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.

 

911 Mysteries / A&E For 911 Truth ... Lies Revealed

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I agree with the mushroom guy. I don't care about stupid truth movement propaghanda, because let's face it there IS lies on that side, too... but I mean, your own eyes and ears should be enough for you to friggin see that BUILDING 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Therefore, the whole thing must have been planned weeks/months in advance.

And another thing that your eyes and ears should be able to tell you is that below the points of impact of each of the twin towers, there is still hundreds of feet (thousands and thousands of tons) of steel structure beneath the so called "point of collapse"....and that means that alll that steel structure still stands in the way between the tops of the buildings and the ground. Seems a little odd to me that there was just about ZERO resistance involved when those buildings collapsed. they just practically vaporized all the way down!!! I may not have a doctorate in anything (ehem maybe the better word is INdoctrinate), but the fact that the buildings crumble almost straight down into their footprint, being extremely tall hardened steel structures.... just seems LUDICROUS to my untrained eyes. My eyes are untrained, therefore, my judgement is not based on ANY bias, and I am not a part of the whole "truth movement" sheep herd. I denounced that quite a while back, once they started claiming holograms and H-bombs. This was destined to end up this way, with rarely anyone actually using unclouded logic of their own two eyes, and their gut feelings.

As you can see clearly, science on both sides claim to have evidence fully supporting their claims... and if you make your decision based on whatever scientific theories you favor... how are you not following the herd?

I really try to distance myself away from 9/11 now, but there are still people trying to rationalize the official event as truth, and I can't believe the ignorance of that. I cannot believe the blind faith that BOTH sides convey.

I've done it again... but It's hard to ignore these kind of BS arguments.

How is this not obvious to everyone by now, especially considering the well proven corruption and deciet of this current administration???

We're all gunna be arguing till the very end, til this evil Fascist world regime clamps down and officially announces that we are their property, and they will do with us as they please. Heck, they've already announced that, in so many words!



[edit on 24-11-2007 by indierockalien]




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Why,..Why,..Why,..A homicide detective will say he does not believe in coincidences...
...not in a murder..You can find nothing but coincidences on 911...
...stand down of our air force...war games at same time with same hi-jacks,..fema there for a fake emergency...steel framed buildings falling down in there own foot prints...3 times...Huge planes crashing and no debris...
...on and on and on...poison mailed to enemys of Bush..



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmajestyk6309
 


Ah yes coincidences!

The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America

An Excerpt from the book I recommended to Capt


The strategy of tension in Europe and America

The idea that sectors of government might sponsor extremists in acts of terrorism against their own people is, initially, almost unthinkable. Yet this unthinkable possibility has clearly happened in Italy, with the celebrated bombings of Milan’s Piazza Fontana in 1969 and the Bologna railway station in 1980. (Sixteen people were killed in Milan, and eighty-five in Bologna.) Although anarchists took part in these bombings, and were initially blamed for them, it developed that the bombings were part of a “strategy of tension” orchestrated by Italian military intelligence.1

The responsibility of Italian intelligence services has been definitively established by Italian courts and parliamentary investigations. As Stanford historian Thomas Sheehan wrote in the New York Review of Books, “Later the [Piazza Fontana] massacre was traced to two neofascists, Franco Freda and Giovanni Ventura, and to an agent of the Secret Services (SID) named Guido Giannettini. Giannettini fled the country, but continued to receive checks from SID for a full year. He and three high SID officials were eventually jailed for conspiracy in the massacre.”2

But the Italians found responsible have implicated U.S. covert actions in Italy, beginning with the efforts by the Office of Policy Coordination to defeat the Communists in the 1948 Italian elections. General Vito Miceli, the Italian head of military intelligence, after his arrest in 1974 on a charge of conspiring to overthrow the government, testified “that the incriminated organization, which became known as the ‘Parallel SID,’ was formed under a secret agreement with the United States and within the framework of NATO.”3

