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.

 

Beware Official 9-11 Story Debunkers

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigEasy
The truth is 8 out of 10 conspirists who work at debunking the official 9-11 story are nothing but agents of disinformation. They grab you by the nose waving enuff truth at you that you follow, then they lead you down the crazy path into the wilderness of nothingness. Case in point: the POD people.


Fully supported by lots of opinion pieces, articles, and research from people inside the so called "9/11 Truth Movement".
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think the pod squirted chemtrails all over and made everyone addicted to diet pop and the apertame ate a hole in there noggins and made em believe everything the government says.



Being sarcastic



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This is all my work, nobody else's.

This is a response of my own work for the anti-757 Pentagon thread.
If jet blast were to have occured, engines would have been going at full throttle for a 757. Besides, for a vehicle to have become airborne due to jet blast is impossible. Let's see here, 3400 pound car and 200,000+ pounds aircraft. The amount of air travelling on top of and beneath the vehicle would be equalized due to the amount of pressure exerted.
I learned all of that studying why, over the past 4 plus years, race cars have started flipping over when spun backwards. The answer to that is one I'll never tell

Plus, the aircraft would have been travelling at an altitude of no less than 10 feet off of the ground. The engines itself are nearly 9 feet in diameter. Even flying at ten feet above the ground, the engines would have struck some of the cable spools that were lying around. I think that the plane came in at about 15 to 20 feet, and then dove into the side of the building.

It has been debunked and debunked and debunked that a 757 did IN FACT strike the Pentagon. We know those parts scattered on the Pentagon grass came from the plane. You can clearly see, unless you're blind or just have some really dark sunglasses on, you can see the tail of the plane go by the toll collection box on the video. Even FAA officials confirmed it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon. 9-11 was soemthing that we never saw before and will hopefully won't ever see again.

I have two questions for merc_the_perp, Lyte_Trizzle, and Mister_Narc.

Why hasn't anyone looked into why fighters weren't scrambled in time to intercept the hijacks on 9-11?
And

Have you guys actually done any form of research to see if it wasn't a 757?


The hole that was punched into the side of the Pentagon has the same dimensions as if you where to sit a 75 in the grass with its landing gear folded up. Considering the aircraft was travelling at nearly top speed, it would not surprise me if the tail were ejected. Now, if that was the tail, then what is that sticking off of the back of the fueselage?

Example.

Let's say that you are driving a car at 100 miles per hour towards a brick wall. Now that wall is stationary, it's not gonna move unless something heavy hits it. When your car hits that wall, it's going to wad up like a piece of aluminum or explode into pieces. Good case, you might be in and I.C.U. for a while, worst and most likely case, you are dead right there(D.R.T.).

Those spools of wiring were so severly damaged during the attack on the Pentagon that they could not have been used after cleanup. The damage that was done to the wiring could not be seen from that distance under those conditions. After the plane hit, the jet fuel that hadn not burned off in the explosion had soaked the wires on the spools. To add to that, the water and foam would have caused more damage to the wiring. The wires in fact shorted out when the water and fire retardant foam made contact with the exposed wires. Water, one of the main ingredients in foam, makes contact with the copper and other elements in the wires, they short out even though the wires were not powered. Since this process occured, the wires were removed after the fire was put out and they were disposed of properly.

Here's a little known fact about the attack on the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense had an airport fire engine stationed right about where the plane hit. That truck was wiped out when the plane hit the rig as it was stationary. The crew that was stationed on that truck stated that they had to run like hell to get away because they knew they could not have gotten that truck out of there in time. The fire apparatus was hit by one of the engines of the 757-200ER that hit the side of the Pentagon. The plane had just enough room between the engine both vertically and horizontally that it cleared the control tower for the helipad not eighty yards from the point of impact. Plus, this piece of apparatus would not have survived the subsequent fireball that came after the 757's impact. Even firefighters from Alexandria and surrounding areas reported seeing the 757 go down. As a result, most fire units that arrived on scene within five minutes of the attack were self-dispatched.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I can't help ya right there.


And my lone post in the WTC aircraft analysis. A response to Mister_Narc's "pod theory."

