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.

 

911, the importance of self-questionning and individual instinct

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: XP100

#3 has also me heavily in a permanent confused state.

When they finally release the footage of the Pentagon, I couldn't resist but think if the US government really wanted transparency over public distrust, they would have gone as far as giving all camera angles in order to prove it wasn't a conspiracy. To shut down all the 'conspiracy theorists nuts' out there claiming guilty for their own country. To prove a plane actually hit the building.

But none of that. Only a couple of frames were release which proves absolutely nothing in the end.




posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: St0rD
they would have gone as far as giving all camera angles in order to prove it wasn't a conspiracy.


Exactly what camera angles are you talking about? What makes you think a vcr was on every camera?


To prove a plane actually hit the building.


How do you explain the 757 engine found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 wheels and undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 seats found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the passenger effects from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the passenger body parts and DNA from all passengers and crew from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: St0rD

My instinct tells me that the government (any government) lies. Always.


and certain people, on certain websites (like, say, this one), promote and persist with the re-telling of those lies.

over, and over, and over again like a broken record. the agenda posse. the stooges.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: St0rD

There is a gas station nearby to Pentagon whose surveillance cam would have given a perfect wide shot of the side of the building. Why can't we see that? If the crime already occurred, what is the Nat Sec risk in us seeing it? We were shown the aftermath? If it would be too graphic, how come we can watch 7 different angles of WTC impact, and people jumping out of the building?

I have watched those frames they published. I just don't see an airplane. And that hole in the wall. A cruise missile maybe, but not a jetliner...



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4



over, and over, and over again like a broken record. the agenda posse. the stooges.

Hilers henchmen told lies over and over until the populace believed them.
Maybe that's what the conspiracy movement is trying to do.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: St0rD

When I look at this footage



there is only one thing that's crossing my mind and it is MAJOR WTF.
I just can't grasp the idea of an office fire bringing a whole building down in this perfect way. Even planified demolitions don't always go as wonderfully as WTC 7. To think there was only fire...


The only thing I am going to comment on is your posted video.
IF you REALLY want TRUTH, don't look for it with people who have an agenda.

Every single clip of the collapse in your video, all 17 of them, were edited because someone had an agenda.
Not one single clip showed the TRUE collapse. WHY??

I have posted videos and analysis of the WHOLE collapse in other threads, if you are curious. But unfortunately it usually gets ignored because it doesn't fit an agenda.

I will not get into the OS or truther debate. Every thread I have read and or participated in follows the same course. No body listens to anybody. Everyone comes in with unaltering, self fulfilling pre conceived ideas.

All I suggest is looking beyond agenda driven propaganda, like that video, do your own research.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You'll never change the minds of people who have accepted the official investigation. It's like beating a dead horse. The same thing can be said about those that believe the 9/11 investigation was a conspiracy.

However, for an attack on American soil that claimed almost three thousand civilian lives, you would think our government would be more transparent and more forthcoming about their internal investigation into the attack of 9/11. They've created this conspiracy by not allowing an external investigation and denying access to documents and evidence. They've refused to release and return security camera footage which was confiscated from the surrounding businesses located near the Pentagon. In addition, they refused to release confidential documents surrounding the 9/11 attacks. In addition, presence of Thermitic material was was found in the rubble. It was scientifically examined in a laboratory, yet officials have refused to acknowledge such materials.

Even if you ignore the improbability of building 7 collapsing in the same exact way as both Trade Towers, there is still a load of evidence that is being questioned and denied to the American public and engineering professionals.

I would think the American public has every right to demand from their government an external investigation into 9/11. They deserve an unbiased and untainted investigation that does not present a conflict of interest. This was an attack on American citizens and they have every right to gain access to confidential evidence.

Ask yourself, why do they need to keep things confidential and deny access to the biggest attack against our country since Pear Harbor? Can you really put that much faith in your government or any government for that matter. Governments all over the world don't have a record of being honest with their citizens. What makes anyone think this is any different? So if an external investigation backs up the government's current OS, wouldn't that give people more faith in their government?

Some may argue another investigation will cost a lot of money, but considering the importance and how this has affected some constitutional rights of Americans since 9/11, I can't see of any other issue that is worth the expense. Our government has spent billions on foreign aid and issues that don't have a personal impact on the lives of every American citizen like 9/11.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: St0rD

The truth is clear.

The only thing feeding your denial is the idea of - 'How can anybody (especially a big group of people) be so ruthless? '

We in the US are somewhat fortunate to not be exposed too much to these elements of human nature (especially in our own government), but if you look back into history and look at the acts committed by particular groups/leaders and tyrants, this act pales in comparison.