Former Italian defense minister Paulo Taviani told Magistrate Casson during a 1990 investigation “that during his time in office (1955–58), the Italian secret services were bossed and financed by ‘the boys in Via Veneto’—i.e. the CIA agents in the U.S. Embassy in the heart of Rome.”4 In 2000 “an Italian secret service general said . . . that the CIA gave its tacit approval to a series of bombings in Italy in the 1970s to sow instability and keep communists from taking power. . . . ‘The CIA wanted, through the birth of an extreme nationalism and the contribution of the far right, particularly Ordine Nuovo, to stop (Italy) sliding to the left,’ he said.”5

The evidence for some degree of U.S. involvement is massive but also problematic.6 There is no doubt that the United States, operating partly through NATO, sponsored and funded so-called stay-behind paramilitary groups in Italy and other NATO countries (in Operation Gladio); and there is no doubt also that the cadres and munitions of these groups were used in the strategy of tension. For some time critics of U.S foreign policy have stressed the role of CIA assets and Gladio terrorism in the Greek Colonels’ coup of 1967: “The Gladio ‘Sheepskin’ group was involved in a campaign of terrorist bombings, which were blamed on the left, and two days before the election campaign was to begin, a military coup brought to power a junta led by George Papadopoulos, a member of the Greek intelligence service KYP [who had been on CIA payroll since 1952].”7 This was the climax of a period in which Greece was afflicted with “an intelligence service gone wild” and “a shadow government with powers beyond the control of the nation’s nominal leaders.”8

Even clearer is the continuous U.S. intervention in Italian politics after 1948, to block the formation of any government supported by the Communist Party. In 1972, for example, CIA disbursed $10 million to political parties, affiliated organizations, and twenty-one candidates, mostly Christian Democrats. Ambassador Graham Martin, against CIA advice, gave a further $800,000 to General Miceli, the Italian head of military intelligence.9 Miceli would be tried two years later for his involvement in the 1970 Borghese coup attempt, which the Piazza Fontana bombing of 1969 was designed to assist. Eventually he and all other defendants would be acquitted.10

What is not yet clear, at least to me, is the degree and level of conscious U.S. direction for Italian state violence against civilians. The official Italian Senate investigation into Gladio concluded “without the shadow of a doubt that elements of the CIA started in the second half of the 1960s to counter by the use of all means the spreading . . . of the left.”11

But at what level were these elements, and with what central authorization? Undoubtedly Gladio units contributed to the Eurofascism of the 1980s, but by then many if not most Eurofascists were anti-American as well as anti-Soviet. Whatever the details, the perversion of Operation Gladio into sanctioned attacks on innocent civilians illustrates the dangers of top-down power, especially when it is off-shored and removed from the checks and balances of an open public state.12

At least some Americans believed themselves in the strategy of tension. William Harvey, when CIA station chief in Rome, reportedly recruited his own “action squads” and suggested that the head of the Italian intelligence service SIFAR (later SID) “use his ‘action squads’ to ‘carry out bombings against Christian Democrat Party offices and certain newspapers in the north, which were to be attributed to the left.’”13

More important, European sources allege that one of the masterminds of the 1969 plot, Guido Giannettini, was invited in late 1961 to give a three-day lecture course to U.S. military officers in Annapolis, on “Techniques and Possibilities of a Coup d’Etat in Europe.”14 A few weeks later Pentagon officials began drafting the plans known as Operation Northwoods, the first known American application of a strategy of tension. As summarized by ABC News, “the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.”15 This was at a time of developing U.S. Army interest in so-called counterterror as a technique in counterinsurgency, as developed by Nazis, French theorists of guerre révolutionnaire, and East European ém

[edit on 063030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

émigrés now attached to the U.S. Army.

Thus one cannot clearly distinguish between the managed violence advocated by Italian strategists of tension and those aping them in the United States. International security analyst John Prados has put the issue very forcibly: “In this age of global concern with terrorism it is especially upsetting to discover that Western Europe and the United States collaborated in creating networks that took up terrorism. In the United States such nations are called ‘state sponsors’ and are the object of hostility and sanction. Can it be the United States itself, Britain, France, Italy, and others who should be on the list of state sponsors?”16 It is alarming moreover to note that the Piazza Fontana bombing was planned by a “parallel” structure, outside government control, as a prelude for a military coup.17

