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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 19
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 



On the surface it would seem to be an accurate overview of the 'facts' however, some of the supporting evidence to validate these statements as 'facts' have been called into question.

By whom, exactly? I can say that about anything. There are over 6 billion people in this world and I am sure I can find someone who questions just about anything. Can you prove that all those that "question" the facts have no other agenda then truthseeking?

Flight characteristics of aircraft involved have been claimed to not be possible by pilots experienced with vehicles in question.

That's an opinion held by a few questionable experts promoting websites. Opinion, not fact.

Architecture of towers should not have failed so easily, countless other more poorly made buildings have resisted the same kind of damage.

Again, opinion and not even a good one at that. Please list all the other buildings that have had a large passenger jet, loaded with fuel, crash into them a cruising speed. Also, make sure all those other buildings have the same exact structure as the buildings involved in 9/11. Good luck!

The list goes on, suffice to say that there are inconsistencies that still need to be addressed.

Agreed, there is an endless supply of opinions. Take your pick.

A smug attitude will not help.

Yes, I guess I should just "open up" and accept anything anyone throws down the pike. Not going to happen.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jaffer44
 



....just because the pretty news reader said it doesnt mean thasts true....

Just because you read it on the internet and it fits your bias and agenda doesn't mean its true.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I waited until I had time to find this video before replying.

It lays out much of the facts and information which has been hashed and rehashed here for 10 years.

The primary difference I see is they way in which Mike Ruppert ties it all together. He does not make claims that can not be readily confirmed through sources and he does not go into any of the "distractions" given out by many conspiracy theorists and shills.

It is long but this is necessary to lay the foundations of his case. I would recommend it be saved and watched at your leasure. You may also find you want to save it for future references.

Click here : www.youtube.com...

I hope you are prepared to learn a little more than you thought you knew.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
One thing, I've never seen a demolition company proceed to implode a skyscraper from the middle or near the top down. A skyscraper demolition crew sets charges to weaken and direct the fall at various key points in the skyscraper but the base of the building is imploded last and the building falls from the ground up using gravity to crush itself.

That's not what I saw with the twin towers. The tops crushed the building below. All of the people who site 'they know a building implosion when they see one' are grossly mistaken. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about, and use pseudo science to fill the gaps.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It still seems odd that passports survived but not the black boxes.



it didnt survive ! dont fall for this crap . Our gov wants you to think they did find.. end of story...



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





The Luc Courchesne's footage was broadcast first on CBC Newsworld 9/14/2001, exact time unknown. You got any thing else Witch Hunter.


The IMPACT footage was aired then, but the screenshot I took was from the FUL-LENGTH footage, not aired until 2004.
www.911conspiracy.tv...


The full length Courchesne footage comes from radio-canada.ca -- watch (also link 2 above), or download wmv file. One of the clips above comes from the CBC News program The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney, which aired Oct. 6, 2004. Other versions are unknowns. All (but the new one) are of relatively poor quality. This may be why the wing seems to disappear as "United 175" flies overhead.


For the reader's clarity:

Naudet's film is billed as a documentary and does not give credit to Luc Courchesne for his clip.

Luc Courchesne is a professional photographer, yet doesn't seem to mind the Nauidets including his footage on their movie.

Sure, the Naudets could have possibly seen the first short CBC clip, and then hunted down Courchesne, and borrowed his footage, but they, as fellow professional photographers, would have given him professional courtesy by including the source of the Courchesne clip in the credits of the Naudet "documentary". It's awful generous of Courchesne to allow that...still...

The Naudets didn't just steal other people's footage:


At 8.46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, at the intersection of Church and Lispenard Streets in Manhattan, one of two French film-making brothers, 28-year-old Jules Naudet, was filming a group of firemen from Ladder 1/Engine 7 at 100 Duane Street, checking for an alleged suspected gas leak, when he captured what was thought to be unique film of American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, three quarters of a mile away.

Two years later — the delay still not satisfactorily explained — a Czech immigrant called Pavel Hlava produced his own video film of the event, shot from south-east of the tower and much further away, at the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel — the plane impact unseen, on the far side. It later turned out — although virtually no-one seems to have noticed at the time — that the plane had a third photographer all along, a German artist, Wolfgang Staehle, whose single still picture showed the plane heading towards the tower. No credible explanation has been offered as to why the Naudet shot was universally, at least from September 2002, described as the only existent image of the plane. It is still in many ways unique, however — and far superior to the two others — with its view, from almost directly behind, of the plane actually hitting the tower, followed by close-ups.

