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.


40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Now we have the "national geographic" brigade claiming anyone who believes in "conspriracy theoies"is mantally ill.

The New York Times journalists that discovered the Watergate conspiracy was mentally ill?

Other argument often used by the believers is that if there was a conspiracy it would involve so many that someone would talk.

Kurt Sonnenfeld the FEMA photographer has talked

Kevin R. Ryan has talked...

9/11 commision chairman Thomas Kean has talked...

How many more needs to talk?

I hope New York Times or some other major media does some research and tells the average Joe who dont read the internets the real story, some day.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by conar]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420
Wow. Someone makes a terrible thread against truthers and they respond with another terrible thread in honor of the first. How quaint.

And yet you cannot answer any of the questions posed - how typical
I have some beach front property in Arizona you might be interested in

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by kiwifoot

WOW!!!!!!! well done (stands up claps hands) s&f for you
i bet no1 can answer all them,i just hope it wakes a few up

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by conar

You are kidding right? Using THOSE two to back you up?

The man who keeps quiet, until after he flees to Argentina to avoid being rearrested for his wife's murder and the man who worked in a water lab who tried to attach his employer's name to his ravings and got canned.....

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:40 AM
Another one the official story believers try to pull off is "No proper experts dispute the official story..."

Apart from the architects and engineers who have come forward,how about the

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans


Expert enough for you?
These people come from the biggest and most well funded government agencies such as the CIA,FBI,DoD,FAA,NSA...the list goes on.

Read their names and extensive credentials here:

More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware of their publicly stated concerns — a direct result of the refusal of national print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue. There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national security of the United States.

How many experts do it take to convince a government drone?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

I disagree with no. 40.

Remember that more than one piece of evidence makes a conspiracy theory no longer a theory?

When Silverstien said "pull it" and refused, when given the opportunity, to amend his original statement, REFUSED, you have to say there is certainly a smoking gun when Bush mentioned exposolves.

...and , Rumsfeld referrign to the plane being shot down?

The previous administration has brought about the as yet unanswered questions, by either 1) bumbling nuances of speech OR 2) being STUPID enough to get caught lying (on several occasions) in front of a TV camera - Questions it has aways denied people the RIGHT to ask. If you tried, you were "with them" a terrorist...or worse, muslim(!!!).

THAT, my friend, is what's really grotesque about the whole thing.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:52 AM
A very convincing and well organized thread. Even though I disagree with most "truthers" I'll have to say this is a thread that might get some thinking...

S&F for you.

PS - I still don't buy the explosives planted in the towers theory. There is no solid evidence. And I don't need any "eyewitness accounts." When you see two planes crash into buildings, see people jump to their deaths, see the building fall apart along with pieces of the plane coming down to the're bound to think irrational...

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:28 AM
This topic convinced me.

Well done OP, and cudos for the hard work!

The question now is, what next? What should I do with this information?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:45 AM
The lobby was a mess on tower 2 because burning fuel and debris came down the elevator shafts and exploded at the bottom. Also, whilst people were at the bottom and heard this, they may have mistaken the time and reported it as happening before the plane hit. therefore creating a conspiracy of bombs BEFORE a plane hit.

If this was planned, it was planned by some of the most cunning and intelligent people on the planet. Dont think you're smarter than them just coz u heard a few rumours about bombs at the bottom. It was clearly fueselage coming down the shafts.

Also... no other buildings have ever had collapsed due to fire?
How about the fact the buildings had a boeing 747 fly into at 900kph. Causing massive structural damage, which held the weight of several millions tons of concrete above it. It's no surprise it collapsed. NOT a demolition at all.

By the way, they are just my opinions. I do think there is a conspiracy involved, but i think it boils down to the government knowing about it and turning a blind eye.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:46 AM
Kiwifoot, this is remarkable information. I've not been one to frequent these 911 threads, and did so only because you authored it.

Great material, and excellent work. It certainly gives me pause for reconsideration.


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:00 PM
good thread
after seeing this and everything else that proves the original story false, if you still choose to beleive the lies, you dont deserve to know the truth
thats what i think
we should stop trying to convince the idiots and move on to others that will be more open minded

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

OK - thanks for the citations. I see why you were a little coy about linking them in your earlier post.

So you counter the 2006 and 2007 papers with documents produced by the SEC's Joseph Cella in 2003 for the 9/11 Commission whitewash? Of course, in light of recent events, the MSM tries to depict the SEC as a bunch of bungling incompetents, rather than an organisation almost entirely subverted by the financial elites it is supposed to regulate.
Our Captured Federal Regulator the SEC

I urge the curious to read them together with the papers I cited and make up their own mind.

