It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 28
64
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Osama Bin Laden we knew. All of his minions, we did not know until it was too late. That has always been clear.




posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Right, because we all know that VMo means "Don't go past this, or your airplane will instantly fall apart".


Don't know about you, but for me Vmo does NOT mean what you claim it means.

Vmo + 100knots? That is a very different situation, but Mr. Stutt and Legge (check spelling) say that was the speed of the mythical Flight 77 as it crossed the yard under the perfect control of Mr. Hanjour. LOL



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander



Do you suppose that Airbus was almost 100 knots over Vmo as the mythical 77 was?

Even if the plane was only at the speed shown in this video do you think the walls of any building would withstand the impact?



Depends completely on the construction of the building, wouldn't you say?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And? So Flight 77 was going above vmo by 100 knots....according to your experts.... What is your point?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The FBI, did not even finalize the list of suspects until the end of the month. So much for your belief that nothing "new" was done.



I don't think that is an accurate statement. I can remember that for me, one of the early wonders was how they knew who did it so quickly. Of course the miraculous find of the passport and ID papers for one just made it a bit more difficult to believe the story.

That the original flight manifests did not include the mythical hijackers made it even more funny. LOL



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

CBS News, November 2, 2001

"The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday.

Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered.

"We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. "We have been successful in working with our foreign counterparts in identifying places where the conspiracy we believe was hatched as well as others who may have been involved in the conspiracy."


www.cbsnews.com...

AND, you are once again believing a truther fantasy. The original flight manifests included every hijacker. YOU are relying on a CNN story that showed the lists of victims.


edit on 26-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander
fixing links
edit on 26-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)


Below, are copies of the flight manifests from that day. You will note, that ever last hijacker is on them. The confusion that arose, came over patronymics of Middle Eastern names.

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...


www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...


www.911myths.com...
edit on 26-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

Depends completely on the construction of the building, wouldn't you say?



If you believe this, then you must also believe that comparing the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires and the non collapse of the Madrid building has no merit.

But I'd be willing to bet that if I dig through your postings, I'd find a post from you where you exclaim to the heavens about "how buildings don't collapse due to fire, just look at this bulding in Madrid."

Right?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

................which would be erroneous on his part since the 17 floors of the Madrid Tower that had a truss set up similar to the Towers.....collapsed from fire alone. No damage, no screaming airliners slamming into it.....just fire.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Never forget



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Nonchalant

Truth, I am with you. No matter how many of these debunkers say otherwise, no matter how many words they type, no matter how much government propaganda they link, I am convinced of a cover up.

We deserve and, in fact, are owed the truth. Clearly we have gotten a poorly orchestrated stream of lies from our government. Just like "weapons of mass destruction", and "no one in our government envisioned flying planes into buildings", all of these lies will be exposed. We will not stop until they are.

[SNIP]
edit on 12/27/2014 by tothetenthpower because: Mod edit--Snipped.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Actually, I am on break until 7:15am. See you then.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Two Friends are on their way home from the latest Richard Gage Liefest, when their vehicle is in an accident and they both die of their injuries.

They find themselves in front of St Peter, who says that prior to their entrance to Heaven he will answer any question they have.

The friends look at each other and then ask, "Please, tell us who was actually behind the attacks on 9/11/01?'

St. Peter looks down at them and says, "My sons, Osama Bin Laden"

One friend looks at the other and says, "Did you ever think the cover up went THIS high???????"



You ask for another investigation, you ask for the truth....and yet, you will NEVER accept either....because you are hard wired to not accept reality.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
*****ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*****

We would like to remind you that we expect civility and decorum in all forums, topics, and discussions. Continuing to post in a manner not in accordance with the T&C's can and will result in post removals and/or posting bans. Please continue your discussions with an eye on the topic and not your fellow members. Please also remember to stay on topic and cease any and all attempts to derail the thread/discussion before you.

Thank you.

You Are Responsible For Your Own posts.

We Expect Civility & Decorum In All Topics.

*** Do Not Reply To This Post ***



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
Two Friends are on their way home from the latest Richard Gage Liefest, when their vehicle is in an accident and they both die of their injuries.

They find themselves in front of St Peter, who says that prior to their entrance to Heaven he will answer any question they have.

The friends look at each other and then ask, "Please, tell us who was actually behind the attacks on 9/11/01?'

