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.

 

September 11, 2001: 21 Reasons to Question the Official Story about 9/11

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Posted by sakerfa on September 11, 2008

Note: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case the pages in my most recent book—”The New Pearl Harbor Revisited”—where the issue is documented and discussed more extensively.

(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks, the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″ (NPHR 206-11).

(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners were hijacked by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs to earn a heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).

(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from loved ones or flight attendants on the airliners, during which they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the planes. One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID. But the calls to Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls from the planes at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, it had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet (NPHR 111-17).

Source: www.globalresearch.ca...





It is almost impossible to find the official story or the reality and physics to explain it. Nobody is looking for a 'conspiracy theory' but they are presented to us by the Higher ups and are just plain ridiculous.

If one was to use Occums Razor on the official story you will clearly see that it holds no water.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Dble post

[edit on 12-9-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson's claim that his wife, Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which says that the only call attempted by her was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds" (NPRH 60-62).
www.globalresearch.ca...

This was coverd on a recent TVo documentary and was not challenged. There is a a thread here on ats about the Ted olsen call being a lie.


(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers---such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a .band discovered at the crash site of United 93---also show clear signs of having been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).
www.globalresearch.ca...

This evidence alone turn many people away from the official theory. Just plain stupid and insulting.


(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have "squawked" the universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).

www.globalresearch.ca...

I have always wondered this. Since this did not happen it lends creadence to the theories of remote controlled planes and or drones, fake blips and live fly hijack exercises. How do we know that some of the transmissions that came from the planes werent just call from the exercises?


(15) The Secret Service, after learning that a second World Trade Center building had been attacked---which would have meant that terrorists were going after high-value targets---and that still other planes had apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the school in Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of 9/11, the White House started telling a new story, according to which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several minutes after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second WTC building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television (NPHR 129-31).

www.globalresearch.ca...

Here is the vid




(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly growing numbers of physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officials (NPHR xi).
www.globalresearch.ca...

You dont need to be a professional to know when your being lied to.



[edit on 12-9-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 12-9-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
What is going to be unfortunate about this thread is that most people will simply state (which will be correct) that these subjects have been discussed thoroughly on this site. Though every single question is a valid one, there will be those 'official truthers' that will claim that ALL of these have been refutted with proof.

Like the bandana issue. I have seen 'official truthers' state that objects can survive plane crashes untouched. It has happened before.

However, they don't argue with logic. If that plane nose dived like it supposedly did with all major parts being blown to smitherings (had to use the word, haven't seen it in years and felt it was appropriate here :lol
that this bandana, CLOTH!, would survive with hardly any damage let alone dirt.

The same goes for the passport found at ground zero. That is a bunch of 'science fiction' BS and they know it. Yet they will try to throw the 'are you an expert of plane crashes?' line at you and call it good.

I only hope that one day the people finally make enough noise to FORCE this administration and government into coming clean on everything that happened that day.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
No, dariusg, the line being thrown is that it is highly usual for small and/or flexible objects to survive Plancrashes. As evidenced by the thousands of other objects recovered from these 4 crashes.
Keys, Credit Cards, Grocery Lists etc survived the crashes and got handed out to the family of the victim. But it recieved less publicity than the passport of one of the highjackers and the bandana.




top topics
 
3

log in

join