Cheney, Rumsfeld and COG Planning in the 1980s

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been associated since the 1980s with a parallel planning structure in the United States. The formal goal of this planned parallel structure was called “continuity of government” (COG), but the name is misleading. The Progressive Review referred more descriptively to plans for “a possible military/civilian coup.”18

The plans for what journalist James Bamford has called the “secret government” of COG had been slowly developing, chiefly but not only under Republican administrations, since the 1950s.19 As mentioned in chapter 4, a major step was the creation in 1979 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But FEMA’s emergency planning was radically politicized under President Reagan. By 1984, in the words of journalist Ross Gelbspan, “Lt. Col. Oliver North was working with officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . to draw up a secret contingency plan to surveil political dissenters and to arrange for the detention of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens in case of an unspecified national emergency. The plan, part of which was codenamed Rex 84, called for the suspension of the Constitution under a number of scenarios, including a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua. . . . But in addition to groups opposing United States policies in Central America, the FEMA plan reportedly included environmental activists, opponents of nuclear energy and refugee assistance activists.”20

Earlier, Governor Reagan in California had authorized the development of a counterinsurgency plan (known as Cable Splicer) and exercises to deal with such crises, in conjunction with the U.S. Sixth Army and the Pentagon (Operation Garden Plot). The cadres developing Cable Splicer (headed by Louis Giuffrida), were with Reagan’s elevation to the presidency transferred into FEMA. As head of FEMA, Giuffrida pursued plans for massive detention of dissidents; these became so extreme that even Reagan’s attorney general, William French Smith, raised objections.21

As developed in the mid-1980s by Oliver North in the White House, the plans called for not just the surveillance but also the potential detention of large numbers of American citizens. During the Iran-Contra hearings North was asked by the congressman Jack Brooks about his work on “a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution.” The chairman, Democratic senator Daniel Inouye, ruled that this was a “highly sensitive and classified” matter, not to be dealt with in an open hearing. This dramatic exchange was virtually ignored by the establishment media.22

In the wake of Brooks’s question in Congress, the public was told how attorney general William French Smith, in an August 1984 letter to NSC chair Robert McFarlane, had written that FEMA’s proposed executive order “exceeds its proper function as a coordinating agency for emergency preparedness.”23 To this day it is usually reported that “Smith’s objections apparently killed the draft executive order.”24 But the authorizing National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 55 of September 14, 1982, on “Enduring National Leadership”) continued in effect for a decade. It was augmented by President Reagan on September 16, 1985, with National Security Decision Directive 188 (NSDD 188, “Government Coordination for National Security Emergency Preparedness”). The directives were part of a series, augmented by additional executive orders, that authorized ongoing “continuity planning.”25

Some of the highest-level planning for COG was conducted by a parallel extragovernmental group. This parallel structure, operating outside normal government channels, included the head of G. D. Searle & Co., Donald Rumsfeld, and then congressman from Wyoming Dick Cheney.26 Overall responsibility for the program, hidden under the innocuously named National Program Office, was assigned to Vice President George H.W. Bush, “with Lt. Col. Oliver North . . . as the National Security Council action officer.”27

It is not fanciful to link this private parallel government to 9/11. As detailed in chapter 12, Cheney and FEMA were reunited in May 2001: President George W. Bush appointed Cheney to head a terrorism task force and created a new office within FEMA, the innocuously named Office of National Preparedness, to assist him. In effect, Bush was authorizing a resumption of the kind of planning that Cheney and FEMA had conducted under the heading of COG. And on September 11 the planning bore fruit: a classified “continuity of operations plan” was implemented, at least partially, for the first time.28

This chapter and especially the next explore the consequences of this arresting coincidence: that the COG planning team of the 1980s was essentially reconstituted by Bush the younger in May 2001 as a terrorism task force, and then (after planning activities of which we know next to nothing) a major attack on the United States (of which we also still know next to nothing) resulted in implementation of COG. The public also knows next to nothing about COG, except that its powers to disrupt constitutional government are considerable.
“Continuity of government” is a reassuring title. It would be more honest, however, to call it a “change of government” plan, since according to Alfonso Chardy of the Miami Herald, the plan called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to FEMA, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”29 The plan also gave the

[edit on 063030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Federal Emergency Management Agency, which had been involved in drafting it, sweeping new powers, including internment.30

The team was planning, in effect, for the supplanting in a major crisis of the public state by an alternative one. According to author and journalist James Mann: “Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The program called for setting aside the legal rules for presidential succession in some circumstances, in favor of a secret procedure for putting in place a new ‘President’ and his staff. The idea was to concentrate on speed, to preserve ‘continuity of government,’ and to avoid cumbersome procedures; the speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the rest of Congress would play a greatly diminished role.”31

But the planning eventually called for suspension of the Constitution, not just “after a nuclear war” but for any “national security emergency.” This was defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”32 Clearly 9/11 met this definition.

