This is above government and the same bloodlines killed millions in wars dating back thousands of years. it is still happening today.
Remember rothschilds paid for both sides of ww1 and ww2.
They are not human and they feed on fear. That's the biggest emotion in the world.
Terror terror fear fear!
I wonder what bloodline that is meant to be : - (
Come on Henry, you and I both know that the bloodline going abck thousands of years means that all Western Europeans are descended from Charlegmagne.
Now apart from making him one busy boy it also means that we are all guilty of these atrocities. Trying to deny your birthright is like the OP trying to prove he's not a Nigel. We know the truth. J'accuse you, me and everyone else on this forum and don't bother trying to deny it;)
Speak for yourself
I'm from the tribe of Benjamin and the Lion of Judea
Jah no dead
My knowledge increase My memory reflect
Do you remember the days of slavery?
Surely you must realise, no one remember poor Markus Garvey.
It's not a conspiracy theory as such, but take the banks fixing currency exchange rates. They do it over a certain period of time, make billions. Get caught out, fined a fraction of what they've made over X period. The purge or cleanse is made public, the public think their governments are acting in their best interest by holding them to account, then the next scandal comes along.
I think people would have to pretty naive to think that those in power, and those with money control what is fed to us and how we digest it. I've always liked an analogy I read re: the financial crisis. If you play monopoly, eventually for someone to win, one or more of the players have to go bankrupt. If the game is to continue, the owners of Mayfair and Park Lane have to lend money to their competitors to continue. How much and at what interest rate is then out of our hands, we're in a sense being dictated to and controlled by one player.
Scale this up to the real world, and how much happens or is controlled by the powers that be that we can't even scratch the surface. I question all these theories about 9/11 and the way the twin towers collapsed and am open to some of those documentaries where architects and engineers were interviewed about the collapse. The answer is we just don't know. I guess the difficulty is what do you define a conspiracy theory as? It is understandable that people earlier said calling 9/11 a conspiracy theory may be disrespectful to the victims and their families, and I understand the size of some of these cover ups make it bloody hard to cover up. Yet, history is littered with little niggling questions about numerous events in all societies and cultures that I believe should allow people to keep an open mind.
After all, we don't have the answer to how the pyramids were built. A massive cutting edge symbol of advanced thinking of its day, yet for years we have theorised over how it was done. If we can put a structure like that on the earth that leaves generations after it, hypothesising how it was done, what else can be kept out the general population
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Are you genuinely oblivious to how precisely you fit the bill described early on in this thread? It's entertaining as much as it is frustrating. The most pertinent point earlier was that you just ask questions. No evidence, just questions. Like your lack of comprehension should somehow undermine everybody else's beliefs. It's a bit mad.
We'll have to agree to differ on that sunshine - you've come into this debate a bit late to be throwing insults about to be honest.
Evidence: there is film tracking the ascent of the lunar module - I questioned how that was possible and the reply from others on here is that I could buy equipment from Maplins which would allow me to remotely control a camera on the moon. I don't think it is that easy, but there you go - maybe it is.
Evidence: Obama said it would take 20 years to go back to the moon. Now, it has been suggested that there is no evidence to back up Obama's claim, but I have countered that with the argument that I doubt he said that "off the cuff" in a "John Prescott" stylee, hey, but maybe he did. Maybe the leader of the free world just makes it up as he goes along - I sincerely fucking hope not.
You and others are not reading all I say - I don't want to believe hoax theories but they got me thinking, they got me questioning. I'm not trying to convince you or Kent or the cat, just saying I PERSONALLY had niggling questions in MY mind about it.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Are you genuinely oblivious to how precisely you fit the bill described early on in this thread? It's entertaining as much as it is frustrating. The most pertinent point earlier was that you just ask questions. No evidence, just questions. Like your lack of comprehension should somehow undermine everybody else's beliefs. It's a bit mad.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
That's because the French operator of the remote control camera in the tunnel was on strike.
They got some great pictures of the stanchions though.
I have a friend who very heavily buys into certain conspiracy theories and the concept of a higher world order. I can't be having a lot of it and certainly couldn't bring myself to believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were anything other than terrorist attacks.
One thing I do take from our conversations (and it doesn't take anyone too clever to work this out) is that we are governed by the media and what they choose to spout on a particular day: this is what we are reporting today / this is what is happening in the world / this is what you are going to read and believe and to hell with any other stuff that's going on.
Stories like the Malaysian plane going missing and the killing of Osama have too many holes for me not to think beyond what is reported and I don't think this makes me a conspiracy theorist, just a bit cynical about a lot of what I read and hear. Is that so unhealthy?
Thanks for that Cabbles, silly me, I thought we could believe everything government told us. From now on I'll only believe what I read on Charlton Life (apart from the Andy Delort thread).
Until I started reading this thread, I had always assumed that conspiracy theorists are credulous, susceptible crackpots.
I don't consider myself to be gullible, easy to fool or naive. But I am quite inquisitive. So, this afternoon, I took the time to look into some of the theories around 9/11. I looked into the accusations, allegations and assertions of visa fixing; unexplained phone calls; insurance claims; structural anomalies; photo-shopped "airplane" pictures; made-up movie footage; eye witness reports; flight schedules; radio frequencies; contemporaneous television broadcasts; satellite images. Claims. Counter-claims. Counter-counter-claims. I saw videos of people agreeing with other people who agreed with other people who disagreed with official people. And I saw videos of people who both agreed and disagreed with them.
I have studied. I have understood. I have learned.
And what I have learned is this: conspiracy theorists are credulous, susceptible crackpots.
