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.

 

I just saw "witness to 9/11"

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
A couple of points I would like to specifically address to rebut the above: By "virtually untouched" I meant not totally gouged like, as you mentioned, building 5 was. I should have said: the towers did not fall onto building 7. Note that building 5 did not collapse despite massively more trauma. As for the guy who says: I have been to New York therefore my opinion is more valid, we'll let the logic of that speak for itself. A Hollywood special effects man (sorry can't remember his name) says it looked as though the fires were all placed right next to the windows in building 7...a concocted event.

I spent about an hour finding these video links and compiling these facts for you (video links in second post to follow):

• A close look at the video found in Afghanistan held as proof by the administration shows that is not Osama but a guy wearing a ring who is right handed and has a wider nose. Osama is left handed and wears no jewelery as per his religion.

• Osama and Al Qaeda is the invention of CIA.

• The FBI has no official warrant for Osama arrest over 9/11 or the highjackers because, in their own words, there is no evidence.

• Half of the highjackers have been subsequently found alive in various Arab countries after 9/11, two were interviewed by the BBC.

• The highjackers were supposedly devout Muslims but they drank and did drugs and frequented strip clubs.

• It's weird that paper passports of the highjackers survived the fireball of impact when nothing else did. Seems more like planted evidence.

• There were FEMA rescue workers deployed to New York for a bioterror drill on 9/12 . Strange co-incidence.

• The expulsions from the World Trade Centre occurred not every floor but every third floor, corresponding to the distance between welds in the lengths of the core columns. Why didn't it pancake floor by floor?

• The buildings fell at nearly free fall speed. They were engineered to be four times stronger than they needed to be to stand up – they were no house of cards.

• The fires were cool and oxygen starved right before the collapse. You can see a woman standing in the plane hole waving for help. No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. On 9/11 there were three.

• Aside from its steel beams the World Trade Centre was pulverised to powder. How did a gravity driven collapse achieve this? This has never occurred in other gravity driven collapses – there are bodies to be found.

• Larry Silverstein admitted they "pulled" building 7.

• Several secret investors bought huge "put options" on American Airlines and United Airlines just before 9/11 but the 9/11 Commission decided they wouldn't investigate because they weren't Al Qaeda. Serious.

• All of the debris was removed from the World Trade Centre and 99% of the steel shipped off to India and China to melted down for scrap before it could be examined. It is illegal to destroy the evidence of a crime scene.

• Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center overseeing the diversionary terrorist drill coinciding with real terrorist act. Most first-response fighters were off in Canada and Western US. Transportation secretary Norman Minetta said that Cheney maintained the order to stand down.

• George Bush said that when he saw the plane on TV a few minutes after impact flying into the North Tower "that's one bad pilot". But the only footage of this that the public have seen came from the Naudet Bros documentary which didn't emerge until some time later. Why did Bush have his own closed circuit TV of the first impact?



[edit on 20-6-2009 by CarbonFooledYa]




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
• The aerodynamic maneuver approaching the pentagon was declared virtually impossible to perform with that large an aircraft, and the highjackers were very poor pilots as testified by their US trainers. The trainers declared them as totally uninterested in actually learning how to fly. They were clearly going through the motions of training in order to be CIA appointed patsies for the event.

• There's no plane wreckage, no marks on the lawn, no luggage, no bodies and no engines in front of the Pentagon.

• Donald Rumsfeld was seen helping take away some of the small pieces of debris from the lawn in front of the Pentagon when he should have been at his post. He was required at his post because just a month or so before 9/11 he changed the procedure for the scrambling of jets to intercept wayward vehicles. Everything had to be approved by him now. He was unavailable for the crucial time, so no jets were scrambled. Immediately after 9/11 the procedure went back to normal. Rumsfeld was never punished for his fatal incompetence; instead he was treated more like: "heck of a job Brownie".

• The plane/missile hit the part of the Pentagon where the financial records of the military showing huge wastage and corruption were kept. These were destroyed.

• No decent footage of the plane flying in to the World's most secure building had been released. What is there to hide? Come on. That is except for a few paltry stills showing some small thing behind that boom gate post.

• Cell phone calls were made from the plane that crashed in Pen. but this is technically impossible, you can't make a call from a plane at cruising altitude.


Either Osama is an omnipotent God or the govt is lying. Now I would like you to view three videos and please tell me what you see.

Video 1) shows an upward sequence of puffs emanating from the side of building 7.

Video 2) shows the expulsions coming out every third floor on the twin towers. The core columns were welded together every three floors. How and why did Osama make the expulsions skip every second and third floor coinciding with the welds?

Video 3) is taken from New Jersey and has the audio of the basement explosions just prior to the collapse. Scroll to 16:30 and tell me what you hear and see.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by CarbonFooledYa]

[edit on 20-6-2009 by CarbonFooledYa]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the pools molten metal at the bottom of all three demolished buildings that were hot for weeks after and the nano-thermite in the dust. But I think I nailed it with the above! Case closed!