Also, considering the ruthless acts that have been committed by past leaders and governments in the past hundreds of years that involved the killing of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more people, for gain - do not think this aspect of human nature, or these type of people, just go away or disappear. This aspect of human nature is well and alive.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: St0rD

Interesting thread OP.

My instinct on this, when it first happened was "they must have had inside help". I can recall sitting down having a conversation with one of my friends about it and we both concluded that they must have had inside help. In fact I can remember in 2005 harassing my friends and family to watch loose change when it first came out, I was essentially a truther.

Until i started to do some in depth research.

When i started to look at the facts the idea that they must have had help become very weak, I gradually came around to the official story for the most part.

The subject of instinct when it comes to WTC-7 is a bit of a sticking point though.

This video really sums it up very well.

You have seen a orange, you if somebody told you it was something else you would call them out on it. You have seen a contorted demolition, you know what it looks like and WTC-7, looked like a contorted demolition. As such many may say (call it intuition if you like) that it looked like a controlled demolition so it must have been a controlled demolition.

I Agree it looks like a controlled demolition.

that is why I spent months and months researching it in real depth, i even wrote a thread on it, and my conclusion was quite simple.

Despite looking like a contorted demolition, there was no actually proof of a controlled demolition.

Your instinct does not always agree with the facts, instinct can be very wrong sometimes.

So I would say to you don't take a view that



there is only one thing that's crossing my mind and it is MAJOR WTF.


But rather go and research it for yourself, properly, using the right sources with a open mind and no MAJOR WTF in the back of your mind.
edit on 19-1-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
That silly claim shows you have done research at all, why do you ignore the severe damage done due to the collapse of WTC 1?

Let's talk about silly claims. Like the claim that there was severe damage done to WTC 7 due to the collapse of WTC 1. You've been shown over and over that the debris from WTC 1 had no bearing on the collapse of WTC 7. It's documented in the NIST report, yet you still keep claiming otherwise, hoping that nobody will catch the false claim. Why is that?

From the NIST Report:

"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."


NIST also stated that even without the minimal structural damage cause by falling debris from WTC 1, WTC 7 still would have collapsed. From NIST's FAQ's:

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.


So please, for the last time, stop claiming that the debris from WTC 1 had any structural influence on the collapse of WTC 7. It's false, dishonest, inaccurate, and incorrect.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Don't mean to offend but there is only one thing I perceive with people like you and it is

Blablablablablablablablabla.

No matter what I will say to you, there won't be any opening in this mind of yours. You will always stick to your argument A and B and never ever truly grasp the main idea of the OP or the main idea of a 9/11 conspiracy for that matter. You will bring the 'official facts' around every corner never realizing the precise goal of a conspiracy is to look beyond the veil.


Like I said, the Pentagon's security cameras should have easily captured at least one angle where we could see the boeing for what it is. That is, a plane. Not a freaking missile. And from the footage they provided to us, I'm afraid it's the latter that comes out of it.

At least this is what my guts tells me. I feel there is something immensely wrong in this story. Something's not right.
I can be wrong ofc, but what about your guts man? All you are doing since the start of this thread is calling me silly and bringing all your officials claims. Just answer the question already.

When you look at the footage I provided in the OP, can you say 100% clear it doesn't look like something else the OS have told us? 100% real-life circumstances accurate?


edit on 19-1-2015 by St0rD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: St0rD

I don't know if you have had a chance yet OP to read my reply to your OP but what you have written above is part of what i was trying to get at when i say that your instinct can be wrong and that rather than relaying on instinct you should do your own research, when you say this:



the Pentagon's security cameras should have easily captured at least one angle where we could see the boeing for what it is. That is, a plane. Not a freaking missile


And then go on to say:



At least this is what my guts tells me. I feel there is something immensely wrong in this story. Something's not right. I can be wrong ofc, but what about your guts man?


It sounds like you are basing your views on 9/11 on your gut feelings rather than what the evidence shows because if you had done your research you would know that really out of the 85 CCTV recordings the FBI had access to only one actually did show the moment of impact (there is a second that I believe comes form a Gas station which they also released it appears to show the tail fin of a plan). So if you can accept that there is actually only one video that actually shows the exact moment of impact of a plane travelling at high speeds then you can understand why they are not going to be able to provide a clear video of the impact. Then if you start to look at all the other evidence that shows a plan crashed, such as eye whiteness testamentary, the fact that Flight 77 was a actual flight and that real people were killed in the crash, then look at all the evidence of a plane crash such as wreckage at the seen the damaged lamp posts and so on you star to see a picture building up of evidence all saying "it was a plane".

