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.

 

9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
You can listen to Alex put it to PM from the link below, most of us already know the issues and the few brainwashed will have to ignore it

Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign

Listen to Alex Here



Alex Jones responds to the Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunking exercise. Popular Mechanics featured a so-called 'serious analysis' of alternative explanations behind 9/11 in their March issue.

In actual fact, the entire article was a straw man exercise. Popular Mechanics attributed false arguments to researchers and then attacked them. On top of that they lied outright by claiming that there was only one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11.

Alex also addresses the issue of Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, being cousins with Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
1) Maybe its because the PM article doesn't really debunk any facts.


Really? What about Payne Stewart, for instance? That's used all over as an example of how speedy Norad intercepts can be, with fighters reaching his plane in 18-20 minutes. Except, as PM points out, the actual time to intercept was actually an hour longer. Oops.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
And let’s not forget the whole seismic data issue where Christopher Bollyn completely distorted, misinterpreted and otherwise butchered up to fit his preconceived notions.

Don’t forget the so-called pod which was shown to be nothing more than glare off of the bottom of the fuselage.


I don't see anyone defending those points.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Funny Howard, I don't see you defending the false claim that only 1 plane was intercepted in the last few years before 9/11. Defend that lie, since you defend the others.

Since you mention science, please tell me how science can explain strange puffs of smoke that ascended WTC 7. I have SEEN that with my own eyes. And what about eyewitnesses who reported explosions?

I don't see why you continue to defend this straw man argument. I find it strange that the article didn't consider the remote control plane explanation a myth worth debunking. I guess that's because it can be PROVEN that we now have the tech to control planes like this; in fact, that tech has been around for a minute.

And the Ben Chertoff thing doesn't matter? I'm not even replying to that.

So if someone writes an article about the NON scientific smoking guns of 9/11, would that be credible Howard? Please, I am VERY interested in your response. BTW, you never stated whether or not you believe 9/11 was an inside job...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Funny Howard, I don't see you defending the false claim that only 1 plane was intercepted in the last few years before 9/11. Defend that lie, since you defend the others.


I am not sure what you are talking about? Do you mean the Payne Stewart case?


Since you mention science, please tell me how science can explain strange puffs of smoke that ascended WTC 7. I have SEEN that with my own eyes.


The building was on fire. It was filled with smoke. The internal volume of any high rise building is 90% air. When the floors started to collapse, the smoke had to go somewhere, didn’t it?



And what about eyewitnesses who reported explosions?


Which have not been corroborated by any of the umpteen media recordings of the collapses. To someone standing next to a building that is collapsing, I would imagine that everything sounds like an explosion.

Having personally witnessed a number of controlled demolitions, I can attest to the fact that the explosive charges are quite loud, distinct and noticeable. Not only would you be able to hear them on the videos, but everyone in Manhattan would have heard them ..



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Pop Mechanics has it's self been TOTALY DE-BUNKED read and weep www.serendipity.li...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
HA HA HA HA

Yeah, right. Lets look at these responses, shall we? (Sorry for the C&P, but I need to make my case.)

Original article by Popular Mechanics

One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page and at right). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."


Now lest look at how your so-called “debunking” serendipity page responds to this

Popular Mechanics ignored the image above. Instead it chose an image precisely because the anomaly is not visible (and they combine this choice with the lie that "Conspiracy theorists claim this photo 'proves' the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation"). Having chosen an image in which the plane is just a black silhouette against the sky they then sent this image to some "expert", who reported that no anomaly was visible. Gee — we're impressed!

No, that is not what P.M. did. They described the effect that is distorting the pictures that you claim to be a Pod, and they show a picture where it is clear that there is no pod. It is “not visible” because it is not there!
More

Actually the question of whether or not some anomalous object is attached to this alleged Boeing 767 is interesting but an affirmative answer is not necessary to show that 9/11 was an inside job. It is a well-known tactic of disinfo artists to draw attention to controversial issues (and to create endless debate about them) so as to distract attention from the real smoking guns.

Seems like serendipity is backing off the assertion that it is a “Pod” a bit there. Way to “stick to your guns, serendipity.
and definitely a nice job of trying to deflect the fact that you have been debunked.



