Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

If that post was meant as some form of rebuttal then it was simply farcical.

lol.... I wonder what his excuse is for nurse Nayirah's testimony in the lead up to the gulf war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

----the likely story...... Saddam returned them like a good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about everyone Look for themselfs and formulate an Idea,based on Facts,and proven methods of researching said facts?

Not WHat FOX,CNN,ABC,CBS,JESUS Christ and your mother tells you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol... you didnt answer the question.

It is no secret that the government has lied and I have made in known many times that I was once part of a government cover-up regarding recovery efforts of Korean Flight 007, but the cover-up was justified considering the Soviets like to read our newspapers and some understood english as we were also searching for the black boxes of Korean Flight 007, which they were very interested in recovering as well.

The government also covered up recovery efforts of a Soviet submarine by the CIA's Glomar Explorer, but there are times when a cover-up is justified because the government cannot reveal everything especially when our enemies understand english as well. It is no longer a secret how we have tapped into Soviet communication lines but at the time we were doing so, it made no sense to tell the whole world what we were doing because the Soviets would have found out as well.

When an A-12 Oxcart crashed years ago, the pilot had to cover-up the crash to a motorist by saying the crash involved a nuke because at that time the aircraft was top secret so a cover story was in the order. Another case where a cover story was concocted was when an F-117 stealth fighter crashed near Bakersfield, CA. The Air Force said the aircraft was nothing more than a conventional aircraft on a training flight, however, the cover was blown when it was announced that the crash site was declared a national security zone.

There are times when a cover-up is justified, however, there is no evidence of a government 911 cover-up.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about everyone Look for themselfs and formulate an Idea,based on Facts,and proven methods of researching said facts?

Not WHat FOX,CNN,ABC,CBS,JESUS Christ and your mother tells you?

ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.... I wonder what his excuse is for nurse Nayirah's testimony in the lead up to the gulf war? http://en.wikipedia....rah_(testimony)

----the likely story...... Saddam returned them like a good boy.

If by any chance you happen to visit Kuwait City, take a tour through that little walk-through memorial and understand what was truly going on inside Kuwait City before Iraqi forces were ejected by American-led forces. The testimony of that nurse was nothing compared to the pictorial history inside that memorial which depicted Iraqi atrocities before we made our move to eject Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

I might add that it was no secret that Saddam Hussein had intentions to continue on with his campaign through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond and we can't forget Saddam's warning to his neighbors to either forgive Iraq's war debts or else. Remember, Iraq invaded Iran, which was a clue to his real ambitions for the Gulf region.

If you are unaware of the real Saddam Hussein, take a look back at what happened in Halabja in March 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about everyone Look for themselfs and formulate an Idea,based on Facts,and proven methods of researching said facts?

Not WHat FOX,CNN,ABC,CBS,JESUS Christ and your mother tells you?

Facts and evidence supports the official story, which explains why there is no evidence of a government 911 cover-up after more than 11 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no secret that the government has lied and I have made in known many times that I was once part of a government cover-up regarding recovery efforts of Korean Flight 007, but the cover-up was justified considering the Soviets like to read our newspapers and some understood english as we were also searching for the black boxes of Korean Flight 007, which they were very interested in recovering as well.

The government also covered up recovery efforts of a Soviet submarine by the CIA's Glomar Explorer, but there are times when a cover-up is justified because the government cannot reveal everything especially when our enemies understand english as well. It is no longer a secret how we have tapped into Soviet communication lines but at the time we were doing so, it made no sense to tell the whole world what we were doing because the Soviets would have found out as well.

When an A-12 Oxcart crashed years ago, the pilot had to cover-up the crash to a motorist by saying the crash involved a nuke because at that time the aircraft was top secret so a cover story was in the order. Another case where a cover story was concocted was when an F-117 stealth fighter crashed near Bakersfield, CA. The Air Force said the aircraft was nothing more than a conventional aircraft on a training flight, however, the cover was blown when it was announced that the crash site was declared a national security zone.

There are times when a cover-up is justified, however, there is no evidence of a government 911 cover-up.

In those two cases agreed! ..however, there as been plenty of evidence presented throughout this thread providing proof of a gov cover-up on 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In those two cases agreed! ..however, there as been plenty of evidence presented throughout this thread providing proof of a gov cover-up on 911.

There is no 911 government cover-up.

The fact that countries around the world had warned the United States that Muslim terrorist, not the United States government, planned to use airliners to kill thousands of people and even the Philippine government revealed to the United States in 1995 that it was targeted by terrorist, and among those named was none other than Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed WTC1 in 1993 and nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 911 attack mastermind who has now admitted to his role in planning the 911 attack. In addition, it was revealed that CIA headquarters was also targeted for an attack, and of course, we cannot forget the terrorist that tried to fly a hijacked airliner into the Eiffel Tower in France.

Please post evidence of a government 911 cover-up, but I might add that the way a building falls is not evidence of explosives because it has been shown that a tall building can collapse in the same manner as the WTC buildings without the use of explosives, which of course, is the "Pull" technique using cables and the Verinage demolition method.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 911 government cover-up.

