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.

 

Is the News Media Still Suppressing the 911 Truth?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   


That won't fly because demolitions can be heard many miles away and in every WTC video, and there are many, none depict the sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.


What do you know about broadcast audio, nothing, case closed..




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Firefighters and others in the area have confirmed the floors did in fact, pancake because they could hear the floors slamming against one another. FEMA also confirmed the floors pancaked.

Now, let's take a look here.



NIST: Questions and Answers

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Answer: Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.

In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

www.nist.gov...

edit on 10-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Let's take a look here.



FEMA

In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin.

www.fema.gov...



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Firefighters and others in the area have confirmed the floors did in fact, pancake because they could hear the floors slamming against one another.


So they can here explosions and think they were bombs but be wrong, but they hear the floors pancaking and be right..

WOW you mind works in strange ways..



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



So they can here explosions and think they were bombs but be wrong, but they hear the floors pancaking and be right..


Prove that the explosions were the result of demolition explosives. Exploding gas lines were also reported by firefighters as reported during an NBC News report, where a playback of that NBC News report was replayed last year.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   


Prove that the explosions were the result of demolition explosives. Exploding gas lines were also reported by firefighters as reported during an NBC News report, where a playback of that NBC News report was replayed last year.
a reply to: skyeagle409

Come on man, I can't prove anything and neither can you, as for gas lines they were turned off, you should know that..
edit on 11-11-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Come on man, I can't prove anything and neither can you,...


Of course I can. First of all, seismic operators have stated that their seismographs did not detect demolition explosions, and that is evidence #1, because for demolition explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to steel columns, otherwise, blast waves will simply flow around the steel columns. That example can be found in a photo taken after the 1993 WTC 1 bombing where steel columns are sitting within the huge bomb crater.

Secondly, if demolition explosives were firmly attached to the steel columns, the detonations would have sent shock signals through the steel columns and into the ground where they would have been detected by the seismographs, and once again, no such explosions were detected on the seismographs.

Thirdly, for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, the steel frames must be weakened otherwise the building will remain standing despite the detonation of demolition explosives. This photo is a case in point where a building remained standing despite detonations of 5 JDAM bombs.

Photo: Building Survives 5 JDAM Bomb Detonations

The following video is another example of what happens when a building is not properly prepare for demolition.



In regard to the explosions people heard, you can't tell me if the explosions were from exploding gas lines, as reported by firefighters, or from exploding gas tanks due to burning vehicles or even manhole explosions, which are common in New York City. Even pancaking floors, falling elevators, and bodies striking the ground were reported as sounding like explosions and I might add that people were still reporting explosions long after the WTC buildings collapsed.

So once again, the sound of explosions is not evidence that demolition explosives were responsible.

edit on 12-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958



Seymour Hersh is very credible. Hersh has a history of exposing government corruption


Now, for the rest of the story.



The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

Hersh's story is amazing to read, alleging a vast American-Pakistani conspiracy to stage the raid and even to fake high-level diplomatic incidents as a sort of cover. But his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous. The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

The truth, Hersh says, is that Pakistani intelligence services captured bin Laden in 2006 and kept him locked up with support from Saudi Arabia, using him as leverage against al-Qaeda. In 2010, Pakistan agreed to sell bin Laden to the US for increased military aid and a "freer hand in Afghanistan." Rather than kill him or hand him over discreetly, Hersh says the Pakistanis insisted on staging an elaborate American "raid" with Pakistani support.

According to Hersh's story, Navy SEALs met no resistance at Abbottabad and were escorted by a Pakistani intelligence officer to bin Laden's bedroom, where they killed him. Bin Laden's body was "torn apart with rifle fire" and pieces of the corpse "tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains" by Navy SEALs during the flight home (no reason is given for this action). There was no burial at sea because "there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case."

www.vox.com...
vox has CIA ties



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist

The CIA had nothing to do with 9/11



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: HorusChrist

The CIA had nothing to do with 9/11
haha good one



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist

Sure is, and all you have to do is to prove me wrong.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: HorusChrist

Sure is, and all you have to do is to prove me wrong.
their patsy bin laden had worked with CIA in the 80s against Russia in Afghanistan en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist



their patsy bin laden had worked with CIA in the 80s against Russia in Afghanistan en.wikipedia.org...


