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.

 

(2) Questions Islam and 911 & Inside Job Theories

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
MA, the above seems a tad out of place given some insight in past posts. What, specifically, bothers you about the above post...without resorting to over generalization and tepid ad hominems?




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Here's the logic in the above post:


1. There is no proof.

2. Well, there is proof, but I don't like it because it disagrees with me. My opinions are more important than the proof.

3. I can add some contrived facts to my opinions too, and not many of you will notice.[edit on 27-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]


Perhaps you're confusing "proof" with "evidence". Mohammed Atta's father saying he spoke to his son after the attacks, for instance, is evidence, but it's not proof (and proof is what the original poster was asking for). And it's certainly not enough to state unequivocally that he's still alive, as the link I mentioned seems to do.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
You are right about the reliability of anything to do with Mohammed Atta's father's verbage or what journalists purport has come out of the man's mouth, especially given recent "evidence" of his musings about the value that the suicide bombers in London bring to humanity.

Having said that, my summary of the logic in your post stands, and it's a typical contribution to the cyclical tit-for-tat void-of-principle-and conclusiveness junk that can pervade the polarized discussions here.

That a number of suspected "hijackers" on 9/11 were misidentified or victims of identity theft is proven beyond doubt.

You want proof? You can't handle the proof, etc etc, to paraphrase Jack in an oft misused Hollywood soundbite.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
That a number of suspected "hijackers" on 9/11 were misidentified or victims of identity theft is proven beyond doubt.


Then why don't you share this proof with the original poster, rather than attacking my posts?

[edit on 27-7-2005 by ashmok]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
1. I would classify my comment as a "categorization" of a single post, not an "attack" on a set of posts.

2. I have linked to a number of authoritative statements on the identity theft several times since April 2003, and frankly I've become disinclined to do things over and over again. Perhaps the search tool and the recent compilation of 9/11 topics into one forum will get the ducks in formation and stop the wheelspinning and revisionism of discussions such as these. (Mixed metaphors'R'Us.) Or perhaps not, it depends how fixated people are on defening the indefensible.




[edit on 27-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I have linked to a number of authoritative statements on the identity theft several times since April 2003, and frankly I've become disinclined to do things over and over again.


Then I think I'll stand by my post. Issues like the timing of the "hijackers still alive" stories (all before the FBI released their full photo list, so there's very little to go on), the debunking of some claims (the Al Shehri brothers, al-Ghamdi) and the flimsy evidence presented about the others suggests to me that it's not proven that any of them are alive at all.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by ashmok]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Bastard internet swallowed my post composed with great care and diligence.

It addressed the timeframe of the reported identity thefts 2001-2004, estimated the number of links at 20+, alluded to the irony of the report of one "hijacker" perishing later in a plane crash, and for entertainment value described the inane tit-for-tat arguments over why none of the names of the accused appeared on passenger manifests.

And it ended with this credo for the immediate gratification want-it-now conspiracy board generation of 2005:

ATS. Deny laziness.

Apologies that this is an insipid pale recreation of what was meant to be. As Tammy Wynette once sang, "Stand by your post. After all, it's just a post."



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Passenger lists, hmmm

Well then we should at least know the ASSUMED names of the attackers right?

Oh wait, I forgot, it was an inside job wasn't? All the passengers were given new Identities, lots of cash, and 70 virgins on top of that.

Or were they just killed and dumped in the ocean with concrete shoes?





posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Passenger lists, hmmm

Well then we should at least know the ASSUMED names of the attackers right?

Oh wait, I forgot, it was an inside job wasn't? All the passengers were given new Identities, lots of cash, and 70 virgins on top of that.

Or were they just killed and dumped in the ocean with concrete shoes?




Considering how many people died at the WTC, and how obvious it must have been that a lot of people were going to die, I don't see why the people behind it would refrain from killing the passengers on those planes. They could have gone about it in many different ways, too, no doubt. And the planes did have much lower occupancies than was usual on 9/11. All four had about a fourth of their full capacities or less. "Minimized fatalities, maximized shock."



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
the planes did have much lower occupancies than was usual on 9/11.


Lots of sites say this, although (as usual) none offer any evidence. According to Staff Report #3 of the 9/11 Commission, though, that's not quite true. They say the load factors were:

51% for Flight 11 (average over the previous 13 Tuesdays was 39%)
33% for Flight 175 (average was 49%, so lower, although 2 of the previous 13 had lower numbers still)
33% for Flight 77 (average was 32.8%)
20% for Flight 93 (average was 52%)

So one above average load, one about average, one below but within an expected range for the previous 13 weeks, one very low. As of course their were extra passengers in the hijackers and we can say they were slightly below normal, but there's no great pattern to this. I've also read suggestions that reduced passenger numbers on the first Tuesday after Labor Day is normal and expected, something that wouldn't be taken into account by their average of the last 13 weeks, but as I'm in the UK I have no way to evaluate that.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Considering how many people died at the WTC, and how obvious it must have been that a lot of people were going to die, I don't see why the people behind it would refrain from killing the passengers on those planes. They could have gone about it in many different ways, too, no doubt.


Yeah and the way they faked the cell phone calls from the plane to their families was a pretty slick trick ol Bush did to wasnt it?



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by bsbray11

Considering how many people died at the WTC, and how obvious it must have been that a lot of people were going to die, I don't see why the people behind it would refrain from killing the passengers on those planes. They could have gone about it in many different ways, too, no doubt.


Yeah and the way they faked the cell phone calls from the plane to their families was a pretty slick trick ol Bush did to wasnt it?


Yes, it was.


In one of two calls Ted Olsen said he received from his wife, Barbara, she asked "What should I tell the pilot?," referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Chic was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. It seems highly doubtful that he could have been persuaded to hand over the stick without a fight, and agree to sit in the back of the plane, especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked.


Burlingame was also "a health nut, jogger and exceptionally competent pilot."



Vietnam veteran and "health nut" being overtaken by a Muslim armed with only a box cutter, and even without a fight.



Madeline Sweeney, who was the "anchor" for Flight 11, says: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash, as though she, a Massachusetts-based flight attendant of 12 years, had never seen the Manhattan skyline before. Supposedly she was continuously monitoring the view out a window.



There is no public evidence of recordings of any of the conversations, despite the extended length of some of them, except for the alleged calls from Flight 11 attendants Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong.


911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

As for the other three pilots?


John Ogonowski was captain of American Airlines flight 11. Ogonowski was an Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and joined American Airlines in 1979. He was big, burly and physically strong. His co-pilot, Tom McGuinness, was also in excellent physical condition.

Victor Saracini was captain of United Airlines Flight 175. Saracini was a former fighter pilot of the Vietnam era. He was in superb physical shape, with a quick and alert mind.

...

LeRoy Homer was the first officer of United Airlines Flight 93. It crashed in Somerset County, PA, at 10:10 a.m. Homer, muscular and agile, was a former Air Force pilot.

Given the experience of these pilots, it is very difficult to imagine a forced takeover of any of their cockpits.


And the "hijackers" only had boxcutters... tsk, tsk, physically-fit military veterans.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join