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 9/11 Conspiracy will Never Die.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Like, if you're into terror and an attack of America and you can get your hands on 4 commercial jet planes and be flying around the nation without being shot down and you have the precision to hit some buildings dead on then why not put a plane or two into the OBVIOUS TARGET - the White House? (It's like Monopoly, if you can get a plane up - or 4! - what you going to crash it into Baltic or Boardwalk? Right?) But it wasn't done.


There's some speculation that the Shanksville plane and the Pentagon plane were intending to do just that- hit the white house and/or the capitol building. We know they were heading for DC since the black boxes reported the hijackers dialed in Reagan and set the autopilot on. The passengers on UA93 rioted so we'll never know what their true target in D.C. was, and AA77 may have attempted to find some other original target, but becuase the capitol and white house are difficult to find from the air they might have selected the Pentagon as a backup target since it was easily recognizable. Everyone on the planes died so we'll probably never know.



You see because the White House wasn't hit but the towers were, and one plane per each, to their complete destruction, I got the idea that it might all be about the buildings and not about the "Terror".


I have zero evidence to back this up, but I agree. Mohammed Atta wrote a paper while in college about how skyscrapers were a blight becuase they wrecked traditional municipal layouts, so we know he had a preexisting beef against large buildings. Since he was already an accomplished pilot, it's easy to see how his outlook could have naturally led him to put two and two together.



For instance, it does seem strange that both towers were completely demolished (to ground level etc.), and, according to the OS, by airplanes. For how could anyone know this? I mean, a Google search prior to 911 would've told anyone that the twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of a large jet. But there was only ONE jet per tower. And yet BOTH buildings were completely leveled. It has always seemed to me that it was someone's GOAL to bring those two buildings completely down... but to do that with airplanes alone a Google search of the towers would tell you you're probably going to need more than one per tower. But, THIS WAS NOT DONE EITHER.


The "withstand a plane impact" quote was made back when the towers were still in their planning stages in the late 60's, before these gigantic sized planes ever even existed. The designers accept the findings of the NIST report so it makes quoting forty year old public relations statements moot.



If it was completely controlled you just have to ask things like, was it the buildings or what was in the buildings? What was in the buildings? And why, if CONTROLLED, did one plane hit one tower at one floor and the other in a different lower location on the second tower? And the Pentagon, it has 5 SIDES - why hit THAT SIDE of it? If it's totally controlled there are reasons why... there have to be, for if it's controlled next to nothing would be left to chance. Likewise, if it's controlled even the story of 911 and who likely did it is part of the PLAN and therefore no one fingered yet may even be the actual PERPS.


You are reading way, WAY into it. The hijackers planned to use the planes in suicide attacks, but there's no way they could have planned it at such a macro level that they could pick out a specific floor to hit, or a particular side of the Pentagon to impact. Their impact sites were chosen for them by their approach vectors.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

You are reading way, WAY into it. The hijackers planned to use the planes in suicide attacks, but there's no way they could have planned it at such a macro level that they could pick out a specific floor to hit, or a particular side of the Pentagon to impact. Their impact sites were chosen for them by their approach vectors.


Hey Dave, thanks for replying. I'd like to address some points you bring up.

But before I do I want to describe something I been thinking lately and calling the 911 Lens Theory.

The 911 Lens Theory:

I was telling a buddy of mine just today that how you look at 911 depends on the lens you use to view it etc.

If it looks like terror and hijackers, and everyone (Gov & MSM) says it's Terrorists then with that lens, the "Terrorist Attack" lens, that's probably how most people view 911.

I explained it simply, I said, "So a plane hits a building it's a terrorist attack (everybody says so!), so there, right there is the END, the end of wondering about it etc. It's terrible and terrifying to crash a plane into a building - TERRORISM - cased closed!!" Right?

It's terrorists, it's crashing, it's what they do, end of story...

The point being, you see how a simple 'obvious' accepted scenario (Lens) tends to quash further deeper analysis?

Like you for instance, in your quote above, even seem to adhere to this particular lens view. You assume it's terrorists and that in no way could they adequately aim and direct their weapons to such a degree as to target and pinpoint specific floors of each tower or one particular wedge of the Pentagon.

And like why would they even right? I mean if the "Terrorists" were capable of and actually doing something like that on 911 then that would definately call into question whether they were even 'Terrorists' in the generally agreed upon sense then wouldn't it?

But to think like that would conflict with what the "Terrorist Attack" lens advocates.

So I am saying the lens can kill inquiry.

Like tell me, go with it. Can you tell me what was on the floors of tower one where the first plane hit, tower two where the second plane hit and what offices were located on the impact side of the Pentagon?

As I tried to explain in my previous post, there is another LENS. One I call the "Criminal Act" Lens.

