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

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

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.


Not sure at all what you're inferring but my friends exist, I know they were there that day and I've seen the tape which shows the second plane.............just letting you know the reason for my whole questioning of your 'no plane' theory. Believe it or don't believe it - no big deal to me.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 





Not sure at all what you're inferring but my friends exist, I know they were there that day and I've seen the tape which shows the second plane.............just letting you know the reason for my whole questioning of your 'no plane' theory. Believe it or don't believe it - no big deal to me.


Fabricating eye witnesses has been bludgeoned to death...you'll make number 7 if I recall.

You aren't nearly as impressive as Hooper or FDNY343 though.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by JonU2
 





Not sure at all what you're inferring but my friends exist, I know they were there that day and I've seen the tape which shows the second plane.............just letting you know the reason for my whole questioning of your 'no plane' theory. Believe it or don't believe it - no big deal to me.


Fabricating eye witnesses has been bludgeoned to death...you'll make number 7 if I recall.

You aren't nearly as impressive as Hooper or FDNY343 though.


Ah, so that's your tactic, I get it. Anybody who disproves your ridiculous theory is lying. Well, that is pretty fullproof in an online forum....you can label any evidence that doesn't agree with your theory as faked and those that bring it as liars. You must be pretty proud of yourself.

The only difference with me is that I believe the OS to be just as ridiculous as your 'no plane' theory. I believe that this was a Mossad operation with the 'consent' of a few in power in the US Government that helped 'smooth the way' for the whole thing.

There was definitely planes there though - not saying that the images shown on the MSM were all untouched and real but, again, there was definitely planes used in New York on 911.........
edit on 26/8/11 by JonU2 because:



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 






Ah, so that's your tactic, I get it. Anybody who disproves your ridiculous theory is lying. Well, that IS pretty fulproof in an online forum....you can label any evidence that doesn't agree with your theory as faked and those that bring it as liars. You must be pretty proud of yourself.

The only difference with me is that I believe the OS to be just as ridiculous as your 'no plane' theory. I believe that this was a Mossad operation with the 'consent' of a few in power in the US Government that helped 'smooth the way' for the whole thing.

There was definitely planes there though - not saying that the images shown on the MSM were all untouched and real but, again, there was definitely planes used in New York on 911.........



I've stated my position numerous times, and I've supplied my proof.

Spare us and read the thread or read the freaking OP at least. This is a collaboration, and anyone who comes out swinging with ridicule only proves the point of my original position.

If you want to discuss this in a rational way, fine, but I've suffered through thirty some odd pages of your very argument and still no one has offered to address the evidence.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
So, who are these Pentagon witnesses? Have they even be heard from in the last decade? The surviving firefighters are there - under a gag order. See the problem here? You got to identify arguments if you want to discuss issues.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You showed me the images and I gave you a synopsis of them. They are NOT from the same place and maybe you need to go to NY or a large city to understand what I am explaining.

If you look at the pictures, at the edges like I had explained, you will see that they do not match up not do the height of the buildings match up properly. It is an optical illusion. If you look at the center of the picutres they look like they line up and but look at the edges.

It is also not proof that everything shown that day was false. You are using a thread from someone else, not yourself, and trying to push his idea. That's it.

As far as you stating that 3 people, including a News station, would not have access to cameras at the same time is also ludicrous. Do you know how many people live in the tri-state area. There are over 8 million in NY that are documented, living there and not just visiting. You then have everyone over the water in Jersey/Newark/etc...

Please tell me, in the following video, how there were all faked. It shows the only 3 videos of the first plane to hit that have been released. Then look at the videos of the second plane hitting. Tell me how these were faked?

www.youtube.com...

Please watch the link and see the reality of what happened that day. At @ 3:10 you can hear the tower fall and there are NO explosions or explosive sounds. @ 3:38 you can see it tip and then fall out of its footprint.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
So, why is the testimony of fly by night witnesses at the Pentagon supposed to be by unquestionable weight while the testimony of firefighters at the WTC is totally discounted, not even mentioned in the official report and these people are under a gag order. Could believers in the official narrative try identifying these issues?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by JonU2
 






Ah, so that's your tactic, I get it. Anybody who disproves your ridiculous theory is lying. Well, that IS pretty fulproof in an online forum....you can label any evidence that doesn't agree with your theory as faked and those that bring it as liars. You must be pretty proud of yourself.

The only difference with me is that I believe the OS to be just as ridiculous as your 'no plane' theory. I believe that this was a Mossad operation with the 'consent' of a few in power in the US Government that helped 'smooth the way' for the whole thing.

There was definitely planes there though - not saying that the images shown on the MSM were all untouched and real but, again, there was definitely planes used in New York on 911.........



I've stated my position numerous times, and I've supplied my proof.

Spare us and read the thread or read the freaking OP at least. This is a collaboration, and anyone who comes out swinging with ridicule only proves the point of my original position.

If you want to discuss this in a rational way, fine, but I've suffered through thirty some odd pages of your very argument and still no one has offered to address the evidence.

