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.

 

Damning Evidence for 9/11 Conspiracy

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Honestly I really don't remember hearing anything about the Pentagon being rebuilt BEFORE 9/11. The first I heard about them strengthening it was after the plane hit, and they mentioned it on the news. I'm not saying I'm any sort of expert or anything, just that I don't remember it being highly publicized that they were doing it.




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Meh, me either. I could do a Google search for it, but considering it's also under construction at the moment, I don't know how easy it would be to find that information, and I'm feeling lazy. Maybe someone else here has it. I would suspect it would be known on some scale, even if only by people that worked there or drove by it on a daily basis (since it was the side facing the road), etc. It doesn't seem like something that could be easily overlooked while researching a target, but who knows.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Heres an interesting article i found:

Former Vietnam Combat and Commericail Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job
Posted on: 7/17/2005 7:54:00 AM - Columnist
By Greg Szymanski


There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.


The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.


Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state.


www.lewisnews.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state.


The guy hits it dead on, but I'm sure people will just come along and laugh him off or call him a kook as always happens, and it'll end there for them. There are still people who won't even consider for a second that what the US is doing today is comparable to the tactics used by the Nazis to come to power in Germany, despite the fact that the very psychologists that worked for the Nazis were brought to the US right after WW2, along with the well-known rocket scientists that we brought over to 'keep from the Soviets'.

Everyone's heard that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I'm pretty sure that also applies to those who don't actually think it will repeat, or refuse to consider it.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.


The same ‘big boys’ that "faked" the moon landing, right?



The same ‘big boys’ behind the outbreak of witchcraft in Salem in the 1700's, right?

The same ‘big boys’ that blew up the Maine, that shot the Archduke, that killed generals Custer and Patton to prevent them from running for president, etc. etc. etc.




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by magnito_student
There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.


The same ‘big boys’ that "faked" the moon landing, right?



The same ‘big boys’ behind the outbreak of witchcraft in Salem in the 1700's, right?

The same ‘big boys’ that blew up the Maine, that shot the Archduke, that killed generals Custer and Patton to prevent them from running for president, etc. etc. etc.





hey, howard. you're pretty much putting words in someone's mouth. you asked people not to do it to you. how 'bout a little respect for your own code?

i'm not positive the moon landings were faked or real. i don't know dickey all about salem, or the maine, or the archduke or custer or patton.

i know JFK was killed by a very powerful group of men. more powerful than the president(obviously). there were multiple shots, and there was a huge exit wound on the BACK of the head. i have watched the real zapruder film, and his head clearly rocks backwards as brains spray UPWARDS into the air.
i have it on pretty good grounds that hoover was one of the conspirators.

are you really so sure that everything is peachy under the sun? is there no evil in a man's heart when he becomes powerful(through good works, of course:@@
.

are conspiracies 'technically impossible'?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

are conspiracies 'technically impossible'?


Of course. What was the Reichstag? Just the German 9/11. Oops.. Am I still allowed to say German?

If Howard could get away with it, I'm sure he would tell you Watergate didn't happen, and neither did Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, or Waco. He'd tell you Teapot Dome was something conspiracy theorists dreamed up, and that the Spaniards really did blow up the Maine. All to do with getting paid I suppose. He'll just rant on what he can get away with without looking like a fool.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Bzzt! Sorry! The Pentagon has admitted to four war games being held on 9/11.


I know, however what you said was "there were war games going on involved hijacked planes flying into buildings". The links you point to talk about war games that are nothing to do with hijackings. And as your quote points out, the one involving a crash was nothing to do with hijackings either. My point stands: there's no evidence to support your original statement.


Couple that with the fact that certain employees were warned ahead of time, and you get a clear picture that not only did someone know it was coming, but they knew where it was going to hit, and that only a few people would be in danger.


You've failed to show that a single employee was warned ahead of time. The sole reference for this is a Newsweek story that says a group of Pentagon officials cancelled their travel plans on September the 10th "apparently" for security reasons. a) as I said, cancelling their plans on the 10th could well put them in the danger area on the 11th, b) there's no information about what the security concerns were -- could just as easily have been conditions on the ground in some other country half way around the world, and c) the original author qualified whether it was "security concerns" anyway, suggesting to me that he wasn't certain.


They released pictures of the people they said committed the attacks, and those people were still alive. It's that simple.