For an analysis see: Initiation of the 9/11 Operation with Evidence of Insider Trading The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, by Paul Zarembka, Research in Political Economy Vol 23.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by EvilAxis]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by FightThePower
good thread
after seeing this and everything else that proves the original story false, if you still choose to beleive the lies, you dont deserve to know the truth
thats what i think
we should stop trying to convince the idiots and move on to others that will be more open minded

tis a good thread, i think we should keep on focusing on the idiots to be frank, people that are smart enough to think out things for themselves, and actually check witness testimony themselves, even if it means pestering pentagon employees, is a well worth endeavor already being taken out by the open minded others


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by EvilAxis

I forgot, every US Government employee was in on it. I find that attitude is pretty insulting to both the SEC investigators and the FBI agents (oh yeah, it wasnt JUST the SEC who investigated it) who followed up on it. All the stock advisories are public record as are the records showing that the put options around September 11, werent the highest on the airlines for 2001. But continue to believe the fantasy if you choose to do so.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Rigorously peer-reviewed research papers - not fantasies.
The SEC provided the raw material for the "investigation" if that's what you wish to call it.

They refused to investigate Bernard Madoff, even when Harry Markopolos placed the evidence on a plate for them in 2000. Who's insulted - the SEC investigators or the American public?

Analyst who raised alarm about Madoff nine years ago lambasts authorities Guardian, 4 February 2009

Obviously this did not require "every US Government employee" to be in on it.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by EvilAxis]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:07 PM
I'd just like to say thanks to ll those that have acknowledged this thread, and also express thanks for the input of all the members, both for and against, I am still having pc trouble (since I posted this thread) so will hopefully be able to get in on the debate once I've solved the problem.

Thanks again guys!


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by kiwifoot

Great post S and F it earlier
, a few more......

1). The Towers were losing money hand over fist, to accommodate for high energy businesses you need high energy equipment, the cost to rewire and upgrade the towers was $800 million, the asbestos was recorded as a health risk and time was running out to remove it - a billion dollars to put this right, who would buy this complex to recoup money the only way possible - leasing the office space, huge sections would be closed down as the building works was undertaken and result in a huge loss of income, the steel was also showing signs of fatigue, tbh, you couldn`t give the place away, then boom right out of the blue one of the most able and astute property developers and real estate investors in America roars in with $3.4 billion.

2). The first time the WTC has ever been insured against terrorism, with an absolute excellent clause in his mortgage - If for what ever reason the buildings become inhabitable he is no longer liable to pay the mortgage.

3). Bush mentioning 2-3 times about seeing the 1st impact on T.V. before entering classroom (we know the rest).

4). No hijackers mentioned in the first ever flight manifests lists.

5). 3 from 4 hijacker pilots managed to hit their targets on their maiden voyages.

6). Heavy restriction on photos/videos (even before the collapses).

7). Unbelievably well placed random photographers and film makers at crucial points at exactly the right times.

8). Escape routes to the roof (in all cases is a very viable fire escape, if you cannot go down it`s the only choice in a one option equation) all locked.

9). The B.B.C reporting exactly what would happen in 23 minutes prematurely regarding WTC7.

10). Declaring war on Afghanistan when by all accounts it was Saudi Arabia whom were the front runners of suspicion.

11). Trained C.I.A Officers whom oversee the stock market looking for unusual activities (they even have software to do this so warnings were aplenty) AA/UAA to name but two companies had a rise of x 450 the normal average of - put options.

12). Cindy McCain was one of the culprits, John McCain`s wife.

13). Apart from 9/11 and 7/7 London Al Qaeda`s track record as terrorists sucks badly, a few examples - the USS Sullivans a battleship was docked in Yemen, a plot to sail a small boat laden with explosives into it failed miserably when after 10 yards or so it sank, to much boom - boom on board. A planned attack on Glasgow airport by a mobile bomb was foiled 1st attempt when their car got towed away, second time they got near the airport and got ambushed , by bollards, the car caught alight and so did one of the two terrorists whom was duly kicked so hard in the balls a Scotch dude snapped a tendon in his foot, there`s a few more, but point is made.

14). The many blatantly obvious patsies.

15). And precariously placed evidences that just scream `Lookie over here they did it!!!, passport, Bin Laden Video, Flight Manual, P.C. Flight Simulator software`.

16). The steadily rising Whisteblowers.

17). No one of importance being in the towers that day, and the Mayor of N.Y. told not to fly.

18). The lack of relatives at relevant airports.

19). 1683 telephone calls to rescue services from alleged trapped people, only a handful of calls to their loved ones.

20). The fiasco that was cell phone hostage calls to relatives, only when did it surface this was impossible the whole scenario changed, completely.

That will do for now

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Seventh]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by kiwifoot

Wonderful thread Kiwi.

I am kind of against anti threads but this one seemingly diserved one. Thanks for putting the info all in one place for us to disect, I am sure this thread will be a long one

You are now my friend


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by kiwifoot

kiwi, you don't need 40 questions. I'll just address the first two. Really, Number 1 is all you need:

That's the real "conspiracy" to investigate, the rest is just hogwash.

