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.

 

How to build a better Meatgrinder: Black Tuesday, WTC 7, and the missing witnesses

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
When discussing the events of Black Tuesday with people, if you are, like myself, of the belief that it was perpetrated by our own government (or at least those who actually run it) , then certain topics arise and repeat themselves.

If you suggest to a believer of the Official Conspiracy Theory or someone that is in some truth orbit lower than your own, in your opinion of course, that there were in fact no Big Boeing's crashing into the WTC towers that fateful morning, one of the questions that will inevitably be thrown at you is "What about all the witnesses? Hundreds if not thousands of people were real close when it happened and they must surely have seen and filmed what happened and would have said something or produced photos and videos that prove this" .

My answer to them is this: "I agree. There were many people who said exactly that and indeed had taken photos and video to prove it"

They will then give you an incredulous look and you can see the puzzlement in their eyes. Clearly, to them, this answer does not make sense.
Stating that you have watched , heard, and read the accounts of many people who state emphatically that there were NO AIRLINERS (three subgroups here-some say they "thought they saw a missile" , others a small aircraft, and others nothing) can sometimes work, especially if you are in front of your trusty computer and can show them that indeed many true eyewitnesses who were in the very best observation positions saw nor heard nothing until a giant explosion erupted from the building.

Unfortunatley, more often than not the skeptic will reply:
"But this is only a few dozen people, and none of them have photographic evidence to back up their observations. I have "seen" lots (usually they will say dozens hundreds or thousands) of eyewinesses saying that they definitely saw a big aircraft slam into the tower(s) and the video evidence is there to back them up"

(As a side note here many witnesses who claim to have seen large airliners also claim to have been lucky enough to have seen BOTH "impacts". In the concrete canyons of Manhattan this in itself is very unlikely. I may start a discussion about suggestion, meme implantation, the human desire to be a witness to an historical event and one upsmanship in a crowd soon because this was a central part of the Con)

So what happened to all the people who had seen and had evidence that something other than The Official Story had taken place?

To deduce the events of a crime a good method is to "put yourself in the perpetrators shoes" and then ask yourself "How would I pull this off?"

So, you are pulling off the biggest Con Job of all time which is going to involve murdering from 1 to 10,000 innocent people and , You have complete control of the Media,The Federal Police(FBI), the Federal response teams - FEMA-(put in place the night before to make sure they can instantly take control of the crime scene as it unfolds) and, of course, the craftiest most ruthless hired terrorist thugs to ever walk the planet- the CIA.

What would you do with all of the witnesses who could contradict the fantasy you are selling to the masses?

I will give you a hint: You dont have to track them down, they will come to you. The rest is easy. (If your a ruthless murderer)



[edit on 30-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well, I'd be sure they were herded into a makeshift FBI office set up in one of the secondary buildings in the WTC complex to have their testimony taken (seeing as they were all also obliterated with nice big apple-corer holes taken out of them), or make them take a number and wait in the lobby of WTC7 for seven or so hours... But this is all quite hypothetical, what about all the NYPD and FDNY on-site?

No planes I leave to others, they will come...

[edit on 30-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Interesting thread.

I am torn on this subject of no planes, as I have seen videos that show no planes hitting, and seen witnesses saying they saw nothing.

I'll keep an eye on this me thinks.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   


(As a side note here many witnesses who claim to have seen large airliners also claim to have been lucky enough to have seen BOTH "impacts". In the concrete canyons of Manhattan this in itself is very unlikely. I may start a discussion about suggestion, meme implantation, the human desire to be a witness to an historical event and one upsmanship in a crowd soon because this was a central part of the Con)


The WTC towers were at the southern tip of Manhattan - clearly viewable
from New Jersey. In my building had 50 people on top floors watch
as second plane hit South Tower - my boss came running down to
our office (in basement) to tell us what had just happened. Went
upstairs to watch the buildings burn and collapse.

Also know several people who worked in WTC 7 saw the impacts of both
planes. So far still walking around, nothing has happened to them
no MIB threatening them, no mysterious "accidents"

Suggest adjust tin foil a little tighter



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


This post is exactly what I am talking about. Who are you? What building were you you in? If you saw anything from New Jersey, how can you be certain it was what we are told to believe? Who are these "50" people in your building? What exactly did "they"see? Can you tell the difference between a small aircraft 2 miles away and a large one 8 miles away?

The "several" people in WTC 7 who saw "BOTH" planes can see through buildings are who? Do these people not have tasks to perform called "jobs" where they would presumably be looking at what is on their desks? Have you stopped to consider that WTC 7 was the headquarters for the CIA and FBI in NYC and who many , like myself, believe actually perpetrated this crime?