Jules Naudet claims his film exists only because of pure luck — as would seem to be logical, given that this was the first attack of the whole "9/11" sequence, and was totally unexpected. When United Airlines Flight 175 flew into the South Tower sixteen minutes later, it was captured by many photographers — including Jules Naudet's brother Gédéon — who were filming the aftermath of the attack on its neighbour, but who had not, of course, filmed that attack itself. After the first attack, the second one was easy to film — but how else could the first one have been captured than by luck ?

There is an answer to that question, but an extremely disturbing one. I believe the Naudet film of Flight 11 is a charade, staged to appear accidental. However bizarre that claim may appear to be, the evidence that justifies it is there in the film (which throughout this article, unless otherwise specified, refers to the DVD version, issued in September 2002 : "9/11 — The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition" (Paramount PHE 8276)), and I challenge anyone watching it and following my arguments to reach any other conclusion. No-one can dispute that this is an extraordinary piece of film — because of its uniqueness as well as its content — and that there must therefore be an equally extraordinary explanation for how it came to be captured. I believe, for the reasons in this essay, that those who had both the motive and the effrontery to carry out these attacks also had the motive and effrontery to film the first one for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story, the one told in the Naudet film.

www.frankresearch.info...


If Staehle knew that day that he had captured the plane, why did he allow the Naudet claim to go unchallenged, and why was his existence as unknown to me as to all the journalists who carried on for years using the word "unique" about the Naudet shot ?

www.frankresearch.info...

And then there's the Evan Fairbanks clip you like to peddle:


In "Heroes of Ground Zero," a New York fireman claims to have seen people jumping that day, a sight he still had nightmares about. Let's have it said, for the record, that anyone who says he can see a human being jumping out of a building, through flame and smoke, a minimum of 1,200 feet above the street — very nearly a quarter of a mile away — is either a complete liar or has the most incredible eyesight in medical history. Unless he meant he had seen it through binoculars — but he didn't mention any — or maybe he just assumed that a falling body he saw much nearer the ground must have jumped from higher up. Whatever — he could not possibly have seen it with the naked eye from ground level. But he is in very distinguished company: Mayor Giuliani makes the same claim in "In Memoriam." *But let's have something else said, in that film's favour : that it proves a falsehood in the Naudet film. The prologue to the DVD version of "9/11" claims we are about to see "the only known footage from inside Tower 1" — but "In Memoriam" includes at least three film clips captioned "Evan Fairbanks — Lobby WTC 1, North Tower." Fairbanks' film inside the North Tower was well known long before the Naudet DVD was issued, and the claim should never have been included. (See Appendix 4, Picture 35))

www.frankresearch.info...

I will repeat my position:

A team of propagandists have been releasing fraudulent footage about 911 for years.
The Internet is part and parcel to the MSM, and therefore, forums like this and posters like you should be treated with great suspicion.

I am still looking for someone to collaborate with to eliminate the Media as suspects.


edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 





Debunker, Truther, No Planer, Witch Hunter, Morons. How does this add to a civil discussion.?


In a forum populated by genuinely interested parties, this would not occur.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
This thread is almost 3 pages long and has so far acheived nothing .
With all the bright minds on ATS , is this the best we can do ?

Peace.


This thread has achieved nothing because it wasn't necessary. How can you just waltz in here, put up a post like that OP in the middle of one of the largest 9/11 forums on the planet?

:shk:

Look around man, sheesh. There are a ZILLION threads in this forum going way on back to 2001. You act like we are supposed to type it all out for you and sum it all up AGAIN. Been done a thousand times here. From every angle conceivable. It seems every month there is a thread like this. If you are too lazy to search this 9/11 forum for your evidence on both sides of the argument, sorry. Put in the time man. That will honor the dead better than the conclusion. It at least shows you cared enough to spend the time.

:shk:



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


i am writing for the reader's benefit. He sows confusion which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 





This thread has achieved nothing because it wasn't necessary. How can you just waltz in here, put up a post like that OP in the middle of one of the largest 9/11 forums on the planet?


He was dissatisfied with the level of discourse on this forum.