Those other microscopic and ridiculous fantasies come from people who seem to either want to make a name for themselves, to be a "hero" or something, or they are truly so delusional that they believe the incredible stories of all this "pre-planned" nonsense. It turns into such an elaborate "plot", it defies belief. YET, these deluded folks mange to find others who, through a lack of thorough research, tend to believe the baloney.

Number 1 cuts right to the issue. EITHER certain players in the various government agencies were stubbornly incompetent and arrogant and refused to heed the warnings offered by our allies, OR (and this is the real "crime" if it is true) intentionally and willfully allowed this act to be carried out.

IF it is the latter, then that's the way these "investigations" should be headed. ALL this other stuff is clouding up and distracting any real "truths", should they lie in that direction. And, IF this is the case, of willful negligence, then "they" are laughing their butts off, since "thery" are getting away with it.

An example of the stupidity and cloudiness is Number 2:

I could barely stand to read that claptrap you linked in support of question Number 2, made me want to vomit, it was so obviously biased.

Although it started with accurate information regarding cellphone limitations at high altitudes, from airplanes, it dishoestly went on to insinuate, allege and just outright LIED to leave impressions in the reader's mind about "scripting" and "false flag" bull puck.

Again, without examining IN DETAIL these allegations, one cannot know the entire story.

The "source" tried to twist the facts to make it seem that cellphones were being used by all those passengers and crew. IN FACT, only TWO cellphones were used, and that was just minutes before impact, when the airplane was at a low altitude.

9:58:00 - Ed Felt, 911 call to Westmoreland County dispatcher (see also cell phones about this call)
9:58:00 - CeeCee Lyles called her husband with her cell phone (see also cell phones about this call)

NOTE the times of those calls --- 0958 EDT. The impact was just after 1003.

HERE are the othr calls:

9:30:32 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 28 seconds, call to his wife
9:35:40 - Sandy Bradshaw, 5 minutes, 53 seconds (353 seconds), call to United Airlines
9:37:03 - Mark Bingham, 2 minutes, 46 seconds (166 seconds), call to his mother
9:37:41 - Jeremy Glick, line left open (7,565 seconds)
9:37:53 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 62 seconds, called his wife
9:39:21 - Lauren Grandcolas, 46 seconds, call to her husband, left a message.
9:43:03 - Joseph DeLuca, 2 minutes, 10 seconds (130 seconds), called his parents
9:43:48 - Todd Beamer, line left open (3,925 seconds), spoke with GTE operator, Lisa Jefferson.
9:44:23 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 54 seconds, called his wife
9:46:05 - Linda Gronlund, 1 minute, 11 seconds (71 seconds), called her sister, Elsa Strong.
9:47:57 - CeeCee Lyles, 56 seconds, called her husband from an airphone.
9:49:12 - Marion Britton, 3 minutes, 52 seconds, called a friend, Fred Fiumano
9:50:04 - Sandy Bradshaw, 7 minutes, 50 seconds (470 seconds), call to her husband
9:53:43 - Honor Wainio, 4 minutes, 29 seconds (269 seconds), call to her parents

United 93 cellphone debunk

The other thing to know is the data from the Flight Recorder regarding the airplane altitude. By roughly ~0956 EDT the jet was down to 5,000 feet MSL. It briefly climbed up to about 10,000 just prior to the final descent and impact, likely the climb was in response to the passenger's attempts to take the cockpit.

What non-pilots don't seem to understand is in reference to altitudes. 'MSL' means Mean Sea Level. SO, when United 93 was at 5,000 feet, it was only ~2,500 feet above the terrain, in that area. We use "AGL', or Above Ground Level to differentiate.

Do you think cellphones might work if only 2,500 feet above the celltowers???

Laurel Hill summit (~2,600 ft) is located ~14 miles to the west of the crash site, at the Westmoreland-Somerset County border. The cell tower is owned by American Towers, which operates towers for the cell phone industry. This tower is 329 ft tall, located at 2701.9 ft, with an overall height of 3060 ft. The second tower is also owned by American Towers

(see link for photo)

Near Jennerstown, ~10 miles to the west of the crash site, this tower is owned by Cingular Wireless. It has been here since 1997. The total height of the tower is 275 ft, together with a ground elevation of 2210 ft, the overall height is 2500 ft. The second tower here is owned by Crown Communications, which owns and operates cell towers, and has been here since 1997.

(see link for photo)

Combine the elevation of the land surface with the low flying altitude, the plane was flying only ~2500 feet above the ground when the cell phone calls were made. For comparison, the World Trade Center north tower was ~1,368 feet tall. It's entirely reasonable that cell phones would work at double that height.

Both phone calls only lasted 1-2 minutes, and then were dropped. That coincides with a sudden ascent up to ~10,000 feet that the aircraft made before it then plummeted to the ground and crashed.

(same link)

Any questions???

MOST 9/11 misconceptions occur for very similar reasons. POOR analysis.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:36 PM
Why was the NSA so negligent in passing information, and allowing certain members of the FBI to pass information regarding known terrorists in the US?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in