[edit on 11-3-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
One more:

From P.M

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Now the Serendipity response


But to return to the actual seismic record ... The question is, what sort of event best explains the readings: Explosions? Or the impact upon the ground of debris falling from great height (steel girders mostly, since the concrete was pulverized and dissipated in great clouds)? In the latter case we might expect a fairly uniform earth-shaking over a period of ten seconds or so as the steel hit the ground. This is what appears in the "expanded view" of "the first collapse" in the Lamont-Doherty image (the second red graph in the image above). But this is not what appears in the black graph, which shows spikes occurring toward the start of the seismic events. This is indicative of explosions, in which there is a sudden release of energy at the start of the events followed by residual effects, tapering off to zero (or rather, to the usual background noise).
Some might say that the "spikes" do not show the effects of explosions because their amplitude (in the black graph) is the result simply of the scale used, an expanded scale on the vertical axis which allows the large maximum amplitude of the event to be compared visually to the small amplitude of the background noise), so the appearance of massive spikes is an artefact of the graphical representation. But while it is true that the amplitude of the spikes is a result of the vertical scale used, and a compression of the vertical axis scale would bring the maximum amplitude down to what is seen in the red graph, this objection misses the point, which is the position of the spikes in the context of the entire seismic event.
Lamont-Doherty's red graph for "the first collapse" shows no spike. But what part of the total "first collapse" event have the authors of the article chosen to expand to produce their red graph? Could it be that they have chosen just a part of the overall event in such a way that the position of the spike in the context of the total event is concealed?


You got to hand it to these guys. At least they stick to their story on this one. Even after the seismologist refute their claims and present additional graphs illustrating the errors that the theorists make, the authors at Serendipity absolutely refuse to acknowledge this.

They consistently fail to understand that not only is the amplitude of the graphs different, but the time scale of both are significantly different as well.

Furthermore, I think it is absolutely hilarious that the Serendipity Authors pretend to be experts and now more about reading and interpreting at seismic graph then a degreed seismologist with many years experience.
Tell me Siberian Tiger, do you honestly thing that Serendipity has “debunked” the author of the seismic report? Do you think that they are smarter than Lerner-Lam?


[edit on 11-3-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Funny Howard, I don't see you defending the false claim that only 1 plane was intercepted in the last few years before 9/11. Defend that lie, since you defend the others.


OK, I presume you are talking about this
www.wanttoknow.info...

The thing is, prior to 911, NORAD, did not routinely scramble jets over the continental U.S. The only example of this is the Payne Stewart case.

NORADs original mission was to defend against external threats. That is, planes entering the U.S. airspace that were not accounted for.

Since you have not provided any information to indicate that any NORAF intercepts were made over the continental U.S. I will assume that these scrambles were made in response to external threats (or, more accurately, percieved threats).


dh

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
What is this HR/OTS shill?
Full time workers to tie you up with detail?
Here they expose themselves

[edit on 11-3-2005 by dh]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
The U.S. Gov has said a F-15 pilot disobied orders to go to washington this F-15 Pilot EXISTS, it was a lie if he did exist he would have been court marshaled.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Sigh, Howard, you're a real piece of work.

On my next post, I will post some info for you. In the meantime, you still never answered my question, just as I predicted. Oh well, least I was right...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Here's one, for starters...

One of the first anomalies that many people noticed immediately after 9/11 was the inexplicable non-reaction of the military air defense system to the hijackings.

It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes. The Air Force plane will then fly next to the non-responsive plane, and rock their wings -- a way to say "follow me" to a nearby airport (if the plane merely has lost its radio equipment). If the intercepted plane refuses to respond, there is a graduated series of actions the Air Force can use -- firing tracer bullets in front of the plane, even shooting it down if it is a threat. This is analogous to police pulling motorists over for having their lights out - every driver in the US knows that when a police car behind them turns on their siren, they are supposed to pull over, just like every pilot knows that when an Air Force fighter plane pulls beside them, they are supposed to follow their orders, too. If the light bulb has merely burned out, the motorist will get a warning, but the police have a graduated series of responses they can employ if the driver is not merely having a mechanical problem (ie. they have just robbed a bank and are driving with the lights off to avoid being seen).

The airspace over the northeastern US is among the busiest on the planet. It is home to the nation's political, military and financial headquarters, the largest population concentrations, and key strategic facilities. A jumbo jet in this area suddenly changing direction and altitude, and refusing to respond to air traffic controllers would be as dangerous as a truck on a busy rush-hour freeway driving the wrong way at full speed. When planes go off course in this busy environment, instant reactions make the difference between life and death -- which is why NORAD (North American Air Defense) practices these kinds of scenarios, and instantly scrambles fighters when there is any hint of a problem.



