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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Hey Captain, not trying to derail an allready derailed thread but have you looked into the anthrax attacks? Quite a few of the most resent posts here are calling attention to the overall effect the 911 and subsequently the anthrax attacts have had on the constitution, are you cool with whats happened in regard to our "security"? Or would you like me, like to see our constitution restored and a return to the "home of the brave"?




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


I did look into the Anthrax (very little though) My understanding is that it is still an open investigation? Is there a conspiracy there? I don't know enough to make a serious comment on it.

infinity.... I wake up every morning with the same freedoms I had 10 years ago. I am a Bush HATER. I don't agreee with what he has done as president. I have not lost any freedoms at all. What have you lost?



[edit on 25-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
infinity.... I wake up every morning with the same freedoms I had 10 years ago. I am a Bush HATER. I don't agreee with what he has done as president. I have not lost any freedoms at all. What have you lost?


My freedoms depend on my willingness to play by certain rules. My rights are supposedly granted by the constitution and the amendments there of. My rights are part of my freedoms so when my rights are infringed so are my freedoms. If I am deemed an enemy of the state I can be locked up indefinity without access to counsel and torchered. I can be spyed on without a warrant. My library records can be reveiwed without probable cause.

So have I lost any freedom? Not yet, but if I represent a threat to those who control those in positions of authority I may lose not only my freedom but everything else in the physical world.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


ok, with that said, Dylan Avery, Richard Gage, Judy Woods, Alex Jones, James Fetzer....etc etc... The Loony List goes on and on.... They claim to have proof that the gubmint was responsible for 911 .... None of them... or ANY truthers for that matter have been silenced. Why not? Have you heard of any truthers locked up at Gitmo? Locked up anywhere? (besides Jones for his rant with a mega phone)

And seriously... how many American citizens have been detained at Gitmo? I honestly don't know tha answer to that..

Thanks



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The looney list is a given, what threat they represent I don't know. I've had discussions about this very aspect of where these changes in our constitution and laws are leading with close friends and taken your side in the debate. Reluctantly the otherside has agreed that their freedoms are for the most part unhindered. So where does this lead? Will terrorism one day be defeated? And if so will the constitution be restored to it's pre 911 state? Somehow I think the worst is on the horizon, and when that day arrives will the rest of the Bill of Rights be suspended in the name security?

Maybe a preemptive strike is needed before the end game ensues.

I know military people are being sent to the other side of the world to die, yet we at home are paying little to no cost other than $3.50 per gallon of gas. Things need to change CaptainObvious.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


See the point you don't understand here Capt is that the fascist scales are
starting to tip and once they get to a certain point its just gonna go....really quick.....no stopping it once it gets to a certain point. And the worst part is, is people (such as yourself) will sit back and say, well I still have my TV Programs and freedom to go to Wal-Mart to get my Oatmeal Creme Pies, everything is fine.

The reason these loonies like Dylan Avery are not detained and sent to a secret prison is because that would be too obvious, people would wise up to that pretty quick at this point in the plan. You cannot just start locking up your average Joe Sixpacks at first, you have to ease people into it, you start with people over seas, brown skinned people, journalists and most of the people at Gitmo, with no charges, no right to counsel, no trail, etc.

As for AJ, I think he is a Disinfo Agent personally, but that goes into another topic, the topic about infiltrating the truth movement, Morgan Reynolds, Judith Wood, the Pentacon guy and the like.

Check out this lecture by Naomi Wolf:


The Blueprint to Fascism is as follows:


1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.



[edit on 013030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 013030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 013030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can't get off.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people". National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year - when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence - it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model - you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Infinity ~

I agree that we do not belong in Iraq. I do not agree with the policies of GWB. I voted Democrat across the board last November and that got us nowhere. That does not mean Bush planned 911 to get in Iraq. He did however use the scare tactics on all of us using 911 to get us in there.

Wow this thread derailed!



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by QuasiShaman
 


Um... wow. Dude...I hope you don't spend your day's stock piling canned goods and digging your bunker. The paranoia you state is scary. I trust you are a young person. Get out and have some fun. Get a great education. Get a great job..... I'm outta here...Im out of cream pies.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
A question to all that are calling these sites liars.

Would you consider NIST in the same category when they use "intensified" photos in their report to show the intensity of the fires?

wtc.nist.gov...

Figure E-9. On page 72 of 392.

I believe this is a fair question.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


NIST discloses this directly under the picture. They are not secretly adding anything.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Griff
 


NIST discloses this directly under the picture. They are not secretly adding anything.


And 9/11 mysteries specifically says that they changed the sound timing. They did not do it secretly either. But, you have chosen to look the other way for one while condemning the other.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
As far as the A/E video. The subscript says "Fires don't do this to Buildings". Where does it say anything about the sound?

I believe you're reaching with this.

Or if I want to show how a bumble bee flies by using video, do I have to include the sound of it's wings flapping also to not be called a liar?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
first off this issue with 911 mysteries doctored footage is over a year old so why u bringing up old news secondl i agree its doctored but we are only talking about a few minutes in a 90 minute doco,so to u 911 official story believers so suddenly the other 87 minutes of 911 mysteries should be ignored cause of a few sirens are added sound taken away or whatever



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


TIMING.... period. Let me ask you... watch the original. Are their explosions there? Are there police sirenes?

And AGAIN ... not comments abour Richard Gage taking OUT the explosions from his video.


ETA: Griff...if you had a video of a bee flying and it was making a buzzing noise.... would you take it out ? The video is showing a Bee in flight...I would more than likely keep in the buzzing. Same as showing a "typical" CD. There are explosions. Gage took them out. You have to question that.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I'm not reaching anywhere. I beleive this video was manipulated intentionally. It is used by MORE than 911 Mystereis. Alex Jones and others use it as "evidence"



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by riverdean7
 


Riverdean ~

There are many mistakes in that video. I believe there is a thread somewhere that adresses them.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
yeah i dont doubt there are mistakes in 911 mysteries,theres also mistakes in loose change,improbable collapse and every single main and non mainstream 911 dvd,the people who made 911 mysteries arent intentionally spreading disinfo people always jump to extremes,mistakes are made cause human beings made the dvds and human beings by nature make mistakes,why dont u disect a mainstream 911 dvd like u are doing 911 truth dvds the mainstream dvds are filled with holes u can drive your truck through



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by riverdean7
 


Riverdean ~

Although I don't claim to "know it all", can you please point out the holes that you can drive a truck through? I will be more than happy to try to find answers you may be looking for.

Thanks,

C.O.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I'm not reaching anywhere. I beleive this video was manipulated intentionally.


I also believe it was manipulated intentionally. But, both sides do it. That is my point.

NIST has done more than just intensify photos.

I can show where in their "typical floor plan" that they intentionally did not scale the core columns so that they show up really huge compared to the floor trusses. There is no indication in their report that the plan they are showing is not to scale. I'll post what I mean in a minute.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join