St. Peter looks down at them and says, "My sons, Osama Bin Laden"

One friend looks at the other and says, "Did you ever think the cover up went THIS high???????"



You ask for another investigation, you ask for the truth....and yet, you will NEVER accept either....because you are hard wired to not accept reality.



This is NOT a joking matter. Thousands of people died, and we have never been told the truth. The evidence is there, buried beneath the official crap.

Let's put aside the evidence that we can debate endlessly (28 pages so far) without ever agreeing. Let's focus on a couple of the known lies, which are only the top of the iceberg.

Lie number 1. "No one is this administration, or in the previous one, could have imagined flying planes into buildings." We know know that this scenario was both acknowledged and considered by multiple government agencies. Lie.
Lie numbers 2. "Weapons of mass destruction". Yeah, thst was another lie which was begat by 9/11.

Those closest to the investigation, the 9/11 Commisioners, have been very vocal about this cover up.
1. Kean and Thompson said it was a White House cover up.
2. Senator Kerry calls for a full impartial investigation and agree that this whole affair was a cover up.
3. Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "we are extremely frustrated by the false statements thst we are getting".
4. Commissioner Max Cleland resigned stating, "it is a national scandal"; "this investigation has been compromised", and "One of these days we will get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."
5. John Farmer, the senior counsel of the comission said "at some level of the government, at some point in time....there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked how different the truth is from what is described.....the tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and thr public for two years.

Who are we to believe? Those closest to the investigation AND our own eyes, or Cardsfan? I will go with the former.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

edit on 27-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

"
Those closest to the investigation, the 9/11 Commisioners, have been very vocal about this cover up.
1. Kean and Thompson said it was a White House cover up.
2. Senator Kerry calls for a full impartial investigation and agree that this whole affair was a cover up.
3. Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "we are extremely frustrated by the false statements thst we are getting".
4. Commissioner Max Cleland resigned stating, "it is a national scandal"; "this investigation has been compromised", and "One of these days we will get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."
5. John Farmer, the senior counsel of the comission said "at some level of the government, at some point in time....there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked how different the truth is from what is described.....the tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and thr public for two years."

Below is a transcript of the Mike Malloy radio show, on which Mr. Farmer was interviewed.


911reports.wordpress.com...

The five statements you listed, were indeed made. However, when you research things, you find that those statements are in reference to the story given to the public that our government's response was well-oiled and responsive that day.....which was indeed the testimony given by many individuals in the first days of the 9/11 Commission... And that when the Commission actually started getting into the tapes and records, they found that the response was confused, disorganized and not at all "well-oiled" . They found that there was confusion on who could issue orders, what level of authority was needed, and how our communications systems were so bad that there were literally times where the President of the United States, flying aboard Air Force One, and the battle staff officer flying aboard the Airborne Command Post were out of contact.

Not once, did those statement change the reality that it was Al Qaeda that attacked us that day.


Some excerpts from the interview.....

John Farmer (JF) JF- Well, glad you point out that- my function with the 9/11 Commission was to lead a team to put together an account of the nation’s reaction to the attacks- in other words, reconstruct the events of the day of 9/11. And there are obviously many components to that, from what the President was doing, the Vice President, to what the Pentagon, was doing, what the firefighters and police in New York were doing, to what was happening virtually all over the country- so, very daunting task when you have basically a year and a half to put it together.

So, going into it, I really thought that the air defense side of that story would be the easiest part to put together, simply because the story had been told so many times, in so many different forums. There had been testimony before Congress, there had been major networks news specials dedicated strictly to the air defense story, there had even been early Commission hearings dedicated to that subject, so the story was out there, and it had been told numerous times, so I actually started writing an account of the day based strictly on the public sources, figuring, well, we’ll get all the primary sources and we can simply validate what’s already been told. But to my, uh, ‘disappointment’, to put it mildly, when we, uh, started getting access to the primary sources, which ultimately took a subpoena to the FAA and Department of Defense, we couldn’t verify the public account that had been given. And to summarize what that account was- it basically overstated the efficacy and the efficiency of the government’s response.

Specifically, what we had been told after 9/11 was that by the time of the 3rd flight- American 77, which ultimately hit the Pentagon- the national command structure had recovered from the shock of the two flights that hit the World Trade Center and had reestablished itself essentially, and had scrambled planes from Langley Air Force Base to protect the capital, and those planes narrowly missed intercepting American 77, but were certainly in position by the time United 93, uh, hijacking, and when that turned toward Washington they were certainly in position that they could’ve taken the plane out if they had to, uh, as it approached Washington.

