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: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


In earlier days, we had news analysts/reports/editorialists such as David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Walter Kronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Woodward and Bernstein. People trusted their judgment and what they did report. They were all investigative reporters, and highly expert and credible doing their jobs. Then along came the Yuppie generation of the Reagan and Milken era. It resulted in almost everyone out for themselves. The truth did not matter. The entertainment did.

We used to have independent newspapers. That ended when the Establishment either put those honest people out of business, or gobbled them up in conglomerate mergers. That way they controlled when any media would report.




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have yet to see any real reports or physical evidence that supports the official story.


Well except for the fact that many different videos and a massive number of first hand eyewitness reports all show/stated that two planes hit the towers, and peices of aircraft, oh and missing aircraft/people etc.

With these two planes the first one hit higher up with a lot less floors above it than the second plane. When the towers collapsed they first buckled at the floors that the planes hit and then started a domino effect. Since the second tower hit colasped first due to the more weight in floors above and that both towers buckled at the exact floors that were randomly hit by the planes this is imperial data backing the official report.

With the second tower coming down first due to the extreme amount of extra weight above the weaken floors this flows with logic. For the airplanes to hit at uncontrollable random levels of the towers and then the towers buckled first at these same weaken spots again shows a pattern with too many variables that could not be preplanned to use explosives unless every floor had them, and then the ability to pinpoint the first detonations with the floors that the airplanes hit is another big variable.
These many variables along with the large number of people that would be needed while keeping it all a secret spirals the majority of the hypotheses off into chaos.

I think John Lear did it the best with saying it was all done with alien technology. At least in his case he has the ability to do it and able to do it with few people involved while getting all the random timing events totally under control.

I also like the hypothesis that it all happened the way the official reports say but the motives of the hijackers were different in that they were supported by (insert your favorite bad guy/organization here). This too allows for everything to flow correctly while still implying the blame elsewhere.

So in the end we have empirical data backing the official report and a bunch of hypothesis for all the conspiracies.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


That is not completely valid evidence. Photos can easily be doctored and witnesses paid to say what they say.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Well except for the fact that many different videos and a massive number of first hand eyewitness reports all show/stated that two planes hit the towers, and peices of aircraft, oh and missing aircraft/people etc.


Well probelm is.

1. All reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts

2. You have no reports of the peices of aircraft mathing the planes that were supposed to have hit the towers.

3. Eyewitnesses could not agree on what type of plane they saw, their testimony would not hold up in court.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


That is not completely valid evidence. Photos can easily be doctored and witnesses paid to say what they say.


Yes that is true, but all videos both professional and private, all witnesses, all real-time news, chunks of aircraft etc, missing planes/people, real flight paths?
There reaches a point just like in the point of trying to fake it that it all starts to spiral out of control once again into chaos to explain away the over whelming data that supports the official report.

I think we need to live with the fact that two planes brought down the towers, but what we need to find out and what is more important to all of this is why?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yes that is true, but all videos both professional and private, all witnesses, all real-time news, chunks of aircraft etc, missing planes/people, real flight paths?

I think we need to live with the fact that two planes brought down the towers, but what we need to find out and what is more important to all of this is why?


We have not seen most of the videos and photos. We have not seen any video or photo of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

We have no reports of any of the parts found matching any of the 9/11 planes.

All reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We have not seen most of the videos and photos. We have not seen any video or photo of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.


So all that we have seen or is available is fake?



We have no reports of any of the parts found matching any of the 9/11 planes.


All the different live feeds on that day that showed the second plane hitting the tower and chunks like whole engines flying through it to the ground was all faked?



All reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.


Well looking at the video they did to a point, but when you add up the destruction from the energy of a 500 mph airliner with large amounts of fuel to a weaken steel structure under great heat that even if not able to melt steel was able to reduce the strength of the steel to the point that the weight above collapsed those weaken floors to then over whelm the remaining floors the planes had a big part in it all even though it was the weight of the upper floors that finally caused the start of the collapse.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "all" as you use it.

Well I did see through live feed an airliner crash into a tower and then the following live feed of both towers coming down.

There are so many other videos such as a before the first tower was hit a news report on the street picked up the scream of jet engines at full power, with everyone stopping from the sound to look around then moments later the first impact was heard.

Dude, you argument quickly becomes baseless unless you are going the John Lear direction.

Also in the case that there might be lacking evidence it was not like everyone was waiting for it all to happen, and so anything that you deem lacking doesn't constitute a conspiracy of a different nature to the events.

The conclusion of if one or more parts are verifiable as true than all connected parts are also true is very sound.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well I have read quite a bit about 9/11 conspiracies and tend to agree with the majority of the official story. The only thing I think the government is covering up is their incompetence.

