It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:34 AM
Dont forget OBL was never chrged for the 911 event, still they went for "them", yes those operatives from the 80's from the war against the russians.
RE pentagon: How are 5 unconclusive frames and few thin aluminium panels scattered around proof of a plane hitting the pentagon.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:42 AM
Four examples of fraud:


The FBI sure seemed pretty intent on making sure folks were talking about planes:

Account of Chris Kagenaar - File No: 9110014
What happened was then the second plane hit the tower, and it was a loud noise, I mean, it
hit, and at first I was like this can’t be happening. It’s like lightning doesn’t strike twice….
As I’m dropping off the patient, the FBI agent comes up to me and he says, oh, man, I just
heard there’s a third plane coming in.

Account of Felton Jarjean - File No: 9110041
I would say right around that time while we were right under here, under the Westside
Highway and pedestrian bridge, I seen a second plane coming. I’m thinking isn’t that plane too
low? I’m like.. .then I noticed, I seen it turn. It turned and went right in the building. But we’re
behind, like this is the building, it went in, and you see the explosion in the front... ...
Everybody talking about -around that time- there's another plane coming. I mean, we didn’t
know because we didn’t have a TV and we didn’t have a radio. We was just going our way. We
heard it from the FBI agents or agents down there.

Account of Michael Wernick - File No: 9110080
We were there resting five, ten minutes. We heard reports that possibly more planes were
coming in our direction and that was from the FBI.

Account of Sidney Parris – File No: 9110347
After that, FBI agent came down the block. He identified some landing gear that was in front of
our rig, asked me to make sure no pedestrians came down the block to interfere with any type
of metals and debris that were there, because they were trying to identify to put the pieces
back together for the plane.

Account of James Curran - File No: 9110412
No, we were on the 16 floor when it was confirmed that another plane hit tower two. At that
point, someone that was supposedly Secret Service, which disappeared, we never knew
where he went, he said there was a third incoming flight.

Account of Warren Smith - File No: 9110223
I also received reports while I was walking up from an FBI agent that there were more planes
up in the air unaccounted for. So I passed this on to my guys that were near me.

Account of Terence Rivera - File No: 9110343
This account is especially peculiar…
There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if
he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was
conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and
then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious. At that time, I had asked
him where did this individual [had] come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball
had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby
Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there,
that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist
attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.
Then I went -- that same individual, the security or -- he told me to go over to the command
post and let them know it's a terrorist attack. There are more planes in the air.


posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:48 AM
Quotes about the CIA and Operation Mockingbird:

In the second half of the 20th century, the burgeoning American media was co-opted by something called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's subversion of the free press in America. Frank Wisner, who ran the project in the 1940s and 1950s for the Agency, once famously said that the American media was like his own "...personal Wurlitzer; I can play any tune I want on it and America will follow along."

In the 1970s, CIA director William Colby admitted, "The CIA owns assets at every major media outlet in America, TV networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and magazines."

In a 1977 Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimated that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA-friendly assets at all the major TV networks, newspapers and periodicals in America.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by DragonriderGal

“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.”


Also, just for kicks:

Some WTC History
You Might Not Know

from a video-talk on the Dawson-Perry Report
at the Portland Central Library, 7/12/05,

I lived in New York in the 1960's, when the World Trade Center and the twin towers were going up. The 60's was an era of intense urban destruction and frantic build-up in New York. Some of the areas targeted for "development" looked like they had been bombed, while other outlying areas, redlined by the banks, decayed into abandoned free-fire zones. The downtown mega-development known as the World Trade Center was the brainchild of the Rockefellers. I remember photos in The New York Times of Nelson and David glowing over architect's models of those obscene towers.

You never see the name "Rockefeller" in any of the official post-911 WTC histories. The golden name has been disassociated from the dark imagery of 911. (Also, what is a conspiracy theory without a Rockefeller in it?)
The Rockefeller clout teamed up with the powerful New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and this urban-removal juggernaut destroyed 75 blocks of historic lower Manhattan.

Farewell, Radio Row.

This targeted area included a neighborhood I loved called Radio Row. The district began in the 1920's and grew into an experimenter's dream world of many blocks where exotic surplus electronics, the fall-out of defense technology, spilled out into the street. The electronics storekeepers organized. God knows how many other downtown communities organized. They got little coverage in The Times. All resistance was crushed.
Did the Rockefellers sign off on the 911 demolition? I don't know. One slender Rockefeller connection (through NBC and 911) is Paul Bremmer, the protege of Henry Kissenger, who, in turn, was the protege of the Rockefellers. Interviewed on NBC that momentous morning Bremmer was so on-message with the official propaganda line that I have speculated (in my NBC Spins 911) that the bin Laden memo all the media was reading from that day may have originated at Bremmer's own desk.

WTC already doomed.

That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at least a century, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment.
The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street. Another built-in irreversible problem was that the WTC buildings were full of asbestos. They may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental ways. The twin towers were white elephants waiting for replacement. The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable. Consider, though, that the WTC had paid for itself and profited the investors and profited various landlords, public and private, over and over during its life. Also consider the pressure of insatiable New York developers to raze anything in sight on any pretext and to build anew the latest gleaming office structures for the corporations and luxury condos for the new booming yuppie class.

