaeda, but it was soon revealed that all of the supposed bombers had ties to the Spanish Security Services, including the head of the bomb squad.

2005
British Underground. A Brazilian national was killed by British agents on a train in the British Underground. The man allegedly was wearing a heavy jacket with wires sticking out of it. When he was approached, he allegedly ran away, jumping turnstiles before running onto a passenger train. Eyewitnesses describe seeing the agents approach the man on the train and recall watching the agents shoot the man up to eleven times in the head. Later reports show that the man did not run, was not wearing a heavy coat and did not attempt to struggle against the agents. The country raised its threat level during this alleged attack and the rest of the world watched with heightened awareness.

2006
London Bombings. Three trains and a city bus were rocked by bombs made with military grade explosives. Within days of the attacks, evidence emerged that Western Intelligence Agencies were involved. Investigation showed that the bombers did not act like suicide bombers and it was reported that they did not even seem aware that they were carrying bombs. Terrorism expert John Loftus has gone public stating that Haroon Rashid Aswad, the apparent mastermind behind the attacks, is an asset of MI6 and is under their protection.

Originally posted by enigmania

So what are your views on the PNAC comission report, that says a Pearl Harbor-like attack is needed to get support for higher defense budgets to strenghten America's influence abroad. They got their attack.

Many people at the time was saying that the US was due for a terrorist attack in US soil, and also they I remember expert in the field saying that the US would not act to the threat of radical muslim extremist unitl we get attack.

What are your views on the NWO, the way the gov. lied about the WMD's in Iraq and about the connection with Bin Laden?

NWO hard to say, not that I dont belive that elite groups have an agenda but the NWO as an organization, has been proven that exist?

The stripping of rights in America after 911, the Patriot Act?

I mean security measures? To be honest I havent felt the slight difference between the rights that I had Sept 10 2001 and the one I have today.

The constant fear- and warmongering, the way they're going after Iran now?

It need to stop. We havent even taken care of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The way that a pretty popular candidate like Ron Paul gets ignored by the media?

Totally off topic but I will give you an answer. To me Ron Paul its completely unelectable no matter what the media do or dont.

You don't believe 911 was an inside job, can you honoustly say you don't see a concerning pattern there?

No I see another pattern emerging, the immediate after math after 9-11 we as a society were all paranoid, thus the Patriot Act illegal wiretapping, war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

After the paranoia cloud went away, we realize that we had an incompetent President, and as hes approval ratings can show only a small portion of the US population see him in good light.

Thats the good thing and bad thing about us U.S citizens, short term memory, what have you done for us lately mentality?. Iraq and Afghanistan turned up to be mayor dissapointments and all the other measures that they implemented after 9-11 have been exposed and pretty much done.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I dunno , Orion, you should take a look at that link I provided...it is just unfortunate that you don't have ALL the availible information after researching 9/11 for 6 years... I just wonder: How could you have missed so much pertinent information while doing your research?

But maybe you can explain then why the FBI and the FAA are refusing to release part number information on the 9/11 planes so that the we could see that the parts found match the 9/11 planes.

6 years and we still only have about 1/4 of the facts and evidence of what happned that day.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It could be because the FAA is notrious for doing the following on a steady basis, not just at the center reported in the article. All they need is a head supervisor at NTSB to follow orders and ask no questions, and 9/11 becomes so easy for those perpetrating it. That has to come from White House administration control:

query.nytimes.com...

"Air Traffic Control Errors Lead to Inquiry"

It is the errors the FAA and airlines make, which leads to conspiracy cover-up within the ranks, and lays false blame on pilot error, particularly if the pilot and most, if not all, the crew in the cockpit die in airline crashes. I got that directly from an ex-FAA employee in the know, not from newspaper articles or on the Internet once it becomes exposed. So much goes unexposed on a very regular basis.

Originally posted by OrionStars
"Air Traffic Control Errors Lead to Inquiry"

I am not talking about Air Traffic Control.