9/11 = inside job.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
A couple of points I would like to specifically address to rebut the above: By "virtually untouched" I meant not totally gouged like, as you mentioned, building 5 was. I should have said: the towers did not fall onto building 7. Note that building 5 did not collapse despite massively more trauma.


Yes, WTC 1 did fall on WTC 7. Aerial photos taken by NOAA show a trail of devestation leading from WTC 1, bulldozing right through WTC 5 and 6, and leading into WTC 7. FYI the distance from the crater in the roof of WTC 5 (which you agree is real) was the same distance from WTC 1 as WTC 7 was.


As for the guy who says: I have been to New York therefore my opinion is more valid, we'll let the logic of that speak for itself. A Hollywood special effects man (sorry can't remember his name) says it looked as though the fires were all placed right next to the windows in building 7...a concocted event.


Bad logic. The NYFD themselves said the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, so it stands to reason that an "out of control fire" would be close to a window, somewhere, and being close to a window, that would necessarily be the window the news stations would be focusing their cameras on.

"a concocted event" is unwarranted innuendo.


The FBI has no official warrant for Osama arrest over 9/11 or the highjackers because, in their own words, there is no evidence.


No, this means the FBI itself isn't being given the evidence. This is becuase the gov't wants to try Al Qaida in military courts, not civil courts, so it's outside of the FBI's jurisdiction. You have been paying attention during all the Quantanamo debates, haven't you?


Half of the highjackers have been subsequently found alive in various Arab countries after 9/11, two were interviewed by the BBC.


...which means the other half *have* been confirmed to be part of the hijackings. These are the ringleaders and pilots I.E. Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, etc) *Those* were the important names than needed to be known. I can accept it as a simple mixup in the identification of the lesser known ones.


The highjackers were supposedly devout Muslims but they drank and did drugs and frequented strip clubs.


That same source of information...Atta's girlfriend,...ALSO said Atta had pilot's licenses from several countries, and was so vicious he dismembered her kittens after an argument.


There were FEMA rescue workers deployed to New York for a bioterror drill on 9/12 . Strange co-incidence.


Would you mind terribly posting somethign to back this up? This would have been one day after the attack, and I can guarantee everyone's attention was exclusively on the 9/11 attack, not on any bioterror drill.



The expulsions from the World Trade Centre occurred not every floor but every third floor, corresponding to the distance between welds in the lengths of the core columns. Why didn't it pancake floor by floor?


Every video of the collapse in existence shows the towers collapsed sequentially down floor by floor, not every third floor, and this cannot be refuted.


The buildings fell at nearly free fall speed. They were engineered to be four times stronger than they needed to be to stand up – they were no house of cards.


The initial collapse began at the ninety-somethingth floor, and the towers had 110 stories. This means the floor that first collapsed was hit with at least TWELVE times its own weight, and each floor below it was hit by exponentially greater weight as each floor fell in turn.


The fires were cool and oxygen starved right before the collapse. You can see a woman standing in the plane hole waving for help. No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. On 9/11 there were three.


How many OTHER modern skyscrapers do you know of that were hit by 500 MPH passenger jets laden with fuel?

FYI there's no such thing as a "cool" or "oxygen starved" fire. If it were either cool or oxygen-starved, it wouldn't be a fire anymore.


Aside from its steel beams the World Trade Centre was pulverised to powder. How did a gravity driven collapse achieve this? This has never occurred in other gravity driven collapses – there are bodies to be found.


Whoever told you the steel beams were pulverized to powder was lying. There are trillions of photos of the cleanup of ground zero floating around the internet, and they all show gigantic piles of structural beams.


Larry Silverstein admitted they "pulled" building 7.


Silverstein told the NYFD to pull the firefighter operation to save WTC 7 becuase there was already such a great loss of life. "Pull it" is a firefighter term to get firefighters out of a dangerous area. It comes from the days before radio, when they'd give the fire hoses a sharp pull to signal the firefighters inside to evacuate immediately.


Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center overseeing the diversionary terrorist drill coinciding with real terrorist act. Most first-response fighters were off in Canada and Western US. Transportation secretary Norman Minetta said that Cheney maintained the order to stand down.


That was a CIVILIAN stand down. A flight of F-16s were scrambled from MA and a flight of F-15s were scrambled from VA. Millions of people saw these fighters over NYC minutes after the attack. There was never any military stand down.


George Bush said that when he saw the plane on TV a few minutes after impact flying into the North Tower "that's one bad pilot". But the only footage of this that the public have seen came from the Naudet Bros documentary which didn't emerge until some time later. Why did Bush have his own closed circuit TV of the first impact?


