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.

 

To all Believers of the Official Story:

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Now it is back to square 1.

If they could not handle single engire planes,and had never solo flown those, nor could pass the written test on those, why would anyone be led to believe any of them could sit in the pilot seat, and satisfactorily operate a Boeing 767 or 757? Automatic pilot is fine for cruising, but is hardly considered the pilot in charge of any plane.

Flight simulators are like playing at video arcarde. Any movement to simulate flight is hardly enough to prepare someone to immediately be capable of flying any actual commercial jetliner.

To accept the official report is the same as accepting this at face value. Anyone capable of operating a Volkswagon, can automatically satisfactorily operate a fully loaded 18 wheeler under any and all conditions. That simply does not happen.




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


If you think that the official story makes the most sense, than you must not have reviewed all the info that's out there, for instance:

Al Quada: was formed and funded by the CIA in the 80's to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, Bin Laden is, and always has been a CIA operative.

The planes: I think that year, up to 911, jet fighters were scrambled to intercept airliners that went off course, or didn't respond, over 80 times. You think, that on that day, the biggest militairy might in the world, would let 4 planes slip through their defenses, and fly directly towards the political and financial centres off the country, without their knowledge. Don't be naive.

The buildings: you don't want to talk about it, but there lies a big chunk off the evidence. Forget the towers, what happened to building 7? It wasn't hit by a plane or debree, there was only a small fire, yet it collapsed. A classic demolition, if you see the footage.
Must be a coincidence that all the stock exchange information was stored there. Billions of dollars were made by selling stock with fore-knowledge, just before 911, like stock in aviation companies. Nothing could be traced back afterwards. The evidence and reports in the Enron affaire conveniently dissapeared with the building to.

I could go on for hours and hours.

Sure there are a lot of wild theories out there, mainly to confuse people, you have to filter through all the garbage.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


If you had bothered reading through the postings before posting your snide remark, it was not my assertion but another poster's instead. Why don't you tell that poster to source the assertion?

Source for what in my post? Questions? Since when do questions need any cited sources, except for people who cannot think for themselves? They spend all their time asking questions posed by other people, and never from their own thoughts.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Actually I think the "truth movement" is snowballing and louder than ever before.

I for example was once on the anti-conspiracy side, determined to believe the US government version.

Yet some questions were put forward to me, and with information gathered and my emotional response put aside, I began to sniff something very sinister. I changed my view and let EVERYBODY know it. Some agree, some call me crazy, but the people I really admire are the ones that give you that look of "I'm not going to say either way, BUT I will begin to study the events for myself". For they are the beginning of the 100th monkey theory. That theory is once 10% begin to believe, others will follow.

So call "us truthers" whatever you want. The fact remains we are ALL independantly capable of free thought and that is the ONE reason we as a species will eventually discover our true history, and begin a new and much more enjoyable future.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


And here lies the problem with the truthers, you assume that if I believe the official story someway somehow I have not done my homework. The fact is that I have, I have check both side of the arguement, I have done some independent fact finding, I have check who are the people that are behind every report from one side or the other.

Just because I choose to believe something different doent mean that Im less informed, just means that I choose to believe something different.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I think there is more then enough video evidence to suggest that the official story is suspicious at the very least. We know that the towers had somewhere around 50 verticle box beams each, and im not sure the number on wtc 7. The question i would like to pose to the believers of the official story is this. Can you honestly believe without a shadow of a doubt that every verticle support beams/columns gave way at exactly the same time down to a split second in each building that fell.

The reason i say that is because in order to believe the official story, that is the first thing you must believe without any doubt. I think everyone can agree that had to be the case in order for the events to have taken place the way our government describes. We can all see on the video evidence that every beam gave way at precisely the same time and the buildings came down in near free fall speed. So that is the question i pose to taxi driver and other believers of the official story.

P.S. this is my very first post after reading on this site for a long time. yay!!



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Well, you must have another form of logic than I have, cause I just can't see how someone could believe the official story, after reviewing all the evidence. In some places it just defies the Laws of Physics. But, off course everybody has a right to their opinion.

Why don't you respond to the claims that I made, instead off just reacting to my alleged false assumption?

Edit: Also, if you say stuff like: "That's the problem with you truthers", you don't come off as someone that did an unbiased investigation, more like you are just trying to prove 'us' wrong, and not to find truth.

[edit on 2/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by level_head13
 


And how good is it finding people that think alike, and in a place where we can openly discuss it, and be educated in it more than what we knew before? How good is it to see the opposite views, theories and cases presented?



watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by Bunch
 


If you think that the official story makes the most sense, than you must not have reviewed all the info that's out there, for instance:

Al Quada: was formed and funded by the CIA in the 80's to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, Bin Laden is, and always has been a CIA operative.