COG planning was eventually integrated into planning by a number of groups corresponding to different departments, dealing with different functions. One group, the Continuity of Government Interagency Group, dealt with devolution and relocation of government leaders, to prevent decapitation of the government in a crisis. Another group dealt with “command and control” problems, to ensure security for communications and computers so that decisions could be made and implemented. Another group, focused on the Department of Defense, planned for retaliation against the nation’s attackers.33

In April 1994, Tim Weiner announced in The New York Times that in the post-Soviet Clinton era, “the Doomsday Project, as it was known” was to be closed. “The nuclear tensions of that era having subsided, the project has less than six months to live. ‘On Oct. 1, it’s history,’ a Pentagon official said.” Weiner added that “while some ‘continuity of government’ programs continue under the aegis of Pentagon planners, they are pale versions of the vision laid out by President Reagan in 1983. ‘They are realizing these requirements are throwbacks to the cold war,’ [nuclear analyst Bruce] Blair said. ‘They are not relevant to today’s world.’”34

This article persuaded authors James Mann and James Bamford that Reagan’s COG plans had now been abandoned, because “there was, it seemed, no longer any enemy in the world capable of . . . decapitating America’s leadership.”35 In fact, however, only one phase of COG planning had been terminated, a Pentagon program for response to a nuclear attack. Instead, according to author Andrew Cockburn, a new target was found:

Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million a year in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now replaced by terrorists. . . .There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the “shadow government” had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company, the players’ roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. “It was one way for these people to stay in touch. They’d meet, do the exercise, but also sit around and castigate the Clinton administration in the most extreme way,” a former Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the phenomenon told me. “You could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going on.”36

Cockburn’s account requires some qualification. Richard Clarke, a Clinton Democrat, makes it clear that he participated in the COG games in the 1990s and indeed drafted Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 67 on “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government.”37 But COG planning involved different teams for different purposes. It is quite possible that the Pentagon official was describing the Department of Defense team dealing with retaliation.

The Pentagon official’s description of a “secret government-in-waiting” (which still included both Cheney and Rumsfeld) is very close to the standard definition of a cabal, as a group of persons secretly united to bring about a change or overthrow of government. In the same era Cheney and Rumsfeld projected change also by their public lobbying, through the Project for the New American Century, for a more militant Middle East policy. In light of how COG was actually implemented in 2001, one can legitimately suspect that, however interested this group had been in continuity of government under Reagan, under Clinton the focus of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s COG planning was now a change of government.

So we should not be surprised that with the implementation of COG came the warrantless detentions that Oliver North had planned two decades earlier, and the warrantless eavesdropping that is their logical counterpart. The only question is this: Were these practices decided on after 9/11, as the Bush administration maintains? Or were they already being prepared for as part of the COG planning revived by Cheney and FEMA in May 2001? I return to this question in chapters 12 through 14.

Oil and Cheney’s Energy Task Force

There is the same impression of preparation for 9/11 and its consequent war from Cheney’s other task force, the Energy Task Force. By May 2001 it had already set out, urgently and in some detail, plans for taking control over Iraqi oil. As many observers have pointed out, the second Bush administration was the first in which the vice president and his own national security staff wielded powers comparable to, perhaps even surpassing, those of the president. Some have gone even a step further, as journalist Steve Perry wrote in 2005: “Cheney’s office is the Pandora’s Box of the Bush administration campaign to invade Iraq. Most of the planning as to both the waging and selling of the war occurred under his direction, along with that of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. It was Cheney who played the point in beating up CIA for its unhelpful analysis of the non-threat posed by Saddam, and Cheney along with his Defense Department pals who effectively circumvented CIA by setting up the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon to funnel the administration the kind of intelligence it wanted, largely courtesy of their longtime double-dealing stooge, Ahmed Chalabi.”38

