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.

 

To all the debunkers: What makes you think its not a conspiracy?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
may i ask your reasoning for the other two locations?....other than the janators and a few others that reported blasts before the plane hit....i have only heard "we heard an explosion" by people outside....


The main reason I believe something severed the core at the mechanical floors is the tilt of the south tower. The only way to have it tilt like that would be a severed core directly below it. Conveniently the plane hit the south tower a few floors above the mechanical floors.

Here's a thread I started explaining it a bit better.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
i see...very interesting thread...and many people that i respect in these forums posting there....

i asked a question in that thread that i hope can be answered by one of the people there



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Question?
Why Planes, why controlled demo, Why control the media as some claim, hide bodies, use 100s of people to pull this off ( you would need that) that must be the most evil bunch of SOBs on the planet not to tell their secret. Why make this huge, very complicated plan as some people claim.

Why not just taint the water supply or food supply? plant bombs all over the country to go off? Why fly a plane? 4 Planes? Does it make ANY sense.

there are SO many way this could have been done to lessen the supposed conspirators visibility and still get America on their side. But they choose something as big as this. It doesn't make sense and is your biggest problem.

Here what would make sense, no controlled demo, throw that out, thats just stupid, and would be far to much risk of getting caught. I would have to say flying 2 planes into a building would be enough to get America mad.

You COULD pull this off with only 2 people knowing the truth.
Dick Cheney and Osama
he tells him, and Osama acts as normals and the thing plays out as it did.
But what does Osama have to gain? Money? His family has plenty.

Doesn't makes sense.

What makes more sense is a extremist Muslim group sick of Americas foreign policy, after being in a War with Russia for years and the only thing they know how to do. Plans attacks on US interest abroad for years, always looking for the time they can hit the US they do in 93, not much damage is done and is somewhat forgotten about, their lives and their peoples live get worse. They plan a hi jacking ( I suppose terrorists have never hi jacked a plane before) They turn a Hi Jacking into a suicide bombing ( I supposed they do not do suicide bombings) and there you have it. Its a Hi jacking, meets a Suicide bombing.

As I have said before, I do think they(our gov) did not handle the threat correctly. I think they knew something as up, which is why all the war games, and FEMA trainings. Thats makes sense, They didn't know exactly what it was going to be. They ignored warnings and intel due to partisan politics and due to their incompetence allowed this to happen. Thats the real conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
You COULD pull this off with only 2 people knowing the truth.
Dick Cheney and Osama


No you couldn't. You would still need 19 highjackers. What's a few more operatives placing a bomb or three in the towers? What.. 6 more guys at the most. How do they get by security? Make sure they have a pass. Which would be all too easy.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

911review.org...

www.papillonsartpalace.com...

Read up on "Rocky" Hammad. Then tell me there were only 19 highjackers involved. They could have easily had a few operatives to "fix the sprinkler system". Doesn't seem so far fetched now does it?

Edit to add: I don't mean to sound condescending or anything because your a pretty smart guy/girl on here.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Why Planes, why controlled demo,


This is answered in many threads here... Shock and Awe... get people tuned in, make it believable, get the cameras there, maximum New Pearl Harbor fear impact that leads to a desire for revenge against anyone the admin claims.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Why control the media as some claim


Control two wire services and you control the media... the rest will just follow. You are aware that almost ALL MSM news sources just get their stories off of wire services and repeat them without fact checking right? One guy with the ability to submit AP updates is all it really takes for CNN, MSNBC and their ilk to repeat the story as FACT.


Originally posted by ShiftTriohide bodies


???


Originally posted by ShiftTriouse 100s of people to pull this off ( you would need that)


Google "compartmentalized operation"... You are making an assumption and stating it as fact. Just because you participated does not mean you know you did. Besides... 100 people is not that many. Maybe the Raytheon Remote/autonomous Control Engineers KILLED in the 9/11 crashes ended up rigging their own planes? See... this is not as hard as you are making it out to be...


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
that must be the most evil bunch of SOBs on the planet not to tell their secret.


Power corrupts... power leads to the thirst for more power... keeping people quiet is east. Threaten their families, they have an accident or pay them off. Not anything new to that in the American Intelligence apparatuses.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Why make this huge, very complicated plan as some people claim.


Disagre on size, but to answer.. .to advance an agenda of US global domination "Power Americana" that was not supported by the populace UNTIL 9/11 as laid out in Rebuilding America's Defenses.. again... google PNAC and read the above entitled document.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Why not just taint the water supply or food supply? plant bombs all over the country to go off? Why fly a plane? 4 Planes?


