Pearl Harbor was an inside job

Quad4_72

AI-EE-YAH!
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
6,354
Pearl Harbor is one of the most overlooked events in history. Everyone is so quick to accept the official story but they fail to see what actually happened. Japan did not bomb Pearl harbor. There was no attack, it was all orchestrated in one of the most elaborate conspiracies known to man. There are mounds of evidence to back this up as well. If you just use common sense and look at the facts you will see that there is no denying that the government murdered 2400 Americans. We must ask questions and expose the government. After reviewing this evidence, there is no denying that Pearl Harbor was an inside job.

On December 6th, FDR makes a final appeal to the emperor of Japan for peace. The appeal was never responded to by Japan. Why is that you ask? Well, rumor has it that FDR never even made the appeal. He simply lied to the American people to cover his tracks.

The next morning at approximately 9am a Japanese message is decoded saying that they are breaking off diplomatic relations with the US. Of course the message was not recieved in Oahu until 4 hours after the "attacks" had started. Once again, it is quite a coincidence that they did not make up for the time difference and "forgot" to warn the navy about the attacks.

"At 7:02 a.m., two Army operators at Oahu's northern shore radar station detect the Japanese air attack approaching and contact a junior officer who disregards their reports, thinking they are American B-17 planes which are expected in from the U.S. west coast." Coincidence? Nope. There were no japanese attack bombers. The junior officer knew exactly what was coming in. The bombers were disguised as Japanese, but in reality American bombers.

Pearl Harbor was not in a state of high alert that morning. "Senior commanders have concluded, based on available intelligence, there is no reason to believe an attack is imminent" Of course there was no reason to believe an attack was imminent. Japan never wanted to attack the US.

While there was substantial damage done that day, it seems a bit coincindental that our 3 pacific carriers were not in port that day. They were moved to another location. Why were these carriers moved? It is said that we needed those carriers to win the war so the government did not want them to get damaged in the planned attacks.

During the "attacks", 8 battleships are damaged and 5 are sunk. But how did small bombs take down massive battleships? Battleships were designed to take damage from bombs, but yet the still sunk? The reason is explosives were pre-planted to detonate at the exact time the bombers would swoop in. Just take a look at this picture:
pearl.jpg

You can see the upward explosion which is not consistent with a bomb being dropped. Physics simply does not allow this much of a fireball to be projected upward. Only a pre-planted explosive could make such a blast.

ariz.jpg

This is the USS Arizona succombing to its wounds. Observe the black smoke being produced. Black smoke in that form can only happen under certain conditions. Explosives have been know to produce large amounts of black smoke when combined with water and fuel.

g474789.jpg

Notice the billowing smoke clouds. How in the world could only a few bombs dropped from planes produce that much smoke? The government will tell you that the smoke is from fires caused by the bombs. But experts have proven that bombs dropped from planes are not capable of that. It would have to have been done from the ground.

This next video provides PROOF that pre-planted explosives were used.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8809686923720113683&q=pearl+harbor&hl=en
Look at the strategic locations that the smoke and fires are coming from. There is no way that a pilot could hit with that much accuracy. Its just not possible. The trajectory is all wrong. No this kind of damage would have to have been pre-planned. Many experts have already looked into it.

"News of the attack was heavily censored. No accurate casualty figures or number of ships sunk were released to the press. Although Fox Movietone cameraman Al Brick was in Pearl Harbor and made some film of the attack, his images were not seen by the public until the January 1943 release of the Movietone newsreel Pearl Harbor - Now It Can Be Shown. John Ford's re-creation of the attack, December 7, a large dose of Hollywood mixed with small amounts of real newsreel footage, was not released until 1943 when it won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Film."
Why was the government so quick to censor the attacks? Why was Mr. Brick's footage not released until some time after the attacks? Rumor has it that his footage was confiscated by the government and altered so as not to show any evidence of pre-planned detonations going off. The government was quick to clean up Pearl harbor. Why? They removed all of the evidence from the crime scene so that no one would have a chance to inspect it.

A general and an admiral were forced to resign after the attacks. Could this be because they had knowledge of the pre-planned explosives and were going to expose it? Experts think so.

The government has fooled us all. They have murdered Americans and deceived us into believing that Japan attacked us in order to drag us into a war that nobody wanted. FDR wanted to be a war president, and he got his wish.
 
Are you kidding? I didn't know Pre WW-II Japan was apart of the US gov't.

Bombs dropped on ships carrying more bombs would indeed cause the smoke seen.

There was no doubt an attack by Japan
 
Yes they would cause smoke but not the amount and color that is seen. It would have to have been done by pre-planted explosives. The type of munition used in the jets back then did not produce massive amounts of smoke, as seen in Pearl Harbor.
 
Yes they would cause smoke but not the amount and color that is seen. It would have to have been done by pre-planted explosives. The type of munition used in the jets back then did not produce massive amounts of smoke, as seen in Pearl Harbor.
Are you saying that Naval Ships had explosives on them? Who would have guessed?!:eek: I thought military was suppossed to have explosives on Navy ships.

