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.


The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge"

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by dodadoom
You guys may as well give it up!
They will never admit it was an inside job.
If they admited that, they would have to
admit their hero bush baby knew about it.
Never gonna happen. nagada

Wow, you're assuming a lot about anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you.
FYI, I'm not a bush supporter. As a matter of fact, I believe he and cheney along with a list of others should be in prison for a myriad of crimes.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, JUST A FIRE, didn't bring down 3 buildings.
2 buildings were hit by BIG planes and caused structural damage.
So you have structural damage + fire = rubble.

Yes, 2 buildings that were purposely over-built and designed to withstand those impacts. Take the planes out of the equation for a second and add in a controlled demo team.

You hit the nail right on the head. SUPPOSEDLY overbuilt. SUPPOSEDLY.

Now from someone who is actually in the construction industry, I can tell you that almost every building I've worked on after it was built, was not overbuilt but in actuality, under built. This is what I believe the government MAY actually be covering up. The fact that these buildings and many more, were not actually built to design specs.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by thedman

That is not a passenger manifest thedman. That is a graphic invented later so an airline could cover its butt.

The airlines and the media published false passenger lists thedman and you know it. Even Director Mueller finally admitted the FBI had no idea who the hijackers were because they had stolen identities.

"Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement."

This is a very strange way to source such information. Why not get it from American Airlines or the FBI? If neither of these were consulted, how did USAT know who's "family members, friends, co-workers" to go looking for? Or if AA and the FBI were the first source of inquiry, why a partial list from hearsay sources?
Why "local law enforcement" rather than the feds, who would surely have any complete database of the victims? This statement appears to make no sense at all, except to confirm that the obvious sources where any media outlet should be looking - American Airlines and the FBI - seem to have been left out of the process. And it gets more ridiculous.


USAT gives the following bio of one of the alleged victims.

"Tom McGuinness, of Portsmouth, N.H., was co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, an official at his church confirmed...He said church pastors were with his wife when she was notified Tuesday morning. "

Surely American Airlines, the FAA or the FBI would be the only sources which could confirm who was co-piloting the plane. A family member, who's ID can be verified would be a reasonably good unofficial source, but first one needs to find out which family one is looking for. In the process of ascertaining that, one should have already received official confirmation. This source is someone who claims to know such a family member - a second hand attribution to a source which is not official anyway, and should be subject to confirmation from AA, The FAA or the FBI.

Why does USAT cite the church administrator as the source, indeed the confirmation of the information, when they can't have found out anything about how to find the church administrator without first consulting the official source, which could comfirm it far more authoritively ? The indications are that the church administrator contacted USAT with this claim, and USAT accepted this hearsay at face value. If so, this is very poor journalism.

One can't be certain of the exact processes employed by USAT, but its fair to say that there are strong indications that its passenger list is based on hearsay, because they had some kind of problem in obtaining the routine documentation which one would expect to be available, but failed to give a direct disclosure of what that problem was.

By contrast, CNN, introducing its passenger list ,says

"authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below."

This is a clear indication that CNN claims to have sourced its passenger information as one would expect.

The firs passenger list for AA11 which I studied was that presented by CNN.

It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons.

If so, why is said that American Airlines released a "partial list" ?

[edit on 7/19/09 by SPreston]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Really? Hey, thanks for the reply!
Ya maybe so, its what I gathered. My bad.
Just wondering why its so scary for some to even question authority!

I am glad you feel that way JFJ.
From some of your posts it sounds like you support it.
But your signature tells me otherwise.

I realize it is embarassing to admit you/we voted for them.
For that means you/we are responsible also.
I am not saying you neccesarily JFJ, I'm saying whomever it applies too.
We all have been taken to the cleaners!
I am embarrassed to admit I once had 'some'(carefully crafted)hope for this country.
Wrong again...

[edit on 19-7-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They are not the evidence of a conspiracy. Over active imagination maybe....

Why do you allow your denial to make you say such false things? Three WTC buildings fell like controlled demolition, had plumes like controlled demolition, I've quoted numerous first responders that saw flashes with popping noises like a controlled demolition. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it has to be a duck. There's no imagination here. There's no other way to interpret the evidence. Your denial makes you make things up to explain away the evidence so that you don't have to believe it, but that doesn't make the evidence any less factual.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You might want to take a class in jet engine mechanics. ...the temperatures during combustion exceed the melting point of the materials used in the engine.