Elvis was heavily involved with law enforcement, he had lots of friends in high places, including serving presidents, he was fascinated with it, collecting Police badges and honorary law enforcement roles around the country. Now this is a fact, Elvis had an undercover DEA/FBI agent, who happened to be a part time musician, tour and play in his band as cover to travel the country during the last few years of his life (died in 1977 for those unaware), this is a fact and has been verified by the FBI. Also, he was defrauded by a Mafia linked gang, through a dodgy refinancing deal of one or two of his planes in 75/76, one of them the famous Lisa Marie. He received countless death threats through his career, but the FBI took the ones received after Elvis gave evidence after being defrauded very seriously. He made several strange comments and decisions just weeks/months before he died, he was due to leave on another tour the day after he died, but, having put on more weight since the last tour, he had ordered no new jumpsuits or alterations to existing ones, close aides have gone on record to say they would not have fitted...he also rang a fan club president he was close too, and she mentioned the upcoming tour, his reply was that she was not to worry but he would not be going on the tour, and he would contact her somehow to let her know he was alright and to explain later down the line, this never happened. He also stated on stage a month or two before his death that he knew he didn't look good (overweight etc) but he would look good in his coffin.
The funeral.......family & friends have gone on record to say that the "body" in the coffin during viewing did not look like Elvis (not unusual I know), but the nose was different, hairline was dodgy, and his hands were smooth and unblemished, right upto his death Elvis hands were covered in cuts, blemishes and callouses (sic) due to his karate lessons and breaking bricks. Also, people who viewed the body claim it was very cool around the coffin and there was a slight humming noise, some claim this as evidence of it being a wax dummy and that there was a fan built into the coffin. Funeral directors were also astonished at how quickly the coffin was supplied, this was a made to measure, lead lined coffin, supplied for the funeral 2 days after death, they say (remember this was 1977) that this would have taken 2-3 weeks to supply, was it pre ordered? Graphology....experts in this field have examined the death certificate, and they all say that matched against known Elvis handwriting that the certificate was filled in by the same person. There is a recording of Elvis allegedly talking to a reporter on the phone circa 1987/88, talking in present tense, about where he has been, how he changed his look, this tape has been analysed by labs used in criminal cases, again, matched against known Elvis recordings, again, they all say its a match.
Somebody called John Burrows (Elvis used this name to check into hotels and to make reservations) and looking like Elvis checked in and flew from Memphis to Argentina the day after he died.
There are many more alleged bits of evidence, too many to go into on here, my last one is, Elvis cashed out and closed 2 bank accounts of over 2 million dollars in each, just two weeks before he died, he also had many insurance policies, all cashed after his death, except one, Lloyds of London, still in situ today, apparently this is the only one that if cashed in now, and then if he was found to be alive would result in criminal proceedings.
So, to sum up, if the US Government wanted you to disappear due to death threats, or if you were a very powerful individual with lots of sway with even more powerful people, it could and would happen, not even his family would know. He was quoted many times leading upto his death about how he wanted out of his lifestyle and wanted to change his life away from the limelight.
I am not saying its true, but theres a lot to think about, IMO, if he is alive, we wont know until he does actually die a natural death (he would be 79 right now)
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Are you genuinely oblivious to how precisely you fit the bill described early on in this thread? It's entertaining as much as it is frustrating. The most pertinent point earlier was that you just ask questions. No evidence, just questions. Like your lack of comprehension should somehow undermine everybody else's beliefs. It's a bit mad.
We'll have to agree to differ on that sunshine - you've come into this debate a bit late to be throwing insults about to be honest.
Evidence: there is film tracking the ascent of the lunar module - I questioned how that was possible and the reply from others on here is that I could buy equipment from Maplins which would allow me to remotely control a camera on the moon. I don't think it is that easy, but there you go - maybe it is.
Evidence: Obama said it would take 20 years to go back to the moon. Now, it has been suggested that there is no evidence to back up Obama's claim, but I have countered that with the argument that I doubt he said that "off the cuff" in a "John Prescott" stylee, hey, but maybe he did. Maybe the leader of the free world just makes it up as he goes along - I sincerely fucking hope not.
You and others are not reading all I say - I don't want to believe hoax theories but they got me thinking, they got me questioning. I'm not trying to convince you or Kent or the cat, just saying I PERSONALLY had niggling questions in MY mind about it.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
so you missed the bit where i explained the history of remote cameras and the NASA system developed to manage a remote camera on the Lunar Rover using a radio dish? even though you answered that comment.
As I said, you have no interest in finding out the truth because you have bought into the whole hoax nonsense. It would probably take you about two minutes of internet searching to find everything you need to answer your questions about how the camera works. But you don't want to.
and Diana died because a drunk was driving the car at high speed through tunnels chased by journalists.
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Are you genuinely oblivious to how precisely you fit the bill described early on in this thread? It's entertaining as much as it is frustrating. The most pertinent point earlier was that you just ask questions. No evidence, just questions. Like your lack of comprehension should somehow undermine everybody else's beliefs. It's a bit mad.
We'll have to agree to differ on that sunshine - you've come into this debate a bit late to be throwing insults about to be honest.
Evidence: there is film tracking the ascent of the lunar module - I questioned how that was possible and the reply from others on here is that I could buy equipment from Maplins which would allow me to remotely control a camera on the moon. I don't think it is that easy, but there you go - maybe it is.
Evidence: Obama said it would take 20 years to go back to the moon. Now, it has been suggested that there is no evidence to back up Obama's claim, but I have countered that with the argument that I doubt he said that "off the cuff" in a "John Prescott" stylee, hey, but maybe he did. Maybe the leader of the free world just makes it up as he goes along - I sincerely fucking hope not.
You and others are not reading all I say - I don't want to believe hoax theories but they got me thinking, they got me questioning. I'm not trying to convince you or Kent or the cat, just saying I PERSONALLY had niggling questions in MY mind about it.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
so you missed the bit where i explained the history of remote cameras and the NASA system developed to manage a remote camera on the Lunar Rover using a radio dish? even though you answered that comment.
