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 Power of Facebook Concerning 9/11

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
 
There is absolutely nothing to suggest the Israelis had foreknowledge of the event.


I agree, but there is marret in showing that the "dancing" jewish people are not just a figment of people's imagination.

There were Jewish operatives, and there has been for quite some time, operating within the borders of the United States. Some of them were rounded up after 9/11, questioned and ultimately deported; lack of evidence against them.

But they did exist! Nowhere did I claim the Israelis had foreknowledge; I merely suggested that they might, and even Fox suggested it (in the video I provided).

Now enough about dancing people and NORAD, back to OP: Facebook definitely holds a sway over Americans.

If you'll remember: Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes played a huge roll in Obama's 2008 election. Viral campaigning; "Yes We Can!"...

In my opinion the connectedness of Facebook across so many Americans helped spread that "campaign rhetoric". Remember: Obama campaigned on "NO NAFTA!!" Looks like "Hope and Change" is losing out BIG to "More and the Same".

edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: .




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


You really do not want to get into that with me. The story of those gentleman has been so warped by the "truth" movement that it is pathetic that people still bring it up.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by igigi
 


You really do not want to get into that with me. The story of those gentleman has been so warped by the "truth" movement that it is pathetic that people still bring it up.

The story of how those young Israelis were filming the WTC before the 1st crash and high-fived each other afterwards?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

Right, which is why I said:


Originally posted by igigi
 
There may be no video of them "dancing" but they were certainly "celebrating" and ... acting suspiciously enough for law enforcement officials to take notice.. Foreknowledge of 9/11? We may truly never know, but one thing's for sure, they EXISTED.

Furthermore, I think it's convincing enough that the suspects were detained for 10 weeks then deported. Now, without reviewing the detention notes we will NEVER know their true motives. But enough about Israelis; back to the OP..

What about Facebook?! How do you feel about using entity such as Facebook to virally spread truth-based evidence for the re-investigation of 9/11?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


I think social networks are a fantastic way for the " truth" movement to continue to spread it's lies and to dishonor the memory of the people that died that day.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Nope. They did not show up until after the first tower had been hit. Would you like the link to the interview transcript of the New Jersey lady who called the cops on them?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I'll concede that there are a myriad amount of "crack-pot" 9/11 Truth theories... but I think there is MORE than enough physical evidence to call for a new, non-government, investigation. Something by the People, for the People.

Fact of the matter is: the OS stinks and everyone knows it. It's full of holes and half truths and sometimes just plain WRONG science! What is the idea of truth really mean if it's being propped up by lies?

Facebook is a powerful tool for informing people, it's completely viral.. Every time someone videos a cute cat getting out of a cereal box in Japan, you see it on your Facebook page in *probably* under a day!

There are people out there that are MIS-INFORMED about the Truth movement and the facts behind it; it's their actions that discredit the real Truth movement.
edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


The roots ofthe truth movement lie with an Anti-American Frenchman with an axe to grind. And my question, as yet to be answered, is how are you going to have a non-government entity conduct this pipe dream fantasy of an investigation you think is needed?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Honestly? Until this report is throughly investigated. The Thermite is the linchpin, if we can discover who/what entities supplied, put in place and ignited it... the whole Jenga house build around the NIST OS tumbles down.

I'm not disputing fires, planes, all that nonsensical BS; I don't perscribe to ideas like scalar weapons and holograms (used in 9/11..) I'm disputing the OS because it is not fully truthful.

We have a report that says:

...distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Check out the report, samples were taken at these sites:

edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Relying on a vanity published report that was pre-determined to reach a specific conclusion tells me a lot. And none of it offers any good reason to waste money investigating said report.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I really suggest you actually read the entirety of the report before you make such an ill-informed statement.

Yes, the paper didn't gain much traction, but their findings are irrefutable.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



We had 14 airplanes equipped to intercept hostile aircraft entering the airspace of the United States. 14 aircraft for the continental United States. Not to mention, until the SECOND jet hit the World Trade Center, did anyone realize we were under attack.


