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.

 

9/11 de-mythified

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
"I'm not in any way questioning your right to complain about the actions of our government. I'm merely saying it is wrong, blasphemous and sinful for you to suggest, imply or help other people come to the conclusion that the U.S. government
killed 3,000 of its own citizens, because it didn't." - tucker carlson

"because it didnt"...great arguement there, this will be a long post, i'm sorry and i will try to keep it to a minimum but i'm going to go into the whole 9/11 myth as i understand it...so...here goes

the 9/11 myth:
19 hijackers, directed by osama b.laden, took over 4 commercial jets with box cutters and, while evading the air defense system (NORAD), hit 75% of their targets. In turn, WTC towers 1,2 and 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in shanksville. the 911 commision found that there were no warnings for this act of terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.

"no warnings"
during the 2 years before 9/11 NORAD conducted exercises using hijacked aeroplanes as weapons, one such target was the WTC.

at least 12 countries warned the us regarding intel about an eminent attack on america, including italy, united kingdom, the french, egyptians, russia and israel instead of listening...bush went on a month long vacation.

"19 hijackers"
general mahmood ahmed requested omar saeed sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 into the account of mohamed atta the "ring leader" of the terrorists, sheikh admitted he was supported by the ISI. no inquiry was ever made as to why general ahmed ordered $100k to be sent to mahamed atta. on the morning of september 11th government officials were having breakfast with general ahmed in washington.
the 911 commission deemed the funding of the attacks..."of little consequence" in their official report.

the hijackers had their houses, cars credit cards etc paid for by the us government. they were in truth, agents! part of the evidence linking one of the hijackers was a passport found in the rubble of WTC, this passport, escapes the fireball, falls to the ground unscathed for people to find..."oh boy we've got it, we've got the pass port we've got the proof" and then the guy stood up, alive and well! infact several of the 19 men are still alive, are in no way connected to laden and his al qaeda and in fact have no clue as to how to fly a plane. such as abdulaziz al-omari who spoke to the telegraph newspaper on the 9/23/01. the FBI still has not updated its list.

osama b.laden:
when he was already Americas most wanted criminal, he reportedly spent 2 weeks in the american hospital in Dubai where he was treated by an american doctor and visited by the local CIA agent. we have not seen one piece of evidence linking osama to the planning stages of 9/11. oh, apart from that video from Afghanistan where osama admits" to the whole thing...except the guy in the video, just isnt him. he has darker skin, fuller cheeks features and a wider nose than the osama we have seen in all pictures, taken before and after.

we again seem to have planted evidence.




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
the pentagon:
how could anyone fly a 60 ton 125 ft wide 44ft tall plane through this obsicle course?

the plane, before striking the pentagon reportedly performed a 200 degree downward spiral, and yet hani hajour was known as a terrible pilot, who could not safely fly even the smallest of planes.
there were no seats, no luggage and no bodies, nothing but bricks and limestone. the official explaination is that the intense heat of the burning jet fuel vaporised the entire plane. flight 77 had 2 rolls royce engines made of steel and titanium alloy and weighed 6 tons each...it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to vaporise 12 tons of steel and titanium. any and all video footage of the strike has been confiscated and never shown. if it did infact show a plane hitting the pentagon, and then vaporising and thus proving the government were in fact correct, they would have released it.
we were told the bodies were identified using either fingerprints or DNA, so what type of fire can vaporise 60 tones of plane and leave the bodies intact to this degree? the only debris from the plane were small enough that you could pickit up by hand.
shortly after the strike government agents picked up debris and carried it off, the entire lawn was covered in dirt and gravel...literally covering up the evidence.

shanksville:



y'what?

world trade towers 1,2 and 7:
the pancake effect: the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently for the floors to break loose from the steel columns which, in turn, started a chain reaction. but if this is the case the internal support columns would still be standing 1000ft in the air, and there would be a whole stack of floors left at the bottom. some would be destroyed under the weight...yes i will grant you that, but not all of them and the debris build up would still stand at..some simple maths...1,368ft 110 story means that there was roughly 12.4 ft per floor, if we estimate that the rooms themselves were no higher than say, 8 ft that leaves 4 ft per story giving you a rough approximation of 440ft of floor wreckage. this is by no means exact but it will do to get my point across. there is no such wreckage...in ANY pictures you care to post.

