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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 97
10
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, I've already mentioned that, above 18000 we generally take off the headsets, turn on the overhead speakers, and use a handmic.


But weren't some of the 9/11 pilots talking with ATC at the time of the hijackings?




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
And here, you evade the question once again. Amazing.


Are you for real?


Absolutely.

You need to back up your claims, Ultima1. If you were for real you wouldn't evade backing up your claims.


Are you really stating that you cannot understand what the official story is from what i explained?


I need not remind you what everyone here can read for themselves. You have YET to explain what your so-called "official story" is.

It's amazing that you cannot even explain what you claim to know! A simple question: what is this so-called "official story" and you can't even answer the question!



Do you even know what the 9/11 commsision is? Have you read it?


Of course I do. It's obvious you don't, to wit, what you claimed:


The official story is what the media told us on 9/11 on the TV.


Let me explain to you some simple facts, Ultima1:

1. The media is not an "official" agency.
2. The media is NOT the 9/11 Commission.
3. The 9/11 Commission did NOT exist on 9/11/2001. Everybody knows that.
4. The 9/11 Commission was charged with a specific mission:


he National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) is an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation under the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002 (Public Law 107-306). The Commission was chartered to create a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks

The Commission is staffed by nearly 80 full-time employees, contractors, and detailees, and is organized into work teams to address each of the following eight topics:

* Al Qaeda and the Organization of the 9-11 Attack
* Intelligence Collection, Analysis, and Management (including oversight and resource allocation)
* International Counterterrorism Policy, including states that harbor or harbored terrorists, or offer or offered terrorists safe havens
* Terrorist Financing
* Border Security and Foreign Visitors
* Law Enforcement and Intelligence Collection inside the United States
* Commercial Aviation and Transportation Security, including an Investigation into the Circumstances of the Four Hijackings
* The Immediate Response to the Attacks at the National, State, and Local levels, including issues of Continuity of Government


Obviously, Ultima1, you never even bothered to read that the 9/11 Commission report since you do not understand it's limited mission, purpose, or when it was created.

Again, it's amazing how much you don't know.

So, let's start from the beginning so you can back up your claims.

Describe what's "official" about media reports on 9/11? You can't go around making claims that there's an "official story", then turn around and say, "oh well, I met, media reports." It makes absolutely no sense. It just demonstrates that you have no grasp of the subject matter whatsoever.

Just exactly WHAT is the so-called "official story?" What is "official" about it? What is the so-called "story?"

You can't keep going around saying "official story" and NEVER be able to explain what it is, why it is "official" and what makes it a "story." You have to BACK UP you claim, understand, Ultima1?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Are you going to answer my questions or continue to make a fool out of yourself?


The only people making fools of themselves are the people that still believe the official story with any real evidence to support it.



So you choose to keep looking like a fool.

It's funny how many times you spout off at the mouth, get called on it and then change tacts. Is it because you lack the intelligence to be able to answer tough questions or because you are 12 years old?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....do you know how it works, with ATC??

You don't talk constantly.....the controller will talk a lot, but he/she is handling multiple airplanes. He/she is also on the landline, when not on the Comm frequency.....co-ordinating hand-offs between sectors, etc.

If the facility is set up the right way, two controllers at ARTCC sit side-by-side, and hand-off the data strips physicaly, to each other. BUT, when, for instance, an airplane leaves one ARTCC to another, then it is handled by the landline. Say, from New Yourk Center to Cleveland Center, as an example.

We are very busy, on the radio, from take-off to above 23000 feet. Then, we get fewer, less frequent calls from ATC. They know our flight plan, it is just a matter of being cleared up to final cruise altitude, and frequency changes as we transit the various sectors in the ARTCC, or get 'handed-off' to the next center.....sometimes, during the climb, there will be vectors, speed restrictions, intermediate level-offs.....all for traffic management reasons.....23000 feet is the cut-off between 'low-level' and 'high-level' airspace......different frequencies, below 23000, even in the same geographical area....really, you should research this stuff!!!!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA.....do you know how it works, with ATC??


I know the timelines show pilots on the radio with ATC right around the times of the hijackings.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic
Gosh. This is easy.

Who keeps secrets that they then use to make top-down policy decisions? By definition anything they do is a conspiracy.

Who falls into this category? the religious Right, the Shadow Government, Knighthoods of Europe, think tanks run by the rich, NSA/CIA etc. These must amount to half the influence in the world by now.

I think anybody who doesn't see conspiracies as a dominant paradigm doesn't want to know they're being tricked.


Then we definitely shouldn't trust anything Ultima says. He works for the conspirators...



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Then we definitely shouldn't trust anything Ultima says. He works for the conspirators...


You really do not know anything about what goes on in the real world do you?

NSA was one of several agencies that warned the government of the attacks.



[edit on 28-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As stated if i post sources for my photos will the believers post souirces for the photos they posted?

If not its a waste of my time to post sources.


See, the problem here is it's not my rule. It's rule. You said photos without sources were not evidence at all. They were only opinion. I didn't say that. I'm just asking that you play by the same rules as you try to impose on others.


