It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 -200 smoking guns & 300 'coincidences'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
200 'Smoking Guns'
killtown.911review.org...

300+ 'Coincidences'
oldmanjoe.tripod.com...

There is a ton of information on these pages. If you dont agree with them please dont rip it all as BS, quote the part you disagree with and why you think its bogus, thanks.




posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The second website will not work for me.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Why don't you try to prove all the links, all 500, one thread at a time? People might then answer you.

This is nothing but a rehash of all the arguements already posted in these forums, and you don't offer any personal view or arguements to add.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Why don't you try to prove all the links, all 500, one thread at a time? People might then answer you.

This is nothing but a rehash of all the arguements already posted in these forums, and you don't offer any personal view or arguements to add.


What is the purpose of your post? I made the thread to include two sites with a great deal of information in each one of them dealing with all aspects of 9/11. I am sure not everyone here has read every thread and post in here up to date and would appreciate these two sites.

You have the right to not view them or comment on them, atleast I still think you have that right, better check the latest news, the government may have revoked that.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I was asking your own views, and maybe you could add some for at least a few of the issues that are listed since maybe they will be different than those that are already created. Just giving a heads up on a way to maybe get some good discussion, rather than just creating a 'link post'. No offense was meant.

I have researched enough that after looking at the first link, most have been explained away. I was wondering which struck you as most odd?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The first two is what made me keep reading...




1962 - US military drafted 'Operation Northwoods' plan to commit terror acts in US cities, kill innocent Americans, and hijack airplanes to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba. (ABC)

March '00 - Filming begins for The Lone Gunmen's 'Pilot' episode that depicts a US plot to crash an electronically hijacked Boeing 727 into WTC and blame foreign terrorists to provoke war and increase military's budget (KC Star), March '01 - 'Pilot' episode airs on FOX TV, 6 months before attacks (TV Guide), Lone Gunmen co-producer hopes WTC attack wasn't 'somehow inspired' by anything they did. (KC Star)


Operation Northwoods has been discussed here and there but it doesnt get enough attention IMO, this document clearly demonstrates the WILLINGNESS to sacrifice innocent Americans to accomplish an agenda, and that was war with Cuba, Kennedy was good enough to dismiss this and fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

The second was something I had never heard of before, and since I havent, I was pretty sure many others havent either. Clicking the text expands on that topic. We ALL need to accept that doing this horrendous crime was in the minds of many SICK individuals BEFORE 9/11, and while that does not establish proof, it SHOULD make people more suspicious than if this was not in our history prior.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Tom Clancy published a novel pre 9/11 that had a airliner crash into DC and wipe out most of the administration. It is not a new idea, it is even one that was a what if? However, in the mind of the complacent american, it is hard to beleive that anyone would attack our own country or be able to, so we blame our government.

Our government is not to blame for 9/11, but beauracracy. Pre 9/11 there were no fewer than 5 national databases that tracked and kept tabs on suspected terorrists, foriegn and domestic. The problem was that there is nothing to tie them together, and that is how operations such as 9/11 occur.

Alot of people also fail to remember that the Millenium celebrations (pre-9/11) were targeted by Al-qeada, however they were stopped. Here is a list of their suspected attacks.
www.infoplease.com...

There are many smoking guns to 9/11, but if you dig deep enough most of them are as you stated, coincidence. They may sound evil and some fit an agenda, but there was nothing to gain from 9/11 for our government, just as there is nothing for them to gain now from a terror attack.

I mean, common sense tells you that if you want to incite fear such as Riechstag, then you should have multiple attacks iwthin months, not wait 5 or 6 years in between.

I can say that the first few times I read lists like those you posted, I was skeptical, but I read and did the research, and came to my own opinion as everyone is allowed.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Actually I found the first link the one I could get to; to be a very well organized website and liked the fact that someone had taken the time to put it altogether in such an organized way. And no most IMO have not been explained away. But lets just take one, who warned Mayor Willie Brown and why would he be warned?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I don't think he said.

Same thing with Ashcroft, rice, and that satanic dude. Actually the satanic guy the banned him from flying that day.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Nice link, good to see everything in one place. Might make sense to start looking for patterns in all of these unrelated issues to generate a definitive story of what happened.

More and more I think that debunkers are like politicians: they always have an answer for any question but they never really answer the question.




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
More and more I think that debunkers are like politicians: they always have an answer for any question but they never really answer the question.



Nice quote!


(I have to add another useless line so I won't get fined.)



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Killtown. Is that first link your site? I haven't looked yet but I will.

Edit: I just looked at the site....pretty awsome to say the least. I haven't read everything but it is put together rather well.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I don't think he said.

Same thing with Ashcroft, rice, and that satanic dude. Actually the satanic guy the banned him from flying that day.


By satanic guy do you mean the author Salman Rushdie?
www.makethemaccountable.com...