As I said, you have no interest in finding out the truth because you have bought into the whole hoax nonsense. It would probably take you about two minutes of internet searching to find everything you need to answer your questions about how the camera works. But you don't want to.
and Diana died because a drunk was driving the car at high speed through tunnels chased by journalists.
|I'm not missing anything. I am just skeptical. You've explained it, I'm skeptical. You accuse me of buying into things, yet you've bought into the whole "NASA developed remote control systems" thing though, haven't you?
I haven't bought into anything - I don't want to believe it, yet there are some things that make me skeptical.
I'd love to believe the official line on Diana but, as I said, it was just so damn convenient.
I do love a good conspiracy theory I admit. The latest is that the lost Malaysia Air plane was the same plane which later "crashed".
Thanks for that Cabbles, silly me, I thought we could believe everything government told us. From now on I'll only believe what I read on Charlton Life (apart from the Andy Delort thread).
@Dippenhall I was just emphasising that I think some of these conspiracy theories have some questions, or perhaps mileage to them. The example of the banks was a case in point I think has an element of a 'conspiracy theory' to it. In addition, earlier posts emphasised that some conspiracy theories were of such magnitude that the government would struggle to cover them up. I'm saying, they could probably do and have done a bloody good job of it....
Bing, Kent, Henry, we won't agree. I want to believe man went to the moon. I started reading about hoaxes and that one piece of evidence made me personally question it. Another thing which had me questioning it was that, when asked Obama said it would take at least 20 years for America to gear up for another moon shot. Given how much more advanced we are these days you do wonder how they were able to do it in such a short space of time in the 1960s between Kennedy's speech and the landing in '69.
Are you genuinely oblivious to how precisely you fit the bill described early on in this thread? It's entertaining as much as it is frustrating. The most pertinent point earlier was that you just ask questions. No evidence, just questions. Like your lack of comprehension should somehow undermine everybody else's beliefs. It's a bit mad.
We'll have to agree to differ on that sunshine - you've come into this debate a bit late to be throwing insults about to be honest.
Evidence: there is film tracking the ascent of the lunar module - I questioned how that was possible and the reply from others on here is that I could buy equipment from Maplins which would allow me to remotely control a camera on the moon. I don't think it is that easy, but there you go - maybe it is.
Evidence: Obama said it would take 20 years to go back to the moon. Now, it has been suggested that there is no evidence to back up Obama's claim, but I have countered that with the argument that I doubt he said that "off the cuff" in a "John Prescott" stylee, hey, but maybe he did. Maybe the leader of the free world just makes it up as he goes along - I sincerely fucking hope not.
You and others are not reading all I say - I don't want to believe hoax theories but they got me thinking, they got me questioning. I'm not trying to convince you or Kent or the cat, just saying I PERSONALLY had niggling questions in MY mind about it.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
so you missed the bit where i explained the history of remote cameras and the NASA system developed to manage a remote camera on the Lunar Rover using a radio dish? even though you answered that comment.
As I said, you have no interest in finding out the truth because you have bought into the whole hoax nonsense. It would probably take you about two minutes of internet searching to find everything you need to answer your questions about how the camera works. But you don't want to.
and Diana died because a drunk was driving the car at high speed through tunnels chased by journalists.
|I'm not missing anything. I am just skeptical. You've explained it, I'm skeptical. You accuse me of buying into things, yet you've bought into the whole "NASA developed remote control systems" thing though, haven't you?
I haven't bought into anything - I don't want to believe it, yet there are some things that make me skeptical.
I'd love to believe the official line on Diana but, as I said, it was just so damn convenient.
I do love a good conspiracy theory I admit. The latest is that the lost Malaysia Air plane was the same plane which later "crashed".
Two sets of passengers families that will be grieving and asking questions. Why on earth would it be worth that??
Just thought I`d recap the many drills and exercises taking place on 9/11 in some detail for the benefit of any who might have missed this crucial political evidence of an inside job on 9/11. None of this evidence can be explained away as coincidence and happenstance and without the drills the attacks of 9/11 could not possibly have succeeded at all. Yet it is largely forgotten by the Truth Movement and the grateful debunkers who don`t have to grapple with this damning evidence, and who can instead engage in endless, and fruitless, hyper technical debates about the melting point of steel, the nature of invisible fires, floor trusses and "thermal expansion". On to the drills and exercises taking place on 9/11 therefore!
1:Vigilant Guardian.
Closely mimicked the events of 9/11. Joint US/Canadian exercise, designed to test the "coordination of the two defense establishments". Described by globalsecurity.org as an overview CPX (command post exercise), conducted in conjunction with Global Guardian and Apollo Guardian (more about those later). VG is a yearly NORAD exercise, but VG 01 focused specifically on terrorists using hijacked planes as weapons. However, as the 9/11 Commission noted, Vigilant Guardian also "postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union". It was therefore a combined hijacking and WW3 exercise, and it contributed to the confusion among NORAD emergency response teams by using false radar signals for training exercises at the same time as "real" hijackings were taking place. Without this confusion there should have been a decent chance of shooting down the first plane heading towards NYC, and none of the three subsequent planes could have reached their intended targets at all. Because of Vigilant Guardian the intercept time of the fighter wings assigned to defend the eastern corridor increased from about 7 minutes before and after 9/11 to more than an hour in the case of Flight 77. Only within the narrow window provided by the Vigilant Guardian exercise could the 9/11 attacks have succeeded. Why did they occur in precisely this window? Obviously they had to, or they couldn`t have succeeded, but was the US command structure infiltrated by al Qaida who used their positions inside the USA to arrange all these drills deliberately, was al Qaida tipped off by moles on the inside so they could arrange the attacks during the Vigilant Guardian window, or were they in fact simply controlled patsies set up to take the fall for a US/NATO false flag operation? It shouldn`t even be necessary to point out which of these alternatives is the most plausible. Regardless, VG is the single most important exercise of 9/11 because it looks the most like the official fable about the hijackers, and is therefore the most likely medium for organizing this part of 9/11 through the "security" bureaucracy.
