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.

 

A Senator says 9/11 events “Had Support from Within the US” !!!

page: 9
82
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Whether 7WTC fell in its own footprint or colored
slightly outside the lines, makes no difference.

47 stories of steel wrapped in concrete explodes
to powder and crashes to the ground at close to free fall
speeds. All because some papers carpet and computers caught fire ?
Yeah? no....Capital B Capital S !


Thank you! That is very much the issue for me--the official explanation is simply impossible.




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander
C'MON. After the first attack on the WTC, it stands to reason that the Gov't put scuttling charges into all of the buildings there. But like always fighting the last war, they wanted the towers to fall straight down into the WTC's own footprint.
Unless you really are a great loon, you must know that these hijackers held down the flight decks of the airliners. But did they have any control over the flight controls?? I personally watched the boob tube interview by KDKA T.V. Pittsburgh, of the campers near Shanksberg, PA. and they all agreed on T.V. that there was a small military jet, right on the tail of Flight 93 within a minute before the airliner crashed, about four miles away. That report only came over the air once, before it was censored. If you add everything up, then the 9-11 attacks were an inside job. When the passengers stormed the cockpit, it meant that the wife of Ted Olsen, would have relayed to her husband, in the White House Situation Room, that the controls were not working, and then the whole thing would have blown up in the conspirators' faces.


edit on 2-5-2016 by carpooler because: mispelled the name of Olsen.
edit on 2-5-2016 by carpooler because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Brywilson2
a reply to: Flesh699

The man who leased bldg 7 was caught on camera saying "Pull mine down TOO"


Care to show us that video?


2) By 'pull down' Im assuming he meant to demolish.


Why assume that? When Silverstein mentioned "pull" he was talking about firefighting teams...


Look for a DVD titled re-open 9/11, only place ive seen it.
It was given away free in 2003-2004, may have to buy it now.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: carpooler


C'MON. After the first attack on the WTC, it stands to reason that the Gov't put scuttling charges into all of the buildings there.


Why? For what reason? Was it the Clinton administration or the Bush administration?


But like always fighting the last war, they wanted the towers to fall straight down into the WTC's own footprint.


Unless acted upon by an outside force, everything falls straight down. If a building loses its structural integrity, it collapses into its own footprint. In what way is this like fighting the last war?


Unless you really are a great loon, you must know that these hijackers held down the flight decks of the airliners.


So you do believe that there were hijackers...?


But did they have any control over the flight controls?


Why wouldn't they? And if the planes were being flown by wire, what need was there for hijackers? The radios could be jammed and the planes flown by remote control without any need for a personal presence on the planes.


I personally watched the boob tube interview by KDKA T.V. Pittsburgh, of the campers near Shanksberg, PA. and they all agreed on T.V. that there was a small military jet, right on the tail of Flight 93 within a minute before the airliner crashed, about four miles away. That report only came over the air once, before it was censored.


Was it censored? Or did the report turn out to be wrong? Even if the report were true, what relationship does it have to the hijacking and crash?


If you add everything up, then the 9-11 attacks were an inside job.


Please do the math for me. I don't see anything to add up here.


When the passengers stormed the cockpit, it meant that the wife of Ted Olsen, would have relayed to her husband, in the White House Situation Room, that the controls were not working, and then the whole thing would have blown up in the conspirators' faces.


This is the part I do not understand. Was Ted Olsen's wife in on the conspiracy? Was she on a suicide mission? Or was Ted Olsen trying to murder her? If the conspiracy was being monitored from the White House Situation Room, why was the President not present?

Disclosure: I have heard that one of the facts being covered up is that there were intelligence officers trailing some of the hijackers, and it was they who overpowered the hijackers, not bystanders. Ordinary Americans fighting back makes for a better narrative than CIA agents and their MI6 trainers not figuring out what was going on until it was too late.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: carpooler

Strange post, that one.

Cell phones in 2001 were physically unable to do what the official story has them doing, including Olsen's calls.

