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.

 

Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 36
61
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mw451

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


That is not true. The military. CIA. FBI and many others knew about what was going to happen prior to 911. Russia also gave the Americans information about what was about to happen. Russia warned the US at least 2 times. Russia also afford the US personal intelligence support months in advance prior to 911. But the US never responded. Ref the Russian media prior to 911. This information can be found in the 911 time line.

Even Denmark had special forces in Afghanistan listening in on Osama Bin Laden in 2001. There is even a book written about this that made a whole bunch of trouble for Denmark's Military.


Bin Laden spoke very openly in Afghanistan about what was going to happen. 911 was not such a secrete that many people would like to believe. At least not within the right intelligence channels.



Your Proof?

Bin Laben was in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11, then went to Afghanstan.

What Book told of this prior to it?

Bin Laden did NOT speak openly about. Go back and watch the videos. He was surprised that they pulled it off.

Yes, there were hints from various Intelligence Agencies around the World, but not 1 could pinpoint the Target other than the USA.

And as for the Military, CIA, FBI, and many "others knowing about it", You have that all wrong.

NSA and NSO would be the agencies to know first.

You people really need to get over it.

9/11 happened. There is Video Proof, Eyewitnesses, and the wreckage.

And the whole BS about Controlled Demolition is just plain Stupidity -- Look at how REAL Controlled Demolition occurs. All or most floors all blown out at the same time. THIS was NOT the case with Twin Towers, or the Pentagon.

And the whole "molten steel" in what was the basement/garage. Yes, 110 floors crash into a Garage with cars and more gas... What do You think you'd have?

---

There was a house in my county that burned down last night, killing 3 people, and gues what, they had to put out molten steel beams and Aluminum. BTW, Aluminum burnings hot, and all Cubicles are made of Steel and Aluminum.

Get Over It.

I miss my friends that died that day.

And I bow to the Responders... And there is your "Conpiracy". Why aren't the people that did the work getting help for Medical Conditions from the ash, as well as the innocent folks that survived?

M

The aftermath is a conspiracy and a disgrace, as all regulatory parties would have known of the dangers at ground zero, and that they would have persisted for a long time. All those who responded to the initial emergency, and anyone who endured the collapses has a health risk long-term or otherwise. The Bin Laden "surprise" tape is rubbish. Yes, there were warnings from other countries and Bin Laden was in Saudi some weeks before 9/11...who did he talk to there? CIA maybe? how far down that road do you want to go? CIA, rogue CIA.
Oh! of course there is the daft internet,[not intranet] that we all get our info from, which at very least it helped to force NIST to revise their opinion on the WT7 collapse at a very late stage, no doubt due to one very astute observer. If you want proof, go and look for it yourself. At this late stage on anything 9/11, posting links is like "educatering" for those who want a quick fix.


edit on 23-9-2010 by smurfy because: text.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by KIZZZY
 


And still....

Nobody has stated beyond any reasonable doubt HOW explosives were deployed, WHO deployed them, and WHY the government of Israel or the USofA would do that.

All that's been said thus far, is it was a Controlled Demolition, and that the Youtube Evidence is not beyond any reasonable doubt, that is why this topic has been going on now 9 years.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I have seen the photographic evidence of a steel beam being vaporised during the supposed 'pancake' fall off the WTC towers. I have been searching for the images via Google (our master) but it seems to not give any links to the images.
Not sure, at all, if this is the "smoking gun" but, for me, it would seem very strange that IF this is a steel beam and IF this is an authentic shot from the 911 tower collapse then how does it fit into a 'pancake' theory heated by jet fuel?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The original story was told to us. Not a one of you derived what happened from the T.V., You where told by the T.V. what happened. You choose to believe it. Others chose to question it.

If the government wanted to they could reopen this and try and diffuse this situation but the longer this happens the more volumes this speaks that they want to try and just ignore this. It's not going anywhere and the movement is picking up steam. A real president would hold a conference and talk about this with the people.

Unless of course they like us divided.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
2) Truthers say Operation Northwoods is proof

Operation Northwoods was declassified in 1997. This operation was planned by Robert S McNamera during the cold war but JFK didn't approve it in 1962. It clearly doesnt state that it was planned for 9/11 and it shows that if the Operation Northwoods were in effect it would not be a danger to civilians. 9/11 would of had hundreds if not 1000's of people with some sort of knowledge. Not a SINGLE co-conspirator has EVER come forward to expose 9/11. Not one. Operation Northwoods plan involved using a Military plane and fill it with dummies and remotely detonate it over international waters NEAR Cuba and then blame the cubans for killing "passengers" on a "fake passenger" plane. This way the US could go to war with Cuba and dismantle the russian given missiles Cuba received from the Russians. NO 9/11 plan was ever hatched. truthers just made that up.

