I have first-hand knowledge that no plane crashed into the Pentagon

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by splitlevel
Why were the Israelis in the truck full of explosives not put on trial but instead released back to Israel?

Because that claim is just another truther lie - it never happened...

As long as nobody is even willing to answer that one question.

It has been answered - here is a question for you

"Why do people make up and post such lies"

It never happened????really???So those news clips are???What exactly?????If this is the best America can do to persuade people that reality did not happen, then fine, i myself find it laughable hahahahahahahhahaaaa. I used to believe there were only a few people involved in this conspiracy but evidently its a good bit more than a few. Unless u are so brainwashed yourself, i know much of the states is.

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by wulff
So what about the cars full of people on the busy highway that said they saw the jet go across the road and hit? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy?
One guy said it was so close he was afraid it was going to hit his car! Did he imagine this or is 'he in on it too?'
Give it up OP, you do NOT have PROOF there was no aircraft! Gawd, you guys that say that crap over and over is so boring!! Find a hobby! And please shut up!

edit on 19-4-2012 by wulff because: (no reason given)

You tell people to find a hobby, but you're on this thread discussing it........hmmm???

Computers are one of my hobbies!!! LOL!!

reply to post by splitlevel


There was NO truck full of Israelis and explosives.

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by godfather420

They didn't keep the Manhattan Project secret, when President Truman was telling Stalin (after the successful A-BOMB test) "We have a new powerful weapon we just tested!" and Stalin said "Good, I hope you use it to our advantage against the Japanese!" Truman later said he was happy Stalin didn't press him for more details yet unknown to Truman, the Russians knew EVERYTHING and was already working on their own atomic weapon (thanks to traitors) so you see, there isn't anything that you can keep quiet when humans are involved, someone WILL talk either for ideals or mostly money! (The Rosenberg's did it for both!).

Originally posted by wulff
reply to post by godfather420

 

They didn't keep the Manhattan Project secret, when President Truman was telling Stalin (after the successful A-BOMB test) "We have a new powerful weapon we just tested!" and Stalin said "Good, I hope you use it to our advantage against the Japanese!" Truman later said he was happy Stalin didn't press him for more details yet unknown to Truman, the Russians knew EVERYTHING and was already working on their own atomic weapon (thanks to traitors) so you see, there isn't anything that you can keep quiet when humans are involved, someone WILL talk either for ideals or mostly money! (The Rosenberg's did it for both!).

What a strawman.

Oh and the public knew about it?

You know how the conversation went apparently.

Go back to sleep bud.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Finally got around to reading all of this and am fairly unimpressed. You make huge logical leap and reach extremely illogical conclusions.

If that's why you're a truther... Well it's not great.

reply to post by godfather420


Everything he said is accepted and well documented fact. Apparently he's not the one asleep.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by splitlevel

 

There was NO truck full of Israelis and explosives.

www.911myths.com...

edit on 20-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

Well, who cares anyhow..to be honest no me. I get my info from the bvllshi5 that already propagated throughout the web, real mixed with bv775hit,. lets say this though, a moving truck company...(that an ex mossad agent publicly stated, who now works for the US), was used as a front for mossad...was stopped on 9/11 in NY. The ex mossad agent explains this as nothing more than a coincidence, that Israel have spies in all their allies countries, so that they can gather intel on muslims extremists within allies countries. Some say the truck had explosives in it..others say not...But the record..the public record does show this.
A truck, proven to be a front for mossad, was stopped on 9/11.
The 5 men inside were all Isralies.
Some of them had more than one passport.
They were arrested and detained for 70 days before being deported back to Israel.#
Do you go on vacation with more than one passport?

reply to post by splitlevel


If there was a terrorist attack in Moscow, and an American was detained with more than one passport, would that be proof that America was behind the attack?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by godfather420

 

Everything he said is accepted and well documented fact. Apparently he's not the one asleep.

I know it is documented and fact.

But it is a strawman.

Nuffsedd.

The government loves you, they have never partaken in false flag events. They never lie. The gulf of tonkin actually happened. 93 WTC bombing was not done by feds. 95 OKC bombing was done by Timothy McVeigh. No cover up at all. Bin Laden was not a CIA asset. The underwear bomber was not let on the plane by the U.S. gov. I get it okay.

reply to post by godfather420


The only one of those things actually proven to be true in Tonkin. You know that right? The rest are just conspiracy theories. And simply listing a bunch of conspiracy theories in a row doesn't make any of them any more real or proven.

You obviously believe a lot of contentious stuff; that's cool,but dont expect the rest of us to just accept conspiracies as fact, as our default position. Some of us have higher standards than simply believing, "the opposite of the official story".

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Could be...can you please point to the illogical bit...I'm always willing to learn

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


There's tons. You claim the planes would have to hit specific points. Why? The planes hit different places on the buildings with similar results. On top of that, the WTC towers weren't built like any other skyscrapers and therefore there's no benchmark for your basic claim.

You also say that a small number of guys couldn't hijack the planes, due to staffing, but that ignores the fact that the policy for dealing with hijackers is too cooperate. They had no idea the people were planning on crashing the planes, so the staff and the passengers mostly just cooperated. Google it if you don't believe me.