The fact that the 5 "live" broadcast images show fake aircraft gliding into giant buildings like sliding a picture behind another picture leads me to conclude that 19 morons didn't fly airplanes into those buildings while their comrades secretly injected fake images into live network broadcasts to confuse us.

Your statements , while they certainly could be true, are nothing but wild blabberings .In this forum you are nothing more than a text entity- you can say anything backed up with any "numbers" you want . Heres an example: "Me and 314 others on a sightseeing boat saw the Loch Ness monster attack and devour a flying saucer during my visit to Scotland last year". You cannot prove that statement to be false. However, it is an unsubstantiated claim and means NOTHING.

I see your statements as a great example of the wild numbers and false assumptions thrown about in discussions about Black Tuesday. People want to be part of history. Seemingly rock solid honest people can sometimes not resist the urge to tell a "little white lie" and jump on the bandwagon to become a witness to history when an event of this magnitude occurs.

It appears also that you either did not read or failed to comprehend my statement. Did I suggest that those who "saw" exactly what the perpetrators wanted us to believe would have disappeared as you just stated?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


You are obviously not familiar with downtown New York to make the statement that the towers could not be observed, Yes there are a few areas but most buildings which face west have numerous stories which one used to be able to look out and see the Towers, after all they were the tallest buildings downtown.

Whereas I did not see the first plane hit the towers (only 'felt' the explosion), I did watch the second plane come in and hit.

At that time I worked at 25 Broadway, 9th floor and watched from the northwest corner office.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


You may very well be telling the truth. You sound sincere.

The fact remains that the 5 videos shown on live TV are fakes- they show physical impossiblities , directly observable evidence of Computer Graphic trickery (the Washington bridge magically sliding across the screen for instance)and also directly contradict eachother by showing different flight paths and speeds for the "aircraft".

Thousands of people have watched David Copperfield in person make the Statue of Liberty , A 747, and a Train disapear before their eyes. Do you think he really made any of these things happen? Do you think Criss Angel makes people float ? Plenty of people have watched these illusions in person and swear that these "magicians" really do these things.I for one don't believe they are REALLY"sawing the woman in the box in half" no matter how convincing the presentation is because it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyles' character Sherlock Holmes' primary covenant was "Eliminate the impossible. Whatever remains, no matter how improbable has to be the truth"



[edit on 31-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
You obviously don't know how video cameras work either. You will most likely see the same 'effect' you spoke about regarding the bridge this weekend during the superbowl. Video cameras work differntly than ones 'eyes'; showing only a two dimensional image instead of a 3-d image.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
reply to post by thedman
 


Who are you? What building were you you in? If you saw anything from New Jersey, how can you be certain it was what we are told to believe? Who are these "50" people in your building? What exactly did "they"see? Can you tell the difference between a small aircraft 2 miles away and a large one 8 miles away?


And in no-planer land, this is called "a rebuttal."

Do you really consider this barrage of questions to be an adequate response to someone who actually viewed the planes hitting the towers?

It's not.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Essedarius]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 

Why yes I do think it is an adequate response. I told him he really may have seen "airplanes". I can slide a photo of an airplane behind my refridgerator and make it disappear. Does this mean there was an airplane? Does it mean it vanished? These are basic logic questions.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
These are basic logic questions.


No. They are basic filibuster techniques.

Boiled down, it goes something like this:

* * *

You: Essedarius, what is 2+2?

Me: It's two numbers connected by a symbol.

You: No, I mean what is the sum of 2 and 2.

Me: It's impossible to answer that.

You: I don't think so. I learned how to answer it in 1st grade.

Me: Then you are a fool.

You: I don't understand.

Me: Where did you go to school?

You: In my home town.

Me: They don't teach math there.

You: Actually, they've been nationally recognized for their math program.

Me: In your opinion.

You: No. Not really. By several accredited organizations.

Me: That's beside the point.

You: I don't...I don't think so.

Me: Your logic is failing you.

You: There's no logic really. I know what I learned.

Me: Do you?

You: ...

Me: Then how come there is no "2." It's a squigly line that is an isomorphism for a quantity.

You: Then what is the sum of the quantities?

Me: If you don't know I can't help you.

You: Please just answer...I asked a simple question.

Me: Did you?

You: You're just stalling.

Me: Am I?

You: You realize that, on this board, you win with a stalemate.

Me: Do I?

You: I'm done speaking with you.

Me: And that's what I call a forfeit.

* * *


"No-Plane Logic" simply means a tsunami of idiotic questions and youtube references that are presented only to drown out the voices of first-hand witnesses.

There is no logic to it.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
These are basic logic questions.