Hollywood value. Shock and Awe. We live in a CNN sound bite, ADHD nation. Gotta grab peoples attention.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
there are SO many way this could have been done to lessen the supposed conspirators visibility and still get America on their side. But they choose something as big as this. It doesn't make sense and is your biggest problem.


Read the following carefully then google "Reichstag fire"

Hitler writes in Mein Kompf:


"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.



Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Here what would make sense, no controlled demo, throw that out, thats just stupid,


To a trained engineer the opposite of what you are saying is true. Google Physics.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Its a Hi jacking, meets a Suicide bombing.


meets three buildings collapsing, meets NORAD failing, meets DoD/FAA/NORAD/White House lying (Keane), meets a million coincidences...

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I appreciate all your responses. Just does not seem likely to me. Seems to much of a stretch and most of it doesn't make sense. There is too much room for error and to get caught.

Thanks for the input though and god speed on finding out the truth.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
You COULD pull this off with only 2 people knowing the truth.
Dick Cheney and Osama


No you couldn't. You would still need 19 highjackers. What's a few more operatives placing a bomb or three in the towers? What.. 6 more guys at the most. How do they get by security? Make sure they have a pass. Which would be all too easy.


Edit to add: I don't mean to sound condescending or anything because your a pretty smart guy/girl on here.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by Griff]

No worries, I didn't taken anything offensively.

But it would take Only 2 people to know of the real reason, all Osama has to do is say death to the infidels and his people follow him. More to what I was saying was only two people needed to be in on the conspiracy part. The rest could have been a normal terrorist operation after that point. A normal search and rescue, a normal we think a terrorist is coming so get FEMA ready. Its the controlled demo that has been proved over and over not to have happened that totally ruins it. I think the Shock and awe of 2 planes hitting a building is enough. I was there in NYC, trust me the shock was over the planes hitting the building. the people jumping out. They did not need to risk being caught by also and perfectly timing blowing it. it doesnt make any sense, if they were mart enough to plan this then they wold not have done that, that would be a risk that was unneeded to take.

Sure other were involved. But only 2 need to know what the real reason for it is. At least that was my point of saying that. It makes more sense if there was a government conspiracy they would want the majority of the people involve to think its exactly as they say it is, not recruit people and ask them to keep it a secret.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Well first of all the level of complexity that the conspiracy side puts out is just too much for my taste.


1. Not only did the US allow the hijackers to train, board and take over the 4 flights.

2. The US was behind the hijackers. They just used A.Q. as scapegoats.

3. They US knew exactly when and where the planes would strike and knew it would not be enough to make them fall so they had to:

4. Have a missile strike the Pentagon and make the plane vanish.

5. They also had to wire BOTH WTC 1 & 2 with pre planted explosives since they knew the impact wouldn't be enough to make them fall.

6. On top of that that had to make sure that WTC 7 went down with pre planted explosives since it was the HQ for the WTC 1&2 demos.

7. On top of that instead of letting flight 93 strike Washington for added "effect", the US decides to shoot it down over Penn. Not only that, the US contacts various members of Flight 93's relatives and businesses with faked cellphone recordings of them talking about flight 93 being taken over by hijackers.


Is that enough complexity for you?


I will not be replying to any comments on this as I have already bashed my head against the wall far too many times on the 9/11 board and my doctors tell me I should stop doing that.

You have a good day.




[edit on 27-7-2007 by pavil]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
meets three buildings collapsing, meets NORAD failing, meets DoD/FAA/NORAD/White House lying (Keane), meets a million coincidences...

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Pootie]


you just need the FAA to fail...cause they have to request an interception by NORAD...then it rolls down the line...

www.cbc.ca...

FAA headquarters officials were supposed to notify the military but staff members there were recorded dithering about the hijacked United flight.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: They're pulling Jeff away to talk about United 93.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, God, I don't know.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes. FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.

Apparently, there was only one person at FAA headquarters who was authorized to call in the military. Ben Sliney was told that no one could find that person, "I said something like that's incredible. There's only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know. We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If I may:


1. Not only did the US allow the hijackers to train, board and take over the 4 flights.

2. The US was behind the hijackers. They just used A.Q. as scapegoats.


The Bush administration needn't have been directly involved with the hijackers in any way, actually (no more so than FDR needed to be directly involved with the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor). All that they would've needed was the intelligence letting them know what was planned to happen (and it is very well documented that the Bush administration had such intelligence).


