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.

 

What's more believable to you and why

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
DCP

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Most 9/11 conspiracy someone states that among the wreckage that item X was perfectly unharmed.

My question is why do you believe that

A) something i.e. passport, head-rag, whatever perfectly survived a plane blowing up
or
B) The government planed 9/11 down to the smallest detail but didn't scuff up/burn/tear above said item




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCP
B) The government planed 9/11 down to the smallest detail but didn't scuff up/burn/tear above said item


They don't have to get every single detail to make perfect sense, to do exactly what they want. You should realize this. They got you to buy the whole picture up front, of hateful islamic terrorists etc., and someone reporting that a passport was recovered (delivered to an official anonymously) at Ground Zero (and that is a TRUE story) was obviously not enough to turn all that around, after all that emotional trauma and those angry speeches, etc.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It gives the whole production a "human face" if you will. Odds and ends that can become talismans and relics, stuff to put in a display case in the Smithsonian. In the end, its disinfo/marketing, and nowhere is it better done than in the US of A.

Watch the movie "Wag the Dog" for a good example of all this planted, heart-tugging nonsense. In that movie, which is a vicious satire of phony wars made long before 9/11, the conspirators (Hoffman, DeNiro and Heche) use these little 'touches" to humanize their deception. Sound familiar?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I'm not on the side of those who don't believe in the official story. However, I think gottago's gottagood point - the human face needs undamaged passports and so on. Do I think it's possible that such items were planted or fabricated? Yes, very much so. Do I think the whole thing was an inside job? No, I don't.

LW



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
and the benefits are that your government, and mine in the uk, have initiated the next 'phase' of big brother society. i remember when the ira were bombing the uk on a regular basis..you saw it and you knew it. i have seen no taliban/al-qaeda wearing plo type scarvbes around my way. all this incident has served to do, apart from a tragic loss of life, is to have civil liberties taken away from every homeland citizen. a terrible shame. what is more is the fact that we are all letting this charade play-out in front of us like a cheap b-movie and we sit by and do nothing. the liberty of our future generations has probably never been so threatened by our 'trusted' leaders



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 



LW,

But the argument that conspiracy believers make is that the passport was undamaged, which in their collective mind means that it was planted.
Their argument is from incredulity....i.e. "there's no way that if the passport was real, and was on board the airplane with the hijacker, it could have survived undamaged."

The OP's point is that whoever staged this event (coming from the POV of the conspiracy believers) would surely have beaten up the document a little bit to make it more "believable". This makes sense to me. Any one, or group of conspirators capable of masterminding this event would surely have thought ahead to the accusations of planted evidence and acted to make teh planeted evidence as authentic as possible.

I also understand your position that it was necessary to put a "face" on teh event, however there is the video of Atta and others going through security at Logan using their own names.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Speaking of Wag the Dog, it sounds like a lot of CTers got ideas from movies, and then try to extrapolate to real life scenarios, and say- "see, this happened in _______."



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I beliee that the government let 9/11 happen.

There is not enough evidence (yet) that they planned 9/11 but there is plenty of evidence that the government had lots of warnings from foreign and domestic intell agancies that something was going to happen and it would involve hijackings.

I believe the government let 9/11 happen just like the let Pearl Harbor happen. We also have evidence that the government knew ahead of time the attack was coming.

Also if you know anything of hostory you will know the government has done things to instigate wars. Just look at the USS Liberty.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
Speaking of Wag the Dog, it sounds like a lot of CTers got ideas from movies, and then try to extrapolate to real life scenarios, and say- "see, this happened in _______."


Almost as bad as the people that believe the offical story believe everything they see on TV and that the media tells them.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And as often as not, life imitates art.

Watch the movie, it's hilarious, and while you're at it, note the plot: the President has a quickie with a 'Firefly Girl' in the Oval Office, then leaves on a foreign trip while his fixers start a phony war with Albania, all whipped up in the studio and waged on TV. Released to theaters a few months before the Lewinsky scandal broke.

Change the girl scout to an intern and Albania into the Sedan and by gosh, you got yourself history. How 'bout that?

