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.

 

What 9/11 evidence do you want to see more of?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I want to hear all about those who let it happen,a nd what they knew and when.

Who decided to make norad stand down?
How did the bbc reporter know the building 7 would be demolished, while standing there live, and the building was still standing.

Things like this, and why channels like the bbc knew, and what they got and when and from who.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I want to hear all about those who let it happen,a nd what they knew and when.

Who decided to make norad stand down?
How did the bbc reporter know the building 7 would be demolished, while standing there live, and the building was still standing.

Things like this, and why channels like the bbc knew, and what they got and when and from who.


NORAD didn't stand down.

Building 7 was not demolished. Firefighters and emergency crews felt the collapse of WTC7 was imminent. They had set up a collapse zone.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
So interesting that this site has become such believers in 9/11 official story. I just don't understand how anyone can look into the events of that day and not come away with many questions...

And the posts here, ridiculing those that question the events of that day... you would think this site was owned by Rupert Murdoch.

-PNAC - Neocons calling for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense spending- followed my multiple simulataneous large theater wars
-Fox News, using neocons, to drive the point home
-WT7 collapsing 23 minutes after it was reported
-molten red hot steel pools under the wreckage, burning for weeks
-Towers 1 & 2 collapsing nearly perfectly into their own footprints.
-Creation of Homeland Security, wireless warrant taps
-Terrorist Threat Levels- to keep everyone scared
-Ongoing search for the elusive and necessary villain Bin Laden... by not finding him, the war on terror rages on indefinitely
-free fall after 90ish mins vs burning for hours and crumbling slowly
-melting point of steel completely disregarded
-Neocons in charge at the time, just a year after calling for such an event

We invaded Iraq with less evidence than this.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beard
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


Yep. I heard it. "Like a foundry"


Joey, thank you so much for running and hiding from my question to you like you always have. I am accusing you of doing nothing but trolling. You add nothing. You have no info or documentation to offer. You have no new info. All you add is the gift of personal attacks and snide comments.

See how you had plenty to say to me until I asked you to back up something you said and pointed out who you really are. Suddenly I am ignored. What do you have to offer? The OP is about what evidence you would like to see more of.

So...what evidence would you like to see more of or are you just here to troll and prey on other posters?

I feel confident you will answer my question one way or another. Try re-reading the OP, Joe.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by tooo many pills
One thing I would like to have more information on is the speech by Donald Rumsfield on 9/10/01, which stated they couldn't account for $2,300,000,000,000...


A member called SwampFox has provided a fair bit of insight into this in another thread. He has explained in detail the truth behind this 'missing money'. There really is no 'conspiracy' here. Well... not one in which it is linked to 9/11 in some way.

Rewey


and swampfox can be relied upon to give the true answers about this money because...???

Another poster wrote in another thread instructions on how to open your third eye just as he has and see into other dimensions. Please explain why swampfox is an expert.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beard
 


Judging from all the stars you have acquired from your intelligent comments, you will make great company for Thanksgiving!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
i want to see as much as possible. most of all i want to know what dickhead came up with the whole plan



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mattya
 


I'd like to see Bush and Cheney subpoenad under oath. they know what happpened



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beard

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by beard
 



Then why you on a forum ??? Discussing ???

If your so enlightened, then why don't you bless the rest of this board with your infinite intelligence other than discrediting people, with.....

"That's all wrong".


Giving the facts to Anti-Americans accomplishes nothing. they live in their own "paranoid" World.


Then what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here. If you claim you are not here to convert people to your way of thinking, and that giving people facts "accomplishes nothing", surely you could see that calling people names and refusing to produce any facts isn't going to accomplish anything.

So what is your goal here? If you believed your own words, you would have lost interest in this topic and wandered off a long time ago.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 





-PNAC - Neocons calling for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense spending- followed my multiple simulataneous large theater wars


Your post, is completely wrong. The PNAC report did NOT call for a new Pearl Harbor. The PNAC report, pointed out that our military was still geared to a "cold war" type conflict, not the type of war we are currently fighting. The Pearl Harbor statement was that our nation would not undertake the type of spending to basically remake the military, unless there was a catalytic event similar to Pearl Harbor. Saying they wanted that is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 





-PNAC - Neocons calling for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense spending- followed my multiple simulataneous large theater wars


Your post, is completely wrong. The PNAC report did NOT call for a new Pearl Harbor. The PNAC report, pointed out that our military was still geared to a "cold war" type conflict, not the type of war we are currently fighting. The Pearl Harbor statement was that our nation would not undertake the type of spending to basically remake the military, unless there was a catalytic event similar to Pearl Harbor. Saying they wanted that is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.


