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.

 

Questions about 9/11

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Nope, and I'm not planning to either, does that matter ?


Yes, if you're going to disregard the information without even reading it.


Yeah cause I can't disagree with the official story without reading a 568 page book about it. Give me a break..

maybe you should read this book :

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[Mod Edit - Shortened Link]

[edit on 30/8/05 by JAK]




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
“I did not read them all, honestly I think you're nuts for doing so
But I noticed a couple good ones and since I hadn't seen the list I thought I'd post them.

What you make of it is your own problem, I'm not trying to convince anyone with it.”

Why would I not read & review the content posted? It seems you don’t even read what you post, but you expect Howard to do so, yet are surprised when I do so? Make up your mind, PLEASE.

Obviously, you don’t know the difference in questioning the facts and disinformation. “I’m not trying to convince anyone…” BUT, I stick to the notion that you are wrong for believing what “they” tell you. I have run across very few educated people who don’t have questions about the handling of things in the early hours & days of 9-11… that being said, I know even fewer who are ignorant enough of the facts to think those questions prove (or even imply) a conspiracy of prior knowledge or participation of the US Government (except some of the kids here). As I have said before, I do believe that lies are being told, especially about the PA plane, so I am not closed to the idea of something.

I have plenty of questions, but none led to a blanket conspiracy. I have seen acceptable answers for most of the so called “good questions” asked in the list or on some amateur docuvideo (which has so much editing & bias its laughable) that is somewhere within a few posts of here. Most can be answered by a blanket called politics, complacency & panic. Pretty much if your whole argument rests on a few erroneous statements by panicked “witnesses”, all while ignoring 95% of the other witnesses, I’d say you are just plain gullible. Come on… claiming a missile hit the Pentagon, despite eyewitnesses & evidence, just because a few people were not happy enough with the damage? Something is wrong with that kind of thinking.

I have always found it astounding how some people are willing to disregard 98 facts, only to answer the 2 grey facts in an attempt to prop themselves up as intelligent. Are you really willing to throw out so many real facts that can be proven, when you have absolutely no facts (not a few artifacts from the largest office building on the planet which also happens to be a military building… imagine that… “why would this be here… maybe a WW1 biplane ran into the Pentagon…”) that can be proven, just so you can feel better about yourself?

When someone, anyone, actually comes up with some evidence, facts or even a semi-reliable eyewitness… rather then simply disregarding facts, distorting others & counting on panicked reactions from foreign pizza delivery boys… I’ll look it over. All this conspiracy needs is some aliens and it would be slightly more believable…

*Remember- just because you read it in a book doesn’t make it true, as anyone can write a book these days. I mean, come on, look at Michael Moore.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Nope, and I'm not planning to either, does that matter ?


Yes, if you're going to disregard the information without even reading it.


Yeah cause I can't disagree with the official story without reading a 568 page book about it. Give me a break..



How do you know what you're disagreeing with, if you haven't even read the "official story" to begin with? Are you just going by the (often dubious) information posted on websites?

You can disagree with the official story all you want - but at least find out exactly what that story is before you discard it.

That's just common sense.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Yeah .. and every coincidence theorist here has read the complete NIST and FEMA report they so often quote as their beloved source.
Get real. You guys sure get your panties in a knot for a couple questions, got a great example at that I guess?



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
At this point you have “proven” that even you don’t know what YOU believe. I look at “your proof” and realize that you don’t have a clue & most of your sources have little more. You argue as though you are throwing mud around a room to see where it sticks. A basic understanding & respect of both viewpoints is needed (at least read through a page before swearing by it or arguing against it) before you can attempt to further your own view (WHATEVER that may be).

Again, when you present creditable evidence, claims or proof that directly disprove the official story and YOU understand them, please post them. Don’t bother posting the same dry claims which have been proven flawed time after time, but that you have just discovered on some out dated website.

Maybe you should stay in the “Collapse Challenge” thread, where people want to use toothpicks & pancakes to simulate a building collapse. They, as do you, seem to post just to read their names later.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
A couple of questions sure makes you guys a bit queezy.