GWB was in an elementary school in Florida reading "My pet goat" to school children during the attack.. Didn't you watch "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

By now it should becoming apparent that the websites feeding you this information are pulling your leg. This is the entire reason I'm here- to expose them for the self serving con artists trying to incite false public unrest for their own financial gain that they are. You yourself are merely the victim in all this.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
The aerodynamic maneuver approaching the pentagon was declared virtually impossible to perform with that large an aircraft, and the highjackers were very poor pilots as testified by their US trainers. The trainers declared them as totally uninterested in actually learning how to fly. They were clearly going through the motions of training in order to be CIA appointed patsies for the event.



...and then there's THIS rubbish the web sites are putting out. This "virtually impossible aerodynamic maneuver" you're referring to is essentially one big circle (or at least, 270 degrees of a circle). I'm not a pilot so I don't know, but it would seem to me that flying in a circle would be the second thing they'd teach you after "flying in a straight line".

They didn't need to learn about taking off, since they waited for the regular pilots to do that. They didn't need to know how to land, since it was a one way trip. They didn't need to learn navigation becuase the automatic pilot did that. The only thing they needed to know to pull off what they did was to know how to fly in a straight line, how to fly in a circle, and how to use the automatic pilot. To be a properly trained pilot they would be required to know a lot more than that, so of course their trainers would consider them bad pilots. You don't have to be a good pilot to be able to crash a plane.


There's no plane wreckage, no marks on the lawn, no luggage, no bodies and no engines in front of the Pentagon.


Why on EARTH would there ever be engines or luggage on the Pentagon lawn? The plane crashed into the Pentagon. Those things would have (and were) found inside the Pentagon, and these parts have been traced via serial number to flight 77.


Cell phone calls were made from the plane that crashed in Pen. but this is technically impossible, you can't make a call from a plane at cruising altitude.


What you're neglecting to mention is that the cell phone calls were only half the calls made from the planes. Calls were likewise made from the airphones on the back of all the seats, and those definitely could reach the ground. Since those calls matched the information being sent out by the cell phones, they both have to be considered genuine.

This is the whole point I'm getting across. These damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately distort "flying in a circle" into sexy sounding "virtually impossible aerodynamic maneuvers" to confuse people, and deliberately withold details like the airphone calls to cast false doubt, and then they use THAT to drop innuendo about "CIA appointed patsies". If you want to study the truth behind the 9/11 attack, I think it's a given that you're not going to find it at places that distort things, withhold information, and drop innuendo.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Why on EARTH would there ever be engines or luggage on the Pentagon lawn? The plane crashed into the Pentagon. Those things would have (and were) found inside the Pentagon, and these parts have been traced via serial number to flight 77.

Prove it, Dave.

Show one part that has been traced, by serial number, to match the alleged Flight AA77.

Don't back down now, not unless you're willing to apologise and admit being wrong.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Show one part that has been traced, by serial number, to match the alleged Flight AA77.

Don't back down now, not unless you're willing to apologise and admit being wrong.


Your wish is my command. This component was found on the Pentagon Lawn, and it has a very clear serial number. It was identified as the power supply for the emergency lights for flight 77.

Flight 77 wreckage

So, you were saying?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your wish is my command. This component was found on the Pentagon Lawn, and it has a very clear serial number. It was identified as the power supply for the emergency lights for flight 77.
Flight 77 wreckage

Dave, Dave, Dave... I was hoping that your recent ATS registration date might explain some of your naivety. However, I'm not so sure. Considering that you haven't been around here very long, you've probably missed the numerous threads where that image of scrap metal has been shown.

Now, remember that we have to comply to Swampfox's chain of custody standards for all evidence.

So, here's some questions for you, Dave. These are very standard questions that I have asked other people, who have used that same image as you, in other past threads:

Who took the image?
What camera was used to take the image?
Where is a source link to the original image?
Exactly where was the image taken?
What date and time was the image taken?

Once you have an answer for those questions, I'm sure that you'll be back like an eager beaver to enlighten me. In the meantime, you've got a lot of homework to do.

By the way, I must have missed the part where you conclusively proved that piece of scrap metal belonged to the alleged Flight AA77, tail number N644AA? You made a claim, Dave and you failed to support it - again.

Hint: Next time, read older threads where those kinds of images have already been debunked.

I was kind of hoping that you finally had a confirmed serial number, but you let me down, Dave. You let me down...

[edit on 21-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Don't back down now, not unless you're willing to apologise and admit being wrong.


GoodOlDave is never wrong don’t you know that by now, in fact he doesn’t need to sources his information, because, there are no sources for un-sourced information.


Yes, WTC 1 did fall on WTC 7. Aerial photos taken by NOAA show a trail of devestation leading from WTC 1, bulldozing right through WTC 5 and 6, and leading into WTC 7.


LOL I had to laugh my self-silly when I read this LOL. I am sure the photo in question is correct. I am sure the bulldozer were pushing debris plies in every location, but a little late to show us the invisible gash in WTC 7, yes GoodOlDave there is nothing like looking a aerial photos that could have been taken weeks or even months later while the bulldozers shovel debris everywhere.