Mentioned by Richard Clarke in his memoirs as a second component of the ongoing NORAD exercise (Vigilant Guardian), possibly as the red team organizing the hijackings, real and fake. Details are hard to find and VW 01 is classified.
Billed as a counter drill to an ongoing Russian drill, NV redeployed fighter planes to Alaska and northern Canada, stripping EC (eastern corridor) fighter cover just in time for 9/11. NORAD has not disclosed how many planes it removed from the contiguous US in time for 9/11 under the cover of NV.
"NORAD shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to FOLs (Forward Operating Locations) in Alaska and northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean. NORAD is the eyes and ears of North America and it is our mission to ensure that our air sovereignty is maintained" Cheyenne Mountain AFS, Colorado.
Thought to be associated with NV but outside of a few mentions in Canadian press not much is known. Possibly a twin exercise to NV to have one group of planes posing as the hostiles while the other played defense. Whatever the particulars this exercise seems to have been centered on Alaska and northern Canada as well.
Reference is from the detestable lie operation called 9/11 Myths, which like Wikipedia insists on calling the truth "myths", and the writer pretends not to understand that an exercise that moves planes to Iceland lowers response capabilities and is therefore relevant to 9/11. Intelligent people will have no problem understanding this point though.
5: National Reconnaissance Office Drill (NRO).
This drill simulated an airplane crashing into the NRO HQ in Virginia. As a consequence of this drill the NRO staff were evacuated from the building exactly when the 9/11 attacks occurred. This is the reason why the satelite surveillance of the attacks has not been made available. Allegedly there is none because of the NRO drill, and all space based surveillance was conveniently disabled in time for the 9/11 attacks. AP reported: "Top US intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11 2001". What an amazing coincidence...
Biological warfare exercise conducted jointly between DoJ (Department of Justice, under the control of John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election to a dead guy) and the City of New York. Scheduled for 9/12 01 and officially never took place. Would have provided plausible cover for critical pre 9/11 activities in New York, such as rigging both towers and WTC 7 with explosives. Reported by Giuliani, the arch criminal, in his memoir "Leadership" (apparently the working title was "Treason" but was changed by the publisher). He stated that the "materials to be used in the drill" was stored at Pier 92, and that his command center was in WTC 7. As soon as WTC 7 was demolished Giuliani moved his treason command post (popularly known as the exercise command post or emergency management control center, but treason is more appropriate so I`ll stick with that) to Pier 92. Tripod II is the most glaringly obvious cover for the demolitions in NYC, the destruction of evidence following the attacks as well as the fake reporting afterwards to sell the official version. Technical, military, media, surveillance, detonations, police and firefighters could all have been, and probably were, controlled from Pier 92, under cover of Tripod II.
Air defend against rogue state cruise missiles/hijackings. A probable cover for the attack on the Pentagon, which was originally billed as, and also looked like, a missile attack rather than a plane crash.
Large air defense drill and air intercept, tracking and surveillance. Possibly the red force for Amalgam Virgo, providing hijacked planes/missiles, real and false.
I have a friend who very heavily buys into certain conspiracy theories and the concept of a higher world order. I can't be having a lot of it and certainly couldn't bring myself to believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were anything other than terrorist attacks.
One thing I do take from our conversations (and it doesn't take anyone too clever to work this out) is that we are governed by the media and what they choose to spout on a particular day: this is what we are reporting today / this is what is happening in the world / this is what you are going to read and believe and to hell with any other stuff that's going on.
Stories like the Malaysian plane going missing and the killing of Osama have too many holes for me not to think beyond what is reported and I don't think this makes me a conspiracy theorist, just a bit cynical about a lot of what I read and hear. Is that so unhealthy?
Agree. Sometimes you can just tell a story has been planted to take the heat off another one that needs to "go away". Or a story clearly has more too it, but they cannot say. And the stories that just completely disappear and you never hear the outcome.
I daresay most of the time its in our best interests though.
Armageddon exercise. Nuclear war drill directed toward the arctic and Russia, further depleting continental defenses in the USA. GG is likely to be the defensive component of Apollo Guardian, presumably poised to respond to a nuclear first strike (probably by Russia, but who knows with the Strangeloves in the Pentagon).
Large scale live fly air defense and air intercept, tracking and surveillance drill. Nuclear strike simulation. Possibly a component of Global Guardian, or a parallel exercise or red team threatening nuclear attack within the exercise scripting. Hints to a possible nuclear blackmail/nuclear first strike option having been built into the 9/11 exercise complex. Possibly the most ominous of all the drills I have listed, but also less revealing since no nuclear first strike occurred. Nuclear blackmail may have though, and the Bush-Putin phone call has never had its content disclosed at all, but has largely disappeared from the MSM coverage (surprise surprise).
AWACS planes may have been involved in all three alleged plane crashes. Reportedly AWACS can be fitted with remote control systems for taking over control of nearby planes. Wikipedia also states that Operation Noble Eagle went into effect on 9/11, and that it was somehow a success, despite the abject and total failure on every front by all involved on that day. Allegedly it involved using AWACS craft to "patrol and defend American Airspace". Cynics might consider this too little too late, but not Wikipedia... Whether Noble Eagle and the AWACS drill I just referenced were one and the same I haven`t been able to find out.