And what we found happened in fact, when we went through the records and through the tapes and the different logs that were kept, they told a very consistent story, which was, in fact, the uh military had had basically a minute’s notice that American 77 was missing, with no location given, um, and they had actually no notice of United 93 until four minutes after the plane crashed, so they were never able to even locate that flight on radar. The planes were scrambled from Langley, but it was not in response to either of the last two flights, it was in response to a mistaken report that had come across the radio that the first flight, American 11, had actually not hit the Trade Center at all, but was still airborne, heading south for Washington. So, in other words, the, uh- and to just to finish the story, the authorization to intercept and potentially shoot down planes, came from, um, came from the national command structure, from the President and Vice President about thirty minutes after United 93 had already crashed- so, that particular authorization was never passed to the pilots, because at that point there was no target.

BF- Interesting, hold the thought there, John (break) John, you were speaking of, before the break about some of the things that you were told and the public was told and the Commission was told that were, quote, “almost entirely and inexplicably ‘untrue’”; you refer to the fact that, uh, the claim that they could have ‘taken out’ Flight 93 if they had wanted to, that they had within their sights, and so on and so forth- why would- why do you suspect some of these stories would have been told, that were so wildly inaccurate, as you describe them?

JF- I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look ‘better’ than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments, and I think in doing that, one of the unfortunate byproducts was that they obscured some of the really important lessons from that morning, among which are- you know, how critical decisions are actually made in a crit- in a cataclysmic situation like that, and the essential estrangement of the top levels from the people on the ground who actually had to improvise the national defense- was important,

Finally, what he says about the Report...

JF- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

So, if you are going to rest your arguments on that the 9/11 Commission said there was a cover up, then you have to accept their conclusions that it actually was Al Qaeda that attacked us that day.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
That is not true. One can note and discuss that members of the Commission concluded they were set up to fail and that they thought there was a cover-up by the White House, but that DOES NOT mean that one must also accept the conclusions of the Commission.

Indeed, it seems that if there was so much fraud and deception involved, it would be irrational to embrace the Commissions conclusions. WTF ever happened to logic?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Okay, let's get this straight...

You are making a deal over the Commission saying they were set up to fail, and yet, you are saying the Commission is wrong when they say that they succeeded in getting to the truth, despite the fact they were set up to fail.

Which is it, are they right or are they wrong? And, if you think they were wrong in their conclusions, then you must accept the idea that they could have been wrong in deciding they were set up to fail.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
That is not true. One can note and discuss that members of the Commission concluded they were set up to fail and that they thought there was a cover-up by the White House, but that DOES NOT mean that one must also accept the conclusions of the Commission.

Indeed, it seems that if there was so much fraud and deception involved, it would be irrational to embrace the Commissions conclusions. WTF ever happened to logic?


Excellent! Cardsfan continues to post half truths, or misleading statements. Way to call him out.

Cleland, who resigned his commission post in anger over the way the committee was directed by the White House, had a lot to say about 9/11 and the investigation. It was not based on a narrow set of parameters as Cardstalk stated.

Hey Cardsfsn, why do you suppose Bush and Chaney testified together, not under oath, in secrecy, and off-the-record? My guess is that it wasn't "national security at stake", that would have been to save their own butts.

Thousands of American's dead in the attack, leading to two costly, deadly, and unnecessary wars. Can you people please see what lies that you people are defending here?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

"Hey Cardsfsn, why do you suppose Bush and Chaney testified together, not under oath, in secrecy, and off-the-record? My guess is that it wasn't "national security at stake", that would have been to save their own butts. "


They did not have to talk to the Commission in the first place. A Congressionally chartered body, cannot subpoena the President or Vice President to testify, nor could they put them under Oath. It is a separation of powers issue....see we have this thing called the Constitution.


And, quite frankly with the idiots that serve as elected officials in this country, had something been done under Oath, there would have been Democrats chomping at the bit for SOMETHING to take "revenge" over Bill Clinton..... So we would have been treated to ANOTHER investigation, probably over Cheney issuing "Presidential Orders" without Bush knowing it, because they could not talk to the President on Air Force One at times.




top topics



 
64
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join