I atleast can honestly say I don't know what to belief, instead of clinging to some mumbo jumbo that sounds nice and fits the pretty drawings instead of the real pictures. I only know what not to believe.

It's fun to see you guys continue for 3 pages on some questions and only the first post adressess them. This wasn't posted for a debate in the first place but just as an eyeopener. If you guys want to use it to throw dirt then go right ahead. More people will read them that way.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Thing is mate, you are where I was a few years ago, only a lot of us have progressed on from there (and I dare say a few havn't).. Don't try and
teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, been there, done that.

You need to learn about things and appreciate that NOT EVERYTHING the 'officials' say is wrong and NOT EVERYTHING that the conspiracy folks say is right.
It isn't in Black and WHite, it's in various shades of grey and even colour. Problem is folks like you only see in black and white, you fail to see the millions of inbetweens and the ability to analyse the information to come to a more realistic conclusion somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately it doesn't come overnight and it dosn't come from reading something that one or two guys says, it comes from years of data analysis and the ability to think for one's self.
And 'thinking for one's self' DOES NOT mean repeating what Alex Jones and co say.
And you are ALWAYS learning and noone knows everything.
You just have to read between the lines and see the realistic medium.. You will learn someday if you are worth your salt..
People like American Free Press want to stir up doubt and a civil war or some sort of anarchy so they can take control for their own gains. God knows what motivations people like Alex Jones have, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess.
Like Majic said in his Podcast, all these people are out there fighting for YOUR mind, your just as much of a sucker going 100% with what some of these morons say as you accuse some of us for backing up aspects of the official story.
Your little more than pawns in their big game, you are expendable and they will easily sacrifice you to get what they want, just as you try and accuse people like me.

Remember the key point - everything is NOT Black and White.

Understand that and you will be a long way there.

Otherwise.... Eyes wide shut...



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Get real. You guys sure get your panties in a knot for a couple questions, got a great example at that I guess?


LOL, no, not really


It just helps your case if you actually know what you're talking about, when it comes to making or rebuking claims, you know?

That's all.

It's just really hard to make a rebuttal when you don't know what it is you're responding to...just as it's hard to support something in the same manner. Nothing to do with believing all of one story, or none of the same story. Just helps when discerning material to actually know what the material is.

S'easy, really



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
So you're saying anyone who hasn't read the comission report doesn't know the official story?

Don't get me wrong I'd love to read it but I don't plan to read a 600 page book on a monitor and my wishlist of books does not have the report listed very high.
I think I can, in all fairness, say that I studied/read more of the official papers then ANYONE should to get answers.

And I just read your post on the first page again, I'll try to dig up some quotes.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Don't try and be clever then and poke holes in theories you havn't even read. Anyone can pick up some alex jones trash and repeat parrot fashion his and his cronies theories.
It does help if you understand what your talking about though and you have repeatedly demonstrated that don't. The smartest thing you could do is go away and do some reading and come back when your better clued up on the subject.

When we want to hear Alex's, or Ickes propoganda we'll visit their sites cheers. If you can't back up your claims and refuse to listen to any other facts then your wasting your time, unless you plan is solely to gain an army of no-brainers.
No-one is saying the government is all sweetness and light, or that there arn't certain things that need explaining, but your claims tend to be brash, with little or no backing. And when you run out of arguments you resort to pettiness (Well so do I actually I think, so smack my wrist).

There's nothing wrong with being wrong or not knowing the answers and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. But there is something wrong with making up 'facts' and refusing to believe anything just because it's in an official context.

'ohh look at me I'm I rebel, I don't do anything the gov'ment says - Uncle Alex showed me it's all lies'

cute..

You are one of the breeds of people that if the government published a paper stating that 'Grass is Green', you would start saying it was a lie or a conspiracy because

'How do we know that the colour we have been told is Green, really is Green? Maybe the government said that so they could later make us wear true Green armbands that would signify our obidience to the NWO without us noticing.
Because in one episode of Mickey Mouse in 1976 there was a pyramid and then there was a green light which signifies their connection to the Masons.
Also in 1984 one of the chairs is clearly green, which shows a repetition of the same theme.'


when in reality it is true to question the report, but more mundanely for instance because:

'Actually, some grass is dead and brown - so it's not all green'

So look! The report was innacurate, but most of the times things are a lot simpler.



