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 Video: 9/11 Mysteries

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
And for those who believe the government is behind the 911 attacks AND do nothing legally about it: You are un-American and I'd prefer to not share the same airspace with you. Please do everyone a favor and leave.


I understand where you're coming from, but it is well known that the US government has murdered its own people in the past. Whether it be experimenting on its own armed forces or citizens with experimental drugs, as well has the negligence of exposing soldiers to harmful chemicals during the gulf war.

The murder of it's own by the government is known whether it be 911 or not, and I can assume from you posting on ATS that you're not exactly leading the revolution against these atrocities. So the question is, what are you still doing in the US knowing what you know?

I'm not having a go at you but the door swings both ways.

Good day to you.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'm certain, however, that those who seem to automatically be cocked to believe anything anti-Bush administration would see legitmacy in trash like this.

I've said this before: If I found it so easy and reasonable to believe that my government was behind the attacks I would denounce my citizenship and move to another country. My question to those who believe this crap is: Why are you still here?


Haha, this post was a surprising thing to read, considering this is a conspiracy site and we are denying ignorance and we are all (assumingly) aware of the dodgy dealing, deception, lies and corruption going on. I would have thought most ATS members would have at least watched 'Who Killed John O'Neill?' (the Google Video link given a few posts previous to this). I would assume most members wouldn't need the examples of corruption spelled out to them. I would also have assumed we would (mostly) realise that the people in power of the USA are NOT patriots. They care only about themselves and the addictive madness of expanding their geopolitical power. I'm not even talking about the Bush administration - see here's another thing - I would have thought most clued-up ATS conspiracy theorists worth their salt would *know* that the whole left-wing / right-wing / Republican / Democrat / East / West / Black / White thing are ALL FALSE PARADIGMS!!! It's ALL POPPYCOCK!! I am surprised there are people here that actually still buy into all this finger-pointing marginalisation.

Which leads me to my second point - "why are you still here and why aren't you doing anything about it.. to change it?" First off, I like to believe the most dyed-in-the-wool-paranoid-conspiracy-nutjobs here are true patriots at heart. They LOVE America, so they should.. it was once a proud and great nation. They care very deeply, hence why they detest being LIED to. Why can't they do anything about it? Well, once again, I thought the answer to this would be very obvious to the ATS thinker.. the puppeteers pulling the strings, whoever you want to call them.. THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING. Complain to your congressman? Do you really think they will get anywhere? Take it to the media? THEY OWN THE MEDIA!! THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!! Smoking Gun proof of this is right here on Page 6. It's impossible to do anything, apart from say a V For Vendetta-style short sharp revolution. The populus are so blissfully unaware of the real picture, they would need to be jolted into waking up - there is no other way.

What about GWB's approval rating of 28%? Do you think 72% of Americans should just leave? Are they unpatriotic and should get the heck out since they don't like the Bush administration? Does that make them bad people? Or Hugo Chavez (as a barometer of where many American heads are at) - this guy gained rapturous applause wherever he spoke.. many Americans seem to love him you know, and they probably value freedom considerably more so than their overlords.

Look at Leona McConnell, threatened to spill the beans on Bush's homosexual dealings in the mid-1980s in spite of him opposing gay marriage. Look at the recent shuttle mission - we all saw ufos, plain and clear.. and NASA are assuring us all we saw was plastic and foil.. and nothing further will be said. EVERY HINT that something is not right, is STONEWALLED at every turn. The military industrial complex's hold on the country is frightening - it is a firm grip, and tightening with every passing second. Exposing the inside job of 9/11 would blow the rotten core of decades of public deception wide open. People would be absolutely appalled if they knew the truth. It would be total anarchy and chaos. That's what it would take for America to be free again. Then we will see the true patriots emerge, and the deceivers all Rot in Hell.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by RiotComing]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
A 707 is the same as a 767? Nope!
A couple of things right in the beginning of this film casts doubt on the rest of it for me. First, they make a few speculations about the aircraft that to my knowledge are inaccurate. First comparing a 767 to a 707, there is up to a 100,000 lbs difference in the weight of these aircraft at max take-off capacity depending on exact type and engines. In addition, even if they figured in a 707-300 with a long-range center tank, the fuel load of a 767 beats it by about 2000 gallons, or 13600 lbs (est. at 6.8 lb/gallon for fuel, depending on conditions). Also, a 707 is a NARROWBODY aircraft, and a 767 is a WIDEBODY, similarly a 757 is a NARROWBODY. While a 707 is a heavier plane in it’s construction, as they did not use composites, it is also a somewhat smaller aircraft.

