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 simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

page: 4
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Airspoon, thank you for your post, your story and for the service you did before and after 9?11. I came of age towards the end of the Vietnam War and was only spared from that war by Nixon canceling the draft after I had pulled a number 11 in the final year of the lottery. Only lottery I ever nearly "won", but I was against the war by that time and can't say I wouldn't be living in Canada if the draft had not been ended. By then, we knew we had been lied to more times than you can shake stick at and I had no illusions left by that point.

I had to read your narrative in two sessions, because i started it shortly after I got up and it was too powerful not to give my full attention to. I spent 11 years working with the Vietnam Veterans Group San Quentin because a buddy of mine landed on death row after he had gone to Vietnam the year before I was spared. Long story, and not for this post. What I did learn, and maybe it was from doing a kind of "penance" for not serving during Vietnam, was how tough it was on those who had to grapple with the lies they were told and with how that affected them for decades when they tried to weigh the value of their service against the end result of the misery that resulted for their friends, for the Vietnamese citizens and for themselves from having done their duty.

For me, only a few bottom line conclusions came out of that. First, my veteran friends from the Vietnam generation did their duty. They sacrificed their bodies, precious years of their lives, their marriages and sometimes their sanity struggling with posttraumatic stress - the invisible wounds of war - and sometimes their own freedom from bad decisions they made when they returned. None of that can diminish my admiration of them, or of you for having stood for the principle and acting with ethic of serving your country when it called.

Second, I think almost all of us were snowed following 9/11 and as college history professor, it took years and much of my investigation to come to the conclusion that the OS was a lie, and I have never put a lot of faith in what the government of this country tells me. Nevertheless, I could not believe it had and active or secondary hand in the murder of 2900 Americans. Dealing with that idea goes against ever piece of "common sense" I had, but I have slowly come to the side of the "truthers" from the sheer weight of evidence contradicting the OS. The nickle and dime debunkers on this thread are running out of gas and their arguments are getting weaker and weaker and more focused on minute inconsistencies that do little to bolster the OS. Coming to conclusion that your government is capable of lying to you on something this monumental is hard and it was hard to read the pain in your post because it was so apparent.

Third, you did a really good job pointing up some of the main evidence against the OS and I thank you for that. Soldiers in war have little or no capability of challenging policy and you should feel no blame for following you conscience or your orders. That alone is the mark of a man of principle. Too bad they don't give a dedicated medal for that.

Today, although in no official capacity, I have established close relationships with a number of Iraq and Aghan vets I have running through my classes that are clearly suffering from PTSD. I know the symptoms well because I developed PTSD after keeping a ten year promise to my friend that I would be a witness at his execution if the appeals didn't exonerate him. They should have, but again a long story not for here. My point is that, while I don't claim any particular knowledge of the price that is paid to go to war by combat veterans, I do know the price that post traumatic stress imposes and I hope you have some help with that when you need it. People don['t seem to get that merely being in an intense situation - as combat clearly is - sets off chemical reactions in the brain that have lifelong effects. People deal with it more or less well or poorly, but they have no choice but to deal with it and I'm sure you know that well. Thanks for your service, your honesty and your pursuit of the truth. You accomplishment and dedication to all of these will be something that, at the end of your life, you CAN take with you.

peace and be well.




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Since this thread is about FACTS..."what we know"...(and what we don't know), there are a few things that MUST be addressed, in this post. Incorrect things that, unfortunately, keep being presented as "facts", and clouding the entire issue. AND, perpetuating the mistaken "conspiracy" nonsense, and interferring with the REAL search, for the incompetents involved. This is disinformation spewed from a variety of "conspiracy-minded" websites:


Another attack on the Truth movement and full of exaggerations and your opinions.


There were military exercises taking place on 9/10 and 9/11 including Operation Vigilant Guardian, which simulated airplanes being hijacked by terrorists, which confused Air Traffic Controllers.

NO, the ATC were not "confused". NOT by Operation Vigilant Guardian.


You don’t read your own sources very well do you the sources SAYS:


11. They concluded that the exercise may have had, in fact, the effect of expediting the response to the attacks.


Source for the above, and snippet below:

( May have had) is not a fact, (may have had) is an theory, a hypothesis, a suggestion, speculation, guesswork.


This next statement?? It is so wrong, it causes one to wonder just WHY any website would ever put out such incorrect information, in view of hte fact that a simple bit of research shows it to be false:


Again, another opinion without any sources. We are looking for facts not some ones’ opinions. where are your sources?