That's classic..Even if there was only ONE plane it would probably watch the Pentagon airspace..
Those guys know to defend themselves first, us smucks later...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


In 1989, the Naval Investigative Service did an investigation into the explosion onboard the USS Iowa. Their "scientific investigation" turned up sodium chloride, steel wool and Break Free in the immediate vicinity of the gun room where the explosion happened. Based on that scientific evidence, they accused Gunner's Mate Clayton Hartwig of placing a bomb in the powder bags. And the NIS was wrong. They had pre-determined that it had to have been a bomb that set off the blast, and tailored the evidence to fit their conclusion. Not once did they look for any other reasons for those materials to be there.

Why were those materials there? Steel wool and Break Free? Used to clean/lubricate the breechs of the guns. Sodium Chloride? Well, ocean air is LOUSY with it..since ocean water is SALT WATER...and on ANY warship, you will find sodium chloride all over it.

It took another two years before Sandia National Lab discovered that due to the age of the black powder used in the 16 inch guns, it would spontaneously combust if, as happened on the Iowa, the powder was rammed too hard.

Your thermite boys have made the same mistakes as the NIS did long ago.....and once again, those mistakes are being used to falsely accuse people of mass murder.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Not one aircraft was detailed to defend the airspace around the Pentagon. Instead, they were detailed to defend our ADIZ....which, is over the oceans.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Negative, they found a compound in the dust.

They tested the compound. It was Thermitic in consistency and chemical makeup (via mass spectrometer).

They measured the energy output of un-ignited portions of the Thermitic material; it generated much more energy than conventionally available Thermite/Thermate.

Again: read the report before attempting to debate the material contained in it. Understand that the scientific method was followed and documented to a -> T



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Unless they've changed the report in the last month, I've read it. And as I said, they decided before hand that it had to have been an explosive agent involved, because the buildings were designed to survive being hit by a jetliner......although, they are VERY careful not to state THAT part anymore.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


So what you're suggesting is that the material they found, even though it's 100% proof-positive a highly refined, highly energetic (read EXPLOSIVE) thermitic compound... is invalid because it's, um.. THERMITIC MATERIAL?

I understand you draw issue with study, but I'm really trying to understand why. It's not like the scientists PLANTED the thermite in the dust samples that were given to them. The thermite was in the samples in expended and unexpended form.

It's a peer-reviewed, open science journal published article founded in science and logic. You can't dispute what they found just because they found it and just because there was an inkling that explosives might of been used. To me, that's a fallacy.

Answer me this, you see a car swerving erratically in and out of lanes on a highway; not so much "driving" as they are allowing the car to barrel forward on the highway. What is your 1st thought? Probably that the driver is under the influence, right? At that point there's two options: they're intoxicated, or they're not (e.i looking for a CD they dropped or something equally irresponsible while driving.

Now do you fault a law enforcement agent for pulling them over? No, the agent saw something and acted upon that HUNCH. The scientists saw something and acted upon a HUNCH, and guess what? Thermite isn't one of the materials the WTC buildings were made out of.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 


Not one aircraft was detailed to defend the airspace around the Pentagon. Instead, they were detailed to defend our ADIZ....which, is over the oceans.


Doesn't that strike you as odd??
There was a LONG time between the first plane hitting the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon...
And yet NO interceptors made it back in time??

Also you say only 14 planes were covering the US, but how many were also in the air on the known "exercises" being undertaken on that day??
Surely that would add considerably to your 14 planes...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure he could speak to that extent.. I'm pretty sure active flights, operations and SOP are classified and will stay classified.

Just my thoughts, but he might be able to illuminate this for us.
edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
I'm not sure he could speak to that extent.. I'm pretty sure active flights, operations and SOP are classified and will stay classified.

Just my thoughts, but he might be able to illuminate this for us.
edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: (no reason given)


True but doesn't alter 2 facts..

There were more than 14 planes in the air and I doubt they were all off the coast..

The US was well aware of the scenario that occured on 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join