Pinning down the exact specs on the aircraft is hard as there are a number of variables that change the flight statistics of the aircraft, such as engine type. We would have to know what type of 707 that the building was designed to take a hit from as there is a vast spectrum of variance in 707 stats not to mention 767’s:

707
707
767


Max Weight and Freight/Mail
There is also a factor in the max weight between the two aircraft, which has to do with dead space on the aircraft. A 767 being a widebody can accept a large amount of freight in the lower holds, which the smaller narrowbody 707 cannot. All that space from the top of the plane to the tops of the passengers heads is wasted space on any passenger aircraft, so you are left with only the holds to fill out with additional weight. With this in mind a passenger 707 is not flying anywhere near its max takeoff weight under normal circumstances. Now a cargo 707 where the passenger cabin is containerized is a different story in that there is little to no unusable area. With this in mind it is possible that the 767 is flying with a vastly larger amount of freight and mail in its hold as it has ample space to accommodate it which a 707 lacks.

The 767 could not be an ER767 as it was doing a domestic flight? Naha!
They similarly speculate that the aircraft could not be an extended range 767 as it was doing a domestic flight. What they of course fail to tell you is that aircraft type is not always dependant on this factor, but also on things such as maintenance rotation, and where that particular aircraft has to be in the near future. For instance a long range 767 that just came in from Europe might be parked for the night on the east coast, fly out to the west coast, then continue on for a flight from the west coast to cross the pacific, or be rotated out to a service hanger. So simply basing it on the fact that it was a domestic flight is not going to tell you the type of equipment that was used, Aircraft number is a better place to start.

An early morning light flight has less gas onboard? No Way!!!
It is also stated in this film that due to it being a light domestic flight and not an intercontinental one that the plane must have had a light fuel load. Sorry but this is entirely wrong thinking and again casts doubt, for me, on the rest of the extrapolations that they make in this film. Most early morning flights are flights that have terminated from the night before and are full of fuel, not empty. There is a multifold reason for this. First terminating flights, the ones that are parked overnight, are ballast fueled to keep them weighted down. This prevents them from inadvertently wandering around the ramp should a strong wind come up in the middle of the night while only maintenance is around to deal with it. Secondly it takes time to fuel planes, so they are filled up late at night when there is lots of time to do it, and they take off with a full tank in the morning and thus, only have top off at each stop throughout the day. This saves time on the turn arounds they have to do for the rest of their schedule, as it takes time to pump gas. Also pilots are renowned for being gas hogs, most guys that have ever fueled know to expect the pilot to uplift their loads prior to take off by at least 2K lbs. This is extra fuel for not only flying time, but also for waiting on taxiways during delays. The fuel not only keeps you in the air, but also runs your electricity and air-conditioning, and it would really stink to be stuck in a take off line and have the pilot shut off the A/C to save on gas.

Early Freight and Mail loads
Another factor to take into consideration in the weight of this aircraft is that early morning flights tend to carry the majority of both Mail and Freight for the day. The reason for this is again, there is more time to load it as they can start early and have the flight loaded by the time the passengers bags arrive to the ramp. It also is helpful to get out freight and mail early as you can never be sure what is going to arrive throughout the day that needs to go on the remaining scheduled flights for that day. So if someone shows up with 4000 lbs of something in the middle of the day that needs to be shipped that day, they can take it as they have gotten out all the freight that was there from the day/night before.

So just right there I am starting to see a problem with their ability to extrapolate what happened based solely on things that might seem logical, because without certain inside knowledge they are coming to incorrect conclusions. With this in mind, how many more assumptions and extrapolations in this video are incorrect?


[edit on 9/25/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
So far I hav eseen two reasonable errors pointed out in this film in this thread...

the fall time
707 vs 767

HOWEVER.. the fall times they used are basically the NISTs fall times...

and

707 vs. 767... splitting hairs... they are close to the same size AND watch Lesli TALK.. do you know what a liar looks like when they are talking? Leslie is being VERY evasive when he speaks...

If you need help with this I will elaoborate for you.

Suppose these TWO MINUTES of the video are TAKEN OUT... WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE OTHER 91 MINUTES?

Now, why are the moderators allowing the same old balnket BS to be thown into this thread? this thread is about a PARTICULAR movie... not about...

Is our gov't capable.
Do you believe the gov't did it, etc.
It would take thousands of operatives.