I am talking about the fact that the FBI and FAA are refusing FOIA request for the part numbers of the 9/11 aircraft.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That was my point. They lied and their past practice history of comspiracy cover-up within the inside ranks, plus, the fact they are not releasing public records as they are mandated by law to release, self-evidently proves they are lying again.

We pay for those records. We have every right to view them whenever we please and request to do so. That "freedom of information act" is a farce. It was designed to make us jump through hoops to see reports we pay for and have a right to see any time we please.

Originally posted by OrionStars
That was my point. They lied and their past practice history of comspiracy cover-up within the inside ranks, plus, the fact they are not releasing public records as they are mandated by law to release, self-evidently proves they are lying again.

But this is a litlte different, this is a crime scene investigation. Not an acccident.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It is not. The air traffic controllers are FAA employees whether they work at a control center, terminal or a military base aviation terminal.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Are these your own words in a prior post?:

"Yes I'm complaining as I don't speak german and the narrator was talking over the mayor. My point was that I wanted to hear exactly what the mayor said and how he said it."

Those words reflect you did not hear what was said in your own words. Either you heard every word the mayor said or did not by your own words.


]And if you continued posting my next sentence, you would see the following:

I listened to the interview several times and I believe you simply took what he said out of context.

This is how I am receiving it, regardless of the way you intended to mean it. Please keep in mind. The people needing to understand the intent and meaning, of your words, are those with whom you are attempting to communicate.

You did not hear what was said, because you do not speak German. You could not hear the one interviewed, because the German narrator was overriding the person you wanted to hear. However, you listened to what you could not hear several times. Therefore, the person to whom you responded must have taken it out of context.

If you could not hear it, how would you know if someone took something out of context or not?

You seem to be stuck on one sentence and are forgetting to continue reading the rest of the statement. My suggestion is to not break up what I said so it's taken out of context and read the entire statement all at once CAREFULLY if need be.
I'm really not sure how much more plain I can make this. I, at no point EVER said I could not hear anything. I said it was difficult to hear and I believe I missed nuances of what the mayor said because of the german narrator. I also mentioned that the displayed text didn't match what the mayor was saying so wouldn't that help you understand the context? Even if you didn't understand me before (doubtful), you do now. I'm sorry you have some inherent need to get the last word even when you're wrong but my suggestion is to try and get over it and move on.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


Actually, I clearly indicated I was addressing your full context for the second time. However, do not allow that fact to get in the way of deliberately misinterpreting my words once again.

Originally posted by OrionStars
It is not. The air traffic controllers are FAA employees whether they work at a control center, terminal or a military base aviation terminal.

And again we are not talking about ATCs we are talking about part numbers from planes involved in a crime scene.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


My point has always been this. It is SOP for the FAA, in collusion/conspiracy with the NTSB and airline corporations, to commit federal criminal acts, involving plane crashes, by covering up FAA, NTSB and airline corporate negligence, in being the cause of the deaths of many, many people.

They resort to lying about pilot error and withholding reports, particularly when the pilot and balance of the cockpit crew die in plane crashes, directly caused by the FAA controllers and/or radar personnel and/or the airline corporations.

9/11/2001 is merely SOP conspiratorial cover-up for the FAA, NORAD, and the NTSB. That is why they are not producing any reports federal law mandates in giving public access, to those reports the FAA and others are deliberately withholding. If they did, it would become clear they lied as is SOP for covering up their illegal actions.

When it comes to corporation and federal bureaucracies, it is always the paperwork that is going to hang conspirators. Because with all that personnel not being in on the conspiracy, they may have no idea their paperwork may well significantly conflict with the "official" version of anything, put out as lies by their executives and/or agency and department heads, including the White House administration.

