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.

 

Jesse ventura conspiracy theory episode two

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

OK so let me see if I got it straight now. All 5 hijackers names are on the list. All the passengers bodies were identified minus 1. The hijackers bodies were not identified because they had no samples to compare them to but yet there is still only one person listed as unidentified? I have to admit all these conflicting stories got me a bit confused.


In addition to DNA samples, the feds used dental records, and Saudi Arabia was openly cooperating in helping us identify their people. Besides, it would be easy to identify the hijackers via a process of elimination, since the feds almost certainly were able to collect DNA samples from all the US passengers via their next of kin.

I don't know what condition the bodies were in after the impact, but in truth, I don't think I want to know.


p.s. just let me add that i have no problem admitting i was wrong about the names on the list. i just wanted mm and scott to see what it looks like when someone admits they are wrong.


Not a problem. I've said this many times that I'm not here to insult or to criticise anyone. I'm here to show you how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are conning people and getting us all paranoid over shadows. These web sites ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS intentionally leave out some critical piece of information that, if we knew of it, would actually convince us that the opposite of what they're saying is true.

By now, even you have to admit that you're starting to see a lot of things they AREN'T showing you.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

In addition to DNA samples, the feds used dental records, and Saudi Arabia was openly cooperating in helping us identify their people. Besides, it would be easy to identify the hijackers via a process of elimination, since the feds almost certainly were able to collect DNA samples from all the US passengers via their next of kin.



But that is just not true. Saudi Arabia never supplied any DNA with which to test anything. The OS says they had no DNA to compare it to.

Process of elimination will only give you names. Why would anyone assume they used their real names?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I have to agree with you whole-heartedly. Cheney had alot to gain from all of this through his affiliation with Halliburton. Remember Watergate anyone? Follow the money and see where it leads.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, rubbish. I know exactly what it is you're referring to- that list is a list of the VICTIMS of the hijackers, which wouldn't include the names of the hijackers any more than the list of people killed at Auschwitz would include the names of guards that fell out of the machine gun towers.

"Victims list." Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in your life? The real "victims" are the seven poor shmucks who are still alive and who either walked into US Embassies or spoke to media and protested their innocence after seeing their photos and personal information splashed on newspapers and TV around the world. At the time, FBI Director Muller admitted that the identities of the "hijackers" was in doubt. But nothing about the "real hijackers" was ever updated or clarified. How stupid do they think people are?

Which brings us to GoodOlDave, who has failed twice now to address my posts about Chief Turi's statements and observations.

Very telling.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddogron
I just want to know what caused this steel to appear like this???? i will have to watch ol' jessie on sunday evening to see what you all are talking about...


Oxyacetylene torches. It's what ground crews used to dismantle the wreckage during the cleanup of ground zero.

See how it's slanted? They cut it that way so they could control the direction that the upper part of the beam would fall.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I have not gone through all the pages but I feel this will help prove there WERE bombs in the building. Here are the 3 most telling videos IMO.

www.youtube.com...






posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What evidence do you have that he *never* received the construction blueprints or the photographs he was looking for?


He never got them before his job with the NSF was done.

This very same engineer (Astaneh-Asl) later came out accusing the ASCE of corruption (often consisting the same engineers that went to FEMA and then to NIST) and conflicts of interest, and saying that every model and study of the buildings that he personally had done had contradicted what THEY said should have happened.


Last week it was reported that the American Society of Civil Engineers is being accused of a cover up. The claim states that the ASCE is covering up errors and brushing aside stricter building standards in order to protect engineers and governmental agencies from lawsuits. These accusations stem from the recent disasters like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina and come from engineering experts on a team that was funded by the National Science Foundation. At the time of the article, ASCE had no comment.

After 9/11, ASCE reported that they were happy with how long the structures that made up the World Trade Center held up, as they are not typically designed to withstand the impact of airplanes. Forensic expert Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl believes otherwise, claiming the ASCE investigation into this disaster was misleading and noted it as “moral corruption.”


blog.civilengineeringcentral.com...

This was originally reported by the Associated Press, and was all over a number of websites, but I challenge you to find an original article that still exists online now. Did you ever read Orwell's book, 1984?


Let's face it, the only reason you're claiming they were BS reports is becuase they contradict these controlled demolitions stories of yours.