Bad logic. The NYFD themselves said the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, so it stands to reason that an "out of control fire" would be close to a window, somewhere, and being close to a window, that would necessarily be the window the news stations would be focusing their cameras on.

"a concocted event" is unwarranted innuendo.


I just love how GoodOlDave just spouts all this out yet he refuses to post any sources, and yet he wants you all to find this credible.


The NYFD themselves said the fires in WTC 7 were out of control


Where is his source for the information? I have to ask are we in a chat room where we can mislead, lie, spin, spew propaganda, disinformation. Tell me if am I wrong aren’t we supposed to debate these topic to prove if their true, or not true? If so, then I believe some people in here do not know how to debate.


This is becuase the gov't wants to try Al Qaida in military courts, not civil courts, so it's outside of the FBI's jurisdiction.


OMG! This has to be one of the biggest lies I have ever read on an ATS 911 forum.
In all the years I have researched the events on both sides of the 911 story, I have never came across such a ridiculous statement as of this quote. Yet he refuse to give any sources, so in my opinion I am certain he is only given his opinion, however, he is presenting in away that he wants you to believe it to be factual.



[edit on 21-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Dave, Dave, Dave... I was hoping that your recent ATS registration date might explain some of your naivety. However, I'm not so sure. Considering that you haven't been around here very long, you've probably missed the numerous threads where that image of scrap metal has been shown.


You know, in the back of my mind I knew full well you were intending to reject whatever I posted for some reason or another before I even posted it. In truth, I don't know who took that individual photo (though I'd guess it was Mark Faram, as he's the one who took the photo of the big chunk of wreckage with AA colors, nearby) but we both know it wouldn't matter. Even if it WAS Mark Faram, I guarantee that either a) the name would be meaningless to you or b) you'd simply brush him off as being some secret disinformation agent. I know this becuase when I posted photos of the WTC wreckage that proved there was NO signs of sabotage anywhere (and I know those were taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz, the only photographer allowed on ground zero) his photos were brushed off in the same manner. Regardless, to even be able to have access to the crash site it means the photographer had connections to the gov't in some way, so I guarantee you'd declare it invalid on those grounds alone. Am I wrong?

This actually brings up an interesting question. It seems to me that you've set yourself up with a lovely catch-22 mechanism where a) these websites have served you so much kool-aid that you're become such a fanatically loyal soldier who'll cling to these conspiracy stories with the same single minded zealotry of a drowning man clinging to a life preserver, and b) to defend them, you've built up a web of circular logic for yourself where you simply expand the conspiracy to explain itself, so that everything which refutes the conspiracy is by definition part of the conspiracy, too. Am I wrong in any of this, either?

My question therefore is, what evidence *would* you accept that would finally convince you your conspiracy stories are hogwash, that you *wouldn't* brush off as being a "coverup by secret disinformation agents". The 9/11 commission report, the NIST/FEMS/MIT reports weren't enough. Photographs of the WTC wreckage and Pentagon lawn wreckage weren't enough. Eyewitness accounts aren't enough. Now, despite the fact that you asked for them, even serial numbers aren't enough. Just what the heck is left?

I'm not trying to be critical. I'm simply trying to show you how badly these conspiracy web sites are raping you.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
GoodOlDave is never wrong don’t you know that by now, in fact he doesn’t need to sources his information, because, there are no sources for un-sourced information.


No, actually, it's really the case that I generally don't post sources unless someone asks me becuase if I posted links to ever single thing I said, my posts would be too convoludedly long. Besides, there are loads more people here reading my posts than just the ones who respond, and I guarantee some of them are doing google searches on my posts in hopes of "catching me in a lie" and it's clear from their silence that noone has.

If you want me to post a source then ask me for a source. I have the truth on my side so I have nothing to hide.


LOL I had to laugh my self-silly when I read this LOL. I am sure the photo in question is correct. I am sure the bulldozer were pushing debris plies in every location, but a little late to show us the invisible gash in WTC 7, yes GoodOlDave there is nothing like looking a aerial photos that could have been taken weeks or even months later while the bulldozers shovel debris everywhere.


All right then, put up or shut up. Explain how the NOAA photos showing a trail of destruction leading from the north tower into WTC 7 are wrong. To me, they definitely show the eastern half of WTC 6 and the western half of WTC 5 were crushed, meaning that's the direction the wreckage fell, and THAT direction leads directly to WTC 7.

The particular NOAA photo I'm referring to is on the last page of Joel Meyerowitz' book, "Aftermath". He's the photographer who took many, MANY photos of the ground zero cleanup, so any photos you've seen of that area are almost certainly from him.


Where is his source for the information? I have to ask are we in a chat room where we can mislead, lie, spin, spew propaganda, disinformation. Tell me if am I wrong aren’t we supposed to debate these topic to prove if their true, or not true? If so, then I believe some people in here do not know how to debate.