They didn't have jets back than. The Germans were the first but not until 1944. Neither the US or Japan had Jets in military service until well after WWII was over.
 
So I guess you assume that the invasions in Hong Kong, the Phillipines, Shanghai, Thailand (done at the same time as the Pearl Harbour attack) were perpretrated by mock Japanese soldiers.
 
Not just any explosives were on those ships, but dynamite. And you know what I mean by jets.
 
of the 5 ships sunk werent 3 salvaged and recomissioned?

pretty convenient doncha think?
 
ha. ha. kind of like the 'trains did it' theory for 9/11 (numerous firemen said they heard what sounded like 'freight trains' ) but not as funny. this farce could possibly work but it needs lots more work.

or, you could be serious - but then you would be an incredible, stupendous, record breaking moron.
 
VERY convenient. I was going to hit on that. They were only damaged enough to make it look like we were attacked.
 
ha. ha. kind of like the 'trains did it' theory for 9/11 (numerous firemen said they heard what sounded like 'freight trains' ) but not as funny. this farce could possibly work but it needs lots more work.

or, you could be serious - but then you would be an incredible, stupendous, record breaking moron.

Yeah I was gonna go on like I actually believed this and try to rile a few people up but you guys are too smart for that. (Besides fircoins...haha just kiddin.)
I am mainly trying to point out that anything can be made to look like a conspiracy if you use CT tactics
 
I can't tell if this is a complete woo-woo job or a satire of 28th Kingdom and other truthers who've showed up in force over the last few weeks. If it's the latter, it's not bad.

The baseless innuendo is there. Check.

The appeal to the authority of "experts" that are not named and whose "studies" are not explained, while simultaneously appealing to "common sense and logic" are there. Check.

The willy-nilly interpretations of photos are there. Check.

And the pathological cynicism is there. Check.

Bravo!
 
Last edited:
Oh dear where to start

Okay carriers. One was being refit in San Fancisico. One was on a resupply mission to Truck island. One was returning from a resupply mission. There had not been a carrier at Pearl for three days.

Little bombs and big battleships - 800 pound bombs dropped from 10,000 feet are going to hurt.

I am sure the survivors of the Prince Of Wales and Repulse would be please to know they should not have sunk

The survivors of the raid on Taranto would be of a similar from of mind

And those who drown on the Turptiz

or the Yamato........... The list goes on

The fires - okay, get yourself a bucket of bunker oil and set fire to it. Pay special attention to the colour of the smoke.

If the Flight of B17's were disguised as Japanese bombers, why did they still actually land during the attack. Hence the famous line from Tora Tora Tora. "What a way to get into the war. No fuel no ammo, no hope"
 
work it up a little better and try it at the Loose Change forum - plenty air heads there!
 
So I guess you assume that the invasions in Hong Kong, the Phillipines, Shanghai, Thailand (done at the same time as the Pearl Harbour attack) were perpretrated by mock Japanese soldiers.

First let's not over analyze the entire war; we are speaking of one incident here. If we don't stick to this one incident we will get hopelessly sidetracked.

I can back up what the OP is saying about bombs. I have personally seen bombs, I haven't actually seen them go off but I have seen them. Applying my common sense it does not appear to me that a little bomb could cause a ship to catch fire and then sink into its own footprint.

Also there are photos and films taken during the attack. Who would go outside with a camera during an air raid like that? Again open your mind and apply some common sense to the situation.

Also there was no legitimate military target at Hiroshima; if the government lied about that they probably lied about the entire war.
 
And Quad I am glad you put your hand up, that this was a wind up, I was 50/50 about posting...... I'm not sure I am glad or sorry I replied.

As they like to say........ ya owned me :shocked:
 
Also there was no legitimate military target at Hiroshima; if the government lied about that they probably lied about the entire war.

I will hold my tongue on that till I see where this goes lol.... Ya know, once bitten, twice shy
 
Haha. Yeah I really made the theory up in like 20 minutes. I was going to put a lot more effort into it but I got sidetracked and just posted what I had. And I was gonna put on an act and all but too many people in here already know me. Plus I thought I would spare people even more frustration then they already have to go through with the 9/11 CTs. But like I said, I just wanted to make the point that any event can be turned into a CT.
 
Seriously guys, this is so obviously a piss-take. Sharpen up. ;)

-Gumboot
 
Haha. Yeah I really made the theory up in like 20 minutes. I was going to put a lot more effort into it but I got sidetracked and just posted what I had. And I was gonna put on an act and all but too many people in here already know me. Plus I thought I would spare people even more frustration then they already have to go through with the 9/11 CTs. But like I said, I just wanted to make the point that any event can be turned into a CT.
I was onto you from the getgo, Quad, but you deftly made your points using the time-tested methodology of satire. Well done! ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom