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.

 

If the government was in charge of 9/11 what's the deal with terror?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Wow 95 websites all playing off each others opinions. Not one of them present any facts, just speculation and guessing. Its laughable to think that people point to such websites as evidence. But if it makes you feel beter to believe these sites, by all means be my guest.




posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Wow 95 websites all playing off each others opinions. Not one of them present any facts, just speculation and guessing. Its laughable to think that people point to such websites as evidence. But if it makes you feel beter to believe these sites, by all means be my guest.



Im curious, did you read every single piece of info on every single site? I fyou did that would be an impressive feat.


[edit on 19-8-2004 by Janus]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I have been through most of them, all of them no.

After reading 30 or 40 threads here, and comparing them to the websites listed , its all the same regurgitated tripe. Out of context quotes and opinions based on no evidence other than "I'm no expert but this is how it went down" doesnt make evidence or fact.

I mean controlled demolition, cruise missiles, and all that other crud....cmon
wheres the evidence?

Before you go saying I'm close minded and won't accept evidence, I say to you show some evidence, don't point me to someones opinion thats based on pure imagination.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
I have been through most of them, all of them no.

After reading 30 or 40 threads here, and comparing them to the websites listed , its all the same regurgitated tripe. Out of context quotes and opinions based on no evidence other than "I'm no expert but this is how it went down" doesnt make evidence or fact.

I mean controlled demolition, cruise missiles, and all that other crud....cmon
wheres the evidence?

Before you go saying I'm close minded and won't accept evidence, I say to you show some evidence, don't point me to someones opinion thats based on pure imagination.


Im not here to convice you Skibum, you have made your mind up aleady.Thats good, but not everyone blieves what they are told some of us like to poke about in the dark corners and see what stirs.
By the way, i was just having a bit of fun with you, i didnt really think you had read them all, i meant no offence.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
I said it before and ill say it again, theese people are NOT experts in the field they claim they have found "somthing wrong" with. Be it the aircraft, or the structures.. Here is my challenge to both of you.. of all those 95 sites listed find me 5 that come from reputable people. Or at the very least, somone who KNOWS what they are talking about regarding aeronautics or structureal engineering.... Ill be waiting.
Ok- lets see...

Fox news? msnbc? do you expect any of the so called right winged and silenced by the government "media" to tell us the truth?

LOL
. I think not. Better go to our sources for the only truth you'll ever find.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
My mind not 100% made up. If someone were to present me with proof I could easily change my mind. But when the only proof you are presented with is easily proven false or even laughable it only serves to bolster my opinion.

I'm looking for the truth and from what I've seen its not on that list of sites.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
LadyV....the ideal that elements of our government were respondsible for 9-11 is very hard for people to believe....but if you look at the available data there is no other conclusion....for the person saying there is no proof, all you have to do is look at the frame by frame versions of the film shot by CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc., all were shot from different angles, all show that the planes were armed aircraft, not commerical airliners. I have been asking for over 6 months for anyone to show that the films were fake. NO takers. As for a little bit of history....




Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony; the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.


Respects,



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
My mind not 100% made up. If someone were to present me with proof I could easily change my mind. But when the only proof you are presented with is easily proven false or even laughable it only serves to bolster my opinion.

I'm looking for the truth and from what I've seen its not on that list of sites.



Then at least you have an open mind. There is a lot of stuff out there that doesnt add up,as i have stated before i dont believe the Missile theory,but the photos deserve a closer look also with the Pentagon Attack a lot of stuff there that is very strange also the Fall of building 7 and the Firefighter reports deserve a look. If you havent seen the documentary " In Plane Site " then i highly recomend it there is some very interesting footage on there that will make you think and after all thats all we are trying to ask people to do.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
My mind not 100% made up. If someone were to present me with proof I could easily change my mind. But when the only proof you are presented with is easily proven false or even laughable it only serves to bolster my opinion.

I'm looking for the truth and from what I've seen its not on that list of sites.
but...but...but...Listen- what source do you want? Why not walk up to the white house, beat on the door with your parasol and demand an audience with George in order to learn the truth?


The regular media aint gonna tell you. So stop debating. Your mind is made up already.
We're responding to certain sites that have the postings. If this was out in the open and on regular "credible" media, there wouldnt be any need to debate this in the first place. Your mind is made up. Good.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Here's a little "evidence" from publicly available videos and footage:

-4 camera angles recording some sort of pod or tank on the bottom of the 2nd plane to hit the towers
-2 cameras recording a missile shooting from under the 2nd planes wing and hitting the tower causing the flash, if not the subsequent explosion
-at least 3 camera angles recording a flash on the outside of the tower just before the nose of the 2nd plane hit
-1 camera recording a flash before the first plane hit the tower
-the relatively small amount of damage done to the Pentagon with the initial impact of whatever it was, if you remember, the roof and top floors collapsed after that section of the Pentagon burned for a while.
-The dozens of people interviewed live, including reporters who said that the 2nd plane that hit the towers was definitely not an american airlines commercial flight. they could clearly see the markings and the fact that it didn't have windows, not just the footage, although there are a couple of angles where it is clear that there are no windows.