That's a very simplistic way of reasoning that I'm not at all surprised with. The REAL reasons I say those reports are BS, are the same reasons I give you on these forums that you are unable to refute. Namely that they didn't prove anything to begin with, and you can't SHOW me where they proved anything. NIST didn't even analyze 99% of the collapses anyway, only hypothesized what caused their initiations and then stopped there.



I suspect that's yet another exaggeration, but if you absolutely want to see more photos of the condition of the steel, I highly recommend the book, "Aftermath", by Joel Meyerowitz. He's a photographer who documented the cleanup of ground zero, and took *many* photographs of the steel in its just fallen down state. I have the book, and I'm not seeing anything different from what the FEMA photos show.


I never said there weren't photos in public domain, only that FEMA and NIST have always managed to avoid what they have, which also includes the complete building structural documents, which as Astaneh-Asl himself said, are critical to performing a real investigation.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
See how it's slanted? They cut it that way so they could control the direction that the upper part of the beam would fall.

Another complete and total load of crap. Ask any salvage worker -- they would NEVER cut beams at an angle. First of all, it's 50% more time, effort and acetyline. And second, it's extremely dangerous to have a beam jump after it's been cut at an angle.

Go ahead GoodOlDave, ask any salvage worker if what I'm saying is true. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you're a graduate of the Swampy Institute of Debunking. You consistently spew an absolutely ridiculous OS party line.

BTW, those photocopied, amateur-looking "passenger manifests" (or "victims lists" as you call them) that you're linking first appeared on a bloggers site. You fell for that one too.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
"Oxyacetylene torches. It's what ground crews used to dismantle the wreckage during the cleanup of ground zero.

See how it's slanted? They cut it that way so they could control the direction that the upper part of the beam would fall. "

thanks, but it appears that at this stage of the event that the EMS were in disarray and blowtorch use was not in use yet. The EMS were trying to save persons, by the look of the debris... this thing weighed TONS!!! EMS could not have cut this yet at this stage...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
That show is scripted beyond believe... I was giggling until "Governor" got into [QUOTE]stealth mode[/QUOTE] (all in black, like some burglar) followed by his camera team (one in a yellow jacket) screaming at them "get up here! get up here!" - that made me laugh out loud. It's so silly, since he got the permission to film there anyway- Then he's standing in front of that door, still in stealth mode, talking so loudly into that damn camera. Governor, you forgot you're still in stealth mode! --- That felt almost like some Steven Seagal movie-

As for the content... of course they couldn't bring up everything related to 9/11 within 40 minutes, but instead of focusing so much on the black boxes they should have brought up more things that they left out entirely, they didn't mention the Pentagon, Shanksville, the physics as to why the WTC couldn't have collapse the way it did... and for me most importantly they didn't even touch on the Osama bin Laden / Al Quaeda myth, quite the opposite, they suggested in the end that there were hijackers in the cockpit... from the very beginning. Which is a preposterous conclusion- They could have stated the obvious that there were no hijackers - there's no proof of that apart from the "passports" - but if they would have choosen to say this they would be automatically forced to scratch on the Osama bin Laden / Al Quaeda-myth... so bascially the show's message is that there were explosives and real hijackers at the same time.

Anyway, many will applaud Steven Seagal for the fact that he's at least brought it up to a wide audience... which is important - but exactly because it is so important they should put more work into the show- or even, there should be a better show altogether- with more facts and less "action."



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why wouldn't the list contain the names of the high-jackers if they were onboard? A flight manifest is suppose to include everyone, including the pilots and stewardesses. I might also note that some say that members of the high-jack crews were listed. On the day after the attacks, when the list were first released, none of those names were on the list.

I personally still have copies of the manifest that I took off the net that do not show any of the names of the supposed high-jackers on it. This as you so wearily tried to pretend, was not a list of the victims as you tried to explain away, but the list of names on the FAA flight manifest. Second, the book What We Now Know About the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers states: "A little-known initial FBI list of 19, scrutinized for four names not on its final list, calls into question the FBI naming process. We discovered 11 of the FBI-named finalists could not have been on those planes, with 10 still alive and another's identity improvised by a double. The Dulles videotape, essentially the government's case that hijackers boarded the 9-11 flights, is found to have serious problems including authentication," I stand by what I say, none of those names were on the original list.