Well, look who's suddenly an expert on Operation Northwoods!
The girl who'd never even heard of Northwoods until I mentioned it in this thread.

No Lucy, Northwoods was not "declassified" in 1997. Author James Bamford uncovered what he calls "the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government" while he was researching his 2001 book, "Body of Secrets." Of course, the MOST corrupt plan was just months away.

And as usual, you're grossly misrepresenting the deviousness and murderous plans contained in Northwoods, including starting a "wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C. and Miami" and blowing up the rocket carrying John Glenn during his first earth orbit.


From BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following.
 Scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anti-Communism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines.

...One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"

This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war.

...The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote.
"The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.

Keep trying, Lucy. No one's buying your BS.



edit on 9/23/2010 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by KIZZZY
 


And still....

Nobody has stated beyond any reasonable doubt HOW explosives were deployed, WHO deployed them, and WHY the government of Israel or the USofA would do that.

All that's been said thus far, is it was a Controlled Demolition, and that the Youtube Evidence is not beyond any reasonable doubt, that is why this topic has been going on now 9 years.

Great observation. I will add... Since the majority of the YouTube evidence (clips in favor of these 9/11 conspiracies) are in propaganda form, none of them could be used in a court of law. Why? It is all based upon subjective interpretation of events. None of the videos are based upon definitive facts.

In order for a reinvestigation of 9/11 to happen, people would need to provide 'substantial' evidence. Large amounts of that evidence has to create enough doubt, so that a judge can decide if such a case is worth exploring.

Demolitions involved? Okay, who, what, where, when, why and how?

Who specifically was involved? Exact names.
Do you have definitive proof that they were involved? Undeniable proof.

What type of demolitions? Exact type.
Do you have definitive proof that they were used? Undeniable proof.

Where exactly were they placed? Specifics.
Do you have definitive proof that the demolitions where placed there? Undeniable proof.

When were they installed? Specifics.
How were they installed? Specifics.
Do you have evidence of who specifically installed them? Undeniable proof.

What specific steps were taken to setup such an enormous conspiracy? Specifics.
Do you have absolute proof that these steps were taken? Undeniable proof.

Why did these people carry out such an act?
Do you have absolute proof on the exact steps taken to carry out such a conspiracy? Undeniable proof.

Remember, the defendant is not required to supply the evidence for a trial, so you would need to bring a whole mess of 'FACTUAL' evidence to support your case.

Good bloody luck.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
2) Truthers say Operation Northwoods is proof

Operation Northwoods was declassified in 1997. This operation was planned by Robert S McNamera during the cold war but JFK didn't approve it in 1962. It clearly doesnt state that it was planned for 9/11 and it shows that if the Operation Northwoods were in effect it would not be a danger to civilians. 9/11 would of had hundreds if not 1000's of people with some sort of knowledge. Not a SINGLE co-conspirator has EVER come forward to expose 9/11. Not one. Operation Northwoods plan involved using a Military plane and fill it with dummies and remotely detonate it over international waters NEAR Cuba and then blame the cubans for killing "passengers" on a "fake passenger" plane. This way the US could go to war with Cuba and dismantle the russian given missiles Cuba received from the Russians. NO 9/11 plan was ever hatched. truthers just made that up.

Well, look who's suddenly an expert on Operation Northwoods!
The girl who'd never even heard of it until I mentioned it in this thread.

No Lucy, Northwoods was not "declassified" in 1997. Author James Bamford uncovered what he calls "the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government" while he was researching his 2001 book, "Body of Secrets."

And as usual, you're grossly misrepresenting the devious and murderous plans contained in Northwoods, including a starting a "wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C. and Miami" and blowing up the rocket carrying John Glenn during his first earth orbit.




actually everyone has heard the Bs about operation Northwoods.and it was declassified on Nov 17th 1997 . Im not misrepresenting them at all. Its all fact and all in open forum. Read about it properly not from some biased book. There are other ways of gaining the info than just reading the opinions of someones book.