I am going by the information YOU CONSPIRACY PEOPLE posted, concernign how the NYFD went to Silverstein and told him the fires couldn't be contained (the whole reason he made his famous "pull it" statement). Thus, I have to believe there were fires and that the fires were out of control. If my material is wrong, then YOUR material is wrong.

How's that for debate?


I just love how GoodOlDave just spouts all this out yet he refuses to post any sources, and yet he wants you all to find this credible.


You REALLY want me to post a source backing up the claim that, when news crews show up at a burning building, they're going to train their cameras on the windows where the fires can be seen instead of the empty windows...? IS this REALLY what you're asking me?

Tell me, why are you even here, and most importantly, why are you even discussing this with me? It's obvious you have nothing to add to the discussion but flame bait, and it's likewise obvious you've become so religiously fanatic over these conspiracies that when someone attacks your conspiracy stories, you can't see it as anything but as a personal attack against yourself. When you actually demand me to provide proof that news crews would train their cameras on the windows where fires can be seen, than it's blatantly obvious there isn't anything I or colonel sanders could ever tell you that will make you give up your conspiracy stories.

No offense intended, dude, but do you REALLY think you're putting a positive face on the truther movement with such antics?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   


• Osama and Al Qaeda is the invention of CIA.


Osama Bin Laden is an invention of the CIA? I will bet that that is a surprise to his family....Im guessing that you didnt think that through.

Al-Qaeda is an invention of the CIA? Not quite. Actually I am not sure with your line of thinking with this statement. Are you one that thinks that Al Qaeda was "created" in 1999-2000 by the US government or are you relying on the false premise that the US funded Osama during the 80s in Afghanistan. Either way, those are both false.




Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet force


www.infoplease.com...




Established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of “the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders” in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.


www.fas.org...

Plenty of actual SOURCES that will say much the same thing. Al Qaeda is a follow on to what Bin Laden started in the 80s in Afghanistan.




It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency. The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the monet for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states


Al Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam by Jason Burke




Moreover, the Afghan Arabs demonstrated a pathological dislike of Westerners. Jouvenal says: "I always kept away from Arabs [in Afghanistan]. They were very hostile. They would ask, 'What are you doing in an Islamic country?" The BBC reporter John Simpson had a close call with bin Ladin himself outside Jalalabad in 1989. Travelling with a group of Arab mujahideen, Simpson and his television crew bumped into an Arab man beautifully dressed in spotless white robes; the man began shouting at Simpson's escorts to kill the infidels, then offered a truck driver the not unreasonable sum of five hundred dollars to do the job. Simpson's Afghan escort turned down the request, and bin Ladin was to be found later on a camp bed, weeping in frustration. Only when bin Ladin became a public figure, almost a decade later, did Simpson realise who the mysterious Arab was who had wanted him dead


Holy War, Inc by Peter Bergen




the handful of Americans who had heard of bin Ladin in the 1980's knew him mainly for his violently anti-American views. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from Orange County, California, told me about a trip he took with the mujihideen in 1987. At the time, Rohrabacher was a Reagan aide who delighted in taking long overland trips inside Afghanistan with anti-Communist forces. On one such trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Ladin's encampment. Rohrabacher was told, "If he hears an American, he will kill you."


Disinformation by Richard Miniter




Fisk: ...what of the Arab mujahedin he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over? bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...


Interview of Osama Bin Laden by Robert Fisk, 1996.

Next.....



Half of the highjackers have been subsequently found alive in various Arab countries after 9/11, two were interviewed by the BBC.


No, men with names similar to those of the hijackers are still alive. Of the 19 men listed as the hijackers, NONE have been seen since that day.

Regarding the 10 terrorists in New York...



The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms. Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.


news.bbc.co.uk...




The highjackers were supposedly devout Muslims but they drank and did drugs and frequented strip clubs.


Research the Hashassisins....then get back to us about the behavior of Islamic fundies on suicide missions.




It's weird that paper passports of the highjackers survived the fireball of impact when nothing else did. Seems more like planted evidence





On September 11 2002, one year Anniversary of the death of our son, we were informed that the Recovery team at Ground Zero have found the ATM Bank card of Waleed [Iskandar, passenger on Flight 11] and that it will be mailed to us in Northridge. When we received it, we found it in good condition


www.iskandar.com...




In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".





On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, chills just went over me. It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact. Along with the letter was a note: To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York! Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.

One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound, New York Times, December 20, 2001.




United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers... But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost. Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.


www.post-gazette.com...

More on the next post....



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   


We got his wedding band back. We got his business card with his name on it. We got his day planner, and it was only charred along the outside rim, but it's completely readable, each page. And his address book-it was charred on the outside as well. It was like a leather binder, and every page was readable. They would probably have been in his carry-on bag, which he usually brought, a canvas one, so it was kind of bizarre-it makes you think, did he really suffer through this? How long did he suffer before they passed away, because, if all that is so readable, it's pretty disturbing. The smell of the items was horrible, horrific. It was so overpowering. The FBI sent it wrapped in plastic, and when I opened it in my apartment, my entire apartment smelled like that for a couple days. They found Diane's Visa credit card and her checkbook.