Here is something interesting on Brown and who warned him, you might find interesting. Why this info did not cause a bigger stir I do not know. Of course its probably because many did not hear it, since it was definitely not on mainstream media. By the way there are plenty of websites with this info of the pacifica report.



www.fpp.co.uk...
ACCORDING to a report today Friday, May 17, 2002, on Pacifica Radio, the warning to San Francisco's mayor came from squeaky-clean Condoleezza Rice.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I was asking your own views, and maybe you could add some for at least a few of the issues that are listed since maybe they will be different than those that are already created. Just giving a heads up on a way to maybe get some good discussion, rather than just creating a 'link post'. No offense was meant.

I have researched enough that after looking at the first link, most have been explained away. I was wondering which struck you as most odd?


Man, puleeeze!


That statement is so bogus, I don't know where to start.

I find it funny that the only thing you wanted to talk about was the Lone Gunmen.
How about the warnings, or the fighters sent elsewhere, or the clairvoyant Rumsfeld? And that's BARELY scratching the surface.

fm, HELLUVA find, man!
There's so much info, I can't take it all in at once. Is that your site, Killtown?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, but the reason that there were no fighters launched out of Andrews, or any other base but Otis AFB, is because there were no other bases near NYC that HAD fighters either armed, OR ready to take off. The wing commander at Andrews came out and said quite clearly that it would have taken them approximately two hours to arm and launch fighters after the word was given for them to. There were only 21 fighters that were armed that day for the ENTIRE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. (No, this had nothing to do with exercises, or training. This was standard since the end of the Cold War and alert fighters NEVER take part in exercises.)

[edit on 4/6/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I gt to ask why no one notices or cares that Pacifica Radio reported that Condoleeza Rice warned Mayor Willie Brown? Pacifica Radio is a a very well respected source so I would think that their reporting of this would be considered important in acknowledging inside knowledge within the government, which is what many of us have said all along, but here is proof.

So why is it no one seems to care, I mean it proves the point that she felt the danger was strong enough to warn friends but yet it was never reported to the rest of the world how imminent the danger was, it also proves her a liar when she sat there and said something along the lines of, who could ever think of or perceive of such a thing being done. So why is no one but me feeling this is important?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Zaphod. I have already stated in another thread that no matter where the fighters were stationed, they could have gotten there in time. You see, fighters can go really fast.

On another note though, you had an excellent point about them not being able to track the planes because the transponders had been turned off. But, I want to ask this question. How did they come out with the flight paths of all the highjacked planes if they couldn't track them with radar?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Point 1- Sure fighters go really fast. Here's the problem with that statement though. Hang fuel tanks and missiles on them and they don't go NEARLY as fast. More things hanging=more drag. more drag=lower top speed. The F-15 is lucky to get into the higher transonic region with three tanks and 8 missiles onboard, which is what most alert fighters carry. You can't carry enough fuel to overcome the drag factor and get supersonic. So while fighters DO go really fast, the top speed that s computed is in a clean, fairly lightweight, optimum conditions, speed run.

For those that don't know, here's a basic aviation lesson, to try to explain this. You have four forces of flight that balance each other. Thrust, lift, weight, drag. Thrust and Drag are opposites, and Weight and Lift are opposites. The more drag, the more thrust you need to go forward, the more weight, the more lift you need from the wings to stay airborne. EVERYTHING creates drag. Including paint. An F-15 can carry three external fuel tanks (672 gallons IIRC, or about 4570 pounds each, 4 AIM-7 Sparrow, and 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. While there is some aerodynamic shaping to these objects, they are still huge drag factors for the plane to overcome. In a clean configuration the F-15 is capable of Mach 2.5, in a full load configuration it's not even capable of going past Mach 1.

Here's another problem with going really fast. To accelerate past Mach 1, you have to use afterburners. Afterburners suck gas so fast that when an F-15 does a "speed run" it can only fly for about 45 minutes before it has to refuel. The normal cruise range for an F-15 wth a full load of externals, and full internal fuel is near 2500 miles. The fuel consumption of an F-15 in afterburner flight is somewhere around 125% of normal.

Point 2. The ATC controllers can reconfigure their screens to show the skin returns of planes. The Primary sets will pick up a skin return, just no information about the flight. They had enough returns picked up along the way to figure out the flight path of the flights. Some controllers would have reconfigured their screens, others would pick up intermittant returns with no transponder codes.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   


no matter where the fighters were stationed, they could have gotten there in time. You see, fighters can go really fast.


Why yes they can. Though they don't have bottomless fuel tanks. The faster they go the more fuel they burn.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Point 2. The ATC controllers can reconfigure their screens to show the skin returns of planes. The Primary sets will pick up a skin return, just no information about the flight. They had enough returns picked up along the way to figure out the flight path of the flights. Some controllers would have reconfigured their screens, others would pick up intermittant returns with no transponder codes.


As for your first parts, I don't need an aerodynamic lesson. I started out as a mechanical/aerospace engineering major before I switched to Civil Engineering...of which I recieved my degree.

Second point. So, you are contradicting yourself, because when we were talking about it in the other thread, you said that they couldn't track the planes without the transponders. So, which is it?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join