What is certain is that the official story is impossible, a bright and shining lie.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Cell phones in 2001 were physically unable to do what the official story has them doing, including Olsen's calls.

It's a good thing she used seat back air phones then isn't it ?
Of course you knew the OS didn't say she used 'cell phones' ?
I'm glad you have your facts straight.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
CIA director: There's no need to release the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 report.

By Jeremy Bender


There's no need to release the classified 9/11 report, and having that information in the public would be unhelpful, CIA director said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC.

CIA Director John Brennan warned that the 28 pages of the report that critics are pushing to have declassified could unfairly implicate the Saudis as the report contains "unvetted information."

"I think some people may seize upon that uncorroborated, unvetted information that was in there that was basically just a collation of this information that came out of FBI files, and to point to Saudi involvement, which I think would be very, very inaccurate," Brennan told NBC.

CIA Director:There's no need to release the 28 pages.


Well,well DCI Brennan has finally weighed in.In short he's saying : "Nothing to see here,folks!! Move along!! Move along!! He's actually thinking about life after being DCI kinda hard to get a big fat contract in the ME for your security company if The Saudi's are mad at ya.Also,I'm gonna post the response from the 9/11 Advocates:Satement from the 9/11 Advocates.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Ah Sam, they used both according to the official story. You may not be aware of it, but there was only one trial related to 911, the trial of Moussaoui.

The trouble with trials is that there is a discovery process, and both sides introduce "evidence" and records. Included in that case were several pages of records regarding cell phone calls. Remember "Hi Mom, this is your son Todd (or whatever the name was)".

Physically impossible and theatrical as could be, the cell phone calls are a solid sign of the staged events.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




The trouble with trials is that there is a discovery process, and both sides introduce "evidence" and records. Included in that case were several pages of records regarding cell phone calls. Remember "Hi Mom, this is your son Todd (or whatever the name was)".


Seem to have a problem with basic comprehension .....

Most of the calls were made from AIRFONES AirFones were a service to allow passengers/crew to make calls from aircraft in
flight. The phones were stored in seatback of the aircraft seats. Used a trunked VHF radio channel for air-ground
communications. People would use a credit card to pay for the service

Here is picture of AIRFONE recovered from wreckage of UNITED 93

sites.google.com...

Media referred to any calls from the hijacked aircraft as "CELL PHONES" when were made from AIRFONES

Only 2 calls from United 93 as identified as coming from a cell phone, one from Ed Felt from a rear bathroom
and other from flight attendant CC LYLES

Both made near end of hijacking when plane was flying low (8000 ft) - cell towers in that area are on mountain ridges
making connections possible



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

It is YOU who seems to have a problem with reading comprehension sir. In my previous post and many others I've stated that the official story claims BOTH were used. Do you understand? BOTH private cellphones and the Airfone variety.

Betty Ong's bizarre conversation with her company was the latter.

Others were made on private cell phones.

All are bogus claims, just a part of the story for a scientifically illiterate public to consume.

Some claim that AA and UA had terminated their contracts with Airfone. I'm neutral on that point.

Read Ong's government approved transcript if you want to see how bizarre and unnatural the conversation was.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You mean this one.......????

911myths.com...

Ong is using an AIRFONE to contact American Airline Operations/reservations center is Raleigh North Carolina to report hijacking

Her flight had just been hijacked by gang of fanatics who killed a passenger (Daniel Lewin) and attacked 2 of her
fellow flight attendants

At first One refers to flight number as Flight 12 which is return flight from west coast

She is trying to get the people to understand what is going on , call is patched into emergency operations

Operator is trying to get them to under stand what is taking place

Ever call customer service and try explaining a problem, then have them route you to someone else and find yourself
explaining it all over again....

Confusion from desperate situation



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Yes, I've read that transcript several times, even before I read Rebekah Roth's analysis of it in her book. Isn't it an unnatural conversation. It was almost like Ong was in a trance of some sort, or just reading from a script. Whatever, combined with all the other facts, it is a nonsensical story. So was Cee Cee Ross/Lyle's phone call, and her husband remarks on that.

