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.

 

911 facts even Alex Jones doesn't discuss...

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
People...you keep giving "mepatriot" more points by responding to his wild allegations. I have seen more than enough information that tells me the government was not involved in this, and "mepatriot" keeps posting information that is "false" and misleading. I think he is just trying to get more info and write a new book so he can try to make money from it, but I guess that's my opinion.

"The F-16s -- which were not tasked to NORAD -- had been launched at the request of the Secret Service after the first two airliners crashed into the World Trade Center, McKinley explained. But they had just returned from a training exercise and were not equipped with any weaponry they would have needed to shoot down either Flight 77 or the remaining hijacked airliner, Flight 93, which was thought headed for the White House.

The two pilots showed "incredible bravery," said Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste.

NORAD also scrambled F-16s from Langley air force base in Virginia, he said. They were in the air within six minutes, which he said was "exceedingly quick." But they were still 12 minutes away from Washington when Flight 77 crashed in the Pentagon.

Moreover, the man who had McKinley's job on Sept. 11, retired Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, told the panel that he could not have ordered the hijacked airliners shot down even if either set of F-16s had been able to make it to the capital in time.

"To my knowledge, I did not have the authority to shoot it down at that time," he said, adding later of Flight 77, "even if we were there, I don't think we would have shot it down."

He said that he only learned President Bush had made the decision to give him that authority five minutes after the last plane, Flight 93, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania because passengers who had learned the fate of the other airliners apparently stormed the cockpit.

McKinley admitted that NORAD was utterly unprepared for the attack.

"Our mission was at that time ... to look outward, as a Cold War vestige ... to protect against Soviet long-range bomber penetration of our intercept zone," he said.

Arnold added that NORAD commanders had no radar cover in the United States -- relying instead on civilian air traffic control radar data relayed to them over the phone -- and could not even talk directly to their pilots while they were in the air.

"Would you agree," asked Ben-Veniste, "that on the basis of the information available there could have been better preparedness by NORAD?"

"In retrospect, sir," the general replied, "I think I would agree with your comment."

McKinley explained that many changes had been made since then.

"I believe at the present time we have (the capability to defend the United States)," he said in response to one question.

He said that the authority to designate civilian aircraft as "hostile targets" in U.S. airspace -- which had never been used before Sept. 11, and previously rested solely with the president -- has since been delegated to Gen. Eberhardt, the man in charge of NORAD. He also said that there were "emergency procedures" which could give officers even lower on the chain of command the authority to shoot down civilian aircraft.

"We call it the 'Kill Chain,' and it's been shortened and tightened," NORAD spokesman Maj. Don Aries later explained to United Press International."

Excerpts taken from.
www.upi.com...

"mepatriot" and others like him want to say that all our mainstream media is biased, bought off and have an agenda in hiding the facts on 9/11. All his proof comes from others like him who want to blame the government "for their own agendas" and more than surely change information or make up information to further this "agenda" "mepatriot" and others like him have.

It is true that governments hide secret information for security reasons, but much of the information dealing with the response times for 9/11 are public and are not kept secret.

I think the information has been posted before by Banshee, but here is is from the Norad website.

American Airlines Flight 11 - Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles

United Airlines Flight 175 - Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0843
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles

American Flight 77 - Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924
Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924
Fighters Airborne 0930
Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles

United Flight 93 - Newark to San Francisco

FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****
Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)

Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles
(from DC F-16 CAP)

Excerpts taken from.

www.norad.mil...

Banshee posted the above link before I did, so the credit goes to her, Intelgurl and any other members and mods who have already covered this.

As it has been shown "mepatriot" information is mostly false and misleading.

Here is a good post by Intelgurl on 9/11. I also believe that all this information should be kept in one thread, so people can see "all the real info on this."

www.abovetopsecret.com...


BTW "mepatriot" and others that think like him. You have been proven wrong with the information on the CNN HQ and office space. If anyone needs to apologize is you.


[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Muaddib]




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Should we let mistruths go unchallenged?
Should we allow anyone to push forth erroneous theories?
Should ATS become like all other conspiracy sites where any crazy idea is embraced?

The search for truth is not a process of speculation, it's a process of separating fact from fiction.


AMEN!


Sorry for such a simple reply.