Perry also quotes an op-ed by former Powell chief of staff Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson (U.S. Army, retired): “In President Bush’s first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security —including vital decisions about postwar Iraq—were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. . . . I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. . . . It’s a disaster. Given the choice, I’d choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time.”39

The vice president’s first major assignment was to discuss energy policy in his Energy Task Force, which brought in leaders from the petroleum industry. In fact, Cheney could be called an oil industry leader himself. As reported in The New Yorker, he served “immediately before becoming Vice-President, as chief executive of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil-and-gas-services company. The conglomerate, which is based in Houston, is now [2004] the biggest private contractor for American forces in Iraq; it has received contracts worth some eleven billion dollars for its work there. Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he ‘severed all my ties with the company,’ he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.”40

It is clear that from at least February 2001 Cheney’s task force discussions extended to the “capture” of oil resources in Iraq: “One intriguing piece of evidence pointing in this direction was a National Security Council document, dated February 2001, directing NSC staff to cooperate fully with Cheney’s task force. The NSC document, reported in The New Yorker, noted that the task force would be considering the ‘melding’ of two policy areas: ‘the review of operational policies towards rogue states’ and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.’ This certainly implies that the Cheney task force was considering geopolitical questions about actions related to the capture of oil and gas reserves in ‘rogue’ states, including presumably Iraq.”41

The task force’s concerns are well illustrated by two documents, released to the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch only after a fierce court struggle. The first document is a map of Iraq, whose “detail is all about Iraq’s oil. The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine ‘Exploration Blocks.’ Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It’s like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts. . . . Block 1 might be the striploin, Blocks 2 and 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8— ahh, that could be the filet mignon.”

The second “task force document, also released under court order, was a two-page chart titled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields.’ It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company’s negotiations with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia’s Lukoil and France’s Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had ‘agreed in principle’ to the French company’s plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French!”42

Cheney’s task force was the final stage in a lobbying process by the oil majors that had begun under Clinton. As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of “energy security” for the United States, noting that the country was increasingly threatened by oil shortages. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq’s borders. The second Bush administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same institute. This task force report was cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about U.S. access to overseas oil resources.43 The report, Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century, concluded that “the U.S. should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.”44

Meanwhile, the BBC heard from State Department insiders that planning for regime change in Iraq “began ‘within weeks’ of Bush’s first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the U.S.”45 The administration’s concern for controlling oil in the Middle East intermingled with strategic concerns in the area, especially with increasing uncertainty about the future of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. The White House was also impressed by the report of an AEI-based discussion group, commissioned by Paul Wolfowitz, that a strategy to deal with Middle East terrorism would require two generations of conflict, in which ‘Iran is more important. . . . But Saddam Hussein was . . . weaker, more vulnerable.’”46


So you guys can sit here and debate on things that which will never be determined anyway. Or you can research things that are tangible and in balck and white to wake up as to the level of deceit that has transpired for many years. 9/11 was just a fly in the ointment, a test run maybe?

[edit on 063030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Siegel was in Hoboken across the river from NYC and north of the WTC site

Here is map of area

www.mapquest.com... itude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=&city=HOBOKEN&state=nj&zipcode=

From what I can gauge was at least 1 1/2 miles away from WTC when shot
video. Sound travels 1100 feet/sec (subject to minor variations do to
temperature and pressure) thus sound take ~ 5 seconds to go a mile.
The sound should have reached Siegel in about 7 - 8 seconds AFTER the
building starts to collapse. Yet we hear the sounds SIMULTANEOUS with
the building collapse. Somebody screwed up and dubbed in the audio
at the wrong point.

Seems you don't have a problem with the tinfoilers falsifying evidence to
prove their paranoid fantasies....


They advanced the time in the video to correct the 7 second time delay because of the distance of the camera so you are correct in your math . Thats why when you watch the video the people are reacting before the tower starts to collapse . It just proves that what we are hearing is true .

There was also a series of booms caught on tape minutes before the first tower fell as well this and what others at ground zero experienced tells me that what were hearing on the video is true .

