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.

 

Where Have All The Tourists Gone...

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well, then that would mean the tourist were in on it?

Or,

Were they warned in advance?







posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RufusDriftwood
Haven't you heard about George W Bushs "Oil For Aid". After the USA bombed the # out of Iraq killing hundred of thousands of innocents, some of them British soldiers, he then decided to offer the contracts to rebuild Iraqs infra structure to his fathers friends businesses while stripping the nation of it's entire oil reserves. You say you have more oil in your garage than Iraq! Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia so you must have some incredible garage!


I'm sure that this comes as a great shock to you, but we didn't invade Iraq becuase of 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan over 9/11. We invaded Iraq over the whole WMD thing. Claiming that 9/11 was some secret sinister conspiracy to blow up (or disintergrate with lasers, depending on who you ask) a bunch of buildings under a staged hijacking all to invade Iraq by going through Afghanistan is pretty outer space idiotic, even for the conspiracy mongors.

...and may I ask, if this is all some secret sinister conspiracy...up to and apparently including secret agents confiscating photos being taken by tourists on 9/11...why didn't the conspirators plant WMD in Iraq to show the world how evi Saddam Husein was? Sneaking in a few nerve gas cannisters out into the desert would be a far sight easier than secretly rigging a heavily occupied building with explosives. You know that and so do I.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It was pretty early in the morning for tourists, who tend to be out late.

I hadn't even left for work yet when my friend called to say I shouldn't get on the train because there had been some kind of big accident in Manhattan. So when we went up on the roof, we were able to see the second plane as it hit.

I watched it happen with my own eyes. I promise you, regardless of the origins of the event, everyone in the city was completely in shock. There's no way there was some kind of weird mass warning that let people know to stay away or whatever you're thinking. We were all genuinely, deeply in shock.
edit on 24-4-2011 by sepermeru because: when I go back there now, it's like another dimension



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Well, then that would mean the tourist were in on it?

Or,

Were they warned in advance?


As the knee jerk reaction of the conspiracy people necessarily is to accuse everyone from tourists on a boat to a taxi driver riding a cab by the Pentagon of being "in on it" that is probably what they would think it would mean. The question still stands, however- what would be on the tourists' photos that wouldn't be on the trillions of other photos and videos taken by other sources?

If the answer is, "nothing" then why is it even an issue, if not to instigate false public paranoia?
edit on 24-4-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RufusDriftwood

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by RufusDriftwood
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

"Let me ask YOU a question- out of all the possible reasons for why tourists didn't take photos, why are you conspiracy people instinctively skipping them all and automatically gravitating toward the goofiest one- that some sinister cabal secretly confiscated the five million tourist photos to prevent some smoking gun information from being leaked? We see right away there are plenty of photos and videos taken elsewhere throughout the day so this whole thread is just one long exercise in pointless absurdity. " quote.

Talk about jumping to conclusions!
Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a conspiracy person? I have never even considered the notion that tourists, any tourist, had their film confiscated... As for goofy ideas! Which is the goofier? That a country that routinely tells the rest of the world that they have the best of everything and that the rest of us should bow at their feet suddenly are attacked by a man plotting their downfall from a cave, even though America was told by the rest of the world it was going to happen- or a dispicable and corrupt government saw the chance to use such an attack to gather world opinion and enter the middle east in a ravenous search for oil? Think of what's happening now on our TV screens nightly and I think I chose the latter.




The suggestion, frequently made, that wars in the middle east subsequent to 9/11 were all about oil just does not make sense.

Afghanistan produces less oil than I have in my garage and I haven't seen any evidence that the US or UK have received so much as a single free barrel of oil from Iraq.

Evidence does show though that the Iraq war and subsequent occupation cost the US treasury $704 billion to February 2010.

You can buy a heck of a lot of oil on the international market for $704 billion.


Haven't you heard about George W Bushs "Oil For Aid". After the USA bombed the # out of Iraq killing hundred of thousands of innocents, some of them British soldiers, he then decided to offer the contracts to rebuild Iraqs infra structure to his fathers friends businesses while stripping the nation of it's entire oil reserves. You say you have more oil in your garage than Iraq! Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia so you must have some incredible garage!
www.cfr.org...


I said my garage has more oil than Afghanistan produces, not Iraq.

