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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Do you flat out believe the official story for 9/11? Do you believe there is no evidence to support any other theory?

If you answered YES to either of those questions, then I am interested in what you think of the following points:

Mohamed Atta (one of the main hijackers) was a coc aine snorting, vodka drinking hedonist who spent much of his time prior to the attacks motor boating strippers and doing lines of coke off them. He had even gone into the world trade center building completely out of his mind demanding blue prints for the building and generally acting deliberately suspicious. Few problems here. Extremist Muslims, especially martyrs are likely by definition to be incredibly religious, well needless to say Atta's behavior does not seem to fit here, it seems more like the behavior of a deranged hedonist. This doesn't fit.

The hole that was left in the side of the pentagon. We are told that without a doubt, a Boeing 757 slammed into the pentagon. Well sorry but the hole is absolutely tiny and anyone who payed attention can clearly see that a Boeing 757 would make a far larger hole, and there would also be a great deal of debris laying about. Donald Rumsfeld was also seen clearing the Pentagon lawn after the 'attack', pretty odd for the secretary of defense to do that. I would also like to know how people think that the hijacker who apparently flew the pentagon plane, who could barely handle a single engine Sesler according to his American flight instructor, was able to make such difficult maneuvers and actually successfully hit the pentagon.

The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter. So what happened? Do you really think that a 757 could make it all the way to the pentagon without having any issues? Norad's missile defense systems would have shot it out of the sky before it got anywhere near the pentagon.

Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?

The exercises taking place on that day. Military exercises were taking place that day that predicted the exact same situation that was took place on 9/11, a lot of fighter pilots and so forth thought that the actual attacks were an exercise so they did not respond to the threat out of confusion. Strange that, not really relevant but the same thing happened on the day of the London bombings.

The explosions. Many many people have said they heard explosions on the ground and in the basement, witnesses saw their friends killed by exploding walls in the basement. So if we listen to the hundreds of witnesses claiming to have heard explosions, then who planted the explosives, video evidence has also revealed explosive flashes occurring as the towers fall. So do you believe there were no explosives? or that the terrorists planted them and the commission was just too lazy to investigate it or?

So here is just a few things worth mentioning.

So believers and 'OSers' what do you think of these things? Do you choose to ignore them to fit your idea of what happened, deny these realities because of the grim realization that the government may have actually let this atrocity take place? Even if you don't believe it was orchestrated by the government, do you not think that they may have had prior knowledge? which has been proven by the way. If they did have prior knowledge and did just let it happen, that is almost just as bad. Even if they didn't orchestrate it, can you not believe that they may have assisted? Pulled a few strings and turned a few blind eyes so that it could happen?

I want to know how when people see the points I am about to put forward, how they can still defend the OS so consistently. Do these things not matter to you? If so it seems you're basing your judgment on a small section of the information available and are not making an informed decision.

Cheers in advance.



edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It is pointless to discuss 911. Those responsible left so much evidence of their crime that it is obvious that they wanted us to know. This fact alone should tell you that you need to just walk away and take care of those you love. Think about what it all means. There is no one to tell. Can you see the kind of world you live in? It is unfixable.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JesusLives
 


This is precisely my point though. How, with all of the crazy evidence available can people still wholeheartedly believe the official story to be true? And I am not being patronizing in any way at all, I actually genuinely interested in how people can believe this?

I was doing a bit of reading through this forum and I was just gobsmacked at how aggressively people defend the OS, I'm really interested.

These things really matter!
edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Hey I agree totally. It was an inside job.!! ( and lets not forget that 2 + Trillion that went missing from the Pentagon on 9/11. They had to create a "Boggie Man" so that the contractors and Haliburton could milk the tax payers of The US. The Intel for iraq was wrong and the Warnings were ignored and the excuses go on and on. I might add Obama says he will end the war when and if elected within a yr approx, another lie with excuses of course. In my opinion what would have been wrong with simply setting up airport security like they are doing now and forget the war from the start? I will tell you why in my opinion. It wouldn't make the money for the orchestraters of the whole 9/11 lie.

Really think about it. The quote unquote terrorists' have to get here on a plane unless they walk or buy a sailboat and for that we have an A F or Navy!! Thx for the thread..