My purpose with the links is to demonstrate that AWACS can be, is being and has for years been used to remotely control other aircraft, and that a large AWACS drill (or two) taking place on 9/11 is therefore a highly suspicious circumstance. It is not to have a long, meaningless technical debate about these aircrafts or any beneficial uses they may have.
13: Firemen (Pentagon)
"Aircraft crash refresher course" for firefighters. Scheduled for the morning of 9/11 in yet another amazing coincidence.
NOTE: Many of these drills and exercises are annual "security", "intelligence" and "defense" events. What makes them suspicious with regard to 9/11 is firstly that the content of the 01 versions was apparently altered to closely resemble the attacks which actually occurred, or to sabotage air defense and surveillance, apparently on purpose. Secondly they were also all concentrated on and around this one date, which is atypical for annual drills, and indeed all drills, which tend to be separated in time to deal with isolated hypothesis and strategies. Pointing to the annual character of these drills therefore does nothing to counter the points I have raised.
These are the most relevant drills taking place on 9/11 itself, but there are others, depending on what you consider relevant. And if you include earlier exercises leading up to 9/11 there are almost 50 altogether, all dealing specifically with elements of the 9/11 attacks. A relatively exhaustive list by Webster Tarpley can be found here: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/2...bster-tarpley/ for those who are interested in all of them. For those who want to really dig into this all important aspect of 9/11 I recommend any of Mike Ruppert`s many books, such as Crossing the Rubicon, or Webster Tarpley`s book 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA. The obvious political point to make with all these conspicuous drills is to ask the hard questions we need to: If the official story is true, why were there all these drills more or less exactly like the actual attacks going on during the attacks, and/or which sabotaged regular, procedural emergency responses? How could the confused and disorganized boxcutter-wielding morons of the official version have known about all these drills in order to time their attacks accordingly? Why would the US government and national "security" state be so deliberately incompetent as to strip its own response capabilities and confuse emergency response personnel by concentrating so many drills on one day? Who did organize all this to coincide with the 9/11 attacks? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? General Myers? Rudolph Giuliani? John Ashcroft? George Bush 41 and 43? Benjamin Netanyahu? Richard Perle? General Schumacher? Richard Clarke? Condolezza Rice? Or was it possibly all of the above and more? Either way we need to know.
I apologize if people already knew this stuff, but I couldn`t find anything about the drills on the forum and thought I`d go over it again. Politically this is some of the most damning evidence available against the official myth of al Qaida and 9/11, which is why I think it`s being avoided like the plague by our debunker friends. Let`s shove it right back in their faces where it belongs! The only possible response from the naysayers is either denial or to try and sell this as some form of a massive coincidence. In both cases they have lost before the debate starts, and they know it. That`s why there are no debates about drills on these forums. The reality is that so many drills would NEVER have been arranged on the same day for reasons of security and defense integrity, and no other day in US history has such an amazing concentration of drills. When faced with this incredibly suspicious stuff, what does it even matter what fire does to steel, or whether there were planes or not? 9/11 was an inside job either way, and the drills prove it. The very real political consequence of exposing the drills, as opposed to other aspects of 9/11, is that public awareness of them means that it will be close to impossible for the US government in particular, and NATO governments in general, to comfortably stage such an elaborate false flag again. They will be too scared to get caught again like they were on 9/11, and as a consequence they are restricted to small actions where the amount and size of the accompanying drills can be kept small enough to escape notice. In a very real way therefore we can save the public from really huge false flag events for a generation by focusing on the 9/11 drills, because they would be nearly impossible to conduit through the bureaucracy without multiple drills and exercises to camouflage them.
Making the drills impossible therefore makes terrorism impossible. This makes it well worth our time and effort to all become drill watchers and to make sure as many people as possible know about the 9/11 drills. Above all the presence of drills before and during "terrorist" attacks is one of the clearest signs of a synthetic terrorist event, and indeed they were present in Boston, in London in 05, in Madrid in 04 and in Oklahoma City in 1995. No synthetic terrorism can be performed by NATO governments without drills to hide them from decent, if naive, people in the bureaucracy, and no propaganda can work on people who have noticed this connection between drills and terrorism.
Btw, I watched JFK doc and it is pretty much a fact that a CIA agent killed him due to the angle of the shots which are impossible for Oswald to have shot him three times.
The Diana is a hard one, I don't see how's he was a huge threat as she was very polite and wasn't causing huge problems for the. Royal family. Moon landings are just people who are extreme skeptics then just spread it and some people believed it. I think there is no secret, the conspiracies that are more believed and more widespread are because they are more credible. No one believes that the inside of earth is a different world.
The Diana is a hard one, I don't see how's he was a huge threat as she was very polite and wasn't causing huge problems for the. Royal family. Moon landings are just people who are extreme skeptics then just spread it and some people believed it. I think there is no secret, the conspiracies that are more believed and more widespread are because they are more credible. No one believes that the inside of earth is a different world.
She was a divorcee rumoured to be carrying Al Fayed's child and about to marry a Muslim. I'm not saying I buy into any conspiracy but I can't imagine that going down well with the Royals.
Comments
I think people would have to pretty naive to think that those in power, and those with money control what is fed to us and how we digest it. I've always liked an analogy I read re: the financial crisis. If you play monopoly, eventually for someone to win, one or more of the players have to go bankrupt. If the game is to continue, the owners of Mayfair and Park Lane have to lend money to their competitors to continue. How much and at what interest rate is then out of our hands, we're in a sense being dictated to and controlled by one player.
Scale this up to the real world, and how much happens or is controlled by the powers that be that we can't even scratch the surface. I question all these theories about 9/11 and the way the twin towers collapsed and am open to some of those documentaries where architects and engineers were interviewed about the collapse. The answer is we just don't know. I guess the difficulty is what do you define a conspiracy theory as? It is understandable that people earlier said calling 9/11 a conspiracy theory may be disrespectful to the victims and their families, and I understand the size of some of these cover ups make it bloody hard to cover up. Yet, history is littered with little niggling questions about numerous events in all societies and cultures that I believe should allow people to keep an open mind.
