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: 9
268
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by smurfy
 


Almost everything coming out of wikileaks is ineffective. If it was a disinfo campaign, they would be wise to let things slip, that way they garner some street cred. We all saw how effective that Iraq video was, as it did absolutely nothing, other than to give WL some "street-cred".

The purpose? So that they can then slip pieces of disinfo in there, throwing people off the trail of whatever, to include foreign governments.

There are just some major red-flags going up with WL, such as the time when Pentagon officials were looking for Assange, though he was in and out of various countries and they couldn't find him? Furthermore, they build up the suspense with all of their releases, and none of them are that big of a deal at all. They basically serve no purpose at all, at least that I could see.

Also, if the government wanted to shut WL down, they could easily. They could either kill the guy or arrest him on child-porn charges. They could also mount an effectice character assassination campaign on him, Also, I find it a little funny how the MSM seems to be paying attention to Assange and Wikileaks, which is one of the biggest red-flags to me.

We have a consensus of scientists who have found evidence of thermitic particulates in the WTC dust, then published a peer-reviewed report on the findings, yet no MSM outlet even so much as mentions it. However, they seem to have no problems at all with worshipping Assange.


--airspoon

Well Wiki have released the cables, and they are already interesting. As for the above you are making speculative assumptions. Your OP, on the other hand is well constructed from witness testimony.


www.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 28-11-2010 by smurfy because: Twxt.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I'm still extremely weary and suspicious of Wikileaks. Of course the "cables" haven't been read yet, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it is either a lot of disinformation sprinkled with real information or a lot of real information (even if unimportant), sprinkled with disinformation.

I truly believe that all of the government's really deep and/or dark secrets, are tied up in a manner which wouldn't be so easily leaked to an organization such as WL. So, even if WL is the real deal (which I have some serious doubts), it could do more harm than good if it is only able to obtain the top layer of secrets, as it makes people falsely believe that these government secrets are the gist of everything.

For instance, I have heard more than few people try to suggest that if the government had secrets regarding 9/11, it would have been leaked through WL already. Not only is this reasoning flawed, but it highlights an angle of damage that an organization such as Wikileaks can do and how such an organization might actually help government corruption, regardless of whether WL is a disinformation campaign or not.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

They are being read, and to be published offline. The link to the Beeb already mentions Arab participation in the race to attack Iran.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Airspoon, this thread is superbly put together, as usual. It is well-deserving of the 224 flags you have and I admire your continued efforts in the 9/11 arena. I have a great deal of respect for you.

A bit off topic, but too bad.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 





I'm still extremely weary and suspicious of Wikileaks.


That makes two of us...

second line.




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 28/11/2010 by Sauron because: link to one line post note



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I am glad to see this post still being active.

I was showing this posting to a pilot friend over the weekend. He brought up a question which he said had bothered him from the beginning and I had to admit it had not crossed my mind.

He is well experienced flying jet aircraft close to the ground, so he noticed something which most people would not.

Did anyone notice the "final" movements of the plane which hit the South tower? My friend states that it is virtually impossible see an object and have time to react to it within a quarter of a mile when flying much over 250 miles per hour. Of course, he may be speaking of some unexpected object.

My point being, this "inexperienced" pilot was traveling at more than 800 miles per hour and made movements for a course correction easily less than a half mile away. I am trying to point out what seems to be a disparity between flight speed, an awareness of his location and position, and the time needed to make the proper adjustment to his flight path.

As I said, I do not have the background experience to address this question, but I would be very happy if some one could help clear up this point.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
do u know what i thought? what if osama bin laden is just a fabrication of the government? hahaha. a face to blame.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Amazing compillation of concise information that would serve as a model for many to study and present to others as a starting point for a line of discussion many demark as "baseless accusations."


