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.

 

Let's get back to asking questions

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I have stated my position and presented my evidence. I believe that a group of Saudi Arabians hijacked a number of airliners and flew them into targets. The reason I believe this is because it is because I have seen it on BBC News.

paulpaulpaul

Last time, you're not going to re-frame this discussion on your terms. If you want to ask me anything, start a new thread and pose your questions.

In this thread, YOU made the claim that 19 Saudis boarded the planes. I have made no claims whatsoever.

I have asked you to support your claim. The tactics you are using to avoid doing so are familiar to me.

Seeing the reports that 19 hijacker boarded the planes on the BBC is not proof. Sorry.

Can you prove it?




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Who - 19 Saudi hijackers
Why - Whahhibist Islamic extremism with an Anti-American slant.

Are you going to say who and why? I have. Why can't you?

I'm not sure how I am avoiding presenting evidence. I have quite clearly stated why I believe what I do.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
Who - 19 Saudi hijackers

Can you prove it?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Yes. I believe it because I have seen the CCTV footage.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
Yes. I believe it because I have seen the CCTV footage.

Then, as a starting point, please post either the video or else a link to a site where I can see a video of these 19 men board the four planes in question.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I have stated what I believe. You seem to think I am trying to impose what I think upon you. As I have stated I have seen CCTV footage of Saudis and listened to the story on BBC news.

I do not believe that a conspiracy exists. Do you?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I have stated what I believe. You seem to think I am trying to impose what I think upon you.

No, I'm simply asking if you have any evidence to support what you believe.

If you're satisfied that you saw the 19 men actually board the four planes on BBC, then fair enough. I have never seen this nor have I heard anyone else claim they did.

As I said in the OP, I believe those of us who challenge the mainstream account should steer clear of outlining alternative theories based upon unsubstantiated claims, and instead, demand that those who espouse the mainstream account actually offer evidence to support it.

That is why this is an 'alternative free' zone, at least as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I believe that 19 Saudis hijacked some planes and flew them into various targets.

No, you were told that they were terrorists boarding the flights to hijack them, but the record is broken in that you can't actually prove that they did go on to hijack the flights, as one of the major problems is that the record of the flights in question can not be verified. Flight 77 and Flight 93 are the biggest mysteries here, with Flight 93 being the hardest to piece together.

There are discrepancies in the CVR transcripts of Flight 93, vs. RADAR records of its flight path. Even the times of when the witnesses who saw the smoking hole in the ground don't correlate with other data.

It now appears that Flight 93 was seen to have crashed before the CVR record suggests it should have (there is a thread around here talking about it with respect to the RADAR record).

I have personally looked into the issue of the Flight 77 FDR data, and found that no two data sets match up, and none of the datasets match the official story. I'm still trying to read the L3 compressed data.

A very obvious problem that constantly gets overlooked is that there should be no question. The records should correlate, and there should be no doubt, but the records do NOT correlate, and there is doubt - a sure sign someone is lying.

@coughymachine: I've starred several of your posts now.


@paulpaulpaul: It is one thing to BELIEVE something, it is entirely different to PROVE something. We're asking for PROOF. As was asked above, please post links to the videos in question.


[edit on 22-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
@coughymachine: I've starred several of your posts now.

Thanks MoD, nice to see someone has a similar perspective.

I feel very strongly about this. The constant push by 'mainstreamers' for 'challengers' to prove some alternative theory is effective in that it side-tracks us and puts us on the defensive. The discussion then tends to spiral into farce and all that happens is the spotlight shifts from the dubious mainstream account to the often equally dubious alternative claims.

This leads to videos such as that made by Mark Roberts, who can cleverly get away with making the 'truth' movement look like a bunch of jackasses without ever having to substantiate the mainstream account.

I think this has got to change.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I believe that 19 Saudis hijacked some planes and flew them into various targets. I believe what I have seen. However you believe what you have not seen.