I didn't go all the way through your link, but somewhere in there it will show several records from the cell phone records of private individuals listed as passengers.

"Hello Mom, this is your son Todd Beamer" sounds like an old comedy routine from a Cheech and Chong movie, too absurd to take seriously.

In 2001, cell phones did not work at altitude and airspeed for the simple reason that they were not designed to work at altitude and airspeed. They were designed and marketed to individuals walking or driving on the surface. I know, I did the experiments.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Unless acted upon by an outside force, everything falls straight down. If a building loses its structural integrity, it collapses into its own footprint. In what way is this like fighting the last war?


Sure if it loses integrity everywhere equally at the same time it does. How often does that ever happen without assistance??? Never.

If it was that simple you wouldn't have demolition experts who have to take down buildings in to their own footprint. Even with them they still sometimes don't work correctly. Buildings with steel beams and concrete walls and floors bolted together and reinforced, etc. don't just break apart perfectly all at the same time equally. Think about how unbelievably rare that would be??? Hell, it's not easy to get a house of cards to just fall flat in to it's own footprint. Something always slides to one side or the other or not at all. Think about having a skyscraper doing that.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JaMeDoIt
Yep...anyone that believes that 19 guys armed with box cutters highjacked four airliners and brought down the WTC 1, 2 & 7 is either crazy or bought off.
Cheers


I would not discount that. It was 2001. At that time there was the chance that terrorists take hostages. It isn't like today that nobody expects any hostagetaking and everybody knows its straight to the killing. If you are going to be a hero with guys armed with boxcutters you wait till the plane lands especially if they killed the pilot first.
edit on 9-5-2016 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

If you were planning this great conspiracy would you allow any calls to be placed ?
There are so many places where the planners could have truncated things to make life easier and less detectable.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

If you were planning this great conspiracy would you allow any calls to be placed ?
There are so many places where the planners could have truncated things to make life easier and less detectable.


Why would placed calls be of any concern to you? Like anybody is going to arrest the president of the United States or the head of the CIA on evidence. Oh no, the secret service did a bad bad thing. Its the delusion of Americans that they think they are somehow precious and that if American agencies would carry out acts or operations within America they did carry out in a similar fashion many times abroad somewhere an outraged partriot of high standing and repute would slap them on the wrist. Well I guess there are many outraged patriots out there who would would want to do something to them, but I do not need to tell you how you feel about them.
edit on 9-5-2016 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Merinda




Why would placed calls be of any concern to you?

If you were to plan 911, you would want to keep it simple.
Allowing any phone calls means you have to come up with a dialog script.
This script has to consistent with the peoples personality and voices.
The timing of the calls has to consistent with the planes position.
The technical details of the radio frequencies and signal strength has to be correct.
or
You can just say there were no calls from the plane.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

ONLY TWO CALLS are listed as being from Cell phones . Thats 2, TWO .......

The cell phone calls were made at end of the flight when plane was flying low (under 8,000 ft) . Cell towers in that area of
Pennsylvania are on mountain ridges at elevation of 3000 ft . Thats less than 5000 feet vertical separation

Also being in rural area the transmitters were more powerful, having to cover longer distances, than urban cell sites

AS for Mark Bingham - his mother said he often answered phone that way. Also his mother was visiting her brother so was
not at home when he called her.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




If you were to plan 911, you would want to keep it simple.


Maybe. But if those inside-jobbers would've been smart they would've used their wits and not 15 years of ongoing Total War on Terror and roughly 1.3 Million deads. Your whole argument is inconsistent to say the least, there's no 'supreme player' in this scenario.


“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

2 or 200, it doesn't matter.

From late 2002 into 2006, I conducted many tests regarding cell phone performance in general aviation aircraft. Consistently, above about 1500 feet, or at speeds above about 100 knots, cell phones were useless.

The government story is full of holes, and the cell phone part is but one tiny hole out of many.

Bogus Flight Data Recorder data, no airliners where there should have been, a failure to investigate for 2 years, etc etc.

The official story is impossible.




top topics



 
82
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join