It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


911 Truth - Somebody Please Give It To Me!

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:03 PM
i don't know but bush and chenney are absolutly the most disgusting two people in the history of planet earth. tailwaggers

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by randyvs

Bush and Cheney kept us safe from another attack for 7 more years. So I would not exactly say they were terrible. You might disagree with the methods but you can not disagree with the results.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:28 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:59 AM
my theory? doubt al-qaida "did" the phsyical attack, but it was allowed, why was bush at the time of the incedent, expecting a phone call saying "so and so" happened, why did he continue to stay in the classroom at the school he was did he KNOW he was safe from further attacks, im pretty sure if this wasnt planned he would of been rushed to safety but noo...then the 4 Israelis caught with explosives on the George Washington Bridge! NO news on that...why did the Osama work as a weapons tacticion (cant spell it) for the CIA before being funded to create Al-qaida between 1989-1992..$6 billion i believe..
but i dont believe Bush is the mastermind..just a puppet taking orders on a war 1 was setup to world war Iraq is out of the way *cough cough* Saddam was destined to defeat, why? he is apart of it!..Iran next? NOPE...China? NOPE...Russia?...all bets are off! i say Russia is next=WORLD WAR will drag in every middle eastern country..and a nuclear bomb/(s) may be dropped...dont forget they are already killing us off...HIV/AIDS...hope to God ebola-pox is set lose...umm what more? MARK OF THE BEAST-GOVERNMENT MICROCHIPS IMPLANTED...yes im way off the mainstream theories but everything i thought would happened has happened...=/

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by grapesofraft
If an agreement cannot be reached by the majority of 911 truthers then how can anyone call it the truth?

They can't. Inconsitencies throughout, on both sides, merely provide a venue for the divide to further - perpetuate.

JFK. Anyone?

Oh yah, the NWO bunch are the masters of getting into any movement that opposes them or tries to speak the truth about them, and then starts misinformation and misdirection from the inside to mess up the whole movement against them. Seems to work every time.

I see the NWO bunch behind all of the 911 stuff, 1) to make themselves filthy rich(er) from the billions in gold that were stored under the world trade center in vaults as safe keeping for several small countries' worth of currency back up, and 2) to get the patriot act in place so that when the time is right, they can declare martial law and not have to run anything under the constitution any more. Oh a lot more reasons I am sure, but from where I sit, those were the primary ones.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:08 PM
The answers to 911 will be found at

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by grapesofraft

look at bush's reaction to the 9/11 attack via farenheight 911 documentary and look for the cruise missile that hit the pentagon. the missile is on youtube. the video was taken by an adjacent gas station camera. you can see it as it closes in on the outer perimeter of the pentagon. it was not an airplane. the event could not have happened with u.s. envolvment. trust me. it is not a mystery. why? to justify our presence in the mid-east for our own personal angrandizment

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:35 PM
I agree, too many theories, too much based on likely and/or probably

What do I KNOW?

I saw a video of the first plane to hit the first tower. It was filmed from the rear.
As the plane approached the tower it's shadow could be seen approaching from it's right.
When the first flames erupted from the tower the shadow had yet to reach the plane. 5th grade physics. The plane had not yet reached the tower. Why then did the tower explode?

No I do not know who was in control of the plane
No I do not know if the plane fired a missile or if there were explosives in the building.
No I do not know if it was Islamic terrorist seeking revenge, Mossad trying to draw us into a mid-east war or rouge elements of our own government who were behind the whole thing.


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:45 PM
Goldangled computators


The shadow of the plane had not reached it when the building exploded.

I KNOW the building did not explode because a plane hit it. Please don't twist my words. I am not saying a plane did not hit it. I am saying that was not the reason it exploded. The explosion began before the plane made contact with the building


Things are obviously not what they seem
The government story about the whole thing being the result of planes hitting the towers is not true

I don't know which of the theories the Truthers are putting forward to explain this is closest to the truth

BUT I DO KNOW the government's story does not reflect reality

No guesses, hunches, intuition, or seership responsible for this knowledge
You cannot touch a wall on a sunny day while the shadow of your finger is still a foot away. No matter how fast you move the shadow will hit your finger by the time you touch the wall. If your shadow is even a half inch away you have not yet reached the wall
The shadow of the plane was still off to the right when the tower exploded. This one single fact should be enough to force an investigation if it was not drowned out by all the hunches, assumptions, intuition etc
If the plane had not reached/touched the tower, WHY DID IT EXPLODE???

