It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boncho
High security areas. Baggage processing areas, ramp areas, some in public areas but the majority are in areas where you need a badge to get to. Some of those kind of overlap with public areas, so they all had to be checked. They also had to check to make sure there was no help from an airport worker.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Our air defenses were shut down completely that day and false radar and transponder signals injected in to FAA and NORAD radars.
No steel skyscraper would collapse due to fires
and leave a rubble pile less than 1/100th of the original height of the building.
Certainly building 7 should prove that there was more at play here than just aircraft crashing in to buildings.
9/11 destroyed many things besides the security of the US;
it destroyed the records of the El Dorado task force which was tracking financial crimes, records of WorldCom as well as Enron vital to their prosecution for theft and mismanagement, by destroying the brokerage responsible for clearing the 10 year bonds that financed Project Hammer which destabilized the Soviet economy and instituting emergency clearing procedures for said bonds to the tune of nearly a quarter billion dollars.
The planning and execution of 9/11 were quite remarkable and only possibly with the assistance of the major media.
No, I don't believe anyone who has seriously investigated 9/11 could walk away from it somehow thinking they were foolish to have ever bothered.
The elite have stolen all the money or did you not hear about the TARP bailouts?
They all got bonuses and kept floating ever larger derivatives bubbles.
It will all come crashing down one day so don't be surprised when it does.
Our money grows more worthless by the day thanks to QE 1, 2, 3, infinity.
Those seeds might not seem like such a looney idea.
I'd rather hang on to crazy conspiracy theories than support and give a wink to a criminal government that only plans to increase it's own power at the expense of the people.
First poster mentions "no hijackers were recording boarding the plane.", and response is: "they recorded them here at the security checkpoint".
Not to be the master of obvious here, but security checkpoints are not the same as boarding the plane.
originally posted by: beijingyank
You're the kind of guy that believes in magic bullets.
All you original fairy tale traitors got is gas lighting.
a reply to: pteridine
es but that's more proof than the conspiracy crowd has for CD on the buildings.
originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: samkent
The real question is if it were CD or even 'aided demo' on the buildings (or even no help physically, but still facilitated by inside sources), do you really think our establishment, (the political - Congress, and professional - NIST, etc) would get to the bottom of it (?).
The 'official' story on JFK is it was as it was disseminated though it's now clear even a CIA historian admits it was covered up, by the CIA] and additional tidbits. That's not even addressing the fact ~80 people related to the case died in 10 years - mathematically impossible odds.
The fact 9/11 is not as it was, I think can be rationally acknowledged in a number of other ways. One doesn't need a 'smoking-gun' since there's many. The way they handled Susan Lindhauer is one.
For what the lady went through, she's surprisingly sane (even though they claimed she wasn't to discredit her).
It comes down to proper skepticism. Not the convoluted reverse skepticism created in the 50s (diametrically opposed to actual skepticism, and also perfectly socially engineering people to reject anything critical or threatening of the mainstream.) I jumped ship on this topic a long time ago when I realized how infiltrated it is.
The very way it developed, is very reminiscent of a few other events, the problem for the people spinning the lies, (lies have short legs) so in time, what you recognize in past works of fiction, one can spot similar markers in current works.
Also, how are those odds (assuming that ~80 people involved with the case actually died) "mathematically impossible"? Please do elaborate.
Someone is free to work out the math if they question it.
An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one.
Hell, even testimonies from ex-CIA agents don't mean that the CIA was involved... there would need to be some stronger pieces of evidence to back up their claims.
Says? Can you get me a list of all CIA assets being used at the time and any scheduled off the books or private meetings with Libya/Iraq consulates? No? Of course not. So the simply fact is you cannot verify the claim she's made.
She was a U.S. Congressional Staffer... and an activist/journalist, nothing more and nothing less.
I suggest researching the parallels from CIA & JFK to the current various operations (which we are not privy to, but can deduce
Well, it's basically the same as seeing a dead body inside the house from an outside window. You don't know who was murdered or who did it, but you can be damn sure there is a dead body (victim) and someone who killed that person (murderer) out on the loose.
Now, you might ask 'what does finance have to do with 9/11 or JFK' -------everything. It's the same breed, the same level of secrecy, the same expected & delivered immunity,