Why are thes deflective and distracting posts being allowed in this thread? This is the most heavily read thread in the 9/11 forum in a LONG time, why are the off-topic, blanket bs defender of the gov't posts being allowed here?

I am disappointed by this.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Watched this movie last night. Very good. Admittedly, I didn't need to be convinced, but it filled in some holes for me. Most especially the fact that the towers were a white elephant, Larry Silverstein's purchase price, insurance modifications and the "doubling" of the policy. It's clear (to me) that this slimeball was involved up to his beady little eyes.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
AND watch Lesli TALK.. do you know what a liar looks like when they are talking? Leslie is being VERY evasive when he speaks...


If "Leslie" is the engineer who was talking about how they 'forgot' to design for the fuel, I said exactly that to my husband (that he was lying by his body language). When Leslie was explaining that they designed the buildings to withstand the 707 and didn't think about the fuel???


How many engineers had to have been involved in the design of the WTC and how many other engineers did they consult about the aircraft they were designing against... And not ONE of them thought to mention the fuel??? Impossible! Engineers just don't leave out things like that. I've worked with them my whole career and I'm married to one. Their attention to detail is incredible, especially when designing something new, big and exciting.

Great film.



[edit on 25-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I watched intently right up until they said the towers fell in 10 seconds and then showed the seismograph.



Just another notch in what appears to be an endless string of crap. It looks like if these people (and I use that word all encompassing for the myriad of groups and individuals who have done this same thing so far) are going to put in the time, money and effort to do something like this, they'd at least fully research before slapping together a mish-mash of videos and talking bullcrap over the picture.

*sigh*

BUT, I'll continue to give each one of them a try until some one gets it right.




OK, let's forget about whether the collapse lasted 10 seconds or 18/19 seconds like you claim, in the video they said without thermite or thermate or controlled explosives or whatever, the collapse should take around a minute and a half if I remember correctly. Now let's be generous and split the difference. Your claim is still too fast without the help of explosives IMO. Now let's add on top of that the fact that it fell into it's own footprint. At what point do you acknowledge your own denial?

Val, I stopped arguing with you on this matter a long time ago when you posted a picture of the top of one of the towers covered in smoke and tried to tell me that the roof was buckling due to the heat of the fire. Forget the fact that you couldn't even clearly see the top of the building because of said billowing smoke.

Sometimes I don't think that you even believe what you say and are just trying to stir the pot for other, more justifiable/understandable reasons.

Forget about cherry picking the time of freefall, did you watch the whole video? The insurance money part? The blackout part? The sqibbs part? The WTC7 part?

Rudy Giuliani for President!


Peace


[edit on 25-9-2006 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
AND watch Lesli TALK.. do you know what a liar looks like when they are talking? Leslie is being VERY evasive when he speaks...


If "Leslie" is the engineer who was talking about how they 'forgot' to design for the fuel, I said exactly that to my husband (that he was lying by his body language). When Leslie was explaining that they designed the buildings to withstand the 707 and didn't think about the fuel???



Yes, the body language is part of it... He also uses the "shut down" when he says "I do not think fuel was taken into consideration. YET..." HE ends the sentence then in a much faster than normal pace starts the next sentence to avoid ANY response or questioning on the interviewers part regarding his answer. Classic evasion.

I will ahve to watch that part again, but my g/f blurted out "liar..." while I was making her watch it.

Who do you believe is telling the truth when you watch this?

Leslie?
the CDI guys "The amazing thing is we can drop a building in a million little pieces right in the basement" "We can control sound, direction, etc."?
Rodriguez?
The Firefighters?

My answers... NO, yes, yes, yes... I am a great reader of tells at the poker table, this is analogus.

Also, I noticed a few pages back someone referenced the CBS reporter say SHE SAW A FIREBALL coming at her... The poster says "SHe meant the impact..." That is nt the context I understood her quote in. I heard her talkign ground floor... the firball cam at us. Not, the fireball was ABOVE us. She was speaking concerning the time JUST PRIOR to collapse, not impact.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
What gives?

I posted this video over a week ago, and from the response It got I may as well not have bothered


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway is a very interesting video well worth the hour and a half of your time!



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I have an idea. How about a 1/1000th mock up of the site and crash littel planes into it?? I do not have the time nor the mathematical prowess to do such an experiment but I do have the money to fund it. How much different could it be? If everything was to scale. You have one set of buildings with small bombs rigged in them and another set of buildings with nothing. I know there are a billion variables but woudln't this do some good? Maybe we can even have 19 little terrorists!!! Any suggestions?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whiterabbit29
I posted this video over a week ago, and from the response It got I may as well not have bothered


You didn't have a snappy superhero avatar!