After all, we don't have the answer to how the pyramids were built. A massive cutting edge symbol of advanced thinking of its day, yet for years we have theorised over how it was done. If we can put a structure like that on the earth that leaves generations after it, hypothesising how it was done, what else can be kept out the general population
Evidence: there is film tracking the ascent of the lunar module - I questioned how that was possible and the reply from others on here is that I could buy equipment from Maplins which would allow me to remotely control a camera on the moon. I don't think it is that easy, but there you go - maybe it is.
Evidence: Obama said it would take 20 years to go back to the moon. Now, it has been suggested that there is no evidence to back up Obama's claim, but I have countered that with the argument that I doubt he said that "off the cuff" in a "John Prescott" stylee, hey, but maybe he did. Maybe the leader of the free world just makes it up as he goes along - I sincerely fucking hope not.
You and others are not reading all I say - I don't want to believe hoax theories but they got me thinking, they got me questioning. I'm not trying to convince you or Kent or the cat, just saying I PERSONALLY had niggling questions in MY mind about it.
Don't get me started on Princess Di - it was so convenient to have her out of the picture.
They got some great pictures of the stanchions though.
One thing I do take from our conversations (and it doesn't take anyone too clever to work this out) is that we are governed by the media and what they choose to spout on a particular day: this is what we are reporting today / this is what is happening in the world / this is what you are going to read and believe and to hell with any other stuff that's going on.
Stories like the Malaysian plane going missing and the killing of Osama have too many holes for me not to think beyond what is reported and I don't think this makes me a conspiracy theorist, just a bit cynical about a lot of what I read and hear. Is that so unhealthy?
I don't consider myself to be gullible, easy to fool or naive. But I am quite inquisitive. So, this afternoon, I took the time to look into some of the theories around 9/11. I looked into the accusations, allegations and assertions of visa fixing; unexplained phone calls; insurance claims; structural anomalies; photo-shopped "airplane" pictures; made-up movie footage; eye witness reports; flight schedules; radio frequencies; contemporaneous television broadcasts; satellite images. Claims. Counter-claims. Counter-counter-claims. I saw videos of people agreeing with other people who agreed with other people who disagreed with official people. And I saw videos of people who both agreed and disagreed with them.
I have studied. I have understood. I have learned.
And what I have learned is this: conspiracy theorists are credulous, susceptible crackpots.
Elvis was heavily involved with law enforcement, he had lots of friends in high places, including serving presidents, he was fascinated with it, collecting Police badges and honorary law enforcement roles around the country. Now this is a fact, Elvis had an undercover DEA/FBI agent, who happened to be a part time musician, tour and play in his band as cover to travel the country during the last few years of his life (died in 1977 for those unaware), this is a fact and has been verified by the FBI. Also, he was defrauded by a Mafia linked gang, through a dodgy refinancing deal of one or two of his planes in 75/76, one of them the famous Lisa Marie.
He received countless death threats through his career, but the FBI took the ones received after Elvis gave evidence after being defrauded very seriously.
He made several strange comments and decisions just weeks/months before he died, he was due to leave on another tour the day after he died, but, having put on more weight since the last tour, he had ordered no new jumpsuits or alterations to existing ones, close aides have gone on record to say they would not have fitted...he also rang a fan club president he was close too, and she mentioned the upcoming tour, his reply was that she was not to worry but he would not be going on the tour, and he would contact her somehow to let her know he was alright and to explain later down the line, this never happened. He also stated on stage a month or two before his death that he knew he didn't look good (overweight etc) but he would look good in his coffin.
The funeral.......family & friends have gone on record to say that the "body" in the coffin during viewing did not look like Elvis (not unusual I know), but the nose was different, hairline was dodgy, and his hands were smooth and unblemished, right upto his death Elvis hands were covered in cuts, blemishes and callouses (sic) due to his karate lessons and breaking bricks.
Also, people who viewed the body claim it was very cool around the coffin and there was a slight humming noise, some claim this as evidence of it being a wax dummy and that there was a fan built into the coffin.
Funeral directors were also astonished at how quickly the coffin was supplied, this was a made to measure, lead lined coffin, supplied for the funeral 2 days after death, they say (remember this was 1977) that this would have taken 2-3 weeks to supply, was it pre ordered?
Graphology....experts in this field have examined the death certificate, and they all say that matched against known Elvis handwriting that the certificate was filled in by the same person.
There is a recording of Elvis allegedly talking to a reporter on the phone circa 1987/88, talking in present tense, about where he has been, how he changed his look, this tape has been analysed by labs used in criminal cases, again, matched against known Elvis recordings, again, they all say its a match.
Somebody called John Burrows (Elvis used this name to check into hotels and to make reservations) and looking like Elvis checked in and flew from Memphis to Argentina the day after he died.
There are many more alleged bits of evidence, too many to go into on here, my last one is, Elvis cashed out and closed 2 bank accounts of over 2 million dollars in each, just two weeks before he died, he also had many insurance policies, all cashed after his death, except one, Lloyds of London, still in situ today, apparently this is the only one that if cashed in now, and then if he was found to be alive would result in criminal proceedings.
So, to sum up, if the US Government wanted you to disappear due to death threats, or if you were a very powerful individual with lots of sway with even more powerful people, it could and would happen, not even his family would know.
He was quoted many times leading upto his death about how he wanted out of his lifestyle and wanted to change his life away from the limelight.
