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.

 

9/11 OS Challenge..

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
What I've seen lately is a surge in threads pointing out the flaws in the 9/11 OS.
Many are well written with many links and information highlighting many inconsistencies in the OS.

Then I see the same members jump in and target a few specific points, then go off about how all truthers are tin foil wearing whack jobs..

My challenge to all the constant "believers" that post on these threads is thus,

Make your own thread to show how the OS played out.
Obviously (by your posts) you have all researched extensively so I'd expect great detail and credible links to prove all points.

What you need to do is "prove" these highjackers boarded these planes and then crashed them in the 4 locations.

Then that all resulting damage and deaths was caused by these crashes.

Before anyone starts with the "but its already proven", lets pretend it isn't for this challenge.

Then, if anyone accepts the challenge. the "truthers" can attempt to debunk...

I would like the Mods to be vigilant as usual and keep this on topic please..




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I have an even better idea...what say you people actaully READ the 9/11 report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, etc and explain to us why they're wrong? Time after time after time, almost universally, the conspiracy people come in here preaching "they're a pack of lies" and then turn around and post some ridiculous thing they would have known was rubbish already had they actually read them (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, the fires melted the steel, the hijackers were all cavemen, the president secretly gave a shoot down order, etc).

If you haven't read them then how can you declare them to be"a pack of lies" when you don't even know what the lies supposedly even are? That just smacks me as being just plain phony.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I'd be willing to do this, but you would have to give me an idea of exactly what you're looking for, how much detail you want etc. It would take months to fully explain what happened, but I think I can abridge it quite well.


+12 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have an even better idea...what say you people actaully READ the 9/11 report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, etc and explain to us why they're wrong?

Why bother reading what the 9/11 Commission itself says it's a pack of lies?


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

www.washingtonpost.com...

BTW GoodOlDave, you forgot to use the phrase, "damned fool conspiracy sites." I'll let it go this time, but please don't let it happen again.

And exponent, good to see you're always on the job and being helpful. Thanks for helping to make my 'Exponent' thread the sixth result on Google whenever anyone searches for the company.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


and the disinfo tatics started ... the guy just made a challenge, if you dont want it, ok ... but you just come to the thread and throw the rock back .. I mean, its ridiculous

and your argument could be answered by a single google research, it would take like 3 seconds or like 1,5 seconds with google instant ... so, there are no excuses for what you just said

its already been proven that 911 investigation was manipulated, the own members said that ... just do yourself a favor and learn to use google



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Why bother reading what the 9/11 Commission itself says it's a pack of lies?

Even if you dispute sections of it, it is an extensive reference source on the events of the day.


And exponent, good to see you're always on the job and being helpful. Thanks for helping to make my 'Exponent' thread the sixth result on Google whenever anyone searches for the company.

No problem, I skimmed the thread and they don't seem the most reputable of companies, but I haven't really done much investigation so I can't really say much.

If you want to request any specifics please do, but I would want to agree on format, length, detail, primary and secondary topics etc so that I don't miss much. It might be an idea to contact a moderator and arrange some sort of moderated question/answer thread format so that it is not derailed with constant bickering.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
We should start with one section of 9/11 at a time. What this thread will turn into is a typical smorgasbord with the same old canards that have been repeated countless times.

I will propose to start with flight 93. I do this because they figured out 9/11 quite quickly. They were aware of what was going on and did what they could to stop the hijackers. The following is a list of 10 facts. (thank you Mark Roberts) They can not be disputed:

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

Ziad Jarrah

Ziad Jarrah Video



2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seatback Airfones.



911 Operator Talks about Conversation with Todd Beamer

Another Story from 911 Operators

911 Operator John Shaw Interview

Passenger Tom Burnetts Last Call to his Wife


3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.



Warning: Graphic


4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

Jury Hears Tape From CVR During Moussaoui Trial

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

FDR Report Flight 93

ATC Report Flight 93

Flight Path Study Flight 93

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.



7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

source

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

source

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

source

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

source



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
And exponent, good to see you're always on the job and being helpful. Thanks for helping to make my 'Exponent' thread the sixth result on Google whenever anyone searches for the company.

No problem, I skimmed the thread and they don't seem the most reputable of companies,

That's putting it mildly. So why do you think the U.S. government keeps hiring a disreputable company -- infamous for delivering the results their clients want -- to "investigate" the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA 800 and the worst terrorist attacks in history?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Even if you dispute sections of it, it is an extensive reference source on the events of the day.


- The point is not that he disagrees with it, but rather that 60% of the commission members themselves have come out publicly questioning the validity of their own report. BIG DIFFERENCE (but you already knew that)

The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but 571 pages of LIES!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt


The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but 571 pages of LIES!


Please point out the lies. (with evidence)

Thank you!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Please point out the lies. (with evidence)

Thank you!

How about if I point out the lies of omission from your Flight 93 narrative above?