As for the BBC's statement ,what would one expect them to say, "Your darn right we were part of a conspiracy." I think not. The rule of thumb when one gets caught in a compromising situation in the intelligence world is "Deny, deny, deny." There was no speculation on my part as to who knew what when, I am only basing my judgments on what was presented. how it was presented, and what came and went in the days, months, and years after 9/11.

Your last statement, hints that Bush is who we should blame. In truth, there is no doubt that there was a long trail of errors along the way, and while Bush may have been instrumental in some of the decisions that were made, the details of what took place on the day of the attacks show that for the most part Bush was out of the loop on what was happening on the ground in Washington and New York, and there is evidence that a lot of backwater was taken after the first day, and many of the stories changed, mysteriously, in the days following 9/11.

Having spent 16 years in the military, and having possessed a clearance above Top Secret, much of the information I have gathered, and looked at, was done as I would approach any briefing. What I saw, what I have read, and what I know from personal experience waves one red flag after another. If in fact as you say, " they don't want to admit to that (sic) occurred during the 9/11 attack," then that alone points to a conspiracy to conceal information. I am however pointing no fingers in any direction, but do know that it would have taken people in very high official capacity to hid the truth. Add to that, in order for what did happen, to have happened, the way that the government would have us believe it happened, either (a.) those who were suppose to be protecting this country that day were very inapt, and/or negligent; or (b.) those who were suppose to be protecting this country were in some way complicit in what happen on 9/11.

The inconsistencies, that are evident over and over again in what was reported, what eye-witnesses say they saw and heard, and what the government's official version says happened, should raise questions in the minds of every American, and those across the world. To want to know the truth is only logical and fitting. After all Americans have lost many of their rights and privileges due to what happened on 9/11, and wars are being fought,with thousands of people having died, and many more still in harms way. Why does it not seem logical to anyone that we would encourage our leaders to conduct an official investigation into what really happened on 9/11.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dear Disinfo Dave,
If you want people to take you more seriously and not think you are a paid disinfo agent, then you need to concentrate on making intelligent arguments. Arguments that don't have more holes in them than swiss cheese preferably.
You stated that seeing fighter jets in the sky was "irrefutable evidence" that there was no millitary stand down order. Explain to me how seeing jets in the sky after the crime took place is proof of any military order?? Otherwise its just words and I can spit out words that don't need backing as well. How about I say that those fighter jets were told to shadow and track but to stand down from using agression? It's hard for me to believe that our military is so incompetent that they never had the ability to take out one of the hijacked plans, so considering no shots were ever fired on the hijacked planes, wouldn't it be just as likely that the military orders were to shadow but not take action? I'd say that is as likely as saying that they were confused by Norad, and were too far away to get there in time. If they are truly that slow and easily confused, then I fear for all of our lives if someone ever decides to invade our country!!
Try playing the devils advocate for a moment and pretend that you are the President of the US and you are involved in this cover up. If so, wouldn't you want to send planes out to at least pretend that you were going to stop the tragedy from happening? Wouldn't you look more suspicious if you were to sit on your thumbs and stand down completely? Of course, then you'd look like you were complacent at the very least. So the best way to cover your tracks would be to say and show that fighter jets were sent to help. So conveniently they arrive when the action is done, but are able to cruise around and be seen so that people like you run with it.
Again if you wish to be seen as credible, then you should speak in facts especially when demanding them of others. And to try and do so without name calling such as "conspiracy mongers". Name calling like that seems narrow minded and childish. That narrow mindedness bares its ugly head more when you seem to gloss over serious intelligence initiatives such as Project Northwoods... I don't need to argue with you on if our government has ever initiated any game plan derived from that project. My point is that my heart sinks to my stomach to think of the devious schemes our government was tossing around whether they put those plans into action or not. You seem to laugh it off as nothing of importance! It's of extreme importance to know the deep inner thinking of our government. Not what they say to the public, but what they brainstorm in private. If Northwoods is a true project throw around as an idea by our government, then its about as horrible and treacherous as a group of people can be. So if that project was true, and those people behind it are still pushing their ideas, then why is 9/11 so far fetched? My point is that even people who are not "conspiracy mongers" are horrified by the revelation that our government would do something such as Project Northwoods. But I guess if your job as a disinfo agent is to ignore the human suffering of the people you live around, and to belittle the people bringing light to these subjects, then you are doing a fine job. If you are not a disinfo agent, I feel sorry for you to be so ignorant. If you are an agent, then to back people who'd like to see your own family parish to benefit themselves just makes you a monster like the rest of them.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You know you are on and responding on a 'damned fool conspiracy website'? The kind you keep bashing?

