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.

 

A Newbie has 3 questions for de-bunkers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I just got turned onto this website a couple of weeks ago, and I have read all the 9/11 threads. But I want to do something a little differant here. Let's pretend for the sake of arguement that I have been living under a rock for the last 6 years and I don't know anything about conspiracy theories. Let's pretend I just now found out about the events of September 11, 2001. I am in shock, I can't believe what has happened and my only access to information is what I can find on the internet. Not conspiracy sites, actual news footage from that day as well as the 9/11 commission report, the NIST report and the pancake collapse documentary on The History Channel. I only have access to the OFFICIAL stuff. After watching all this stuff, I have three, just three questions.....

After hearing this from our OWN PRESIDENT, why would you NOT think it's fishy?




After hearing this from our OWN secretary of defense, why would you NOT question what happened to flight 93?



After this video being shown to the world, how can you say, without a shadow of a doubt that is in fact AA 77 hitting the pentagon, when there are countless other videos that have far better graphics and angles on the pentagon that day and at that time, why only this video, and again, how do you feel this is conclusive proof that this IS flight 77?




Okay, I am just addressing these three issues. These are three key things that make a lot of the American people question what really happened on 9/11. I am not saying anything one way or the other, but I am saying I have questions. I want to know why de-bunkers brush these things off and just go along with the "OFFICIAL STORY".

Thanks, from the Newbie!




Mod Edit: to repair video

[edit on 7/28/2007 by kinglizard]

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Cowgirlstraitup7]




posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Your first video has some problems, but your questions are obvious to most who seek the truth. The effect that finding out you might be being lied to about what happened on 911 can be a double edged sword of denile and outrage.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
well its already 100% fact that we were lied to about 911 as stories were given, proven false, then changed in numerous instances.

as far as the videos, first one doesent work, second one is too short to be useful.

the third one, yeah thats a tough one to swallow. You certainly could not prove in an unbiased court of law that what hit the pentagon was a boeing 767/57. fortunately theres 85 videos that the government admits to having possesion of, 3 of which have been released, 3 of which dont have any jetliners visible in them.

the tapes are being with-held due to ongoing trials. FOIA will expire in 2061, well know for sure what happened then.

/sarcasm



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
You come in here with two working videos. One that does not support a plane or NOT at the Pentagon, and a total boob pretty much mispoken.

I would hope since in your hypothetical situation, you actually READ the 911 Commission Report and the NIST report. If you DID, then the two working videos you posted would not have made one bit of difference in the offical reports.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Cowgirl, I like your hypothetical situation.
Alas, all the official story people can really throw at you is the official reports.
In other words, How can you question the official story when the official reports back it up?!
Did I get that right captain?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
11Bravo... well yes! That prett much somes it up.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
In the original post there is a Mod Edit: to repair the video.
Was the first one working earlier?

What does Bush say in the first video? The same quote about explosions that is in the other thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
the tapes are being with-held due to ongoing trials.


Which trials might those be? I'm trying to think of who's been arrested and charged but am drawing a complete blank.

P.S. Is that a small enough quote O' all seeing Overlords?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I tried to edit my post to make the first video work, not sure why it's not, like I said, I am a newbie, but the video is of Mr. Bush saying that he saw the first plane hit WTC when NOBODY saw the first plane hit until 9/12. Except for eyewitness accounts. So sorry guys for posting a thread without complete info. I still find it funny that de-bunkers have yet to tell me why, after the TWO other links I posted still can't answer why they believe the official story.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
I still find it funny that de-bunkers have yet to tell me why, after the TWO other links I posted still can't answer why they believe the official story.


Cowgirl ~

I believe I answered that for you. Please read YOUR opening post. It's obvious that although your a "neewbie" you already have your mind made up that the government was involved with 911.
You asked a question pertaining to the 2 working videos, the 911 report, and the NIST report. And that the CT's sites were not available. Um, well it is obvious you have not read the 911, or NIST report.

Bush did in fact state that he saw the first impact. (i believe on two occasions) With all the information that you have in this hypothetical situation.... can you please tell ME how it IS an inside job?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jprophet420
the tapes are being with-held due to ongoing trials.


Which trials might those be? I'm trying to think of who's been arrested and charged but am drawing a complete blank.

P.S. Is that a small enough quote O' all seeing Overlords?


The reason originaly given was that ongoing trials were the reason for with-holding the tapes. when the 3rd tape was released, it was released because the mussai (sp?) trial was over according to the government.

the nist report was incomplete by their own admission.

like ive said before captain, if 3 out of 85 is good enough to convince you and the NIST, thats groovy. its not good enough for me or any profesional however.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
85 cameras... all of them pointing up to the sky in the direction of the incoming airplane? Please tell me where these cameras were and what angle the were.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
havent 4 videos been released?...the hotel, the gas station, and two pentagon security cameras within a couple feet of each other?

Rumsfield was reading from a paper...so it wasnt a slip of the tounge....but was written by a lackey of somesort...

and the pentagon video you cant tell me there wasnt a 757 using that footage...the only thing i can make out for certain is the cop car...and the pentagon



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
like ive said before captain, if 3 out of 85 is good enough to convince you and the NIST, thats groovy. its not good enough for me or any profesional however.


- plane debris at the pentagon is also not convincing

- passenger bodies recovered at pentagon, not convincing

- on the same day three other airplanes hi-jacked but it is so hard to believe that a fourth plane was hi-jacked... not convincing.

but I do agree those videos released are all a joke





posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
Rumsfield was reading from a paper...so it wasnt a slip of the tounge....but was written by a lackey of somesort...


Well thats assuming it wasn't a slip of the tongue. And any reports of debris from UA 93 states it was in two discrete areas, with one engine a few hundred yards from the main site, with lighter debris further away. It wasn't like that at lockerbie, which suffered an explosion from a bomb:

www.martinfrost.ws...

or like that from TWA 800. Yet I still hear endless theories that it was shot down, rather than deliberate flight into terrain.
TWA 800 debris field

And as I mentioned elsewhere, a 757 hitting at high speed elsewhere did have both engines away from the main debris


struggled for a further seven kilometres (4.3 miles) before crashing into a wooded area close to the village of Taisersdorf at a 70 degree downward angle; each engine ended up several hundred metres away from the main wreckage


But i'm sure a 2 minute video of rumsfeld is proof of a shootdown.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
i'm sorry but i havent been clear lately.... he was reading tho...and i believe it was a typo by the writer...people at that level dont write their own speeches...

if i sit and think too long....i end up forgetting what i was going to say alltogether....



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The reason originaly given was that ongoing trials were the reason for with-holding the tapes. when the 3rd tape was released, it was released because the mussai (sp?) trial was over according to the government.

like ive said before captain, if 3 out of 85 is good enough to convince you and the NIST, thats groovy. its not good enough for me or any profesional however.


So the only trial is over and still no solid video evidence of Flight 77, hmmm, whats up with that!?

Agreed jprophet, not good enough for me and alot of others.

But what can we do? Maybe a FOIA request for the other angles from the roof of the Pentagon? Or the Burger King video? Don't hold your breath!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join