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.

 

U.S. District Court Unseals 9/11 "Inside Job" Case

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird
 


There is nothing that is guaranteed in this world. Be 100% sure of that!




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Two things rae certain:

* People saw the aircraft (they respond to it in the numerous videos)

* People heard what sounded like bombs (and these reports were coming from fire officials among others).

If no aircraft were used, and a super-secret weapon was used instead, why are people pointing and screaming about aircraft, and reporting hearing bombs?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
After review of the many different 9/11 videos, I thought I would post my 2 bits.

I remember that day, sitting in my 1st period US History Class, and the teacher from next door came in. She was BAWLING, and our teacher took her out into the hall. In less than a second, with a look of horror, she tore back inside and turned on the the TV.

What we saw changed me. I saw the 2nd plane hit the building in the instant she turn the TV on. All day, in every period, we had the TV on. When the news about the attack on the pentagon came it was another blow. What I didn't understand, and what I do understand now, is the lengths to which people will go to make you believe in something.

For the last few years, we have been lied to more boldly than I think I have ever heard of. To my knowledge, the first time and only time the government has been caught in a lie was when the russians shot down the first U2. The president himself got on television and denied its existance, and then the russians proved 'em wrong.

Off-topic, but you need to remember the MASSIVE machine that we call the government has always kept their secrets, and kept us living in denial. As I see it, who REALLY gained from the destruction of the WTC?

From the information I have accumulated through countless hours of forum surfing and reading news snippets, I have come to grounds with the fact that Al-Quida, namely bin-Laden, was the fall guy. Men armed with box cutters take over planes? I think not. I'd rather die standing up, like any other american would, and there would be no chance in hell some fanatic crackpot would scare me into my own demise with a flimsy piece of steel.

This view isn't common place. In fact, given the lack of evidence that we most likely wont ever see, and given the fact that no one can be taken at their word anymore, we will never know the truth. We are slaves to the Military Industrial Machine, and war is the driving force behind our greed. It IS our greed, because we take part in it when we buy something at the store. Anything you do contributes, and anything you don't.

This post is about a little more than 9/11. I guess you could call it a window, should you choose to see things from the perspective of the universe instead of a person sitting infront of a computer giving their opinion instead of giving reason. If you spend your life waiting for evidence, you'll die disappointed. Just remember that when the truth finally comes out, and your grand-children are starving, scared, and on the run, that you chose to ignore the facts when they came.

There is no way 9/11 was that simple. Think about it; We ARE the most powerful nation on earth. Someone knew long before, and plenty of people who could make money off of it did. And now, the are swimming in it thanks to the sacrifice of my friends blood.

"If people find out what we have done, they'll lynch us in the streets."


-George Bush, Sr., to a reporter. Google it.




[edit on 27-8-2007 by Knightshadowz]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I find it very hard to accept that the government controlled everthing as some of you think. People did see planes. Videos were taken from multiple angles. It was all realtime.

I could make exactly the same argument and say that the Colts did not win the superbowl last year. For some unknown reason, the government controlled the media, faked the video for the game. People who say they saw it in person were piad off by the government. People who knew about the conspiracy were executed by the governement or sent away or paid off. Given this argument, nobody can possibly prove the Colts won the superbowl.

This is the same argument here. The premises are so unbelievable, that a rational argument cannot be made against it.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by djjohnson

This is the same argument here. The premises are so unbelievable, that a rational argument cannot be made against it.



Exactly my point, that it has been orchestrated. That any mention of the very idea of if being a conspiracy is tossed away because of the stacks, and stacks, and stacks of different angle shots. I do admit that in a few of them, the angles of the buildings look off, but the fact that a very large object, approximately the size of a 747, DID hit the wtc. The damage done, however, was MINOR.

The wind resistance capabilitys of the towers themselves absorbed their impacts completely. Not to mention the fact that it was all reinforce floor-by-floor with fire-proof concrete barriers, coupled with the fact that it was the strongest building in the world at that time. Also, note the fact that NO steel structure has ever been brought down by fire.

Glowing hot metal still glowing hot weeks after the collapse, and traces of thermite in what little evidence was able to be kept before the remains were sold to China, or Japan, or whoever is actually ILLEGAL. They are required by federal law to run tests to conclude exactly WHY the building collapsed due to federal fire regulation.

