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

reply to post by spoor


Actually, I intentionally left out the link. I have one request before I take the time to post a link to the report with my preface. What I'm asking is for anyone who might know the connections between the items on the list I provided.

Since my information doesn't include how they did it and only who ordered it and why, I want to gauge how to present the information so it is received well.

Nobody should complain that I'm jerking them around. Even if the link goes away, I've got the doc and will post it in any case.

EDIT: I should mention that none of my work is included in this doc. It's entirely the work of one man with whom I have made sure not to contact. If I, or anyone else here wishes to contact him it would be best to do it anonymously, IMO.

Originally posted by tpg65

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.

Oh, you mean besides the dozens of people that saw the plane fly right into the building? Or the poles that got knocked in towards the building by the plane? Or the parts of plane found all over the place? Or the remains of people found at the scene, who were virtually all identified through forensics, and are clearly identified getting right on the plane in cameras? Yeah, not one scrap.

LOL... Ya gotta love it. 'Yeah... Lets all come together and "objectively discuss" this terrible thing', Oh... Except for you people that don't believe exactly what I believe... You're not welcome'.

Two simple steps to be a 9/11 conspiracy believer.

1. Believe that everything you say is automatically a "fact", simply because you said it.

2. Claim that everything else that other people say that counters that, is automatically NOT a fact, and doesn't count.

LOL

reply to post by tpg65


The people who died are dead and there is nothing we can or should do for them.

They are dead and we owe them nothing.

HOWEVER, unveiling the murderers is important because of the people still alive who are the next potential victims.

Through the deaths of the fallen on 9-11 we have been given insight into the methods, motives, and modus operandi of the murderers.

The dead are granting us an opportunity to save ourselves/each other . . . it's not often the dead can serve the living . . . let's not squander the opportunity.

"The living should never be used to serve the purposes of the dead, but the dead should, if possible, serve the purposes of the living." - Philip K. Dick

reply to post by dpd11


There were people who saw a "commercial type airliner" flying low. How many of those people actually saw that "plane" impact the Pentagon, or thought it was the "plane' that impacted the Pentagon? I heard reports that while some saw a "plane" flying low near the Pentagon, the "plane" actually then flew straight upwards. Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable.

reply to post by aero56

Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable.

And? What is the basis for this statement? Is there some rule wherein we can determine when accounts are and are not reliable? Should we dismiss all eyewitness accounts? Some? Or maybe we should exam each account on its own merits. All go for that one.

reply to post by TyrannyNews

“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...

I discuss it in my 911 for Psychos thread. I'll be posting more in the next couple days.

reply to post by Yankee451

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.

Or, the even more inconcievable - multi billion dollar covert operations resulting in the deaths of thousands in lieu of buying a paper shredder.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by aero56

 

Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable.

And? What is the basis for this statement? Is there some rule wherein we can determine when accounts are and are not reliable? Should we dismiss all eyewitness accounts? Some? Or maybe we should exam each account on its own merits. All go for that one.

We can eliminate what's impossible. The people who claim impossible things, are the ones who are not reliable.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I'm not saying silly things about your hypothesis, I'm flat out saying you don't know jack about air launched missiles. The damage is in no way consistent with the buildings being hit by one. If you think that the wings of an airliner couldn't cause the damage in the photo, then there is no way in hell you could honestly claim the skinny little wings of a missile could cause it either.

The claim is a jet wing SEVERED the steel columns; THAT is what I'm waiting for you to demonstrate is possible.

In the mean time, I have offered this better explanation for the damage.

My claim is the missile wing would slice through the CLADDING, but would only be sturdy enough to dent the columns when it was just a stub sticking out of the fuselage.

In such a scenario, the wing would snap off a little more with each column until it becomes a stub...the sturdiest part of the wing. When the stub impacted the 1/4 inch steel protruding from the columns, it snagged the last two and bent them towards the impact hole where the nose and fuselage entered.

If you know missiles, you know very well this is possible. These are the same missiles they brag about lobbing down chimneys so launching a couple volleys in a cross fire formation using pre planted homing beacons would be something you air force types can do with your eyes closed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c19ee58eb20.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40904c4910fa.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3884722677ae.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be666c577e6a.jpg[/atsimg]


In your scenario though, the Jet would impact roughly head on:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2feeb3522640.jpg[/atsimg]

And with 35 degree swept-back wings, anyone with eyes can see the gash and the damage would start from the nose of the plane, and end with the tips of the wings. Meaning the RIGHT side of the columns would be damaged before any damage to the left.

The plane wings would be striking the protruding edges of the steel first, in a sawing motion. the 1/4 inch steel protrusions would have shredded a plane wing when struck head on, but when the stub of a missile caught one sideways, we were lucky enough to have enough clues to surmise a projectile like a JASSM must have caused the damage.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/117fe6565b66.jpg[/atsimg]


And so I ask again, now with the above image in mind.

How do you explain dented columns on the left and not the right, when the 35 degree swept-back wings would have necessitated striking the right protrusion of the columns first.?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3884722677ae.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Yankee451

We can eliminate what's impossible. The people who claim impossible things, are the ones who are not reliable.