Not a single fighter aircraft was scrambled to find out why the planes had flown off course, turned off their transponders and cut communications.

AS TO the bit about Cheney, in the "bunker"? Another (intentional) misinformation from the "conspiracy" websites, but for what reason?? No one knows.


And your sources are what again??
More opinions from a OS believers.


It is well established that Cheney's orders were to "protect the House at all costs". This, of course, refers to the White House. It indicates that he had authorized (although not yet gone up the military chain of command, as little time had yet elapsed, and uncertainty still reigned) the shoot-down of airliners that seemed intent on impacting the WH.

Also, the timing of those remarks by Cheney, are uncertain....in some cases it seems that AAL 77 had already impacted the Pentagon, and the concern was regarding UAL 93, still 'inbound'...PLUS any others that may have been still out there, but as yet undetected!!!


How about some sources???
Your opinions and assumptions are not the facts, talk about guesswork and doing damaged control, wow.



...Dick Cheney was sitting in the PEOC being advised of another hijacked plane flying toward Washington and being continually updated as the plane closed in, but refused to do or allow anything to be done to stop the aircraft from flying within 1 mile of the White House at a very low altitude and slamming into the Pentagon.


More opinions, no sources to back your claims.



So, the actual sequence of events, there, seem to be inaccurate as well....the way the ATS member posted them (likely just repeating from what he/she read somewhere).


I believe the same can be said about OS believers as you have just demonstrated.


Unfortunately for the "truth" search, too many seekers neglect to do a FULL search, relying instead on the many "conspiracy" sites, and not looking more deeply into other sources....sources far more reliable, in most cases.


Perhaps, you need to take your own advices don’t you think.


THAT sort of research involves stepping OUTSIDE, and away from the Web. There are vast amounts of information out there that may not/doesn't exist on the Internet.


The fact is there is more evidence on the internet than in the real world.


Finally, this red herring as already been addressed, up above:


Washington D.C. is the most heavily protected airspace on the planet....

...and is yet another example of the "conspiracy" sites' misinformation, as mentioned before.

Yet you still give the readers nothing but your bias opinions based on your hunches that the government is innocent of everything on 911 and again you give no sources to back up your ridiculous claims.


Still combing through the OP, so those are initial impressions...but I have confidence it is presented in a logical manner, to allow a reasoned discourse. (** As edited above, it is a reasoned and nicely presented OP, but it appears to be flawed, as flowing from incorrect premises, in many cases).


Hey, we all have our own opinions, but what makes one very credible are the credible sources one gives, and you certainly haven’t given any.

To the OP,
I commend your hard work and well thought out post and I certainly agree with most of your work.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 





Seems odd water would work if the fire was so hot it melted steel beams


When I got done laughing and wiping the soda off of my screen...I realized that you probably believe the statement you made. Of course, you are stuck on the falsehood that the beams melted, so I should not be surprised.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 





If I took out an insurance policy on my house and it burned down two months later I would be up under the jail.



Only if the authorities had the evidence to put you in jail. To date, NO ONE has presented any evidence that Silverstein was in any way connected to the perpetrators. And with the money he is losing on the WTC....the idea he conspired to knock down his buildings.....is kinda funny.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


In all the 9/11 truth movement stuff I've read, I've never seen anything resembling a claim that Silverstein was behind 9/11, mostly that he "pulled bldg. 7" as kind of an opportunistic element of the whole event, or as part of a larger conspiracy afoot that day. I do admit I could have missed some site somewhere that has done so, so you don't have to prove I'm wrong on this.

Of the three buildings that went down, bldg. 7 is the strongest argument for controlled demolition and whether or not it was related to the demolition of the Twin towers, there has been no credible story to explain the way it fell. Silverstein's involvement may - if he has some role in this - be an issue that is only tangentally a part of the OS or anti-OS arguments, but you do have to admit, whether he only recouped a billion and a half or three and half billion dollars, he had motive to be involved and the explanations involving explosions from internal pipelines, fires or machinery don't explain the simultaneously failure of all the support pillars at near free fall speed.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Sorry it has taken me a while to respond, I had an emergency in which I had to travel. I'm now in a hotel with crappy wifi so I'll answer with brevity in mind.


How soon after 911 were you deployed? Were there FOBs in place when you got there?

Some of the discussions here have suggested troops were deployed in the region prior to 911. Is this your experience?


