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.

 

50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

page: 6
268
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I am sorry, but if only the scientists payed to produce the NIST report stand behind the NIST report then I am going to go with everybody else who has knowledge on the field. So some guy with profanity in his avatar and another on a conspiracy board want to keep believing in the official tale. Fine, whatever. You can believe all you want. Mexico said they tracked possible alien craft, excuse me if I remain sceptic.

As I said before. Those who have made up their mind about the topic, should not spend more time debating the believers, but instead progressing forward on the debate. If the believers want to believe the conspiracy theory fed by the administration let them. There are a couple of threads on the topic already.

edit on 24-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



I am sorry, but if people want to dispute the overwhelming amount of evidence of government complicity by attacking just one of the 50 points in Airspoon's post, then maybe those people have blinders on their eyes, or maybe those people are being paid to suppress the truth.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Truther lie not based on any facts or evidence

That is all that truthers do, build on a pack of lies and mistruths!


Mainstream media is really the source of the truther lies....?

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.newsweek.com...
www.newsweek.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.smh.com.au...
edition.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 24-11-2010 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


It isnt so much a question of blinders. Everybody can see the king has no clothes. After thousands of Americans died and more isaf forces died because of what maybe was a lie written in blood, the question is whose side are you on?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


S&F, Awesome thread!
This is excellent, very well written with plenty of sources.
Airspoon , I am impressed! This thread had to take a lot of time for you to put this together, I can see your passion for truth and 911 it really shows.

This kind of presentation will make the most skeptical person take notice.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I think the reason your being pounded by so much troll activity is because you haven't made your post to be readable by children by adding pictures and smaller words...

Seriously, you've done what many could not do....

1) Connected the dots based on Action/Reaction Based Hypothesis

2) Provided Tangible Evedince of actual Event's and People Involved within your Hypothesis.

3) With the Supported Evidence and Hypothesis, you can prove with Correlating events that there is an alternative reason for the 9/11 events.

4) If there is alternatives Evidence and People involved compared to the government given Commission Report, it opens the door to seek another Investigation of the 9/11 events...

Thank you Airspoon

Please Note ====>That's without mentioning the word Conspiracy
edit on 11/24/2010 by FoxStriker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
awesome job Airspoon

thanks for this awesome thread



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
[...] The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf'.” [...]


I'm still reading the whole post, but while I do agree that much of what you've posted is worth a closer look, I just had to reply to this. The military having invasion/combat plans already drawn up and prepared is not suspicious in and of itself. The DoD has plans of attack for more conflicts than you could imagine. That's just how we roll. We come up with all kinds of "what-if" scenarios, then work out what we would do from there. That's why we have exercises and the like - to practice our contingency plans!

Having a plan specifically for Afghanistan isn't even all that odd, seeing as how the IC had been sounding the alarm about terrorists in the country for about a decade at that point in time. I've read OPLANs/CONPLANs drawn up on premises supported by far shakier intel.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
"I'm still reading the whole post, but while I do agree that much of what you've posted is worth a closer look, I just had to reply to this. The military having invasion/combat plans already drawn up and prepared is not suspicious in and of itself. The DoD has plans of attack for more conflicts than you could imagine."

Yeah sure...the DOD has nothing better to do than draw up intricate plans to invade 400 other countries around the world. They knew they were going into Afghanistan for many months before they went in. I wouldn't be surprised if the story about the Taliban harboring Ossama's Been Hidin' was a bunch of hogwash from the beginning. For the most part, Americans are gullible twits - they'll pretty much believe anything you tell them, as evidenced how they sucked on and continue to suck on the absurd 9/11 Fairy Tale.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PowerPointRanger
 


I am career military, have been since college and while readiness occurrs for various situations, actual invasion plans do not. Invasion plans do not simply consist of words on paper, like a report, instead they are actually intelligence resources, allied support, logistical operations, allotted troops, etc... Now, granted that this in of itself isn't that big of a deal because there are often invasion plans for known adversiaries or for training purposes, though when you combine it with everything else, it is just one more match stick on the pile.

Then you can add this to the issue of the Taliban coming to Texas back in 1997, for the alleged discussion of the UNOCAL pipeline. We really did not have a logical (national security or American interest-wise) reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, other than Bin Laden (though his relationship is also called into question). One would then have to wonder why invasion plans would be created, as opposed to strategical planning or something to that affect.

Regardless, it is something that should be looked into further, as is the case with most of these things.


--airspoon
edit on 24-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by PowerPointRanger
 


I am career military, have been since college and while readiness occurrs for various situations, actual invasion plans do not. Because the socio-political climate for most hot-spots change on an irregular and often basis, it would be far too cumbersome to adopt invasion plans for every region on the globe. Instead we have strategy and/or readiness plans.

Invasion plans do not simply consist of words on paper, like a report, instead they are actually intelligence resources, ally support, logistical operations, readied troops, etc... Now, granted that this in of itself isn't that big of a deal because there often invasion plans for known adversiaries or for training purposes, though when you combine it with everything else, it is just one more match stick on the pile.

Then you can add this to the issue of the Taliban coming to Texas back in 1997, for the alleged discussion of the UNOCAL pipeline. We really did not have a logical (national security or American interest-wise) reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, other than Bin Laden (though his relationship is also called into question). Communism was no longer an issue in Afghanistan and it wasn't destablizing the region. One would then have to wonder why invasion plans would be created, as opposed to strategy reports or something to that affect.