No, it isn't. The sequence was a) 14th September, FBI release official names, b) some people with similar names come forward, c) 27th September, FBI release name and photo list, d) mistaken identity stories disappear.

As an example, let's look at the article you say "confirms" a hijacker is alive. The BBC refers to Waleed Al Shehri and says he's still alive. But hold on a moment -- the FBI list refers to a Waleed M Al Shehri. Have they just left out one initial, or is this a different guy altogether?

Now, if any of the sites that mention this were really interested in the truth, you might expect they'd try looking into this further, right? Perhaps going to Google and entering "Waleed M Al Shehri". Do this and you'll find the very first link -- en.wikipedia.org... -- explains that the BBC story refers to Waleed A Al Shehri, not the hijacker at all (and you can Google "Waleed A Al Shehri" for more information and confirmation).

Further. the same link refers to his brother, who some sites tell us is also "still alive", and says that the family said they disappeared before 9/11, accept that they were brainwashed into taking part, and accept that they're dead.

There's also a link to the Der Spiegel piece that explains how the al Ghamdi "still alive" story is also due to a media mistake (service.spiegel.de...).


American Airlines only had a 6000% spike in put options. United Air Lines had the greater 9000% spike, and you're saying it hadn't even released any statements yet? I don't think you can chalk this up to the airlines industry as a whole, because those two companies were the only two to see such dramatic spikes. Coincidental, wouldn't you say?


I'm saying it's an alternative possibility, yes. The UAL share price had been going downhill for a while, making it a natural target. And what if the information had leaked that UAL were going to announce a profit warning? If investors even just believed they were the weakest airline (which they were) then they'd be the one to be hit.

So, you can hold onto the "someone must have known something" belief if you'd like. What I'm saying is the "something" they knew may not have been what you think. Shares in the UK often show buy or sell patterns indicating pre-knowledge of commercial events, like trading announcements, results and so on, that presumably come about because of insider knowledge. I don't see any reason that couldn't have happened here. (No proof either, but then there's no evidence for motivation either way).



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

I know, however what you said was "there were war games going on involved hijacked planes flying into buildings". The links you point to talk about war games that are nothing to do with hijackings. And as your quote points out, the one involving a crash was nothing to do with hijackings either. My point stands: there's no evidence to support your original statement.


First of all, there were at least four wargames going on on 9/11. That at least four of them were going on has been confirmed by Pentagon officials. The one mentioned in the associated press article, of a plane crashing into a building, was one. There was also at least one excercise involving inserting fake blips on FAA radar, and at least one excercise involving a hijacking scenario, according to some sources (ie www.fromthewilderness.com... ). I don't think the military has officially commented on what each excercise specified, though, and therefore I don't think there are mainstream (internet) sources.

The excercise suspected to have involved hijackings on 9/11 is Vigilant Warrior.


Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11.


If any officials have yet commented on exactly what each of the four wargame excercises were, personally I would like to see them. I've looked but I'm not aware of any such disclosure, only the above reasoning that Vigilant Warrior involved live-fly hijackings.

What I think is more coincidental than running hijacking excercises on 9/11, is that there was an excercise with planes (I would suspect hijacked) crashing into buildings. There have been past excercises (before 2001) involving hijacked planes hitting both the WTC and Pentagon, among other targets, but that's a different case that's only served to confuse my Google searches.



You've failed to show that a single employee was warned ahead of time. The sole reference for this is a Newsweek story that says a group of Pentagon officials cancelled their travel plans on September the 10th "apparently" for security reasons. a) as I said, cancelling their plans on the 10th could well put them in the danger area on the 11th, b) there's no information about what the security concerns were -- could just as easily have been conditions on the ground in some other country half way around the world, and c) the original author qualified whether it was "security concerns" anyway, suggesting to me that he wasn't certain.


That's legitimate. I'll give you that, and those Pentagon employees the benefit of a doubt. However, there were other warnings. For example, Condi Rice also warned SF Mayor Willie Brown in a pretty well publicized suggstion not to fly to NY on 9/11.


No, it isn't. The sequence was a) 14th September, FBI release official names, b) some people with similar names come forward, c) 27th September, FBI release name and photo list, d) mistaken identity stories disappear.