Nearly EVERY recent "attack by terrorists" against the US has been set up, funded, and provided assistance for by American intelligence operatives disguised as middle-eastern groups trying to fund individuals seeking help to carry out attacks against the general population of a country "hated for its freedom." (We have freedom, really?). It does not seem far-fetched to assume that 9\11 was set up in the exact same fashion. If it's commonplace for the government to do this now, then why can't we believe that they could have played a similiar part in 9\11? To me it really seems that the fact that our own country is attacking us is more obvious than ever! When will we demand that our representatives are actually held accountable for alligning with this malignant erosion of morality and freedom?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
My point being, this "inexperienced" pilot was traveling at more than 800 miles per hour


The conspiracy theorists just keep sillier and sillier. Now the one of the 767's that hit the WTC was flying at supersonic speed and no one heard the sonic booms. Must be like the hush a boom silent explosives that the truthers claim were used in the WTC's.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I am afraid I must appoligize for my error in posting the speed of a plane in my last post. It was my mistake of using my friends verbage as we discussed the original posting. I do not think it was his assumption as to the true speed of the plane at the moment which it struck the south tower. It was like those things which people often say with out thoughts of being take literally.
I am also aware of those who will jump at every opportunity to point out some error in anything which does not totally conform to their own narrow concept of reality. I would only hope these same people are never caught making some seemingly trivial error as I am not sure their egos could survive the shock of something so foreign.
However I can state with some feeling of confidence that the plane which was said to have hit the Pentegon was, according to the 9/11 Commission's final report, traveling at approx. 525 m/h which would still seem to be pushing the pilots reaction time for locating and stricking a target. At this speed only a few degrees change at any point along the flight path would result in a change of many feet within a very few seconds. Yet the pilot managed to hit the very base of the building and totally disintergrate the plane which he was flying. Had he wavered even a little he could have hit the ground short of the building or flown completely over it. The air pressure beneath the wings, ground effects, must have been very high during the last several yards. Keeping the plane low enough to hit the target but high enough to not drag the engines along the ground must have been hard. If we discount the extreme turns which he had already executed, to set up in such an exacting glide path as he did is a testamony for luck.( my private opinion)
I do hope asking such question and making these statement will not continue to have me placed within the ranks of the "conspiracy nuts". I thought asking questions and seeking knowledge was a good thing.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
"I like the Slegieh ride....



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
"For instance, I have heard more than few people try to suggest that if the government had secrets regarding 9/11, it would have been leaked through WL already."

Highly unlikely since Assange belongs to the Official Fairytale Club. I guess his brain has a blown circuit when it comes to 9/11.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"For instance, I have heard more than few people try to suggest that if the government had secrets regarding 9/11, it would have been leaked through WL already."

Highly unlikely since Assange belongs to the Official Fairytale Club. I guess his brain has a blown circuit when it comes to 9/11.


How do you know Ashange is playing their game? I am guessing nobody with an high enough clearing approached him yet. Files marked secret are avaiable to relatively low level operatives.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Nist said no explosion sounds were caught on video!

Lie!
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Nist lies again!
www.youtube.com...

These are the people who did the investigation on why the buildings came down!

They were caught lying over and over again.They never tested for explosives even though police,firemen and people that worked in the buildings said they heard,seen and felt explosions going off.And they never tested for explosives even though it was a "terrorist attack" and is a normal procedure for terrorist attacks..AND the WTC was attacked by explosives before.Any normal investigator would investigate the witnesses explosions testimony,and the fact there was no explanation for them proves they did NOT do their job.They were only there to put out the whole planes brought down the towers theory.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
oops double post sorry..
edit on 1-12-2010 by XxiTzYoMasterxX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Personally I believe it was all planned with professional demolition explosives planes dont explode buildings it was an excuse to go to war to Secure the all fields in the Middle East its as simple as that the rest of it is media hype and brainwashing.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   


My point being, this "inexperienced" pilot was traveling at more than 800 miles per hour and made movements for a course correction easily less than a half mile away.


Your thinking is flawed. I’ll ignore the 800mph.

