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: 29
33
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 


The images of planes hitting the towers have been proven false.

No planes, means no pilots, no passengers, no hijackers. As hard as it may be to believe, the proof it there for anyone who has the courage to look at it with hones eyes.

All that stuff about flight 93 was feel-good propaganda.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Jeez, are you still pushing that tired theory?
I still haven't heard you explain about all the people that were there and saw the planes with their own eyes.......(and don't you dare say holographs)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankee451

and the links to my sources are included on the thread.



Structure Magazine ? Thats were you first got the idea that AA 77 had to crash through "six steel reinforced concrete walls". ? Thats were that thought was planted in your head ? Are you being honest with me.

We are talking about propaganda here, so the original source of that misinformation that was planted so firmly in your truther brain is kinda important.


I appreciate your need to focus on my shortcomings. It is standard practice for someone who has low self esteem without a leg to stand on.

I have admitted error, and you have missed the point of that thread completely.

Structure Magazine is a published source, and not the only one from that thread. Are you accusing my sources of spreading lies?

This is a quote from a book written about the construction of the pentagon, which also reinforces the Structure Magazine article:


The president was "emphatic in his disapproval of the use of brick, either red or cream colored," Somefvell reported. The walls would be made of architectural concrete.


The Pentagon: a history: etc...

Now that I've answered your questions, it is my contention that many of the folks who post on this forum are indeed, part and parcel to the 911 HOAX, and that they continue to derail conversations as part of the ongoing propaganda operation, and that you can recognize it in action by the reluctance of the poster to address the evidence.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Jeez, are you still pushing that tired theory?
I still haven't heard you explain about all the people that were there and saw the planes with their own eyes.......(and don't you dare say holographs)


I sincerely doubt you have any knowledge of what you're talking about, or my position.

You obviously haven't read my material or you would know much better than to bring up holograms.

The images are fake. Period.

They were broadcast as if they were real. Period.

Therefore, the media broadcast lies. Period.

Therefore, their claim of "thousands of eyewitnesses cannot be taken at face value.

All the other "whatabouts" don't matter...the point is planes can't do that in real life. Period.

All the other implications are yours to deal with.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Certainly the headquarters of the US Military is a heavily reinforced and hardened structure. It goes without saying. The section hit was even being renovated and hardened even further. Why the terriers would choose to attack just that section is totally beyond me.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
Certainly the headquarters of the US Military is a heavily reinforced and hardened structure. It goes without saying. The section hit was even being renovated and hardened even further. Why the terriers would choose to attack just that section is totally beyond me.


Hehe...terriers...I like that. I know you know this, but for the readers' sakes, I can think of very good reasons for blowing up that part of the building, and the construction crews made it easier to plant explosives...




“This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.

The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.

Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991. Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman.

With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death 3,000 citizens.”


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Then what did 1000's of new yorkers see that day including some in the towers that saw those plans approaching?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Please don't talk down to me as if you are superior to me......

I have read your 'no plane' theories and, as I said, you have yet to explain the amount of witnesses who were there and saw the planes.
You say that all the witnesses who were there and saw the planes 'cannot be taken at face value', does this mean that you are saying that each and everyone of them was either mistaken or lying?

If not, again I ask you, how do you explain the witnesses who were there and saw the planes?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well, Rumsfeld did declare war on waste on Sept. 10th, 2001. It´s a matter of historical record. Only, the next day it suddenly turned into an endless war on terror, with more stupendous and endless waste. Both Uncle Sam and the FED are about bankrupt by now under this weight of waste.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 


This is you, talking down to me:



Jeez, are you still pushing that tired theory?




I have read your 'no plane' theories and, as I said, you have yet to explain the amount of witnesses who were there and saw the planes.


If you had read, you would not need to ask, especially after I just answered that question. The media are untrustworthy. Their claims of eye witnesses should be taken with the same credulity as their fraudulent images.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Then what did 1000's of new yorkers see that day including some in the towers that saw those plans approaching?


It is my contention the media showed us false images. i have proven this on this very thread several times.

All the other implications are beside that point.

Do you understand? The point is the media showed false images. Do you disagree?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Please don't talk down to me as if you are superior to me......