As for the reasons or exactly how they did it, that's all speculation. So, just because you cannot reason the fact that we were lied to, based off of the limited amount of knowledge that is fed to the public on how the world works or what relationships there are between our governments administration and anybody else in the world, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


No terrorists took credit for September 11th, that's another lie that has become "fact" because of our media. There is one video of Osama Bin Laden laughing about the attacks, but he doesn't say anything that would lead anyone to believe that Al Qaeda was responsible.

Oh yeah, who writes a suicide letter and takes it with them knowing that it would burn up? What kind of hardcore, known terrorist is allowed to get on domestic flights, much less enter the country using a passport with his real name? I don't care if you don't believe what you read, that's understandable, you should believe the footage, which has never been questioned, because it's the same stuff aired live by CNN, ABC, Fox, etc.. It hasn't been alterred because alot of the links that I've seen are directly from news agencies!



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
If it were "credible" evidence then I'm pretty certain it would be on "credible" media. The only reason that its not on mainstream media, is that ,with a few exceptions or mistakes, they have to report the facts.

I'm sure the media would love for there to be some big scandal or conspiracy, Imagine the ratings. But a shadow on the bottom of an airplane and someones opinion that its irrefutable evidence that something is attatched to the bottom of the airplane is not newsworthy its just a shadow. A flash as the airplane hits isn't evidence of a government plot, its just a flash.

As for the source, I couldn't care less. If you can provide real evidence, I'd be willing to believe.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
What standard do you use to deem something credible or incredible? Before seeing "In Plane Site" and then researching the subject pretty extensively I would have sounded the way you do, but I have seen the footage slowed down and zoomed-in.

Everything I have seen has PROVEN that the 2nd plane that hit the towers definitely did not have windows and definitely had some sort of structure on it's underbelly. I have seen no footage or picture showing the absence of that structure or the presence of windows. So by a reasonable standard, it would be incredible to say that the plane was a commercial airliner, not the other way around. Same thing for the flash in the footage of the first plane and the lack of a 757 in the Pentagon explosion footage and the presence of a smaller object.

I suggest doing some research of your own before criticizing other people's posts, because apparently, you haven't seen the footage. I am normally a pretty skeptical person and everyone I have shown the footage to has dropped their jaw in disbelief. They aren't just reading opinions, they're looking at nationally aired news footage, which most of it was aired live.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
www.thewebfairy.com...

This is probably the most convincing footage proving that some sort of missile was fired from the 2nd WTC plane.

In the top left footage, there is an object clearly visible coming out in front of the planes nose and impacting the tower before the plane does, causing the famous flash.

The bottom left footage clearly shows some sort of exhaust, behind the wing to the left of the engine, just before the flash.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Same thing for the flash in the footage of the first plane and the lack of a 757 in the Pentagon explosion footage and the presence of a smaller object.




LOL Never in a million years will you be able to convince me or the other witnesses that actually saw the AIRPLANE that hit the Pentagon. I assure you it was NOT a Missile, It was NOT a UAV.

You will never be able to convince my friends who help with the cleanup that it was not an airplane. They were there they saw the wreckage with thier own eyes. Just because you haven't seen pictures of it doesn't mean it wasn't there.


Okay you saw a flash, but what does it mean?The "structure" looks much like a shadow, besides why put something on the bottom of the plane when you have a huge inside to fill up?

Life is not one big conspiracy,but that doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies. Are there UFO's, for me the jury is still out.
Is the government not telling us about aliens, perhaps.
Who shot JFK, I have no idea.

Eveyone keeps pointing to this "evidence" in the form of a film that you have to buy. I think its more of a conspiracy that you have to pay to see "evidence", why not just put it out for all to see.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Same thing for the flash in the footage of the first plane and the lack of a 757 in the Pentagon explosion footage and the presence of a smaller object.




LOL Never in a million years will you be able to convince me or the other witnesses that actually saw the AIRPLANE that hit the Pentagon. I assure you it was NOT a Missile, It was NOT a UAV.

You will never be able to convince my friends who help with the cleanup that it was not an airplane. They were there they saw the wreckage with thier own eyes. Just because you haven't seen pictures of it doesn't mean it wasn't there.