The fact that countries around the world had warned the United States that Muslim terrorist, not the United States government, planned to use airliners to kill thousands of people and even the Philippine government revealed to the United States in 1995 that it was targeted by terrorist, and among those named was none other than Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed WTC1 in 1993 and nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 911 attack mastermind who has now admitted to his role in planning the 911 attack. In addition, it was revealed that CIA headquarters was also targeted for an attack, and of course, we cannot forget the terrorist that tried to fly a hijacked airliner into the Eiffel Tower in France.

Please post evidence of a government 911 cover-up, but I might add that the way a building falls is not evidence of explosives because it has been shown that a tall building can collapse in the same manner as the WTC buildings without the use of explosives, which of course, is the "Pull" technique using cables and the Verinage demolition method.

Not true.

Sorry for your luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by any chance you happen to visit Kuwait City, take a tour through that little walk-through memorial and understand what was truly going on inside Kuwait City before Iraqi forces were ejected by American-led forces. The testimony of that nurse was nothing compared to the pictorial history inside that memorial which depicted Iraqi atrocities before we made our move to eject Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

I might add that it was no secret that Saddam Hussein had intentions to continue on with his campaign through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond and we can't forget Saddam's warning to his neighbors to either forgive Iraq's war debts or else. Remember, Iraq invaded Iran, which was a clue to his real ambitions for the Gulf region.

If you are unaware of the real Saddam Hussein, take a look back at what happened in Halabja in March 1988.

no doubt a tyrant ... But also a by-product of those who used him gaining political influence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not true.

Sorry for your luck.

Of course it's true. I guess you missed the videos I have posted, so here is one of them for your review.

verinage-20120406-071438.jpg

Now, what was that you were saying about, "wasn't true?"

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no doubt a tyrant ... But also a by-product of those who used him gaining political influence.

Perhaps, you should read and understand the history behind Saddam Hussein's rise to power. He definitely wasn't a good boy by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............................................ okay.

Thanks for taking my statement out of context. Did you bother reading the entire post or just decided to use selective ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person has to be careful, but I have read so much disinformation, misinformation and in some cases, outright lies from 911 conspiracy websites, especially as they pertained to aviation.

Having made a career in aviation for over 40 years, I've noticed that much of what they posted was absolutely false. One of their arguments that raised my eyebrows involved a so-called pod beneath United 175. I looked at the photos and noticed that they were confusing aerodynamic fairings, which are standard on all B-767s, as a pod and in one case, a skeptic actually confused the paint scheme on the bottom forward fuselage of United 175 as a pod, so I posted a photo of the bottom fuselage of another United B-767 to prove to him that he was knocking on the wrong door, afterward, the argument ceased.

Much hype has been made over the lack of videos at the Pentagon, but why did they make that an issue? In many cases videos are not available during accident investigation yet determinations can be made despite the lack of videos. There are videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings yet there are skeptics who continue to claim that no aircraft struck those buildings despite video evidence. Another issue pertaining to the Pentagon involved the so-called "Hani maneuver." Skeptics claim that it took super-human strength to perform such a maneuver, but as a pilot of over 40 years, their comments had me scratching my head because I hve performed similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less than 30 flight hours during the 1960s. That maneuver was so boring that I could have gone into the kitchen and made a ham and cheese sandwich and returned to the living room before the terrorist pilot completed that very boring maneuver and the amazing thing about it all is that he didn't even complete a full circle.

To show you how boring that manevuer was, take a piece of chalk and draw a 10-foot circle on the pavement and then, draw an intersecting starting line at the top of that circle and draw another line at the 9 o'clock position of the circle. Begin walking clockwise on the circle from the 12 o'clock position and walk at a pace to where you will arrive at the 9 'o'clock position 3 1/2 minutes later. Just another example of many where those 911 conspiracy websites have tried to dupe people with false and misleading information and the list goes on and on.

Yes, very dangerous, the internet.

You know what is something to be even more careful about? Your government covertly acting directly against the interests of her people, moving more and more to service multinational corporations.

But thats just some crazy talk from one of those 'conspiracy nutters', right?

Given you have managed to paint the Iraq 'ploy' - or war - as a case of the US regime being hoodwinked by this single exiled Iraqi group, I think I have a rather clear picture of your state of mind.

Mr. Powell was lying to the world, and he and his superiors knew it all too well. What I am still unclear about is the question if you are just that naive and believe what you state or are plain lying to us here.

If you think the Iraqi war was about ousting Saddam and bring 'democracy', you have a rude awakening around the corner.

No offence intended whatsoever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, you should read and understand the history behind Saddam Hussein's rise to power. He definitely wasn't a good boy by any means.

Good advice for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a ratio of lies to truth matter?

Do you believe that the government has NEVER told the truth?

The point is...it does not matter if the government has lied before. That is why fact checking and research is needed to either prove or disprove assertions.

Those are good questions.

The ratio matters because it is helpful to the individual citizen in assessing whether, in any given instance, his government is lying or telling the truth.

I KNOW that many times the government does tell the truth, but I also know that many times it is deceiving. I guess the art is being able to tell the difference.

You are exactly right that fact checking is crucial, and in the end each individual is responsible for his own fact checking and analysis and conclusions.