I have seen both the DVD and the unedited video on tv, and I saw no "missiles" being fired from the plane. You obviously are seeing things that aren't there. I mean, you would obviously see the contrails from the "missiles" being fired toward the tower. If missiles were fired at the towers, then why hasn't ANYONE came foward? Ask yourself this, just how much research did you put into this?

Thanks for getting me started again on the "pod theory," so I guess I have to debunk this one also. The "pods' as you so call them, it has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over again. These "pods" are actually the buldge in the fuselage of the aircraft. I see what you posted as a smokescreen to get around the truth so we can't get to the point.

Those were actual civilian airliners that slammed into those buildings. They are not the missiles that other so-called conspiracy theorists have been preaching. You know I first thought the same way until I realized that some of the numbers did in fact add up. It takes on slip of the mind for a person to change their mind, and that's what happened to me. Debating whether or not a missile was fired at the WTC will no prove anything. The real conspiracy here is why did Bush not do anything to keep it from happening!!!???


[edit on 2/1/2006 by gimmefootball400]

[edit on 2/1/2006 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
double post removed

[edit on 2-2-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'd argue that this is probably more the case... with an event this large, there are many strange things that took place - in this example, whether they are actually the result of a government conspiracy or actually what they say is irrelevant.

Now, many of us here and on other conspiracy forums are naturally curious people and that leads to us trying to reason out the discrepancies. Unfortunately, some people post their flawed theories overzealously (or occasionally for the attention) without doing much research first and others pick that theory up and add it to their own.

The only way to combat this and live up to the ATS motto is for everyone to research and investigate the validity of every claim they post.

Of course, there are times for just posting theories as well. But they need to be clearly marked as theories or opinion so others don't try to incorporate one person's theories into their "facts".



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
gimmefootball400 it's imposible even to aproach the pentagon.

Blah, blah, blah


That must have made it tough to land at Reagan airport if you couldn’t even fly the "River approach."




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by pepsi78
gimmefootball400 it's imposible even to aproach the pentagon.

Blah, blah, blah


That must have made it tough to land at Reagan airport if you couldn’t even fly the "River approach."





Howard no matter if there was a gate or if there is some way you can get with a 757 near the pentagon the question that matters is not if it was a 757 the qestion is "was it staged up"
I would agree that it was, an hour howard an hour, people in the pentagon worring and saing "we are next" And what do they do?
This is no mistake no human error this is planed.
You got workers in the pentagon asking them selfs how ovius is this.
You know what it can be a 757 for all i care, this does not change anything.

Has i recall you were asking for a bat fone so new york can inform the capitol that they are under atack.
Well no need for that since the pentagon was waching tv.

I will get in to the matter later on how fast f16s from adrews can hit the sky
in case their needed.
Adrew air force base is specialy design for protecting the capitol one call and their up.
This is intentional.





[edit on 2-2-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
My biggest problem is the fact that interceptors were not scrambled in time and no planes were there to do a visual check of the cockpit. Also why would the government not release security footage of the 757 as it was about to crash into the pentagon? My local supermarket chain has cameras set up so you cant get anywere near it without getting on video. I guess we need better grocery security than we do for one of our most important military headquarters.

Gimmefootball400, why in the world would they station an airport foam pumper at the Pentagon? I am sure there is a firehouse close by that could have supplied a class A pumper on scene? We dont take specialty apparatus to a scene unless there is a reason for it, the airport pumper is for putting out fuel fires, not structure fires.

Lets put it this way, you have a fire station near the pentagon they feel they need a pumper on scene because of some hazard with electrical. You are going to dispatch a class A pumper to the scene, not a foam truck. A class A pumper is going to have Foam packs onboard that attach to the end of a 1.5 inch firehose, they are more than sufficient to attack a structure fire. The apparatus from the airport is for getting hundereds of gallons of fuel under control, not for a structure fire.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Has i recall you were asking for a bat fone so new york can inform the capitol that they are under atack.
Well no need for that since the pentagon was waching tv.


Did Howard really say that? A bat phone so NYC could call the Pentagon? How about not just the T.V. coverage, but how about radar operators at Andrews? I am pretty sure they are trained to find an arcraft when the transponder was turned off, or maybe when the former USSR was going to be fair and have transponders turned on?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Gimmefootball400, why in the world would they station an airport foam pumper at the Pentagon? I am sure there is a firehouse close by that could have supplied a class A pumper on scene? We dont take specialty apperatus to a scene unless there is a reason for it, the airport pumper is for putting out fuel fires, not structure fires.