National Review, August 31, 2002.




The binder was entitled "Unassociated Personal Effects of Flight 93"... Inside were colour photographs of everything found in Shanksville not clearly linked to a particular person. Jer's wedding ring didn't survive, but seventy other pieces of jewelry did, along with a bewildering variety of scrunchies, hats, belts, bras, dresses, T-shirts, unmatched shoes, and other items that somehow escaped the heat, some virtually unmarred. Then there were keys, books, gift cards, letters, photographs, compact discs, pens, medallions... Some of the shoes were badly mutilated, disturbing evidence of the violence to which they'd been subjected. There was a length of electrical cord, a crumpled cigarette lighter, eighteen toenail clippers in various states of mangling. There were many snapshots of children, most painstakingly glued back together... I found a pair of his black briefs on the second page of the men's underwear. They were discoloured and savagely torn, but there was no question they were his... At the bottom of the page was an American Express datebook. The cover looked burned and maybe water damaged as well... There it was, just like the psychic promised: bound in leather, or what was left of of leather. Jeremy's datebook


Your Father's Voice, Liz Glick and Dan Zegart




"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup [at the Pentagon]: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."


onlineathens.com...

Far more survived the impacts and fires than just the passport of a dead terrorist.




• The fires were cool and oxygen starved right before the collapse. You can see a woman standing in the plane hole waving for help. No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. On 9/11 there were three.


Yes, she was standing on the windward side of the building....where the WIND was blowing the smoke, heat, and fire away from her. And the point about it being cooler and oxygen starved right before the collapse...after the fires had already caused the fatal damage...means what? Then the tired old statement about steel buildings having not collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. Name any other time in history where a steel framed, tube within a tube constructed, building, has had a loaded jetliner fly into it at high speed? You cant. You also cannot name another building that had a skyscraper collapse into it (WTC 7). However, I can point out a few steel structures that have suffered partial collapses due to fire only......





• Several secret investors bought huge "put options" on American Airlines and United Airlines just before 9/11 but the 9/11 Commission decided they wouldn't investigate because they weren't Al Qaeda. Serious.


Seriously? You post this?

Now, go back and read Appendix B of the Commission report in regards to this subject....

Ah heck...go here....

911myths.com...

Read to your hearts content, and in the end, you will realize that there was nothing fishy about the put options.




Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center overseeing the diversionary terrorist drill coinciding with real terrorist act.


No, he was in his office, when the Secret Service came busting in and carried him to the PEOC.



• There's no plane wreckage, no marks on the lawn, no luggage, no bodies and no engines in front of the Pentagon.


This is where I get into trouble....

The quote about there being no wreckage, is just flat out ignorance in action.

www.911myths.com...

There was plenty of wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, on the roads around the impact area, some even ended up on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetary.




The plane/missile hit the part of the Pentagon where the financial records of the military showing huge wastage and corruption were kept. These were destroyed.


Sorry, but at the end of time, there are two sure things, cockroaches and duplicates of military paperwork will be still here. Although that would be a newsflash that there is waste and corruption when it comes to ANY government agency spending the People's money....




• Cell phone calls were made from the plane that crashed in Pen. but this is technically impossible, you can't make a call from a plane at cruising altitude.


The majority of the calls made, were made from the airfones on board. The few cell calls that did get through, were made when the airliner was nowhere near cruising altittude..and those calls dropped when the plane climbed.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



No, actually, it's really the case that I generally don't post sources unless someone asks me



becuase if I posted links to ever single thing I said, my posts would be too convoludedly long.


A very lame excuse.


Besides, there are loads more people here reading my posts than just the ones who respond,


Really, who told you that eh?


and I guarantee some of them are doing google searches on my posts in hopes of "catching me in a lie" and it's clear from their silence that noone has.


Wow, what cool aid are you sipping on? Did you ever think that most people do not take you seriously and probably have already put you on ignore?


If you want me to post a source then ask me for a source. I have the truth on my side so I have nothing to hide.


If you say so, however most of us disagree with you.


All right then, put up or shut up.


Stealing my words again.


Explain how the NOAA photos showing a trail of destruction leading from the north tower into WTC 7 are wrong.


No I am not going to answer your question, because I will be OFF TOPIC!
This topic is about a documentary of 911 that was air in Australia, and how it was only one sided.


Tell me, why are you even here, and most importantly, why are you even discussing this with me?


I am not discussing anything with you, “Sanity” already proved you were lying on page one on this thread.


You are misleading people with your poorly thought out stories and it is getting old. You sound like a broken record when it comes to 911. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are evil but to accept the OS one would have to be totally ignorant of the simplist ideas of physics and lacking the most elementary concepts of logic.

LISTEN TO JENNINGS..
www.youtube.com...