Just... sort it out OK?

[edit on 30-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I liked this reply even better

You should write fiction.

And keep dissing Alex Jones, I don't know where you get the idea but I don't like him at all, I don't even know who the other guy is. But as a matter of fact, AJ gets most of his stories from mainstream media like cnn, bbc and he interviews a lot of reputable people, so I'm sure you can learn something from watching it.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
So you're saying anyone who hasn't read the comission report doesn't know the official story?


No.

What I'm saying is:

If you have not read the official report, it's very difficult for you to claim with any confidence that the information contained therein is incorrect.

S'all.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Not entirely, and I never said anything about the comission directly, did I ?

I don't need to read the details to point of the holes, they are blatantly obvious.

- The planes flying through American airspace for how long ? up to 2 hours ?
- The buildings collapsing due to a fire.

That's basically all you need, however there are a lot more signs that prove these holes instead of countering them.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Not entirely, and I never said anything about the comission directly, did I ?

I don't need to read the details to point of the holes, they are blatantly obvious.

- The planes flying through American airspace for how long ? up to 2 hours ?



Please. Please, please, please look at the timelines before you post this stuff.

Do you recall how long it was between notification of the first hijack, and it crashing?

Do you recall the time between notification of the second hijack, and it crashing?

Or even the first hijack notification, and any further action?

Where's your 2 hour period coming from?

As for the fires...you might want to be more specific. Which bits of the various debates are you questioning? Which points exactly?



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   


Do you recall how long it was between notification of the first hijack, and it crashing?


I said up to 2 hours, don't take it too literally. I know it was anything between 40 minutes and 2 hours for the 4 flights in total.

Here's a simple timeline
# 8:15 AM: Flight 11 was commandeered.
# 8:42 AM: Flight 175 was commandeered.
# 8:46 AM: Flight 77 was commandeered.
# 8:46 AM: 1 World Trade Center was hit by a 767 jetliner.
# 9:03 AM: 2 World Trade Center was hit by a 767 jetliner.
# 9:16 AM: Flight 93 was commandeered.
# 9:38 AM: The Pentagon was hit in an assault involving a 757 jetliner.
# 9:59 AM: 2 World Trade Center was leveled.
# 10:28 AM: 1 World Trade Center was leveled.
# 5:20 PM: 7 World Trade Center was leveled.

What does it matter right ? We all agree ti's far too long and it's either neglicance or a direct order to leave these plains in the air. I'll go with the latter.



As for the fires...you might want to be more specific. Which bits of the various debates are you questioning? Which points exactly?


All I see in the reports is "intense fires", "raging fires". But.. there's no evidence of any of those fires. There's evidence of cool/moderate fires however. So a report that is basing the collapse of the towers on the weakening of the steel due to heat doesn't sound very plausible to me.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Oh so you still stand by saying that your Neo-Nazi American Free Press is a more reliable source than National Geographic?
Have you ever bothered to read it? Obviously not.


BTW

en.wikipedia.org...:American_Free_Press



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The first two military interceptors, F-15 Eagles from Otis AFB in Massachusetts, airborne at 8:52 am, were too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon.

Times approximated:

8:38 am: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that AA flight 11 has been hijacked.

8:43 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 175 has been hijacked.

8:44 am: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters scrambled.

8:46 am: AA flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower

It is true that NORAD was warned about the hijacking of the flights that hit the World Trade Center, both taking off from Boston, long before dispatching aircraft near Washington DC. But that is beside the point, as at that time there was no known threat to the capital area; only to New York.

At this time, flight 77 has just left Dulles in DC (8:22), and is probably not yet hijacked. Why would anything in DC be scrambled at all at this point?

9:10 am: (approximate time) UA flight 77 begins to fly back towards the capital, around 10 minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

9:25 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 77 may have been hijacked.

