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.

 

The Overlooked and Neglected Evidence thread.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by Seventh

- exact point of impact ie the point of the nose cone, the O2 cannister is further back, so it was not this causing the spark.


Think of the time span involved, when moving at ~730-750 feet/per/second.

Initial contact, first flash appear to be simultaneous, because of the velocity of the airplane. How many feet AFT of the end of the nose do you suppose the O2 tank is?


I know some have attributed to the flash as a result of kinetic energy turning into heat energy, as per the laws of physics. In fact a similar flash can be seen in that famous "F-4 Phantom jet into wall test" video. It occurs in the nose of the aircraft:

It occurs at 0:24 and 0:25 in the video. You can see a few flashes as the nose is impacting and crumbling on impact. Its just as the yellow/black checkerboard is about to impact.

Maybe this could have been the same phenomenon seen at the WTC impact?




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Ah yes, the Ummat interview again.....

You would think that people would have learned not to try to use it as proof of anything.

See, the thing is.....they never interviewed Bin Laden.




The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies


web.archive.org...://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html

The Taliban were concerned that the United States was going to come down on them like a ton of bricks. The list of questions never made it Osama, some Taliban flunkie wrote out answers to the questions and gave them back to the paper.

Not to mention....whoever it was...made a glaring mistake.



Ummat quotes bin Laden as saying: "We are against the American system but not the American people. Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, men, women and children even in the event of war."


Interesting....and yet, during a videotaped interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1998 he had this to say....




retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved





Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.


Now does that sound like someone who would say "Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, men, women and children even in the event of war"

www.pbs.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Could go through your post quote by quote and state basically the same as you stated to me, but i`ll keep my reply relatively short..... Taliban were scared?

Last invader to have any luck in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great, Russians tried and got their asses handed to them, could mention USA and Somalia - same thing, Taliban scared?, they were asked to hand Bin Laden over and asked for evidence he was responsible, why would they do that if -

A). They knew he had done it, and were terrified of the Americans.

B). Handing him over for obviously breaking the Rules of Islamic fundamentalist laws of Jihads including killing innocents, would have been the correct thing to do.

What happened next?, an army terrified of the imposing war had the chance to prevent this, by handing over the guy whom they had pretended to be, whilst answering the free questionnaire received with the local rag from Pakistan, entitled `20 things you did not know about Bin Laden`, whom by all accounts had broke every rule of a Holy war.

Yep, that makes sense lol.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


And by now, we know that you will never accept the truth.

Yes, the Taliban were worried that Tomahawks and smart bombs were going to start raining down on them. You cannot begin to compare our actions in Somalia under Bill Clinton, to a nation looking for blood under George Bush. George Bush made it very clear that our response to 9/11 was not going to be business as usual.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




And by now, we know that you will never accept the truth. Yes, the Taliban were worried that Tomahawks and smart bombs were going to start raining down on them. You cannot begin to compare our actions in Somalia under Bill Clinton, to a nation looking for blood under George Bush. George Bush made it very clear that our response to 9/11 was not going to be business as usual.


That`s the way it goes.....

1). Random person of importance normally an ex government high ranking official, speaks up and gets character defamation.

2). Scientist puts forward independent tests, get slated - no peer reviews, gets peer reviews - incorrect testing procedures, blah, blah, blah.

3). Major points of concern get neglected - does not matter.

4). Rules of science get broke - wrong conditions, circumstances, day of the week.

5). Extreme human errors ie B.B.C. report about WTC7 gets toned down to a common incorrect name/time/place type mistake.

6). Impossible to prove events - did not happen.

7). Whistle Blowers - all have mental problems.

8). Anyone with a valid and well documentated thesis put forward - side stepped and drawn well off topic.

The list is endless, I can accept the truth, it`s those that cannot accept the complications that the truth will cause, that are the problem.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I know it's a little off topic, but to me seems like more over looked evidence.



To me it seems like the Osama in the confession tapes looks different from the Osama in the others. Not to mention it seems to be the poorest quality of the tapes hes put out. It would also probably be the only tape that Osama decided not to broadcast, but was found. Say what you will, but we're entitled to our own opinion.

Link

[edit on 8/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

I just don't believe that no plane was used at the Pentagon, as...

1. It makes no sense to fabricate it, &
2. There's too much evidence to support one hitting it.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Extreme human errors ie B.B.C. report about WTC7 gets toned down to a common incorrect name/time/place type mistake.


And I have a newspaper from the afternoon of 9/11 that speaks of a car bomb at the State Department. The media makes mistakes, HUGE ones at times. Several were made on 9/11.

As for the rest of your post, its a nice smattering of truther statements.

Whistleblowers?

