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.

 

------FORUM GUIDELINES------

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird

I suppose this could be the wrong place or off topic...I just felt the need to let it go...



And I was riveted by your personal story.

My mom was staying with me, at the time, and I woke her up to tell her that a plane had hit the first tower. Her first comment was, "It was a terrorist attack." In hindsight, I discovered that the 1993 bombing planted that seed in her mind. I believe it planted the idea in many people's minds but was not necessarily the correct answer.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
[
In hindsight, I discovered that the 1993 bombing planted that seed in her mind. I believe it planted the idea in many people's minds but was not necessarily the correct answer.


It was not a terrorist attack?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
[
In hindsight, I discovered that the 1993 bombing planted that seed in her mind. I believe it planted the idea in many people's minds but was not necessarily the correct answer.


It was not a terrorist attack?


That needed clarification, it was a terrorist attack but not necessarily by Al Qaeda.

ETA: My mom has died since 9/11, but she was referring to Al Qaeda when she stated "It was a terrorist attack." We discussed it before she died in 2012. Apologies for not being more precise.
edit on 3-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




And I was riveted by your personal story. My mom was staying with me, at the time, and I woke her up to tell her that a plane had hit the first tower. Her first comment was, "It was a terrorist attack." In hindsight, I discovered that the 1993 bombing planted that seed in her mind. I believe it planted the idea in many people's minds but was not necessarily the correct answer.


As if the 1993 incident was some kind of dress rehearsal...my daddy believed that was the case until his dying day.

ETA: He died in April of 2001. But he always said the 1993 bombing was a test. He never made it to see 9/11, but his words stuck with me.


edit on 31446America/ChicagoSun, 03 Jan 2016 18:44:53 -060031pm312America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: clarification



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

My mom, too.



ETA: EP Heidner theorized that when the tower was repaired after 1993, the asbestos was removed and replaced with stuff that wasn't so great at protecting the vaults in the basement from destruction.

For your consideration:
Collateral Damage
edit on 3-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Apologies unnecessary...



Apologies for not being more precise.


I am the "poster child" for being less than clear when making a point and having to go back and edit.

I was tearing up when I posted earlier...lots of memories...for us all...




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wildb
How could this be, the lobby was destroyed from the get go


So no one could get into the lobby from the start? Just exactly what do you mean by destroyed? I just showed you what a first responder said about the lobby....


I did not say no one could get into the lobby, I said the lobby was already destroyed. Before the first plane hit..





posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That just reinforces my belief that my daddy was right.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
I said the lobby was already destroyed. Before the first plane hit..


He said he thinks.... what he saw was just some elevators hitting the ground floor after the plane hit.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
That needed clarification, it was a terrorist attack but not necessarily by Al Qaeda.


If not by Al Qaeda then by whom?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
That needed clarification, it was a terrorist attack but not necessarily by Al Qaeda.


If not by Al Qaeda then by whom?


We are already straying off-topic. Perhaps I should PM you with my suspicions?

ETA: Or you could read Heidner's work which covers many of my personal suspicions...Link



edit on 3-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wildb
I said the lobby was already destroyed. Before the first plane hit..


He said he thinks.... what he saw was just some elevators hitting the ground floor after the plane hit.



I can post more, but the point is the lobby was destroyed from the start, most interviewed said is was before the plane hit. others said just after, nuntheless it was destroyed.. therefore the fireman's statement makes no sense..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I would prefer a public answer, I do not like having behind the scenes conversations.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
That needed clarification, it was a terrorist attack but not necessarily by Al Qaeda.


If not by Al Qaeda then by whom?


We are already straying off-topic. Perhaps I should PM you with my suspicions?

ETA: Or you could read Heidner's work which covers many of my personal suspicions...Link





Me too please if thats OK..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Read the link in my ETA...

(Honestly, I am not keen on getting a comment removed for thread-drift.)
edit on 3-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wildb
I said the lobby was already destroyed. Before the first plane hit..


He said he thinks.... what he saw was just some elevators hitting the ground floor after the plane hit.