WTC demolition planned in '80's

A demolition was actually planned out in detail for the twin towers in the 1980's. The planners engaged architects, developed estimates for a complete take-down and rebuild, and the architects drafted conceptual drawings.

The demolition of such gigantic steel structures, with their thick concrete floors, if lawfully performed in conformance with New York City codes, would have been an immensely arduous and expensive task and was estimated back then at $5.6 billion. (This included the slow and laborious task of cutting, with oxy-acetylene torches, the giant hardened steel members of the high-rise structures. In those days you could not so easily melt steel, as for example with kerosene, the official physics for this process having not been in place until a few weeks after September 11, 2001).

I watched such a New York demolition proceed on an old steel and concrete high-rise from my midtown office window at Third Avenue and 51st in the late 1960's. Using cutting torches, workers laboriously severed the old steel members into manageable sections one-by-one. Then they drilled holes into the thick concrete floors and placed small dynamite charges within. A huge ponderous steel net was laid down over the floor area to be blasted.

When the shrill warning whistle blew, I knew to swivel my chair toward the window. Then, bang, and the heavy steel net jumped. The net contained all the shattered concrete debris within. Workers hosed down the area with water to suppress the dust. Then the workers had to gather up the concrete chunks and cart them to funnels that conducted the debris down into dump trucks below. This went on for months, floor by floor.
The same slow, expensive, labor-intensive procedures would have been required had the twin towers been lawfully deconstructed.

In 1989 the architects assigned to the WTC demolition were told that the entire project had been cancelled and that their office, located in the WTC, was to be closed. One source states that someone told the architects that, "In 10 to 12 years they are going to blow it up and start over."


posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:07 AM

Originally posted by tpg65
To coin a phrase ..." The truth is out there " . Don't we owe it to the ones who perished , to finally uncover the truth and in doing so , play a part in bringing the perpetrators to justice ?

Visible thermite reaction. No more evidence is needed.

That's the smoking gun and it's already widely available on youtube. If you don't already know that 9/11 was a lot more than we were told, watch the molten metal WTC videos again. Then watch a video of thermite. Jet fuel can't do that. Figure it out.

As to why no justice has come of it -- kinda hard for a divided, oppressed populace to confront the criminals who oppress them. Especially when these criminals control almost all media.

When you understand the enormity of the conspiracy you understand why nothing has happened. We're like mexican citizens who witnessed a murder by the drug cartels. You think evidence and testimony is going to bring justice there? Try it and they will kill you. We are more or less powerless at this point in time, and until that changes there will be no justice.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tpg65

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

Yep and you know what they are. Which way you going with this? Are you going to try the straight denial routine? Or maybe the old "they're all in on it" schtick.

9/11 Commission Report.

Take the time to watch this, the commission report was an absolute cover-up.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:37 AM
The last post on page 2 is:

Originally posted by tpg65
This thread is almost 3 pages long

Wow you are you are truly a wiz at Truther Math. Is that like near free fall speed.

So Truther what proof do you have ? What is your smoking gun ? What convinced you ? What is the one single fact that you think will stand up in a court of law ? The one thing that you think proves 911 was an inside job.
I just want one, the big one for you, I don't want to be hit with a wall of Truther DoDo. I just want the single biggest Truther Fact you got. Think hard about it because I am going to ask you to prove it. Later on you can hit me with the wall of Truther DoDo if you want, but right now I just want the really big one that you think will float to the top.

So what is It ?

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by Observer99

Your smoking gun must be a paint ball gun, because this aint thermite.

It's a paint chip.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by hooper

Hey Hooper,

One of the most secure military facilities in the world would be thePentagon... Would you agree? i thin we all would.

So being that it is "secure" would mean there would be a hell of a lot of security cameras around the Pentagon. I need to find video that clearly shows a plane hitting the pentagon to prove myself wrong and to prove the government IS trustworthy.

You seem knowledgable on the subject and highly trusting towards the government, could you please provide me with the footage from one of the hundreds of security cameras surrounding the Pentagon?

Thaks in advance.


posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

Good articles, Yankee! Thank you for posting them. Even more details and explanations as to why 9-11 was very likely an inside job. And that makes sense as to why the vaults were a target.
Oh the NWO bunch.. they are such total criminals. *shakes head*

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by 412304
reply to post by hooper

Hey Hooper,

One of the most secure military facilities in the world would be thePentagon... Would you agree? i thin we all would.

So being that it is "secure" would mean there would be a hell of a lot of security cameras around the Pentagon. I need to find video that clearly shows a plane hitting the pentagon to prove myself wrong and to prove the government IS trustworthy.

You seem knowledgable on the subject and highly trusting towards the government, could you please provide me with the footage from one of the hundreds of security cameras surrounding the Pentagon?

Thaks in advance.


