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.

 

New bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory - You won't believe it

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I'm looking at the noses, WCIP. Are you seeing the same differences I am?

I think if someone were out to fool people, they wouldn't impersonate someone else with too obvious of a double. I think Valhall just pointed out how bin Laden appeared to contradict himself a few times in whether or not he did it; if she didn't, then my mistake, but he did so anyway. For this video in particular, like I said, I'm looking at the nose.




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner
No one accused him of being a smart, witty, quick acting fellow!




Wouldn't you expect something better from your president? I guess it just goes to show how dumb America actually is when they vote (well.....if you believe he actually got in legally) a moron into the presidency. Don't give me the partizon crap either because I am neither Republican or Democrat.....I believe they both stink.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Valhall, unless they've developed some sort of very tight beam jamming technology that could jam an moving target at several hundred miles I doubt seriously that a 300kt EC-130H could intercept a 500kt+ plus jetliner's electronics. When the EC-130H jams disrupts electronics, it disrupts all electronic frequencies because all the enemy has to do avoid jamming would be to switch frequencies. Every aircraft would have been jammed within in large radius of the EC-130H. Flt 93 was more than 170 miles from DC when it when down. It would have to have been to been found and tracked to have been jammed. Something your average EC-130H just couldn't have done without airbourne radar surveillance. No AWACS aircraft were airbourne at the time.


You didn't read my post thoroughly. The C130 (or EC-130H) was right there when it "crashed". The C130 was the plane that verified it crashed. The C130 was right there.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by sp00ner
No one accused him of being a smart, witty, quick acting fellow!




Wouldn't you expect something better from your president? I guess it just goes to show how dumb America actually is when they vote (well.....if you believe he actually got in legally) a moron into the presidency. Don't give me the partizon crap either because I am neither Republican or Democrat.....I believe they both stink.


Without question... I'm not happy he's there in the slightest. He doesn't speak well, he can't pronounce simple words and won't debate anyone with 1/2 a brain. Terrible leader. You won't see me sticking up for him, or giving him credit for much above simple grunts and gestures. Unfortunately, if more than 40% of the people don't get out and vote we're stuck with bumbling idiots that are in the pocket of big business forever. Dem or Rep. I don't want to turn this into a political trash session though, that doesn't seem to be what people want on here from the warnings I've read...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I guess I could be one to blame. I didn't vote in 2000. But, in my defense, I would have voted for GW if I had voted. I hear what you're saying about not making this a political thread. My bad.

Valhall, that was the same C-130 or whatever it was right? I'm too tired to look up the timeline but was there enough time from the pentagon crash to turn around and head for PA to intercept flight 93?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Valhall, that was the same C-130 or whatever it was right? I'm too tired to look up the timeline but was there enough time from the pentagon crash to turn around and head for PA to intercept flight 93?


Yes, it was the same plane. The 911 Commission Report states it was the exact same C130 that had verified Flight 77 struck the Pentagon also verified Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
It was flying from Washington to Minnesota. So both crashes were along the flight path it would take to get there. Golfer 06 was asked to ID Flight 77 at 0936, and Flight 93 went down at 1008. So yes, there was enough time. Cruising speed for a C-130H is 300 knots (about 330 mph), and it's about 124 miles from Washington DC to Shanksville.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
P.S. Sorry, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06.

Yes, it was enough time - plus, as some one stated, 93 was headed toward Washington at a break-neck speed.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm looking at the noses, WCIP. Are you seeing the same differences I am?
...For this video in particular, like I said, I'm looking at the nose.


I dunno, bsbray, looking at better quality pics and in particular profile shots, I think it was OBL. I think it's a combination of bad quality video, bad lighting creating shadow across the bridge of his nose, and he gained a little weight which make him look different. The clear profile shots sell it for me. When I've got my tinfoil hat on good and tight, I suspect OBL was (and is) an "asset", so having the real OBL make a video tape wouldn't be an issue in my tinfoil opinion. The conversation they have strikes me as very contrived - if OBL were an asset and was given a general script to go through, it wouldn't be any cheesier than that one.

On another angle, the USG/CNN translations have been disputed, suggesting that OBL's language implies he was aware of the impending events, rather than the planner/perpetrator
dc.indymedia.org...

[edit on 2006-9-11 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
wecomeinpeace, I recall once seeing a more in-depth analysis, relying on biometrics, to show that OBL and confessing OBL are not the same individual. Unfortunately, I do not have the source at hand, which is of course pretty unsatisfactory considering the gravitas of my claim, but I will try to locate it ASAP.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by nQuire]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Hey, the History channel is showing a documentary that talks about John O'Neill right now! O_O



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrFantastic

Is it SO hard to believe that Muslim terrorists actually want us dead and that they did carry out an attack on the United States on 9/11/01? With NO help from the US Government.