I have read your 'no plane' theories and, as I said, you have yet to explain the amount of witnesses who were there and saw the planes.
You say that all the witnesses who were there and saw the planes 'cannot be taken at face value', does this mean that you are saying that each and everyone of them was either mistaken or lying?

If not, again I ask you, how do you explain the witnesses who were there and saw the planes?


Don't bother. You'll never get a direct answer. The deflection will be along the lines of "I proved the planes were faked now you explain your witnesses" which assumes his fantasies about CGI live broadcast are in fallible and now we are all just gathered together trying to figure out why all those people lied.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Indeed, and the government gets what they want, so this must be their goal. Otherwise, they'd stop.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It´s strange and contradictory how people would accept eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon, from mostly Pentagon employees while totally discounting testimony of explosions at the WTC from firefighters. You can´t have it both ways. Firefighters know fire and its effects very well. These are professionals. Nothing of their testimony is to be found in the official report. This is very suspicious.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Don't bother. You'll never get a direct answer. The deflection will be along the lines of "I proved the planes were faked now you explain your witnesses" which assumes his fantasies about CGI live broadcast are in fallible and now we are all just gathered together trying to figure out why all those people lied.


I have answered direct questions for months. It is a matter of record.

You have answered nothing.

My point is, the media showed us false images.

Do you disagree?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Well, I work with three people who were there on that fateful day, one of whom I talked to on the phone on that day. I've since discussed it at length with them and seen a personal video recording made by one of them when the second plane hit (which has never been seen or touched by the mainstream media, I must add).

I've got to tell you that you are talking absolute nonsense as these witnesses certainly saw the second plane as it was flying toward the tower and as it hit it...............

I think you ought to rethink your theory pal!



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
All communications is recorded in these events and is accessible. There are recordings of firefighters approaching the fire in the south tower requesting lines up to contain fire that they reported as relatively minor and containable. Then suddenly the tower collapses through itself. It´s very suspicious.There is no way around it.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
I've spent many, many hours reading about 911 over the past 10 years but have never heard the following theory mentioned. Please forgive me if it has been discussed before........

It seems that there are two basic opinions about Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville:

  1. The passengers fought with the hijackers and then intentionally crashed it (or it crashed in the struggle)
  2. It was shot down by a fighter jet

I was thinking that, maybe, it was a mixture of both. What do people think of the following scenario that I've outlined in bullet points below:

  1. Building 7 was the intended target of Flight 93
  2. The passengers did overpower the hijackers on Flight 93
  3. Flight 93 was then shot down because the passengers overpowered the hijackers. The hijackers could not be allowed to live and endanger the success of the plan by talking
  4. The decision then had to be made to detonate the already planted explosives in building 7 - even though the plane was not going to hit it
  5. The cover-up then had to include building 7 collapsing after no plane hit it and a story whereby the passengers crashed the plane rather than trying to land it safely

Not sure if anyone agrees with my thinking but it makes sense to me................


you theory doesn't sound far fetched considering what we've been given as the official explanation of the events on 9/11. It would make sense to me too. There would have been less disbelief about building 7 if a plane had flown into it as well. That would have helped sell the official story. What I found odd about Flight 93 was, one of the passengers named Todd Beeman from San Francisco supposedly called his parents from the plane, and he explained what was happening. The odd thing was when the parents answered he said. This is Todd Beeman, or Hi, this is Todd Beeman or something like that. If a person is on a hijacked flight and if they were to call their parents, and the parents answered the phone, why would you say your first and last name? The second the parents hear your voice they would know it's you. Maybe he would say Todd, but Todd Beeman?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Well, I work with three people who were there on that fateful day, one of whom I talked to on the phone on that day. I've since discussed it at length with them and seen a personal video recording made by one of them when the second plane hit (which has never been seen or touched by the mainstream media, I must add).

I've got to tell you that you are talking absolute nonsense as these witnesses certainly saw the second plane as it was flying toward the tower and as it hit it...............

I think you ought to rethink your theory pal!


If you read this thread alone, you'll see you're full of it.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It´s a psychopathic and despicable system that sacrifices these dedicated and courageous firefighters and then wears their sacrifice on its sleeve.How anyone at all would defend such a system and its criminal actions will continue to be beyond me.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join