les robertson is the WTC structural engineer and he says...and i quote..."we designed the buildings to take the impact of the boeing 707, uh, hitting the building at any location"

frank a. demartini the manager of the WTC construction said...and again i quote..."the building ,probably,could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners"

aaron swirsky the WTC architech also commented that the building was designed to withstand an impact such as the infamous one.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
as i've mentioned elsewhere the towers came down in nearly free fall speeds, the north tower came down in 8 seconds, the southern tower came down in 10 seconds...this means the floors shattered on average about 10 floors per second...thats a fast pancake...there are NO scenarios for a pancake effect that allows a building to fall at the rate of free fall(well, or there abouts). this leads to the conclusion that the mass must have been moved out of the way, the only thing that could do that is explosives.

spreading the powdered concrete over a 500ft radius.
now the 47 huge steel columns going up the core, they are interconnected, how do you get them to fail simultaneously so that the core disapears? it looks like those core columns were cut. the way they do this is by cutting the beam at an angle...you'v all seen and debunked the images so i wont bore you by posting them again. i can tell you, over here in england i'v worked as a blacksmith(we still have those...cool huh) i'v used plasma torches, regular cutting torches and circular saws...none of which will melt the metal to the degree you see in those photos, this is not me speculating, this i
know from experience.
molten metal...all 3 buildings 1,2 and 7 had pools of molten metal in the rubble for over 6 weeks after the collapse, hotspots of over 2000°F were documented in the debris, 500°F hotter than jet fuel burns at its peak.

nothing is mentioned about the molten metals in any of the official reports. this is important evidence, where did it come from?
dr steven jones physics professer at BYU through electron microscope analysis of the melten WTC steel and the iron rich microspheres in the dust, dr. jones found exact traces of not only the thermite explosive compound, but, due to the high sulphur content, "thermate" - a patented brand of thermite used in the demolition industry.

like i said this was found under all 3 collapsed buildings and building 7 wasnt even hit by a jet and had fires on only 2 or 3 floors and yet it fell in exactly the same way as the other 2 buildings. if you get the chance to, watch a video of this building collapsing, notice the kink in the middle before it goes down? this is yet another tell tale sign of a controlled demolition. the reason for the kink in the middle is due to the way a controlled demo works, they blow out the central collumn first so that the building collapses in on its self, this is to avoid damaging nearby buildings, as seen here

this is the aftermath of WTC building 7

the governments explaination for all 3 collapses was fire. but never before or after 911 has any steel building collapsed from fire alone.

collapse characteristics of WTC 1,2 and 7 fit the controlled demolition model. with the noted exception that buildings 1 and 2 exploded rather than imploded.

oh and did i mention the sub basement explosions?


the ones that occured seconds before the first plane hit? but thats william rodriguez who was actually in the building when these explosions went off, i know you have been bombarded with people siting him again and again and again...so i will make no more reference to him....rodriguez...

also to be noted, phillip morelli was in sub-basement 4 of the north tower and he claims to have been knocked down by an explosion before the second bigger explosion. but heres the thing...he walked over to the southern basement...and it
happened again...an explosion in the basement and then a second larger explosion higher up the building.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
NORAD:
according to standard operating procedure if a FAA flight controller notices anything suggesting a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior, if the problem cannot be resolved he then contacts NORAD, north american aerospace defense command, to send out or "scramble" jet fighters to find out what is going on, NORAD then issues the scramble order to the nearest airforce base with fighters on alert. usually this happens within a maximum of 10 minutes, on 9/11, 80 minutes had elapsed before the fighters were even airborne.

now what if they were so confused, and i mean deliberately confused that they couldent respond? a number of conflicting and overlapping wargame exercises were taking place that involved the insertion of false radar blips on the radar screens of the north east defense sector.



there was another exercise, according to a NORAD source that was a "live-fly hijack drill" being conducted at the same time, with only 8 available fighter aircraft, and they have to be dispatched in pairs, they were dealing with as many as 22 hijacks on the day of infamy and they couldnt seperate the wargame exercises from the actual hijackings. in 2000, NORAD had 67 intercepts. 100% accuracy, on 9/11 they failed 4 times in one day. on the morning of 9/11 dick chaney was in charge of all NORAD orders from the command bunker under the white house. in at least one of the many war games going on the morning of 9/11, planes being flown into buildings was a scenario.