You might want to take a class in fire mechanics. A jet engine doesn't even compare to this scenario. Jet engines use some of that air for it's air/fuel mix. When you force air into fire, the fire gets hotter. Jet fuel by itself will not melt steel or aluminum in a regular office fire.

If you don't believe me, take your lawn mower gas can to your local gas station, fill it up with kerosene. Then go to a local hardware store and get you some sheet metal or sheet aluminum, preferably .125" thick. Take it to your backyard, dump the kerosene on the sheet and let it burn. You can let it burn for hours and keep pouring fuel on it, the sheet metal won't melt.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, it was just clobbered by the collapse of WTC 1.

And by "clobbered", he means that most of the damage to WTC7 was cosmetic and not very serious:

Even NIST says that WTC1 had no significant impact on WTC7's collapse. Why Swampfox continues to ignore these facts is beyond me. Even with all of that said, I've challenged people before, to no avail, to show me a building collapse identical to these that collapsed from fire:

Until someone produces one single video that shows a building can collapse identically, even more perfectly than a known controlled demolition, then there is a conspiracy on 9/11, period.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by baboo

There are so many points which strongly suggest that this crime was performed by insiders that it boggles the mind

Please post these points, because there are a lot of falsehoods and lies that are used as "points" by the "truther" movement. Things like 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon, no hijackers on the manifest, Obama and his gold ring, no building has ever collapsed from fire etc....

And I request you do the same. Enumerate those falsehoods. Those you listed were not substantiated by you as being false. Provide the proof that you also seek.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Parallex
Off you toddle back to the NSA.

I am not from the US so “NSA” means National Sleep Association to me.

The problem I have is that when people run out of rational justification for their views they fall back on insult, rudeness and brashness often implying the person who has a contrary view is a lackey to some sinister secret service, has been brainwashed or is somehow intellectually inferior because the whole conspiracy is just sooooo complex. Well, at least I can spell.

There have been many reports on the WTC including several on the actual mechanics of the collapse. I tend to believe these over and above amateurs who see conspiracy around every corner, or people who (rightly) have such a distrust of their government they just don't believe anything they say.

I am persuaded by reading the reports etc., that there has NOT been some conspiracy - variously enacted by aliens, Bush, the NWO, the CIA, the Mafia, MI5/MI6, Iran, Israel, Illuminati-reptiles, Wales, the Chinese, Uncle Tom Cobley and all - take your pick!

The facts are a bunch of psycho terrorists decided to kill as many people as they could and they did it quite dramatically. Terrorists have been doing this kind of thing for years and will doubtless continue.

I am happy to debate the rights and wrongs of your theories including the accepted mainstream, but ask that you keep it civil.


posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Seventh

No Arabs on plane?

Here is passenger list/seating chart published by Boston Globe
on Thursday September 13

Notice the "Arab" names and locations which correspond with what
Flight attendents Betty Ong And Amy Sweeney reported before the crash

Look at any of the pre doctored by the F.B.I. passenger lists, as you used flight AA11 for preference I found the original list released by CNN, like I said no Arabic passengers....

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM


I am Impressed - this is a thread that puts it together and hopefully makes people look at 9/11 in a different way now.

People refuse to look at it - they Want to believe the official story.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by jfj123

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained over 1200 pages of preliminary calculations and over 100 detailed drawings. The white paper states:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

John Skilling, the head structural engineer had this to say:

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
Same source from above.

Originally posted by jfj123
This is what I believe the government MAY actually be covering up. The fact that these buildings and many more, were not actually built to design specs.

That's what you believe "may" have been covered up, but you didn't address the other points in my post of a much more massive conspiracy. Care to address those points?

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Skelkie3
On the morning of 911, I got to a TV ( I haven't watched regularly in decades ) just in time to see the second building fall. My knee-jerk reaction and comment was ' damn , I would hate to be THAT guy ' !

I was asked who I meant and I said, ' the guy who had to bring those buildings down to keep them from falling all over Manhatten '.

I don't know that any of this could be applied to Washington or Shanksville , but- it would make no sense to not have a contingency for these huge buildings- and to keep it very very secret both before and after. This is not any sort of concrete theory on my part... just something to chew on.