"Oil for Aid" doesn't make any sense as a motivation for 9/11. It was something to develop in the future. What 9/11 threw up were links to Afghanistan and terrorist training and the whole thing was actually an untimely diversion from Iraq.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I think your thread is based on a false premise. None of us knows how many tourists in New York on 9/11 took pictures.

If I had been a tourist that day and managed to overcome my shock and sense of ghoulishness in recording such tragedy and taken some pictures or video; I don't think I would have felt any pressing need to hand them over to the authorities when I realised that it was being covered wall to wall on tv.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Timing is everything

You have a weekday morning after Labor day, summer vacations over, people back at work, kids in school

It is 8:45 am, most people are still in process of getting up , washing, eating breakfest, etc

The observation deck at WTC (South tower 106th floor) does not open until 9:30am

Odds of having lot of tourists hanging around at that time are rather low



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

It is 8:45 am, most people are still in process of getting up , washing, eating breakfest, etc

The first tour boat already left by then. The boat the two pieces of footage was apparently taken from was the second tour boat of the day.


Odds of having lot of tourists hanging around at that time are rather low

There are a lot of screams heard on the Hezarkhani video. It's not like that second tour boat was empty.

There should have been lots of people wandering in the park this whole time to catch the aftermath of the North Tower smoking and then the South Tower aftermath. Something's real suspicious that only two people on the same boat publicly posted footage out of the entire park and the first tour boat.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
There should have been lots of people wandering in the park this whole time to catch the aftermath of the North Tower smoking and then the South Tower aftermath. Something's real suspicious that only two people on the same boat publicly posted footage out of the entire park and the first tour boat.


When you say this is, "suspicious" by definition it means that you suspect something is going on. What is it that you suspect is going on?

Please, no more childish innuendo dropping. Just come out and say what you're trying to say; what's the reason you suspect why there's so few tourists' photographs? To me, everyone being too much in shock from what they were seeing to take any photos is anything but suspicious.

...and what would be on the tourists' photos that wouldn't be on any of the 500 other photos and videos taken theoughout the day, anyway?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
When you say this is, "suspicious" by definition it means that you suspect something is going on. What is it that you suspect is going on?

Please, no more childish innuendo dropping.

Where was my "childish" innuendo dropping?


To me, everyone being too much in shock from what they were seeing to take any photos is anything but suspicious.

...and what would be on the tourists' photos that wouldn't be on any of the 500 other photos and videos taken theoughout the day, anyway?

Ah, so the takers of those 500 other photos weren't in shock? Make up your mind.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



There should have been lots of people wandering in the park this whole time to catch the aftermath of the North Tower smoking and then the South Tower aftermath. Something's real suspicious that only two people on the same boat publicly posted footage out of the entire park and the first tour boat.


Why is that suspicious? People don't take photos and post them for all the world to see. They take them for their own purposes. Anyone with their own photos probably realized that their photos don't show anything that 1000's of other photos and videos show, so why would anyone post them on the internet?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Where was my "childish" innuendo dropping?


The definition of "innuendo" is to "make an indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication". You said there was something "real suspicious" with the tourists not taking photos, as in you suspect there's an ulterior reason for this, and of course, with the conspiracy people it's always got to be something sinister. Since you find this suspicious, I'm asking what it is exactly that you suspect.

You're attempting to insinuate accusations of collusion without actually coming out and saying it. You know that and so do I.


Ah, so the takers of those 500 other photos weren't in shock? Make up your mind.


After the first plane strike every newsman and journalist in NYC grabbed their cameras and started covering the events. Plus, emergency personnel such as firefighters and police were photographing the events as well. They filmed the events because it was their job to film such events. It isn't the job of the tourists to film such events. Does that have to be explained to you? I mean, really?

This is neither here nor there. You still didn't answer the question- what would the tourists' photos even show that elevates this whole bit from "irrelevent" to "real suspicious"?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I can play this ''game'' too, Dave - After all, you make it look as though you're oh-so ''innocent'' when it comes to writing posts that don't contain any derogatory/condescending remarks against others, not to mention continually lumping pretty much everybody who doesn't subscribe to the ''OS'' into the category that you would likely label as ''damned fool conspiracy site subscribers''.

99.9% of your posts contain this very attitude. Go a. and deny it; I'm willing to bet that there's plenty of people here that would agree with this.