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:11 PM
not to disagree with anything written here, but Bush was in Sarasota at the time, which is about 25 miles from Tampa's Mcdill Airforce Base.. I am positive that the safest place in the world to be was Sarasota at the time, in my opinion. And again, if Bush had jumped up like his pants were on fire when they whispered to him about the plane crashes, what would you done? Me personally, i probably would of crapped my pants if i seen the President running around screaming.. There is a certain amount of composure you must keep so the country doesn't go all Marshall Law on itself.. But believe me, he was indeed shat'n his pants as you could watch the man's face turn from a smile on his face to a total blank stare.. I don't like Bush but these things about him at the school is not good evidence, there is no conspiracy here in my opinion...


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:19 PM
Next month we will have the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. Computing rocket trajectories and thrust and gravitational effects is Newtonian physics. Analyzing what happens when a relatively small fast inanimate object, like an airliner, hits a much larger stationary inanimate object like a 400,000+ ton building is also Newtonian physics.

There a certain things that have to be figured out about a skyscraper before the hole for the foundation is even dug. Every level of the building must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above. So the tons of steel and tons of concrete to go on every level are determined before construction of the building is even begun. So why don't we have a table specifying information that simple after almost EIGHT YEARS?

At this point I don't care who did it or why. A physics problem this simple should have been solved in less than a year. The entire concept that the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush everything below and do it in less than 18 seconds is so ridiculous it should be laughable. But that 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. The total for the steel is specified in three places. I downloaded and searched the report two years ago.

But there is no way the effect of the impact and the supposed collapse can be analyzed without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. They must get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom. So how much of the planes energy went into starting an oscillation in the towers cannot be determined without knowing the distribution of mass therefore the amount of the planes energy that did structural damage to the building cannot be computed.

The laws of physics do not give a damn about conspiracies.

But I think telling lies that depend on the defiance of the laws of physics is really STUPID.

But after this much time all of the engineering schools are accomplices after the fact. How can they say the distribution of mass is important to analyzing the events without explaining why they didn't mention that SEVEN YEARS ago?


posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:58 AM
Excuse me everyone. I realize I'm Johnny-Come: Lately here, but I'd like to interject a bit of my own personal brand of rationale into the 9/11 fiasco.

What is the 9/11 truth movement about?
The 9/11 truth movement (from my perspective) is about establishing what the truth of the 9/11 event's cause was, who orchestrated the event and for what reason were approximately 3,000 people murdered.

9/11 was a conspiracy no matter how you look at it. Whether you accept the official story (a conspiracy of hijackers) the official unofficial story (a government/shadow government conspiracy) or your own personal wingnut theory (no planes, lizard people, etc.) you must logically accept that all of these scanarios are revolving around conspiracy (i.e. covert [secretive] organizations [loose or tight] pooling together plans for accomplishing something without being caught.

With that in mind, lets look at the facts.

Everyone seems to just brush off mention of building 7 as conspiranoia nonsense, but it is relevant because;

2 planes + 3 buildings = not 3 destroyed buildings...certainly not all at freefall speed.

Silverstein Properties insures buildings against terrorist acts just prior to "attack"? I'm sure...

Larry Silverstein said himself "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Damning and from the horse's mouth.

With just these three things in mind, enough concern is raised to warrant further INDEPENDENT investigation. Were explosive devices used? How and when was building 7 wired for demolition if it was. Why was "ground zero" [nuclear strike anyone?] closed to independent investigation?

Having said that, the true story of 9/11 is actually less important than the fact that independent investigation has been impeded to the point of being almost completely ineffectual. Logic would attest that for everything there is a cause. Independent investigation being impeded has only one logical cause: To stifle talk of alternative probabilities. The official story must not be questioned.

Papers please. Right this way, sir. Are there any twins here? Uncle Christian Mengele wants to paint some pictures of you. If you're really good, Grandpa Mike Harari will bounce you on his knee.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:09 AM
Grapes. If you are truly looking for truth and are considering both sides, then it should be obvious by now in this thread that the official version of 9/11 has more holes than swiss cheese. This can only mean a conspiracy, because lies and disinformation is being dished out on all fronts, i.e. the 9/11 Commission Report, the media, "debunkers."

A few basic questions to ask yourself about 9/11:

1) Why was the 9/11 Commission so controlled by the powers that be? Here is George Bush being questioned [twice] about the 9/11 Commission and why he and Cheney refused to testify under oath and insisted that they were questioned together rather than separately, which was what the Commission had asked. Listen to his answer:

Also I suggest you look at just who are on the board of the 9/11 Commission and how many of them are Council on Foreign Relations [more than 10!]. To the ignorant this means nothing. To those who are aware, they know that the CFR is the prime organization in the US in pursuit of destroying American sovereignty in favor of a global governing body [their stated goal].

Then look at how many PRESIDENTS, VPs, Secretaries of State, etc.. in the past 40 years were either CFR, Trilateral Commission, or both. If you don't know what the Trilateral Commission is, then I suggest you look that up too.