Okay you saw a flash, but what does it mean?The "structure" looks much like a shadow, besides why put something on the bottom of the plane when you have a huge inside to fill up?

Life is not one big conspiracy,but that doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies. Are there UFO's, for me the jury is still out.
Is the government not telling us about aliens, perhaps.
Who shot JFK, I have no idea.

Eveyone keeps pointing to this "evidence" in the form of a film that you have to buy. I think its more of a conspiracy that you have to pay to see "evidence", why not just put it out for all to see.


Like i said if you dont want to buy it then use Bittiorrent or would you like me to hold your hand and show you where? you seem to do a lot of asking people to show you evidence but you dont seem willing to find your own. we arnt here to babysit you, if you want proof, then do what we all have to do and go find some.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
If you could bring down a building by simply starting a fire in it, making it drop down in perfect order WHY would demolition companies bother with all that technical mumbo jumbo? What is laughable is that 3 buildings on 911 dropped just like demolition work and everyone seems to take for granted that that is how buildings natually collapse.

The true lightness of reality is that people still don't get the joke.

Here is a skyscraper where five floors burned in 1988 for 3-1/2 hours before it was contained

. . . I am convinced that the fire would not have been contained as it was in 3-1/2 hours. In most other cities, the building could have become a charred skeleton . . .

www.lafire.com...
There is however no mention of structural instability, and infact the tower is in full use to this day.

Here a skyscaper with NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM burned for 18 HOURS!

The twelve-alarm fire burned for 18 hours. The extreme heat caused window glass and frames to melt and concrete floor slabs and steel beams to buckle and sag dramatically.

www.sgh.com...
After 8 years of legal arguments about safety it was dismantled. In other words it stood there for 8 years after the fire.

The twin towers COLLAPSED in LESS THAN TWO HOURS of impact and fire.
57 minutes for the south tower, 104 minutes for the North tower.

At what point do people look at the events on 911 and begin to wonder?

I guess some jokes are just private.
.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
more fear - more control.



physics911.org...



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Don't buy it then:

There's a 52 minute, 109 megabyte video called "In Plane Site" that you can download from:
search.suprnova.org...

But, it's a bit torrent file so you need special software that you can download here:
www.shareaza.com...

Download the software first, then visit the movie download site.
Type "In Plane Site" in the main search field and hit "search".
Single click on the file and Shareaza should start and ask you if you want to download the file.
Hit yes and wait for the download to finish.

As for you seeing the plane hit the Pentagon, then great, but I was stationed at Ft. Myers when I was in the Army, was there when the Pentagon was attacked and had many co-workers and friends there. Including a good friend who was a Tomb Sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He neither saw or heard a low flying plane, which doesn't mean it wasn't there, but he and a few other friends happened to run down to the Pentagon and help pull survivors out. They saw no airplane wreckage at all and they went inside the Pentagon too.

So let's say a plane hit the Pentagon. For the moment, I will go along with that. There happened to be relatively little initial damage to that portion of the Pentagon that would be expected from a large airliner stiking a building. However, something went throught the 3 outer sections of the Pentagon and left a 12 ft. hole along the way. A plane crash would not do that. Look up some government reports on the topic, from "real" experts that only report facts. A missile would do that that though. So let's say that a plane hit the Pentagon. Fine. Then so did some sort of a missile, which would explain the physical damage to the Pentagon, but for some reason, no evidence of a plane crash remained.

Unfortunately, I didn't see it, but have spoken to people who did. Some said it was a commercial jet. Some said it was a small plane and some said it was an object that looked like a missile. So now everything is he said/she said. But, there is the physical evidence and that's what has convinced me.

A shadow is the result of an object preventing light from reaching the surface of another object. The structure is not a shadow, because it is reflecting light and actually casts it own shadow.

You're acting kind of suspiciously skibum, if I didn't now better, I would say that you were just posting nonsense to prevent people from looking this stuff up, but I could be wrong, so if I am, sorry.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
while I am totally sure that the US government has used the attacks for their right wing uber backlash and attack on civlibs (and may very well have known all about it before hand), people cannot compare the physics of a skyscraper on fire form a domestic fire out of control, and the kind of temperatures caused by the sudden explosion of hundreds of thousands of litres of jet fuel...

just a thought having just read this thread...

oh.. and I do remember about 15min after the second explosion, in the UK reports were coming in of one of the smaller palestinian militant factions claiming responsibility (even though it was totally stupid...)



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Ok, some people want all the attention, which is why they continually post and go against everybody.

I need someone to answer this question:

WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO FLIGHT 175 AND ALL ITS PASSENGERS?

Since what hit was apparently a cargo plane,what did they do to flight 175?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join