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.

 

Richard Gage: ae911truth founder says the unbelievable

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
After reading a couple of comments I think it necessary to remind people of one of the little problems that officials had after 911 with the "hijackers." After the list of names was published of the perpetrators of the hijackings, a number of people on the list contracted various news agencies to report "Uh excuse me, it wasn't me ... I'm still alive." In fact I believe one the hijackers identified was in fact a pilot for the Saudi airlines and still working for them (if someone has access to this story, please fact check that for me.. the mind is rusty).

So it is entirely possible that six of the people identified as 911 hijackers could have been interviewed after 911 -- even if you accept the official story at face value. Just really sloppy investigation work by somebody. i would probably suspect that these are the people referred to in the quote.




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


This took 2 minutes.


www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



If debunkers didnt pay attention to you....who would??



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Unit
"These erroneous reports were retracted weeks later. Do some research for the love of Sam Hill."

 


To this day the original list of Hijackers listed for all of America to see is in dought. Some of the original hijackers on the list of the hijackers originally listed are still alive. Why don't you do a little research. I listed sources from your main stream media and they have not in any way been retracted. Wheres your sources?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Question for Big Unit: You seem very certain in your beliefs about the events of 911 - what evidence has led you to that conclusion?

For me - I have no idea exactly what happened that day for certain.
I've read a lot about 911 & there's some crazy extreme theories out there; but at the end of the day, I get the feeling that the official 911 government report / story is not the full truth of what happened that day.

It's just that due to all the conflicting pieces of evidence including that from some very well respected experts in their field, I feel it's enough to throw some doubt onto the official 911 story.


I guess what I'm trying to say is:
In a court of law the defendent is only found guilty if the evidence can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

With the official 911 story about the Al-Qaeda hijackers etc - there's absolutely plenty of reasonable doubt.

So what exactly is it that makes you so certain the official story is 100% true?
What evidence has led you to that conclusion?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by moobaawoof
 



OH...video taped confessions. martyrdom videos. phone calls from passengers. dna tests. The analysis of experts.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
whats so hard to believe? doesnt it make sense that if its a false flag then maybe the guys are alive? how could you find proof that osama was treated in one of our hospitals in dubai and met with cia but you dont believe the hijackers were not really on the plane?

maybe im misunderstanding you but its like saying look at the massive amounts of fluoride the govt is pumping into our drinking water!! then saying oh this is utter bs because we are also entertaining the idea that they put the chlorine in there too



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I could go either way on this one.

Can any of us WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT say "the hijackers" were on any of the planes?

The same people that said they were on the planes are the ones that said the buildings fell without the aid of demo charges.

I wont go into wtc7.


Can we honestly say that the "hijackers" werent on the planes?

I think this is fairly well a bunch of pointless crap either way UNLESS it can be LEGITIMATELY tied to something else important.

Remote controlled jets?

Out on that too. Way too much other legit stuff to question without asking "did the hijackers wear clean underwear that day?".





posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Big Unit... You seem to be posting here solely to inflame people for some sense of self satisfaction. I recomend that you Read the ATS Handbook link here

And review just all the stuff you are doing. One liner postings are discouraged especially on this forum.... I have alerted the mods to all this and I do hope they take action soon. But in the mean time please read the link I gave.... Pay attention to some of the older members and how they post...Everybody appreciates courtesy and respect as well as thought out responses.

This topic to my mind seems only to of been started to generate conflict with the 911 "truthers" that you seem to vehemently disagree with... While disagreement is entirely cool.... Starting conflict for the sake of self satisfaction is not cool...

I am not a mod myself.... just another member trying to keep our site the Best darn site on the net.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by just_another_yourself
 


I do know for fact that chlorine (at least near here) is used in local water supplies in some towns.

Kills nasties.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
********* STOP THIS NONSENSE **********

One more off-topic or uncivil post and a 3 day posting ban is headed your way !!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The comments by Gage are perfectly aligned with evidence that has been uncovered.

Some of the names of the hijackers were names of people that are still alive and nothing to do with 911.

Perhaps those were the names the real hijackers gave when they got on the planes, maybe they stole those identities - the point is - the official story never changed, and they didn't investigate properly.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Unit
 


...So - don't you even feel like it's slightly strange how the twin towers completely collapsed in on themselves because the airplanes hit them?

I'm no expert but I would imagine some serious damage to the towers, massive fire & destruction etc, however I would expect to see a large proportion of the buildings still standing.

Even in photos from previous world wars where bombs have been dropped on average sized houses some walls are still standing.

The twin towers were enormous behemoths of steel & modern construction, I seriously doubt a plane hitting it would have been enough in itself to completely bring it down to the ground.

I do believe the planes hit the buildings.
I don't know exactly what happened so that the buildings did come down in the way that they did - it's just that the situation puts enough reasonable doubt into my mind that I find the official story cannot be the whole truth.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 



yes. phone calls from the passengers



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by moobaawoof
 


they didnt fall in on themselves. your 1st statement is false.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


The investigation into 911 was the largest in America's history. Please retract your statement.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Unit
 


OK - so how did the buildings fall?
If they toppled over like a tall tree being felled then they'd be laid out in a long line of rubble for several blocks.

However in all the videos I've seen they both just fell straight down.

Straight down: meaning 'in on themselves'.... (not meaning sucked in or imploding), just a turn of phrase meaning...straight down virtually on the footprint of the building

OK that was my first statement - I did make some other statements as well though, what are your thoughts on the rest of my post?

[edit on 12/6/2009 by moobaawoof]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


This took 2 minutes.


www.bbc.co.uk...

You call this a retraction??
What??

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join