Here is an example of what I adresses in my lenghty post on the first page...

Enigmania, where do you get this information that the CIA created Al Queda?

It is true that the CIA assisted the Afghani resistance, of which the mujahadeen was a small part. This was done through the Pakastani ISI.

Let me ask you this, when we landed troops in Afghanistan, who did the US rely upon for support to depose the Taliban? Was it Al Queda? Or the Northern Resistance? What makes you think the US/CIA wasn't re-establishing old ties with northern resistance fighters that we supported in the 80's? Would you say, geographically, Russia is North of Afghanistan? Why would there be support for the US in the northern part of Afghanistan, and why would the northern resistance fight against "your version" of US/CIA assets Al Queda formerly known as a small facet of the mujahadeen? Sorry dude, you have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine.




The planes: I think that year, up to 911, jet fighters were scrambled to intercept airliners that went off course, or didn't respond, over 80 times. You think, that on that day, the biggest militairy might in the world, would let 4 planes slip through their defenses, and fly directly towards the political and financial centres off the country, without their knowledge. Don't be naive.


When was the last time a jetliner was hijacked in the continental US? How long were the planes KNOWN to have been hijacked before they impacted? Ask yourself these questions. Then imagine trying to arm, scramble, identify, and intercept this aircraft in the timeframe we know is fact. You will not find another example of this happening. To think it was happening "without their knowledge" is naive. To think that there was a precidented opportunity, looking at the time constraints, to stop the jetliners from hitting their targets is naive. ( the only exception is flt 93)


ldings: you don't want to talk about it, but there lies a big chunk off the evidence. Forget the towers, what happened to building 7? It wasn't hit by a plane or debree, there was only a small fire, yet it collapsed. A classic demolition, if you see the footage.


I am sorry, you are horribly misinformed.



a coincidence that all the stock exchange information was stored there. Billions of dollars were made by selling stock with fore-knowledge, just before 911, like stock in aviation companies. Nothing could be traced back afterwards. The evidence and reports in the Enron affaire conveniently dissapeared with the building to.


Wow, you should probably find some sources to cross-reference your information.


go on for hours and hours.

Sure there are a lot of wild theories out there, mainly to confuse people, you have to filter through all the garbage.


I find this quite ironic....I thought those above points WERE the garbage, easily debunked years ago.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Sorry you took it the wrong way, I apologize, the points you made in your post I have seen them been brought up in other threads and other conspiracy sites and Im already past those.

You know what I do, every time I see a claim made, like " the fuel dont melt the steel" or " it was a control demolition" I take those for what they are claims, then I go first to the official version to see what the experts not armchair youtube alexjones fanatics say, after go to places like nist.gov, or NTSB for that matter I go and look around for independent sources, then I analyze and form my opinion.

EDIT: Truthers is the name that many of people that try to expose 9-11 call themselves, not something that I made up


[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread324235/pg1#pid3852820]p

When was the last time a jetliner was hijacked in the continental US? How long were the planes KNOWN to have been hijacked before they impacted? Ask yourself these questions. Then imagine trying to arm, scramble, identify, and intercept this aircraft in the timeframe we know is fact. You will not find another example of this happening. To think it was happening "without their knowledge" is naive. To think that there was a precidented opportunity, looking at the time constraints, to stop the jetliners from hitting their targets is naive. ( the only exception is flt 93)

So what are you saying? That flight 93 was shot down? Cause you if you do,
you contradict the official story yourself, since it never admits to that.


ldings: you don't want to talk about it, but there lies a big chunk off the evidence. Forget the towers, what happened to building 7? It wasn't hit by a plane or debree, there was only a small fire, yet it collapsed. A classic demolition, if you see the footage.


I am sorry, you are horribly misinformed.

What, are you saying it was hit by a plane, that there wasn't a small fire and that it didn't collapse, looking like a controlled demolition?



a coincidence that all the stock exchange information was stored there. Billions of dollars were made by selling stock with fore-knowledge, just before 911, like stock in aviation companies. Nothing could be traced back afterwards. The evidence and reports in the Enron affaire conveniently dissapeared with the building to.


Wow, you should probably find some sources to cross-reference your information.

Why? It's common knowledge that exchange markets' watchdog was located in building 7. People can look it up themselves if they want.


go on for hours and hours.

Sure there are a lot of wild theories out there, mainly to confuse people, you have to filter through all the garbage.


I find this quite ironic....I thought those above points WERE the garbage, easily debunked years ago.


You are entitled to your thoughts, I don't see any of them debunked.