I don't find it all the difficult to believe that the terrorists were able to fly the planes for a few reasons.
They spent a bit of time in flight school.

767's are highly automated.

I even recently saw an episode of the mythbusters where they were able to, in a flight simulator, land a commercial airliner without practice.
They were however, being talked down by an experienced person.
Both Jamie and Adam were able to line up the runway and land safely.
That being said, doesn't it seem a bit more reasonable that the terrorists, with a lot more practice, were able to fly the planes? To me it seems reasonable.

The hologram idea is just silly. There are way too many technological leaps that would need to be made for the holographic plane idea to have any weight at all. Not to mention, nobody has ever provided any evidence to support this idea.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So all that we have seen or is available is fake?

All the different live feeds on that day that showed the second plane hitting the tower and chunks like whole engines flying through it to the ground was all faked?


If you have it, please show a photo or video tha actually shows a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

But we do not have reports on what planes those parts are from.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you have it, please show a photo or video tha actually shows a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

But we do not have reports on what planes those parts are from.


I think all there is was that slow surveillance video that shows nothing more than a blur. Some engine pieces and landing gear pieces are about the only parts that survived the impact/fire.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think all there is was that slow surveillance video that shows nothing more than a blur. Some engine pieces and landing gear pieces are about the only parts that survived the impact/fire.


So you would agree then there are no videos or photos released that show flight 77 actually hitting the Pentagon ?

Well there is a photo of an engine, but not proven if its from flight 77.

Also none of the parts and pieces you mention have been matched to flight 77.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we do not have reports on what planes those parts are from.

But if that sort of detail is all that's required to put the whole affair to bed finally, and the 'official' investigations actually wanted it to be 100% settled, you would have been overwhelmed by the necessary convincing data by now. That leads me to my observation that keeping you all speculating wildly is actually more useful to *someone* than revelation of what the real truth of it all, however mundane, might actually be.

Would you be disappointed to learn that the 'official' story was near 100% correct? I'm not saying it is but in most aspects it very well could be.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would you be disappointed to learn that the 'official' story was near 100% correct? I'm not saying it is but in most aspects it very well could be.



Well so far all the evidence is saying the official story is wrong.

Thats why we need to have the reports from the FBI and NTSB on what actually happened.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima,
can you provide the proof to show the offical reports wrong?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would you be disappointed to learn that the 'official' story was near 100% correct? I'm not saying it is but in most aspects it very well could be.



Well so far all the evidence is saying the official story is wrong.

Thats why we need to have the reports from the FBI and NTSB on what actually happened.


You mean the reports you don't believe?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you would agree then there are no videos or photos released that show flight 77 actually hitting the Pentagon ?

Well there is a photo of an engine, but not proven if its from flight 77.

Also none of the parts and pieces you mention have been matched to flight 77.


As far as I know there is no videos that I know of. I have seen the engine and the gear parts and I was once a jet engine mechanic so I believe the engine turbine and fan along with the gear parts matchup with what would be on flight 77 from picture of other engines like engines.

Have you decided that two airliners hit the towers and that there is too much proof to say otherwise?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Great post as it covers mostly everything about what I want to say.
What's funny about the OP is his name and the disinfo in it is so blatant that having a name like that is really bad for your case.

There are several threads on here if you'd like to do a search as well as many websites and the library if you'd like to see how bad the movie really is off.

As far as 9/11 and if I believe. I did the same as the others who want to REALLY know what is going on and the only way to do that is to read BOTH sides.

I'm stuck.

I know something is amiss but at the same time science does back up the 9/11 official story to a great degree.

If you read the Mars forum, he's summed it up well enough in an early post started by Skeptic Overlord. Read it.
For now though, I went from a believer in the conspiracy until I did more fact checking and I'm now half and half.

I fear it's too late to matter though to bring the conspiracy masters to justice. Too much global damage has been wrought, America is crumbling and our fragmented society is just that.. fragmented to the point of inaction.

How MUCH of a conspiracy do you believe is the question for me.
b



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   


military personnel, who also happen to be physicians, forensic science investigators of military aircraft crashes, and are also pilots;


In other threads he only wants ONE former military member who wrote a book without ever being involved in any of the investigations....NOW he say military personnel....

Could we PLEASE have some consistency?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I'm currently watching "The 9/11 Conspiracies Fact or Fiction" on cable and am even more convinced that the "official story" as it's called is pretty close to what happened.

I don't believe the hologram idea
the anti-matter bomb idea
or the missile ideas

The documentary is pretty straight forward and addresses most conspiracy points including the Loose Change guys.

Just giving my 2 cents.
Keep the change



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   


You mean the reports you don't believe?


Pretty much sums it up about him. He is another member who will never believe the "official" story because no one took him by the hand and let him poke around the crash sites.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join