3. They US knew exactly when and where the planes would strike and knew it would not be enough to make them fall so they had to:

4. Have a missile strike the Pentagon and make the plane vanish.


Not exactly - they had to have an idea of what was going to happen, which they then would've planned around (of course, this is wide open speculation - I don't personally pretend to know that this is how things occurred). The 'missile into the Pentagon' argument, in my opinion, is just an example of something bred from the terribly written official report which had been allowed to grow out of proportion with reality (and, thankfully, has been more or less convincingly debunked). The report read that the plane hitting the Pentagon had been 'vaporized'. This, of course, is an absurd statement - one likely made by someone trying to use colorful terms that they didn't realize the full meaning of.


5. They also had to wire BOTH WTC 1 & 2 with pre planted explosives since they knew the impact wouldn't be enough to make them fall.


Again, we're dealing with speculation, however:

If one assumes that bombs within the WTC tower were planted and contributed to the collapse (I myself would several pieces of evidence otherwise explained to me before I would deter from this assumption), you could view it as a measure of prudence. The architects and engineers responsible for building WTC 1 & 2 were outspokenly boastful of the buildings being able to withstand airliner impacts, and the Bush administration could've taken measures based on these statements.


6. On top of that that had to make sure that WTC 7 went down with pre planted explosives since it was the HQ for the WTC 1&2 demos.

7. On top of that instead of letting flight 93 strike Washington for added "effect", the US decides to shoot it down over Penn. Not only that, the US contacts various members of Flight 93's relatives and businesses with faked cellphone recordings of them talking about flight 93 being taken over by hijackers.


WTC 7 is not somehow 'required' to be the staging platform for the demolition, and the manner in which it collapsed simply arouses many good questions. And again, the administration did not need to send Flight 93 to it's final resting place (there is little doubt in my own mind for the validity of the claim that passengers attempted to heroically retake the jet from the hijackers), since the hijacking - while they may have been aware of - they did not necessarily have to be in direct control of (you'll note that neither the President or Vice President was in an obvious position vulnerable to attack on 9/11 - Mr. Bush away from any landmark and visiting a school while Mr. Cheney was tucked away in a bunker, as I understand it).

The issue is less complex than most make it out to be. Far less complex, in my opinion, than the explaination that would be required for the WTC tower collapses as they occurred.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon
Mr. Cheney was tucked away in a bunker, as I understand it).



cheney was in the white house until the second plane hit then was grabbed and carried to the white house bunker by the secret service....

i think someone knew that these were more than regular terrorist "threats"....i dont think anyone knew that 19 hijackers were going to take 4 planes on sep 11 2001 and crash them into landmarks along the east coast....

*off topic rant* ignore if you wish not to be derailed...

i dont think if they had hit L.A. or other california cities it'd cause quite a stir...because very few people idolize movie stars anymore...mostly because they pump up peoples meaninglessness too much.....and a large percentage of straight people are homophobic...(i realize that's a large generalization of california.....................buncha hippies)


p.s. cheney gave the shoot down order, with permission from the president, to shoot down a plane 80 miles outside of washington and closing....flight 93 crashed at 125 miles away...this doesnt give the time the order was given...just that it was relayed to the president at 1018 12 minutes after flight 93 crashed....

news.yahoo.com...

Within minutes, Cheney was told that an unidentified aircraft was 80 miles outside of Washington. "We were all dividing 80 by 500 miles an hour to see what the windows were," Scooter Libby would later say. A military aide asked Cheney for authorization to take out the aircraft.

Cheney gave it without hesitating




[edit on 29-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

cheney was in the white house until the second plane hit then was grabbed and carried to the white house bunker by the secret service....


And once again, speculation and half-remembered newscasts prove to be unreliable in the retelling of facts.

Thank-you for correcting me so politely.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
aye....i mistold the "ss carried him to the bunker". i heard that. but all other official reports say "i was escorted by SS to the bunker.

we all make mistakes



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I don't believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy because-- No one IN power would go to such elaborate and UNCERTAIN lengths to forward an agenda.

A simple Risk vs. Reward assesment and it is easy to see the US would not ransack her largest city to make some "moves" in the Middle East.

The Risk: Lose everything, be exposed as tratiors, lose respect of all world's governments, and be executed-- DEAD! All of this based on the most elaborate and untested plan ever devised. Who would have the stones try out new and inventive ways of demolishing buildings, and firing off domestic cruise missles in hopes no one would "really" notice-- (except a band of supa-savvy intraweb postarz)

The Reward: To do everything you already have the power to do in the first place. Why add needless risk?

If it was some grand scheme by the NWO/Bush Administration/ Whatever--then don't you think we would be less free, now 6 years later? If the US was all that powerful don't you think we would have established order in Iraq? Or at least found the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" -- If it was some grand scheme why would the Powers behind it keep getting huge political black eyes for bungles? And in doing so lose all momentum that might have once been gained early this century.