That is certainly different than you adamantly asserting that you are certain of what you stated. You are certainly entitled to your belief. However, I have to see the same proof expected in a courtroom to prove a case. That negates your baseless statement that any of us, in opposition to your beliefs, believe what we have not seen. It is because we have not seen proof the "official" version is correct, that we do continue to investigate.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   


No, you were told that they were terrorists boarding the flights to hijack them, but the record is broken in that you can't actually prove that they did go on to hijack the flights, as one of the major problems is that the record of the flights in question can not be verified


No, we have airline employees that have given statements that they witnessed the hijackers boarding the plane and we have at least two flight attendants who used airline maintenance radio nets to call in the seats and names of the people who hijacked the planes.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
...and we also know that several of the hijackers have subsequently been found alive and well in their respective countries, despite apparently being identified via DNA, dental records and video (CCTV) etc...

7/19 = 36% ID failure rate. Not good.

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 22-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
My observations of the 9/11 event don't reveal any salient violations of the laws of physics. Buildings were sufficiently damaged to collapse otherwise they'd still be standing there.

IMHO too much time and energy is wasted on what I call 'macro conspiracies' like futuristic weapons and similar devices that clearly have little evidence to support them. People are down to debating the ultimate tensile strength of individual bolts, quality/absence of welds, temperature of fires etc. which is leading away from the real issue of who hijacked/flew the planes, how and why.

One of most questionable things to me is the discovery of Mr Atta's bag complete with incriminating evidence inside it left behind at the airport. That was just too convenient don't you think? I mean by any laws of reasonable probability.....
And couple that with the finding of an alleged hijacker's passport and weapon in a million tons of rubble....

Just my opinion (we all have those)



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I think the main question here is that if the circumstances of 911 are so suspicious, and this is taken to imply some other forces are at work, then who are these people and what are they trying to do? It is the most basic question and nobody seems to be willing to stump up a solution.

You know it has been 6 years and I have not actually ever heard anybody explain the who and why of the supposed conspiracy.

Just because your mainstream doesn't imply your wrong.



Mainstream? That has become something of a derogatory remark but, not because of anyone's conspiracy theroies. The 'mainstream' media is their own joke. The former guardians of the people and liberty are owned now by corporate masters whom 'we the people' have no avenue to for redress.

Fair and Balanced news is news that is designed to give you what you want to hear, to make you all giggly and snug. Thanks but, no thanks. I prefer truth to any kind of fairness and balance.

Beyond that, it's a matter of trust and our government has proven itself time and again untrustworthy. They may be able to lead the field critters around by the nose but for anyone who actively uses a little logic and a minor share of reason, the 911 'mainstream fair and balanced official line of events just doesn't wash. There are too many inconsistences, too many unanswered questions, too much national security about an event that happened in broad daylight.

You may, at your leisure, believe what you choose to... be comfortable, by all means. I promise that I will not try and change your mind nor argue the finer points of structural steel, the size hole an airliner makes in concrete structures or a nominally compacted bit of Earth... or even the residual wreckage that should be plainly visible.

Speaking for myself, I don't come here to argue with anyone, especially those already bolted down to one spot. I come here to discuss these issues with those of a like mind. If I want to get comfy, I'll go to the mainstream and have a cold beer and watch reruns of Ugly Betty. If I want to argue, I'll go to an AOL chatroom.

Speaking stricktly for myself, I do honestly believe that the American people are being fed from a grain sack on 9.11. I do not pretend to know exactly why but... the whole thing reeks.

Sorry for the extended rant... (just came in from Walmart... parking was a bitch.)


[edit on 23-12-2007 by redoubt]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
what I dont understand is how someone could sit there and claim that ANYTHING is evidence because the media told them it was. some of the most valuable evidence I have seen regarding the 9/11 attacks was from independent investigation. The only thing the media was good for was their reports, that day, as it was happening. They ALL heard the multiple explosions.....We all thought there were bombs in the buildings when we watched it live. The next day was watered down garbage. The machine came in and wiped our minds clean of the details and filled them with fear and then need for retaliation....... then we were hijacked into the thinking of "we'll put a boot up your ass, its the American way."