That is false because Osama bin Laden was a member of the Afghan Arabs, a group of foreigners hostile toward the United States, and not supported by the CIA, because the CIA supported the Afghan Mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs.

9/11 conspiracy theorist didn't bother to do their homework to understand that the CIA never supported the Afghan Arabs.



Afghan Arabs

Afghan Arabs (also known as Arab-Afghans) were Arab and other Muslim Islamist mujahideen who came to Afghanistan during and following the Soviet-Afghan War to help fellow Muslims fight Soviets and pro-Soviet Afghans. Observers and journalists covering the war have cast doubt on their significance as a fighting force, but within the Muslim Arab world they achieved near hero-status for their association with the defeat of the militant atheist, anti-religious Communist superpower that was the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden used the thousands of fighters he recruited in 1988 to fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan bin Laden expanded his "jihad" or holy war. The goals of al-Qaida's jihad are to establish the rule of God on Earth, to cleanse Islam of depravity and to become martyrs to the cause. In 1998 al Qaida issued a statement claiming it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens including civilians.

www.webcitation.org... -03


Afghan Mujahideen

The Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen (also known as the Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance or Peshawar Seven) was an Afghan organization formed in May 1985 by the seven Afghanmujahideen parties fighting against the Soviet and Democratic Republic of Afghanistan forces in the Soviet-Afghan War. The alliance sought to function as a united diplomatic front towards the world opinion, and sought representation in the United Nations and Organisation of the Islamic Conference

www.airpower.au.af.mil...


In other words, 9/11 conspiracy theorist were unaware the CIA did not support the hostile Afghan Arabs nor were they aware of the differences between the two groups.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: HorusChrist



their patsy bin laden had worked with CIA in the 80s against Russia in Afghanistan en.wikipedia.org...


That is false because Osama bin Laden was a member of the Afghan Arabs, a group of foreigners hostile toward the United States, and not supported by the CIA, because the CIA supported the Afghan Mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs.

9/11 conspiracy theorist didn't bother to do their homework to understand that the CIA never supported the Afghan Arabs.



Afghan Arabs

Afghan Arabs (also known as Arab-Afghans) were Arab and other Muslim Islamist mujahideen who came to Afghanistan during and following the Soviet-Afghan War to help fellow Muslims fight Soviets and pro-Soviet Afghans. Observers and journalists covering the war have cast doubt on their significance as a fighting force, but within the Muslim Arab world they achieved near hero-status for their association with the defeat of the militant atheist, anti-religious Communist superpower that was the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden used the thousands of fighters he recruited in 1988 to fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan bin Laden expanded his "jihad" or holy war. The goals of al-Qaida's jihad are to establish the rule of God on Earth, to cleanse Islam of depravity and to become martyrs to the cause. In 1998 al Qaida issued a statement claiming it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens including civilians.

www.webcitation.org... -03


Afghan Mujahideen

The Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen (also known as the Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance or Peshawar Seven) was an Afghan organization formed in May 1985 by the seven Afghanmujahideen parties fighting against the Soviet and Democratic Republic of Afghanistan forces in the Soviet-Afghan War. The alliance sought to function as a united diplomatic front towards the world opinion, and sought representation in the United Nations and Organisation of the Islamic Conference

www.airpower.au.af.mil...


In other words, 9/11 conspiracy theorist were unaware the CIA did not support the hostile Afghan Arabs nor were they aware of the differences between the two groups.
that was a fake cover story whole time. USA supported extreme muslims because they were fighting the soviets. Govt hates leftwing socialism not terrorism.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
look up gladio B



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist



that was a fake cover story whole time. USA supported extreme muslims because they were fighting the soviets. Govt hates leftwing socialism not terrorism.


Provide the evidence, or, it will be evident that you have no case, and that your comment is baseless at best. It was no secret that the CIA did not support Osama bin Laden and his group, the Afghan Arabs, which was a group of foreigners hostile toward the United States. The CIA supported only the Afghan Mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs. It seems to me that 9/11 conspiracy theorist overlooked the fact that the Afghan Arabs and the Afghan Mujahideen, were two different groups that were distinct from one another.



The Myth of CIA Support For Afghan Arabs

Bergen, Sept. 6, 2006: The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth.

There’s no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn’t have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn’t have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The U.S. covertly funded the Afghan fighters through Pakistan. So how does Bearden know the Pakistanis didn’t simply give some of the money to the Arabs, including bin Laden?