9/11 commission:
on page 172 of the report it states "the us government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. ultimately the question is of little practical significance" now whether you chose to believe that its a terrorist attack, or your own government you have to admit that this question is of MASSIVE significance, unless you have another agenda...
the collapse of building 7 had proven to be especially hard to explain, the 9/11 commission gave testiment to this...by not even mentioning it...

when bush and chaney met with the 9/11 commission, they did so under their own terms:
-they appeared together
-they were not under oath
-no press or family members were allowed to attend
-no recording of any kind was allowed
-no transcript was allowed

the final report was a unanimous one, that means if there was a single commissioner who had any objection about anything, that fact would be dropped from the report. there is literally nothing in the report that the bush administration did not approve of.

we undertsnad why the commission would ignore all the evidence that pointed out the truth, that 9/11 wasa false flag operation intended to authorise the doctrines and funds needed for a new level of imperial mobilisation.

terrorism:
1) systematic use of terror, manifesting itself in violence or intimidation for generating fear.

"generating of fear"
(youtube.com...)

2)techniques used by governments to manipulate public opinion in order to further an agenda.

"manipulate"...think about that for a second, just let the word and its meaning settle in your head, and now think of the disgust and anger you felt, as i felt, when the horrific event happened...righteous indignation describes how i feel now for 2 reasons...
1) which ever way you look at it, government plot or terrorist attack, innocent people have died, FOR NO GOODREASON AT ALL!!!
2) the truth behind it all has been denied to us all.

i dont like being lied to.

its not accident that the first tower collapsed and then the second tower accidently collapsed in exactly the same way.


thank you for your time.

sorry to rabbit on for so long



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Nice job.

I'm coming to the realization that a lot of the battles going on now between people who think 9/11 was an inside job and those who don't are being waged in many cases in the psychologist's office.

I grant that there are mentally sound young people coming along who are new to free discussion of these issues and they deserve patient explanations, however there are significant numbers of people who are impervious to rational argument for emotional reasons.

The longer the current situation goes on without exposure of the truth regarding 9/11, the more the mainstream media and a host of public officials will have invested in the lie. Time itself is working against us big time.

Mike Ruppert said that if this wasn't on the national agenda in the '04 presidential election then the issues would no longer be topical, They would have become "historical". I think he is right. I don't expect much from the '08 election and I'm very sad to say it.

The best people in America have failed the nation, at least in this instance.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Hmmm, judging by the thread title I was expecting something new that hadn't already been discussed infinitely to the point of being common knowledge with everyone...

Still a nice job putting all the basic stuff together in one neat little package though



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The best people in America have failed the nation, at least in this instance.


Hey Im doing everything I can my man!
I think most of us are.
The problem is two-fold.
Ignorance and apathy.
Not to mention that the 'people' we are really trying to expose have all the money and all the 'authority'.
Thats quite a bit stacked against us.


Nice post ZGhorus.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
You did a great job laying out all the facts

great job!



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Thumbs up all the way my friend.
I still find it unbelieveable people believe the official story.

It beggers belief as to how these people passed primary.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
this isnt one of those posts to bump my thread back up to the top...even thought it will*cough*success*cough*

thanks for the praise, but i cant help but notice the debunkers havent posted, i'm not arrogant enough to put this down to the old "i'm right and they know it" mentality...more towards the "oh my god not this old tripe again" style of thinking...however i was hoping somebody would debunk it, if only for my own peace of mind...i personally would love to be wrong about this.

but if it turns out that the paranoid community of the world is right, the repercussions are horrendous, the bombings in my capital city, london, are looking ever more suspect. that scares me.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus
...however i was hoping somebody would debunk it, if only for my own peace of mind...i personally would love to be wrong about this.


Um.. well it all has been debunked..on this forum and several others. You are wrong on many aspects of what you posted. Although there are some truth mixed in. This is not done by you intentionally....it's the way the majority of the truth movement works and teaches.

I was going to attempt to go line by line on your posts, but it was taking to long as I am at work and don't have enough time to give your posts the due dilligence that it requires. You obviously spent a lot of time on it, so it deserves a "proper" debunking!



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus
thanks for the praise


Praise? We have a mechanism for praise here... It's called a "Staff Applause" and it is used to reward hard work for members who go the extra mile and produce a quality post(s). Unfortunately, ATS Staff Applause cannot extend beyond the confines of ATS where the material you lifted exists. ATS takes plagiarism quite seriously... I suggest you review the following two links:

Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You obviously spent a lot of time on it, so it deserves a "proper" debunking!


No he didn't... So no it doesn't.



[edit on 5/8/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Nice job.

I'm coming to the realization that a lot of the battles going on now between people who think 9/11 was an inside job and those who don't are being waged in many cases in the psychologist's office.

