It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by proveyance
I refer to E.P. Heidner's research into the 9/11 events.
When considering motive for the crime, first ask yourselves "Are we dealing with a crime, or something else?"
These events weren't politically motivated crimes. They were efforts to cover-up previous financial crimes.
At the end of WWII, 280,000 metric tons of gold was taken from the Japanese empire and used by US intelligence agencies and commercial banks to fund covert operations.
Some names of primary conspirators include Henry Stimson, John McCloy, John B. Anderson and Bill Donovan.
Other more recognizable names included Allen Dulles, Henry and Spenser Morgan, William Colby and William Casey.
A **itload of legacy events happens between this time and the presidency of George H.W. Bush. But with all that Gold, you can imagine the accounting matters required to keep it all a secret while still spending it on what was seen fit.
Skipping all of that, we arrive in 1991. Being a CIA man himself, G Bush and conspirators are well entrenched in the fraud. It's decided that $240 billion dollars will be created in US securities for the purpose of destroying and assimilating the Soviet Union. A side-effect of this would be the end of the cold war.
So, the illegal bonds are created and the cash is used by US and allied parties to slowly buy up Soviet business, oil and gas infrastructure.
Again, skipping past all the history and detailed account of how this led to the collapse of the Soviet Union we fast forward to 2000.
Cantor Fitzgerald was the primary target on 9/11, so flight 11 struck just below them.
Then, explosions on floors 23 and 25 of the north tower; housing FBI and Garbon Inter Capital respectively.
Flight 175 hits Euro Brokers in the south tower, but not before explosions in the tower's basement. Hundreds of billions in securities for bonds are destroyed.
41% of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed U.S. government securities: Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers.
The Office of Naval Intelligence is then hit at the Pentagon. 39 of 40 Office of Naval Intelligence employees die.
Take a look at the top of building 6 before the twin towers collapse. It's scooped out down to the basement. Both U.S. Customs and the El Dorado Task Force were in building 6 and handled all major money laundering cases in the US.
The 4th plane was supposed to hit building 7, but failed for an unknown reason. The Export-Import Bank, US Secret Service, SEC, IRS, CIA and DoD were all housed in 7 and also in ongoing financial crimes investigations getting too close for comfort.
Almost all evidence in all cases was destroyed when 7 blew. Not intended, but good for the gander.
Later in the day, despite suffering no operational loss the SEC invokes its emergency powers for the first time. This relaxed security trading for 15 days and allowed the $240 billion to be cleared at maturity without disclosure of ownership.
BTW, the date of maturity of these securities was Sept. 12th. Cutting it close, eh!?
The $240 billion in securities was covered by Treasury notes, paid for by US tax payers of course.
So, do you think some of these guys were sweating on the faithful day? Do they still sweat 10 years later?
I say that a lot, don't take it personally.
Ummm.... not a dude. Sorry... And
You're absolutely correct. George Bush made the claim that we were attacked because "they hate us for our freedoms", so his logical response was to take away many of the very freedoms granted to us in the Constitution with the Patriot Act.
So they can spy on us without restriction. Am I correct in stating that?
I have it formatted wrong in the OP, it should have looked like this, but yeah it's the same thing, that's just there to clarify what exactly is so wrong with the Patriot Act.
Isn't that what the first bullet is? Correct me if I'm wrong
Yes one reason is for the natural resources. From the NY Times:
Again, for what? Oil? How did they benefit from invading? Do they now own oil in the middle east because of it?
Oh how convenient!
The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan
I couldn't have said it better myself, the federal government has practically abolished the constitution in the past decade. The federal government is above the law, and us peasants can only sit here and complain on the internet. In the words of Jesse Ventura (Who I've heard might run for president or VP for Ron Paul in 2012 which would be the last hope for America), "Don't start the revolution without me"
They want to limit our rights so it will be harder for us to keep them (the government) in line.--- Correct?