Seriously... this is a big and active place, and a sad fact of life is that some important threads go mostly unnoticed at times.

Had I seen your thread, we'd be talking about this a little sooner.

In the end, at least the video is now being noticed, passed around, and discussed.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jolly1970
I have an idea. How about a 1/1000th mock up of the site and crash littel planes into it?? I do not have the time nor the mathematical prowess to do such an experiment but I do have the money to fund it. How much different could it be? If everything was to scale. You have one set of buildings with small bombs rigged in them and another set of buildings with nothing. I know there are a billion variables but woudln't this do some good? Maybe we can even have 19 little terrorists!!! Any suggestions?


Just one read this thread and add your thoughts there.
Cheers xpert11.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How many engineers had to have been involved in the design of the WTC and how many other engineers did they consult about the aircraft they were designing against... And not ONE of them thought to mention the fuel??? Impossible! Engineers just don't leave out things like that. I've worked with them my whole career and I'm married to one. Their attention to detail is incredible, especially when designing something new, big and exciting.


My interpretation of what Leslie was subtly suggesting here was this: they didn't take the fires that came afterwards into consideration, because hydrocarbon fires have never been a threat to the global stability of steel skyscrapers, and they knew this. He didn't come out and say anything like this, and I may be wrong. That's just the vibe I was getting from what he was saying. And I agree: engineers are very thorough.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Heres some things to ponder on for all the "you couldn't keep that secret" people.

Manhattan Project.
U2 Spyplane
SR71 Spyplane.
F117 Nighthawk

Oh yes, they're all public now, but they weren't at the time, and hundreds of people were involved in each project.

Its not impossible to keep a secret.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I picture George Bush sitting at a bar with Bin Laden saying:

George: "Nice job Bin man. Your home videos for the news where simply superb. These "simple life" minded citizens still think that terrorists helped us get a excuse to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan for our oil for dollars/money driven agendas. They still know that we have recovered advanced anti-gravity alien spacecraft but still can not figure out that we do have free energy technology in our possession. This is great, not only the trading currency for oil is still the dollar instead of the Euro, but we are now able to use oil as a world tax!

Bin Laden: "Quite true. These "simple minded" nine to fivers actually believe that you keep catching these top terrorist leaders alive and without a fight. But, I must say that your "9-11 attack show" was very sloppy. Despite only a small hole in the side of the Pentagon, bombs going off at the bottom of the Trade Center, a completely untouched building 7 becoming completely demolished about 7 hours after the 2 major buildings fell to the ground, the plane over Pennsylvania being shot down and the ground being missiled to indicate a crash, your people skills still seemed to hypnotize the people like a herd of sheep. Ha, ha, hah... Your still the man...Bush man!"

George Bush: "No, you da man!.....Bin Man!"

George Bush and Bin Laden: "Ha, Ha, Ha, Hah......"



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Just finished watching the video..
I Was HIGHLY impressed by the guys who produced and wrote this documentary, and it has seriously swayed my views on what may have really happened that day.
All i can think of is..
if they (the american government) did demolish the buildings what was their primary motive?

Happy Treasure Hunting
D



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Heres some things to ponder on for all the "you couldn't keep that secret" people.

Manhattan Project.
U2 Spyplane
SR71 Spyplane.
F117 Nighthawk

Oh yes, they're all public now, but they weren't at the time, and hundreds of people were involved in each project.

Its not impossible to keep a secret.




There is one big difference between those projects and 9/11 assuming that it wasa a government job....

all four of those were legitimate government projects with legitimate goals.

There is absolutely no way the wanton destruction of several high profile buildings along with the deaths of three thousand innocent people could be justified as a legitimate project with legitimate goals...

There is no telling me that there would not have leaks by now about it.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
all four of those were legitimate government projects with legitimate goals.


"Legitimate" is a word open to interpretation. And the assumption that your common military engineers / researchers did this is a rather shaky assumption.

The Northwoods documents show that our government planned pretty complicated false-flag terror events in the past to initiate war with Cuba, included swapping-out planes with drones and blowing them up, and then claiming people had died when none had, staging fake burials for the non-dead, bombing our own bases, blowing up our own ships, actually killing our own soldiers, etc.