We know it crashed, but not why
FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors

By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com
dailynews.philly.com...
Thursday, November 15, 2001

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. - Ernie Stuhl is the mayor of this tiny farming borough that was so brutally placed on America's psychic map on the morning of Sept. 11, when United Airlines Flight 93 slammed nose-down into the edge of a barren strip-mine moonscape a couple of miles outside of town.

A 77-year-old World War II veteran and retired Dodge dealer, he's certainly no conspiracy theorist.

And, when you ask Stuhl for his theory of what caused the jetliner to crash that morning, he will give you the prevailing theory - that a cockpit battle between the hijackers and burly, heroic passengers somehow caused the Boeing 757 to spiral out of control. "There's no doubt in my mind that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused more damage," he said.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.

"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close."

If the mayor of Shanksville still seems conflicted about what caused the crash of Flight 93 two months ago, he is hardly alone. As the initial shock of Sept. 11 wears off, the crash some 80 miles east of Pittsburgh, and what caused it, is beginning to emerge as the greatest mystery from the worst terrorist attack in American history.

No one has fully explained why the plane went down, or what exactly happened during an eight-minute gap from the time all cell phone calls from the plane stopped and the time it crashed.

dailynews.philly.com...


Black box recovered at Shanksville site
By Richard Gazarik and Robin Acton, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 14, 2001

...Meanwhile, speculation continued to swirl around reports that a military fighter jet was seen in the vicinity immediately after the crash.

According to the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, FAA employees at an air-traffic control center near Boston learned from controllers at other facilities that an F-16 “stayed in hot pursuit” of the 757.

By 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, the Air Force had taken control of all U.S. airspace, the unidentified controller told the Telegraph. A few minutes later, the Boeing crashed in Stonycreek Township.

The F-16 made 360-degree turns to stay close to the 757, the Telegraph reported. “He must’ve seen the whole thing,” the FAA employee said of the F-16’s pilot.

[FBI Agent] Crowley confirmed that there were two other aircraft within 25 miles of the United flight that were heading east when it crashed, scattering debris over 8 miles.

www.pittsburghlive.com...


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we want to take our viewers live to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our Brian Cabell is standing by. This of course is the site where United Airlines flight 93 crashed on its way from Newark to San Francisco, crashed on Tuesday, and I understand, in this investigation, there's some breaking news.

Brian, what can you tell us?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away? Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question.

transcripts.cnn.com...


Cockpit voice recording ends before Flight 93's official time of impact
By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com
Mon, Sep. 16, 2002

THE FINAL three minutes of hijacked United Flight 93 are still a mystery more than a year after it crashed in western Pennsylvania - even to grieving relatives who sought comfort in listening to its cockpit tapes in April.

A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent - according to government-prepared transcripts - and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.

Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 a.m., give or take a couple of seconds. Family members allowed to hear the cockpit voice recorder in Princeton, N.J., last spring were told it stopped just after 10:03.

The FBI and other agencies refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy...

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was shot down:


If the government won't even admit to shooting down Flight 93 (which could be easily justified), why would you believe any other part of the story?



edit on 9/17/2010 by GoldenFleece because: fixed formatting



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.


to which I will respond...

A) If you had read it you'll know it contains a lot more than just what the Pentagon did. It contains how the hijackers prepared for and carried out the hijacking, testimony from how the people who knew them, the communications from and to the plane, the organization of the governmental agencies showing the flow of information, etc. The Pentagon embellishing their actual response does not invalidate the commission report. Instead of sending the planes out in a holding pattern off the coast to "vector them to a location once they came up with a plan of action", they really sent them out in a holding pattern off the coast becuase "someone was a bumbling idiot and he didn't know what to do". Either way, the planes were still sent out in a holding pattern off the coast to wait for instructions.

B) This concealing of the Pentagon bumblings only proves MY statement and disproves yours: the whole so-called conspiracy and coverup is simply everyone trying to hide all the slipping on banana peels and stumbling into walls because noone wants to be the one who comes forward to admit their incompetence caused the deaths of 3000 people. A gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without fumbling everythign is GUARANTEED to have a lot more fumbling during 9/11 than they're admitting. I've said that from day one and you only proved me right.

So, you were saying?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

As usual, you spin facts, events and statements into your personal interpretation of them:


...deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

This is called LYING or PERJURY, not "slipping on banana peels."




edit on 9/17/2010 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

As usual, you spin facts, events and statements into your personal interpretation of them:


...deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

This is called LYING or PERJURY, not "slipping on banana peels."


I'm going by YOUR OWN POST that they were concealing their incompetence, so it's actually lying AS WELL AS slipping on banana peels, but the fact still remains that it doesn't invalidate the testimony from the other witnesses. How does the Pentagon's embellishment refute Mohammed Atta's girlfriend testifying that he had pilot's licenses from every country he visited, and that he was such a sociopath that he dismembered her kittens after an argument? How does that invalidate a deputy fire chief's testimony that the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, and that there was a three story bulge in the side of the building? How does that invalidate the FBI being so hog tied by legalities and political correctness that it couldn't even share information between its own departments?