Sure there were a few people who came forward with snippets of knowledge, that, after the fact look suspicious. Let me explain something to you. On the night of 9/11, my friends and I were discussing the events of the day. And we knew that in the aftermath, it would be discovered that all the information needed to have stopped the attacks, would be found in the hands of the US Government. However, it would be scattered on a dozen different desks in a dozen different departments and that no one person or department would know the full story. Sadly, they would also be forbidden by law with giving that information to anyone else. In the post Vietnam/Watergate world, our elected representatives passed laws that prevented the FBI, NSA, CIA from sharing information with each other. Then there was the other aspect...human arrogance, funny part is, the "9/11 truth movement" has the same, bad, case of human arrogance....THOSE cavemen cannot POSSIBLY do something like that to US.

It bit us hard on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Able Danger...



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Great videos Neo
, just the type of content this thread needs, especially the second one depicting congressmen asking for answers and meeting brick walls via censured witness`s a great example of not having anything to hide, keep up the good work
.

Secondly Swampy - analogies of stereotyping aspects via witness reliability is completely different for both sides, you speak of Truther`s as basing our whole emphasis on the theory that 9/11 could not be formed by AQ as they live in caves
, this is both a juvenile depiction and one that doesn`t require much thought of realism, look at Neo`s links and the second video in particular, congressmen behaving exactly a la cookie cutter Truther`s would, ie - asking for the truth and strangely enough none of them wearing tin foil hats, does it not strike you as odd that none of them use the beloved GL truther assessment statement `But they are cave men`?.

There have been 2 related posts of mine both with pictures - the x3 fireballs and the obviously edited 5 frames from the Pentagon attack, why have there been no debunking whatsoever regarding these, instead apn the obligatory side tracking and emphasis on aspects nigh on impossible to prove?.

Also, again, relating to Neo`s second video we have high ranking officials screaming for the truth and being countered by witnesses`s whom have been prevented to testify, they cannot pull the good old tried and tested classified information excuse on this one.

Innocent men have nothing to hide and will throw their cards on the table, the guilty will not, but it`s only a matter of time until access is permitted to look up their sleeves.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Okay, you are the perps and have pulled off another false flag event, but as per normal the obligatory mistakes have started to surface, some are very incriminating, whilst most can be deactivated via misinformation, witness manipulation and bending science. So, back to the former and those aspects that can lead to unwanted attention and un-needed investigations, and how to deal with them.

Firstly, what the eye can see cannot be denied, however, the brain can be manipulated, so expose these events in a film as evidence of an inside job along with bits of evidence also claimed to be the same which clearly are not, bring in some really intricate aspects like 17 second delays in MSM videos and audio`s, signs of film editing, unreliable witness testaments etc, etc, post it on a Truthers website and bingo.


Let it circulate and become the film of all films and the Bible of CT`ers, then wallop, have it completely debunked intricately, proving all points have been doctored to make 9/11 look like an inside job, the obviously manufactured points of interest will have been so clearly proven wrong, that the slightly harder aspects although a lot harder to debunk - the viewer will automatically think - as the creator of the film manufactured some points then they clearly have done the same with the others, therefore this film is not reliable and is quickly tarnished and brushed aside, unfortunately taking with it the parts that were truly warranting more investigation.

One such film is `September Clues`, after watching this a freshman Truther would easily be brainwashed by the bane of most other Truthers with the infamous NPT, so much so that this film has been black listed by a high percent of Truthers, the nose cone out debunking clearly showing manipulation as it was stated it was the nose cone of the 757 exiting WTC2 the South Tower, this has to be the cleverest disinfo technique the perps have used throughout the whole event, the Fox video has now been tagged with showing nothing exiting WTC2 at all - poppycock, my follow on reply to this post will prove different.

Now is it not the case that those creating videos containing false evidence against the government are tantamount to committing treason?, and in a lot of cases these guys are selling DVD`s containing such evidence therefore obtaining monies in a fraudulent way - theft with deception is a felony. Also here we have America whose Lawyers thrive on personal acts of Defamation - Libel (written words), Slander (spoken words),the perps of said videos that are proved to be 100% wrong have therefore committed these personal attack offences and are subject for prosecution, there is huge money awarded in these cases, and as of yet to the best of my knowledge I have not seen one case of this, please correct me if i`m wrong.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Back to topic and the main O.N.E. September Clues took with it, was a huge anomaly and one afaik that has only been covered in detail by September Clues, here are the frames one by one released by Fox, as we all know the Jet that hit WTC2 the South Tower hit it very off centre so suffice to say that if there was anything attached to that plane intended for impact to the inner core, completely missed it, was the none kerosene exit fireball intended to ignite item/items unknown attached or heavily disguised and placed near - to the inner core?, I will explain more of the heavily disguised as something else in the next post, that will also contain some pictures showing relative reactions to whatever it is exiting WTC2.









