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.

 

Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Here's a plane crash from before 9/11 that left very few recognizable pieces.



All the aircraft on 9/11 left wreckage. Just because you never saw a high speed impact before doesn't mean they didn't happen.




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

Here's a plane crash from before 9/11 that left very few recognizable pieces.



All the aircraft on 9/11 left wreckage. Just because you never saw a high speed impact before doesn't mean they didn't happen.


What. You posted a steep hill with a little debris on it. I'd guess that there was MORE debris at the top of the hill that didn't fall down it yet. And / or I'd guess that there was more debris just scattered in more places besides this hill (like if the plane just straight exploded in the air, and threw debris into a few places).

What is the source of the photo? Without the source you can't even claim it's a plane crash lol. It's just some junk on a steep hill.

And the BEST part is... Your single pic still shows MORE DEBRIS than was present at each of the 4 phony plane crashes on 9-11.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

That is a US Airways 737 that dove straight into the ground in Pennsylvania. That's about all that's left of it. There were no large pieces left anywhere.


You go up there and look for an airplane, and you won't find one,"

articles.baltimoresun.com...






posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I am having a bad run with posts getting censored, so I will try again. I agree with peacefulpete, the official story is full of lies, and a massive coverup.

Even the members of the commission said they were lied to, that it was a "White House cover up", that they were misled by NORAD, the military, the CIA, and likely the Bush Administration. That it was "only the first draft in history" and that this effort to uncover the truth should continue. This coming from the authors of "the official story". Cover up and lies. They did not mince words.

So, whenever someone on here wants to tell you that the official story is gospel, kindly point out that even its own authors didn't believe the words in the report.

Why then do OS'ers treat this flawed story as gospel? It is a very curious thing.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And again you ignore the crucial part about the 9/11 Commission statements. That, they felt that they, and the nation, were lied to about how efficient our responses were that day and that the records and evidence showed that our response was a confused cluster. You also ignore that they say the Report they feel is an accurate statement of the events of the day.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And again you ignore the crucial part about the 9/11 Commission statements. That, they felt that they, and the nation, were lied to about how efficient our responses were that day and that the records and evidence showed that our response was a confused cluster. You also ignore that they say the Report they feel is an accurate statement of the events of the day.



Really? Let's check their statements against your claim that "You also ignore that they say the Report they feel is an accurate statement of the events of the day."

Roemer, "We were frustrated by the false statements we were given."

Cleland who resigned, "it is a national scandal. The investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But the White House wants to over it up."

Farmer, "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described".

Kerry, "There are ample reasons to suspect that the there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version."

Co-chair Hamikton, "I don't believe for a minute (that) we got everything right." He further said the commision was underfunded and setup to fail.

This is what you are hanging your hat on. The offical story that it's authors, and those closely involved, said was full of lies.

If you build your house on sand, it will collapse. It's only a matter of time before the world understands the truth. Enjoy your 15 minutes on here.


edit on 18-3-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Quote mining again I see.

Here is the transcript of an interview that Mr. Farmer did on the Mike Malloy radio show (guest hosted by Brad Freeman)

www.bradblog.com...

Some important parts of the interview...

" 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."

" 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

"Well, you know, I think, again, if you read the book as a whole, I think if there's a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains, but it's- it's bureaucracy itself. "

"I think you have to go before that- you can go- by the time that President Bush took office, remember, that the Al Qaeda conspirators had essentially 'run the gauntlet' of our trillion dollar early warning system. They had managed throughout the 90's to elude detection by the NSA, the CIA, by one of the hundreds of military bases that we have stationed around the world to provide early warning. They had managed to go through- get through customs, they had managed to get into the country- so that by the time the summer of 2001 came along they had basically run the gauntlet through every better-funded department than FAA and NORAD, and at the end of the day, we had probably two of the least well-funded organizations in the government that ended up having to fight the war that day. "

."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


In other words, despite what you claim, John Farmer says that the 9/11 Commission Report is an ACCURATE report.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No quote mining. The tone and character if what was collectivley said is apparent to anyone who really looks, except for you, of course.

I notice you didn't post the transcript to Cleland's interview? How come? Because it doesn't fit your agenda?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

That is a US Airways 737 that dove straight into the ground in Pennsylvania. That's about all that's left of it. There were no large pieces left anywhere.


You go up there and look for an airplane, and you won't find one,"

articles.baltimoresun.com...





I really like this post because it validates everything I said in my previous post.

I said that there had to be MORE debris than shown in the 1st pic, so you posted pics of the more debris. There must be 1,000 times as much debris in your subsequent pics!