Look for more videos of the sounds at ground zero and imagine what they sound like from over a mile away at segels camera and you will start to get the picture .
video.google.com...
www.youtube.com...
Listen to the audio on those videos you cant tell me that sound would not be heard a mile away that would show up as a sound that sounds like a rumble which is what we hear on Segel's camera.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
What is your agenda captianobvious? Why come into a conspiracy website and prove everything wrong under the sun? I've followed you for some time now. Doesn't make sense. This is a site that promotes free thinking yet you shut down any theory with in reason. I've seen fox news doctor video, i've seen CNN doctor video. I guess they now have as much credibility as the 911 truth movement?

reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


"Quasi ~ They are appealing to emotion here...adding explosive sounds..sierens...etc...there is a reason why not many people are responding to this thread... It proves once again the so called truth seekers are spreading lies to back their factless agenda.

I also notice you haven't commented on the A&E Truthers video where Richard Gage removed the explosions from his video."

[edit on 24-11-2007 by TheTruthIsInHere]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTruthIsInHere
 


This sites slogan is Deny Ignorance. I am hear to learn from others and point out the flaws that are often spread within the truth movement.

I am a skeptic and have learned the facts that I was searching for. If you do not want to read my threads... don't. Also, there is a neat little ignore feature that you can use if your REALLY do not like me.

My agenda? I guess it is to keep learning and sharing what I lear with those that are indeed searching for the truth.

"TheThruthISInHere"... IF you are in search for the truth... why would you NOT want to listen to everyone?



NOw.... Mr. Mushroom. We do agree on one thing. I was PISSED that Bush and Cheney were questioned together. NOt under oath (same as for Clinton) Seriously I was VERY mad. This however does not at all prove that Bush was invovled in the planning or LIHOP.

Back now to the videos.... Why no comments yet on the A&E Video??


[edit on 24-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Siegel was in Hoboken across the river from NYC and north of the WTC site

Here is map of area

www.mapquest.com... itude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=&city=HOBOKEN&state=nj&zipcode=

From what I can gauge was at least 1 1/2 miles away from WTC when shot
video. Sound travels 1100 feet/sec (subject to minor variations do to
temperature and pressure) thus sound take ~ 5 seconds to go a mile.
The sound should have reached Siegel in about 7 - 8 seconds AFTER the
building starts to collapse. Yet we hear the sounds SIMULTANEOUS with
the building collapse. Somebody screwed up and dubbed in the audio
at the wrong point.

Seems you don't have a problem with the tinfoilers falsifying evidence to
prove their paranoid fantasies....


Not to be a buzzkill or anything, but i just saw mysteries, and the thing is when they show that tape you're talking about, these words come up on the screen that say the soundtrack had been slid back about 7-8 seconds to line up the sound with what was being seen.... so yeah, it was edited, big disclaimer right there on the screen. congratulations. you've exposed....nothing. hurray.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
But thats the thing i do is listen to everyone. I sit in the background rarely leave any comments or replies unless something really bothers me. What bothered me was the hard-lined stance you have on 911. I've listened to the hologram people, the video fakery people with and open mind (different topic all together). What I have noticed from you is the exact opposite. Look at your name "CaptainObvious" does your name imply we should accept everything that is obvious as fact?

In regards to your videos. Someone previously mentioned that there was a time delay and they compensated for the time difference. Also like I said I have seen "credible" news channels doctor videos. Does that give them the same credibility as the 911 truth movement? Also this is just one video. You can't not "obviously" rest the credibility on the whole movement based solely on this event "right or wrong". Given that logic which you seem to follow then we'd proven 911 was a scam anyway. Given the fact there are a lot of inconsistencies in that day's turn of events. I think we all know the "obvious" ones...