Oringinally posted by NSAAgentExtraordinaire

Do you have the dates, times and locations the photos were taken, YES or NO?
If your next post does not answer the question then we will all know you do not have the sources and you are jsut making statments and opinions.
So if you cannot support your photos with proper sources that they are not evidecne, simple as that.


So if you're going to try to bully and cow everyone around you by making up rules, it'd be best if you followed them.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
So if you're going to try to bully and cow everyone around you by making up rules, it'd be best if you followed them.


But why should i follow the rules if no one else is going to?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You really do not know anything about what goes on in the real world do you?


He is the one that said the NSA was part of a group that influenced over half the world. Not me. I just said if it was true that we should immediately discard your testimony as tainted.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
He is the one that said the NSA was part of a group that influenced over half the world. Not me. I just said if it was true that we should immediately discard your testimony as tainted.


Well then both of you do not know much about what goes on in the real world.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But why should i follow the rules if no one else is going to?


Because you're the one trying to invent the rules


Resume your comedy routine...



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Because you're the one trying to invent the rules



i did not invent them. Its the basics of adult discussions and debates.

But then agian i guess some people on here would not know that.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Because you're the one trying to invent the rules



i did not invent them. Its the basics of adult discussions and debates.

But then agian i guess some people on here would not know that.


I don't know. I learned alot of things a long time ago about basic courtesy and decorum of adult discussions that you apparently haven't yet grasped.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I don't know. I learned alot of things a long time ago about basic courtesy and decorum of adult discussions that you apparently haven't yet grasped.


You mean like lying about people writing and selling books?

Or not posting evidence and sources when asked?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I don't know. I learned alot of things a long time ago about basic courtesy and decorum of adult discussions that you apparently haven't yet grasped.


You mean like lying about people writing and selling books?

Or not posting evidence and sources when asked?


I've always posted evidence and sources when asked. You tend to lump all the "believers" into one unrecognizable group accusing people of things they haven't done, but others may have. It's concerning.

Too, I said that it appeared you were writing a book or making a product. You never said otherwise until just recently (afterwhich I agreed to drop it). Lying would be saying something I know to be not true with the intention of deceit. It really doesn't apply here.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
A few things to note:

All the pics and testimony speak of red-hot molten metal. You don't need a degree in metallurgy to realise that red-hot and molten metal can not be steel - it simply can't be. It's material (most likely metal) that melts and remains molten at, or below, red heat which is about 800-1000C. There's much support for that temperature from multiple official sources.

Black smoke does not indicate the temperature of a fire because, as pointed out correctly by several posters, there are materials that produce dark smoke when burning even when combusted efficiently.

If we take black smoke as indicative of temperature, how black was the smoke emerging from the rubble fires?
If using smoke as an indicator, those fires were very efficient.

The 'thermite reaction' in the corner only produced red-hot liquid so it's doubtful there was any thermite there. Thermite burns at 2500C+ which would make it look like a blinding white spotlight. Wasn't there a large UPS battery bank in that corner (lots of lead, electrolyte and electrical energy) ?


Just wanted you to know, this is one of the best posts I've seen on this thread. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind posting some sources for your information just so you know who doesn't use it as an excuse to start another tantrum. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks again for a quality, well written, well thought out post



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe you can but since you haven't, we don't know that, do we?


If i post sources for my photos will the believers post sources for the photos they posted?



You demanded this standard so I'm asking you to hold yourself to your own requirement as an example to others. Failure to do so would make yourself a hypocrite. You're not a hypocrite, are you???

In any case, if others post photos, I will also ask that they post sources for said photos.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
We're asking you to show us this so-called "official story," and you won't.


I have explained it to you, what don't you understand?

The official story is what the media told us on 9/11 on the TV. What the 9/11 commision report states (even though the people on the commission admitted they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation)

Most people still want to believe what the media told us that day even though common sense and a lot of questions tell some of us the official story needs more investigation.



I believe what he is asking is what is your source for what you consider the "official story" to be?
You have stated your opinion as to what the official story is but I believe he is looking for an official report stating what the story is/isn't.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I've already mentioned that, above 18000 we generally take off the headsets, turn on the overhead speakers, and use a handmic.

There is an intrusion.....you turn around to look, they are on you in less than a second.....you have no warning, no recourse, you are sitting, with a seatbelt on....it is sudden, they have the advantage, you don't expect it!!!!

What more can I say to explain it??? We used to think the cockpit was sacrosanct.

Setting the transponder to 7500 was a 'covert' procedure....that was assuming someone was watching, but not aware of the procedure. There would then be a coded query from ATC....blah, blah....that was THEN!!!

We had other code words, to set in motion, procedures....again, expecting that the Hijackers had a political or greed motive....not suicidal destruction using the airplane as the weapon!!!!!

If we, sitting in the cockpit, were told via interphone of a situation in the cabin....a potential hijacking scenario.....we wouldn't bother changing the transponder!!!!!!! We would transmit in the clear, on the radio!

Please research this more fully, you will see I am correct in this.


Just curious but what is your experience with airplanes?? You seem VERY knowledgable. Thanks for indulging my question




top topics



 
10
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join