Really? And who are you to unilaterally determine what and what is not possible. Don't forget, as I have said many times before, "impossible" is a very high hurdle and is often conflated with unlikely and improbable. Impossible is a statement of absolute fact. It is probably one of the most difficult propositions to prove. And you have not, by a long shot, proven your position.

By the way, love all your graphics about the planes, however, I can't help but notice that your graphics are all sourced from the mainstream media which I believe you argued was all fabricated, CGI and such - all the products of the CIA so why should you believe any of those photos are real?

reply to post by hooper

Really? And who are you to unilaterally determine what and what is not possible.

I am like everyone else. Able to determine what is possible by using my noggin. My last post demonstrates what is or is not possible.

I remind you we're supposed to be working together to explore ideas and possibilities. Are you willing to discuss them?

If so, please take a moment to read my last post and comment on the details.

reply to post by Yankee451

I am like everyone else.

No, you're pretty much alone.

Able to determine what is possible by using my noggin.

Wow! And your noggin can't steer you wrong?

My last post demonstrates what is or is not possible.

No, your last post demonstrates what may or may not be going on in your noggin.

I remind you we're supposed to be working together to explore ideas and possibilities.

Uh, since when? You are more than welcome to go exploring all your "possibilities". I'll just stay here firmly rooted in reality.

Are you willing to discuss them?

Soon as your able to explain why you can use images from the mass media to prove one point and then in the next breath tells us how all the images are fake.

If so, please take a moment to read my last post and comment on the details.

You basically copied public images and wrote "missile" on top of them. Big deal. You could have written "teddy bear" that would not have proven a teddy bear hit the world trade center.

You still refuse to deal with the witnesses - are they all lying? Are they all in on it? Fooled by non-existant technology? Also - do you believe that the victims are real?

reply to post by hooper


Re-read the OP Hoop.

I think you and your buddies misunderstand the intent.

reply to post by hooper


I don't recall posting the question to you but, since you asked, the person I was posting to stated "oh, you mean besides the dozens of people that saw the plane fly right into the building?" Read his post and you might figure it out.

reply to post by hooper


I would ask you that same question, " who are you to unilaterally determine what and what is not possible"?, even though you didn't post this to me.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by hooper

 

I don't recall posting the question to you but, since you asked, the person I was posting to stated "oh, you mean besides the dozens of people that saw the plane fly right into the building?" Read his post and you might figure it out.

edit on 30-8-2011 by aero56 because: ino

Can you give me a hint? To who's post are you refering? What is it I am supposed to be trying to figure out?

reply to post by hooper


dpd11........posted on 30-8-2011 at 4:34 a.m.. I was responding to this person's post.

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.

well..see, here's the thing. you're asking people who have been indoctrinated, since birth, with the idea that america is "good" and righteous and so on, best country in the world, etc etc, and waking them up to the fact that, essentially, america has become the "empire", complete with it's vaders and sith of all types, and the rest of world are, frankly, the rebellion, with a couple of jedi here and there. problem is, every time a jedi(see MLK, JFK) raises their head, the head gets blown off. so the people have no champion to rally around, and the people themselves, through psychological warfare, environmental warfare,physical warfare,etc, have been rendered so physically and mentally weak, that the chances that the people will rise up en masse and stop this nonsense is close to nil, no ,matter how tough-talking people are on the internet. TPTB know this, that was the plan. so, OP, you start a thread on a message board, and you think you're going to solve one of the greatest crimes ever committed? all due respect, you're late to the party

The solution isn't found on the internet. it's found in the hearts and minds of every person who care about justice. and, if not enough people care, no justice will be had. but, if enough people fight for it, risk everything for it, are willing to die for it, we just might get that justice. anything less than that is just talk. So, OP, like that scene with costner and connery in "the untouchables", what are you willing to do? and THEN what are willing to do?

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by hooper

 

I would ask you that same question, " who are you to unilaterally determine what and what is not possible"?, even though you didn't post this to me.

Well, in that case, you are more than welcome to unilaterally declare anything you want impossible. But just don't be suprised if not everyone goes along with you. And don't state it as a matter of fact unless you have extraordinary proof to your statement.

reply to post by pteridine
In fact, the top of the WTC did tip and initiate the collapse at the hinge point made by the impact. If you cut the top off of a tree, why would the tree fall over?


That's right. The second tower was hit towards one of the corners of the building and lower than the other tower. When it began to fall, it was falling towards that corner, which makes sense, so why did it stop falling that way, straighten up and collapse the rest of the tower which was still intact and have no resistance at all from the still intact lower floors? Same thing with the first tower hit. The plane hit higher up and center. Those floors above the impact zone were a few and the majority of the tower was still intact, but when that top part of the tower, the lower part of the tower which was still intact, fell like a house of cards. There was no resistance as those falling floors impacted the still intact structure. There was less speed and less weight, but it still managed to make the tower collapse in the same exact way. In that day of chaos, 3 buildings at the WTC were demolished/collapsed the same way. Even though those 3 buildings were built differently and were damaged in different ways and in different areas. The same result from 3 different situations. It doesn't make sense.

It doesn´t make any sense at all in a gravity driven event that asymmetrical damage to a reinforced building would result in symmetrical collapse.