[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Secondly Swampy - analogies of stereotyping aspects via witness reliability is completely different for both sides, you speak of Truther`s as basing our whole emphasis on the theory that 9/11 could not be formed by AQ as they live in caves , this is both a juvenile depiction and one that doesn`t require much thought of realism, look at Neo`s links and the second video in particular, congressmen behaving exactly a la cookie cutter Truther`s would, ie - asking for the truth and strangely enough none of them wearing tin foil hats, does it not strike you as odd that none of them use the beloved GL truther assessment statement `But they are cave men`?.


Im sorry....where did I say they were basing their whole emphasis? I said it was ONE of the problems with pre-9/11 and post 9/11 "truther" thinking. Or are you going to deny that the phrase about men in a cave not being able to do something like this...does NOT come up all the time?

As for the Congressmen, I am all for throwing out the grand majority of the idiots currently serving. Of course they are going to berate the witnesses and demand answers.....then they can go home and say that they tried to find out the truth. And not once will any of the b--illegitimate sons accept any of their responsibility they share.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





There have been 2 related posts of mine both with pictures - the x3 fireballs and the obviously edited 5 frames from the Pentagon attack, why have there been no debunking whatsoever regarding these, instead apn the obligatory side tracking and emphasis on aspects nigh on impossible to prove?.


Because you are reaching for something that isnt there? Or could it be, that subject was discussed long ago and we dont feel like talking about it again, because no matter what is posted to show that you are grasping at things that are not there...you wont accept that?




Also, again, relating to Neo`s second video we have high ranking officials screaming for the truth and being countered by witnesses`s whom have been prevented to testify, they cannot pull the good old tried and tested classified information excuse on this one


I wouldnt have claimed need to know. I would have told the Congressman to go pack sand. Those hearings were only designed to try to find some poor mid-level schmuck to blame. Not once did I see a Congressman say that he wished he wouldnt have voted to castrate our continental air defense, or to restrict information sharing between law enforcement agencies. They bear just as much, if not more, responsibility for the failures that day as the men and women who didnt have the resources or were restricted by law from doing their jobs.





Now is it not the case that those creating videos containing false evidence against the government are tantamount to committing treason?, and in a lot of cases these guys are selling DVD`s containing such evidence therefore obtaining monies in a fraudulent way - theft with deception is a felony. Also here we have America whose Lawyers thrive on personal acts of Defamation - Libel (written words), Slander (spoken words),the perps of said videos that are proved to be 100% wrong have therefore committed these personal attack offences and are subject for prosecution, there is huge money awarded in these cases, and as of yet to the best of my knowledge I have not seen one case of this, please correct me if i`m wrong.


No, its not treason to make money telling lies. It isnt theft, it isnt a felony. As for libel, slander, etc..when you are a public figure you just dont have the same protections as a private citizen. And no jury is going to award the President of the United States, damages, when some moron calls him a liar.
[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999





Im sorry....where did I say they were basing their whole emphasis? I said it was ONE of the problems with pre-9/11 and post 9/11 "truther" thinking. Or are you going to deny that the phrase about men in a cave not being able to do something like this...does NOT come up all the time?


So you are saying that the emphasis on 9/11 re - caveman is incorrect, then go on to say it comes up all the time, my whole point here is that this statement does comes up a lot, but who uses it the most is negotiable, at the end of the day it`s good defensive reply but a very poor reason to not have.




As for the Congressmen, I am all for throwing out the grand majority of the idiots currently serving. Of course they are going to berate the witnesses and demand answers.....then they can go home and say that they tried to find out the truth. And not once will any of the b--illegitimate sons accept any of their responsibility they share.


I could not agree with you more here and the hidden agenda`s of the political individuals, defaming the opposition via skeletons in the cupboard been there since and they probably invented it - the Roman Empire, to be in the top spot in a democracy is down to one thing and one thing only - 51% or higher of the voting public, atm 65% of Americans do not believe the Official Story, damn that`s a nigh on guaranteed step to the Presidency there, just staring you in the face.

Who cares what their objectives are, exposing the perps is matters what happens here.... Scenario - Someone rapes your partner, a guy contacts you stating he has proof who done it but it will cost you an amount, you have to sell your house or whatever to raise the cash, you set up the deal via a lawyer and bingo the guy gets arrested, what you do to him is down to you, personally I know only to well what i`d do, but you get the picture okay it`s underhand but it gets resolved.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




Because you are reaching for something that isnt there? Or could it be, that subject was discussed long ago and we dont feel like talking about it again, because no matter what is posted to show that you are grasping at things that are not there...you wont accept that?


How are blatantly obvious editing of very important video evidence not there, plain and simple - it is, the question I asked was why was it changed, and as expected it was not answered.