Lawls

But to be honest there is way too much information for me and most other people to be able to piece together, and I have a feeling this conspiracy will never get anywhere, unless people break laws to get information. But the government and the laws and FBI and # scare those that even entertain the idea.
Would you risk your life, or the lives of your loved ones for this information? Most people would say 'Hell no'.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanzaisha
That show is scripted beyond believe... I was giggling until "Governor" got into [QUOTE]stealth mode[/QUOTE] (all in black, like some burglar) followed by his camera team (one in a yellow jacket) screaming at them "get up here! get up here!" - that made me laugh out loud. It's so silly, since he got the permission to film there anyway- Then he's standing in front of that door, still in stealth mode, talking so loudly into that damn camera. Governor, you forgot you're still in stealth mode! --- That felt almost like some Steven Seagal movie-


That was pretty hilarious wasn't it? It has to be scripted, JFK hangar 17? No security? Sneaking around with a whole film crew? Not to mention how freaking loud he is when trying to be in stealth mode talking about, 'the secret room'. Haha



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
But that is just not true. Saudi Arabia never supplied any DNA with which to test anything. The OS says they had no DNA to compare it to.


Interior Minister Prince Nayef of Saudi Arabia confirmed that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, and were in fact "taken advantage of in the name of religion". The Saudi gov't wanted to come clean and make sure everyone knew they had absolutely nothing to do with the plot-

Saudi gov't confirms 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens

What the information was that the US gave the Saudi gov't, and how the Saudi gov't confirmed the information on their end, is something I'll leave you to research. The fact is that Saudi Arabia fessed up, so that meets my level of acceptable credibility for the claim the hijackers were identified correctly.

I really don't care to research this on such a piddling micro level that I need to know what the name of the Saudi gov't official was who went to the surviving relatives' families to confirm if their son was missing. Do you?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Go ahead GoodOlDave, ask any salvage worker if what I'm saying is true. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you're a graduate of the Swampy Institute of Debunking. You consistently spew an absolutely ridiculous OS party line.


I don't need to ask. This is why I keep mentioning the book, "Aftermath", by Joel Meyerowitz, who documented the cleanup of ground zero. Not only does he show lots more steel that was cut than just that one photo, he even shows the people who were doing the cutting, while they were cutting, and what they were using to cut it with.

They even interviewed them directly, such as one guy who hit a hidden pocket of ammunition with his torch while clearing up the wreckage from the Customs house, which exploded in his face. Another woman operating a loader uncovered the body of a WTC victim, and she covered the remains with the loader's shovel to protect it until they got a flag to drape the victim with. You ain't gonna be finding out real world things like THIS on those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to.

Unless you think the steel workers used telekinesis and pleasant dreams to remove all those tons of steel, you've gotta really want to be wallowing in some real hard core denial of the facts to continue this bit, here, guy.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
On the other hand, I can certainly prove the buildings had electrical transformers, fire extinguishers, etc, and other items that would explode under fire. Unless you can show a) evidence of actual bombs and b) evidence there were no electrical transformers, fire extinguishers, etc, you're going nowhere with this bit.


Sorry joined the forum late but heres a ? i pose to you dave. If these structures could withstand an explosion,especially one as big that was created from the impacts of these large airplanes, how can electrical transformers, fire extinguishers, etc create enuff force to speed up bringing these buildings down? I understand these things would have exploded but not with enuff force to assist with the colapse of the buildings. Also the steel that was used in the building withstood direct impact force from these planes crashing into them and still held up

[edit on 12/10/2009 by nikobellic]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
We are still missing a HUGE part of this story which is the flight black boxes. I'm an airline pilot and I know these boxes are always found in EVERY crash. For "NOT" finding these boxes would be the FIRST ever case the boxes weren't found. Which is HIGHLY unlikely. When the boxes come out of the airplane they have a beacon inside that is detectable and your telling me they couldn't find it? seriously there is SOMETHING to this story that was on the flight recorders that they didn't want us to hear or know.