It's obvious you have nothing to add to the discussion but flame bait,


You can leave out the name-calling.


and it's likewise obvious you've become so religiously fanatic over these conspiracies that when someone attacks your conspiracy stories, you can't see it as anything but as a personal attack against yourself.


Religiously fanatic, is what you call people who disagree with your fairytales fantasies and confronts you with the truth, that says a lot about you now doesn’t it.


When you actually demand me to provide proof that news crews would train their cameras on the windows where fires can be seen, than it's blatantly obvious there isn't anything I or colonel sanders could ever tell you that will make you give up your conspiracy stories.


See there you go again I did not demand anything from you. “conspiracy stories” that is what the OS is a “proven” conspiracy stories.


No offense intended, dude, but do you REALLY think you're putting a positive face on the truther movement with such antics?


Antics: what proven “antics” do I use eh?

humm… I believe the film that was shown in Australia “Witness to 911” is all one sided. It is nothing but propaganda spewing lies, unproven accusations, and cherry picked eyewitness account that only support the OS, which is a proven fallacy. The film total ignores credible eyewitness that saw and heard something very different that the government is trying to sell to the sheeple.


[edit on 21-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In truth, I don't know who took that individual photo

Dave admits he doesn't know who took the image of the piece of scrap metal, that he tried to convince us all was a part of the alleged Flight AA77.

Dave has failed Swampfox's chain of custody criteria.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Regardless, to even be able to have access to the crash site it means the photographer had connections to the gov't in some way, so I guarantee you'd declare it invalid on those grounds alone. Am I wrong?

Dave doesn't know who took the picture and now he's assuming that the picture was taken at the crash site? Dave, it's a piece of scrap metal on what appears to be green lawn. It could have been taken anywhere. Please, you failed to provide proof for the photographer, so will you be able to show some proof for the location?

Maybe next time, Dave, you'll think about using an unsourced image a little more carefully in an attempt to prove your claim.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Wow, what cool aid are you sipping on? Did you ever think that most people do not take you seriously and probably have already put you on ignore?


Sorry to break this to you, impressme, but in all likelihood most people here aren't reading our posts *at all*. Neither of us are really all that important here, you know.


If you say so, however most of us disagree with you.


Oh, I'm sure of that...but the question is, do they disagree with me because they can show my information is incorrect, or do they disagree with me becuase they're so smitten by these conspiracy stories they'll insist they're true regardless of what anyone, anywhere, says. When you say things like (and I quote)...

"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers."

...you've already told me which camp you yourself are in.


No I am not going to answer your question, because I will be OFF TOPIC!
This topic is about a documentary of 911 that was air in Australia, and how it was only one sided.


All right then, fair enough. Allow me to reword it so that it's on topic- it's obvious that you don't accept the information you saw in the documentary, "Witness to 9/11", so what I'd like to know is, what information WOULD you accept, if not "witness to 9/11" which you wouldn't simply dismiss as being disinformation?

To me,it's irrelevent that "Witness to 9/11" is one sided, You'll need to show how that "one sided" information is false.


I am not discussing anything with you, “Sanity” already proved you were lying on page one on this thread.


Post ONE example of how I'm lying. ONE. At best, all you can show is that it's still unsubstanciated.


You are misleading people with your poorly thought out stories and it is getting old. You sound like a broken record when it comes to 911. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are evil but to accept the OS one would have to be totally ignorant of the simplist ideas of physics and lacking the most elementary concepts of logic.


Rather a silly statement. Of *course* I'm goign to repeat what said before- you keep askign the exact same questions. If you keep askign be how the Titanic sunk, I'm goign to keep telling you that an iceberg hit it.


You can leave out the name-calling.


It is not name calling to claim that your makign statements such as "GoodOlDave is never wrong don’t you know that by now" is flame bait.


Religiously fanatic, is what you call people who disagree with your fairytales fantasies and confronts you with the truth, that says a lot about you now doesn’t it.


When I say "religiously fanatic" I use the phrase to describe people who identify themselves with their core philosophies that they interpret an attack on those philosophies as a personal attack upon themselves. It is not up for debate that such mindsets do populate the truther movement, as witnessed by the moderators needing to weed out all the personal attacks here. I merely asked you if I was wrong in saying this describes you and you are unable to answer.


See there you go again I did not demand anything from you. “conspiracy stories” that is what the OS is a “proven” conspiracy stories.


Ahem...I posted...

"Bad logic. The NYFD themselves said the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, so it stands to reason that an "out of control fire" would be close to a window, somewhere, and being close to a window, that would necessarily be the window the news stations would be focusing their cameras on. "

...and then YOU posted...

"I just love how GoodOlDave just spouts all this out yet he refuses to post any sources, and yet he wants you all to find this credible. "

So how SHOULD I interpret this, if not that you're demanding that I post sources proving that news crews would necessarily focusing their cameras on the windows where fires could be seen"?



humm… I believe the film that was shown in Australia “Witness to 911” is all one sided. It is nothing but propaganda spewing lies, unproven accusations, and cherry picked eyewitness account that only support the OS, which is a proven fallacy. The film total ignores credible eyewitness that saw and heard something very different that the government is trying to sell to the sheeple.