2) NORAD had a 100% interception rate with an average of under 10 minutes after a plane loses radio contact or strays off course prior to 9/11/2001. On 9/11, NORAD would somehow fail FOUR times in a course of HOURS. Even if they somehow missed the first plane, there is absolutely no excuse that they would miss the other ones too... unless if they were given conflicting orders and were confused due to war games concerning a similar scenario, the source to which has been already provided by a poster before me.

However, for the sake of making all of this crystal clear to you, let us pretend for now that the official version is true, and that there was a huge fluke in the efficiency of NORAD, defending a nation that has the best air force in the world.

3) The official story claims that although the fire didn't melt the steel, it weakened it thus triggering a pancake fashion collapse. First of all, never in history has a steel framed building endured full collapse from fire alone. Second, in order for the building to fall straight down into itself, the steel beams would have to be heated and weakened uniformly, or other wise the structure would topple. Third, in order for the building to fall straight down through itself, the way of most resistance, at near free fall speeds, the material in the way [i.e. the building] would have to be displaced almost as quickly as the top was falling.

Again let us assume that the official story is true and that against all odds, BOTH the towers, which were hit differently and at different places, just happened to be inundated with fire is such a way that all of the beams were heated evenly and at once and material between the top of the building and the ground were magically displaced to allow it to fall nearly without resistance and straight down.

4) WTC7 was not hit by a plane and only had visible fires on a few floors. It fell straight down into its own footprint at nearly free fall speed. In fact, it did fall at the rate of free fall for the first 3 seconds. Huge implications. Also, BBC news reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually happened, and WTC7 can actually be seen over the reporter's shoulder.

Let us pretend for now that the official story is true and against all odds, WTC7 collapsed straight down at free fall speed due to a couple of fires and minor structural damage.

5) Let us also pretend that the official story is true and that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a few Muslims in caves who hate freedom.

Now remember for the official theory to hold up, it would have to mean that
all FIVE of these major discrepancies were just mere coincidences that overcome ALL odds. Just think about the odds that all of the aforementioned were just coincidences..

If the terrorists were THIS lucky, that all these things just happened to overcome all odds and laws of physics then maybe Allah really is the one true god.

You see the "truthers" are really the DEBUNKERS, and the "debunkers" are really the TRUTHERS. The people that the mainstream calls "truthers" aim to DEBUNK the official version of the events. The people that the mainstream calls "debunkers" only just support the official version as TRUTH.

Case in point:
All of us "truthers" have been providing you sources and real information.

Then look at Big Unit.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:54 AM
reply to post by italkyoulisten

2) NORAD had a 100% interception rate with an average of under 10 minutes after a plane loses radio contact or strays off course prior to 9/11/2001. On 9/11, NORAD would somehow fail FOUR times in a course of HOURS.

With all of the rhetoric, I can swallow. But, I could not let this little gem get by, unchallenged.

Seems someone is spouting more unsubstantiated nonsense again, and accepting it as "fact".

In over two decades as an airline pilot, I can tell you that 'losing radio contact' was a very frequent occurrence. (Still is, but less so, for obvious reasons). An airplane is 'handed off' from ATC sector to being given frequency changes. IF you, the pilot, miss a radio call, the controller will repeat until you hear. Sometimes, if the controller is distracted, he might 'lose' you as you leave the vicinity and his area of radio coverage.

It occurs to the pilots when, as we drone along, we realize that we are hearing only one side of the conversation -- other airplanes, but not the ground. Then we know...and it's a simple matter of looking on the chart, choosing a new frequency and calling someone, another controller, telling them where we are, and that controller tells us the correct frequency to use.

This was a routine occurrence...and seen as nothing more than a minor annoyance.

I never had NORAD intercepts!!!! NORAD is looking outward, not inward!!!

"Intercepts in under ten minutes"! Come on, that is baloney being fed, and hurts your cause. Remember the case of pro golfer Payne Stewart? Look it up, sometime.

Keep a critical watch on all things related to 9/11...but be careful you don't buy any bunk, no matter which side it comes from.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by italkyoulisten

Good post.

If the terrorists were THIS lucky, that all these things just happened to overcome all odds and laws of physics then maybe Allah really is the one true god.

Yes and all on that one day in 2001, when pigs had wings.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:17 AM
In other news, the facebook livingsocial application has a new poll "Who was responsible for 9/11?" thanks to yours truly. Until today, believe it or not, such a poll did not exist. I guess there are a LOT of sleepwalkers on facebook, which is not very surprising I'm sure.

