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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I suggest you take a look at the guy who made this document up. Allen Dulles. This guy organized the iran overthrow in 1953(maybe 1954) and guatamala overthrow in 1953(maybe 1954) (i get the iran and guatamala dates mixed up). Was a major planner behind the bay of pigs. Made Project Northwoods, where kennedy fired him for making it because if kennedy didnt, it might have actually happened. So after kennedy dies, this guy is on the original Warren Commission where he voted that the kennedy assassination wasnt a conspiracy, yet a commission 20 years later deemed it most likely was.

this guy had a history of making very malicious attacks, with little regards to life. He treated american lives like a number, and if they were worth getting killed for the benefits. A man that planned the bay of pigs, you dont think he would do this as well?

anyway im almost positive in the future we will see the information leaked and eventually as time goes by we will find out the truth. We will uncover more and more and see through the lies.

I dont think the government did it, businesses did. They own the government though, they own the military, they own the media, they have there hands in just about everything. you dont think a couple multibillion dollar business with the prospect of making more billions of dollars actually care about killing of a couple thousand american slaves?


Wow, nice info!
And if its the same guy you are talking about you would expect it to be done well, more convincing and a more professionalism to it. It just seemed like an imature debunk which mainly focused on strawhats, how bad the music was and T-shirt sales.

I did watch the screw loose change video, just to see what they had to say, and I must admit a few of the points made were quite valid, and gave a different perspective,but 80% of it was just childish and very poor. Also there was some video footage in there ive definatly not seen before (not in the loose change video).




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I don't understand...

If it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, why did my friend who lives and works in DC, see a plane hit the Pentagon?

Was he halucinating?

He seems pretty sure it was a plane.

-O



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

After writting a bit about Allen Dulles, I decided to make a full in depth thread about his treason like actions. Everything leading up to it. The web unholds when you research him. Prescott Bush, Richard Nixon, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower, etc. it starts to really unfold. You start to see this country has been under control by the same small group since the 40's. Though Allen Dulles wasn't directly behind Northwoods as I thought for a moment before, he did play a part in it because of his affiliation with it.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
I don't understand...

If it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, why did my friend who lives and works in DC, see a plane hit the Pentagon?

Was he halucinating?

He seems pretty sure it was a plane.

-O

"They saw what they saw, but was what they saw what they saw?"



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Originally posted by pepsi78
What a lame debunk, It looked like a school boy debunked it, how he starts with operation north woods is just plain rong, boming with mortar sheels guantanomo?arent us soldiers american citizens ?
And the more debunking he does the more idiotic he sounds, in the end he becomes ridicules, words like "was galileio there" or something like that, or saying milion of steal buildings colapsed do to fire , or that the explosions were from the colapsing building, the explosions that go off are before the tower starts to colapse and has nothing to do with the colapse, it's just a lame counter operation done by who knows what kind of a person which needs to grow up .


Did you forgot that he pointed out the numerous flaws in Loose Change, such as the following:

- Wrong engine part on Flight 77
- The 'fake' voices on Flight 93
- The Osama 'fake' confession tape (type up on Google "Muslim Culture Left Hand")
- WTC7, showing how LC hides evidence like the southside of the building
- The tents
- The pentagon engine part found
- The 'B-52' bomber

He does a good job showing how heavily flawed Loose Change is and shouldn't be trusted at all.


[edit on 4-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]

dear OneSidedCookie, I dont even need sceintifical evidence to prove 911 was planed.
Pre 911 factors and surounding facts prove it was ploted.
Here I'll do it again , just for you.



quote:
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)


What were the people doing an hour before the pentagon got hit, got any idea?
They were waching TV.
They knew.


'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next

'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)

So they knew.
well let's see.


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.'"

Now that is what I call a lie,one lie covers the other.
further more


On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter took off (or scrambled) to protect the city.

Why they didin take off? because they were not informed, who had to inform them , the pentagon, what was their job? to patrol the skys of DC no matter what.
This is exactly what hapend


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)

You must understand there was an hour and you must understand there is criminal involvment.

Want more proof?
here an audio by fema representatives saying they arived a day before 911 in new york, how can you arive a day before?if you dont know what is going to hapen?
www.prisonplanet.com...

that day should be called coincidence day, war games which hapend to have in it's role crashing planes in to buildings and fema agent ariving a day before in new york geting ready, it's a cryme to pick up and sell the crime scene also, but it did hapen, and bush just told everyone he saw live on tv the 2nd plane crash,it's just all a big coincidence,not to mention that teroristrs that were in the plane turned out alive,not to mention that on the pasanger list there were no arabs, some say they had fake id, question why board a plane with a fake id when you plan on dieing and esepcialy when you want people to know who you are after it all hapens?
It does not make sence.
all surounding factors not only 911 are incriminating, it's a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

"They saw what they saw, but was what they saw what they saw?"


I'm sorry, but all I can say in response to this is....




"What if C A T really spelled dog?"

-O



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Ok, I'm not big on the Pentagon events.