It is not the fault of the OP that ATS members are incapable of having an adult conversation.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
reply to post by Enlightenme1111
 


Great find , but we can still only speculate what hit the Pentagon . One thing is undeniable.......It was not a 757.


Please present facts that substantiate your proposition that a 757 was not involved. They must be substantial as you just made an infallible negative statement. That's a pretty high hurdle.

Or is that just your opinion - I doubt it as your are very strict about only presenting facts.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





That's a pretty high hurdle.

I doubt it as your are very strict about only presenting facts.


Dear readers...have any of you seen Hooper present any facts, ever? This is a guy who claims his sister was an eye-witness to imaginary jets. Talk about a high-hurdle.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Dear readers...have any of you seen Hooper present any facts, ever? This is a guy who claims his sister was an eye-witness to imaginary jets. Talk about a high-hurdle.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.


Imaginary jets.


What do you want, my sisters name, address and phone number? Yeah thats going to happen.

By the way - do you believe the victims of 9/11 are real or make believe?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Yes, over the years I have seen Hooper post many, many facts, blowing away various conspiracy theories. However, like me, he seems to have grown weary dealing with the same goofy theories that he has helped demolish in the past.

Hoop, if I am off in my analysis, you have my apologies.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 






Imaginary jets.

What do you want, my sisters name, address and phone number? Yeah thats going to happen.

By the way - do you believe the victims of 9/11 are real or make believe?



I have been busily proving the images of the Jets are fraudulent.

Your task is not to prove the existence of your sister, it is to prove the images are not fraudulent, which by extension, may help prove the jets and your sister, were not imaginary.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Yes, over the years I have seen Hooper post many, many facts, blowing away various conspiracy theories. However, like me, he seems to have grown weary dealing with the same goofy theories that he has helped demolish in the past.


Interesting story. I must have missed those, just as I missed your many examples; and I missed Hooper's attempts to add anything to this thread at all except for derogatory statements like the one you made.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by pteridine
 


But, but what happened to the missiles on top of the Pentagon that particular day? Why weren't they working?


They weren't working because no missiles were on the Pentagon in 2001. It's an office building next to an airport.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tpg65
 


So what wasn't factual about my post? Sept. 11, 2001? Hijackers? 4 planes? The towers of the World Trade Center? The Pentagon?


Can you back up up anything you have just wrote , with facts ?

You mention the attack on the Pentagon , but did you know that there is not one scrap of evidence to prove that it was hit by a passenger jet . If you have evidence to the contrary , then please present it and it will be objectively discussed.


Did you know that there is not one scrap of evidence to prove that it was hit by anything but a passenger jet? That is what people saw and that is what the physical evidence is consistent with.


Well, just looking at the pictures of the place the missle hit.. oh excuse me, the Plane hit.. you can see there isn't anything but an approx. one story round hole. No sign that wings even tried to penetrate the wall. Plus No wing wreckage, in fact not much wreckage at all. No fuselage parts lying about and the head of the 'plane' penetrated how many walls of the solid concrete and reinforced steel (just newly remodeled) building???

Now if you've ever been on a real airplane, you'd know no nose on one of them is going to make it past the first wall.. in fact I doubt they would have made it thru the wall at all.. more like they'd have just smashed flat against it, since they are just a fiberglass shell full of electronic equipment, and if it was a big passenger liner, the hole (if they didn't just bounce off and maybe break a few windows) would have been way much bigger.
But no... of course it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. Uh huh. Sure. *rolls eyes*


Fuselage parts were found outside the Pentagon. The plane penetrated the building because of its kinetic energy; as the plane was destroying the building structure, the building structure was destroying the plane. Something that massive doesn't bounce off of a building and the structure of the nose will not change it. The fireball was not a high explosive; it was burning hydrocarbons in a quantity that no missile could carry. You really don't know what you don't know. Look up 'sectional density' and take that physics course your advisor wanted you to take. You may have to give up cheerleading but it will be worth it in the long run.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





Something that massive doesn't bounce off of a building and the structure of the nose will not change it.


Something as massive as a concrete and brick building does not cause far less massive wings to fold-back after striking the brick facade, then unfold inside the building and still have enough of that evil kinetic energy to mow-down a forest of reinforced concrete pillars.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't even happen in cartoons...except on 911.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join