You cannot excuse the fact that the law was obviously overlooked, or the fact that someone wanted a war. Georgie Junior came in looking for a fight, and that was obvious during his campaign. The farce in florida, along with a hiccup in the supposedly "efficient" computer voting system, are the only reasons bush was elected in the first place. Gore was leading, and then bush had more votes and gore had actually gone down in votes.

All of this points to a HUGE conspiracy.

These are all FACTS, not fiction.

If you want links, do your own research, because Im not here to prove a dang thing that can't already be proven if you are open-minded enough to step out of the lemming-line and look for yourself, respectively.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Knightshadowz]

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Knightshadowz]

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Knightshadowz]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by anti72
 


Steven Jones is a plant: www.911researchers.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Two things rae certain:

* People saw the aircraft (they respond to it in the numerous videos)

* People heard what sounded like bombs (and these reports were coming from fire officials among others).

If no aircraft were used, and a super-secret weapon was used instead, why are people pointing and screaming about aircraft, and reporting hearing bombs?


If aircraft were used, why did some people report missiles instead of planes? Why did some people report just an explosion with no plane?


The "bombs in the building" are a distraction from the important evidence of directed energy weapons. Whether there were explosives in the towers is unimportant because the perps plan to blame it on Al Qaeda. Here's a video of Bush doing exactly this: www.liveleak.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Knightshadowz
 


The molten metal evidence seems to have been fabricated. See here:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Two things rae certain:

* People saw the aircraft (they respond to it in the numerous videos)

* People heard what sounded like bombs (and these reports were coming from fire officials among others).

If no aircraft were used, and a super-secret weapon was used instead, why are people pointing and screaming about aircraft, and reporting hearing bombs?


If aircraft were used, why did some people report missiles instead of planes? Why did some people report just an explosion with no plane?


The "bombs in the building" are a distraction from the important evidence of directed energy weapons. Whether there were explosives in the towers is unimportant because the perps plan to blame it on Al Qaeda. Here's a video of Bush doing exactly this: www.liveleak.com...


And the context of such reports?

Some people are stupid, Others exaggerate, And others, use metaphors to describe events.

Also the people who saw no planes, where were they? what side of the building were they on? these are huge buildings, if your behind one, your not gonna see a plane hit the other side, if your in it chances are your not gonna see a plane but you are gonna hear it...


This energy weapons, talk, what are you basing this off of?

Again let me state this, I don't believe the official story, and I'm on the truther side for the most part, but these theories have no basis that can actually be proved,

again take a look at the link i provided, a lot of homework was done here.

but I'm sure its all just a PSYOP... as is anything, How cool is it that your whole foundation is based upon the fact you can claim any evidence presented to you is invalid an a PSYOP.. I mean you don't have to really do any actual research or anything, you let real investigators do it for you, then after all the work they put into it, you don't bother actually reading it or considering the proof they presented just might be true, and you just call PSYOP! and claim your right because something doesn't "look right to you"


www.questionsquestions.net...


Mom: Billy do your homework!
Billy:Mom, I don't really have homework, you have fallen for the PSYOP the educational system has put in your mind.


Cop:I clocked you at 15 over!
Billy: Officer you are mistaken, you have fallen for the PSYOP your radar is wrong, and the car you saw going 15 over was holographic projection, this was all planned, so that the state could make money off of innocent drivers for the system.



something I've yet to have answered by anyone with these bogus theories who try and debunk other truth theories, What purpose does it serve for the government to "fake" "fake" evidence, when the conclusion is the same, the government did it?

Usually, the cover up of a cover up, covers up....

Hell the way this threads gone, everyone of us is the PSYOP...


But i mean its perfectly rational for a Government to orchastrate something, deny it, cover it up with fake evidence that proves they were behind it, only to be covered up with real evidence that proves they are behind it...


This irrational way of thinking only further proves, some truthers don't care to prove the "real truth" but out to prove "their truth"....