But here's the thing:

The circumstances in which people witnessed what happened were about the worst possible conditions imaginable when it comes to witnesses recalling what they saw. I would trust them so far as, oh say, something hit the building. Beyond that, not so much. Could've been a flying elephant with its trunk extended and they could've still seen a 757 or a personal jet or a missile or anything they convinced themselves it was.

Here's what you're looking at, from a psychological perspective:

* A very narrow amount of time to view the event.
* Chances are, a bad angle in which to view the event.
* The object in question is moving very rapidly, in addition to your split second to view it.
* Stress and/or trauma will complicate your recollection.
* Critical influence after-the-fact with people running about saying a plane had hit the Pentagon, or etc., which would also greatly affect your recollection.

Very poor circumstances for any eyewitness in this case. You need video evidence, put simply.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Actually FEMA was not there the day before.



www.snopes.com...

The real explanation is, as usual, much simpler and more mundane:

Tom Kenney simply mixed up his days of the week, saying "Monday" when he meant "Tuesday" and "Tuesday" when he meant "Wednesday." As someone who muddled through quite a few television interviews in the aftermath of September 11, I know how easy it is to become disoriented and confused during live interviews, attempting to hear questions coming to you through an earpiece and respond to the disembodied voice of an interviewer whom you can't see while bright lights are shined in your eyes. A person unused to the experience does well if he manages to get through a three-minute interview without making a whole host of mistakes. That someone who had been working around-the-clock in a crisis situation for two days straight might lose track of the day of the week is quite an understandable human error.

Moreover, a reporter from the Boston Herald tracked down Tom Kenney to verify that he was not in New York City on September 10:

To confirm, the Herald called the Kenney home on Cape Cod and spoke to Kenney's wife, who said that her husband did go to New York on Sept. 11, not Sept. 10. She explained that he was under extreme stress when Rather interviewed him, and added wryly that it was typical of her husband to confuse dates.




That is just another lie pushed by the "truth movement."


Edit: Why do we need eyewitness reports at all when we have Physical Evidence of a 757

[edit on 4-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's what you're looking at, from a psychological perspective:

* A very narrow amount of time to view the event.
* Chances are, a bad angle in which to view the event.
* The object in question is moving very rapidly, in addition to your split second to view it.
* Stress and/or trauma will complicate your recollection.
* Critical influence after-the-fact with people running about saying a plane had hit the Pentagon, or etc., which would also greatly affect your recollection.

Very poor circumstances for any eyewitness in this case. You need video evidence, put simply.

Bingo!



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

The real explanation is, as usual, much simpler and more mundane:

Tom Kenney simply mixed up his days of the week, saying "Monday" when he meant "Tuesday" and "Tuesday" when he meant "Wednesday."


Oh, geez, what a simple mistake. And so now we're lying whenever we say that FEMA was there on the 10th?


However, on the recording Kenney is complaining about not getting full access to the site until "today". Kenney talks about a Monday, a Tuesday, and "today". That's three days.

Ifthe above recording was made on Wednesday, September 12th as claimed, then the explanation that Kenney was simply confused about the days doesn't work, because there is one more day than can be accounted for.


www.whatreallyhappened.com... -- Emphasis mine.

Plus, Rudy Giuliani has already debunked your claim, anyway, LB:


"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."


Read over that a few times and let it sink in.

"The equipment was already there"

As he explained to the 9/11 Commission, FEMA was going to have a terrorism drill right there on September 12th. So this is why they were there in advance to the attacks, and why the equipment was already there.

As Jim Hoffman's site notes,


The transcript of Giuliani's interview was omitted from the commission's website. 4


But that must've been a coincidence, too. What's that, three or four in a row on the same minor issue? FEMA was there having a drill, a worker says he got there 9/10, and also mentions a "Tuesday" AND a "today," and then Giuliani says FEMA was having a drill there, and that's why they were there in advance, and then the 9/11 Commission omits this information.

That's a damned lot of coincidences for one little issue for my taste.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually FEMA was not there the day before.

FEMA was supposed to have a large drill on 9/12 "coincidentally". Is it not unusual for a people to arrive BEFORE it happens, even a couple days before?


Tom Kenney simply mixed up his days of the week

In Snopes opinion.


To confirm, the Herald called the Kenney home on Cape Cod and spoke to Kenney's wife, who said that her husband did go to New York on Sept. 11, not Sept. 10. She explained that he was under extreme stress when Rather interviewed him, and added wryly that it was typical of her husband to confuse dates.

So they never talked to Mr. Kenney directly. Only second hand accounts.


That is just another lie pushed by the "truth movement."

It's not a lie buddy. Why would it take so long for him to be shipped there and he arrives there the night after the attacks to be ready to go in a day after the attacks? Isn't he search and rescue? By the time he arrived, everybody would be dead!


Why do we need eyewitness reports at all when we have Physical Evidence of a 757


See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
To the couple of people on the first page going on about fire bringing down buildings...

You do realise a plane crashing into a building, full of fuel, and exploding, would have different circumstances than a normal fire, by, say, faulty electronics.

...Right? A heavy plane, into a building - kaboom. Explosion. Fireball. Aviation fuel. Doesn't anyone think that little mishap could have an effect on the building, and not just the fire itself?