Look at it like this, terrorists can get away with more chance, they hit a building this side, that side, this one high, that one low, it don't much matter, it's a bonus and a SUCCESS.

But if it's a Criminal Act and not a Terrorist Attack then it has tighter goals and aims, not only hitting a building say but hitting it in a certain location for a certain purpose and hitting a building not in that location, even though you hit the building, would be to them a FAILURE. It's a higher degree of difficulty say. To be more specific in targeting with a more specific purpose and to ensure more covering of your tracks while doing it.

Terrorists say (before you catch them) they did it; Criminals say (after you catch them) they didn't. lol

Most people view 911 as a Terrorist Attack and so consequently cannot even begin to tell you what those planes used as missiles actually specifically hit - apart from just the obvious - 'buildings'.

And whether those specific "Hits" tell an entirely different story of 911.

When you try the thought experiment of looking through another lens then you open yourself up to ask questions and look for possible answers that looking through another lens may not give or even suggest.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"But was a call from an onboard phone even possible? In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their “757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,” received this reply from an AA spokesperson: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.”No Air Phones

Now, isn't it interesting the indestructible black boxes weren't found, yet an air phone that didn't exist was?

There were no air phones installed on the back of the seats. Betty Ong, a stewardess used the only air phone on the plane reserved for crew members to report the lead hijacker came from the seat "9A."How embarrassing, like the undiscovered indestructible black boxes, it belonged to an anti hijacking expert, and Israeli dual by the name of Daniel Lewin.

Key here is Olson. He lied. The FBI proved it. The criminal demeanor of the government is incredible! Every place you turn when investigating 911 the government sucks. They lie, they hide the evidence, and their minions in the press and courts aid the massive cover up and attack on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Follow the money. Watch the war criminal baby killers get rich by robbing the tax payer.

Oligarch's, neocons/zionists, CIA...the enemy at large. No one is safe until they are taken out.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by beijingyank]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I have zero evidence to back this up, but I agree. Mohammed Atta wrote a paper while in college about how skyscrapers were a blight becuase they wrecked traditional municipal layouts, so we know he had a preexisting beef against large buildings. Since he was already an accomplished pilot, it's easy to see how his outlook could have naturally led him to put two and two together.


Several of hijackers lived not far from me in Paterson NJ - know some of the Passaic County Sheriff officers. One of them was (now retired) a K9
handler. Were on scene when FBI hit apartment few days after 9/11

Told me on walls of apartment were pasted posters of WTC towers in addition to diagramsd of 767 cockpit controls



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 


Thats because the airphones had been removed in 2002 by the airline



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
there are no less than 10 millions muslims living in the U.S. and you would figure if there was a muslim terrorist threat in this country, we would be under constant attack.

george bush and all his cronies are a bunch of murdering liars, and there is absolutely no definitive proof that any muslims whatsoever, EVER entered any american commuter aircraft and crashed into any U.S. real estate.....NONE

everything intentionally leads up to the crash of our economy,implementation of socialist ideologies and to further negatively manipulate the american way of life.

people should wake up and shun the brainwashing before its too late

unkle sammy hates you



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 



A few misconceptions to clear up (again):


In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their “757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,” received this reply from an AA spokesperson: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.


As noted by thedman....that answer, when the question was asked, in 2004, was correct. At THAT time, they did not. In 2001, they did....not on the entire airline's fleet, of course...especially not on the MD-80s, nor on the airplanes that exclusively flew overseas.

Then, your url link that I did not repeat, here??? Well...immediately, that is the problem...relying on the "information" from sites like that one, ESPECIALLY "Dr." Ray Griffin, a person who has been shown to be not only loony, but completely wrong in every allegation he's made.


Now, yet another false premise, and completely false assertion:


Now, isn't it interesting the indestructible black boxes weren't found, yet an air phone that didn't exist was?


Again, and again...let's make sure we aren't mixing in our apples and oranges, and comparing them, shall we???

There is absolute evidence of the Air Fone from the crash debris of United 93, a photo fo which I linked. There is no doubt that the passengers ON UAL 93 were alerted to the intended plans of their hijackers, because OF those phones, and the occasional cell phone connections that were made (two, if I recall...only two cell phone calls).

Not only that, BOTH the CVR and the DFDR were recovered, and readable, from UAL 93.

SO...righ there, your claim of the "indestructible black boxes" is false --- which "conspiracy" website is THAT lie being told at, huh?

Also, the DFDR form American 77 was readable...the CVR was not. Too heavily damaged...and NO!!! The Flight Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders are NOT...I repeat NOT "indestructible". Another "truther" lie, just one of many.....(maybe less than a "lie", more of the constant hyperbole they spew, in attempts to be derisive....)



