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. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered airfraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the slected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted into a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendevous south of Flordia. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to a minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its origional status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by a destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has hapened to the aircraft insted of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
Originally posted by DarkFlame
If you would like to call me a "9/11 Denier", then so be it. I have no desire to argue with anyone about an informal and silly title you are only using to make yourself feel better about your arguement and mark your opposition as mindless, crazy people. The fact is, I am "denying", as you call it. I refuse to believe the 9/11 comission report is wholly true. I deny our government the satisfaction of swaying me over to their side of the story. It's been proven over and over again through history, not theories, that governments attack their own civillian population as well as destroying property and spreading lies for their own gains. I have included a few examples I saw fit, but I'm sure there are many, many more. How many people do I think it took to pull off 9/11 if it was an inside job? Not many.
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by seanm
Dodging? I was make an obvious point. To help you out, I'll repeat the post:
I read your post. If you were paying attention, you'd know I responded to it.
Originally posted by seanm
Now, just how many people do you reckon would have to be both in on it OR know something was not right after the fact IF?
Please be specific with numbers. Don't exclude anyone, ok?
So you want me to give numbers, but you won't give proof to your thousands estimate?
Originally posted by seanm
Is that why you can't tell me? Gosh....
I've told you. You fail to listen.
Originally posted by seanm
The burden of proof is on you. After all YOU believe it's a conspiracy, not me.
Get back too us when you've got the numbers.
You think 19 hijackers did it. Going by the correct definition of "conspiracy", you believe it's a conspiracy too.
you just blew your credibility.
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by seanm
Such as no one saw a 757 hit the Pentagon but saw something else or nothing at all - just as is claimed here by other 9/11 Deniers.
Find where in this thread I said that, and maybe you'll be right.
Good luck
Originally posted by seanm
is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As for the WTC most of the planes fuel was burned up in the intial explosion outside the building, what was left burned off quickly. ( please check the NIST and FEMA reports)
Yep. And what people fail to realize is the towers DID stand up to the jet fuel, the fires, and the impact.
The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit, therefore, they accomplished what they were built to do and tested to do, which was stand up to an aircraft impact.
The towers didn't collapse in the massive explosion during the impact that took up most of the jet fuel, therefore, they stood up to the fire.
The towers didn't collapse due to the jet fuel, because as I just said, most of it was taken up in the initial explosion, therefore, it stood up to the heavy amounts of jet fuel.
So if it was a combination of all three, the best possible time for it to collapse because of all three would be on impact or very very shortly thereafter. But that's not what we saw.
Also, these people that claim that it was some raging inferno there in the towers even up until the time of the collapse, for one, fail to provide pictures of this raging inferno. They simply just assume it happened.
And two, can't explain why there's no "raging inferno" at the crash sites of Flight 93 and Flight 77 immediately after those impacts, but the ones in the Twin Towers lasted at least an hour.
Originally posted by katmandu
reply to post by NoOneSpecialHere
There is a mountain of evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, or at least a Pearl Harbor false-flag operation that was allowed to continue, unopposed. Less than a hundred people could have made this happen.
Only a handful needed to know the full story. The rest would have been specialist pawns who, due to compartmentalized "need-to-know" status, would never have understood the extent of their betrayal, until it was too late.
As for seanm, why do you people waste your time on the likes of this person or those like him/her? Nuff said.
Originally posted by seanm
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Originally posted by seanm
Feel free to present your "mountain of evidence" but don't get upset when I hold you to it when you don't produce it.
P.S. Let me know when you plan to file charges. Six years of waiting for you guys to put your money where your mouths are is awfully boring.
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by seanm
Yup, exactly. And 40 years ago to boot.
Yep, keep putting words in my mouth.
Keep up, buddy. It's not hard.
Originally posted by seanm
So you didn't know when the WTC towers were built? What DO you know? So far, not much at all.
Do you even know what the hell you're talking about?
Point to where I said I didn't know when they were built... Good luck finding that.
Your debate skills are pathetic.
Originally posted by seanm
Your display of classic 9/11 denial should be helpful to everyone here and illustrate why you're all stuck in the exact same spot you were six years ago with nothing to show for your efforts.
Perhaps two years ago, an "informal" meeting of "veterans" of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal -- holding positions in the Bush administration -- was convened by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. Discussed were the "lessons learned" from that labyrinthine, secret, and illegal arms-for-money-for-arms deal involving the Israelis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Contras of Nicaragua, among others -- and meant to evade the Boland Amendment, a congressionally passed attempt to outlaw Reagan administration assistance to the anti-communist Contras.
In terms of getting around Congress, the Iran-Contra vets concluded, the complex operation had been a success -- and would have worked far better if the CIA and the military had been kept out of the loop and the whole thing had been run out of the Vice President's office.
Subsequently, some of those conspirators, once again with the financial support and help of the Saudis (and probably the Israelis and the Brits), began running a similar operation, aimed at avoiding congressional scrutiny or public accountability of any sort, out of Vice President Cheney's office. They dipped into "black pools of money," possibly stolen from the billions of Iraqi oil dollars that have never been accounted for since the American occupation began.
Originally posted by RexxCrow
Controlled Demolition was hired without a bid to remove the debris from the 9/11 incidents, they were able to comply instantly with this massive project.
Controlled Demolition was also hired without bid to cleanup the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Bush rolls out a 1,000 page Patriot act a (legal document) before the smoke from 9/11 even cleared.
Link
The Patriot Act was not a dramatic departure from existing legislation, but can be more accurately described as the extension of laws and the implementation of reforms long recommended by the security and intelligence communities. The key provisions of the Patriot Act are actually incorporated from an anti-terrorism measure proposed by the Clinton Administration and adopted by Congress in 1996. This was the "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996," which was inspired by the worst terrorist atrocity on American soil up to that time - the April 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh, which killed 175 innocent people.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
They also understand what you deny since it's a fact inconvenient to your conspiracy theory: both WTC 1 and 2 succumbed to the combined effect of unfought, major fires in the damaged areas of both towers....
Yes, thats why i think a better sceme was to just let it happen. Not much planning.
Originally posted by PistolPete
So essentially you've both stuck up for the no plane at the Pentagon and bombs in the buildings theories. Obviously you don't think that a better scheme is to "just let it happen". In other words, LIHOP.