The fact remains that after we gave the evidence to our NATO allies showing Bin Laden was behind the attack, they compared it to what their own intelligence services were reporting and they found it credible enough to invoke articke 5 for the first time in history. Please, explain to me how the Pentagon concealing their bumbling changes any of this.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
That's putting it mildly. So why do you think the U.S. government keeps hiring a disreputable company -- infamous for delivering the results their clients want -- to "investigate" the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA 800 and the worst terrorist attacks in history?


Oh I can think of many reasons. Remember I am hardly a fan of the US government, even Obama's improvements are minimal at the moment. Still I haven't exactly done more than skim articles critical of them yet, so it would be wrong of me to start condeming them.


Originally posted by OnTheFelt
The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but 571 pages of LIES!

The report is largely a reference work. I doubt you've actually bothered to read it.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have an even better idea...what say you people actaully READ the 9/11 report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, etc and explain to us why they're wrong? Time after time after time, almost universally, the conspiracy people come in here preaching "they're a pack of lies" and then turn around and post some ridiculous thing they would have known was rubbish already had they actually read them (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, the fires melted the steel, the hijackers were all cavemen, the president secretly gave a shoot down order, etc).

If you haven't read them then how can you declare them to be"a pack of lies" when you don't even know what the lies supposedly even are? That just smacks me as being just plain phony.


Where does it say that the steel melted in the NIST report?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

How about if I point out the lies of omission from your Flight 93 narrative above?

We know it crashed, but not why
FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors


I ask you to check the dates on those and then do your research and find out what they think now that the investigations are long over.

You put up a story from a 77 year old mayor just over a month post 9/11. This is not evidence, sir. It is hearsay. I have posted video links to eyewitnesses and all the flight data that proves it was not shot down. The mayor was did NOT witness the crash of flight 93 nor was he witness to it's final seconds. Many where and NONE saw or heard a missile. Period.

And keep in mind what he states:

"There's no doubt in my mind that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused more damage,"













Black box recovered at Shanksville site
By Richard Gazarik and Robin Acton, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 14, 2001

...Meanwhile, speculation continued to swirl around reports that a military fighter jet was seen in the vicinity immediately after the crash.


What's the date of this? Oh, 36 hours post 911. There was TONS of speculation surrounding the entire day. As you are well aware.... lots of it was just that... speculation. Do you really need to be shown again, the planes that were in the vicinity shortly after the crash?







BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down.


What debris were found in Baltimore... 8 miles away?







THE FINAL three minutes of hijacked United Flight 93 are still a mystery more than a year after it crashed in western Pennsylvania - even to grieving relatives who sought comfort in listening to its cockpit tapes in April.

ld it stopped just after 10:03.

The FBI and other agencies refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy...



Again, this show poor researching on your part and your lack of knowing what is and isn't on the 911 report:


168. Ibid., pp. 23­27.We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was "10:06:05±5 (EDT)."Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack," spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.

Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,"Re: UA Flight 93," July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,"Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001," July 5, 2004.


www.faqs.org...


Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was shot down:


Really? An old goat mixed his words up... didn't he call the plane at the Pentagon a missile as well?




If the government won't even admit to shooting down Flight 93 (which could be easily justified), why would you believe any other part of the story?


There is ZERO evidence of a shoot down. All you have is Rummy bumbling his words.




edit on 17-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Segador

Where does it say that the steel melted in the NIST report?


It doesn't. Not anywhere. At all. Why then are people cricizing the NIST report over at "fires can't melt steel" when noone ever said the fires melted the steel to begin with?

The reason is obvious- they were spoon fed the "fires melted the steel" buzzword by some damned fool conspiracy website and they ran with it, just like they did with "19 cavemen" and "stand down order". How then casn this be a "truther" movement when the movement is circulating completely false information?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
There is ZERO evidence of a shoot down. All you have is Rummy bumbling his words.


Thus, reason #537 why I know these people are being BS artists and never read the 9/11 commission report. The report specifically said there was an order from the president to shoot down flight 93, and they were actively hunting it down so that they could shoot it down. Penasgon officials admitted they would have shot it down if they had found it.

Why on EARTH would they admit they were hunting it down and would have destroyed it had they found it...and then turn around and deny they shot it down...particularly now that the conspiracy people are pointing out that the Pentagon people lied and made the whole "we wanted to shoot it down" story up? Why would they make up THAT lie? It makes zero sense.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Segador

Where does it say that the steel melted in the NIST report?


It doesn't. Not anywhere. At all. Why then are people cricizing the NIST report over at "fires can't melt steel" when noone ever said the fires melted the steel to begin with?


Sorry, "Dave," I think Segador is referencing the well-established fact that WTC steel was melted. FEMA even reported it in appendix C of their report. So if it's not in the NIST report then that's about all you need to know about how thorough they actually were. We could take it further, and show that they never tested their main hypothesis, and all of that, but a whitewash is a whitewash and once you've established they weren't really investigating anything then there is little point rehashing the point over and over as has been done for years already.




top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join