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: 9
89
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Only doing the right thing, and it’s clear that you are like-minded.

Just a bit of advice though, if I may: Here is a video that might help you better understand what you are up against:



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




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthNow88

What was left of both engines were found. I do not know where people like you get the idea that they are near-indestructible.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

They did not delete his testimony. it is still there as part of the official documents and it was Cheney confirming that Flight 93 was to be shot down if it showed up over DC.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And one reason why a member of the DC ANG's Command Post, was transferred to my unit in the middle of the US so she could finish her career and retire without likely being exposed to another event like that day. She did not do so well that day......



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

WTC 1's collapse carved a 20 story hole out of the middle of WTC 7 and all but obliterated the southwest corner of it.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don’t think we need too elaborate plots and plans to support the logical conclusion that 911 was an inside job.

Often these elaborate conspiracies just create straw men for the supporters of this mass murder to debunk.

That said I don’t necessarily think the op is wrong one way or another since I haven’t investigated it enough to judge.


The basic dispute in 911 conspiracies is whether it was LIHOP or MIHOP: Let it Happen on Purpose or Make It Happen on Purpose (LIHOP / MIHOP)

I believe it may be a bit of both.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Fireproofing issues...



www.nytimes.com...

media.corporate-ir.net...



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Willtell

They did not delete his testimony. it is still there as part of the official documents and it was Cheney confirming that Flight 93 was to be shot down if it showed up over DC.






An open letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the omission of his 5/23/03 testimony to the 9/11 Commission from the Commission’s Final Report. That testimony included eye witness accounting of events that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) the morning of 9/11/01. Additionally, as of the time of this letter, it appears that an effort has been made to conceal Secretary Mineta’s testimony from the public by editing it from video archives of the 5/23/03 hearing on the 9/11 Commission website (the testimony is not deleted from the .pdf and .html archive).www.911truth.org... /


It was flight 77 not 93




It was also consistent with the report of that morning according to Richard A. Clarke in his book “Against All Enemies”. Furthermore, your testimony is in synch with the published timing of the approach of flight 77 according to the recently released Staff Report 3 by the 9/11 Commission. In this report the Commission states that Flight 77 was 60 miles out at 9:25, and 38 miles out at 9:29. This trajectory fits with your description of events and persuasively matches your account with the approach of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon.


What is strange and unexplained is that despite your testimony and the numerous public reports and statements which support it including Mr. Cheney’s, in its final report the 9/11 Commission gives the time for the arrival of the Vice President to the PEOC as 9:58, an almost 38 minute difference from your public testimony, and at the least 20 minutes later than the Vice President himself claimed on national television. While the Commission report states that there “is conflicting evidence about when the vice president arrived in the shelter conference room”, it does not resolve nor make any comment as to the fact that your testimony is discarded in its entirety.



it does not resolve nor make any comment as to the fact that your testimony is discarded in its entirety.

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



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

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.

Wow! There are still people with a brain that can think all on its own.

You can clearly see that ALL the vertical columns are already slanted on the floor where the collapse is initiated. That's why it falls into its own footprint. This is the aim of controlled demolition. If, however only certain columns were compromised (as in 9/11), you would have a completely different result, ie it wouldn't collapse, let alone straight down into the path of most resistance. And there definitely wouldn't be chunks weighing several tons being ejected hundreds of yards horizontally in all directions trailing white smoke...



Duh!

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


His testimony is still contained inside the documents of the 9/11 Commission. Instead of reading sites that misquote him, try reading his actual testimony. Then get a map of DC and use it to construct a timeline of his movements that day. Short of Scotty and the use of a Transporter, there is no way Secretary Mineta was in the PEOC as fast as he testified.
edit on 15-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


I'd like someone to point out how the sagging trusses could gather the strength to pull the structure apart, when it was stronger than the trusses actually were.

The anchors that held the trusses were weaker than the trusses. Once the floor let go, the whole floor fell 15 feet to the next and the next. The "dustification" was caused by a giant blender filled with steel girders and car sized blocks of cement that churned a hundred stories to the ground. And like a hollow body plane, there isn't much left thats recognizable as a plane (or a building).

We've been over this ground a few times.

Hollow towers



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

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.

The parts are there, in tatters. And all around the site, in little bits. The usual result of a high speed impact with the ground. Thats why Military pilots sometimes refer to hi speed crashes as a "smoking hole in the ground". Theres not much left that even remotely resembles an air craft.

93 impact debris, use the zoom feature

Uuuuuhm... OK!

So what about all the people onboard? Did they all just evaporate into tiny molecules and disperse into the air? Or did they also bury themselves into the dirt 6 feet under? How convenient!

ETA: In your photo, I don't see a single piece of anything that reminds me of an airplane full of people, seats, luggage, engines, what have you. If you can show me 1 photo of a commercial plane crash full of people and luggage where you can't identify anything, bring it!!

soulwaxer

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

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



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

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.

The parts are there, in tatters. And all around the site, in little bits. The usual result of a high speed impact with the ground. Thats why Military pilots sometimes refer to hi speed crashes as a "smoking hole in the ground". Theres not much left that even remotely resembles an air craft.

