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.

 

No Flight 93 Passengers on 9/11 Compensation List; UA 9/11 Planes Still Flying

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 

No need to play amateur psychologist. I'm not unhappy and I have no clue what the CSS is. If it's an intelligence organization that doesn't know 9/11 was an inside job, then it's not much of one. Every intelligence agency in the world knew this shortly after it happened:

Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials Question 9/11 Commission Report

The Impossibility of the Official 9/11 Government Story: Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD and Retired Lt. Col, U.S Air Force

Former German Minister Says WTC 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack

Ex ISI Chief Hamid Gul Exposes 911 as Inside Job -- Goes In-Depth On Details CNN Refused to Broadcast

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job



[edit on 31-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I have no clue what the CSS is. If it's an intelligence organization that doesn't know 9/11 was an inside job, then it's not much of one.





posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
[delete] Not worth it.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Even Rense gets it wrong sometimes though..

This is a great example...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The worst part is that with this particular story on Rense, only after going off on a wild tangent and making all kinds of assumptions about what this pod was and what the markings on it meant did Ted finally realize that this was a refueling pod and nothing out of the ordinary..

And only after the story about this being some kind of "chemtrail pod" was debunked did Ted finally say "Oh, I'm sorry. This was never meant to be disinformation"... When the original story was chocked full of disinformation about what the pod was and what it was supposedly used for.. People read that stuff and think there's some truth in it because its supposedly thuroughly researched material on rense (don't ask me why).

Just goes to show that alot of times people can believe what they see because they don't know any better.. Including the author of that material.. Sometimes it just takes a little bit of research to figure out what you see on the web isn't true.. For me, it took about 2 minutes on google..(but I had seen these pods years before from when I was in the air force so I already had a hunch what it was).

-ChriS

[edit on 1-2-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 1-2-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Along with an important event to implement a NWO, 9/11 is also seen as ritual sacrifice that is very important to the Illumanity and god knows "what" else. When I saw these videos my jaw hit the floor.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...











[edit on 1-2-2009 by glenn84]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Even Rense gets it wrong sometimes though..

This is a great example...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The worst part is that with this particular story on Rense, only after going off on a wild tangent and making all kinds of assumptions about what this pod was and what the markings on it meant did Ted finally realize that this was a refueling pod and nothing out of the ordinary..


Well, I'm not under the illusion that Rense is right about everything. He's kind of an information clearinghouse that's derived from many sources. But the posters in that thread who vehemently deny the existence of chemtrails are also wrong.

And even Zaphod58, who seems to be one of the more informed sources, says:

"And yes, that is a spraying device in the article, it is used by ONE KC-135R that flies out of Edwards AFB to spray water on other planes to see how they handle icing conditions in flight."

So that Rense article just happened to contain a photo of the only spraying device in the entire U.S. cargo fleet? Maybe or maybe not. If there was more than one device, could it be used to spray more than water? It's certainly possible.

This thread isn't about chemtrails or KC-135 tankers. My point is that information is rarely black and white. I still believe there's more overall truth on Rense than the entire MSM, which for the most part lacks both controversy and useful information.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Missle did indeed hit pentagon!




www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I was simply responding to your post about how Rense was closer to the truth than the mainstream media (and on some of it, they probably are). All I'm saying is that people can get a little bit of information, perhaps a photograph, spend a couple hours writing a caveat based on chemtrail speculations and then call it significant.. I'm not saying that speculation is negative.. I'm just saying that people on rense sometimes put alot of time and effort into one tiny bit of information (in this case a photo) and it ends up a questionable 3 page story based on information that isn't accurate in the first place.

My post was not guided to take sides on the issue of chemtrails or even bring it up for discussion.. It just seems to me that most of rense's material is identical. It is wild speculation and people trying to connect a trillion little dots all based on a tiny piece of information that may or may not even be correct/accurate.

I won't even get into the so called "moon conspiracy" photos on rense.. wow..

-ChriS



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
No problem Chris, I hear ya. There are a trillion little dots that people try to connect. I initially spent about six months looking into every aspect of 9/11, but I've stayed away from the debate for a while. Now I remember why. I followed a few links from another thread and it's mind-blowing the amount of detail that some of these discussions involve. Too much for me, but I applaud people like Craig Ranke and SPreston who've spent enormous amounts of time and effort searching, digging and debating every aspect of the 9/11 story. I thought I knew alot, but it's nothing compared to these guys.

All I can say is what may seem like wild speculation is mostly because we haven't spent the time and effort to critically examine the "official story" and search for the truth. One quick example is KAL 007. The Russians shot it down after it accidentally flew into Soviet airspace, right? Well... read a book like Incident At Sakhalin where the author (an experienced pilot and aeronautical engineer) spent like 10 years researching the story, including interviewing hundreds of people -- even walking Japanese beaches to search for tiny pieces of the aircraft and calculating ocean currents to determine a probable point of impact.