I would assume it was because an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. Aircraft have fuel.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400

Here's a little known fact about the attack on the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense had an airport fire engine stationed right about where the plane hit. That truck was wiped out when the plane hit the rig as it was stationary. The crew that was stationed on that truck stated that they had to run like hell to get away because they knew they could not have gotten that truck out of there in time. The fire apparatus was hit by one of the engines of the 757-200ER that hit the side of the Pentagon. The plane had just enough room between the engine both vertically and horizontally that it cleared the control tower for the helipad not eighty yards from the point of impact. Plus, this piece of apparatus would not have survived the subsequent fireball that came after the 757's impact. Even firefighters from Alexandria and surrounding areas reported seeing the 757 go down. As a result, most fire units that arrived on scene within five minutes of the attack were self-dispatched.


It was stationed before the plane hit, you think I am going to question this if the apparatus was toned out after the strike?



I would assume it was because an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. Aircraft have fuel.


So next time you comment why dont you read the source from where a person got this info?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
You're right, I didn't read that correctly and I apologize.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Covering things up with motives.


External source
'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next
external source
'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)


Compare the 2 quotes



external source
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
--'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)

This is what i call a lie dont you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More awarnes , not that they didint know already, statements by pentagon's employs or military staff shows that the knew.


The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)



Points of adrews air force base.

1 Adrews is 10 miles away from the pentagon.
2 In usa Today, the second-highest rated newspaper in the U.S
On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:
Many versions not a single one sort of ohh if this does not work we will give them this.


Version 1


external source
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
--'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)


second explanation.


external source
The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)


third explenation this is the realistic one



external source
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)



Scrambeling jets after the incident


external source
Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 (8)





external source
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)

1 An hour in betwen and no action is taken
2 Cover up with diffrent storys that will make the american public happy.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I'm a "pod person", care to go at it?


Either there is extra equipment on that plane, or the footage and photo's are faked.

I bet you also didn't know Flight 11 was a smaller craft as well and had missiles on the wings that fired off, before a bright flash is seen.

Does that make me a "missile person" part of the "missile people".



One more time:
The flash that you saw was called painting the target with a laser and was not from a a fired missile. The plane itself was the missile. Now did it have some napalm on board for added fireball effect? Quite possibly, but more than likely it was part of the remote navigational system of the plane or simply a shadowed view from the angle it was photographed and videotaped.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I know for a fact that Andrew's has F-16's there. I did work on one of the airstrips there and seeing an F-16 taxi about 20 feet away from you, there really can be no doubt in your mind. Oh, and also when you have pictures of said F-16s.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   


EastCoastKid said:
I believe the aircrafts that were flown into the WTC were remote controlled. Its the only explanation for what happened that morning. With those aircrafts. What happned to the supposed Pentagon airplane, I have no idea. And as far as the PA crash is concerned, I think it was being flown by remote too, but somehow those folks on board were rushing the cabin. And the military shot them down. The debris pattern supports this theory.

Wow ECK, we're essentially on the same page.

Yeah, like I'm a disinfo agent either. For god's sake, I'm just a guy "off the street" (apologies to the REAL OffTheStreet) who's looking at A: the ruling elite in one hand, and B: the events of 9/11 on the other, and then C: the post-9/11 alteration of US policy regarding arabs in general. There is an arab-hating flavor to it that frightens me, and it was leapt upon by our leaders.

Narc, there's no point in going up against FredT. He's not your enemy, believe me. Relax on ATS and don't compare it to other boards. The moderators have opinions too and nobody gets harrassed here really, even if they call it down upon themselves.

As for "pod" discussion:



AgentSmith Said:
As for the flash, aircraft build up a significant static charge when flying, in all likelyhood the flash was the sudden discharge just prior to impact with the nearest earthed object, the WTC in this case.

Oh is that right? In ALL likelyhood you say? What did FredT say about pushing your own theory belligerently?

All I know is this: On the video of the events in question, there is a distinct, off-center flash, which appears to be something hitting the building. This is observable by a child.

