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.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 7
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

None of the theories presented by the government hold up either, but I do not see you questioning them.

I guess it is so-called "human nature" to pick a narrative and run with that, or as many classic debunkers do, accept certain lies and just add them to the "National Security", and darn they fooled us side to the story.

One of the most insane things that has ever happened, is that people who actually consider themselves rational and sane, have somehow made peace with these buildings completely and utterly smashing, OBLITERATING, MUSHROOM CLOUDING, ANNIHILATING and acting as if hit with 500 Bunker Busters and leaving nothing left.

It takes as many right turns, left turns in logic and theory as to believe the stories found in the Bible, and I think I know how this happened.

Nothing has advanced in humanity one iota.




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Mods...for some reason my edit got reposted...please remove first post...

Also...just curious...why did it take the truth movement to get the tapes...myself being one...and also...why did it take the truth movement to even get the government to acknowledge... There were exercises taking place...I can tell why...because we are the ones asking the questions....and the reason your here refuting(trying)...is because we are still asking the questions....my latest foia request...BBC payroll before and after wtc7 error



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: Zaphod58

I can only imagine how frustrating this may be for you. You clearly have a very solid background on airplanes and such, yet you've got 20 different people with little to no knowledge of airplanes trying to argue points who are so steadfast in their beliefs that they are actually blinded by fact and reason. I completely agree with everything you've said, and find it baffling how people can buy into this absurd theory which has absolutely ZERO factual basis. It's like these people want so badly to believe 9/11 was a false flag, they will instantly buy into any theory that sounds complicated and contains complex lingo. Many of the valid points you've brought up have been swiftly side-stepped and ignored by these people, and I feel for you how annoying that must be.

The fact that they are pulling up a video of an interview in the moments after the building collapse, and attempting to discredit the validity of the interview by arbitrarily concluding that the interviewee is an actor is truly absurd. There is absolutely no factual basis for this. Additionally, questioning the picture of the Shanksville impact site because it doesn't show what they think it should look like. Ironically, they fail to understand that they have no expertise or proper background to assess what an impact site should look like. There are so many examples of plane crashes where wreckage is buried and completely unidentifiable as having ever been a plane. Lastly, if they actually did the proper research, they would discover that building 7 was actually suffering from immense structural instability throughout the day, which eventually lead to its collapse. They are somehow baffled how debris from Tower 1 could have caused this, despite videos that clearly show buckling and instability of the building.

One question I have, which I may have missed because I did not read through the entire absurd theory, is what happened to all of the passengers in this plane-swap fiasco?
nobody is sweeping aside what zaphod is saying. He is probably the most qualified person here to comment on aircraft. I'm sorry that doesn't mean someone can't have a difference of opinion. As for the interview, if you are that blind that you can't see that for what it really is then that is your problem. As for the impact area? Are you an air crash investigator? If not, it makes me or anyone else just as qualified to comment on the crash site as you. If you could point me to photos and videos of buckling and instability of building seven that would be great. The fact of the matter is, the official theory of the attacks and collapse is just that. A theory. If there was concrete evidence it was nothing more we wouldn't still be debating it nearly 14 years on. Your government is as criminal and evasive now as it was then, and they get away with it because of people holding the sort of attitude you do.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: Zaphod58

I can only imagine how frustrating this may be for you. You clearly have a very solid background on airplanes and such, yet you've got 20 different people with little to no knowledge of airplanes trying to argue points who are so steadfast in their beliefs that they are actually blinded by fact and reason. I completely agree with everything you've said, and find it baffling how people can buy into this absurd theory which has absolutely ZERO factual basis. It's like these people want so badly to believe 9/11 was a false flag, they will instantly buy into any theory that sounds complicated and contains complex lingo. Many of the valid points you've brought up have been swiftly side-stepped and ignored by these people, and I feel for you how annoying that must be.

The fact that they are pulling up a video of an interview in the moments after the building collapse, and attempting to discredit the validity of the interview by arbitrarily concluding that the interviewee is an actor is truly absurd. There is absolutely no factual basis for this. Additionally, questioning the picture of the Shanksville impact site because it doesn't show what they think it should look like. Ironically, they fail to understand that they have no expertise or proper background to assess what an impact site should look like. There are so many examples of plane crashes where wreckage is buried and completely unidentifiable as having ever been a plane. Lastly, if they actually did the proper research, they would discover that building 7 was actually suffering from immense structural instability throughout the day, which eventually lead to its collapse. They are somehow baffled how debris from Tower 1 could have caused this, despite videos that clearly show buckling and instability of the building.