I've thought that before and I think that it would have made a perfectly acceptable explanation to the public as to why they had to deliberately bring the buildings down. I often wonder why they brought the buildings down so quickly. If they'd let the top floors burn for longer, at least more people that were on their way down would have got out. Plus the fact that if they'd let the buildings burn for a good 18 hours or so, like other skyscrapers that have burned before, at least them collapsing much later would have been more believable.

That only leaves 2 possible scenarios:

1) The buildings did collapse so quickly due to the structural damage caused by the impact of the planes.

2) The people who pushed the button had no thought at all for the people left inside the buildings, but had a specific reason to bring them down as fast as they could.

If the attack and subsequent collapse of the twin towers is ever regarded as an elaborate bank robbery, bringing the buildings down so quickly would be a good reason to hide the fact that the vaults full of gold bullion had been emptied prior to the attacks!

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:45 PM
OK, I'm repeating myself, but I didn't see anyone pickup on this point, and I think it is crucial. During the first WTC bombing in 1993, an active FBI informant named Emad Salem provided the explosive materials. When the informant tried to warn the FBI that the bombing was going ahead, the FBI did nothing to stop it. So we have a precedent for 9/11 occurring eight years before 9/11. The first WTC bombing was a classic False Flag Operation.

This is irrefutable. So knowing that our government was definitely involved in planning and setting up the first attack without any doubt about it, what exactly makes anyone so surprised by the suggestion that the government was involved in the second WTC bombing, 9/11, as well?! I'd really like to hear a debunker try to explain this.

It's absurd. It reminds me of the song where we have the accused saying:
No really, "I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the Deputy." I can just see some mealymouthed debunker explaining: "Uh, uh, sure the government might have let the first WTC bombing happen after helping to provide access to explosives through an FBI informer , but, but, but that doesn't prove anything, not a gosh darn thing about 9/11" Yeah, ok, and if you're buying that I've got some prime ocean-front real estate in the state of Nevada for you.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:57 PM
My official philosophical position is that there is no truth, therefore believing anything is misguided.

Having said that - the evidence against the official story is so compelling and voluminous that if I don't 'believe' - I am close as I can possibly get without crossing that line.

The official story is concocted and full of deceit - the evidence against it is overwhelming.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Parallex
Off you toddle back to the NSA.
I am persuaded by reading the reports etc., that there has NOT been some conspiracy - variously enacted by aliens, Bush, the NWO, the CIA, the Mafia, MI5/MI6, Iran, Israel, Illuminati-reptiles, Wales, the Chinese, Uncle Tom Cobley and all - take your pick!

I gave you a star for calling people on rudeness. However- I have to ask...
You say you are not from the US ; why did you read these reports ? I am American and I admit I have not.

Will you now say despite the obvious and sophmoric straw-man burning ( you're saying little green men did it...ha ha ! )...
That you read it so you could keep this sort of thing from happening in your country ?
Do you have a disaster fetish and must know all the details to ' satisfy ' yourself ?

You have your suspicians or you wouldn't have read it , or ?

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Mark_Amy


I don't get angry or frustrated with "truthers". Its more a feeling of sadness that they truly believe what they post. You might want to do some research on some of the items that King posted. They are not the evidence of a conspiracy. Over active imagination maybe....

"Truthers"...the quotations around a word that I assume means people who are truthful, seek truth, or report truth. Truth is good. Truthers rely on fact.

Those who believe the 911 offical story say there is no proof of a conspiracy, truthers simply want all of the facts. The government has the burden of proof, not us citizens. The government is supposed to provide us answers, not the other way around.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by BenIndaSun]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:17 PM
First of all, I do not believe the official story.

Just because the government tells me this is how something happened does not mean it is how it happened. Has the government not covered up other things?

This may sound weird, but, before seeing the news my first thought was inside job I do not know why, I don't have proof of it being either, what I do have is what both sides wants me to see. Instinctively I felt it was an inside job, I cannot explain that anymore than this issue can be proved or disproved.

Some question for those who do not believe the official story,

Say this gets proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an inside job, what do you think will happen to this country? The world? Would knowing bring a means to an end? How will the families of the victims feel? Would the truth be far worse than that day?

For those that believe the official story,

What better way to get people to go along with some agenda than to unite them through a common goal? Sick, very sick, but I would not put it past any government in the world. Some say you cannot fake it because it was live, oh it was live? so they had news people on the scene before it happened? those videos that were given to the news rooms were shot and then given to the news rooms, when? can you say it was live now? so they had all these cameras pointing at the exact place coincidentally?