People would be amazed at how many employees will CYA with covert copies of internal paperwork, in case the conspirators are finally uncovered. They do not want to be included with the conspirators, but they do not want to stop feeding, clothing,and sheltering themselves and any families either, by losing their jobs for reporting all those severe inconsistancies by internal department procedures or whiistle blowing.

It is called CYA Insurance against prosecution, in case that should end up being the case against conspirators committing felonies - local, state,or federal.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The numbers are part of the paperwork. BTS did not know to do cover-up. BTS finally finished correcting for cover-up puposes on alleged Flights 11 and 77 by 2007. It took them two years from 2005 until 2007 to start covering up column by column.

Bureaucracies are alway a bummer attempting to pull off the perfect crime. There ain't no such thing. The bigger the bureaucracy, the harder it is to successfully pull off a conspiracy. Eventually, the metaphorical straw house blows away. But not until people decide to investigate what is inside that metaphorical straw house. Until they do, conspirators will get away with anything they wish.

Too bad William Calley and Oliver North did not have CYA Insurance. If they did, they certainly did not use it when they should have.

Originally posted by OrionStars
My point has always been this. It is SOP for the FAA, in collusion/conspiracy with the NTSB and airline corporations, to commit federal criminal acts, involving plane crashes, by covering up FAA, NTSB and airline corporate negligence, in being the cause of the deaths of many, many people.

Yes we know all about that, thats for normal operations and accidents. But i am talking about the facts of the crime scenes on 9/11.

Here is the information about what you are talking about. Quoted from the 9/11 commission report.

Statement on Aviation Security
for the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Seventh Public Hearing on Borders, Transportation, and Managing Risk
by
Carol Ashley
Member of the Family Steering Committee
for the 9/11 Independent Commission
Washington, D.C.
January 26, 2004

The FAA, the airlines, airline lobbyists and Congress each share some responsibility for undermining aviation security. The FAA, in response to pressure from the airlines, trade groups and members of Congress, routinely whittles down fines for security violations. Michael Pangia, former FAA chief trial lawyer, said, “‘it’s a common practice’ for the airlines and FAA to negotiate fines down to as low as 10 cents on a dollar -- and often times agreeing on a price for a bulk of fines.” [25] According to a CNN story, paying the cheaper fines could be less expensive for the airlines than instituting the required security measures. [26] That would be especially true if the fines were reduced to ten c ents on the dollar. Previous testimony before the 9/11 Commission revealed that some members of Congress, alerted by airline lobbyists about situations unfavorable to the airlines, prevailed upon the FAA to reduce fines and soften rules and requirements.
§ Why were fines for airline security violations pared to 10 cents on the
dollar, despite repeated violations?
§ Why did the FAA allow safety and security violations to persist? According to USA TODAY, two weeks after the September 11th terrorist attack, American Airlines received special permission from the FAA to allow passengers to board its flights before the airline determined whether the passengers were on the FBI's watch list. According to the news account, the security directive was exclusive to American Airlines and conflicted with the directives to all other airlines. [27]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No, I am not. I am referring to all aviation agency reports. BTS is in drastic conflict with FAA and NTSB reports on 9/11/2001. That is why people are not getting the reports they order from the FAA and NTSB, as mandated by Freedom of Information Act.

BTS had no scheduled flights for any 11 or 77 on 9/11/2001 as of 9/11/2001. Yet, that changed in 2007 - 6 years later. It took BTS at least two years to retire at least one plane number, that should have been retired, as required by law, 24 hours after officially reporting the alleged plane had crashed. It was still an active number until at least a couple of years later.

Originally posted by OrionStars
BTS had no scheduled flights for any 11 or 77 on 9/11/2001 as of 9/11/2001. Yet, that changed in 2007 - 6 years later. It took BTS at least two years to retire at least one plane number, that should have been retired, as required by law, 24 hours after officially reporting the alleged plane had crashed. It was still an active number until at least a couple of years later.

Yes,i have seen all the BTS and the FAA documents.

But we need the crimes scene reports from the FBI and NTSB.