Think about that. First of all, if they had actually done that, do you know how hard it would be for the average American to believe that it was a government plot? And yet there we have it, in black and white, that they (the Joint Chiefs of Staff) had it planned out and were awaiting Kennedy's go-ahead. Would you have believed it?

Second, that would be another thing that one would think would have plenty of whistleblowers, yet the Joint Chiefs apparently didn't determine this to be a risk. Do we know who exactly would have carried out the plans? No. Do we know much at all about how exactly they would have carried out, step by step? No. Do we know how they generally cover things up or dilute good information and make its threat negligible? Not really; we can only guess, and make a lot of assumptions. We can assume that a lot of people would have come out by now, but considering we don't even know who would have actually carried it out, or much of anything else, I'd stick with the hard sciences and the reliable testimony that we do have first.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
all four of those were legitimate government projects with legitimate goals.


I think that something everyone here ignores is the coming fascists state where corporations rule completely. W wants to run a white house as if it were a coporation. He's the CEO President. So let's assume that we are dealing with not the "government" but a faction with tight ties to business men. Business men that they can trust with all thier secrets. Starting to sound familliar?

These are men with connections. Connections to all sorts of people. People that do "wet work" or run electronic security for high value targets or own demolision companies. Again, sound familliar?

Stop thinking in your little "there's no way to keep that secret" way. When you are making billions off the murder of innocents there are plenty who are willing to keep secrets. Silverstien made how many billions? What of the defense contractor stock prices that everyone in that administration (and any investor worth their salt) would have? How much has been spent on the "war"?

I quote the great and departed Bill Hicks: " A "WAR" is when two armies are fighting!" May God rest his worthy soul.

Please don't get me wrong, I believe there was some military and most likely some intelligence involvement but it's not "the government". It's a cabal. It's a faction. Aw, to Hell with it, it's the Neo-Cons and PNAC.

Small minds wade in shallow pools people. Let's go get in the deep end and stop bickering about these pathetic details. It's in all our best interest to know the truth of 9/11. Remeber Kennedy and how "the greatest generation" and the "baby boomers" failed us by not demanding the answers early enough. They failed us and now we pay the price. And the price is simply that we must ask the hard questions and maybe even take up Jefferson on his idea to "throw off" certain things to make this world new again.

Quit your fighting and focus.

[edit on 9/25/2006 by deluded]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
i watched the whole thing and was very intrigued. one thing(setting aside all of the mathematical physics and explosives aside and how it COULD be done because i suck at math and physics lol) THE BUILDINGS STILL FELL STRAIT DOWN INTO THEMSELVES WITH MINIMAL DAMAGE TO ALL PROPERTY AROUND THE COMPLEX.

in all the reports i have seen there is never any mention of bodies,equipment etc............ being pancaked!(fossils are formed with more pressure,ships lying at the bottom of the ocean don't have their bulkheads pulverized by the pressure) there was simply nothing left it seems???

how does rubble smoulder hot enough to produce molten metal??what was burning??(fire triangle) giving the weakening the steel with heat argument some credibility how does this translate to the core being obliterated in the lower half of the buildings when it was made of thicker steel and was not subjected to fire??? we're talkin about steel that was graded to withstand a passenger jet strike and wasn't even struck???

i ask these questions about the video(forget the so-called expert testimony) as a guy watching film footage of a catastrophy that just seems to have been confined to one block???

and the insurance thing lol only in america lmfao (if joe blow tried something like that to get $1 more in a settlement he would be lucky he didn't land in jail for fraud.)



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
the fact that things fall at 9.8m/s² proves that the buildings fell with zero resistance beneath the points of impact.

that fact right there completely debunks the official story.

awesome find.

note that i am not saying the entire building fell @ freefall rate, however, 9.8m/s² is a rate of acceleration, not a constant speed.

watch again and look @ the debris fall parallel to the collapsing floors. the still pictures cant show it, the vids can.


But the debate isn't helped by those who insist the towers fell at free fall rate, and erroneous, insistent arguments like that only serve to cloud and cover the anomalies like the one I've described here, providing a convenient strawman for repetitive debunkers to shoot down. And that's one of the many reasons why serious 9/11 researchers are sticklers for accuracy and honesty.


if the rate of fall was even close to that of gravity (which you can see from the videos that it is) it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were forces beyond what is given in the official story.

i do not attempt to 'explain the/a/any conspiracy theory', i attempt to debunk the official story thereby proving there is some level of conspiracy. there is a big difference and i hope people can appreciate that.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by jprophet420]

[edit on 26-9-2006 by jprophet420]




top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join