Yes, this is a collaboration and my first post on this thread put forward an idea I had regarding Flight 93 and why I believe it could have been shot down because the hijackers had been over-powered.
You replied to me stating that it couldn't have happened because there were no planes and therefore no hijackers etc

Your reply, alone, prompted my replies about your 'no plane' theory - surely I'm allowed a right of reply? Especially when I know people who were there?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Where is this Hooper guy? I´m waiting for them to explain why testimony of firefighters - fire professionals - is totally excluded from the official story and these people are under a gag order to boot. Why would that be? Why would you suppress witnesses at one site while elevating others at a different site ? Identify issues.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink

So you know its smoke, because you were there? Gotta love bold claims...

As has been pointed out, anyone that has seen a few plane crashes will tell you 1 or 2 things about shanks.


No what I said was: it's not smoke. I know this from experience and yes i've seen a few plane crashes.

What is coming out of the crater is oil vapour that is steaming out of a very hot engine core buried in that crater. It is not smoke. If you watch it you see that it's heavy, sticking to the ground, not rising like the lite grey smoke beside it.


When oil burns it burns black. (red arrow) when it is above its boiling point it steams white (yellow arrow)



other examples of steaming oil vapour can be seen here:


Here:


And here:


The oil left a very visible trail on the ground leading back to the crater.


Which leads us to here.


And of course leads us to here:


If you are wondering why they have a plastic over the engine shaft it's because of the smell.
Over heated has a horrible smell that sticks with you for days. The guy at Shanksville who said the area smelled like "scorched earth" described the smell perfectly.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
Where is this Hooper guy? I´m waiting for them to explain why testimony of firefighters - fire professionals - is totally excluded from the official story and these people are under a gag order to boot. Why would that be? Why would you suppress witnesses at one site while elevating others at a different site ? Identify issues.


Be specific - What exclusions? Don't get so excited and agitated. Lots of persons will testify during an investigation, the final report is not a transcript of the public hearings, that is a separate document, the final report may include testimony that is considered relevant but it may not include all testimony. This is pretty common. Just find any other Congressional report, you'll see the final report and recommendations (generally the purpose of an investigation is to make a final recommendation for future action, not be a transcript of everyone's input) does not include everything that was reviewed by the investigating body.

And what gag orders?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
So, who are these Pentagon witnesses? Have they even be heard from in the last decade?


Witnesses interviewed by Jeff Hill over the last few years. They saw a plane hit.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


What testimony are you talking about? What you the firefighters be testifying to? If you read the original article, it states that former a former CIA director was handing down FBI gag orders but there is no evidence short of a conversation one person had with another. There is nothing else about a gag order.

The 9/11 Commission interviewed 1000's of people as well as the PENTTBOM FBI investigation and I know that firefighters gave testimony on events that happened that day.

FOIA should reveal the gag order if you are feeling up to it...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Everything that was put out in the official report had to be approved by all commission members. As an obvious result it´s just contrived nonsense. They include what supported the conclusion they were told to achieve beforehand and ignore the rest.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


All firefighter communication is recorded. It goes without saying. It´s being ignored but it´s still very relevant all the same.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


Everything that was put out in the official report had to be approved by all commission members.

I believe that is correct, yes. As it should be. Its a report, not a transcript.

As an obvious result it´s just contrived nonsense.

Or, its obvious its an expression of the persons charged to prepare the report. What - do you think it should only reflect what you want to believe? You ask someone to prepare a report and then ask why the report reflects what that person thinks?

They include what supported the conclusion they were told to achieve beforehand and ignore the rest.

Or, they listen or read everything and then came to a conclusion and offered enough material to explain their conclusions. Again, they were not tasked with gathering all material, testimony, photographs, witness statements, newspaper articles, magazine articles, video, audio, internet and written material dealing with 9/11. They were not a history department.

Also, I am assuming that you are prepared to offer something in evidence to support your contention that they were told what to report?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
They promote this notion of office fire downing 1300 feet skyscrapers to dust while suppressing evidence of firefighters - fire specialists - at the site. This is a huge problem with the official story, among many others.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Ah Bonez you took the words right out of my mouth. When I joined ATS to specifically question the NIST and commission reports I knew nothing really of the conspiracies.

The thing you have to remember tpg65 is the topic has been really well covered from both sides many times here at ATS. If you spend the time reading the previous posts that span many years you will find evidence for lots of theories including the OS.

I think everyone here wants the Truth on many subjects and not everything that is 9/11 conspiracy is palatable or makes sense.

I have often learnt new data, like the hijacked planes’s flightpath crossing a military base, and see something highly suspicious about these facts. On it’s own it’s probably nothing but when all these little coincidences are seen together it's human nature to ask questions.

I didn’t lose anyone in 9/11 and I’m always conscious that if I did I’d prefer to blame a terrorist for what happened because any other version would probably cut incredibly deep, anything different to the OS carries a heavy burden on those that pursue it.