93 impact debris, use the zoom feature

Uuuuuhm... OK!

So what about all the people onboard? Did they all just evaporate into tiny molecules and disperse into the air? Or did they also bury themselves into the dirt 6 feet under? How convenient!

soulwaxer


Whats your point? And any kind of proof for your claim?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Interesting. Though I'd like to know how this fits into the directed energy weapon narrative.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Willtell


His testimony is still contained inside the documents of the 9/11 Commission. Instead of reading sites that misquote him, try reading his actual testimony. Then get a map of DC and use it to construct a timeline of his movements that day. Short of Scotty and the use of a Transporter, there is no way Secretary Mineta was in the PEOC as fast as he testified.





John Farmer just posted a document from the 9/11 Commission files that strongly supports Norman Mineta's public testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Here is the link: forums.randi.org... The document is a Secret Service log from 9/11, and confirms that the Secret Service was tracking American Airlines flight 77 as it approached Washington on September 11, 2001. Farmer, who pursued the FOIA request for the 9/11 RADES radar data (released in October 2007) explains in his post that the radar data from 9/11 agrees perfectly with the Secret Service timeline. Farmer has the 9/11 radar data in his computer and has made it available to other 9/11 researchers. The document was first made made public in January 2009 by NARA, along with many other 9/11 Commission files. Erik Larson posted it to Scrib in April 2009, where it may be downloaded: www.scribd.com... However, at the time, Erik overlooked the document's importance. Amazingly, it escaped notice for many months. It may also be downloaded here (this is an easier download): bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com... I have just received confirmation that the handwriting is actually that of 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, who was granted access to the original Secret Service documents during the commission's official investigation. Kara was not allowed to remove the SS document, however, so he copied it long-hand. Notice, this means that the 9/11 Commission had this information but chose to bury it, Why? Maybe to cover up for VP Dick Cheney? If someone has a better explanation, I'd like to hear it. I should mention, based in emails, that Miles Kara believes that Mineta arrived at the White House much later, and mistook United Airlines Flight 93 in coast track mode for AA 77. Kara also thinks that the Secret Service did not move Cheney to the White House basement until around 9:37 AM. I do not agree with Kara's timeline. In 2002, Karl Rove told MSNBC that immediately after GW Bush left the Florida classroom (i.e, at 9:16 AM) he attempted to reach Cheney by telephone, but could not because Cheney was at that moment being hustled to safety. Rove's timeline concurs with that of Richard A. Clarke (Against All enemies, p.2-5.) Clarke also has Mineta arriving at the White House sometime between 9:20 - 9:28 AM. It is ironic that Farmer elected to post the document on the RANDI site - of all places - in the Lion's Den. From what I have heard, there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth over there, since it went up. In my view, it's about time that the RANDI cynics were made to eat their own ridicule. May they chow down and be transformed. For those who need a refresher, here is Mineta's testimony:
911blogger.com...





Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta's testimony. 9:26 - AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC 9:30 - 30 nautical miles out 9:33 - 10 nautical miles out
www.internationalskeptics.com...

bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

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



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
Interesting. Though I'd like to know how this fits into the directed energy weapon narrative.

Then go to the "Weaponry" forum. This thread has nothing to do with directed energy. And you know it.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

Heres the collapse initiation, at the floor the fires were burning, because of compromised structure, not some unknown explosive.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

Sorry, there were only two cases like 911, only two twin towers, both slammed at hundreds of miles per hour with gas filled airliners, both burned for an hour unchecked and both fell down.

Are you saying anything that doesn't agree with that?

Make sure you bring your best no plane nano thematic I don't know squat about real demolition with explosives line of BS…



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


I'd like someone to point out how the sagging trusses could gather the strength to pull the structure apart, when it was stronger than the trusses actually were.

The anchors that held the trusses were weaker than the trusses. Once the floor let go, the whole floor fell 15 feet to the next and the next. The "dustification" was caused by a giant blender filled with steel girders and car sized blocks of cement that churned a hundred stories to the ground. And like a hollow body plane, there isn't much left thats recognizable as a plane (or a building).

We've been over this ground a few times.

Hollow towers
and like I have already pointed out, the top section of the building was falling to pieces before the bottom part began to move which means it was meeting resistance. Resistance which would have slowed and stopped the collapse front.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


I'd like someone to point out how the sagging trusses could gather the strength to pull the structure apart, when it was stronger than the trusses actually were.

The anchors that held the trusses were weaker than the trusses. Once the floor let go, the whole floor fell 15 feet to the next and the next. The "dustification" was caused by a giant blender filled with steel girders and car sized blocks of cement that churned a hundred stories to the ground. And like a hollow body plane, there isn't much left thats recognizable as a plane (or a building).

We've been over this ground a few times.

Hollow towers
and like I have already pointed out, the top section of the building was falling to pieces before the bottom part began to move which means it was meeting resistance. Resistance which would have slowed and stopped the collapse front.

You "pointed out"? Here…



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join