I had to put my two cents in by asking a seemingly unrelated question. Does anyone out there knows or ever met someone who never lies? And that includes harmless little white ones. If you DON'T know anyone at all then you are living in a shell or don't know that many people (and I swear that I'm NOT trying to be insulting). Or how about trying to cover your ass when you screw up by lying or knowing someone who has done this. My point being, we know that these elected officals aren't all that honest, not all but most. And unfortunately it seems that with all the good intentions going into the politcal arena they might have they appear to be swallowed by the green-eyed monster called greed either for money or power or both (I've seen this on a small scale as a cameraman), or the somewhat skewed honest intention of hoping to be able to do some good when their back is against the wall. Politics is a cruel game and not for the faint of heart. As much as the Muslims hate us (I wouldn't pretend to deny that), you really have to look at the history for that. I don't completely discount them making an attempt. Succeding is a different story. But I just as strongly believe that our own gov't (especially those elite few) are capable of doing something like this if the risk was worth it and they thought they could get away with it (when you have the best spin doctors in the country why not?). With how much they could expect to make on this (the war), they're pretty much setup for life and all that power stays in the "family".



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   


You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


i was flipping through the first page of posts and i really enjoyed your story not to mention your well researched.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by nazgarn
Although, Elitegamer23, you have left me open there.

I have no idea why he continued reading that book, upside down at the best.

Perhaps he wanted to educated a few preschoolers how to read a book upside down rather than attend to his countrymen. Who knows.

Take care and peace,
- Naz


Snopes is your freind



Ahem. My mistake move along nothing to see
.

Lol I think I remember reading it was a hoax once forgot about it hehehe.

Take care and peace,
- Naz



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
9:34 an Air National Guard C130H takes off in the Washington DC area (from what specific location is unknown). This ANG plane is allowed to take-off 8 minutes after the FAA ground stop was called. And, yes, I understand that we are talking about FAA and military differences - I'm sure there's some extremely critical reason a cargo plane needed to take off allegedly to do nothing more than fly to Minnesota - in the middle of all hell breaking loose.


Golfer 06 was a standard C-130H that took off from Andrews AFB. One thing the military does well is stick to the same things (IE callsigns) and Golfer is the wrong callsign for an EC-130.

This isn't the end all be all (and not saying they can't change it) but the standard callsigns used by EC-130s (even in combat zones) are:


AGOG
ALLEYCAT
AMMON
ANODE
BATON
BETA
BIGGY
BIRTH
BLOT
BOOKSHELF
BOOT
BROOM
CHISUM
COMBO
CRICKET
DEWEY
DRUB
EARP
FANG
GROUT
HEWN
HEWY
HILLSBOROUGH
JADE
JIFFY
JOHN
KIST
LAMPO
LANG
LOUIE
MOONBEAM
MORE
MOURN
MOVER
MURK
PAGUS
RILEY
SAUCY
SHOE
SINK
STALK
STEP
TILE
TRIM
ZAPPER
ZONAL

members.tripod.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nQuire
wecomeinpeace, I recall once seeing a more in-depth analysis, relying on biometrics

If you're talking about the one that Prof. Jones used in his lectures, then it appears to be a comparison of feature size and distance ratios by folks using photoshop and video captures. The term "biometrics" makes the process they used sound more complex than it really is. In addition, they were using the grainy shot that I referred to, with no correction for angle or shadows. Using ultra-compressed, grainy video footage is moot, really - I've seen airplane wings "disappear" due to crappy video, which has spawned a whole plethora of "holographic planes" garbage. But if you know something about their technique, or you're referring to a separate analysis, then I'd be keen to see it.

BTW, welcome to ATS.


[edit on 2006-9-11 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
That might be what I was referring to!

Bio metrics is just that: measurement of lifeforms. Yes, the former sounds more intimidating, but still. The technique you described is valid, unless of course falsely applied somehow.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
It would depend on the video used. If it's like WCIP said and the grainy, shadowy video then yes, it would have a much higher percentage of errors, and your chance of a positive id would be much lower. In a crisp clear video free of shadows, then obviously the percentage would go way up.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I think you should concede that for pinpointing facial "landmarks", the tolerance regarding resolution is pretty high.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
ALso, the day before, on Sept. 10 2001, Donald Rumsfeld had to admit to losing TRILLIONS of dollars at the Pentagon...

Civilian accountants that were investigationg this loss were in the part of the pentagon that was struck by something...



Sept. 10,
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

www.cbsnews.com...



One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.

www.s-t.com...


The pentagon can't find it's money on sept 10, 2001.

Apparently the pentagon can't find any quality surveillence videos either, that would have showed us what actually hit the building. Apparently they don't think that having surviellence cameras outside the pentagon are worth spending any money on.



Notice how amazingly clear this video is of flight 77 hitting the pentagon. Apparently the pentagon only had 2 working cameras that day.





Unlike Walmart which has video cameras covering every square inch of thier property.



Walmart just sells cheap junk from China. I guess the pentagon doesn't have anything worth stealing. I mean besides all of those nuclear launch codes, and storage locations of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, like anthrax. Can you image what would happen if something like anthrax was let loose into the US postal system?



[edit on 11-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join