When you read an amazing story like that, which is so convoluted, confusing and full of outrageous government lies (not just from the U.S.), that even after 10 years of research, the author can only guess what really happened. Only then will you realize the level of deception that exists in society.

Flight 93 is no different. Maybe it was shot out of the sky, as some Shanksville Vietnam vets allegedly heard Sidewinder missiles. Maybe it landed in Cleveland. Maybe it was switched with another aircraft in mid-air, like the Operation Northwoods plan. What ends up being an implausible scenario is the official story of the 'hero' passengers who fought the hijackers and brought the plane down or a coroner who spotted a single tooth 20 feet high in a tree branch. Just like the undamaged hijacker passport that was found at Ground Zero.

I promise that when you thoroughly investigate almost any major event -- whether it's Pearl Harbor, JFK, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, TWA 800, Oklahoma City or Iraq -- the reality is nothing like the way it was presented. We are truly living in a matrix of massive deceptions and 9/11 is no exception.


[edit on 1-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SuperViking
 

If you think people who seek truth are "paranoid", perhaps you're in the wrong place.


I think there's a difference between people who seek the truth and people who find conspiracies around every corner. I know you weren't responding to me but I just couldn't help myself.

There are too many people here that are trying to create conspiracies where there are none. This does a disservice to both the truth and this site.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Keep getting your "news" from the corporate-controlled media and congratulate yourself how informed you are compared to those "paranoids."


This is a good example.
You're saying the ENTIRE main stream media is in on the conspiracy to cover up. That's an awful lot of people and not one of them wants to tell the truth? or slip up and say the wrong thing? or leave evidence by accident? That's simply unrealistic.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece




Flight 93 is no different. Maybe it was shot out of the sky,


It wasn't.


as some Shanksville Vietnam vets allegedly heard Sidewinder missiles.


source? (but I like that you stated "allegedly"



Maybe it landed in Cleveland.


it didn't


Maybe it was switched with another aircraft in mid-air,


It wasn't. ( think of the phone calls)


What ends up being an implausible scenario is the official story of the 'hero' passengers who fought the hijackers and brought the plane down


What is implausible about it? First of all you got it wrong. They did not "fight the hijackers" they attempted to gain entry to the cockpit. I would think you would have done the same thing after learning the fate of two other planes earlier that morning. Again...look into the phone calls. Then read the FDR report.


or a coroner who spotted a single tooth 20 feet high in a tree branch.


I don't recall Wally Miller discussing a tooth 20 feet high in a tree?


Just like the undamaged hijacker passport that was found at Ground Zero.


Satam Al Suqami’s passport was found at ground zero....along with millions of other pieces of debris and personal belongings. Fact is, lighter things tend to survive plane crashes.


I promise that when you thoroughly investigate almost any major event -- -------We are truly living in a matrix of massive deceptions and 9/11 is no exception.


This is the true mind of a conspiracy theorist, or a paranoid thought process. You need the cause to be as massive as the event itself. Although there may be a slight bit of truth to some of your statement. The events of 9/11 were not perpetrated by the US government. That is a fact.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[I think there's a difference between people who seek the truth and people who find conspiracies around every corner. I know you weren't responding to me but I just couldn't help myself.

I think it's interesting that one of your quotes is "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

Perhaps convictions than lean more towards "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" than seeking truth?

As for self-confessed NWO "truth" agent Cameron Fox and his allusion to Bohemian Grove, I think it's apparent what his role is. It's not to seek truth, but to obscure it in every way possible.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

As for self-confessed NWO "truth" agent Cameron Fox and his allusion to Bohemian Grove, I think it's apparent what his role is. It's not to seek truth, but to obscure it in every way possible.


Please point out where I obscured the truth here in anyway. You are far from the first person to say this....but you will be the first to back it up...

Have at it!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Im curious how does a Sidewinder sound? As opposed to a Sparrow or an AMRAAM or even a Sea Sparrow? Not to mention, how would a ground pounder know what an air to air missile sounds like?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Hey, Golden
Your 'content from external source' that you refer to? I looked at it, and after reading determined that the author(s) have no idea what they're talking about. Especially the part where they imply that the N-Number was 'filed' with the FAA for those flights.

Under Part-91 Operations indeed, you DO include the N-Number on the Flight Plan you file.

But in Part-121 (and Part-135) when you have a fleet of airplanes it is not required to include the N-Number on EACH Flight Plan. In fact, the Flight Plans are 'canned'...that is, when the Airline finalizes its roster of which airplanes are operating which city pairs on which date-range, this info is sent to the appropriate FAA ARTCC and the Flight Plans 'pop-up' into the ATC system automatically.

ATC only needs to know ETD (estimated time OFF the runway, NOT the gate) Aircraft type, requested route and filed speed.

IF you want to find the 'impossibility' of the same airplane in two cities at the same time then you should look into internal Airline records.

Good luck!




top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join