All in all, if their were war plans or hypothetical strategies for readiness on the invasion of Afghanistan, then I wouldn't even take a second look. However, there were apparently actual invasion plans, which are far different.


--airspoon


Sorry to hear that, must be really tough to stay devoted engaged on a questionable premise not entirely sure on whose orders, for whose gain.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Oh on the contrary. Our military service-members fight for this country and its charter (the Constitution), as opposed to any politician. When a soldier takes the oath, he is swearing to uphold the Constitution, not the wishes of any particular politician, though I do believe that you also swear to heed the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, with lawful being the key-word. It's also important to note that there are indians and there are chiefs and ultimately, there is only one chief. You may not agree with or understand the orders given to you, but as long as it isn't clearly breaking the Constitution or the law, then you carry out those orders, as it isn't your place to question them. If everyone tried to be the chief, then we wouldn't have a working military at all, therefore you do your job, regardless of any political leanings, beliefs or ideologies you may have. When it comes down to it, you do your job, so long as it is in the confines of your mandate. All else doesn't or shouldn't matter.



--airspoon



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Nice thread...keep up your (continual) good work mate...


I see dereks as the weakest link in the Fairytale Team.......I love reading his posts of nothingness!!



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I'm still reading the whole post, but while I do agree that much of what you've posted is worth a closer look, I just had to reply to this. The military having invasion/combat plans already drawn up and prepared is not suspicious in and of itself. The DoD has plans of attack for more conflicts than you could imagine."

Yeah sure...the DOD has nothing better to do than draw up intricate plans to invade 400 other countries around the world. They knew they were going into Afghanistan for many months before they went in. I wouldn't be surprised if the story about the Taliban harboring Ossama's Been Hidin' was a bunch of hogwash from the beginning. For the most part, Americans are gullible twits - they'll pretty much believe anything you tell them, as evidenced how they sucked on and continue to suck on the absurd 9/11 Fairy Tale.

---Just saying that YES the U.S. has plans to invade and/or defend almost *every* country on the globe. If they have something valuable, be it strategic/political/resource value, then we have plans for WAR in/on/around that country and region. We aren't the "great superpower" because we sit on our thumbs and whistle "Dixie," y'know. We DO have plans to attack all adversaries and defend all allies, and at differing degrees, some or both for countries who fall into the gray areas. This does not mean we didn't previously intend to invade Afghanistan/Iraq. This is just letting you know that we probably have plans on how to conduct WAR in CANADA even, let alone "hot spots."



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

Well said. I remember my father asking me if I had been forced to take an oath to the United Nations when I was active duty. I laughed, because that was SO NOT the case. We all took the standard oath, as you stated. But, somewhere along the line, a rumor had spread that the U.S. military oath had been altered to include an allegiance to the U.N. Outlandish, but it was out there and I'm sure a lot of misguided peopel still believe that our military is slowly being indoctrinated into the U.N.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
What I am missing is an alternative explanation. You can't have both that the thread was ignored and/or funded by Israel/SA, and that it was a fake attack all performed by the US. Though these "facts" seem to suggest both.

So what is the hypothesis here? Some elements within the government had foreknowledge and neglected their responsibility on purpose? Or it was an inside jobs including all the CD/missile/RC planes with all bells and whistles?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Hello Airspoon and thankyou for the efforts you are making to debunk the Official Conspiracy Theory.

You've put a lot of work into this post, but I have to tell you I think you might be (unwittingly) promoting a line of thinking that has been designed to protect the true perpetrators.

I think the people who carried out the atrocity (not 'attack', because it's part of their propaganda that it was an 'attack') of 9/11 would like us to believe it was carried out to justify war in the Middle East because that theory steers attention away from themselves.

Though the atrocity was undeniably used to justify war, I believe the primary purpose was simply to get rid of the WTC without having to comply with the legal requirements for demolition, and to qualify for the insuance payout that could be claimed if people could be convinced of, (or rather people could not disprove), the story as promulgated by TPTB.

That's right...it was simply an insurance job, like someone who bought an expensive car for prestege, realised they could not afford to run and maintain it, and took it up to the scrub to torch it for the insurance money.
That gets rid of their problem without financial loss, while they don't have to explain why they were such idiots for buying it in the first place.

But the building of the WTC was not the result of idiocy...It served a purpose which is starkly pointed out in Eric Darton's (pre-9/11) "biography" of the WTC, Divided We Stand.

It's strange that this book has hardly captured the attention of the Truth Movement, because for me at least, the reasons for the demise of the WTC were obvious after reading it.

The book highlights the people most worthy of investigation, and helps in the understanding of why they have not been exposed, and most likely never will be.

I fully consider the information in Darton's book is neccessary to form a complete picture of what the Towers were supposed to be, what they actually were, and why they had to go.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 
.....I'm sorry my friend but the jury is still out on the explosives things.....Judy wood is on to something and surely you know this.....MY own eyes tell me that the building was oxidising before my eyes, more so than exploding - I always trusted my eyes !!!



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


hello PLB...If you think about it this way.....a patriot (or similar) missile hit the pentagon....Bin laden doesnt have any of these...it was an inside job...maybe inspired by intercepted talk...who knows...But it was a us missile that hit their own building....



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
What?



Topic via OP;

Focusing?

On 5/30/2009, the victims family members released two press releases. The first one states, “today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens — 9/11 family members — to have our day in court.

Let there be no doubt:

The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.” The second one states, “on the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent

actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

The second press release lists “allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.”

So, which is it? Tampering with evidence? Or obstruction of justice?



new topics

top topics



 
268
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join