Could the terrorists be in the cockpit before take off.....I highly doubt it. Because the pilots on held "private pilots license" and flying a multi engine jet it's like flying a small little prop plane which that is what they only knew how to fly. So taking off with a multi-engine plane with the terrorist in the cockpit flying they would crash before they even got it off the runway. Flying a multi-engine jet airline is a lot harder and more switches and knobs to figure with. Which when your hired by an airline they send you out for training on there type of planes. Which means you won't know how to fly them until they give you there training courses to how to fly there type of airplanes.

So that throws the theory they were in the cockpit before take off.

Second MAIN theory: Why was the airforce on STAND DOWN?

I'd also like to add, this would have to be a good conspiracy due to...we wanted to go to war and we sadly needed a reason to go to war. I believe people know that either our own government did this to us, Or our government isn't telling us the 100% truth to what really happened. I believe certain members of our government are covering this up.

Think about it...if the government said penguins took over the planes and crashed them into buildings, heck you and I would be in Alaska looking for penguins. People believe what the government says. And whats funny is when people like Jessie or other researchers say...wait a minute this isn't adding up. The government starts to threaten us and bug our information, phones, cars, houses, etc... because the government was caught with THERE hand in the cookie jar and we are telling on them.

Also I'd like to say. The global warming ep is going to be nice because true it is a way to make the rich richer. By telling us "OMG" we were dooming this world, making people believe we are hurting the environment so bad when really....the numbers show we aren't making that big of an impact on earth.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by xweaponx]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by xweaponx
 

Thanks for your post. It's great to have a professional pilot join the discussion. From my understanding, at least 3 of the 4 black boxes were found, but the government doesn't want anyone to see the flight data. Probably because the jets were electronically hijacked and flown via remote control into the WTC towers. This alone should be enough to convince anyone that 9/11 was an inside job. The government's refusal to release a CCTV video or photo of whatever hit the Pentagon is also highly suspicious.


Contents of Flight Data and Cockpit Voice Recorders Are Missing

All jetliners are equipped with flight data recorders (FDRs) and cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) contained in "black boxes" designed to survive the most severe crashes. To date, none of the contents of any of the black boxes have been released to the public, With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of any of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the National Security Archive published long-hidden NTSB Reports including flight path and other studies of the commandeered flights. The studies include FDR data from Flight 77 and Flight 93. Authorities had previously claimed that all but the voice recorder on Flight 93 were either not recovered or too damaged to yield data. The black boxes of Flight 77 were allegedly found on September 14th.

Ground Zero book

This book, written by Gail Swanson, and published in 2003, includes accounts of firefighters Mike Bellone, Robert Barrat, and Nicholas DeMasi.

According to the federal authorities controlling Ground Zero, the black boxes from the two crashed 767s, Flight 11 and Flight 175, failed to turn up in the rubble taken from the site. The 9/11 Commission Report backs the FBI's story, flatly stating: "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found."

There are accounts contradicting the official account of the black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org.

In December 2005, CounterPunch reported that an NTSB source contradicted the official account: "Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

Survivability Requirements

Events that would damage the recorders sufficiently to make them unreadable are extremely rare. NTSB spokesperson Ted Lopatkiewicz said that he couldn't recall a domestic case before 9/11/01 in which the recorders were not recovered. The recorders are designed to survive the kinds of impacts that happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FAA has placed durability requirements on the recorders and their casings to survive severe impact and fire

The storage medium of each recorder is located in a protective capsule, which must be able to withstand an impact of 3,400 Gs (3,400 times the force of gravity). Additionally, each must also survive flames at 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes, and submersion in 20,000 feet of saltwater for 30 days. Typically, to increase their chances of survival, the recorders are located in the tail section of the aircraft, which usually sustains the least impact in a crash.

BTW, this is off-topic, but do you think TWA 800 was accidentally downed by a Navy missile or exploded as a result of a center fuel tank explosion? No source of ignition was ever found. I have a friend who's also an airline pilot. He says if a fuel tank explosion downed TWA 800, 747s would be crashing every day.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by maddogron
 

Y'know,there's another clue rught in this picture I hafta slap my forehead for not seeing it sooner,this guy is talking on a radio phone,there is a record somewhere of when it was.Proving/not if these cuts were demo after or before,inside or outside job as it were.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join