One question I have, which I may have missed because I did not read through the entire absurd theory, is what happened to all of the passengers in this plane-swap fiasco?
nobody is sweeping aside what zaphod is saying. He is probably the most qualified person here to comment on aircraft. I'm sorry that doesn't mean someone can't have a difference of opinion. As for the interview, if you are that blind that you can't see that for what it really is then that is your problem. As for the impact area? Are you an air crash investigator? If not, it makes me or anyone else just as qualified to comment on the crash site as you. If you could point me to photos and videos of buckling and instability of building seven that would be great. The fact of the matter is, the official theory of the attacks and collapse is just that. A theory. If there was concrete evidence it was nothing more we wouldn't still be debating it nearly 14 years on. Your government is as criminal and evasive now as it was then, and they get away with it because of people holding the sort of attitude you do.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: plube

I'm not saying there wasn't confusion, or that the exercises didn't cause a delay in the response, but the two most important links in the chain, the FAA notification, and the alert fighters, weren't affected by them.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

My beliefs, and my questioning is my choice. If I choose to question quieter than others that's my choice. I'm also not going to sit around and let a lot of wrong information be thrown around like it's 100% accurate and what happened.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Zaphods aircraft knowledge is great...but his interest in many conspiracy sites is even more interesting to me...like I said to warthog....always be aware of whom you are speaking...the point of this thread I believe is not directly about the aircraft...but more about the operation simulations taking place before...during..and after said incidents.



In an exclusive interview, I just finished speaking with key Boston Marathon eyewitness and running participant Alastair Stevenson, who has confirmed to me that drills were taking place the morning of the Boston Marathon complete with bomb squads and rooftop snipers.

Read more: www.storyleak.com...


source

Then there was sandyhook..where people were saying there was also a drill taking place...but the debunkers quickly got hold of it saying the document was faked.


The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) doctrine consists of fundamental principles that frame a common approach to exercises. Applying these principles to both the management of an exercise program and the execution of individual exercises is critical to the effective examination of capabilities.
Guided by elected and appointed officials
Capability-based, objective driven
Progressive planning approach
Whole community integration
Informed by risk
Common methodology
www.llis.dhs.gov...


Not going to direct to the website as it is a conspiracy website....but I want the link to be noted...
The last word in the department of homelands security site

Hseep....ummmm....sheep

How blatant is that....

London 7/7 bombing....interesting...terror drill taking place at the same time as the bombings occurred....



Police completed a terror training exercise which envisaged an attack on London's transport network just days before the 7/7 atrocity, an inquest heard today.
During the 'table top' drill, officers were asked to respond to imaginary bombings at Waterloo, Embankment and St James's Park Underground stations.
But there was absolutely no intelligence at the time to suggest such an attack was imminent, the hearing was told.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


MSM

This does seem to be a theme occurring

Just coincidence I imagine



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Cheers to the two OP's for an outstanding thread! It is so clear that we are not only have been decieived and lied to, but that they continue to try to manipulate our opinion with authorities posting on message boards like this, as "credible experts". I am a late bloomer on this one, having only tuned into the truth for a few months.

I, for one, am not going to stand for it anymore. It is now my life's mission to make my small group of contacts aware of the truth on 9/11. If we all make only 10 people aware of the truth, we can have a huge impact and blow up the official story for good.

A real investigation will result and the real 9/11 criminals can be brought to justice. We all need to work harder to get the truth out to the masses. We don't control the MSM, but we control ourselves and our actions. Who is with me?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: plube
a reply to: sg1642

Zaphods aircraft knowledge is great...but his interest in many conspiracy sites is even more interesting to me...like I said to warthog....always be aware of whom you are speaking...the point of this thread I believe is not directly about the aircraft...but more about the operation simulations taking place before...during..and after said incidents.



In an exclusive interview, I just finished speaking with key Boston Marathon eyewitness and running participant Alastair Stevenson, who has confirmed to me that drills were taking place the morning of the Boston Marathon complete with bomb squads and rooftop snipers.

Read more: www.storyleak.com...


source

Then there was sandyhook..where people were saying there was also a drill taking place...but the debunkers quickly got hold of it saying the document was faked.