Sure you look at those few few frames from the CCTV footage and your gut will say that looks like a missile, so it must be a missile, just like your gut says WTC-7 looked like controlled demolition so your gut says it must have been a controlled demolition. However when you actually take the time to look at the evidence, the real evidence and critically appraise it you really do start to see that what your gut or instinct might have told you initially might not actually be what happened.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Do your research, don't just go with your gut because the facts don't always agree with it.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01 Those 2200.....compared to the ten of thousands of their colleagues who disagree? Less than one percent of the folks in the field ascribe to the A/E911 truth bs.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_ And you have been shown time and again that the FDNY reported massive damage to 7 and that they had a belief early on that it was going to fall. And, you've been told time and again that NIST guessed about 7's collapse. So, if I have a FDNY chief who stood at the base of the building, looked at the massive damage and decide that the building is going to fall..I am going to take him at his word over a bunch of engineers who were not there and could not see the massive damage, when they say they don't think the damage had anything to do with it.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: XP100. The gas station video was released long ago. And, it showed the GAS STATION. Where did you get the idea that a security camera at a business is going to be pointed, not at the business but at the office building across the highway???



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yes I read both of your post and am going to say it is an honest response.

Now, when you say you thought at first it might be a controlled demolition which lead you to make a lot of research on the whole 9/11 conspiracy and then finally decided to stick towards the offical story, I don't know, I just don't understand.
If you really have done that much research mate, how could you have missed all the strange coincidences, unclarified circumstances, unanswered questions, etc etc, that is left out there. Questions that may never find its appropriate answers.
I don't feel like the government is being transparent on this whole tragedy and I'm not the only one getting this vibe. So, what should I do? Trust my own instinct, or some official statements coming from the same people that lie to me everyday?




Your instinct does not always agree with the facts, instinct can be very wrong sometimes.


That is very true.
But you know the contrary also is...




t sounds like you are basing your views on 9/11 on your gut feelings rather than what the evidence shows because if you had done your research.....


I understand what you are trying to say. I have done my research, maybe not enough to form a solid unbeatable opinion, but just enough to realize the real truth behind September 11 will not be brought to light under first hand information. I'm taking into consideration the official and conspiracy informations at the same time. Why am I saying this?

Have you ever seen any tragedy of this magnitude being all unmasked on first day? Strangely, on 9/11, we had all the informations available to us in order to convince the population to start a new long lasting war. Blame it all on the middle east. I don't buy into that, sorry. You don't resolve any problem on this planet with war and murder, I'd have thought we had realized this already.
Look at where we are 13 years later. Do we have a better world yet?




... you would know that really out of the 85 CCTV recordings the FBI had access to only one actually did show the moment of impact (there is a second that I believe comes form a Gas station which they also released it appears to show the tail fin of a plan).


Do you really ask me to believe the FBI had only access to ONE camera showing the exact moment of impact?
Out of all the 85 cameras, only one showed a good point of view, right.
Seriously man, that's just too much for my own innocence. And why would I trust the FBI anyway?
It's almost like you are saying those organizations are to be trusted fully and that they did nothing in the past that could put their honesty on the line. It looks like to me you are saying: ''Hey Stord, I understand your doubts but heh, do some research and then you will realize the FBI said A, the government said A, and some other official figures also said A, so that must be the answer. No need to worry there.''

Quite honesty, I've seen footage of very small missiles going at incredible speed and could still see it clearly while going frame per frame. However, when I look at the Pentagon footage, all I see is ... well I don't see much. I certainly don't see an ~70m long plane. And to think of the hardcore pro maneuver needed in order to hit the building... wow.




Then if you start to look at all the other evidence that shows a plan crashed, such as eye whiteness testamentary, the fact that Flight 77 was a actual flight and that real people were killed in the crash, then look at all the evidence of a plane crash such as wreckage at the seen the damaged lamp posts and so on you star to see a picture building up of evidence all saying "it was a plane"


That's right. This is the kind of claimed informations that prevent me from being absolutely certain about anything on 9/11. What about you. Are you certain it wasn't more than the OS claim it to be?




However when you actually take the time to look at the evidence, the real evidence and critically appraise it you really do start to see that what your gut or instinct might have told you initially might not actually be what happened.


Fair enough.
But is that it? We let it slide and move on. Nothing else to see?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: XP100
a reply to: St0rD

There is a gas station nearby to Pentagon whose surveillance cam would have given a perfect wide shot of the side of the building.


Just why do you think a gas station surveillance camera would be pointed at another building? It is to watch the gas station, not another building....


Why can't we see that?


Have you even bothered to look? It has been available since at least 2006....




If the crime already occurred, what is the Nat Sec risk in us seeing it? We were shown the aftermath? If it would be too graphic,


funny how you think there is a conspiracy, yet you never even bothered to do a search for the video, that has been available for about 9 years....