No. They are basic filibuster techniques.

Boiled down, it goes something like this:
(tex text edidted complete text above)

"No-Plane Logic" simply means a tsunami of idiotic questions and youtube references that are presented only to drown out the voices of first-hand witnesses.

There is no logic to it.





What you are describing is indeed circular logic, which yes, is used as a filibuster technique- a great example of which would be your post above- intentionally made as long as possible with no resolution. The purpose of which is obfuscation of the central issues and distraction from any real discussion by wasting time reading nonsense.

"Idiotic questions" There is no such thing as an "idiotic question". Only idiots who refuse to ask questions.

As for the "Youtube" references there simply arent any. They are simply assumed to be in my posting by you just as so many presumed that there were airplanes smashing into the WTC towers on Black Tuesday. If you take the time to look at the material in question in both cases the answer is the same: the assumed item is not there. No reference to youtube anywhere in my post and no airplanes on 9/11



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
... a great example of which would be your post above- intentionally made as long as possible with no resolution. The purpose of which is obfuscation of the central issues and distraction from any real discussion by wasting time reading nonsense.


Thanks for noticing.


There is no such thing as an "idiotic question". Only idiots who refuse to ask questions.


Or idiots who refuse to listen to answers.


Just one...just one thread from you dudes that actually demonstrates your inside knowledge of the technology it would take to do what you're suggesting.

Just one.

This is SkunkWorks crap. Again.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 


Thanks for the reply. You start with an admission that your prime goal in posting here is to fillibuster any real discussion by posting long drawn out piles of rubbish. I get it. It is the same as a child who doesnt want to hear something who sticks their fingers in their ears and runs aroung yelling "La la lalalalalala I cant hear you lalalalalal" thinking that by drowning out what others are saying that they are not saying anything and that this makes the childs veiw correct. It doesnt.

You continue by ignoring completely that I pointed out that you had indeed imagined something in my original post that wasnt there. Here is your assertion cut and pasted:

"No-Plane Logic" simply means a tsunami of idiotic questions and youtube references that are presented only to drown out the voices of first-hand witnesses.

There is no logic to it." [end quote]

There is no reference to YouTube anywhere in my OP. You assumed it was there and then you built an "argument" on a non existing thing. Who is the one not using logic here?
Now in your reply post you quote me:
"There is no such thing as an "idiotic question". Only idiots who refuse to ask questions. " [end quote]

to which you reply : "Or idiots who refuse to listen to answers. " [endquote]

I agree. Your ignoring of my pointing out that you were imagining things in my post is a really good example of this.
Thank you for helping me make my point.

Your next senence suggests that I need "insider knowledge" of the technology required to demolish World Trade Center building #7 . It was actually accomplished with a "technology" called "explosives". These "explosives" were used to cut up the structure of this 47 story building causing it to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint in mere seconds.
This is a common method of destroying unwanted buildings. What is uncommon about the case of WTC7 is the explanation for why it turned to dust before our eyes.
We were told that giant steel skyscrapers do this when the catch fire.
They dont. If they did the insurance folks might be in a little bind because every building in the world would be liable to complete failure when they caught fire.
The destruction of this building is not the subject here, but rather the purpose of doing it in broad daylight. I am not going into every aspect of it. In my OP I am making the assumption that people have already figured out the most obvious farce that was shoved in our faces on Black Tuesday.

Again, thank you for being helpful in making some points clear, I am looking forward to your next reply.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
So fine, even if, as you allege the live video showed CG airplanes, how do you explain the THOUSANDS of still photos that show the airliners? Little green men climbing into all the cameras and painting airliners on the camera film?

CGI is just another goofy argument.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Great point swamp, thank you for bringing that up. when did "all" of these stills show up and what is their source ?
My collection of "photos" and videos is huge. The amount of "stills" that I have of anything flying is real small, and of dubious origin. I also have lots of shots that show nothing at all. Which are fake?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
A bunch of the stills I have from that day, showed up in the afternoon paper here, others showed up when friends came home from New York....picked a bad time to be tourists, still others came from AP photographers that I have had the privilege to meet. Any other questions?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you for your reply swamp. What is your conclusion about these stills and what does it have to do if whether or not the rule of law exists in the United States?





[edit on 3-2-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


My conclusion about the stills? 100% authentic. As for the rule of law comment...in what regards are you asking? Because in regards to the rule of law in this case, it doesnt apply to still photos taken by tourists or AP photographers.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Hi sawamp thanks for the reply. Now we have established that you can claim to have "lots" of stills and that you can claim they are authentic. Next I am guessing you might claim to see things on these stills.

What does this prove? Why do you even state things like this?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join