The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) doctrine consists of fundamental principles that frame a common approach to exercises. Applying these principles to both the management of an exercise program and the execution of individual exercises is critical to the effective examination of capabilities.
Guided by elected and appointed officials
Capability-based, objective driven
Progressive planning approach
Whole community integration
Informed by risk
Common methodology
www.llis.dhs.gov...


Not going to direct to the website as it is a conspiracy website....but I want the link to be noted...
The last word in the department of homelands security site

Hseep....ummmm....sheep

How blatant is that....

London 7/7 bombing....interesting...terror drill taking place at the same time as the bombings occurred....



Police completed a terror training exercise which envisaged an attack on London's transport network just days before the 7/7 atrocity, an inquest heard today.
During the 'table top' drill, officers were asked to respond to imaginary bombings at Waterloo, Embankment and St James's Park Underground stations.
But there was absolutely no intelligence at the time to suggest such an attack was imminent, the hearing was told.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


MSM

This does seem to be a theme occurring

Just coincidence I imagine

In the following video, you will see that during the 7/7 bombings in London, the drill involved the exact same underground stations at the exact same time as the real bombings taking place. That's how much of a "coincidence" these drills are. Notice the disbelief of the journalist interviewing Peter Power of Visor Consultants. Does anyone here really believe that this was all a coincidence?

PLEASE... think!!!

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: Zaphod58

The fact that they are pulling up a video of an interview in the moments after the building collapse, and attempting to discredit the validity of the interview by arbitrarily concluding that the interviewee is an actor is truly absurd. There is absolutely no factual basis for this.


The guy being interviewed is a FOX freelancer. Calling him an actor is quite spot on. Whether he was acting out his own script or one given to him is unknown. What other "factual basis" are you looking for? His guild membership card? Ask him...


Additionally, questioning the picture of the Shanksville impact site because it doesn't show what they think it should look like. Ironically, they fail to understand that they have no expertise or proper background to assess what an impact site should look like. There are so many examples of plane crashes where wreckage is buried and completely unidentifiable as having ever been a plane.


Can you post one of those pictures so we can compare. I asked Zaphod to but I guess he is busy. You sound way more confident in these photos than he was so why don't you post them.


Lastly, if they actually did the proper research, they would discover that building 7 was actually suffering from immense structural instability throughout the day, which eventually lead to its collapse. They are somehow baffled how debris from Tower 1 could have caused this, despite videos that clearly show buckling and instability of the building.


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.





I am baffled, I admit.

You can't claim that truthers are "ignoring' since it is the OSers that will not allow ANYTHING that does not fit with the OS. How do you define "ignore"?

Edit to add:



Here is the WTC 7 NIST simulation in case anyone is wonder what kind of BS is getting flogged as "fact"

edit on 15-2-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


it is interesting that you compare this crash site to Lockerbie as 103 was destroyed in the air. The destroyed parts of the aircraft created a much larger scar in the ground that the one 93 supposedly created. So how do smaller, damaged parts of an aircraft create a much larger hole than an entire aircraft hitting the ground in one piece?


The comparison was for one reason, to show the relative small size of craters from impact by airplane debris. The crater is never going to be as 'big as a jet liner', only the most densest parts are heavy enough to "make a crater".

Same question was asked at the pentagon… why is the hole so small?

An airline appears big but is mostly air (called an airframe) that is hollow with heavier parts like engines and landing gear.

The heavy denser parts make holes in the ground, not some "aluminum sheet metal".



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Cheers to the two OP's for an outstanding thread! It is so clear that we are not only have been decieived and lied to, but that they continue to try to manipulate our opinion with authorities posting on message boards like this, as "credible experts". I am a late bloomer on this one, having only tuned into the truth for a few months.

I, for one, am not going to stand for it anymore. It is now my life's mission to make my small group of contacts aware of the truth on 9/11. If we all make only 10 people aware of the truth, we can have a huge impact and blow up the official story for good.

A real investigation will result and the real 9/11 criminals can be brought to justice. We all need to work harder to get the truth out to the masses. We don't control the MSM, but we control ourselves and our actions. Who is with me?

And cheers from me to you sir! Better late than never.