As an example, let's look at the article you say "confirms" a hijacker is alive. The BBC refers to Waleed Al Shehri and says he's still alive. But hold on a moment -- the FBI list refers to a Waleed M Al Shehri. Have they just left out one initial, or is this a different guy altogether?

Now, if any of the sites that mention this were really interested in the truth, you might expect they'd try looking into this further, right? Perhaps going to Google and entering "Waleed M Al Shehri". Do this and you'll find the very first link -- en.wikipedia.org... -- explains that the BBC story refers to Waleed A Al Shehri, not the hijacker at all (and you can Google "Waleed A Al Shehri" for more information and confirmation).

Further. the same link refers to his brother, who some sites tell us is also "still alive", and says that the family said they disappeared before 9/11, accept that they were brainwashed into taking part, and accept that they're dead.

There's also a link to the Der Spiegel piece that explains how the al Ghamdi "still alive" story is also due to a media mistake (service.spiegel.de...).


I don't think that was the case of all of these guys, if any. Photos were released just days after 9/11 when the passports were "found". I remember seeing them on TV. Birth dates were also released, which lined up with those who came forward, and there was the whole bit about the flight schools, that also matched the suspects that were still alive.

Hani Hanjour, a "suspected" hijacker, was not only found alive, but had the same flight experience detailed by the FBI. So this was no mix-up: this was the guy they meant, with the right name, and flight experience. He attended a school in Arizona but did not finish his course as his instructors did not feel he was qualified enough.

The Waleed Al-Shehri that came forward as still being alive also attended a flight school, this time the one in Florida, as claimed. So again, this was the same person we were told did it. The left-out initial does not stand up to the fact that both of these allegedly different people went to the same flight school in Florida and had the same name.

Then take Abdulaziz Al-Omari for example. A man with the exact same name and birth date, who had had his passport stolen in Denver year earlier, came forward protesting his innocence. Meanwhile, another man, this time by the name of Abdul Rahman Al-Omari, a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, came forward wondering why his picture was being used in the FBI claim.

So the FBI really screwed up big here. Either that, or lied intentionally, as I suspect, as a part of the cover-up of the whole mess.


I'm saying it's an alternative possibility, yes. The UAL share price had been going downhill for a while, making it a natural target. And what if the information had leaked that UAL were going to announce a profit warning? If investors even just believed they were the weakest airline (which they were) then they'd be the one to be hit.

So, you can hold onto the "someone must have known something" belief if you'd like. What I'm saying is the "something" they knew may not have been what you think. Shares in the UK often show buy or sell patterns indicating pre-knowledge of commercial events, like trading announcements, results and so on, that presumably come about because of insider knowledge. I don't see any reason that couldn't have happened here. (No proof either, but then there's no evidence for motivation either way).


The FBI was supposed to investigate this, but never came back with any info at all from what I understand. Put options were also suspiciously made anonymously, just to further add to the unlikelihood of innocent economics. It may not be possible to prove motivations, but I'm still very suspecting.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There was also at least one excercise involving inserting fake blips on FAA radar, and at least one excercise involving a hijacking scenario


Yes, there were war games going on, and I know about Ruppert's conclusions, however they're not really based on any substantial evidence at all. His thinking runs something like this.

a) the famous tape of FAA > Norad has the Norad guy responding to the hijacking by saying "is this real world or exercise?". Ruppert says he wouldn't have asked if this were an exercise unless a hijacking was part of the war games. That's his only bit of evidence.

I say that's not enough. I'm sure Norad exercises occasionally throw in extra, unscheduled elements to war games to keep them on their toes (like "Andrews Air Force Base has just been destroyed by a nuclear strike"). They might have wondered if it was something like that.

Also, it's reading way too much into way too little. I could just as easily point out that he didn't say "is this real world of part of THE exercise" -- ie they were talking generally, not specifically. Does this prove conclusively that there were no hijacking exercises? Of course not -- you need more evidence, either way.

b) Ruppert quotes a story talking about injects, false blips on Norad radar screens. Then he wonders if they were on FAA screens as well, and if so would that explain why the FAA had reports of several hijacked planes. And that's the sum total of his evidence -- it's just a guess.

As it happens it's also an unnecessary guess. There is documentation for why many planes were thought to be hijacked ,and it's nothing to do with "false blips". See www.usatoday.com... for some examples.


That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11.