The elevators did not stop at ground level as I understand it, If I am incorrect please show me..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This thread isn't for discussing 9/11, it's for discussing the new rules for the forum. Back on topic please.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I think that biggest problem on the 9/11 forum is like I say people don't want to admit when they are wrong, namely those who refute the official historical narrative of 9/11.

There's a very good reason the "historical narrative" known as the "Official Story" has withstood the test of time: no credible source has proven any of it wrong with confirmed evidence.

Why is that?

Because no credible source has investigated the more plausible theories that are in conflict with the "Official Story."

I respectfully disagree. I think the official story has been comprehensively refuted and its standing as the orthodox theory has been maintained, not by reason nor logic, but because that is what people with power and influence have declared it to be. However it seems to me, as time goes on, that less people are listening to advocates of the official story. Why are less people listening to them? Because their data are phoney and have been made up to order; Because their theories are mad; Because they are secretive and refuse to subject their theories, methods and predictions to rigorous objective testing by the regular, established methods of empirical science; Because they lie barefaced and reject criticisms and couterarguments, no matter how well-founded and reasonable those might be.

The point that people are not facing up to is that government bodies like NIST are controlling at the source the 'evidence' which they claim proves their theories, such as NIST's circumvention of Freedom-Of-Information acts and refusual to release their input parameters for their models so they can be independently checked and verified. That position is as dishonest, irrational and untenable in the court of science as it would be in any civilized court of law. It appears completely ga-ga to me to let any government body dictate physcial reality to us in this way. Are people missing something vital and basic from their reasoning processes when they are thus able to meekly accept extraordinary propositions (such as the fire-induced collapse of WTC7) from government bodies just on their say-so?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
While this thread needs to remain specific to our new rules for the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, I believe the historical context below is relevant to the issues we're experiencing today. Which, I firmly believe, have been expertly crafted by a few agents provocateurs to be the angry cesspool that it is.

There are very few people online and posting today who were there at the beginning. This is my best recollection of what went down...


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Hopefully he can clarify this one way or the other.

"The Frenchman" refers to the mostly unknown person who claimed to be from outside Paris, who created a series of 60-second TV commercials with 3D renderings of the Pentagon and WTC attacks (mostly Pentagon), about two months after the attacks. The commercials promoted his website (can't recall the URL now) where you could advance-order his book/DVD combination. The spots appeared mostly on late-night television on the east coast, but were quite prolific. I was working in advertising at the time, and was able to calculate that the media buy for all the time was in excess of $150,000. The videos and website were the genisis of all the more implausible conspiracy speculation surrounding the events... proposing space weapons, holograms, mass hypnosis, bombs hidden in the WTC during construction, a missile hitting the Pentagon, and so on.

About two months later, someone on MySpace revealed that the 3D Model used in the Pentagon video was exclusively commissioned by the Department of Defense (from a 3D artist in Seattle), for promotional videos about the Pentagon refurbishing. This had been confirmed, by the artist, because of the rather accurate and unique placement of trees, as well as the specific texture, color, and bump maps visible in the 3D renderings. There is no way a civilian could have possessed this 3D model.

Not long after that, someone from Conspiracy-Forums.com (I'm pretty sure that's it, they were bigger than ATS at the time) had an email from the Frenchman's firm, and it was the same IP address as a PR firm often used by the Department of Defense.

At the same time, the cryptic dispatches from the Dove of Oneness were including messages not to trust the Frenchman.

The Frenchman's website disappeared, but the damage had been done. Thousands of GeoCities websites and MySpace pages sprung up, running with all the extreme conspiracy angles. A few months later, the WebFairy (Rosalee Grable) picked up the ball with giant rambling web pages, beginning at first with screenshots from the Frenchman's videos, and expanding on all of the extremist conspiracy theories. She was a close collaborator with irate no-planes proponent Nico Haupt, who is the person who disrupted the early group that became 9/11 Truth, and who was later outed as an agent provocateur (and admitted it in a video interview).



That's my best recollection of the early mayhem that gave birth to the madness we have today.


edit on 3-1-2016 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2016 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The opening post has been updated with a new strict rule related to the rampant copy-and-paste of large amounts of content from external sources in this forum.

That is strictly against the Terms and Conditions.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join