Your pics show a literal warehouse of plane wreckage, with the WINGS recognizable at least, plus I see a tire. Sheets of metal are sitting here and there.

Thanks for the link. It starts with a boy describing seeing a tennis shoe and burned body.

FINALLY the BIGGEST POINT is that your linked article and pics are AT ODDS with the events of 9-11, even though you were trying to post the most similar thing. It's still completely different because your article HAS WRECKAGE seen in your pics, while 9-11 did NOT have wreckage.

9-11 had no plane wings, no sheets of plane metal, etc. 9-11 just had empty holes that we are told to believe came from planes crashing and disappearing with none of the normal wreckage that comes from real crashes. The official story is practically an insult to our intelligence, if we believe in it...



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

He resigned long before the investigation was complete, he spoke what many on the Commission felt after they started getting records that conflicted with what we were told in the days and weeks following 9/11.....so again, had he made his comments AFTER the Commission Report was complete, they might actually mean something. And yes, you were quote mining, but I do not expect you to admit that you did so. It is in your best interests to continually misrepresent reality.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

It is in your best interests to continually misrepresent reality.


Wow, that is rich coming from you.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I have always presented the facts. That is the reality of it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I have always presented the facts. That is the reality of it.


You have presented the facts from the official story, which is full of omissions and misleading information,or even lies from NORAD (as Thomas Kean has indicated), the military, the CIA and the White House. This foundation makes the official story unreliable.

You put your trust in a lie, and try to spread it on this site like gospel.

That is the reality of it.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: Changed source of NORAD comment from Hamilton to Kean.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And again, you show where you are disconnected.

NORAD/CIA/WHITE HOUSE put out a narrative that our response while tardy, was organized.

The Commissioners went into their job thinking that it was going to be a fairly easy thing given the accounts that were put out in the days and weeks following that day.

Then, the Commissioners, started getting the actual records that showed that the narrative first put out, did not agree with the facts.

THIS is when they made statements about lies/mistruths etc...

NOW, the part you KEEP missing, is that when they put out the Report, they addressed it. They outlined what the original narratives were and then compared them with the facts they discovered.

And, that is when people like John Farmer said that, while the first stories that we were told were in error, through our investigation we got to the reality of that day, and that is what the Report accurately reports.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You have presented the facts from the official story, which is full of omissions and misleading information,or even lies from NORAD (as Thomas Kean has indicated), the military, the CIA and the White House.


Please detail these "omissions and misleading information,or even lie"

If you can, that is!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Star and Flag well said and I don't have anything to add
because Im in total agreement. Also as a voracious thread editor,
I do appreciate the editing you obviously did to make it read so easily.
So thanks for that as well.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You have presented the facts from the official story, which is full of omissions and misleading information,or even lies from NORAD (as Thomas Kean has indicated), the military, the CIA and the White House.


Please detail these "omissions and misleading information,or even lie"

If you can, that is!

It's going to take some time Brucie boy. I will do it tomorrow morning, if possible. Heading out to dinner. But glad to do it for you, so you can douse it with more OS BS.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Two 110 story buildings collapsed on most of the wreckage in NYC, yet there was still wreckage found. Landing gear, engines, pieces of the outer skin were all found.

The same at the Pentagon. Both engines, landing gear, and a lot of other pieces were clearly identifiable.

Those aren't wings, they're parts of the horizontal stabilizers.


At the Flight 93 site they had to dig before they found it but most of the aircraft was recovered.

Just because wreckage doesn't fit what you expect doesn't mean it's not right.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

Two 110 story buildings collapsed on most of the wreckage in NYC, yet there was still wreckage found. Landing gear, engines, pieces of the outer skin were all found.

The same at the Pentagon. Both engines, landing gear, and a lot of other pieces were clearly identifiable.

Those aren't wings, they're parts of the horizontal stabilizers.


At the Flight 93 site they had to dig before they found it but most of the aircraft was recovered.

Just because wreckage doesn't fit what you expect doesn't mean it's not right.


How about the engine they found in NYC that was from the wrong plane? Woops.

I hope we're not nitpicking over semantics (as when I've said "no debris") because we all know there was a TINY BIT of debris found on 9-11. But the problem is that the tiny bit of wreckage, is inconsistent with real plane crashes, as the world knows them. They leave tons of debris, not tiny pieces.

So really, the issue isn't my personal expectations. The issue is the world's expectations based on all the real crashes that the world has seen. And being completely inconsistent with normal crashes, does imply that something isn't right.

P.S. Sources please? I've never seen any mention of a lot of the debris that you just stated. For example, the hole in PA was an empty hole AFAIK. Nothing was dug up, it was a hole.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join