For critics of the official story of 9/11, the smokiest of the smoking guns is the "failure" of NORAD to intercept the planes. Even if one ignores the abundant evidence that allied intelligence services in other countries provided warnings that the attacks were about to happen, the information from the "insider trading " just before 9/11 that indicated which airline companies would be used, and other clues that clearly show complete official foreknowledge -- there is still enormous evidence that does not fit the official paradigm of "incompetence responding to a surprise attack."

The "timeline" of 9/11 was the first, and most important indicator of a massive discrepancy with the official story. NORAD's fighter interceptors can travel at supersonic speed, yet even the most basic calculations suggested that they had to fly far below even normal subsonic flight speeds to avoid reaching their destination (New York and Washington) in time. (See the "timeline" information lower on this webpage). Apologists for the Bush regime state that since they were not expecting the 9/11 scenario, and thought that the hijacking would be a "traditional" type hijack, but this avoids the question of why the off-course planes were not intercepted (a procedure that does not require Presidential authorization, unlike the order to shoot down the plane).

Even if one is willing to grant exceptional deference to the Bush / Cheney administration, and pretend that they had no idea 9/11 was about to happen, there is no excuse for this ignorance at 9:03 am, when the second (South) tower was hit. At that point, the entire military's air defense system had no doubt that the hijackings were intentional, multiple attacks, and that additional hijacked planes would be used as weapons. This is the time when "President" Bush was content to continue to read to second graders, instead of assuming his duties as Commander-in-Chief.

When the second tower was struck, Flight 77 was near the Ohio - West Virginia border. Around this time, that plane made an unscheduled 180 degree turn, and stopped communicating with air traffic control -- a big clue that this was also one of the hijacked planes. Nevertheless, no serious efforts were made to intercept this plane between 9:03 am and 9:38 am, when it hit the west side of the Pentagon. Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)

Ultimately, Flight 93 was shot down around 10:06 am near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, although this was kept concealed from the public. It's probable that most citizens would have accepted the "need" to keep this plane from reaching the DC area (assuming that is where it was headed), a loss of life that would have ensured that a worse disaster was prevented. However, acknowledging this action might inspire further questions about 9/11 -- such as why the plane that hit the Pentagon also was not shot down, especially since most of the time it was hijacked it was flying over sparsely populated forest in West Virginia and western Virginia. There are a variety of theories why Flight 93 was shot down (but the evidence it was seems overwhelming - see www.flight93crash.com... for the best compilation), but perhaps a key issue is the fact the plane left Newark (NJ) airport almost an hour late, and therefore it had to be stopped since enough havoc had already been created, and an additional attack, another half-hour after the Pentagon crash, would have been even harder to explain as "incompetence." It is possible, too, that the "heroic passengers" story was always part of the script, but that is, of course, speculation.

More to come in the future...



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
More FANTASTIC tales U.S. Gov wants people to believe about 9/11 rense.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I have been holding off my critique of this post, but its time has come.






Originally posted by truthseeka



It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers.




I just love the way people like truthseeka make these pronouncements without any apparent understanding of the implications of that they are claiming.



It truthseeka's world, everything is rigidly controlled with no margins for error, no room for variances, no mechanical breakdowns, no human factors,etc. People don't make repeated efforts to contact at non responsive plane. No, in Truthseeka's world, one slip up and BLAM, you are blasted from the skies.



Let's start with the first part of his statement: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades." I'm sure that truthseeka's vast experience and many years as an ATC controller, or as a commercial pilot, have given him a unique insight into the NORAD "Standard Operating Procedures" that the rest of us don't have. OK, That being said, lets move on to the next part.



"to immediately intercept"



Please define the term "immediately." What is the "Standard Operating Procedure" for getting an armed fighter airborne? What are the acceptable response times for those procedures. How do these response times relate to the DEFCON status? Do you even know what the DEFON status was on the morning of 911?



The next part of your statement: "off course planes" also deserves a detailed look.



What do you mean by "off course?" Who is to judge when a plane is "off course?" Do you have any inkling of flight rules and regulations? Are you just talking about commercial planes? What about private pilots? Do you know the requirements for filing a flight plan? How far "off course" does a plane have to be? What happens if the transponder fails or (in the case of the 911 planes) is turned off? How can the ATC even tell if a plane is "on course" or not?



"that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers." What if the plane is "on course" but doesn't respond to ATC? Are you going to scramble the f-16s then? How many times are the ATC supposed to try to contact them before they scramble the F-16s? once? Twice? Three times?




Originally posted by truthseeka

When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.




Thank you. A new sig line is born.



That statement is so hilariously funny, it deserves repeating:




Originally posted by truthseeka

When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.