Have you ever seen static discharge from a plane? Is it ten-feet tall when it does? Does that static look like a puff of smoke? Maybe my perfect eyesight or granular knowledge of videography is deceiving me? How can you know what it was, with 100% certainty, to the exlusion of all other explanations, when such an event (plane discharging through its nose cone into a skyscraper) is ludicrously rare?

My operative position regarding 9/11 is to work backward from 2006. If one does this, one arrives without exception at 9/11 as the catalyst for the global change which the west is seeing. As a result, I believe the PTB desired nothing to go wrong with 9/11 since so much stemmed from it.

Smith, do you subscribe to the accidental theory of history, where things just kind of happen and then everyone scrambles? I tend to think world events are much more planned. Am I a loony for this? Please describe how planning is not involved in geopolitic. Try not to reduce my position to the absurd.

Now you ask, why would they need to fire a match? Well, because if the fuel doesn't light, the melting-steel story won't fly at all, will it? Of course you and I know that the explosion was 99% certain, but why take the chance?

A pod on the planes doesn't change anything really. Whether the shadow is a pod or just the fueselage, or the flash is a puff-cloud or static, the fact is, the offical story is untenable. Particularly with Saddam not really being involved, yes 9/11 was used to stick the US in its worst strategic quagmire in thirty years.

Anyway, like pepsi said, the official story is ludicrous. That's the bottom line. 9/11 will live forever in the conspiracy hall of fame, so anybody trying to cover truth with disinfo will be eventually exposed over time, particularly since there's so much evidence remaining to be found about 9/11 (all the details are sealed away).

We don't know half of what happened anyway, so I have to chuckle at the people who are spraying us with the "settle down" firehose. Will you turn on the same firehose when the hidden footage and data gets revealed? I'm sure the world will be very different by then, wot?


[edit on 2-2-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Now we have to wait for Howard to come with something up.

Come one Howard cook something up fast!!


[edit on 2-2-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigEasy
The truth is 8 out of 10 conspirists who work at debunking the official 9-11 story are nothing but agents of disinformation. They grab you by the nose waving enuff truth at you that you follow, then they lead you down the crazy path into the wilderness of nothingness. Case in point: the POD people.

Be wary as you dig.


I wouldnt put it that high. But I see your point.

This idea has been covered in a few discussions on various 9/11 topics. Like the big arguement over a missile hitting the Pentagon. More than a few people have been wondering if this "theory" was put out by the spooks to send critical thinking on 9/11 into chaos. The whole arguement about whether a boeing hit the pentagon or not has overshadowed the serious, critical scrutiny of the more solid and verified events.

This missile theory cropped up right around the time when several serious articles and research was cropping up showing inconsistancies. Websites and articles that were written by scholarly, legit people who were raising some very glaring and disturbing questions, which people started asking. The research was solid, and it was not far fetched or based on wild, out there and unprovable theories.

Then suddenly, all these crazy theories about this and that pop up out of now where, and wild, crazy, and ridiculous crap was being peddled around, and next thing you know, the growing body of persons who were questioning the offical party line suddenly were arguing silly points of this and that, thus leading people away from the more important facts.

911research.com...

It would make sense, for if this is a disinformation scheme, its worked wonderfully. 9/11 skeptics of the party line certainly have been divided and have spent their energy into a fruitless, neverending arguement over what hit the Pentagon, instead of the real glaring incosnistancies that could prove more and more that all is not as it seems.

I honestly don't see what Mr narc being a "rapper" has to do with not being a disinfo agent. Not that |I believe he is. i just dont see how rap makes one a crusader for truth.

Rap music is just another mass produced tool of the mainstream media to allow controlled youth rebellion fantasies while making huge amounts of cash. Just like hippy music in the 60's, rap music fans grow out of their "guerilla for the people" delusions and grow up to be part of the whole system.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
wow I was wondering about that, needed an OFFICIAL to tell me that 911 was legit and that I can go back to sleep and just let the NWO boys do their thing. I think NOT!

Wanna know who did 911, follow the money baby!!

Note which companies vacated the building and which ones did not, were not told.

New twist is the involvement of Citibank in all of this... has this been talked about here??




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join