A cruise missile maybe, but not a jetliner...


Look at the damage to the Pentagon, it matches a 757....

If it was a cruise missile, how do you explain the:
How do you explain the 757 engine found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 wheels and undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the 757 seats found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the passenger effects from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon?
How do you explain the passenger body parts and DNA from all passengers and crew from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon?

Or do you just ignore them as it destroys your silly "cruise missile" conspiracy theory!
edit on 19-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: St0rD

Again I am going to take your points one at a time.



If you really have done that much research mate, how could you have missed all the strange coincidences, unclarified circumstances, unanswered questions, etc etc, that is left out there. Questions that may never find its appropriate answers.


I have not missed the strange coincidences I just recognise that coincidences happen and what some 9/11 conspiracy theorists call a coincidence is not actually a coincidence. For example saying "hmmm isn't it a strange coincidence that Bin Laden was CIA?...." when actually he was never CIA and as such there is no coincidence to be found.

I am not to what "unclarified circumstances" you are talking about, if you could elaborate i will try to provide a response.

As for unanswered questions, there are still a few, most of them relate to intelligence balls up's and as with anything pertaining to the intelligence world, some of these questions may never be fully answered. If you mean unanswered like "why did the WTC-7 collapse?" then the truth is that the question has already been answered satisfactory with the backing of the international scientific community its just that 9/11 conspiracy theories either don't like the explanation, ignore it or think that 2200 guys from A&E for 9/11 truth have all the answered. This despite the fact that A&E for 9/11 truth counts students, maritime engineers, IT engineers and a whore range of other disciplines that have nothing to do with building collapse (and scrounge for money).



''Hey Stord, I understand your doubts but heh, do some research and then you will realize the FBI said A, the government said A, and some other official figures also said A, so that must be the answer. No need to worry there.''


That is not what I am saying, I am saying that you should do your own research rather than saying "my gut says that was a missile so therefore it was a missile that hit the pentagon" because that is how you are coming across in this thread.



Quite honesty, I've seen footage of very small missiles going at incredible speed and could still see it clearly while going frame per frame. However, when I look at the Pentagon footage, all I see is ... well I don't see much


And yet again this is the fundamental problem with your whole approach to this thread, just because you saw 3 or 4 frames, which even i can admit that on first inspection do not prove a plane hit the pentagon, does not therefore mean it was a missile. Do your research on flight 77 don't just dismiss the whole thing and the fate of all those killed on board as being a conspiracy because you think it looks like a missile so it must have been a missile, even though there is zero proof to support this hypothesis.



I certainly don't see an ~70m long plane. And to think of the hardcore pro maneuver needed in order to hit the building... wow.


Well i think it is more like 50m long and any piolet will tell you that it is easy to crash a plane the skill is in keeping the thing in the air.



What about you. Are you certain it wasn't more than the OS claim it to be?


Nope,

Actually let me take that a step further I am almost certain that there is one key aspect of the OS that we have been lied to and that is the involvement of the Saudi state, I am actually working on a pretty huge thread on that topic right now.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Interesting post on the 9/11 perspective.

I heard a quote once about intuition it went something like this,
"Trust your intuition, it is based on facts your subconscious mind has pieced together, but your conscious mind has not, yet"


Once the intuition is flowing, it will continue easily, unless it is blocked. The most usual blockages are because of the conscious mind's judgments of the intuitive information. The best way to avoid this is to get the cooperation of the conscious mind so it will step aside and become the observer when intuition is being accessed.


Some people are very good at this, especially some women.

As to 9/11 my personal intuitions says the OT is a lie, but ALL the CT theories can't be right either.
That said, my intuition on WTC7 is clear, that building did not come down, in the manner it did ONLY from damage it received from the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 plus some fire. This leads my intuition is to say somebody knew this was coming.
My intuition also says there may well have been hijackers aboard those planes, but they weren't flying them.


This aired in the spring of 2001, maybe it gave somebody an idea.
edit on 1-2-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: St0rD

The truth is clear.

The only thing feeding your denial is the idea of - 'How can anybody (especially a big group of people) be so ruthless? '

We in the US are somewhat fortunate to not be exposed too much to these elements of human nature (especially in our own government), but if you look back into history and look at the acts committed by particular groups/leaders and tyrants, this act pales in comparison.

Also, considering the ruthless acts that have been committed by past leaders and governments in the past hundreds of years that involved the killing of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more people, for gain - do not think this aspect of human nature, or these type of people, just go away or disappear. This aspect of human nature is well and alive.


I've never understood why people suggest 'debunkers' can't believe that people could be so ruthless and venal. The OS itself requires a group of people to have been utterly ruthless and venal. Quite obviously!



new topics




 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join