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 we knew the morning of 911

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LinkTGF
As for the hijackers, my concern has always been how within such a short time after the plane crashes we knew all their names and their faces. (not certain how long after, but I could have sworn it was within the day - again, if anyone can straighten me out on that, I'll be in your debt)

The movie loose change said it was within 48 hours.
the photos of ALL 19 hijackers were conveniently left in Atta's
luggage. I don't remember WHERE they found his luggage. I think
maybe it was the car they found at the airport. To me
it should have burned up in the flames of the first tower hit.
Why was his luggage left in the car if not a plant by the gubment??

to sell the official story, they only handed out a lil info at a time.
It was easier for the public to retain that way.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 




The movie loose change said it was within 48 hours. the photos of ALL 19 hijackers were conveniently left in Atta's
luggage. I don't remember WHERE they found his luggage. I think
maybe it was the car they found at the airport. To me
it should have burned up in the flames of the first tower hit.
Why was his luggage left in the car if not a plant by the gubment??


Especially when Atta supposedly decided to bring along flight manuals and a pilot outfit that were never used, since they were recovered in his luggage that was supposed to have been on-board.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 




So do some research of your own for once. The gate agents are the last people to see you before you board a plane. For each of the four planes, the gate agents responsible were interviewed and did identify the hijackers as boarding the planes.


How would you know what research I have done? Don't try to attack my credibility now that you have destroyed your own.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
This stuff will make ya nuts... Just look at this thread, you have one person saying "they" were making all of this stuff up as it went along AFTER the fact, then you have another saying it was all PRE-Planted BEFORE the fact, You have another accusing the US head of state of mass murder, and one guy rattling off links to the SAME BIASED website.

This is the problem with the crediblity of investigooglers and conspirational propaganda spinners-- THERE IS NO SET NOTION -- Just a nebulous of contradicting ideas, based on speculation, redundantly re-hashed time and again to no apparent end.

IOW: A HUGE WASTE OF TIME.

At some point you have to ask yourself "which of these conspiracies do I believe-- and which are completely contradicted by the ones I have chosen to believe, and which ones have straight forward honest answers that for some reason the promotors of these "theories" don't want you to see, and it is DOWNPLAYED into obscurity (on truther sites)."

Example: If there was a controlled demolition with squib producing explosibves in the towers, then the thermate camp might not be for you, If you reside in the thermate camp, the mini-nuke/ high energy weapondry camp isn't for you..and so on...

In this thread the hijackers are still alive claim comes up siting a source from CNN and the BBC just days after 9/11-- THINK PEOPLE-- It takes time to sort out things that is why the media uses terms like "alleged" and such. As a CONTINUING INVESTIGATION obtains more peices to the puzzle, more accurate information is availible.

So why does the truth movement use information from a CCN newscast, and BBC article released just days after 9/11? I will tell you why- Because it fits their agenda.

I doesn't fit the promoter's agenda to provide the most up to date information.. A clear cut example of deceptive rhetoric.

Don't get brainwashed by people telling you everyone is brainwashed-- except yOU. Pffbt.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 




This is the problem with the crediblity of investigooglers and conspirational propaganda spinners-- THERE IS NO SET NOTION -- Just a nebulous of contradicting ideas, based on speculation, redundantly re-hashed time and again to no apparent end.


At least there are some people who are actually spending the time trying to figure out what actually happened, because obviously we were all lied to. I have my own theories on 9/11, but I am quite possibly wrong about a lot of it. That's why I continue to ask questions. And I will continue to ask these questions until someone puts a bullet in my head.



In this thread the hijackers are still alive claim comes up siting a source from CNN and the BBC just days after 9/11-- THINK PEOPLE-- It takes time to sort out things that is why the media uses terms like "alleged" and such. As a CONTINUING INVESTIGATION obtains more peices to the puzzle, more accurate information is availible.

So why does the truth movement use information from a CCN newscast, and BBC article released just days after 9/11? I will tell you why- Because it fits their agenda.

I doesn't fit the promoter's agenda to provide the most up to date information.. A clear cut example of deceptive rhetoric.


If you have new information, then post it. Let the deception be revealed.

I am not part of any "movement," nor do I adhere to any agenda. But I do choose to deny ignorance, and that is why I post on ATS.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

I am not part of any "movement," nor do I adhere to any agenda. But I do choose to deny ignorance, and that is why I post on ATS.


So what exactly do you feel is incorrect on my explaination of Waleed Alshehri? and Abdulaziz Alomari?

Are you upholding your credo to deny ignorance?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Okay, two down.