I am not saying its true, but theres a lot to think about, IMO, if he is alive, we wont know until he does actually die a natural death (he would be 79 right now)
As I said, you have no interest in finding out the truth because you have bought into the whole hoax nonsense. It would probably take you about two minutes of internet searching to find everything you need to answer your questions about how the camera works. But you don't want to.
and Diana died because a drunk was driving the car at high speed through tunnels chased by journalists.
I haven't bought into anything - I don't want to believe it, yet there are some things that make me skeptical.
I'd love to believe the official line on Diana but, as I said, it was just so damn convenient.
I do love a good conspiracy theory I admit. The latest is that the lost Malaysia Air plane was the same plane which later "crashed".
1:Vigilant Guardian.
Closely mimicked the events of 9/11. Joint US/Canadian exercise, designed to test the "coordination of the two defense establishments".
Described by globalsecurity.org as an overview CPX (command post exercise), conducted in conjunction with Global Guardian and Apollo Guardian (more about those later). VG is a yearly NORAD exercise, but VG 01 focused specifically on terrorists using hijacked planes as weapons.
However, as the 9/11 Commission noted, Vigilant Guardian also "postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union". It was therefore a combined hijacking and WW3 exercise, and it contributed to the confusion among NORAD emergency response teams by using false radar signals for training exercises at the same time as "real" hijackings were taking place. Without this confusion there should have been a decent chance of shooting down the first plane heading towards NYC, and none of the three subsequent planes could have reached their intended targets at all. Because of Vigilant Guardian the intercept time of the fighter wings assigned to defend the eastern corridor increased from about 7 minutes before and after 9/11 to more than an hour in the case of Flight 77. Only within the narrow window provided by the Vigilant Guardian exercise could the 9/11 attacks have succeeded.
Why did they occur in precisely this window? Obviously they had to, or they couldn`t have succeeded, but was the US command structure infiltrated by al Qaida who used their positions inside the USA to arrange all these drills deliberately, was al Qaida tipped off by moles on the inside so they could arrange the attacks during the Vigilant Guardian window, or were they in fact simply controlled patsies set up to take the fall for a US/NATO false flag operation? It shouldn`t even be necessary to point out which of these alternatives is the most plausible.
Regardless, VG is the single most important exercise of 9/11 because it looks the most like the official fable about the hijackers, and is therefore the most likely medium for organizing this part of 9/11 through the "security" bureaucracy.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...ilant_guardian
2: Vigilant Warrior:
Mentioned by Richard Clarke in his memoirs as a second component of the ongoing NORAD exercise (Vigilant Guardian), possibly as the red team organizing the hijackings, real and fake. Details are hard to find and VW 01 is classified.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...gilant_warrior
3: Operation Northern Vigilance:
Billed as a counter drill to an ongoing Russian drill, NV redeployed fighter planes to Alaska and northern Canada, stripping EC (eastern corridor) fighter cover just in time for 9/11. NORAD has not disclosed how many planes it removed from the contiguous US in time for 9/11 under the cover of NV.
"NORAD shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to FOLs (Forward Operating Locations) in Alaska and northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean. NORAD is the eyes and ears of North America and it is our mission to ensure that our air sovereignty is maintained"
Cheyenne Mountain AFS, Colorado.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...hern_vigilance
4: Northern Guardian:
Thought to be associated with NV but outside of a few mentions in Canadian press not much is known. Possibly a twin exercise to NV to have one group of planes posing as the hostiles while the other played defense. Whatever the particulars this exercise seems to have been centered on Alaska and northern Canada as well.
http://www.911myths.com/html/operati..._guardian.html
Reference is from the detestable lie operation called 9/11 Myths, which like Wikipedia insists on calling the truth "myths", and the writer pretends not to understand that an exercise that moves planes to Iceland lowers response capabilities and is therefore relevant to 9/11. Intelligent people will have no problem understanding this point though.
5: National Reconnaissance Office Drill (NRO).
This drill simulated an airplane crashing into the NRO HQ in Virginia. As a consequence of this drill the NRO staff were evacuated from the building exactly when the 9/11 attacks occurred. This is the reason why the satelite surveillance of the attacks has not been made available. Allegedly there is none because of the NRO drill, and all space based surveillance was conveniently disabled in time for the 9/11 attacks.
AP reported: "Top US intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11 2001".
What an amazing coincidence...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...e-drill-_x.htm
6: Tripod II.
Biological warfare exercise conducted jointly between DoJ (Department of Justice, under the control of John Ashcroft, the man who lost an election to a dead guy) and the City of New York. Scheduled for 9/12 01 and officially never took place. Would have provided plausible cover for critical pre 9/11 activities in New York, such as rigging both towers and WTC 7 with explosives. Reported by Giuliani, the arch criminal, in his memoir "Leadership" (apparently the working title was "Treason" but was changed by the publisher). He stated that the "materials to be used in the drill" was stored at Pier 92, and that his command center was in WTC 7. As soon as WTC 7 was demolished Giuliani moved his treason command post (popularly known as the exercise command post or emergency management control center, but treason is more appropriate so I`ll stick with that) to Pier 92. Tripod II is the most glaringly obvious cover for the demolitions in NYC, the destruction of evidence following the attacks as well as the fake reporting afterwards to sell the official version. Technical, military, media, surveillance, detonations, police and firefighters could all have been, and probably were, controlled from Pier 92, under cover of Tripod II.
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.n...of-tripod.html
7: Amalgam Virgo:
Air defend against rogue state cruise missiles/hijackings. A probable cover for the attack on the Pentagon, which was originally billed as, and also looked like, a missile attack rather than a plane crash.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...91106132538231
8: Amalgam Warrior:
Large air defense drill and air intercept, tracking and surveillance. Possibly the red force for Amalgam Virgo, providing hijacked planes/missiles, real and false.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...malgam_warrior
I daresay most of the time its in our best interests though.