For every time you accuse somebody of dropping ''childish innuendo'', you also go and drop the ''you conspiracy people'' term, as if everybody with an alternative opinion/theory/view of September 11th is some crack-pot mental case who belongs in a mental ward and not on ATS.

To coin another one of your ''classic'' lines, ''you know this, and so do I''.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthbringsfreedom777
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I can play this ''game'' too, Dave - After all, you make it look as though you're oh-so ''innocent'' when it comes to writing posts that don't contain any derogatory/condescending remarks against others, not to mention continually lumping pretty much everybody who doesn't subscribe to the ''OS'' into the category that you would likely label as ''damned fool conspiracy site subscribers''.

99.9% of your posts contain this very attitude. Go a. and deny it; I'm willing to bet that there's plenty of people here that would agree with this.


Why would I deny this? I have always said from day one that the predominant force driving all these 9/11 conspiracies are these damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing out blizzards of embellished and outright false information. Lasers from outer space, no planes, nukes in the basement, take your pick- they all started at some conspiracy web site or another. All you need to do is look at the 9/11 demonstrations, whenever they pop up- it's always a sea of people wearing those black, "9/11 was an inside job" T-shirts, the ones with the 11 shaped to look like the twin towers. You know, the one that Alex Jones sells on Infowars?



For every time you accuse somebody of dropping ''childish innuendo'', you also go and drop the ''you conspiracy people'' term, as if everybody with an alternative opinion/theory/view of September 11th is some crack-pot mental case who belongs in a mental ward and not on ATS.


No, you're not a crackpot. I have likewise said from day one that you conspiracy people are generally intelligent and articulate people. The problem is that you don't know you're being conned by lunatics and snake oil peddlers behind those damned fool web sites because you don't have both sides of the story. You yourself are simply the victim in their con. How often does it need to be pointed out to you conspiracy people that there's no such thing as an "official story"; the report came from the commission interviewing dozens of people from FAA personnel to NYPA workers to German intelligence agents to Mohammed Atta's neighbors. We both know you got THAT off of some conspiracy web site or another as well.

Now that that's settled, how about answering the question I asked twice already: It was deemed, "real suspicious" that so few tourists took photos. By definition this means you suspect there's a hidden reason for it. What reason is it that exactly you're suspecting?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Now that that's settled, how about answering the question I asked twice already: It was deemed, "real suspicious" that so few tourists took photos. By definition this means you suspect there's a hidden reason for it. What reason is it that exactly you're suspecting?


Dont you know Dave all those people on the tour boats were carefully chosen NWO stooges who were told
to show up and buy up all the tickets so there would be no photographs taken ......

Or maybe not......



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Why is that suspicious? People don't take photos and post them for all the world to see.






posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You said there was something "real suspicious" with the tourists not taking photos, as in you suspect there's an ulterior reason for this

You think I'm inferring that all the tourists there were in on it?


It isn't the job of the tourists to film such events. Does that have to be explained to you? I mean, really?

Did I ever say it was their job? You're acting irrationally.


This is neither here nor there. You still didn't answer the question- what would the tourists' photos even show that elevates this whole bit from "irrelevent" to "real suspicious"?

It would show there was a normal amount of tourists in Battery Park that morning acting normally.
edit on 28-4-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Dont you know Dave all those people on the tour boats were carefully chosen NWO stooges who were told
to show up and buy up all the tickets so there would be no photographs taken ......

Please show us some kind of footage taken from that boat that clearly shows other tourists on that boat. Footage taken from other areas showing tourists on that boat will work too.
edit on 28-4-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

You think I'm inferring that all the tourists there were in on it?


I have no idea what it is you're inferring. All I know is that you're obviously inferring something and I'm attempting to find out what it is. You have done a masterful job at repeateadly evading answering the question.

I must tell you THAT behavior is even more suspicious than any lack of tourist photographs on 9/11, and I'll tell you precisely what it is that I suspect, if you wish.


It would show there was a normal amount of tourists in Battery Park that morning acting normally.


There wasn't anything remotely normal that morning so there's no way for you to measure what tourists normally would or would not do during a major terrorist attack.

It's obvious getting a straight answer out of you is going to be akin to nailing jam to the wall, so let me ask this question instead- what do the photos of the tourists who did take photos show that make you want to find out more about what the non-photo taking tourists would have photographed?
edit on 28-4-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join