Do you have evidence that they actually got on the plane?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


They interviewed a person who said Mark Bingham was a last minute change. His name would still be on any original passenger list, or he would not have a boarding pass to get on any alleged plane. That is how passenger lists are generated - ticket purchases complete with board passes. The list is called a check-off list for boarding passes.

Even if his name was a last minute switch, the computers would still have a final list of any last minute changes made, and should have been made available for trial court documents.

The court documents are erroneous per what the website depicts as of the date 2002. That is not even an original list with or without changes. That makes any passenger lists worthless, because they are erroneous, and not the original list of passengers boarding alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001, with or without changes. According to that list no one named Mark Bingham boarded any alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001 as of 2002.

The metaphorical horse's mouth would be Mark Bingham, not someone referring to Mark Bingham. Mark Bingham is the only one who can confirm anything stated about him to anyone else. That is why I said it was hearsay and stand by that.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


That is because the falsely accused were easy to find. They came forth to clear their names, when they saw their names and faces falsely published internationally. They were not dead in the US on 9/11/2001, and had done nothing wrong.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


That is because the falsely accused were easy to find. They came forth to clear their names, when they saw their names and faces falsely published internationally. They were not dead in the US on 9/11/2001, and had done nothing wrong.


well since we are gettin off topic I'd like to toss in something.

if these folks came forth and cleared their name
then why are they still on the FBI's hijacker list in 2008 ???



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


Ask the FBI. Robert Mueller, FBI spokesman, admitted their mistake when asked by BBC when it was discovered in 2001. In 2007, BBC asked them again why they will not correct with their own admitted misidentification. The Bush adminstration falsely named those 19 people, and nothing is going to be altered, no matter how much BBC and the falsely accused have requested the correction be made.

That is why.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


Thats an easy one, because the so-called "alive hijackers" only shared similar names with the real hijackers (none of whom have turned up alive)



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Then you didnt read the whole post. You have the main manifest which used to be printed up when the morning shift of agents started work (same thing for evening shift) then there is an "add on" list for last minute changes. At least thats the way it used to work (cannot vouch for post 9/11)



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


And you know that how? Where is your proof? Or is it only more hearsay from someone other than the metaphorical horse's mouth?

How would you like it if someone plastered your face and name all over the international media; accused you of mass murder; and never formally publicly apologized for doing such an inexcusable act without proof? Then adding insult to injury, made up all types of lame excuses to avoid specifically mentioned error beyond general admission one time only in 2001?

Here you are doing the same as those acting the apologists for the Bush administration. Making up lame excuses to avoid refuting even a small part of the lies in the "official" reports. Rather than justifiably clearing the names of innocent people falsely maligned without any proof of involvement.

That behavior is inexcusably pathetic no matter who engages in such indefensible behavior.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Well, if all it is would be "....at least it used to work that way....", then whether I read it or not, would make no difference in the outcome of what I did post would it? There were no add-on's, but drop off instead, to the lists erroneously used and called "trial evidence". That was my entire point. Not what if or supposed to happen.

That list was printed in 2002. Plenty of time to make certain everyone on the alleged plane was listed, and no one left off - like - say - Mark Bingham being left off a 2002 list of alleged passengers presented as accurate and true "trial evidence". Accurate and true it was not. Therefore, worthless as bona fide trial evidence.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


How do I know that? Two reasons, one, personal experience from flying with flight attendants I knew (Hi Bill, didnt realize you were on my flight....oh here you are...etc....) and two, one of Sandy Bradshaw's best friends (and fellow flight attendant) lives about a mile from me. We met at a memorial service and we've talked about her friend on several occasions. (Ive tried to get her involved with this website, the one time she looked she got so peeved that she didnt talk to me for a couple days)



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


How do I know that? Two reasons, one, personal experience from flying with flight attendants I knew (Hi Bill, didnt realize you were on my flight....oh here you are...etc....) and two, one of Sandy Bradshaw's best friends (and fellow flight attendant) lives about a mile from me. We met at a memorial service and we've talked about her friend on several occasions. (Ive tried to get her involved with this website, the one time she looked she got so peeved that she didnt talk to me for a couple days)



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


That is your experience. Unfortunately, you cannot apply that to everyone else's experiences. In order to be check-off when boarding, a name has to be on the list, or someone has to call and verify the person can board. If that list in on some alleged plane said to crash, that list is gone whether or not a name is added at that point. What matters in the computer which stored who bought a ticket and boarding pass.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
And did you read the part about the main manifest and then the add on list? That is TWO separate pieces of paper....everybody's name is on one of them........and yes, its my experience, backed up by quite a few airline employees.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Did you read it was 2002, and could have been combined by then as would have been done the same day in the computer, to one list and only one list?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join