There were no air phones installed on the back of the seats. Betty Ong, a stewardess used the only air phone on the plane reserved for crew members to report the lead hijacker came from the seat "9A."


More and more misinformation.

There were two basic designs in the early Air Fone installations, depending on the airline, and what they contracted for. At MY airline we had, as you mentioned in referring to Betty Ong (which, BTW, means we're now discussing American 11...please, keep your facts in order. THIS is what the "conspiracy" sites foster, in thier disinformaiton campaigns --- they sow confusion, by confusing different scenarios, and conflating them together...) --- as I was s aying, at MY airline we had the "cordless" handset designe...TWO phones were installed, one forward and one aft.

A credit card swipe would release the handset from its cradle, and then you were suppposed ot go back to your seat, and use it from there, returning to the cradle when finished.

And, NO!!! They were not reserved for flight crew use!! (Don't know where that baloney started...check your "conspiracy" sites --- sites run by people who have no freaking clue about anything, apparently).

Pay attention to the reaction of the person on the phone, when Betty Ong calls (read the transcripts). She dialed the FREE number to Customer Service, just as a passenger would! It is handled by the Reservations Dept....and the operator THOUGHT it was a passenger, at first!! Really, read the transcripts for yourself, instead of relying on the "conspiracy" website BS.


Rest of your diatribe is more gibberish, coming from the disparate nut-job sites out there who are ANTI-government in any way, shape or form...fringers who just rabble-rouse --- and you've fallen for their crap, apparently.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Then, your url link that I did not repeat, here??? Well...immediately, that is the problem...relying on the "information" from sites like that one, ESPECIALLY "Dr." Ray Griffin, a person who has been shown to be not only loony, but completely wrong in every allegation he's made.


The words "proven to be looney" show incredible bias. The lack of evidence behind your ascertation is deplorable. You even speeled it wrong for effect.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
Like tell me, go with it. Can you tell me what was on the floors of tower one where the first plane hit, tower two where the second plane hit and what offices were located on the impact side of the Pentagon?


Yes I can, actually-

List of tenants in 1 WTC

List of tenants in 2 WTC

So to expand your, "criminal act" lens theory, what beef would the 9/11 hijackers have had with Fuji Bank and Marsh USA?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by beijingyank
 


Thats because the airphones had been removed in 2002 by the airline



"A page, dated January 28, 2001, purportedly from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which states: "The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO [Engineering Change Order] FO878."96 Although the phones were physically removed from the planes in 2002, this document says that they were deactivated, so that they could not be used, almost eight months before September 11, 2001. The authenticity of this page is vouched for by an American Airlines employee who, although he wishes to remain anonymous, is known to Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."www.sott.net...

Once deactivated, according to 757 mechanics, the phones were taken out when a complete overhaul was done. It should be simple to find the maintenance manifest to find out if these 757's went through a complete overhaul between January 2001 and September 2001 to know the truth. I would think eight months is a long time for a 757 to fly without a complete overhaul. Still, the maintenance manifest records should tell the story if there were air phones or not. The most important thing we can say for certain, there were no air phone working on 911 if they were there at all.







[edit on 17-8-2010 by beijingyank]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank

"A page, dated January 28, 2001, purportedly from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which states: "The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO [Engineering Change Order] FO878."96 Although the phones were physically removed from the planes in 2002, this document says that they were deactivated, so that they could not be used, almost eight months before September 11, 2001. The authenticity of this page is vouched for by an American Airlines employee who, although he wishes to remain anonymous, is known to Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."www.sott.net...


This is what happens when you start quoting "unreleased reports corroborated by anonymous sources"- if it's a pile of manure there's no way in the universe to corroborate it...which is exactly the way the conspriacy theorists like it, since they can make any wild accusation they want without fear of being refuted.

Slight problem with your "unreleased reports corroborated by anonymous sources", though; the corroborated reports released by known sources can still show it's a pile of manure, namely, that FO871...which by its lower work order number means it was released *before* FO878, is a work order to remove the power out of an AA aircraft completed in march 2002:

FO871: work order to disconnect power from airphone system 03/02

...meanign that this anonymous source is lying- FO878 wasn't dated January 2001, but later in March and maybe April 2002. If the conspiracy people now have to resort to rooting around in trash cans looking for evidence of the shadowy conspiracy they're "so sure" is there, then they might as well go find another conspiracy to wallow in right now.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 


Have to stop using material from David Ray Griffith - he is notorious as
a fool and lair

Now for airphones - AA didn't order them removed until Feb 2002

Thats months AFTER 911 !




Airline grounds in-flight phone service

American Airlines is scrapping some of those phones built into the seats of airplanes, and it's blaming it all on the popularity of cell phones. By Sam Ames Staff Writer

Published: February 6, 2002, 4:20 PM PST

American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.