That's just two things, but the whole thing is like that.

EDIT: one final thing: Dick Cheney being a lying scumbag isn't proof of anything past Dick Cheney being a lying scumbag. He had a lot of other reason (as did Bush) for wanting to hide their connections to, for instance, Saudi Arabia, and a Saudi connection to the Saudi Osama bin Ladin.

Protecting Saudi Arabia is as valid an explanation for their behaviour as anything else. So again, it's not proof of anything.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by godfather420

 

The only one of those things actually proven to be true in Tonkin. You know that right? The rest are just conspiracy theories. And simply listing a bunch of conspiracy theories in a row doesn't make any of them any more real or proven.

You obviously believe a lot of contentious stuff; that's cool,but dont expect the rest of us to just accept conspiracies as fact, as our default position. Some of us have higher standards than simply believing, "the opposite of the official story".

LOL.

Thanks for proving your ignorance.

I don't simply believe. I have probably researched more hours than you've slept in your lifetime.

93 Emad Salem Tapes are out their.

The government admits to letting mutallab on the plane.

95 OKC is such a false flag if you believe the official narrative you are an absolute dolt. The evidence is out there.

Let me guess. Ted Gunderson was just a nut job conspiracy theorist right?

reply to post by godfather420


The ONLY person that claimed the someone with an American accent, though or Indian/Pakistani descent, someone they assume was a US Gov agent for some reason, helped the "underwear bomber" board a flight was a Truther named Haskell. They also claim that the device was not a real bomb... AND they also claim the device almost killed everyone on the plane... so... hardly the best source of info... story changing truthers...

As for Emad Salem. he CLAIMS the FBI could have stopped the first WTC bombing, but he never claims the FBI or the US Government were behind the bombing. HE basically says they screwed up big time, which is what the FBI also says.

So it's a reach to claim that Emad Salem is proof the US was behind the first WTC bombing... they weren't.

Though, as is typical for the US government and any massive bureaucracy, they did really # up.

So yeah, a truther leaping to the conclusion that an Indian guy was a US agent and then changing his story about the bomb, and a FBI asset agreeing with the FBI, that the FBI screwed up, isn't the proof you claim it to be.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by splitlevel

 

If there was a terrorist attack in Moscow, and an American was detained with more than one passport, would that be proof that America was behind the attack?

if he was an American intelligence agent then it would look pretty odd, dont ya think? how come u ignored the fact a exmossad agent said the company those Israelis worked for was a mossad cover?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by godfather420

 

The ONLY person that claimed the someone with an American accent, though or Indian/Pakistani descent, someone they assume was a US Gov agent for some reason, helped the "underwear bomber" board a flight was a Truther named Haskell. They also claim that the device was not a real bomb... AND they also claim the device almost killed everyone on the plane... so... hardly the best source of info... story changing truthers...

As for Emad Salem. he CLAIMS the FBI could have stopped the first WTC bombing, but he never claims the FBI or the US Government were behind the bombing. HE basically says they screwed up big time, which is what the FBI also says.

So it's a reach to claim that Emad Salem is proof the US was behind the first WTC bombing... they weren't.

Though, as is typical for the US government and any massive bureaucracy, they did really # up.

So yeah, a truther leaping to the conclusion that an Indian guy was a US agent and then changing his story about the bomb, and a FBI asset agreeing with the FBI, that the FBI screwed up, isn't the proof you claim it to be.

Now you just prove your ignorance even more. There is a hearing where Patrick F. Kennedy admits to letting mutallab on the plain. Of course to stop a "bigger" group of people. No one said the indian man was a U.S. agent.

Kurt Haskell is not a truther. He is a lawyer that was not even into conspiracies until a false flag was pulled off right in front of his face. You are obviously just uninformed.

I am not going to waste anymore time talking to a brick wall.

Have a good one buddy....may wanna do some research.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


It appears as though you would be willing to throw everybody but one group under the bus. I find it odd that you see no connection between them and this attack. It's almost as though you're trying to divert our attention. Why would you want to do that?

reply to post by godfather420


LOL. Kurt Haskell IS a truther. He's been on InfoWars, and Alex Jones, etc.

As for Patrick Kennedy:

MR. KENNEDY: We — as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we unilaterally revoked a visa — and there was a case recently up — we have a request from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. We came across information; we said this is a dangerous person. We were ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, should we revoke this visa? And one of the members — and we’d be glad to give you that out of — in private — said, please do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.

That is wildly different than a US Agent getting him on a flight.

Kurt Haskell says:

I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.

During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.

Kurt Haskell also never claimed he has proof the "Indian man" was a US Government agent.

HE made the logical leap that:

A) because, at various points, the US, as it's known to do, sells terrorists fake weapons, and then arrests them, B) Umar must be a US patsy and, that
C) the "Indian man" must be a US Agent and that
D) the visa stuff that Kennedy referred to was him admitting that the US intelligence community played along.

But that's a huge number of logical leaps, none of which are backed up by evidence.

Very typical conspiracy theorist behaviour, but certainly not "evidence" of the claims you're making.

reply to post by dillweed


Sorry what group am I unwilling to throw under what bus?