Gee, they aren't available, strangely enough. Heck, I've read that all the stores or office buildings around the Pentagon with any kind of security cameras, had Federal agents pounding down their doors and confiscating any possible taped footage of said incident. All I know is the one tape I've seen is so crappy you can't see anything, but I am pretty sure I also can't see a passenger airplane. It would be pretty big, and obvious even with such crappy footage, eh?

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by tpg65
Wow , thank you . That is amazing and well worth discussing .

No, it is just a hoax

Can any of it be proven/disproven

all the gold was recovered, the claim about the truck is just a truther hoax

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by tpg65
reply to post by hooper

Nah , not buying it . All that shows is a link to endless PDF's .

It doesn't even say what the charges were

Defendants charged with terrorism or national security crimes: 450 Cases resolved: 279 Convictions: 230 (82%) Guilty by Trial: 84
Acquittal on All Counts: 7
Innocent by Reason of Insanity: 1
Mistrial: 1
Charges Dropped by Prosecution: 26
Charges Dismissed by Judge: 8
Charges Dismissed by Plea: 1
Guilty Verdicts Vacated: 5
Average Sentence: 15.3 years
Terrorism/National Security: Jihadi-related Crimes3
Defendants charged: 308 Resolved cases: 200
Convictions: 174 (87%) Acquittals: 7
Mistrial: 1
Charges Dropped: 13
Guilty Verdicts Vacated: 5
Avg. Sentence: 14 years

So much for your search for facts. NYU School of Law. Look it up. All facts. So how many people have been charged with crimes of terrorism? 450.

Federal Court. The trial dockets are searchable. If you're really looking for facts. I doubt it.

And how many of these were on trial for 9/11 ? ?? ....I'll tell ya ..NONE.
edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:51 AM
I saw this today for the first time. I think it brings up some valid points.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by tpg65

I've always been impressed with the breadth of knowledge expressed within ATS. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheels indeed get the grease. You see it all the time… in politics, the media, workplaces, communities, and society in general. The loudest, most disruptive people are the ones who gain the attention of others. If nothing else, it serves to distract. It does nothing for the furthering of knowledge or communication. So rather than dealing with the issues, time is wasted on those who would rather attack the person instead of the problem.

I very much appreciate your thread. And despite the fact that there are many threads available dealing with this subject, it certainly would be refreshing to have one devoted strictly to facts and not opinion or speculation. You have been very clear regarding what you require of the participants. Yet, almost immediately, you receive responses that are less than helpful. I was under the impression that here on ATS, you should at least try to support what you say with sources when applicable. You have asked repeatedly for evidence after receiving a number of posts that are just confrontational and serve no purpose. If someone is going to say, "Hey I have all the proof you need. It's in X report." Can this person at least include links to this report? And/or snippets? Just saying what it is without any other supporting information is totally counterproductive to the discussion. It then becomes clear that those who are perpetuating this obstinence are not here to contribute. And then there are those who just want to reduce the conversation to name calling and vitriol. That kind of behavior is not on topic - or beneficial.

Is it really too much to ask for those who would like to participate in the thread to at least do their best to discuss it within the parameters you have set? I realize that this topic is chock full of questions, many of which cannot be answered (which is why many people put forth their own theories, just to try to make some sense of it all). But still…. there are solid facts out there. Specifics. There is science that can be applied, and even if it's not new information, it would be refreshing to see it all within a single thread, where all the ranting, blaming and disrespect is absent.

So, before this thread spirals into the convoluted mess most of them do, I am adding my support for the original post and the sincere request for facts and evidence. I will be reading with interest.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:18 AM
Here is proof that a 757 did NOT strike the Pentagon

Now , what are the implications of this ?
The official story is that an hijacked boeing 757 was flown into the pentagon.
The picture above shows that it was not the case .
So the official story must be a lie and we must assume that the official story of the rest of the events of that day is also a lie .

This is not bias ....This is common sense

I am no longer going to sit on the fence . I call foul to TPTB .

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Enlightenme1111
I saw this today for the first time. I think it brings up some valid points.

I'm pretty sure that video is a hoax. What is filming this missile? Is it from a helicopter? Also, I think the angle they put the missile at is wrong because they put it straight on with the hole in that video. Where as it had to have hit the hole at an angle because the hole in the second wall wasn't right behind the first.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Hippo45 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Hippo45

I'm pretty sure that video is a hoax. What is filming this missile? Is it from a helicopter? Also, I think the angle they put the missile at is wrong because they put it straight on with the hole in that video. Where as it had to have hit the hole at an angle because the hole in the second wall wasn't right behind the first.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Hippo45 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I'm not so sure about the actual missile strike myself. However, he does present some other evidence which I found interesting.

The painted missile with the AA logo.
The hole in the pentagon which is presented a couple of posts above this.
The free fall of building 7 (this is the strongest evidence in my mind).

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:27 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by HolographicPrincipal

Thank you so very much for taking the time to reply to this thread .
I thank you for your support , also.
I truly hoped that people would come here and remain objective and sadly , yet again , this has not been the case .

Highest regards.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in