"Almost since their installation in 1996, we've seen a dramatic decrease in the use of these phones," said American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke, who added that the service averages about three calls a day per aircraft.

Southwest Airlines started removing AT&T phones from its planes Aug. 1 last year.

"We've noticed with the prevalence of cell phones that passengers just weren't using the in-flight service," said Beth Harbin, a spokeswoman for Southwest, which allows passengers to make mobile phone calls until the aircraft doors close before takeoff.

The phone service on American costs $2.99 to connect a call to AT&T's land-based network and then charges $7.60 a minute, plus tax, substantially more than the cost of a cell phone call in an airport terminal.

Burke would not say when the decision was reached, only that AT&T and American jointly decided to halt the service recently.

American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.

The airline will keep other communication services working. Passengers on Boeing 777 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which mainly fly international routes, will continue to offer an in-flight phone service that connects to an orbiting satellite for a $5 connection fee and a rate of $10 a minute.

news.com.com...




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Agreed, his words reflect incredible bias. He is totally discredited and exposed as a sophist, wordsmith, for the enemy.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You're very funny....I "speeled it wrong"???


Main Entry: loo·ny
Variant(s): also loo·ney


mw4.m-w.com...


To you, and to beijingyank, pay attention to the FACTS about the man.

David Ray Griffin.

You should check his "credentials", and his beliefs....speaking of "bias", his particular 'slants' surely dictate his public face, and his claims....

He isn't playing with a full deck of cards...sorry. AKA, "loony". Period.

Bats in the belfry. One slice short of a loaf. Etc.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
Like tell me, go with it. Can you tell me what was on the floors of tower one where the first plane hit, tower two where the second plane hit and what offices were located on the impact side of the Pentagon?


Yes I can, actually-

List of tenants in 1 WTC

List of tenants in 2 WTC

So to expand your, "criminal act" lens theory, what beef would the 9/11 hijackers have had with Fuji Bank and Marsh USA?



Hi Dave,

To answer your question straight out - "Nothing."

That's what I'm getting at you see? For I don't think it was "Terrorists" necessarily etc.

(And I must say I'm a bit taken aback that you seemed to miss my point in my last post. I look at "Terrorist Attack" and "Criminal Act" as two different groups of perps. And I indicated that a "terrorist" would probably be content with just hijacking a plane and hitting something with it and NOT be trying to hit anything *Specific* like a bank, company, or Certain Individuals who worked for certain companies in certain locations in said buildings. No, that level of accuracy, intent and potential benefit to the perps would indicate a whole other set of bad guys.)

Let me explain it another way.

Tell me, where is Geroge W. Bush right now and what is he doing exactly? Bet you can't right? You could say he's retired with Laura down on the ranch but you'd just be guessing. No I mean EXACTLY.

But on 9/11 little Georgie was reading a story in a Florida classroom to a bunch of children. Interesting. I mean well, I think it is.

On 9/11 EVERYONE knew exactly where George Bush was and exactly what he was doing. And to boot, he was doing one of the most innocent things a President could even be doing next to kissing some babies.

I said that to a friend, trying out my material like, and she said, "Well, come on, that's what presidents do sometimes, they do it all the time etc. I see nothing weird about that..." Could be. The Lens Theory can be seen in Levels say, so let's call this regular innocent thing presidents do Level 1.

It always did bother me though, that the president was reading to children while planes are crashing into buildings, and even continuing to read when an aide informs him of this very thing! Strange.

The book he was reading was My Pet Goat and he was reading it upside down... Now what do you make of that? What can you make of that? I think something can be made of that in a symbolical way and so I call this Level 2.

Like, if you think it's "terrorists" then you think nothing of GWB reading to bunch of schoolchildren on 9/11 (Level 1) and so you won't even ask what he was reading and perhaps why it was upside down (Level 2).

The point I'm trying to make is there may be more than one level or Lens and what may look innocent at one level may be something else entirely on another perhaps deeper level.

On Level 1 crashing planes into buildings looks pretty much like terrorism. On Level 2 if it can be shown that specific companies and indeed Specific Individuals were targeted and died on 9/11 then that's another Level altogether, and therefore another scenario, and I contend, another set of PERPS.

But if you just simply think it's "Terrorists" you wouldn't even think to look for anything more... like my friend who thinks George Bush innocently reading a story about a GOAT upside down no less, to a bunch of kindergardeners on 9/11 is A-OK. 9/11!

And he continues to sit there "innocently" even after being told of the second plane hitting the second tower. Those kids knew the president had at any moment important country stuff to be doing, he could've excused himself lol!

Cheers

Oh & btw, you left out the Pentagon offices that were also hit.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join