My unit was the first. I'm not too keen on putting an exact date (for particular reasons), although you can pretty much get a good idea when I say that I was among the very first Americans in country. There were absolutely no US FOBs when we arrived and I can assure you that no other Americans were there before us, other than maybe a CIA agent/asset or two (to which I would have no way of knowing). I do however know for sure that there weren't Americans before us, thus there weren't Americans in Afghanistan before 9/11.

With that being said, throughout my own personal research, I have come across at least one CIA source, Field Commander Gary Berntsen, who suggests that he had been in Afghanistan before 9/11, though that isn't anything out of the ordinary. I certainly don't suspect him of any secret plot against the US as he too is a patriot, or at least seemingly so.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Silversteine told Kevin Spacey on pbs that he and the fire chief Pulled the building (7).
seems pretty simple when put into plain english
All the evidence to Rumsfeldstiltskin's missing trillions from the day before was in building 7

Gee thanks Osama, your check is in the mail....

ps
wish you luck in your situation Airspoon


[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Don't hold your breath. Julian Assange has been quoted as saying, “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

Did you see Wikileaks publish the leaked German external intelligence agency report from the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) that concluded 9/11 was carried out by the U.S. and Israeli governments through the CIA and Mossad? Gee, I wonder why not?


Oh my... thanks for the info. No I wasn't aware of that. So it's true that after all Mr Assange is not the guy who REALLY is looking for the truth. That's disappointing and sad


Anyway... his example will encourage others to also leak info! The documented truth about 9/11 MUST come out. Hell, it's been just 9 years ago... we are not talking about the JFK assassination more than 40 years ago!!! I think I go mad with all this insanity.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 





Of the three buildings that went down, bldg. 7 is the strongest argument for controlled demolition and whether or not it was related to the demolition of the Twin towers, there has been no credible story to explain the way it fell. Silverstein's involvement may - if he has some role in this - be an issue that is only tangentally a part of the OS or anti-OS arguments, but you do have to admit, whether he only recouped a billion and a half or three and half billion dollars, he had motive to be involved and the explanations involving explosions from internal pipelines, fires or machinery don't explain the simultaneously failure of all the support pillars at near free fall speed.


I must admit that I would like to know what you consider "credible". FDNY members there that day reported massive damage to WTC 7, that caused them to be concerned that it was going to fall all by itself. Not to mention the unchecked fires adding to the problems......



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
HOWEVER, notwithstanding a few wild goose chases, much of what's provided in the OP comports with many of MY impressions, especially regarding the complicity of he Bush Administration to use those heinous events to their advantage, regarding their 'goals' in the ME) --- still, hopefully will help to cut through all the BS that has infested this subject since September 12th, 2001.

Please don't present yourself as someone who is impartial, an independent thinker or in any way related to the honest research and truth-seeking efforts of the OP.

You sir, are a hard-core and ubiquitous 9/11 official fairy tale defender who has written posts like the following for a very long time:


Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is disinformation spewed from a variety of "conspiracy-minded" websites.

At least be honest enough to admit it.


[edit on 7/31/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

I must admit that I would like to know what you consider "credible". FDNY members there that day reported massive damage to WTC 7, that caused them to be concerned that it was going to fall all by itself. Not to mention the unchecked fires adding to the problems......

Few facts. The damage WTC7 sustained was comparatively mild compared to WTC3, 4, 5 and 6, all were battered beyond repair, but they held up fine. Also, asymmetrical damage shouldn't cause the entire building to collapse through itself at freefall. If you kick a leg off a table, it still has three legs remaining, right? Plus, NIST themselves admit that the damage WTC7 sustained (which was mild, see FEMA's derby field map), had no contribution to its collapse. They say it would have collapsed regardless of the damage from failing derby. It amazes me that even though WTC7 was the least damaged out of all the WTC complex buildings underneath the towers, and was standing as steady as a rock, everyone picked the right one and knew it was going to collapse. Truly remarkable.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


These are the discussions I look forward to here at ATS. Thanks for bringing your story to light and stating your opinion of 911. Although not fully formed your view, like my, was earned through countless hours of investigation as well as periods of self evaluating.

The bridge of sighs can be long and treacherous.

InfinityO'Reilly



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How could you just ignore my post at the top of the previous page?

Do you have no response to the fact that YOU are blatantly spreading disinformation when you imply no personnel were confused by the war games on 9/11? "Is this real world or exercise?" -- Are you going to continue to deny these kinds of statements exist and are proof of confusion?