If you ever watch "World's Wildest Police Chases" you will notice that they film these video's on top of a helicopter yet you can hear the tires screeching and sirens blaring and random noises at ground level. Yet everything is filmed from a helicopter. Does that mean that the chases were faked? or maybe there was a guy down there with a microphone. All these things are done for added effect. This could just have been the bad judgement on someone who edited the video. Doesn't give enough premise to discount the video itself as well as the movement.

reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


So what other possible reason would Bush and Clinton and Cheney have for the outright deceptive ploy to (against the request of the 9/11 (c)ommission) to not be recorded, not under oath and not separate? Lets deny ignorance shall we!? Like I said a few posts back, that leaves criminal negligence and/or complicity. Both by definition are conspiracies! Are you really that dense? I don't think you are, you are in denial, like the other debunkers. You like so many others want to keep the status quo, no shake-up of highest levels of government. No temporary negative effects on the economy or the stock market, or your bank account.


The only way that anything ever will be 'proven' about 9/11 at this point is a deathbed confession or Sodium Pentathol given to Bush, Cheney or Clinton. Or one of them suddenly gets a conscience. Or you and I can ditch the red herrings about CD and edited audio and start demanding some answers. And the only candidate that wants to reopen 9/11 investigation (to my knowledge) is Kucinich.

I find it Ironic that you bring up Clinton in your last response. You try to turn this into a partisan issue. It goes waaayyyy beyond that and shame on you for that. Deny ignorance remember!? If you had read the excerpt (from the book) I had posted, you would have learned that this planning (premeditation if you will) goes back to the Ford administration, possibly earlier.

But, be all means carry on w/ your red herring argument.


[edit on 103030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 103030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Quasi is 100% correct!

The Official 9/11 Commission Report is BS and a conspiracy in itself!

1. Two planes can't take down three STEEL building so symetrically and so completely!

2. All three building can't fall at or near free fall speeds.

3. The govt continues to hide all evidence under the guise of national security. Why? They told us who did it and how...right! Guilty Demeanor.

4. To believe the official story you must disregard Physics and Thermodynamics



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sowada_s
 


No No, leave the free-fall speed and WT7 and all that for someone else. These are all red herrings too. People can go round and round about this till Martial Law is imposed. Ugh!

Maybe some will finally get it when the 2008 elections are called off for a declared "national emergency". The of course its too late!



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
They maybe red herrings but they are real anamolies that the official story doesn't even begin to answer!



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Most people don't realize how close we are to Martial Law!

The Patriot Act was passed by congress 45 days after 9/11. The Patriot Act is so complex and enormous that it would take a team of 30 lawyers working 24/7 for six months to write.

So, how was it written so quickly after 9/11? It wasn't. It was written well before that tragic day in Sept...as if they knew something terrible was about to happen??



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
No No, leave the free-fall speed and WT7 and all that for someone else.


What a mess. "Free-fall speed" is a contradiction in terms, but no one here could tell me why if I asked. Well, a couple of people probably could but who preaches to the choir? WTC7's roof line did accelerate downwards 9.8 m/s^2.


Let me guess, the argument is that WTC7 didn't accelerate at free-fall once you average in all the time it was just sitting there after the Penthouse collapsed. Why not start timing it when it was built? It was deteriorating, wasn't it? All a physicist or engineer would really care about, is that 8 seconds of time where the building was actually free-falling.

Trying to redefine the problem does not make it go away. It's equivalent to just not looking at it.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
All three buildings fell too symmetrically and too completely...period!

An airplane crash is a very asymmetrical event and WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. Falling debris will not result in the total collapse as seen with #7. Yes, I know...fires! Fires will not cause the total collapse either. Destruction was too complete and too symmetrical!

No plane...no jet fuel...thus...the official story doesn't even try to explain WTC 7 because it doesn't fit their conspiracy for WTC 1&2.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheTruthIsInHere
 


Truth ~

First of all let me say that I was a truther a couple of years ago. I found this site looking for answers to specific questions I had regarding 911. I found some answers here. I like the format and the openess to discuss any topics. As I have posted on other threads, I have done extensive research to come to MY conclusion. 911 was NOT an inside job. I do believe that Bush and his a-hole staff were caught with thier pants down. I think certain things could have been done differently that could have possibly saved some lives. I will not Monday morning quarterback though.

My research does not only consist of reading "debunking" sites and watching Google/ Youtube videos. I have spoken with FEMA member that were at Ground Zero, Engineers, Demolition experts, Victim family members, Doctors, Scientists..etc.

From the evidence I have seen, I have no question as to the conclusions I personally have.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join