I understand what you mean, but if you want to know why the official story is a lie and all of the evidence used to back that up, I suggest you read the OP. Then watch this 15 minute video which was originally posted by 'Hijaqd' which explains how the official story is impossible. This video is pure gold, not a single official story believer has even attempted to debunk the information presented within it, simply because you cannot prove that the impossible is possible:
I am not necessarily a skeptic, I want to understand EXACTLY how this benefited the culprits. I can see myself believing 9/11 was an inside job. I do NOT know much about this conspiracy, mostly because there is a lot of information that I'm just too lazy to pick through. This much does bother me though, as all events have a reason.
Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
99% wow must be pretty conclusive evidence and undeniable if it's 99%
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Since we're on the topic of proof, care to show me some proof that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon? If we can provide video, pictures, and testimonies to back up the molten metal but you don't believe it, surely there's a substantial amount of evidence to prove that a commercial airplane hit the Pentagon, right?
You accused me of being unable to answer you - even though embarrassingly for you I had - and then proceeded not to answer me!
Your tactic appears to be to run away when asked for proof, or claim that molten metal has been shown, and then pop back up a bit claiming that you've already proven molten steel. And you wonder why the Truth Movement isn't getting anywhere.
That's totally in the context of the conversation. You are asking for proof of something, and you were shown four images, multiple different witness testimonies all saying the same thing, and even a video of it dripping from the tower. Since all of that evidence is not enough to convince you, it struck me as hypocritical and ignorant that you accept the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon with no photographic or video evidence, but when provided with undeniable evidence that molten metal was there after the collapse, you just irrationally demand more.
And try to stay on topic. The issue of the Pentagon has been covered extensively elsewhere, so changing the subject isn't really an option for you. Perhaps you think no one will notice if you hop off onto something else?
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
You accused me of being unable to answer you - even though embarrassingly for you I had - and then proceeded not to answer me!
Your tactic appears to be to run away when asked for proof, or claim that molten metal has been shown, and then pop back up a bit claiming that you've already proven molten steel. And you wonder why the Truth Movement isn't getting anywhere.
No my tactic is to provide evidence to back up my claims and ask for that evidence to be debunked. Have you attempted to debunk those images? Your tactic is to say "Nope! It doesn't count, I need more evidence", then I'll show you some more pictures and testimonies and you'll say "No way dude, I want more proof".
That's totally in the context of the conversation. You are asking for proof of something, and you were shown four images, multiple different witness testimonies all saying the same thing, and even a video of it dripping from the tower. Since all of that evidence is not enough to convince you, it struck me as hypocritical and ignorant that you accept the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon with no photographic or video evidence, but when provided with undeniable evidence that molten metal was there after the collapse, you just irrationally demand more.
And try to stay on topic. The issue of the Pentagon has been covered extensively elsewhere, so changing the subject isn't really an option for you. Perhaps you think no one will notice if you hop off onto something else?
Originally posted by Hijaqd
You are referring to Lloyde England at this point, please watch this video below and afterwards tell us "conspiracy mongors" how you find this man to be credible?
I do not accuse him of being anything remotely close to secret or government, however he is very insistent that his taxi that he is photographed being right next to is not where the alleged lightpole damage was obtained.
I would not use him as evidence of anything sinister given the testimony, however I do use him to point out the folly of using his initial testimony as any sort of affirmation towards the official accounting of events, as he clearly disputes that recollection when pressed with evidence that Flight 77's flight path could not have struck the lightpoles.
I do find the statements made while he was unaware that he was being recorded to be very intriguing, for stating that he does not want to cross the "people with all the money" a clear reference to the elites and/or bankers.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
I couldn't have said it better myself, the federal government has practically abolished the constitution in the past decade. The federal government is above the law, and us peasants can only sit here and complain on the internet. In the words of Jesse Ventura (Who I've heard might run for president or VP for Ron Paul in 2012 which would be the last hope for America), "Don't start the revolution without me"