Armageddon exercise. Nuclear war drill directed toward the arctic and Russia, further depleting continental defenses in the USA. GG is likely to be the defensive component of Apollo Guardian, presumably poised to respond to a nuclear first strike (probably by Russia, but who knows with the Strangeloves in the Pentagon).
http://911review.org/brad.com/wargam...lGuardian.html
10: Crown Vigilance:
Air combat command exercise.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...rown_vigilance
11: Apollo Guardian:
Large scale live fly air defense and air intercept, tracking and surveillance drill. Nuclear strike simulation. Possibly a component of Global Guardian, or a parallel exercise or red team threatening nuclear attack within the exercise scripting. Hints to a possible nuclear blackmail/nuclear first strike option having been built into the 9/11 exercise complex. Possibly the most ominous of all the drills I have listed, but also less revealing since no nuclear first strike occurred. Nuclear blackmail may have though, and the Bush-Putin phone call has never had its content disclosed at all, but has largely disappeared from the MSM coverage (surprise surprise).
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...pollo_guardian
12: AWACS/Noble Eagle:
AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) drill over Washington DC and Florida.
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...item=a955awacs
AWACS planes may have been involved in all three alleged plane crashes. Reportedly AWACS can be fitted with remote control systems for taking over control of nearby planes. Wikipedia also states that Operation Noble Eagle went into effect on 9/11, and that it was somehow a success, despite the abject and total failure on every front by all involved on that day. Allegedly it involved using AWACS craft to "patrol and defend American Airspace". Cynics might consider this too little too late, but not Wikipedia... Whether Noble Eagle and the AWACS drill I just referenced were one and the same I haven`t been able to find out.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense...ww/usnato.page
Unpiloted passenger planes in use in the UK, being controlled remotely from the ground.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...g-dilemma.html
The first trans Pacific remotely flown UAV was tested in April 2001 and was controlled from a distance by an AWACS aircraft.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-01d.html
My purpose with the links is to demonstrate that AWACS can be, is being and has for years been used to remotely control other aircraft, and that a large AWACS drill (or two) taking place on 9/11 is therefore a highly suspicious circumstance. It is not to have a long, meaningless technical debate about these aircrafts or any beneficial uses they may have.
13: Firemen (Pentagon)
"Aircraft crash refresher course" for firefighters. Scheduled for the morning of 9/11 in yet another amazing coincidence.
http://911blogger.com/node/16128
14: Timely Alert:
Emergency response to bomb attacks.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...imely_alert_ii
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Many of these drills and exercises are annual "security", "intelligence" and "defense" events. What makes them suspicious with regard to 9/11 is firstly that the content of the 01 versions was apparently altered to closely resemble the attacks which actually occurred, or to sabotage air defense and surveillance, apparently on purpose. Secondly they were also all concentrated on and around this one date, which is atypical for annual drills, and indeed all drills, which tend to be separated in time to deal with isolated hypothesis and strategies. Pointing to the annual character of these drills therefore does nothing to counter the points I have raised.
These are the most relevant drills taking place on 9/11 itself, but there are others, depending on what you consider relevant. And if you include earlier exercises leading up to 9/11 there are almost 50 altogether, all dealing specifically with elements of the 9/11 attacks. A relatively exhaustive list by Webster Tarpley can be found here: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/2...bster-tarpley/ for those who are interested in all of them. For those who want to really dig into this all important aspect of 9/11 I recommend any of Mike Ruppert`s many books, such as Crossing the Rubicon, or Webster Tarpley`s book 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA.
The obvious political point to make with all these conspicuous drills is to ask the hard questions we need to: If the official story is true, why were there all these drills more or less exactly like the actual attacks going on during the attacks, and/or which sabotaged regular, procedural emergency responses? How could the confused and disorganized boxcutter-wielding morons of the official version have known about all these drills in order to time their attacks accordingly? Why would the US government and national "security" state be so deliberately incompetent as to strip its own response capabilities and confuse emergency response personnel by concentrating so many drills on one day? Who did organize all this to coincide with the 9/11 attacks? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? General Myers? Rudolph Giuliani? John Ashcroft? George Bush 41 and 43? Benjamin Netanyahu? Richard Perle? General Schumacher? Richard Clarke? Condolezza Rice? Or was it possibly all of the above and more? Either way we need to know.
I apologize if people already knew this stuff, but I couldn`t find anything about the drills on the forum and thought I`d go over it again. Politically this is some of the most damning evidence available against the official myth of al Qaida and 9/11, which is why I think it`s being avoided like the plague by our debunker friends. Let`s shove it right back in their faces where it belongs! The only possible response from the naysayers is either denial or to try and sell this as some form of a massive coincidence. In both cases they have lost before the debate starts, and they know it. That`s why there are no debates about drills on these forums. The reality is that so many drills would NEVER have been arranged on the same day for reasons of security and defense integrity, and no other day in US history has such an amazing concentration of drills. When faced with this incredibly suspicious stuff, what does it even matter what fire does to steel, or whether there were planes or not? 9/11 was an inside job either way, and the drills prove it.
The very real political consequence of exposing the drills, as opposed to other aspects of 9/11, is that public awareness of them means that it will be close to impossible for the US government in particular, and NATO governments in general, to comfortably stage such an elaborate false flag again. They will be too scared to get caught again like they were on 9/11, and as a consequence they are restricted to small actions where the amount and size of the accompanying drills can be kept small enough to escape notice. In a very real way therefore we can save the public from really huge false flag events for a generation by focusing on the 9/11 drills, because they would be nearly impossible to conduit through the bureaucracy without multiple drills and exercises to camouflage them.
why do you exist? why do you post such shit? to make muslims feel exonerated? what is the point of your drivel?
you need help.
No questions. Just tell us what YOU think happened.