Of course it's going to be one sided. It's a documentary. They're going to go over the known facts, not discuss hyopthetical and umprovable theories. Besides, you have not demonstrated that these witnesses "saw and heard somethign very different" from what the gov't saying. In fact, you haven't demonstrated how they saw or heard *anything* different from what the gov't is saying I.E. claiming "they heard explosions" when it's only in your mind that anyone is denying there were explosions in the first place.

I *would* say it's not becuase you yourself are lying, but rather becuase these websites feeding you this rubbish are lying, but as you said, I've been saying this all along and it's getting repetitive. Saying it one more time is unlikely to make any further impact than it did before.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
As High Lord and All Powerful Ruler of 9/11 Debunkers, I hereby decree that only "truthers" are subject to my requirements for proper presentation of evidence.

All others, may use a "My wife's brother's cousin's ex-wife's boyfriend's daughter's husband told me" approach.

Tezzajw, continued use of my name or posts to further your nefarious schemes will result in the black helicopters taking you to the Compound in the Alice Springs area for reeducation.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Dave doesn't know who took the picture and now he's assuming that the picture was taken at the crash site? Dave, it's a piece of scrap metal on what appears to be green lawn. It could have been taken anywhere. Please, you failed to provide proof for the photographer, so will you be able to show some proof for the location?


To be perfectly blunt, I don't care enough to look up who took that photo becuase from your prior pattern of behavior it's obvious it would make zero difference if I did. I've established the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn with the AA colors as being taken by Mark Faram that likewise disproves the claim it was somethign other than an AA jet that hit the Pentagon, and you reject THAT photo despite the established chain of custody. Also, if memory serves, it was YOU who rejected the claim that the photos of WTC steel showed no signs of sabotage despite the established chain of custody for THOSE photos (I.E. taken by Joel Meyerowitz). Please give me a reason why my establishing a chain of custody for the photo of the wreckage with the serial number will somehow make any difference when establishign chains of custody in the past made no difference to you.

Thus, we both know that this "chain of custody" bit of yours has absolutely nothing to do with determining the integrity of the evidence, and everything to do with it being an act of grasping at straws out of desperation from your having to defend an increasingly undefendable conspiracy story. You've all but admitted from your quotes from Swampfox that establishing chains of custody are the furthest from your mind as they apply to your own conspiracy stories.

When I say, "if the conspiracy people would only hold their own conspiracies up to the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do the standard account, they wouldn't be conspiracy people, for long", you're not really proving me incorrect.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To be perfectly blunt, I don't care enough to look up who took that photo

Neutral readers to this thread will note that Dave has no intention of trying to verify the image that he posted as 'evidence'.



I've established the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn with the AA colors as being taken by Mark Faram that likewise disproves the claim it was somethign other than an AA jet that hit the Pentagon, and you reject THAT photo despite the established chain of custody.

Neutral readers to the thread will note that Dave's initial claim was that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the parts had been identified by serial number.

The best that Dave can establish, to prove his claim, is to show that some images show some bits of scrap metal, painted in AA colours. Dave, you need to do far better than that. You haven't yet shown a single serial number!!!

Clearly, Dave has not been able to prove the authenticity of the image that he posted as evidence for serial numbers from Flight AA77. Why do people make claims that they can't support with facts?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Neutral readers to the thread will note that Dave's initial claim was that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the parts had been identified by serial number.


Ahem. If the neutral readers here are indeed neutral, they will recognize immediately that you're demanding the name of the photographer NOT becuase you genuinely want to know, or that the information will actually persuade you of anything, but becuase you're playing a game of desperation where you're looking to grasp any straw whatsoever that will allow you to reject the evidence presented to you no matter how flimsy the reason. You and I both know that identifying the Pentagon photographer would be meaningless to you just as identifying the ground zero photographer was meaningless to you.

You, sir, seem to forget the the burden of proof isn't on ME to prove an aircraft had hit the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it didn't...and we both know you can't.


The best that Dave can establish, to prove his claim, is to show that some images show some bits of scrap metal, painted in AA colours. Dave, you need to do far better than that. You haven't yet shown a single serial number!!!


Yes I did, it's part number MOD55(?)37 with a serial number 144B(?), and despite the missing digits it's still enough information to trace the component be3cuase it's a AA component. Since you're so adamant about knowing the serial numbers, should I presume you have the ability to look up aircraft part numbers...? Or, is demanding the serial numbers yet another "grasping at straws" ploy on your part?


Clearly, Dave has not been able to prove the authenticity of the image that he posted as evidence for serial numbers from Flight AA77. Why do people make claims that they can't support with facts?


This, coming from someone who's built up for himself a gigantic convoluted scenario of conspiracies supported by no facts whatsoever. You really have no credibility.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join