Face it -- It is incompetence by our federal system. It is arrogance by underestimating our enemies. Failure to understand our enemies enough to identify a valid threat. Conspiracy theorists play right into this "Incompetent Arrogance" by feeling the only people in the world with the means to carry out 9/11 is our own military/intelligence operations.

Denial of the fact that there are people outside the US that hate us and want to kill us (and our way of life) so bad they are willing to die for it.

Any tragic event can be reverse engineered to fit a "Conspiracy"

Take the Titanic for instance-- Tragic unexpected event that you could find links to wealthy people you could find that certain people perished ect...until you get a "WOW ZOMG!!!" moment. It's like the movie "23" if you look hard enoungh you can make anything fit --and disregard any information that doesn't.



Basically, we needed a reason to make a huge offensive attack. Can you honestly say we would have had as much of a reason to get ourselves in the region, without using Osama bin Laden and Al-qaeda as the scapegoat for the so called "terrorist" attacks?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
attacking head on is a not good idea....

it's easier to hide from a group of people than it is just a couple looking for you. follow?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
it's easier to hide from a group of people than it is just a couple looking for you. follow?
No, not at all.

If two eyes are better than one, it would logically follow that a coordinated effort of more than two people is better than "two eyes".

[edit on 7/30/2007 by prototism]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I have watched countless hours of the videos, and read much information, and the one thing I seem to find is that while there are a lot of questions, there are no answers other than "the official story".

We can "think" that evidence shows the buildings coming down in a controlled manner, but honestly, I have yet to see a building fall that was controlled and fell like the WTC towers. They all fall like WTC 7. Assuming that because WTC 7 was brought down, that the others where brought down, is nice to theorize, but after reviewing the info, the "theory" seems more hype than reality.

If this is a conspiracy and the buildings are wired to demo it, then why bring the planes in, why not just blow up the building? Less people in the know, more prone to be successful, etc etc etc.

All the dot connecting the videos make, are interesting, but if you investigate anything to any degree, you will find such connections in most things.

It seems to me that the conspiracy here, is not 9/11, but the conspiracy to undermine the actual account of the events, controlled by those who do not like the current administration.

If anything... what undermines the whole conspiracy theory... is the whole conspiracy concept. It seems to me that the same group of people who find it hard to believe that a building could fall down after being hit by large airplanes, do believe that organizations created hundreds or thousands of years ago, still control the world, our voting machines, or minds and follow us with black helicopters.

Here is a classic example of who the conspiracy theory creates more conspiracies mistakes to cover problems with the conspiracy.

Plane hits building #1... Plane hits building #2 45 minutes later.... the building #2 goes first, before #1. So, it is theorized that those "demoing" the building screwed up, they brought down #2 before #1... after all (and this is assumed) that if this would have happened as it did, without any conspiracy or planning (outside of those on Jihad mission) that the buildings would have fallen in order, as they where hit in the same order.

While many thing the "official story" is not believable, it takes a VERY active imagination to believe, what to me is unbelievable, the conspiracy theory.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by prototism

Basically, we needed a reason to make a huge offensive attack.


We had reasons.. plenty of reasons. We had precedent PRE-911 of military operations in Afganistan when the US launched 75 cruise missles into Afganistan-- the reason? Terrorism! Public executions, Women having their uterus' being ripped from their bodies, stark opression, and as I mentioned before, the Taliban harboring terrorists. The UN was aboard with sanctions against the Taliban as early as 1998.


Can you honestly say we would have had as much of a reason to get ourselves in the region, without using Osama bin Laden and Al-qaeda as the scapegoat for the so called "terrorist" attacks?


Scapegoat? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Do you feel Noriaga was a "scapegoat" when we invaded Panama?

We invaded Panama with MUCH LESS global support and MORE US Troops, and Aircraft.

What was the "9/11 type event" that allowed the US to invade and occupy Panama?

Naw, we had enough on the Taliban to proceed into Afganistan --WITH OR WITHOUT 9/11.

9/11 was NOT an INSIDE JOB-- It didn't have any reason to be.

NEEDLESS RISK


[edit on 30-7-2007 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by prototism
No, not at all.

If two eyes are better than one, it would logically follow that a coordinated effort of more than two people is better than "two eyes".

[edit on 7/30/2007 by prototism]



hiding in your territory it's going to be easier to spot a group of people traveling in vehicles and what not than a spec ops group.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Shortbus -

you hit the nail on the head


(today seems to be the day for one liners......)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join