I bet that "High-rise Office Building" would weaken a bit if it had a plane fly into it and kinda explode.

Like a bomb anyone? If the US government blowing up the trade centres with bombs is a possibly, why isn't a plane crashing, and exploding into a building, treated with the same amount of possibility?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Problem: the plane impacts only took out small portions of the structures and that damage was spread across different floors.

Take for an example WTC1. NIST figures indicate an average of 75% column loss would have to occur before a single floor would fail on the upper (impacted) floors. The actual impact took out about 13% of the perimeter columns and likely, if not lesser percentage of core columns, though no one could've went in to check on those.

Ok, so that's 75% for a single floor. The figure of 13% is a figure for the impacted region in general. (WTC2's was around 11% if you're interested.) Saying that that leaves over 60% of the overall structural integrity to be knocked out from fire is being generous in assuming all of the 13% was dealt to a single floor.

Can you show me any skyscraper fires in the history of the Earth that have brought any floor to 40% structural integrity? Knocked out around 60% of the columns, or something equivalent?

All the fires I've seen have only resulted in minor structural damage, or at most, a localized collapse on upper floors only. Even with an extra loss of 13% integrity thrown in on any floor, you'd still be looking at a localized collapse tops.

And this is all assuming that the fires were hot enough or lasted long enough to do any significant damage, which is another assumption than has never been justified with any conclusive evidence.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I've also asked the same question BSB posed:

I just don't understand, I wanna see your reasoning for this.

You have World Trade Center 1 & 2, both hit by airplanes, but causing damage at different angles. One of the planes hit almost horizontally with the floors it was aiming for, almost directly in the middle of the building. The other plane hit the corner of the building and not horizontally, but almost sideways.

The first plane that hit caused damage almost direct to that face of the building, and then the explosion that blew out everything on the surrounding floors, and the second plane that hit did the same as well, but not as concentrated to one floor.

Nevertheless, the point I care to get at is, they were both affected differently, damage wise. Not all the fires would spread uniformly throughout the buckling floors, applying the same heat and weakening of steel in each support.

The problem? ---> How do you get simultaneous buckling from a fire that isn't spread evenly, isn't causing the same amount of weakening, in both buildings.. causing them to fall down in the foot steps? Honestly... How?

I was satisfied that one of the building's upper half began to tip over, well there's support for the fires not damaging everything evenly.. it's tipping over.. all is good, but wait, the whole building begins to fall down in this "pancake theory" as it's tipping over.. and then ultimately ending the life of the WTC. I can understand floors below being taken out as it comes down and falls over, but even as it falls over, that's mass being displaced by air, causing less of a force. But I cant understand the whole building.

Then as for the other WTC, well.. that just fell down in its tracks..


I ask you to answer my above question "The Problem?" .. please?

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


And this is all assuming that the fires were hot enough or lasted long enough to do any significant damage, which is another assumption than has never been justified with any conclusive evidence.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by bsbray11]


Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.

Does anybody know off-hand at what temp does skyscraper steel weakens at and how long it takes under that temp? What's it's melting point?

Also what did NTSB say how hot the fires were?

I doubt the fires were hot enough.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Steven Jones


Just scroll down a little bit, it's in bold.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
6-9 of the hijackers are alive and well and living in the Middle East. There is video of them being interviewed by the BBC. That sounds like a black op to me, indentities were stolen to implicate the innocent and protect the guilty. A passport/lincence survived the crash and fire and was found on the street later, really? One of the workers at ground zero testified that he discovered black boxes that the government says were detroyed for the first time in aviation history. Building 7 with almost no damage collapses, why? If all of the offical story is correct then they should have had a complete investigation of the WTC remains not ship it out under armed guard and sell it to China. Why did the investigation into the stock options purchased before 9/11 suddenly just stop?
I don't know if you just want to believe that your government would not do anything like this or if you are trying to misinform. What about the anthrax it was a hot item until they found its source, Fort Detrick, Md.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by polanksi
6-9 of the hijackers are alive and well and living in the Middle East. There is video of them being interviewed by the BBC. That sounds like a black op to me, indentities were stolen to implicate the innocent and protect the guilty. A passport/lincence survived the crash and fire and was found on the street later, really? One of the workers at ground zero testified that he discovered black boxes that the government says were detroyed for the first time in aviation history. Building 7 with almost no damage collapses, why? If all of the offical story is correct then they should have had a complete investigation of the WTC remains not ship it out under armed guard and sell it to China. Why did the investigation into the stock options purchased before 9/11 suddenly just stop?
I don't know if you just want to believe that your government would not do anything like this or if you are trying to misinform. What about the anthrax it was a hot item until they found its source, Fort Detrick, Md.


You're a [personal insult removed]. The video already counters these stupid claims.

9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies » EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/6/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Steven Jones


Just scroll down a little bit, it's in bold.


Yeah, a #ing astromy. Real work there.

I'll raise you an article written by the HEAD of Materials Engineering at MIT and a document written by a structual engineer shortly after the 9/11 attacks



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join