“They didn’t,” Bearden said. “We had ways to check where the money was going.” Milton Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was responsible for the agency’s covert program in support of the Afghan resistance.

www.cnn.com...


The Myth the CIA Supported Osama bin Laden

Scholars and reporters have called the idea of CIA-backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense", "sheer fantasy", and "simply a folk myth."
They argue that:

* with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land

* with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds

* Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U.S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;[9]

* the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner.

Bin Laden himself once said "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."


Sources;

Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam : the Search for a New Ummah, by Olivier Roy, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.291-2

Sageman, Marc, Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, p.57-8

Messages to the World, 2006, p.50. (March 1997 interview with Peter Arnett

Peter Jouvenal quoted in Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc. New York: Free Press, c2001., p.65


Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

www.cnn.com...

Steve Coll: I did not discover any evidence of direct contact between CIA officers and bin Laden during the 1980s, when they were working more or less in common cause against the Soviets. CIA officials, including Tenet, have denied under oath that such contact took place.

Marc Sageman, a Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987–1989, and worked closely with Afghanistan's Mujahideen, argues that no American money went to the foreign volunteers.

Fox News reporter Richard Miniter wrote that in interviews with the two men who "oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance, Bill Peikney - CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986 - and Milt Bearden - CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989 - he found,

Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.

Scholars such as Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrew, and Vasily Mitrokhin have argued that Bin Laden was "outside of CIA eyesight" and that there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen.

Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the (Afghan) mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country.

Holy War Inc. by Peter Bergen, New York: Free Press, c2001., p.66,

nsarchive.gwu.edu...

edit on 13-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist



The following report was taken from your link.




Peter Bergen: CNN journalist

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth.

There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   


Right here is one of the most convincing 9/11 videos. Really gives you an in-depth look at theories about 9/11 that are generally over looked.
edit on 22-1-2016 by Ginsberg because: wrond id



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: HorusChrist



The following report was taken from your link.




Peter Bergen: CNN journalist

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth.

There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

www.cnn.com...


Well, well, Skyeagle409. It is so amusing watching you quote, as proof of your hilarious assertion that the CIA was uninvolved in 9/11, the bleatings of mainstream journalists who repeat their cherry-picked nonsense because they are gatekeepers, put in place to ensure that "official narratives" about international events never reveal the lies running through them. It simply won't do, Skyeagle409, to quote them as though it proves your case. If anything, it merely further undermines your argument. You don't seem to understand that journalists like Bergen who work for news channels like CNN have no credibility anymore, so it does not help your defence of the mainstream point of view. We know they lie for their masters, and only the naive still believes what they say.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Much of the really interesting news coverage from 9/11 happened in the first 90 or so minutes, beginning immediately after the first aircraft hit the WTC. At that time, everyone was caught by surprise, and were just talking candidly about what they were witnessing.

As the day progressed, and in particular after the moment the towers collapsed, the "official story" was developing, as by now "official sources" in the Government would be feeding info to all the news outlets, telling them the picture.

Even now, you sometimes hear clips from live reports that happened within minutes of the aircraft hitting the building. All the videos and sound clips from this period are the most relevant when getting to the truth, because people had no time to "get their story straight" or to talk to others, which is proven to distort memory, or to even create situations that didn't actually exist (much research exists on this topic regarding reliability of eyewitnesses).

Just a couple of weeks ago, the BBC World Service had a segment where they were talking about one of their news reporters, who was in WTC2 when it was hit by the first aircraft. He was on assignment, and immediately started to record his thoughts as he was running out the building. It was very good in that it was a running commentary of what was going on at the moment he said it. He wasn't reporting the news, but verbalizing his precise experience at that moment.

The clincher was a comment he made, which was similar to "I can hear multiple explosions on the floors above where we are".

If there were no explosions, then why make such a comment?

I still remember vividly from watching the reports at the time, of video showing the Pentagon *prior* to the collapse. It was clear that it had not been hit by an aircraft, but was certainly on fire. Only after it collapsed, did they start to report an aircraft hitting it. I have never seen any pre-collapse videos/photos since.

The end of the OS is in WTC7. The collapse itself is bad enough, but what is worse, is a BBC news report that occurred 23 minutes before WTC7 collapsed, reporting the collapse of WTC7 as if it had already happened.

edit on 2-5-2016 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join