I photochopped the Al-Qaeda picture to be an image of Osama Bin Laden with the phrase "I did it from a cave while on dialysis" just to get the people who are tapping their foot to the tune to realize it's a death metal song.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Big Unit

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Big Unit

awesome, could you start with the pics of the plane at the Pentagon? I am such a dork, I must have missed them. thanks in advance for your link!

BTW, you never answered my other question. Would you consider the rest of the building a solid base?

[edit on 12-6-2009 by network dude]

There was only one camera that caught the plane hitting the Pentagon. It has been released.

I hope you're not implying a missle hit the Pentagon. That would be absurd.

You do realize the DNA of nearly every passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon was recovered?

What planet are you from Bigunit or shall I say what agency.....why has none of the camera footage from the nearby buildings of the pentagon not been releasedbeen .....there is no evidence of a plane flying into the pentagon.....what we see is an explosion...being the most apparently secure building on the planet surely there would be some footage of an actual plane flying into building......

[edit on 16/6/2009 by booda]

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by thoughtplacebo

It's usually a good thing to run a poll now and then to get the pulse of current thinking, however, you've slanted the responses with your photochopped OBL; that informs people of where YOU stand, and thus will most likely garner responses of folks who agree with you, rather than a genuine poll of the facebook demographic.

You're basically "seeding" the responses. People are funny that way (my opinion) -- particularly in social networks.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Redpillblues

I do think it is hard to believe that the greatest mass illusion ever could be done in a way that would have taken 100's if not 1000's of people to coordinate and not one of them felt the guilt or pride to run out and say I was part of it. The government cannot keep anything secret without some "unknown source" blabbing stuff to a news agency. How could this be any different?

This is a huge problem. People keep trying to label it as the greatest illusion ever pulled off. Why? Why is it an illusion? What happened was someone on the inside decided it was time for 'another Pearl Harbor' and got the ball rolling in '93 with the first attempt on the towers. Didn't quite work so they came up with a better plan. One that was perfectly display in the pilot episode of 'The Lone Gunmen' that was aired in March of 2001. Yes, 6 months prior. Talk about illusion. The illusion is the fact that the powers that be manipulate the public through mainstream media. The best way to hide things is to put them right out in the open for all to see. SO what people saw was not an illusion. The official story to follow was the illusion.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Wally Hope

No, it's not about terms, it's about understanding basic physics and why a building simply cannot globally collapse into the path of most resistance.

The towers were unique for their time, but in a good way. Technology rarely goes backwards. We have had thousands of years of construction experience. Do you really think a team of engineers would design and build a tower that was potentially flawed due to a common occurrence, fire? Do you think they wouldn't know their design might have a problem if it was damaged? Do you think they just construct these buildings and just hope they stay standing?

My personal take on the Towers falling is not believing they could BOTH fall in on themselves. One, I could have believed it, but two buildings? Then you have the third building (WTC7) falling? Ya right, give me a break. It didn't even get hit. When you compare a demolitioned building to the 9-11 towers, what's the difference? I don't see any. They all fall the same to me. Please point out the differences.

It's just hard for some people to accept. Then I saw these three articles which enhanced my opinion in what I really thought about 9-11. The first link is when a B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State building and the ESB never fell. The second is a C-130 crashing into an apartment building and it never fell. I know there are differences between 9-11, the B-25 crash, and the Iran C-130 crash, but it's sure close enough for me to help make an opinion that a building might not fall if a large plane collided with it. The third Article is about John Skilling (Head structural Engineer) of the Twin Towers and what he said. Read the whole article. It basically says the Tower shouldn't have fallen by a 767 crashing into it.

Of course, there's more testimony and things I've read and watched that made me come to my opinion that I didn't list here. The post would be too big.

B-25 Bomber crashing into the Empire State Building

C-130 crashes in Iran into a building

John Skilling (Head Structural Engineer) of the Twin Towers Statement:

Here is a video about Building 7 and Richard Gage a structural engineer's observations on a news channel that was posted by visible_villian on the media portal. Very interesting.

The way I see this whole tragedy, you have experts for and against the official 9-11 story. Each side thinks they are right. Like some mentioned before, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Act like the pros and cons are an algebra equation. They cancel each other out. Read and view video yourself and make up your own mind.

I did and my opinion are planes flew into the towers, but that by itself, they couldn't have brought the towers down. They needed help. Explosives. And TPTB knew most people would buy it. I also wish they'd show just one picture of an actual plane hitting the Pentagon, but they haven't. That building has too many cameras around to miss that. The one they DID show was garbage that didn't show anything or not enough for me to believe a plane hit the Pentagon. Just show me more proof and I might except it, but they can't and they won't. It should make you wonder.

That's my 2 cents. Feel free to correct me on anything I've posted. I'm all ears.


new topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in