Note how he presents no evidence whatsoever that the exercise involved hijackings, or commercial aircraft? He just states it, and we Must Believe.


there was an excercise with planes (I would suspect hijacked) crashing into buildings. There have been past excercises (before 2001) involving hijacked planes hitting both the WTC and Pentagon...


The exercise on 9/11 relating to a plane crash involved an accident, not a hijacking. From memory the emergency response seminar re: the crash at the Pentagon the year before was also not hijacking related, and only one of a number of disaster scenarios they explored. I don't recall any exercises relating to the WTC?


Condi Rice also warned SF Mayor Willie Brown in a pretty well publicized suggstion not to fly to NY on 9/11.


Brown was in no danger, as the planes were crashing before he'd even left for the airport. So why would anyone with inside knowledge of the plot bother warning him?

If this was such a serious warning from a senior source, then why did Brown ignore it? Because he did -- he was going to fly anyway, and reported he saw what was happening on TV while waiting for a cab to the airport.

Anyway, there is a more plausible alternative. Brown said he was warned by his security people at the airport, who always let him know when there were warnings circulating. And there was one, relating to potential attacks on Americans overseas. Despite this it was still circulated, and George Shultz reported also being told of it in his San Francisco office, September 10th (www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable). I don't think that's a coincidence, & to me it looks like the Brown warning arrived for the same reason.


Photos were released just days after 9/11 when the passports were "found".


Not the official ones, and that introduced problems of its own. Did you read the Der Spiegel article I linked to last time? CNN found a photo of another al Ghamdi, released it, found it was the wrong guy and apologised.


Birth dates were also released, which lined up with those who came forward


Nope -- take a look at the first FBI release (www.fbi.gov...). 12 of the 19 had no birth dates released, Waleed M alshehri had as many as 7. So matching dates was mostly impossible, or not as unlikely as you might think.


Hani Hanjour, a "suspected" hijacker, was not only found alive...


Who's claiming Hanjour is still alive? Got a link for that?


The Waleed Al-Shehri that came forward as still being alive also attended a flight school, this time the one in Florida, as claimed. So again, this was the same person we were told did it.


Nope. He has a different name, a different background. He does not have a brother called Wail. Meanwhile, as I said, the real parents have said that their two sons were involved, and accepted that they are dead. Two different people.


Then take Abdulaziz Al-Omari for example. A man with the exact same name and birth date, who had had his passport stolen in Denver year earlier, came forward protesting his innocence...


The first BBC story does not say the second Al-Omari's birth date matched. What it does say is that:


Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says


So no proof that either man is the one referred to by the FBI, however this is conclusive evidence that there was confusion over names. Likewise with Rahman (www.nationmaster.com...)



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Yes, there were war games going on, and I know about Ruppert's conclusions, however they're not really based on any substantial evidence at all.


From this quote..


Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies


..it seems that there is at least evidence from what those two men disclosed, that there was an aircraft in the sky as a part of the drill. That it was or represented a commercial airlines seems unsupported here, but if it was commercial then it would either be a scenario for a hijacking or for a pilot gone mad.

"Vigilant Guardian," which, according to this site basing its information off of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazines,


...were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.


I think that would be the whole purpose behind putting these wargames on 9/11 if this was a conspiracy. Don't you think it was a weird coincidence that there were any war games at all on 9/11, let alone wargames involving planes crashing into buildings? And this being just one of the wargames. The others we haven't even been told about. And don't you think it was a bit coincidental that those wargames should confuse NORAD and the FAA into not responding to a commercial aircraft barreling towards Washington for almost a full half hour?


The exercise on 9/11 relating to a plane crash involved an accident, not a hijacking. From memory the emergency response seminar re: the crash at the Pentagon the year before was also not hijacking related, and only one of a number of disaster scenarios they explored. I don't recall any exercises relating to the WTC?


Maybe they weren't hijacking related. This was on a page I was looking at earlier but haven't been able to relocate yet unfortunately. It listed both the Pentagon and WTC complex as past subjects of wargame excercises in the US, among other locations. I personally wouldn't find it surprising considering the importance of both locations.


Brown was in no danger, as the planes were crashing before he'd even left for the airport. So why would anyone with inside knowledge of the plot bother warning him?

If this was such a serious warning from a senior source, then why did Brown ignore it? Because he did -- he was going to fly anyway, and reported he saw what was happening on TV while waiting for a cab to the airport.