I am not here to argue, but here to question both sides.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:28 PM
This is the most sensible Truther post I've ever read.

Good work.

I despise the crap 'research' and half-assed theories of most Truthers I encounter, so much so that I sometimes forget that there are a number of very strong 911 questions which still need answering.

So well done on bringing a rational tone to the debate.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by eniac]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:39 PM
I do not believe the official story for more reasons than I can list! Thermite for one, 3,000 degrees to soften steel with only 1,100 degree fire for two, and freefall collapse a building which wasn't hit by an airplane are my strong sellers.

Great thread! I appreciate the conglomeration of facts, ideas, and public feelings.

I was skeptical of the 6-week advance purchase by Silverstein because I had heard it was about a year among other varied times. I decided to add the original New York times article here along with another fact I hadn't heard; Silverstein negotiated 184 million dollars off his original purchase agreement of 800 million with an arrangement to pay higher annual rent. That would surely add up to a bad investment on a 99 year lease!

Here's the link to the original NY Times article:

[edit on 19-7-2009 by notreallyalive]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by paraphi
Dear me. I bet you are a laugh to live with - seeing conspiracies around every corner... The postman's late, which must mean "xyz".

It seems to me that all sorts of "evidence", omission or discounted theory gets blown out of all proportion and escalates into so-called fact in the eyes of people who don’t want to believe the evidence before their eyes – or ANY official story.

Every missing comma in a report is "proof". All actions beforehand are reinterpreted to fit the new story hypothesis. Everyone has been fooled, even though they had eyes in their head. Broadcasters got it all wrong. It was all a plot. There were no terrorists. All those who actually take the mainstream view are gullible or brainwashed. All those who take the "quack" view are correct - they know the truth for they are the self professed “truth movement”. Fantasy movement more like.

The Partnair Flight 394 tragedy back in 1989 was first thought to have been a bomb and this was "confirmed" when traces of military grade explosives were found. A bit of digging found that the seas around Denmark are awash with munitions from two world wars and the actual cause was eventually identified as being something else. No doubt, there are still those who believe that it was a bomb and the official explanation was a cover-up.


you haven't bothered to respond to any of the direct points made. you've not paid specific attention to what the OP said and you've instead generalised heavily without evidence to support your stance that the official story is true.

if the conspiracy about that plane you mentione dwas wrong, fine. if some people will still believe it in the face of relatively conclusive evidence otherwise, fine, they are being silly.

but how your claim that one conspiracy being wrong (which i am probably right to presume was 100 times simpler and less convoluted and large scale) somehow means you shouldn't accept that there around about 15 HUGE coincidences about 9/11 all at the same time (15 is a very modest estimate if you consider things like the bbc getting reports and claiming that wtc7 had collapsed minutes before it did, the official report on wtc7 being proved wrong on some of it's mathematical claims etc.).

you rubbish this conspiracy probably because you are scared of the terrible reality that it implies, because you refuse to take a look at all the 'facts' from both sides of the argument with an open mind, or because you want to spread disinformation (i really doubt you want that, but it's a possibility).

how anyone who looks at all the evidence with an open mind can say there is nothing seriously in doubt about the official story is living in denial. a lot of people will believe any conspiracy with little or no evidence and those people needn't be taken seriously. but to tarnish all conspiracy theorists with that brush makes you just as ignorant as those who will believe anything. you don't have to believe it was done for any particular reason, believe it was planned by bush or anything like that. simply believe that the official story is so riddled with massive holes that it's practically embarrassing to believe it's all true. and if it's partly not true in places where they should have the correct answer, that's where it becomes extremely suspicious.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Renegade Bison]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
I do not believe the official story.

BTW WTC 7 did fall at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds. A high school physics teacher forced NIST to admit this fact and revise their report.

The Bush Administration did everything possible to avoid an investigation and finally after much outrage they formed the 911 commission. This was years after the actual event with a budget of (correct me if I'm wrong) 4 million dollars. The investigative team was filled with administration insiders who controlled the flow of information.

In contrast it was 4 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor that an investigation was launched and people held accountable.

The investigation into Bill Clinton's affair allocated over 100 million dollars in funding.

Americans and the world community should demand that a proper investigation be conducted!

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in