I wouldnt have claimed need to know. I would have told the Congressman to go pack sand. Those hearings were only designed to try to find some poor mid-level schmuck to blame. Not once did I see a Congressman say that he wished he wouldnt have voted to castrate our continental air defense, or to restrict information sharing between law enforcement agencies. They bear just as much, if not more, responsibility for the failures that day as the men and women who didnt have the resources or were restricted by law from doing their jobs.


The way the government constructed and manipulated the Commission and NIST`s blatantly obvious intentions to obey should have been opposed by the opposition, i`m not sure what the American term is for their political counterparts over here they are known as the Shadow Cabinet, but then again we had exactly the same event here with not much intervention from the other side, even more obvious it was a false flag though, bearing in mind it mirror imaged the 9/11 attacks, remove hijacked planes and exchange for Semtex waistcoat wearing suicide bombers and boom it was identical, apart from our Muslims all survived and 3 were shot dead by police snipers around a rich banking area a fair way away, not sure what happened to the fourth.

Imagine that - 4 guys with a 100 lb bomb strapped to them all surviving the blast.





No, its not treason to make money telling lies. It isnt theft, it isnt a felony. As for libel, slander, etc..when you are a public figure you just don`t have the same protections as a private citizen. And no jury is going to award the President of the United States, damages, when some moron calls him a liar.


I did not mean Bush and co, but look at the amount of people whom have been subject to slander/libel - Silverstein, Cindy McCain and put options, now if i`m not clearly mistaken evidence of her tax returns was leaked, showing amongst other interesting facts put options that were 9/11 based, this is private information entrusted with your accountant and is a gross invasion of privacy, John Gross has been accused of a fair few things also, just a few examples here.

My statement amounting to theft was misleading if you thought I was depicting it as you stated, things may be different in the USA but over here if you buy a DVD or video or a product etc for a specific intent of believing something you have paid for to be true, and it is not, it`s a criminal offence, scenario time......

I get loads of m8`s and they disguise themselves as fatties I take photos (BEFORE), then they start using Seventh`s miracle new elixir `Salad Dodgers Road to Redemption`, remove fat inducing disguise and all look 20 lbs lighter in the next photos (AFTER), people flock to buy it then discover it`s just coloured and nurtured water, and does not reduce weight, that`s a huge offence over here, somewhat difference in context but it is all done for one thing - If you buy an item for the sole intent of the purpose it is depicted as containing, then this item is purely created on content that has been manufactured by the maker to imitate or reflect as a true context, the content you thought it contained and it turns out as fake, then all those responsible are responsible for fraudulent behaviour whilst obtaining monies by deception = theft, at least 3 separate offences there.

Treason - A completely different legislature to the UK on this one, being a sovereignty of course inflicts a lot more possible offences, setting fire to HM`s ships or buildings in the docks and burning timber etc, treason iirc was still punishable by hanging until it was abolished in 1998. I did find this quite interesting though regarding America and treason.....

On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Here's the problem with that video (sounds like an excerpt from Loose Change??)

It leaps to an illogical conclusion. Dangles a loaded "question" that is really just an unfounded inference.

IF 'Able Danger' allowed Atta to fall through the cracks, likely due to the intercine rivalry between ABC agencies, then it sure looks more like the real crime here is Cheney, Rice and company trying to sweep THAT fact aside.

IN FACT, if you wish to believe that the entire event was a planned USGovernment Op then it would be in their best interest toidentify Atta as an AQ member, wouldn't it??? Logically, IF this were the plan, the Government would WANT every indicator pointing anywhere but to them!

THEY didn't want to get blamed for missing something while the ship hit the reef, so they altered evidence of what they had that, used properly, should have been ample warning...never expecting two guys in their basement would make a video accusing them of running the ship into the reef ON PURPOSE!!!

There were crimes committed, falsifying evidence in an attempt to cover their butts, (and their incomptetence) and it's turned into a "conspiracy" behind every rock and tree, now....it's gone viral, and is out of control. Because some people rabidly eat it up.......



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
If the oxygen tank exploded causing the spark seen just as the plane enters the South Tower, then I assume some fire has ignited. Simply rupturing the tank is not going to necessarily produce a spark, right?

So I'm concluding that a fire fed by oxygen has started in the plane as it enters the building. In fact in order for us to see that spark or flash the fuselage itself must be ruptured several feet from it's front. It doesn't appear to be. I'm not so sure about this oxygen tank story. Possible is not always actual.

Shouldn't we see a little more evidence of the fire? How much oxygen is in one of those tanks? Is it pure oxygen?

Here's what happens when you rupture a small oxygen tank. Would a large tank blow the front of the plane apart?



Here's another cylinder explosion where you can see the cylinder flying through the air. Don't know what was in this one. The pressure is really the issue though, isn't it?




[edit on 17-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join