Anyway, there is a more plausible alternative. Brown said he was warned by his security people at the airport, who always let him know when there were warnings circulating. And there was one, relating to potential attacks on Americans overseas. Despite this it was still circulated, and George Shultz reported also being told of it in his San Francisco office, September 10th (www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable). I don't think that's a coincidence, & to me it looks like the Brown warning arrived for the same reason.


Exactly how often does Condi call people up to warn them of potential overseas attacks? o.O


Not the official ones, and that introduced problems of its own. Did you read the Der Spiegel article I linked to last time? CNN found a photo of another al Ghamdi, released it, found it was the wrong guy and apologised.


No, I didn't read the article. Apologies.


Nope -- take a look at the first FBI release (www.fbi.gov...). 12 of the 19 had no birth dates released, Waleed M alshehri had as many as 7. So matching dates was mostly impossible, or not as unlikely as you might think.


I believe you're missing some huge coincidences. For example, from the FBI page you linked to:


Abdulaziz Alomari - Date of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979; Possible residence: Hollywood, Florida; Believed to be a pilot.


Not only did a man come forward with this same name and date of birth (out of only 2 given here), but another man came forward that was a pilot and claimed it was his photo that was released. Is there not clear evidence here that even the FBI suspects now are incorrect?

news.independent.co.uk...
www.portal.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml


Who's claiming Hanjour is still alive? Got a link for that?


Nope. I think I got him confused with one of the other guys.


The first BBC story does not say the second Al-Omari's birth date matched. What it does say is that:


Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says


So no proof that either man is the one referred to by the FBI, however this is conclusive evidence that there was confusion over names.


Wikipedia is a source claiming that the man had a matching date of birth, as well as name and origin:


A man with the same name as those given by the FBI turned up alive in Saudi Arabia, saying that he had studied at the University of Denver and his passport was stolen there in 1995. The name, origin, birth date, and occupation were released by the FBI, but the picture was not of him. "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list", he said. "They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this."


en.wikipedia.org...

So for us to believe the actual hijacker was another person, we are to believe that the person that came forward with the same name, date of birth, and origin, was just another one of the many coincidences relating to 9/11.

I suppose it is also coincidence that Waleed M. Al-Shehri (the one that's alive) also attended flight school, just like the one that the FBI says is dead. The FBI lists their Waleed as "(b)elieved to be a pilot." Coincidences, coincidences.

So..


If you're so inept at reading between the lines, why is 9/11 so black and white for you when there were so many odd political and business connections and coincidences, Howard? Is it because those events don't figure into your pay check?

I'm sure you've heard all about how the bombsniffing dogs were removed from the WTC complex the Thursday before the attacks, as major media sources have confirmed. And what about the government's initial moves to stop an investigation?

What about Bush saying more than once that he saw the first plane hit the first tower on TV? Is he senile? Was he lying? Or did he actually see it? And why were the Secret Service so slow to get the President out of that school during a national emergency, when his visit there had been widely publicized?

And don't you think it was weird that on 9/11, there were war games going on [that] involved...planes flying into buildings (what a coincidence!) and that Dick Cheney was already in a bunker with direct communications to all sorts of government agencies, including NORAD?...

And what about those instant messages those people received warning of the attacks that the FBI said they would look into, but never gave us another word on? Or what about the FBI admitting they didn't really have any paper trail on Osama? And isn't it weird that they found those passports unscorched, and so soon after the attacks?

Or how about the fact that two of the suspected hijackers have been confirmed still alive by the BBC, with many more reported to be still alive or were dead before the attacks? And what about the 9000% and 6000% spikes in put options placed on two airlines in the days preceeding 9/11? What about Rumsfeld slipping and saying that Flight 93 was shot down? Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment? Oh, that's right. You're trying to change the meaning of the words "pull it" now, by taking out "it" and replacing it with "back". Very scientific of you.

Wouldn't you say those types of things were clear indications of a forewarning, if not suggestive of full-on knowledge? You criticize someone for not reading behind the lines properly, and then ignore all of this such information. Like I said Howard, it's probably just because this info doesn't figure into your pay check.