The same for the rest -- putting "bunker" in quotes as if Cheney wasn't actually in one, and your confusion over which plane they were referring to even though the distances mentioned in the testimony make it clear they were referring to Flight 77. Take a step back and look at yourself sir. You are your own projection of what "our" problem is.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
]reply to post by Nathan-D
 




Few facts. The damage WTC7 sustained was comparatively mild compared to WTC3, 4, 5 and 6, all were battered beyond repair, but they held up fine. Also, asymmetrical damage shouldn't cause the entire building to collapse through itself at freefall. If you kick a leg off a table, it still has three legs remaining, right? Plus, NIST themselves admit that the damage WTC7 sustained (which was mild, see FEMA's derby field map), had no contribution to its collapse. They say it would have collapsed regardless of the damage from failing derby. It amazes me that even though WTC7 was the least damaged out of all the WTC complex buildings underneath the towers, and was standing as steady as a rock, everyone picked the right one and knew it was going to collapse. Truly remarkable.


Nice mixing of half-truth, opinion, and falsehoods. The facts are, WTC 7 was clobbered by debris, suffered heavy damage and was burning for hours unchecked. FDNY reported that. They also reported that the building was "moving" (moving towards its collapse) from shortly after it was hit by WTC 1.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 







I must admit that I would like to know what you consider "credible". FDNY members there that day reported massive damage to WTC 7, that caused them to be concerned that it was going to fall all by itself. Not to mention the unchecked fires adding to the problems......



This a perfect example of the problem with the OS:
unsourced incorrect opinion passed as condescending fact


Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

www.prisonplanet.com...


the FDNY reported the building was almost saved, and couldn't understand why it fell
the NIST report
DOESN"T EVEN DEAL WITH THE CAUSE OF THE COLAPSE OF BUILDING SEVEN AT ALL

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Not sure what alternate reality you are living in....wait..prisonplanet.

WTC 7 was NEVER reported as "almost saved"



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I'm sure this is a tired refrain by now airspoon, but thank-you for your service and sacrifice.

Almost from the day 9-11 occurred, I have had many, many questions about the official story. Initially I felt that this stemmed simply from the shock and disbelief I felt watching it happen live on television; that somehow I was doubting the official story simply on the basis of some sort of denial of the event itself for psychological reasons.

But like others, I gradually came to realize that there were (in my opinion at least) legitimate questions that didn't seem to have any answers pertaining to the events of that day (and events leading up to it.)

As a skeptical person, I still don't know with a certainty what happened. I do know with a certainty however that certain statements made in support of the official story by our leaders have been proven false to my satisfaction, and that there are questions which need answering which have thus far been dismissed entirely by those with the power and in my opinion responsibility to answer them.

Like you, I have been equally skeptical of the official story and many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks. I have yet to reach a conclusion, due mostly to the frustrating lack of - as you note - a thorough official investigation. There is evidence of a conspiracy in my opinion - some of it compelling in my view - but no (by my standards at least) irrefutable proof.

So I am left simply ambivalent (not apathetic,) and full of questions. The one thing I can say for certain is that I vehemently feel that such questions should not be left unanswered by those in power when it comes to such events. To dismiss such questions and to fail to thoroughly investigate the events of that day in a comprehensive manner (especially when, as you pointed out, compared to other politically motivated "investigations") is disgraceful in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The facts are, WTC 7 was clobbered by debris, suffered heavy damage and was burning for hours unchecked. FDNY reported that. They also reported that the building was "moving" (moving towards its collapse) from shortly after it was hit by WTC 1.

Yeah, here's that "heavily damaged" WTC 7, with it's out-of-control "unchecked fires" (north face):



WTC 7 North/east faces:



South/west faces (upper right):



In contrast, here's the Madrid Windsor fire -- never collapsed:



Beijing CCTV tower fire -- never collapsed:




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Nice mixing of half-truth, opinion, and falsehoods. The facts are, WTC 7 was clobbered by debris, suffered heavy damage and was burning for hours unchecked. FDNY reported that. They also reported that the building was "moving" (moving towards its collapse) from shortly after it was hit by WTC 1.


As far as WTC 7 suffering from heavy damage, that is yet to be proven.

WTC 7 moving?
How about some sources? Or is this your opinion?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 

I defiantly agree we need a new investigation
but we cannot trust the government or government agencies to do it. The Government had their chance and blow it by covering up everything and by lying to the American people.
This has to be handled very differently. I think the American people should be allowed to vote to what scientific agency outside the government with no political ties. In fact, I believe a committee should be set up to over see this new investigation and monitor the progress closely for any corruption or ties to our government, and the reports made public as the new investigation continues.




top topics



 
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join