I have read this thread and found these words say exactly what I feel about it.

Gazz



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
dude I am soooo done with this thread, you can think whatever you want to think BUT the FACTS remain:

CNN, 200 sq feet, transmitter, 110th floor, unmanned technical station, No employee casualities because they had no employees there!!!!

the last 2 links i provided you with showed pictures of what the top of the tower looked liked, explained about the transmitting equipment on the tower and one even clearly says for you transmitter rooms, not offices, newsrooms or secret headquarters that no one ever knew of.

"Nor, as yet, do we know the fate of at least five engineers who were up in the transmitter rooms on the 109th and 110th floors when the building was attacked."

the truth is handed to you and suddenly you change it to say CNN is hiding a secret office...

I agree you may have valid points about other things regarding 9/11 but seriously you really need to give the CNN angle up, it weakens your credibility when you fail to face the truth.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
I will only scan material that is specifically requested. No one seemed to think it was important that I scan the proof that CNN was an occupant of the 110th floor after Bigin's post, so I may not be scanning anything yet. No one has made a specific request demanding proof of anything as of yet. Some people are able to do their own verification without having their hand held.


Even though you say noone thought it was important than you scan proof since Bigin's post (I assume you meant Bangin) I noted that 4 members (See below) prior to Bangin asked to see proof. Is there a required amount of requests you need to see before providing this information to these folks?

In a prior post you said "Don't ask for these articles to be scanned. They're all at your local library, OK? I have enough to do at present. Thanks for your understanding."

I personally don't have the passion that a lot of these nice people do but here my thought on the whole matter. If you truly believe in all of this and you genuinely wants others to "know the truth" then I would think you would do everything imaginable to prove your theory. Overkill them with links, scanned documents etc. The other members seem to be doing the majority of proving/disproving your theories without "having their hand held" so why should they take you seriously when your not willing (able until you get a scanner) to do the dirty work yourself.


My cut and paste of the people who asked for proof
(I may have even missed some)
Page 1
Seekeerof:
Care to provide them? Other than provide word argument you have not refuted this

Banshee:
Provide your proof. We're still waiting

Page2
nyarlathotep:
Why don't you just scan these docments and post them here for everyone to see?

benjj:
The simple fact of the matter is, irrespective of whether you actually have these documents, and regardless of whether you can prove them genuine, that until you produce them HERE, not on CNN, you will not be taken seriously.

Page 4
Bangin
That's significantly less than 40,000, mepatriot. When do you think you'll be able to scan the information that indicates 40,000 sq. ft.?

elevatedone:
What info exactly do you have on this topic ? Seriously, I'd like to see it and read it,



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Attention truth seekers:

Don't get caught up in contrived, distracting dramas. Don't make alliances with or defend people and theories you aren't certain about. Educate yourselves about counter-intelligence techniques, and understand how and why they are used against you.

www.africa2000.com...

www.sfalx.com...

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Condorcet]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   
OK...what specifically would people like to see scanned in here next week?? It's seems as though most of the stuff has already been provided by others.

With regard to CNN--for the last time-- If it does not strike you as at least questionable that THE ONLY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE LEASING JUST 200 SF APPEARED ONLY WELL AFTER 911 then you are the one who is just plain being dishonest. Pictures of antennaes on roofs (which by the way did not download on my computer) prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am not saying all of my information rises or falls based on whether CNN failed or did not fail to provide information on any casualites. Some of you are saying that, but saying it doesn't make it true. Say whatever you like, but the point is 3000 views+ have been achieved of this important information, none of which has been refuted--only incessantly attacked. I've already achieved much of what I was trying to achieve.

P.S. I'll tell you what, all you critics who think I'm doing this to "write a book," why don't you just hold your breath until it comes out?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Skepticoverlord and others continue to imply that I am irresponsible with the facts, or that I will take anything out of context in order to build a predetermined case. While that is all part of their discredidation process--which I should have expected--it is untrue.

On Tuesday morning, 9-11-01, Tom Kenney, a lieutenant with the Hyannis (MA) Fire and Rescue team got a call that he and his FEMA response team were needed in NYC. According to an article in the Cape Codder (www.townonline.com/capecod/25616139.htm) written by Karen Monahan titled "Courage is beaming at Ground 'Hero' " (9-18-01) there was nothing unusual about Kenney and his team assembling and going into action Wednesday morning, 9-12-01.