The word "hijacked" was taken out of the sentence, "And don't you think it was weird that on 9/11, there were war games going on [that] involved...planes flying into buildings (what a coincidence!) and that Dick Cheney was already in a bunker with direct communications to all sorts of government agencies, including NORAD?"

The remarks underlined are two others you have raised issues with.

So is the above now more acceptable? Those being just the 9/11 coincidences/anomolies that I picked off the top of my head for that particular post, that only few of which have problems. A bit scary is it not?

[edit on 18-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
bsbray11, these replies are getting too long and we're close to repeating ourselves, so I guess it's better if I just sum up my position here.

My first objection is to the fairly constant claim that the 9/11 exercises exactly simulated the scenario of the attacks themselves (to be fair you didn't say that exactly, although lots of people are doing right now in other threads). There is no evidence for that: no evidence the games included hijackings, even if they did there's no evidence they involved multiple planes, no evidence they involved planes used as missiles, no evidence of what the targets might be, no evidence that aspect of the game scenario was running at the same time as the attacks.

But was it still "too much of a coincidence"? Some people do say that, and obviously I can't prove that the exercises didn't include hijacking scenarios or delay the Norad response in some way. But we need more than conjecture to prove that, we need evidence, and I don't see any.

Re: the hijackers being alive, the "coincidences" may not be quite as remarkable as you think.

First, I see people saying some of their names are very common: "Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain... The Ghamdi family is one of the largest families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said al-Ghamdi." (service.spiegel.de...). Can't back that up personally but if true it would be no surprise that some had the same birth date, and were of similar ages.

Also, the first example you highlight of Al Omari, who lost his passport and claims a birth date and name match, isn't a pilot -- he's a telecoms engineer. Can't pay attention to the coincidences that match, without also looking at the ones that don't (like the difference in name between Waleed A Al Shehri and Waleed M Al Shehri).

So are any of these "confirmed" alive? No, I don't think so. The stories appeared before the FBI photo list, lack proof that they're the same people, and there were no follow-ups -- where are the photo-stories, the Al Jazeera footage showing pictures of these people that match those on the FBI sites, the angry relatives complaining that their family member is being falsely accused? (US media might not run these stories but plenty of other countries would). Factor in the cases we know are mixups and I see nothing in these at all.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by ashmok]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Fair enough to slim down.

Obviously you're right in that there is no proof as to whether or not those men that have come forward were who the FBI meant, if they specifically meant anyone. The media portrayed, from one source or another, suggestions of which flight schools these suspected hijackers attended, and at least one, maybe two, of the people that came forward attended those schools, with the same names, etc., as common as those names may be in the Mid-East. That alone raises a red flag for me, personally, as I doubt complete honesty coming from the FBI here. It certainly doesn't help my suspicion that I also believe 9/11 was an inside job, no doubt, as that would certainly entail a cover-up.


The put options and wargames are similarly not easily proven either way, admittedly, but it's quite evident that such events could and would cause confusion given their nature and the fact that unprecedented "terrorist" attacks were occuring at the exact same time. A plane lasted way too long in the air on its alleged way to Washington, and apparently even managed to smash into a building. Under normal circumstances, this would never have occured, as Washington is widely held to be the most secure airspace in the world. I suspect the wargames are to blame for this.

What exactly those wargames entailed, besides planes crashing into buildings, has obviously not been released officially by the gov despite speculation, and I doubt whether that information ever will be released.

The put options were certainly suspicious, especially since some of them were reportedly placed anonymously and only on AAL and UAL, and thus the FBI's "investigation." However, as can be gathered in the last few posts, the exact motivation behind those transactions can easily be disputed and is apparently dependent upon how likely you would suspect a coincidence given the state of the airline business at that time.

At any rate, those three things are only a few oddities that one would come across. Like I said, Bush's comments on seeing the first plane alone are troubling, any way you look at them. Rumsfeld slipping and saying Flight 93 was shot down was also rather unfortunate on his part, but what's more unfortunate is that what he accidentally said explains the actual crash site of Flight 93 much more accurately than the official explanation. Larry Silverstein's comment that Building 7 was 'pulled' is also more accurate than the official story, an Osama Bin Laden interview on Sept. 28th in which he said he believed either a faction within the US or Israel was responsible for the attacks, etc. There were and are problems and inconsistencies and oddities of all sorts up and down 9/11, just as you would expect if the events had been orchestrated from the inside.