The ratio is important because it provides insight into patterns of behavior. If half the time a person tells the truth and the other half the person deceives, is it accurate to call him a known liar? At what point beyond 50-50 should one be called a known liar? Does the telling of the truth once out of 5 times make one a source of truthful statements, or does that make one a known liar?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, you should read and understand the history behind Saddam Hussein's rise to power. He definitely wasn't a good boy by any means.

Sky, could you show us that picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands back in the 80's? Remember, when Saddam was our fair-haired son fighting those nasty Iranians?

Could you post info on all those loans the US Commerce Department made and guaranteed to Saddam? Could you post the record of April Glaspie's meetings and conversations with Saddam, when we set him up for the first Gulf War?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky, could you show us that picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands back in the 80's? Remember, when Saddam was our fair-haired son fighting those nasty Iranians?

That's funny you should mention it - I was considering making a post showing that picture but couldn't be bothered responding to skyeagle. Your comment has prompted me into action. Ok, here it is, better than a picture, a video! Rumsfeld and his buddy Hussein...

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c[/media]

I already provided a picture of Rumsfeld with his new best Iraqi buddy, Ahmed Chalabi, whose group supplied the false WMD intelligence, in my post here.

And, at the risk of heading off-topic, while we're at it: -

F3Y63.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Q.

It appears that Sky's claim that he "was not such a good boy" is contradicted by reality, again.

Sky might think he was not such a good boy, but most people in the government thought he was a Really Good Boy. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Q.

It appears that Sky's claim that he "was not such a good boy" is contradicted by reality, again.

Sky might think he was not such a good boy, but most people in the government thought he was a Really Good Boy. :tu:

I don't know, the U.S. and Iraq have been at loggerheads ever since the creation of the state of Israel. But it is certainly true that some Neocons in the U.S. government, who supplied Iraq with diplomatic, monetary and military support, thought Hussein was a good boy whilst grinding down Iranian influence in the region (an influence undesirable to the U.S. since the Iranian Revolution, which itself was a result of the meddling 1953 CIA Operation Ajax).

It sure is a tangled war... er, web... that U.S. foreign policy weaves.

Just remember we are the 'good guys' and it is always someone else who started it :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam was a ruthless man, no doubt about it, but 'we' didn't seem to mind when 'we' helped him into power. 'We' have a habit of helping people into and ,later, out of 'positions'.. and, as ALWAYS, there are economic policies , paraded as political progress, behind it all.

I thought this was interesting.. ( i know it's from the Guardian), but it just talks about Noriega going from ally and paid friend to living in a hole under Florida.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ratio is important because it provides insight into patterns of behavior. If half the time a person tells the truth and the other half the person deceives, is it accurate to call him a known liar? At what point beyond 50-50 should one be called a known liar? Does the telling of the truth once out of 5 times make one a source of truthful statements, or does that make one a known liar?

But what exactly is accomplished by affixing the label, 'known liar', to 'the government'? Let's say that 50-50 does justify someone or something in this case being called a 'known liar', that seems reasonable to me; thus, what? By the exact same reasoning, the government is also a known truth-teller. All it seems to accomplish is to counter those who say that the government never lies thus we should accept everything they say as the truth; I'm not really aware of that many people here making that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's funny you should mention it - I was considering making a post showing that picture but couldn't be bothered responding to skyeagle. Your comment has prompted me into action. Ok, here it is, better than a picture, a video! Rumsfeld and his buddy Hussein...

I already provided a picture of Rumsfeld with his new best Iraqi buddy, Ahmed Chalabi, whose group supplied the false WMD intelligence, in my post here.

As I have said, the United States took the bait and the rest is now history.

F3Y63.jpg

Those tyrants made their beds and paid a heavy price, but I would like to add that Slobodan Milosevic is no longer around either and let's not forget how the United States pushed hard to get the Serbs to stop the slaughter.

I might also add that years ago, a Tuskegee Airman almost blew Gaddafi away during a confrontation at Wheelus Airbase, Libya. Had Gaddafi pulled his gun, Colonel Daniel James would have beat Gaddafi to the punch. As it was, Gaddafi backed down from the confrontation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Q.

It appears that Sky's claim that he "was not such a good boy" is contradicted by reality, again.

Apparently, he was not such a good boy, but how many countries in Europe and in the Middle East supported Saddam? How many of those countries then spanked Saddam for being a bad boy when he became a bad boy on Kuwait's playground?

Those French Mirages were not built in the United States and those Russian-made missiles were not made in the United States either. How many Gulf States, including Kuwait, provided Saddam with aid?

Sky might think he was not such a good boy, but most people in the government thought he was a Really Good Boy. :tu:

Apparently, Saddam didn't learn his lessons and as a result, he was spanked by the United States, which then pulled down the curtain on his rule.

04ps.sadaam.c--300x300.jpg

gty_baghdad_iraq_2003_war_statue_saddam_thg_130319_wg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember we are the 'good guys' and it is always someone else who started it :whistle:

While the rest of the world sat back and watched the slaughter in the Balkans, the United States got the ball rolling to stop the atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.