9:27 am: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia to head to intercept UA flight 77.

9:35 am: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.

9:37 am: AA flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

9:38 am: AA flight 77 (allegedly) strikes the Pentagon.

We've got to remember that prior to this there was no automatic signal sent to NORAD or NEADS if an aircraft went off-course. At that time the FAA and/or ATC had to physically make the call to NORAD.

Anyway - this is what we know: Mistakes were made, confusion reigned, there were numerous errors in protocol, and it was unique response to a unique situation; none of this is proof of a conspiracy or cover-up.

And that's not saying there wasn't a cover-up; only that these events themselves do not prove anything of that nature.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkeflower
We've got to remember that prior to this there was no automatic signal sent to NORAD or NEADS if an aircraft went off-course. At that time the FAA and/or ATC had to physically make the call to NORAD.


In the case of Flight 77, NEADS was notified of the hijacking by the FAA at 9:24. Of course, the impact of the alleged Flight 77 was at 9:38, or about 14 minutes later.


Anyway - this is what we know: Mistakes were made, confusion reigned, there were numerous errors in protocol, and it was unique response to a unique situation; none of this is proof of a conspiracy or cover-up.

And that's not saying there wasn't a cover-up; only that these events themselves do not prove anything of that nature.


True, but don't you think it odd that there was no response to Flight 77 even after a NEADS notification? They had 14 minutes to do something to stop Flight 77. Personally, I think it odd that no planes were immediately sent up to guard Washington after the first or even second impact in New York. Our military air defense doesn't strike me as the kind of group that would wait around in a confused state while such events took place, but would instead take immediate defensive action, even before having to be warned that Washington was in danger, etc.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
True, but don't you think it odd that there was no response to Flight 77 even after a NEADS notification? They had 14 minutes to do something to stop Flight 77.


They did scramble jets to intercept (or at least try to) Flight 77 at 9:30 or thereabouts (apparently).



Personally, I think it odd that no planes were immediately sent up to guard Washington after the first or even second impact in New York


Yup, it's a little odd. But then again, I can see both sides of that - I can see why, if there was no perceived threat, it wouldn't have seemed prudent to scramble those jets, specially with such confusion reigning. Doing so after the first crash seems even less prudent; it was unclear whether it had been an accident or something else.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by bsbray11
True, but don't you think it odd that there was no response to Flight 77 even after a NEADS notification? They had 14 minutes to do something to stop Flight 77.


They did scramble jets to intercept (or at least try to) Flight 77 at 9:30 or thereabouts (apparently).


Those scrambles were from Langley AFB, which is 130 miles to the south. It took them 19 minutes to finally reach the Pentagon, too late, obviously, because they were only flying at 410 mph (27% of their potential of 1500 mph).

By comparison, Andrews Air Force Base is 10 miles from the Pentagon (big difference from 130 miles) and has two squadrons of fighters that are available for these types of emergencies 24/7, that can easily be scrambled in less than 5 minutes. In the 14 minutes of Flight 77's reported hijacking and barreling directly towards Washington, Andrews AFB sent up nothing. They simply waited idly.


Yup, it's a little odd. But then again, I can see both sides of that - I can see why, if there was no perceived threat, it wouldn't have seemed prudent to scramble those jets, specially with such confusion reigning. Doing so after the first crash seems even less prudent; it was unclear whether it had been an accident or something else.


I could understand how the first impact could be considered a mere accident, which is why I said either first or second impact. By the time the second hit, the FAA had ordered down all commercial planes; they were instructed to land at the nearest available airport.

Why would the FAA do this if they were not expecting further attacks, or at least preparing for the possibility, as one would expect? If the FAA were to order down all commercial aircraft under the suspicion of more such attacks being imminent (there were still other planes that were unresponsive and had transponders turned off), you would think our military air defense would similarly take up an immediate defensive position around strategic locations.

But instead, the FAA took such an action while NORAD stood idle. Washington especially would obviously be a first priority to protect once it became apparent that terrorist attacks were occurring. Andrews AFB was idle until some time after the Pentagon impact, despite a 14 minute warning.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join