You can bet he saw the smoke from the first strike from many miles away. The course corrections started then and continued until impact. Yet if he had not banked in the last half mile he might have missed. I attribute this to being an inexperienced pilot.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"For instance, I have heard more than few people try to suggest that if the government had secrets regarding 9/11, it would have been leaked through WL already."

Highly unlikely since Assange belongs to the Official Fairytale Club. I guess his brain has a blown circuit when it comes to 9/11.


How do you know Ashange is playing their game? I am guessing nobody with an high enough clearing approached him yet. Files marked secret are avaiable to relatively low level operatives.


If Assange were a "honey pot" to get whistle-blowers within our government -- it would be very, very sad and scary. To be so confident that you can basically PROVE your military is lying, and nothing would be done. Well, we KNOW nothing will happen to all the usual suspects, will it?

But if Assange comes out with some real dirt on the banks -- I'm pretty sure he is the REAL DEAL.

The reason he doesn't have anything on 9/11 -- is that everyone involved who might have data, is already involved, whether knowingly or not. The typical leaks of state department memos and Army data is accessible to MANY PEOPLE and probably has little more than "secret" stamped on it.

When the CIA calls the Saudis to let some of their terrorists get on a plane -- nobody is probably writing that down.

>> Assange's data is merely given to him by civil servants, CIA agents who aren't psychopaths or indoctrinated super-patriots, and others who are sick and tired at working for scum bags who do nothing but line their pockets and lie to the public.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

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... ...
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.


Simple "readiness plans" don't also get signed off on by the Joint Chiefs of require the President to say NO. Seriously -- why are we debating Able Danger or the plans to make it look like drone aircraft were going to invade from Cuba when Kennedy had to put the kibosh on it? Does a President USUALLY say HELL NO to a readiness plan?

>> The part that so sickens me, is that so many people HAVE TO BELIEVE THE LIES we are told. The soldier who goes off to face someone in battle, cannot question that he has the right and duty to kill that son-of-a-byatch. If the enemy is fighting for his own country, and you are there to procure an oil pipeline -- that will really kill morale.

If you have to feed your kids at an insurance company, do you bother to look at the real economics of it and realize that if the government just helped people who were incapacitated or lost houses through no fault of their own -- it would cost everyone a LOT LESS? No. There are millions of us in America who provide a product or service that nobody really needs, or we lie with great abandon about our product even if we would never buy it ourselves.

We all lie and sell each other out, because only the people who buy into "what everyone knows to be true" on the financial news channels, gets promoted. You think like a Baron to gain the favor of those in power -- and ONLY those who think correctly get promoted to positions of power where they get to call the shots or tell the public what their opinion is.

Are Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity great thinkers, or are they people who THINK like those in power want us to think? But beyond the obvious -- people on NPR, or CNN or any other popular show, seem to know what to say and what not to say; "They don't bite the hand that feeds them."

And when BP has an oil spill in the Gulf and is a major advertiser -- you take their PR reports and you act like it is some investigative journalism.

>> People are NOT AWAKE, and we all become isolated and bores at parties when we wake up. Admit it -- how many of us here are "that guy" when a discussion about 9/11 pops up? Nobody wants to automatically be "that guy" and we pay a social cost for speaking the way we do. 95% of everyone else, is just going to follow the herd to greener pastures. And you have less pay, and less time having fun because you bother to question the status quo.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
A wonderful thread Airspoon! S&F as always!
I see our heard of debunkers have attempted to dismiss this thread it is not going away no matter much you want it to.I liked the parts about the Commission Max Cleland realized that the entire exercise was a joke.The families only had 30% of their questions answered if that.Everyone on that damn thing was covering for somebody.The most telling fact for me was Philip Zelikow refusing to appear on Freedom Watch to discuss the Commission with Judge Napolitano tells me he knows the OS stinks and is trying to avoid anyone who will ask any real questions.



new topics

top topics



 
268
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join