You quote from a book and an author already looking to uncover lies by the government. Yeah well done there MR fleece. A man who already has a bee in his bonnet uncovers something. going back over your posts on this thread I see that you have FAILED to offer anything outside of Northwoods which you garnished from a book. Why do you not do your OWN research on Northwoods instead of just using google and youtube.

People are listening. Just not to the Truthers. NO report in 9 years from them, we might as well just wait till the end of this century for them to color in their pie charts and provide this evidence. Pat yourself on the back becasue you have not presented anything. Northwoods is grossly twisted by the common truther who knows nothing about it. I did not answer you before as I have lots of people with good points of view to answer. You were near the bottom of the list. In operation NorthWoods does it mention the exact plan of 9/11? Does it mention 9/11? NO it does not. You read someone elses comments in a book a pawned them. Sorry!!



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by KIZZZY
 


And still....

Nobody has stated beyond any reasonable doubt HOW explosives were deployed, WHO deployed them, and WHY the government of Israel or the USofA would do that.

All that's been said thus far, is it was a Controlled Demolition, and that the Youtube Evidence is not beyond any reasonable doubt, that is why this topic has been going on now 9 years.


Actually, 'nobody has stated beyond any reasonable doubt how explosives sere deployed' is inaccurate. You may not have seen it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

For evidence beyond any reasonable doubt about explosives in WTC7, see: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I have a couple of questions for the many debunkers.

Are you interested in explolring the truth, or do you just want to be right?

On what basis do you, many of you obviously not experts, dismiss as rubbish the serious misgivings on the part of mamy of those on the 9/11 Commission, many senior military and many experts in relevant fields?

Are you confortable with the belief that the OS is so beyond question that it justifies the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, since it was the sole basis for rationalising those deaths?




edit on 23-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Actually...

Originally posted by LaBTopThe following is a description of how they, without going too much in details, probably executed the demolition sequence.

He used the word 'probably' instead of 'factually'. Other words, he created his own assumption based upon a forum post on another site.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizenI have a question for the many debunkers.
Are you interested in exploring the truth, or do you just want to be right?

Here is the problem I see. Are you presenting anything that is based upon truth? Why should I trust you?


Originally posted by wcitizenOn what basis do you, many of you obviously not experts, dismiss as rubbish the serious misgivings on the part of many of those on the 9/11 Commission, many senior military and many experts in relevant fields?

You people are not experts either. If you theorists are not experts, why should I take your word that what you are selling me is based upon factual evidence?

Second, those individuals who you are talking about are also theorizing. Since none of them were in the exact spot in which the planes made contact, those experts can only theorize on how things went down. Does that mean there was a conspiracy? No way. It just means there are questions, which can only be answered by someone who was standing in front of the planes upon impact. Unless you are impervious to all things, there are going to be anomalies in the 9/11 Commission report.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Actually...

Originally posted by LaBTopThe following is a description of how they, without going too much in details, probably executed the demolition sequence.

He used the word 'probably' instead of 'factually'. Other words, he created his own assumption based upon a forum post on another site.


Have you actually really read his analysis, are you evaluating it on its merits or dismissing it because he used some information from another site?

You see, this is one of the problems I encounter with debunkers. I totally respect anyone's right to believe or not believe the OS. But what I observe is that debunkers just dismiss out of hand the evidence of intelligent, professional people, seeminly without any real consideration of the information they are providing and without showing why the refute the argument.

The points they make are so very often just this kind of thing. He used 'probablility' instead of 'factually'. You know,, probability is something which is very, very relevant in a court case? In how many court cases is there actual 100% proof of a person's guilt? Very rarely, but the jury decides on probability and beyond reasonable doubt.

But, it seems that debunkers aren't willing to concede this point, they demand actual 100% watertight, incontrovertible, totally conclusive evidence. This is totally unreasonable.

When this goes to court, and it will, the outcome will be based on just that. Probability beyond reasonable doubt. The strength of the evidence for the OS will be scrutinised, and they too will have to prove probability and beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, I ask you, Osama Bin Laden, who Bush stated was 'Wanted Dead or Alive', but who is not wanted for 9/11 by the FBI because they don't have the evidence to link him to it. In a court of law, do you think Bush would be able to argue that OBL did it beyond reasonable doubt? If so, why hasn't the FBI gpt that information?
Don't you think this kind of detail is important? Pakistan sources say OBL was in fact in hospital in Pakistan just after 9/11 and was visited by the CIA. So, why didn't they have him arrested? Don't you think it's important to a) verify the reliability of the source and their information, b) ask very serious questions if that information is verified as correct?