More seriously, the point was made as a short-hand reference, you know this as well as anyone. If you think you are not being manipulated by media imagery fed to you from the gov't, I have only two words to offer: "Mission Accomplished."



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The second plane to hit the towers has been captured in detail on several cameras, obviously, after the first plane hit, every camera available was trained upon the WTC.

www.youtube.com...

In the above Youtube clip from CNBC you can clearly see debris plummet to the ground as the plane exploded.

www.youtube.com...

In the above clip taken by an amateur cameraman you can see debris leave the tower at the same velocity as the plane hitting.

It stands to reason - for me at least - that some contents of the cockpit would have been ejected from the blast, seeing as the nose section of the aircraft actually exits the other side of the building before the fuel explodes, as shown clearly in the clip below.

www.youtube.com...

It does seem far fetched, yes.

But it is entirely possible that given the fact at least one of the hijackers must have been flying the plane that his passport might have been part of the cockpit debris.

There are also still photos of debris such as American Airlines seats that hit the ground below, pretty much intact. If you want I can find them. The force of such an explosion, aviation fuel goes up with a bang, could certainly mean the outward pressure from the building resulted in debris hitting the floor without being incinerated.

Whatever the facts are surrounding the nature and motives for the attacks, there is physical evidence which cannot be easily explained.

One cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, if you see what I mean.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
The Sphere

Upon recovery from the rubble pile, where an airliner seat, a Bible and papers from the various offices in the World Trade Center were discovered within, it was dismantled and sent to storage near John F. Kennedy International Airport.

en.wikipedia.org...

After September 11th, the sphere was found among the twisted rubble of the Twin Towers. Although it sustained a large gash through its center, and it was battered, dented and scared, it remained structurally intact. According to Fritz Koenig's friend and translator (quoted from a BBC article), "they found intestines of one airplane inside a hole that was ripped open in the top of the sculpture. They found a bible in there, an airline seat, papers from offices from the top floor. It became its own cemetery."

www.flickr.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Hi - I notice this thread is "under scrutiny" which I didn't notice before adding my comments... can someone explain if I've said anything out of turn here, because that was certainly not my intention!!

If I didn't have doubts I wouldn't be here!



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arthur Fuxake
 


Very good posts, not to worry; the scrutiny is regarding trolling and personal attacks; you passed the test with flying colors.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
In response:

A.) The universe is a stange place sometimes. Inexplicable things sometimes happen that defy conventional logic. It's theoretically possible said items were just a fluke.

B.) I'll never underestimate the brilliance of US Agencies, but I cannot in good faith point specualtive fingers at an event I was not directly a part of, privy to, or anywhere remotely near during the time of it's alledged occurance.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arthur Fuxake
It stands to reason - for me at least - that some contents of the cockpit would have been ejected from the blast, seeing as the nose section of the aircraft actually exits the other side of the building before the fuel explodes, as shown clearly in the clip below.


Well i hate to tell you but there is no way the nose section of an airliner would have survived impact with the builidng let alone go all the way throuh an exit the building.

The nose cone is made of graphite composite the rest of the cockpit is thin aluminum, as the Purdue video shows the planes aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel beams as soon as it hit the building.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
OK well look at the last video I posted above and you will clearly see the nose emerge intact before the explosion.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Well I hate to tell you, but your silence speaks volumes.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Arthur Fuxake]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure Clinton, if he was willing to perjure himself on national/international television to avoid embarassment, wasn't telling Hollywood about his sordid affair, so they could make a movie.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
US Spent 20+mil investigating a BJ

US spent 2-4Mil Investigating 911


Hmmmmm



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arthur Fuxake
 



Arthur, watch this video in it entirety and make up your own mind regarding your question of the "nose out" theory.


Google Video Link


video.google.com...

The reason it is simply impossible for a planes nose section to pass through a building and emerge on the other side is a matter of very simple physics, As one of the above posters has said the nose of a plane is made up of mostly graphite and aluminum. Two VERY soft materials in comparison with the wtc buildings.

I dont want to spoil the video for you but the blunt explanation is that the video youve been seeing is either a complete fake, or the piece that resembles a plane nose is something else entirely.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by Retikx]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join