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Yeah I definitely think it's interesting about the missing trillions that were apparently forgotten about the day after 9/11. I also read somewhere that there were a lot of files relating to those missing trillions in building 7 or something like that. I mean it's obvious what the motivations for letting the event take place would be: Tightening up internal security (patriot act, TSA scanners etc), Money (justifies the invasion of Iraq to America which in turns leads to oil, building contracts for companies to build up the country they destroyed etc), Strategic advantage (being able to build permanent military bases in the middle east) etc etc etc.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Has this horse (err... topic) about been beaten to death, resurrected, beaten some more for good measure then kicked around just for the fun of it? It just seems to me that 9/11 has become much like Abortion. Almost everyone has an opinion, they are normally extreme in how strongly they believe whichever side, and rarely will anyone change anyone else's mind at this point. So...Why is it the topic gets rehashed every few days or a week to see the same outcome on every thread?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I am actually asking some genuine questions. I was reading through some 9/11 topics and I couldn't find any solid answers to what a lot of official story believers think about these things, I want to know!!

There are a lot of posts about 9/11, but there deserves to be. If anyone can give me their thoughts on these things that would be fantastic.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter.

Just curious, can you link me to where the Pentagon had missile defences back in 2001? I read this claim a fair bit and I've never seen any hard evidence for it. Convince me, please.

Also, can you define what you mean by a no fly zone for a 30 km perimeter? There's a fairly big airport within spitting distance of the Pentagon, with lots of jets flying past all the time...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by sir_slide
The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter.

Just curious, can you link me to where the Pentagon had missile defences back in 2001? I read this claim a fair bit and I've never seen any hard evidence for it. Convince me, please.

Also, can you define what you mean by a no fly zone for a 30 km perimeter? There's a fairly big airport within spitting distance of the Pentagon, with lots of jets flying past all the time...



According the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) website, "a defensive system may need to hit a warhead smaller than an oil drum that is traveling above the atmosphere at speeds greater than 13,000 miles per hour." The CBO report states that missile defense and intercept systems must take down an ICBM in a matter of minutes or it is all over. You may remember that before 9/11, there were a number of tests of the Pentagon's missile defense systems. Some tests failed, while others succeeded. But there is an important question here. If these sophisticated military systems were designed to detect missiles fired from unknown locations at over 13,000 mph and shoot them down in mere minutes, why on 9/11 could they not detect any one of the four large airliners traveling at a mere 600 mph, especially when two of them were known to be lost for over 40 minutes before they crashed?

This question applies especially to Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. The first plane hijacking on 9/11 was reported at about 8:20 AM (see NY Times article), well over an hour before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38. According to the Times article, Flight 77 was reported lost at 8:56 A.M., 42 minutes before it crashed. Even if the FAA radar systems completely failed and FAA officials failed to alert the military, all military leaders certainly knew within minutes that the World Trade Center had been hit at 8:46. By 9:03, when the second tower was hit, they certainly knew there were big problems.

How is it possible that the Pentagon's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.? The missile detection systems did not depend on FAA radar and were programmed to pick up any unaccounted for objects and raise alarms immediately, as mentioned on the CBO website.

LINK


www.911myths.com...

I remember a NORAD official talking about the 'no fly zone' stating only military aircraft were allowed inside it, does seem odd if there is an airport next to it. So maybe that no fly zone isn't as protected as we think. There must be some kind of protocol in regards to commercial aircraft heading directly at the Pentagon...

Although that does not account for the tiny hole in the pentagon and the very difficult maneuvers involved in actually hitting the building, maneuvers that the pilot was apparently far too incompetent to execute.

Something else:


The scene of the attack was thoroughly disturbed on the following day by the immediate launch of new construction work, with the result that many of the elements necessary to reconstruct what had happened are missing. The elements that do remain, however, converge in a single hypothesis that it is not possible to prove with certainty. An air traffic controller from Washington has testified seeing on radar an object flying at about 800 kilometers per hour, moving initially toward the White House, then turning sharply toward the Pentagon, where it seemed to crash. The air traffic controller has testified that the characteristics of the flight were such that it could only have been a military projectile. Several hundred witnesses have claimed that they head "a shrill noise like the noise of a fighter-bomber", but nothing like the noise of a civilian aircraft. Eye-witnesses have said that they saw "something like a cruise missile with wings" or a small flying object "like a plane carrying eight or twelve persons".
www.globalresearch.ca...

edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Do yourself a favor. Go to Google maps, select satellite view of Washington, D.C. Pay close attention to the runway that basically directly points at the Pentagon. Then come back to ask about the "30km no fly" zone that doesn't exist over the Pentagon, and ask about the non-existant missile batteries.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Fair enough... I'll bet I was just a little quick to post my note, given how fast and sincerely you came back to answer it. I don't get into this topic for chat anymore, for what I said. Fighting purely for sport isn't my thing, and it would seem that is all these threads turn into, in the end. however, you are taking a bit of a different tack. I wish you luck in getting some honest and sincere replies to your obviously sincere question.
I'll watch too. There are definitely issues I would love to see respectful answers offered from both sides on...like the Pentagon, as an example.

Reply to myself? Yikes.. Don't know how that happened. This was directed to Sir_Slide for the last reply sent toward me.



edit on 14-8-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: Reply address goofed somehow



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
How is it possible that the Pentagon's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.? The missile detection systems did not depend on FAA radar and were programmed to pick up any unaccounted for objects and raise alarms immediately, as mentioned on the CBO website.


The pentagon had no defence system when 9/11 happened - I strongly suggest you reread that link, it is not talking about a defence system to defend the Pentagon....



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
*(Double post removed)*



edit on 8/14/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yeah another member pointed out the airport in close vicinity to the pentagon, I do remember a NORAD guy stating that they had very sophisticated missile systems in place to protect the pentagon, I will really try to find it. Seems odd that they wouldn't, I mean it is the Pentagon after all, and it is the United States of America, seems ludicrous to me that there were not systems in place to monitor/protect against possible incoming targets, as in there would be constant radio contact with said airport and any aircraft approaching the Pentagon which is not accounted for/identified would naturally be considered a threat and neutralized accordingly.....

So at the moment people dispute the fact that there were missile defenses guarding the pentagon and that there isn't a no fly zone around the building, sweet. Now what about the other points...?

edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
Now what about the other points...?


They are just as wrong about your claims about a Pentagon missile system and a 30km exclusion zone around it...
edit on 14-8-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Explanation please?

Thanks heaps in advance



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, Slide, but I felt bad about my rather quick note so I went out to dig this up. It shows the Air Defense Zone as 30 nm and recommends anyone planning to fly within 100 nautical miles be familiar with the maps. Here are the ADIZ charts and links to the PDF and detailed FAA regulations relating to flight within the Capital Air Defense Zone.

FAA Capital Air Defense information

Hope this helps! (The PDF on the top of that list is the most informative, IMHO)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hey thanks a lot! It has an update of the security as of 2007 but I cannot find anything there in regards to 9/11 and prior to it. Again thanks a lot for the help, hopefully other members will provide gracious responses to these queries.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Avenger Missile battery deployed in Washington DC AFTER 9/11 (in this case 2003)




WAP2003021301 - WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 13 (UPI) - U.S. soldiers man an 'Avenger' anti-aircraft missile system deployed in Washington D.C. on February 13, 2003. The nation remains at a code orange terror alert to domestic attacks following various intelligence reports. The Avenger is an air defense missile system consisting of a pedestal mounted "Stinger" missile battery that operates from a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle chassis. cc/cc/Chris Corder UPI


Deployment in 2005




An increased level of protection for the region means you'll see missile launchers around the District to guard against the possibility of an air attack.

Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government surveyed the sorts of air defense systems available from a variety of agencies - for use here, or elsewhere in the country. The government then conducted experiments to determine how they could best work in concert with one another.

The missile launchers that can be seen from the South Capitol Street bridge are the result of the government's planning efforts.

The protection measures would include Customs Service aircraft flying high, keeping track of air traffic over the metro area, Air National Guard fighter jets patrolling above and Army radar systems positioned alongside Avenger air defense missile systems mounted on HumVees.

The government put these measures in place during President Bush's January


The missile batteries were deoloued following 9/11 mostly as a PR exercise to calm the public during elevated
terrorist watches



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks a lot for posting that data. Why wouldn't the Pentagon have had better defenses? Isn't it one of the most important government buildings in the world? Seems odd.

Cheers mate



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join