My original point was, Howard was criticizing someone for not reading between the lines, and then he himself ignores all of these oddities that I'm not even mentioning half of. He even tries to explain away Silverstein's comment by changing Silverstein's statement from "pull it" to "pull back," showing he's more willing to alter evidence contrary to his beliefs than actually consider it. Either that or he's a hired disinfo agent and has no other choice but to try such tactics. And that initial claim still stands I suppose.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Good debate there guys, but to sum up.

You hijacked my thread.......



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
At any rate, those three things are only a few oddities that one would come across.


Okay, and that's my motivation for arguing these on a point-by-point basis. It seems to me that people look at these big lists and say "there's too many coincidences, it must be a conspiracy". But what I see is lots of dubious points, perhaps poorly researched, not really backed by evidence, sometimes just completely incorrect. Anyway, I've said what I want to say on these particular points, so I'll leave it there.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Good debate there guys, but to sum up.

You hijacked my thread.......


My fault! But I've finished now. Please, carry on.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
You know... if you're basing your entire motivation for researching conspiracy theories because of watching In Plane Site, I strongly recommend watching In Plane Site Debunked -- there are some real problems with the "facts" presented in the In Plane Site video. Most conspiracy sites now do not give much credibility towards the video or especially to Von Kleist, the author of the video. It's not surprising that most of these sits would go from "here's a fantastic video showing the conspiracy" to "oh that is a bad video, the guy is all wrong" when you consider that an enormous amount of his "facts" and the way he presents his "evidence" has been shown to be wrong, misleading, or simply flat out lies, by numerous individuals and websites including conspiracy websites and conspiracy theorists.

[In all fairness, here is the original directors cut of In Plane Site for you to watch and review for yourself: Part 1 of In Plane Site, Part 2 of In Plane Site]

He later released this "update" to In Plane Site where he admits that his evidence presented was indeed flat out wrong. He then excuses this mistake by not apologising for it, but by saying how people are attacking him and posting information on websites that dispute his original video (remember, he already shows that his original video was wrong in this update). They then go on to present "new" video evidence that implies there was smoke around the base of the towers and asks the question "could there have been other fires other than where the planes impacted the building?" The answer is an obvious yes, watch all the debris that gets thrown out the building in a huge fireball when the 2nd plane hits. (This is not a leap of faith...) The original video is full of errors and obvious misrepresentations of the facts, and the follow up video does nothing to come to the aid of the original. It's just bad "evidence" and does more to hurt any conspiracy theories than to help them.

Another clip of Von Kleist possibly implies (from his own mouth) that he's an active and willing participant in obfuscating the truth; in perpetrating a fraud with his video. But that's entirely subjective, and up to your own interpretation.

The best and most accurate thing that Von Kleist says in his video update is "Folks, do you own research." The best sentiment voiced from any of these for-profit conspiracy promoters if you ask me.

Now, if you want better conspiracy theory videos and evidence to work with, I recommend watching this little ditty to get you motivated and then going forward to view other better videos out there; videos based in truth and fact and not story and presentation (the example I've linked is more about presentation). You probably also should go read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert, or the slightly flawed "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Griffen (or view his speech from U of W on CSPAN ( part1 , part2 ) to get a "cliff note" of the contents of his book). Then go read some of the testimony from people like Sibel Edmonds, or view videos and read transcripts and publications of dozens of different speeches by people who aren't crackpots (like way too many of the conspiracy theorists out there seem to be).

I'm sure you can arrive at the real truth instead of these sensational stories that tend to distract you from what is the real story. The key is to not get led astray by a lot of lunatic fringe ideas and studies; instead you should focus on the big picture. The events on September 11, 2001 were either allowed to happen, or were directly influenced & orchestrated to happen.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Thank you Catherder for those links, I will check them out.

This thread is not actually about "In Plane Sight" although it has been refered to a great deal in this thread, and I agree it is indeed flawed, both in it's presentation and facts, but I already mentioned that previously in the thread, as we have "The New Pearl Harbour" amongst others.

If I could ask you to go back to the initial post, and give me your take on the initial statement.

Much appreciated.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I apologize if this link has already been posted, but I didn't see it in this thread... These accounts are very interesting!

Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts

"Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that."

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.

Eric Peterson of Lambertsville looked up when he heard the plane. "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side."

"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join