I grant that there are mentally sound young people coming along who are new to free discussion of these issues and they deserve patient explanations, however there are significant numbers of people who are impervious to rational argument for emotional reasons.

The longer the current situation goes on without exposure of the truth regarding 9/11, the more the mainstream media and a host of public officials will have invested in the lie. Time itself is working against us big time.

Mike Ruppert said that if this wasn't on the national agenda in the '04 presidential election then the issues would no longer be topical, They would have become "historical". I think he is right. I don't expect much from the '08 election and I'm very sad to say it.

The best people in America have failed the nation, at least in this instance.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ipsedixit]


So you can basically call anyone who disagrees with you insane and should be talking to a therapist? Kickin' rad.

Anyways, is there anything in particular anyone wants me to debunk before I debunk the whole post? (which will take like 20 years.)



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus
this isnt one of those posts to bump my thread back up to the top...even thought it will*cough*success*cough*


Praise..
now thats funny.......

should have just added your "thoughts" to one of the million threads that have already shown the pics that you have provided and the quotes and everything else...

yeah... praise....

nice work...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
mmm sarcasm. while i dont disagree on any point i think that each seperate issue has been "debunked"(what does that mean?) but never as a collective...well that i have seen anyway.

at the moment, all i have seen is a back and forth of people saying yes it is...no it isnt...yes it is...no it isnt and unfortunately, this doesnt quell any of my fears, worries or general unease. while you may think that this is just paranoid madness, some very new and very scary laws have been passed iwthin the last couple of months.

also due to the above mod post and the fact that i dont have an edit button on my previous posts i am adding the following, belated, disclaimer...

"while i have seen the information on too many websites to list or infact remember. most of the information posted here is a transcript from the zeitgeist movie. i did not claim this to be my own work, but the typing, spelling errors and grammatical pea soup are all my own work...also i very cleverly using all the skill of a small toadstool editted the pictures using print screen and the windows program paint. this disclaimer is not an attack, nor an attempt at sarcasm...it is however an attempt at humour, something i'm not very good at."

warning...long disclaimer above...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
There are no diclaimers for plagairism...


Originally posted by ZGhorus
also due to the above mod post and the fact that i dont have an edit button on my previous posts i am adding the following, belated, disclaimer...

"while i have seen the information on too many websites to list or infact remember. most of the information posted here is a transcript from the zeitgeist movie. i did not claim this to be my own work, but the typing, spelling errors and grammatical pea soup are all my own work...also i very cleverly using all the skill of a small toadstool editted the pictures using print screen and the windows program paint. this disclaimer is not an attack, nor an attempt at sarcasm...it is however an attempt at humour, something i'm not very good at."

warning...long disclaimer above...


And please don't try to explain it.

One example:


Originally posted by ZGhorus
when bush and chaney met with the 9/11 commission, they did so under their own terms:
-they appeared together
-they were not under oath
-no press or family members were allowed to attend
-no recording of any kind was allowed
-no transcript was allowed


Originally posted here:



When Bush and Cheney met with the 9/11 Commission, they did so only on their own terms:
-They appeared together
-They were not under oath
-No press or family members were allowed to attend
-No recording of any kind was allowed
-No transcript was allowed

answers.yahoo.com...


I quit Googling after the the fifth or sixth hit. I'd also point out that you removed the capitalization in most of the instances... I can only guess this was an attempt to match your posting style.

The subject is over. Going forward you will properly attribute all material not your own.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
thats a bug'r.
It was a good post... pitty it wasnt urs.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I think summaries have some value, although one should certainly cite sources or give credit for information gathered by others. Was the OP trying to claim that what he posted was the result of his own research? Or was it an innocent violation of ATS standards?

Personally I just assumed that this was material gleaned to present an overview of 9/11 issues from a truther's point of view. I'm not upset about it. Maybe I would be if someone was quoting my posts uncredited. Haven't thought about it. Suddenly this thread has gotten really stuffy and claustrophobic.

At least we have ccaich's and CaptainObvious's thorough debunkings of the OP's post to look forward to.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus
hile i dont disagree on any point i think that each seperate issue has been "debunked"(what does that mean?) but never as a collective...well that i have seen anyway.


I can understand the desire (though not the need) to have all of the points debunked in one massive thread.

However, since you've put so much work into collecting the various points from other sources, why not play "devil's advocate" and collect the complete rebuttal, too? That'll take a lot more time, I'm sure, but you can do it!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join