I'm all for reasoned discussion, but off the cuff. flippant dismissal of reasonable, reasoned evidence or analysis which supports a high probability hypothesis is not discussion and it's not reasonable.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


WTC7 was a casualty of war, and not the intended target.
And as the CIA and DOD was in there, they might of had more than pens and paper
in there.

It's sort of like blowing up your own house to claim insurance, and no body
will suspect you because it's your own house.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Have you actually really read his analysis, are you evaluating it on its merits or dismissing it because he used some information from another site?

You see, this is one of the problems I encounter with debunkers. I totally respect anyone's right to believe or not believe the OS. But what I observe is that debunkers just dismiss out of hand the evidence of intelligent, professional people, seeminly without any real consideration of the information they are providing and without showing why the refute the argument.

While I went through his hypothesis, I stopped when I hit the word 'probably'. Once I came to the conclusion that his thread was a personal interpretation, I jumped to validate the source of the information he provided. After noticing that he was commenting on another person's hobby site, I checked that quoted site for some referenced links. I finally concluded that it was all speculation. Nothing factual about what he is selling.

Its a hypothesis without definitive proof. Nothing more.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> So, the first model showed the answer they wanted -- and the facts changed it. So what "COLLAPSE MODEL" is going to jibe with the new reality?

And what physics model explains a pancake collapse without resistance? None.

Well we know that buildings can be imploded using explosives and the way buildings are imploded is to cause a global structural failure. We've all seen this happen on youtube I'm sure. So in other words, something acts on a building which causes global structural failure. So why can't other types of damage cause the same/similar global structural failure that explosives can cause?


>> Because those "other things" are not normally found in buildings and there is NO RECORD of anything close to what happened at the WTC to draw from.

There were other buildings that got far more damage than WTC 7 -- and they had to be demolished later -- but NONE collapsed.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 





Yeah cause the idea of being locked up for life is so WONDERFUL who couldn't resist that to get the truth out and lose everything potentially gained.

I haven't heard of ONE person being locked up for reciting these ridiculous theories regarding 9/11. If the government was as vindictive as you believe, I would suspect the jails would be full of such people. As it is, these conspiracy theories are delusional figments of delusional minds. Since the government has your IP address, your internet ISP, your name, and every post you have placed on ATS, why haven't they come for you? Answer: I believe that they are having a very good laugh regarding these crazy theories. In addition, they have better things to do, like keeping the country safe from the real terrorists.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Because those "other things" are not normally found in buildings and there is NO RECORD of anything close to what happened at the WTC to draw from.

Does that not eat the whole premise behind these 9/11 conspiracies? Since a terrorist attack on such a scale has never happened before, how can anyone say that this wasn't a terrorist attack? Unless you have an example of 'A' and 'B', we would not be able to prove definitively one way or another.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by ritualmurder911

Originally posted by jfj123
If you actually have factual evidence that proves the US government was complicit, please post it.


hijackers trained at us military bases. for starters. there you go, shill.

1. Prove this happened.
2. If you prove this, then prove that the government trained them to carry out 9/11.

What I find amusing is that you are using the same illogic to condemn me without evidence that you are using to condemn everyone in the united states government. Within the borders of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, people are innocent until proven guilty. What would happen if I said you were a thief or worse? Is it ok for me to spread that lie/those lies around without any evidence? If it is, let me know and I can post a lot worse ! If not, why is it ok for you to post lies about me? If I'm a shill, what can I say you are ?
he he he !


Wow -- something we can finally agree on; Let's put the Bush administration and some CIA spooks and certain people in Florida on trial.

>> The STANDARD seems to be; "Let the Rich and Powerful and GUILTY investigate themselves and then the bloggers on the Internet need to PROVE us guilty before the Media will cover it." The same media that gets ads from the same companies that benefit from the wars I might add.

Seems like it's all gravy except for the Working Class Americans, and the poor shmucks who get conned into war.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I am not expecting 100%, I'd be happy with 80%, that is beyond reasonable doubt with collaberating evidence.
But every crime has a motive, and there must be collaberating Evidence.
The 911'ers only have a Theory, and are expecting somebody else to fill in the details, as to how you derive at the final result.

It's reminisent of the ol' TV Documentories where someone finds a single dinosaur bone, and then builds an entire story around it as to how it lived and what it was doing until the day it died. They even give them skin colors!!
It's amazing how many think that was plausible, and now know what a Dinosaur really looked like.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join