I must admit I wopuldhave to dig first to come up with the CIA/Al Quaida information right now, I do know for sure that Bin Laden has always worked for America since the 80's.

Edit; I made a bit of a mess with this post, sorry. Can anyone explain to me how to qoute different pieces of a post, by u2u, thnx.

[edit on 2/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 2/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


With all due respect, you are unjustifiably trivializing a pertinent period in US history.

There is a great deal of documentation, concerning Afghanistan, in the US congressional records recorded during the Iran-Contra scandal.

Bob Woodward wrote an exceptional book detailing US taxpayer contributions and intentions of the US industrial-military complex, of what amounted to billions of US taxpayer dollars to build, train, equip and support the Muhjadeen, in which Osama bin Laden played more than a small part.

www.amazon.com...

Then, Reagan announced to the public the Muhjadeen were freedom fighters greatly assisting the US in holding back "the red menace".

Then, the US put the Taliban in power. The Taliban told the US bureacrats that their interference was no longer required, and they intended to take complete control of and utilize their own oil reserves.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


No apology required.
I don't mind you using the term "truthers", it's just when you say: "that's the problem with you truthers", you seem to generalize a group of people that you obviously must not belong to. So, aren't you seeking truth?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


I guess Im kind of past the fact of seeking truth and more into the "why in the world these people come with so outlandish conspiracies?"

In the beggining after the pass of the initial shock of 9-11 I was kind of skeptic too of the official version and kept an ear to whatever people was saying. After the official version came out the 9-11 report and so, I listen to the skeptics, for the most part it didnt make sense to me what the debunkers where trying to put out, every time they make a claim if was debunk.

And at that time something interesting happen, after the initial skeptics were debunk, the conspiracies became more outlandish "no planes", "holograms"," energy weapon", "nuclear device", "missiles" just to name a few, and the metods of the debunkers change also, they began with the namecalling, with the arrogance, with closing their mind to whomever try to say something else, it began a race between truthers to see what conspiracy would stick just pick one out and throw it out there to see if it sticks.

Thats no way of finding truth IMO



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Flight simulators are like playing at video arcarde. Any movement to simulate flight is hardly enough to prepare someone to immediately be capable of flying any actual commercial jetliner.



You are showing your ignorance there with this statement above.

Flight sims are as good as the real thing…period.

Also, YOU could fly an aircraft with little training...period.

90% of flight training is LANDING and navigation. The actual flying is not hard at all.

Pilots are glorified bus drivers.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Hmmm

Perhaps another angle:

Why if you believe the official story, would you bother to come onto a conspiracy site to begin with?

I believe it is your subconciousnesses that have bought you here. A minghty powerful tool it is.

watchZEITGEISTnow


That is exactly the same as asking you, Why, if you don't believe the official story, would you bother to ask the people who do believe the official story why they believe it? Perhaps your subconcious is telling you that there may be some truth to that story after all?

And our answers would be the same. We want to research every aspect of this. If people just believed the official story without coming to sites like this to see what other people are proposing then that would be a very good example of "ignorance". Something this website is so profoundly against.

(Also, even though it takes some digging around, there are conspiracy theories on this site that don't involve 9/11 what so ever, you just gotta keep your eye out
)

I am with many other posters here. I believe the official story because right now it is the one that makes the most sense. Sure there are questionable things in it, but no more than your conspiracy theories.

Until I see undeniable proof that this was an inside job or anything like that I am keeping my faith in the US Government on this one. (and believe me, saying that scares the CRAP out of me)



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I think you look at it in a black/white way too much. Not every CT is true, that doesn't mean the official story is true, or that every other CT is not true.

I don't believe all the theories, but I have seen enough holes in the official story, to be sure that that isn't true in any case.

Edit: Have you watched "911mysteries"? I think it's the best conspiracy movie out there, IMO, it totally destroys the official story, in a clear, factual way. If you did see it, what are your thoughts about that?

[edit on 2/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


I haven't seen that movie, is it a rental or can it be found in youtube? Post me a link if you can and thanks in advance.

In regards to your post, you say that the official story has some holes, now the problem is that so many theories are out that they all become like this big mess of conspiracies that would cloud the facts from the assumptions. That why I rather look at it black and white to me is better way of distinguishing the facts.

I analize a particular conspiracy theory to the official version, that the only way to see if it really stand any ground, but what I see many conspiracy folk do is that they mesh 4 or 5 conspiracies together to try to poke holes in the official version and that not the right approach IMO.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Here you go:

video.google.nl...


If the link doesn't work, you can go to "googlevideo" and use the search function on that site. Type in "911mysteries".



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join