A couple of days later, Tom was interviewed on CBS News and was called "Tom Kennedy" accidentally by the anchor. Tom said that his team got the call Monday night, and went "right into action on Tuesday morning." I began researching Tom Kenney immediately, and found his job title and work roster at: www.fire-ems.net/firedept/view/HyannisMA/pers.

Of course, some in the "patriot community" jumped all over this simple mis-statement as proof that FEMA had prior knowledge and that Kenney was part of some conspiracy on the part of the Hyannis Fire Department to set up 9/11!?! (I do believe FEMA had prior knowledge but based on completely different information.)

I was one of the first to point out this serious error. I repeatedly corrected this on the numerous talk radio shows that I have done on 9/11. I debunked it in my video. As recently as three weeks ago, I contacted another 9/11 researcher who was still spreading this story and told him that Kenney had been up for 48 hours straight and was dead tired when he did the CBS interview and that he simply mis-spoke himself.

Does this sound like the actions of a raving lunatic (as suggested by SO, FF, et.al) who would grab at any straw to prove a conspiracy that does not exist?? If that were the case, why would I have expended a great deal of effort to try to shut down this rumor (which is still circulating on the internet as "proof" of FEMA prior knowlegde??) Wouldn't Kenney's statements have been very useful for building "my" case??

You can discredit me all you like, but the facts I have presented here can not be refuted. Though much is in doubt, and much is only evidence, attacking me will not change those things that are clearly factual in what I am presenting. You can draw your own conclusions (of course) from these facts, but you can not change them by just continuing to attack me.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
I looked hard during September '01 for this type of material and found only three links on occupancy--none of which contains/ed a SF figure for CNN. Your first two links purport that it was 200 SF, but both of these websites were constructed AFTER 911, and are therefor totally unreliable when it comes to this question.

Sadly, this 200 SF story (implying that CNN had no large, staffed office on floor 110) looks like a late edition, (possibly planted information) and must be totally discounted until further proof comes in.


Uh, wouldn't this be because there was a lot more interest in the WTC and its occupancy before 911? Some of these propositions of yours are getting a little stupid mate. You are now proposing that because more websites showed the occupancy lists of the towers post 911 is proof of your theory?

Lets run with it then, that somehow 'they' have altered every single website that contains occupancy lists of the Towers. Have they also removed every reference to this CNN office? Surely if there was a massive CNN office there someone would have mentioned it or someone would remember it? The facts that a) there is absolutely no reference anywhere to CNN renting a large amount of space for an office at the top of tower 1 in the occupancy lists. and b) there is no record anywhere of anyone who has been to the office nor mention of the office anywhere. Pretty much speaks for itself, when the only thing you have to put up against it is the fact that you think you read about it in the weeks following 9/11.

Continuing to say that this claim has 'not been refuted' merely exposes the level of your ignorance. It is probably not intentional, you have completely lost objectivity by lashing yourself so tightly to this alone. The proper way to go about this is to accept that that point is false and work on finding information to back up your other claims.

While I think about it. I AM BATMAN. You cannot prove I am not Batman therefore I am DEFINITELY Batman.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
OK...what specifically would people like to see scanned in here next week?? It's seems as though most of the stuff has already been provided by others.

With regard to CNN--for the last time-- If it does not strike you as at least questionable that THE ONLY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE LEASING JUST 200 SF APPEARED ONLY WELL AFTER 911 then you are the one who is just plain being dishonest. Pictures of antennaes on roofs (which by the way did not download on my computer) prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am not saying all of my information rises or falls based on whether CNN failed or did not fail to provide information on any casualites. Some of you are saying that, but saying it doesn't make it true. Say whatever you like, but the point is 3000 views+ have been achieved of this important information, none of which has been refuted--only incessantly attacked. I've already achieved much of what I was trying to achieve.

P.S. I'll tell you what, all you critics who think I'm doing this to "write a book," why don't you just hold your breath until it comes out?



I seriously wonder why you werent shot a t birth.
Were it not for people like you, various, plausible theories of 9/11 would probably have come out by now.