I have also made it my life’s mission to spread the truth. My own brother woke up to it just last month when I decided to finally show him a close up HD video of one of the twin towers exploding. He is an architect and understands the strength of steel and concrete in building construction and the laws of physics, not that that is even necessary because it’s so obvious that explosions are going on throughout the building. 10 years of trying to convince him with words was not enough, and he was getting very sick of me always bringing up 9/11. That’s why I finally showed him the video. His jaw literally dropped and he kept repeating “This is gonna come out! This is gonna come out! Everyone is going to know about this real soon.” I said, “Yeah, that’s what I thought 10 years ago…”

I go to a small pub where only regulars go for a beer after work every day. And like any pub or other public place, 99% of the people are sheep. So I’m the only one there that is awake. I never start talking about conspiracies out of the blue, but never waste a chance when someone else brings up the subject. This always happens when they are confused by the latest false flag event in the news, like Charlie Hebdo. They can feel that something is not right and start discussing it among themselves looking for answers. When their confusion is at a peak, I throw in a question of my own, like: “Do you realise that there are a lot of similarities between this attack and Operation Gladio (which was active here in Belgium during the eighties) and that it was a CIA operation?” That’s when they begin to realise that they are clueless about terrorism, but it doesn’t stop them from “knowing” that there is no such thing as state sponsored terrorism. When we get to the subject of 9/11, I tell the sheep that I can prove to them that 9/11 was an inside job just by showing them a few short videos. 9 out of 10 will say “No thanks, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” Once they say this, I know it’s a lost cause, even if you keep pushing with more questions, for example:

ME: So you don’t think there was ever a conspiracy in the whole history of humanity?

SHEEP: Uuuuhm… sure (starts to get angry), but what makes you the expert? Are you a journalist?

ME: No, but I have read thousands of articles on the subject, went through tons of news reports and live video of this and other related events. Can you find me a journalist who has done the same and still believes the official story?

SHEEP: I’m sure that professional journalists have researched this more than you.

ME: And why are you so sure about that?

SHEEP: Because that’s what they do for a living.

ME: OK… thank you. Next sheep please.

The main thing I have learned from all these discussions is that being a sheep has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence. Some of them are extremely bright. It’s all about the fear of being wrong, because then they would have to admit that they were brainwashed. Not many people can handle that.

But I am definitely with you, and will never give up this mission. I prefer to be on the right side of history. Sooner or later, the truth will become public knowledge because the amount of evidence out there is massive. It’s not like the JFK assassination where all we have is a silent 8 mm Zapruder film. However, there is not much time left because the men behind the curtain are on a fast track to full spectrum dominance. There is a very good reason why they are now so focussed on “cyber warfare”.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


it is interesting that you compare this crash site to Lockerbie as 103 was destroyed in the air. The destroyed parts of the aircraft created a much larger scar in the ground that the one 93 supposedly created. So how do smaller, damaged parts of an aircraft create a much larger hole than an entire aircraft hitting the ground in one piece?


The comparison was for one reason, to show the relative small size of craters from impact by airplane debris. The crater is never going to be as 'big as a jet liner', only the most densest parts are heavy enough to "make a crater".

Same question was asked at the pentagon… why is the hole so small?

An airline appears big but is mostly air (called an airframe) that is hollow with heavier parts like engines and landing gear.

The heavy denser parts make holes in the ground, not some "aluminum sheet metal".
so why weren't the aluminium sheets that made up the wings and fuselage left either on the surface or partially embedded in the ground? I don't believe they followed the more dense and solid parts of the aircraft into the holes made by them.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.





the towers never fell on wtc7 though and it wasn't right underneath them when they fell.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Collapse just one floor and the weight is sufficient to bring down the entire structure… one floor at a time.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

Nice try, but WRONG! The cement floors were not suspended inside a "tube". You must be aware of the huge core of the building that those floors were connected to. Here, let me help you:

WTC construction photos

Your agenda is crystal clear.


soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642

Collapse just one floor and the weight is sufficient to bring down the entire structure… one floor at a time.
what you are missing out is the fact there is extensive work carried out to weaken the building before collapse.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
the towers never fell on wtc7 though


Yes it did, when WTC 1 fell it damaged WTC 7. Funny how you ignore that!


Battalion Chief John Norman Special Operations Command - 22 years From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. www.firehouse.com...

and

Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. www.firehouse.com...

and

..Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. graphics8.nytimes.com...

and

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. www.cooperativeresearch.org...

and

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. www.firehouse.com...


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

So as you can see WTC 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, why do you claim it was not?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

Thank you for your years of efforts in this important topic. I feel a strong drive to make my circle aware of the truth behind this conspiracy. No one likes to be labled the dreaded "conspiracy theorist", and I think I finally understand this enough to become a messenger of sorts. I am starting in earnest this week. My brother is on the list.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join