I will not even bother to pick it apart, because anyone that can not see the absolute ignorance inherent in that statement wouldn't understand anything I could say about it anyways. Instead, I will just let it sit there in all its shameful glory








Originally posted by truthseeka

When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.























Originally posted by truthseeka

The Air Force plane will then fly next to the non-responsive plane, and rock their wings -- a way to say "follow me" to a nearby airport (if the plane merely has lost its radio equipment).




I bet you saw that wing rocking thing in a movie once didn't you? So, if you have a problem with your radio equipment an Air Force jet will force you to land at the nearest airport?






Originally posted by truthseeka

If the intercepted plane refuses to respond, there is a graduated series of actions the Air Force can use -- firing tracer bullets in front of the plane, even shooting it down if it is a threat.




I love the way you imply that the Air Force will start blasting away with heavy weapons at the slightest provocation.




Originally posted by truthseeka

This is analogous to police pulling motorists over for having their lights out - every driver in the US knows that when a police car behind them turns on their siren, they are supposed to pull over, just like every pilot knows that when an Air Force fighter plane pulls beside them, they are supposed to follow their orders, too. If the light bulb has merely burned out, the motorist will get a warning, but the police have a graduated series of responses they can employ if the driver is not merely having a mechanical problem (i.e.. they have just robbed a bank and are driving with the lights off to avoid being seen).




You left out one important detail. It is a little thing called posse commitus.



We are, after all talking about "civil" aviation and "civil" airspace.

(Oh, and BTW, No intelligent crook would rob a bank then drive off with the lights off.)




Originally posted by truthseeka

The airspace over the northeastern US is among the busiest on the planet. It is home to the nation's political, military and financial headquarters, the largest population concentrations, and key strategic facilities. A jumbo jet in this area suddenly changing direction and altitude, and refusing to respond to air traffic controllers would be as dangerous as a truck on a busy rush-hour freeway driving the wrong way at full speed.




The airspace isn't that crowded, dude. Have you flown in an airplane yourself lately? Rush hour on the freeway?







Originally posted by truthseeka

When planes go off course in this busy environment, instant reactions make the difference between life and death -- which is why NORAD (North American Air Defense) practices these kinds of scenarios, and instantly scrambles fighters when there is any hint of a problem.





I like that, you repeat the "instant" reaction bit twice, as if repeating it can make it sound any less absurd.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Ok, blast me for posting someone else's words, ok.

I really don't care if I get a warning, but Howard, you are a focking idiot! You are dumb as $hit!

If you want, I will post the place where I got that article snippet from, since you always require proof that you will never believe. You're so lame.

And again, you are an idiot. The very same "expert" that the PM article quoted as saying only 1 plane was intercepted before 9/11 was quoted by the AP saying that there were 68 interceptions in the year BEFORE! Whatever.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok, blast me for posting someone else's words, ok.


So, in other words, you posted a C&P without attributing it, Is that what you are saying?




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
The very same "expert" that the PM article quoted as saying only 1 plane was intercepted before 9/11 was quoted by the AP saying that there were 68 interceptions in the year BEFORE!


The problem, TS, is that it is impossible to clarify from either article the distinction between airplanes scrambled over the continental U.S. and those not over the continental U.S.

This airspace is NOT under FAA controll.



I am quite sure that a number of planes are scrambled on a regular basis over the Caribbean. What with the drug smuglers and Castro playing games and all.

you don't know either, so the comparison is not valid.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
An excellent article that covers all of the major myths surrounding 9/11 and thoroughly debunks them.
enjoy.



Text
Ummm....lets see....19 skinny Muslims managed to sneak into the US, live lavishly and travel the countryside, train at mysterious flight schools, then board 4 flights and subdue 90-120 passengers on each flight with "boxcutters" Well then, This article is certainly convincing! I listened to Mr. Chertoff for 3 hours the other night on the Art Bell show...he was hardly convincing. I am sure he picked up a nice check from h is cousin Michael just before he was sworn in as the Homeland Security Chief. You can swallow this story hook- line and sinker if you want, it's a free country...but I'm not buying it.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
OK here is a wad of evidence supporting all of us wack jobs Howard.. I have watched this I would like you to disprove some of it for us...

since you are belive in the "true" Story and all..

www.prisonplanet.com...

you can also get this on a bit torrent the whole video... so I would seggest that considering thats what i did...

DISCLAIMER: The author of the video DOES NOT mind people sharing his word, if you would like to complain about me sharing his work.. Take it up with him..

[edit on 3/20/2005 by ThichHeaded]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join