Its sad and pathetic that we cant think for ourselves, and when we do, people come in and label us as CRAZY.....give me a break.....do some indenpendent research and stop watching the fodder from FOX and the rest of them.....Be a real American and wake up.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Very good OP coughymachine, we do need to ask the tough questions and not get sidetracked.

In relation to the WTC part of 9/11, I've posted this list of anomalies elsewhere but it will definitely serve here:

Micronized concrete covering lower Manhattan in a 2-3 inch thick layer

the analysis of the components of this dust show that it included exotic metals which were traced to the building contents, including such things as wiring and computer components

No building contents beyond a fragment of a keypad found in the debris

No human remains beyond bone shards, some found on roofs years later 100s of yards from the towers

Massive core and perimieter columns ejected laterally 100s of yards from the towers

the grey chrysanthemum bloom of destruction as the buildings explosively collapse from the top down.

collapse at near freefall speed

ems, police radio, real-time tv reports and eyewitness testimony of secondary explosions throughout the towers

documented film and eyewitness reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements which wrecked the lobbies (Naudet film)

both towers collapse similarly, though the plane impact areas were very different

the upper building masses explosively disintegrating within seconds after the onset of collapse

the seismic anomalies at the onset of collapse

verified reports (by FDNY, NIST and Gov. Pataki during an on-site visit, captured by CNN even) of molten steel in the cores of wtc 1, 2 & 7 which lingered for months into cleanup

a collapse wave which eyewitnesses--among them NYPD and FDNY members (the heroes) reported was like a volcano wave, hot and loud and filled with debris, which literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards in the air, and melted their protective gear

vehicles catching fire spontaneously as the blast wave swept over them (NYFD & NYPD eyewitness testimony)

the "meteorite" of fused building contents

steel members found later in spaghetti shapes and without stress fractures, which professionals hired for cleanup explain on-camera is an impossibility without being heated to foundry-like temperatures

the collapse of the core "spire" within seconds after global collapse, these massive steel structures falling like burnt matchsticks.

the buildings collapse to the ground at near freefall speed, though the upper building masses were explosively destroyed and thus there was no weight to drive the gravity-driven collapse

the antenna mast of the north tower sinking before the onset of collapse, indicating the core was taken out initially

This list is verifiable fact, not speculation to be dismissed. Any one or combination of items should elicit profound misgivings about the official story in relation to the true nature of the WTC's destruction. Taken together, they completely nullify the official story. You don't need the answers to how these anomalies occurred; that they occurred at all is proof enough the official story is false.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, we have airline employees that have given statements that they witnessed the hijackers boarding the plane...

Could you provide a link to these statements please?

...and we have at least two flight attendants who used airline maintenance radio nets to call in the seats and names of the people who hijacked the planes.

One of which is said to have come from Madeline Sweeney aboard FL11, who reported four hijackers, not five, and gave the wrong seat numbers.

She also reported that the hijackers showed her a bomb.

Are you satisfied her account is accurate?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
Who - 19 Saudi hijackers
Why - Whahhibist Islamic extremism with an Anti-American slant.


Interesting. If nearly all the hijackers were Saudi and none Iraqi then why did we invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

That’s a rhetorical question of course. The reason so many hijackers were Saudi is because the names were quickly pulled from the Al Qaida database, which is nothing other than an IBM mainframe computer at the Islamic Bank of Development in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. That’s right, Al Qaida is a CIA contrivance. It never existed as a terrorist organization.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
How long is it going to take you lot to come to accept that some Islamic extremists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the trade towers? I mean seriously! Its been 6 years and your still ranting about these ridiculous conspiracies!


Wow. You're pretty sure. Why?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
SOMETHING DISATROUS WILL FAR EXCEED 911 NEXT YEAR. 911 WONT EVEN BE AN ISSUE COMPARED TOO WHAT IS TOO COME.



new topics




 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join