Brooklyn, I'm trying to get you to dig deeper, Heres the deal, to be honest, I don't care one way or another how those towers came down, I don't care if there were or were not planes, What i know is this, there is mountains of circumstantial evidence showing the Unites States government along with Isreal, and multiple others, had prior knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing to prevent them, The huge financial transactions, the insider trading the large put options, The connections within Government with the very people who orchestrated the attacks, the financial transactions resulting from such links, those in power, who's pre 9/11 statements contradict post 9/11 statements in the sense of foreknowledge, The planning of key events that were seemingly related to the types of attacks that went down, but later denied, the ones who pushed for the ensuing wars, personal and financial benefits which resulted from such attacks, the list goes on and on, these things are enough to have a new investigation alone, and have been proven.

If however your goal really is the truth, go at it in a different way, Rather then using your time and resources trying to prove your theory, Spend it trying to prove your theory is wrong, find every piece of evidence you can find which completely debunks your theory, then come back at each piece with scientifically proven facts, if your theory can still survive this, if you truly put as much effort disproving your theory as you have spent trying to prove it, then you may just have something.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by Knightshadowz
 


The molten metal evidence seems to have been fabricated. See here:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...


that page is PURE supposition. no better than the 'logic' used at 'debunking911.com'.
no offense. i like you. but, the truth is the truth, and supposing how it might be has no bearing on the actuality of it.

i would almost EXPECT molten metal after a giant steel tower instantly gives up. it can't give up by itself, and whatever wants to beat it's mighty strength needs to be intensely energetic, and to cut through massive steel supports.

a little heat(physics heat, not temperature heat) required for all that, maybe?

the page referred to makes sweeping judgements, like, 'must be faked' regarding the satellite thermal imaging. it is sad when 911 researchers sound exactly like ufo debunkers. "FAKE!. PHOTOSHOP!"


ETC!

people's boots were melting. most people i know of who reported the molten metal had no motive to lie about it....

....because, if there IS molten metal, that means that fire alone did not bring the towers down.
if there ISN'T molten metal, then the towers can be explained away as gravity driven with less argument from astute observers.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 



C0le, I think I understand your concerns. Here's my reply:

Many FDNY personnel (including chiefs, fire marshals, etc) reported bombs, flashes, and CD-like behavior. These statements were from the WTC Task Force interviews taken a few months after 9/11, and published in the NY Times.

However...... it's unimportant, for the reasons I stated before. And for the NY Times to publish those statements in the first place shows that it's unimportant. If it was important, they wouldn't publish it! What they don't publish any info about is directed energy weapons (DEW) and TV-Fakery.

This link may help regarding the "plane" eyewitnesses:
www.911researchers.com...

The energy weapon info comes from Dr Judy Wood and the Request for Correction that she filed with NIST. (She's represented by Jerry Leaphart as well.) drjudywood.com...

I'm sure you did a lot of work. I know I did. I made a whole compilation of FDNY statements about bombs in the buildings and emailed them to hundreds of structural engineering professors asking for their assistance.

But the fact is all that stuff is not important anymore because of the new evidence. For instance, we know the towers did not "collapse", so any talk about, for example, the melting point of steel, is nothing but a time waster. We know most of the towers were turned to dust. It's ridiculous to call that a "theory" instead of a "fact", because all the evidence points to it. forum.911movement.org...

If evidence is presented and I find it invalid (or I call it a PSYOPS), the reasons would be because:

1. They violate Laws of Physics

2. The evidence is based on fabrications.


I'm not a scientist, but have no problem understanding the simple high school level of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. An aluminum airplane is not going to glide into steel/concrete, it's going to crash against it. My confidence in this understanding is confirmed by the lack of any scientific paper explaining those "plane" crashes. (And before anyone links to papers by Eric Salter, or anyone on Steven Jones site, let me tell you that not one of those papers explains the physics of an aluminum plane with plastic nosecone gliding through steel and concrete.)

Steven Jones is a plant, put in place to distract us from what really happened. i.e. he uses fabricated evidence for molten metal.

Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched. And he certainly spends a lot of time trying to discredit Dr Wood and her DEW evidence. The same with Greg Jenkins, who did this ambush interview of Dr Wood. Jenkins has ties to Los Alamos as well, and also the NSA. Bob Bowman, former directer of the Star Wars program. What's this guy doing in the truth movement? No.. he doesn't talk about DEW evidence, instead he wastes time talking about NORAD and scrambling jets.

Those people were planted in the truth movement for a reason: to distract people from the evidence of DEW and TV-Fakery.