Your post is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Read the entire document sometime. Please explain to everyone what the entire context is. Why were they discussing what it would take to get the support of the people to make such sweeping change?

Hint: It was NOT because they wanted to make sure that change never came. Reading is Fun.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
most definately, I want every single video that record the pentagon events to be released simultaneously



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
most definately, I want every single video that record the pentagon events to be released simultaneously


all the videos have been released.

The rest didn't show any impact at the pentagon due their position (no clear line of sight) or were not recording that particular wall.

any privately owned video were returned to their owners once the investigation was done.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by VonDoomen
most definately, I want every single video that record the pentagon events to be released simultaneously


all the videos have been released.

The rest didn't show any impact at the pentagon due their position (no clear line of sight) or were not recording that particular wall.

Sure, there's probably no photos or videos with a "clear line of sight" of whatever hit the Pentagon! I guess every 7-11 or Wal-Mart parking lot has more cameras than the Pentagon.

I think we should stop bugging the government about their total lack of photographic evidence and the fact that minutes after whatever hit the Pentagon, they confiscated CCTV videos of every nearby business, including those that had a clear view of the missile, er I mean Flight 77.
RipCurl, you're too much. Are you angling for Swampy's job?


[edit on 4-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
there's probably no photos or videos with a "clear line of sight" of whatever hit the Pentagon!


about the only true thing you have said here


including those that had a clear view of Flight 77.


as security cameras do not point at the sky, why do you think any would be able to catch the flight of flight 77?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
i want to see more evidence of vicious online rebunkers.
nah. nevermind. i guess the two or three guys with the 50 sock puppets assigned to ATS are enough.
the pentagon videos would be awesome. i want to see a plane knock over a lightpole, or fly four ft. off the ground at 500 miles an hour.
i want to see the "meteorite" examined for traces of incendiaries.
i want to see the NIST scientists take lie detector tests, especially that arsehole john gross.
i want to see sibel edmonds testimony published on the front page of every newspaper in the world.
i want to see the evidence pionpointing exactly WHO profited from the put options on the airlines.

there is so much missing evidence, you could write a book on it.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
there's probably no photos or videos with a "clear line of sight" of whatever hit the Pentagon!


about the only true thing you have said here


including those that had a clear view of Flight 77.


as security cameras do not point at the sky, why do you think any would be able to catch the flight of flight 77?


I hate to have to tell you this but according to both the OS and the released footage, AA77 did not drop straight out of the sky. There would be no need to point cameras upwards to see something coming straight ahead.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
all the videos have been released.

The rest didn't show any impact at the pentagon due their position (no clear line of sight) or were not recording that particular wall.

any privately owned video were returned to their owners once the investigation was done.


When and where were these videos released? I would very much like to see them or at least a record of them being released. Could you supply that information?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beard

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by beard
 



Then why you on a forum ??? Discussing ???

If your so enlightened, then why don't you bless the rest of this board with your infinite intelligence other than discrediting people, with.....

"That's all wrong".


Giving the facts to Anti-Americans accomplishes nothing. they live in their own "paranoid" World.




Those bull# tactics might work on mainstream news broadcasts, but you are dealing with people here that are in various stages of waking up.

I gotta ask -- are you a paid-shill? The reason I ask is that the M.O. fits......



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
beard, I see that you are a relative new member here on ATS, would you care to answer a few questions?

1.) What brought you to ATS?
2.) How did you find the site? If it was a search engine, what did you search for that brought you to ATS?
3.) Why are you only posting in 9/11 forums? There are also a lot of other forums to post in.
4.) Since you are a relative new member (less than a year) and you have stated that you stopped debating with people on 9/11 over a year ago, can you point us to your arguments on another board that fully outline your stance, this should make it easier on you as your stance/arguments will be known without having to rehash here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join