If you really want to honour those who died in 9/11, research and make up your own mind but be clear not to drive your opinions on those that will always disagree and except the mainstream view.

I know your motives but asking intellectual members to start the debate yet again will end the same way it always does I’m afraid.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

This one didn't have any reason to be different.. i


It was inverted.That means the lift vector was inverted. You probably don't understand what difference that makes. But thats one of the reasons why you'r a Truther.


So it fell straight down, upside down? (there isn't any indication it slide along the ground.. that part should have left a broken dug up path for a good mile or so). But even going in at the angle it is purported to have gone in, there should still have been lots of big recognizable pieces of wings AND tail. There should have been recognizable fuselage parts, possibly whole sections of still intact fuselage that was too far way from the wings and fuel to burn (although it doesn't sound like it burned much), just like any other crash site. There should have been 2 big engines that are way too solid metal to burn at fuel temperatures, there should have been landing gear, even lengths of the structural floor frame lying around. There should have been seats flung out the side at impact.. there should have been lugguge flung out sideways, if nothing else there should have been a HUGE pile of rubble spread across acres, not just a mediocre amount that conveniently ended up mostly inside a pretty small hole in the ground. My god those a#holes planning this, really think we are stupid. But now, seeing you and your disturbing willingness to believe, I guess they were right. Some of us really are.



So, where's the plane?? Or even what should be hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of airplane debris/rubble??? The grass around the site isn't even disturbed. It should have at least have flattened out away from the point of impact if it was that severe. Instead, all I can make out are what appear to be tire tracks thru the grass just to the left of the hole (rather obscured by smoke). Those seem pretty suspicious, if you ask me.

From someone else's take on this...

The smoking gun of 911 is that EMPTY field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

There is no jet, there. There are no bodies, no luggage, no landing gear, no tires, no (miles) of wiring, no tail, no wings and no engines; specifically, two of them, weighing 6 tons, each and made of titanium.

Wally Miller, the coroner at Shanksville said he found no blood, but found human remains. When pushed on the question of finding human remains, Miller said...Yes/No/Some....and then said that the only remains found were hands and feet - nothing else. So, did Mr. Miller find 40 pair of each? If so, how is it that no other body parts survived? How is it that there was no blood? There was no fire to eviscerate any of the materials, so what happened to it - all.

They tell us that the scar in the ground is supposed to be the wings, but if that's so, where are the wings? If so, then why is/was there no outline of the engines? Where are the engines?

It should also be noted that the scar in the field appears in a Google earth search from 1999. So, if the scar was already there, then the only thing that is there (new) would be the crater.

Note: Wally Miller, the coroner, stipulates that - the crater was no more then 10 ft. deep...maybe 20 feet wide.

Question - how do you fit a 100 ton plane (the specs are on the webpage listed), into a 10 foot hole and leave none of it or the passengers and cargo, in the hole? [my addition: Or even outside the hole?]

They want you to believe that it either evaporated or that they dug it all out later and just never bothered showing you.

What happened to all the jet fuel? There was no raging fire at Shanksville, so what happened to the fuel. I thought fuel was so bad it could drop a building in NY in 57 and 90 minutes respectively and then cause a third to fall for no reason at all, at 5:20 pm. (WTC7 aka the Salomon Brothers Building)

No - there's no jet there. Something went into that field, but it wasn't a jet and it wasn't flight 93.

And if there's no jet - then that means that the official "story" of 911 is a lie!


www.flickr.com...

Regarding your posted pictures:

The 'engine' piece in the Shanksville hole.. please. What a plant. Not one single other bit of airplane anywhere around, and it was in the MIDDLE of the hole.. not out on the sides in the supposed wing strike areas where it would have been if on the airplane. Considering they had as much time as needed to stage this, they still were pretty stupid. That 'engine' was probably where they put the bomb to explode to make it seems as though something crashed there.

Oh, and for sure the pic you presented as evidence of NY wreckage is clearly photoshopped. The engine chunk behind the trash can is obviously placed/edited into the picture. All you have to do is look at the lighting. It is lit from almost directly forward and a bit up... like from a flash. The rest of the scene is lit from the upper right and slightly behind the photographer with NO evidence of any flash being used.

The flash (6 years as a marine corps photograper here) would have entirely relit the whole scene (especially anything in front of the engine piece) if there had been one used while taking the original photo. And sure, things were chaotic, but from the expressions on people's faces, there was concern, but as pointed out previously, none of the people in the pic even acknowledge the engine part's presence. If I were there, something so apparently hot would definitely get my attention, even if it was only just to make sure I wasn't walking close enough to get burned. So, really, you'll have to do way better than that.
edit on 26-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply Hooper. I don´t think it makes any sense at all to exclude all testimony of surviving firefighters at the WTC from the official narrative. These are professionals. There is no doubt at all of that. Why would you put a gag order on fire specialists that supposedly would support your theory of fire downing those towers to dust? It just seems very suspicious.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join