DEW and TV-Fakery are the two truths the perps don't want revealed.

It's understandable that some in the truth movement wouldn't want to push such theories without 100% certainly of them. I have no trouble seeing it, so I have no problem with it. For me, actually, DEW/TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact.

Anyone interested in the truth of 9/11 should read Dr Wood's correspondences with NIST (scroll past the press releases): drjudywood.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


billybob, what you said doesn't make that much sense.

The FDNY boots could not have melted from high heat. If they did, the FDNY's feet would have been incinerated. The boots didn't melt, they reacted from molecular dissociation.

That thermal image had to be faked, because all the other evidence contradicts it.

It there was molten metal at Ground Zero, there would have been steam explosions from all that fire hose water, not to mention all that rain.


The lack of molten metal does not mean a gravity collapse. The steel turned to dust!

The molten metal stories were 100% PSYOPS.

We all fell for them.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by billybob
 


billybob, what you said doesn't make that much sense.

The FDNY boots could not have melted from high heat. If they did, the FDNY's feet would have been incinerated. The boots didn't melt, they reacted from molecular dissociation.

That thermal image had to be faked, because all the other evidence contradicts it.

It there was molten metal at Ground Zero, there would have been steam explosions from all that fire hose water, not to mention all that rain.


The lack of molten metal does not mean a gravity collapse. The steel turned to dust!

The molten metal stories were 100% PSYOPS.

We all fell for them.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]


look. some arguments from the 'wood camp', and the 'haupt camp' i totally agree with. what i don't agree with is jumping to conclusions.
any 'debunker' would think that's hilarious coming from me. but, then, sometimes when you find out the underpinning of your humour is based on mistaken pretenses, it's simply no longer funny.


cylindrical holes are a big problem to explain scientifically. and so is an intact wall where the planes wing has already broken through it.

there is evil afoot.

yet, untested, unproven, unknown sciences are in no way predictable.

i was one of the first i know of on the web(BFD) to suggest tesla resonance weapons. i still believe this particular brand of destruction a possibility. you could couple a powerful frequency generator to the core columns, perhaps using some kind of wrap around brace which would transfer the energy to adjacent columns, or say, 47 devices with SMPTE sync or better, one for each core column.

what would you hear? the fundamental frequency of the columns is far too low for human hearing, or even good microphones.



p.s. i love [double entendre]jumping on conclusions[/double entendre]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


Take a good look at the paper I linked

From the abstract...

When interacted with solid material, these charge clusters perform a low-energy phase transformation type of atomic disruption that liquifies the lattice and propels the material to a high velocity without apparent signs of conventional heating...


Look at some of the micrographs of EVs entering lead glass... Do you see what I'm getting at? A potential explanation for the pod, the flashes just prior to both collisions, and the seemless entry of the planes into the buildings.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
CB_Brooklyn :

Steven Jones is a plant: www.911researchers.com...

The molten metal evidence seems to have been fabricated. See here:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...




Quote Steven Jones:
I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold fusion' effects to date.


Yes,of course. that´s right . who has personally seen this ? Dr Greer probably.

But CB_Brooklyn uses this to state :

´´Steven Jones is a plant: ´´




CB_Brooklyn is a plant.
just proof he isn´t.. thats his tactics. he wants to distract you, boys.
you can see that what he writes and how.

even in the 9/11truth forum he makes his job:

forum.911movement.org...

dont forget all the dead.dont speculate.

we wont give up all evidence because of the spaculation of a magic weapon, that cant be proven.

thats what the disInfo guys want.

theres a major 9/11 suit going on, secretly.
its important to keep that in mind.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by anti72]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by anti72
 



You are proving yourself to be disinfo. My posts are backed with scientific analysis. Your posts are backed with wild accusations. People aren't as stupid as you think.... they can see right through you.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 0ivae
 


That all looks very interesting but with all the stuff I'm doing I just don't have time to read another paper right now. In fact, now I'm gonna make myself a late dinner...



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whathavewecometo
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird
 


There is nothing that is guaranteed in this world. Be 100% sure of that!



yes, thats a good point.
what is proof in what case ?
(this not meant as bedunking or pseodo-scepticism )

the CIA- bought ´debunkers´ dont mind anyway..



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join