You fail to address the issue of motive... Why would the CNN lie about the amount of space they lease?
Also, is there any definitive proof (e.g. e-mailing CNN? Communication works wonders) that they leased more than 200 sq feet in the first place? I've only seen proof AGAINST your notion, definitely not FOR.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
KANO,

I used to be called "Fonz" in high school. You definitely are the "coolest" man!

Look, I have already conceded that my first assumption on this thread--that CNN had a major office up there-- may not have been well-founded. But, I am not going to accept that this has been totally disproved based on this 200 SF claim that appeared only after 911. Would you? My objectivity has nothing to do with proving this one way or the other. I am just saying that it is premature to conclude that this has (as other are claiming) been thoroughly disproven already. Your opinion may vary. That's that.

Why does everyone focus on one of my points that might eventually prove to have been wrong? When it is proven, I will be the first to agree and withdraw that point completely from the list. But I have posted five other major informational topics here now. Everyone's total immersion (especially mods) in that one point seems to be a bit of an overkill, and focused more on simply discrediting me, when they should be focusing at least a little on the other points as well.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
An article appeared on October 9, 2001 in the German magazine "Der Spiegel"'s website :www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,159229,00.html.

The article is titled "Die Stationen des Mohammed Atta," but it disappeared from the web shortly after I made a print off of it.

In the aritcle, Mohammed Atta's father in Cairo claims that he believes that his son was murdered and his identity used as a "fall guy" for the 9/11 events.

A particularly poignant section of the article reads: "Mein Sohn hat mich 24 und 48 Studen nach dem Ungluck angerufen, fur eine Minute nur. Er ist entfuhrt worden."

I tried everything I could think of to get his phone number, repeatedly contacting sources within Egypt for information on him, without success.

It is a shame I never got to speak with him, and a very big disappointment that this article was so quickly removed from the internet.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot You can discredit me all you like, but the facts I have presented here can not be refuted.
We've been refuting them for a long time. The Kenny issue was discussed as false here also: www.abovetopsecret.com... You're not special. What you need to realize (soon) is that this is a collaborative community, not your pulpit.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano I AM BATMAN. You cannot prove I am not Batman therefore I am DEFINITELY Batman.
He is Batman. hrm... is Netchicken Robin?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
SO: I only posted the story about Kenney to show how biased you are in continuing to attack: erasing my threads and slandering my character.

I never said I was special.

You keep painting me with your brush, but the fact is I don't look anything like your picture.

Where is my thread on "A Beautiful Mind???"



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot Where is my thread on "A Beautiful Mind???"
Right here where it has always been: www.abovetopsecret.com... What's the problem? For a "conspiracy researcher" you seem to have some difficulty using the tools at your disposal. There are two ways to quicly find your posts, and the threads you've posted to. 1) MyATS: The top board menu contains a link for MyATS, click it. You'll find your subscriptions in a column on the right. If something is in the trash, you'll still see the thread title, but won't be allowed to see it. 2) Below one of your posts, you'll see a find posts link. This will also give you a list of all the posts you've made.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I did a search for the words "A Beautiful Mind" and nothing came up. I did a manual search for it after clicking the "all" posts button, and none of my threads were there.

If you've replaced them since, thanks. I would go look for it again now.

(PS: Your games won't work)



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot.

(PS: Your games won't work)


Its all a game to get you. HAHAHAHHA



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot I did a search for the words "A Beautiful Mind" and nothing came up. I did a manual search for it after clicking the "all" posts button, and none of my threads were there.
Then you searched incorrectly... did you read the instructions? Also, when you click your "find posts" please notice that it only shows 20 posts per page. Clicking the "next" link in the bottom right will take you to the next 20, then the next 20, and so on.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
..and what is their common bond beyond the 911 connection? (Just a trivia question to keep you all thinking):

Gary Hart
Annie Armstrong
John Dancy
Leslie Gelb
Lee Hamilton
Donald Rice
Harry Train
Warren Rudman
Norman Augustine
John Galvin
New Gingrich
James Schlesinger
Lionel Olmer
Andrew Young



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 07:06 AM
link   
You may want to start here: www.terroranalysis.com... (TerrorAnalysis is a spin-off of ATSNN, The Above Top Secret News Network.) [Edited on 22-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join