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.

 

The NYPD lied.

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

I think the NIST conclusions are called the "OS" as long as it gives us the best explanation, which is currently still the case.

The reason the debris has never been tested for explosives residue properly is because the truth movement is completely incapable and/or unwilling to get anything done.


The reason the NIST conclusions are called the official story is because NIST is a government agency. Official means relating to a public body. There is no definition of official that I'm aware of that simply means 'best'.

I'm at a loss as to how the T shirt salesmen euphemistically referred to as the 'Truth Movement' could have any responsibility for testing WTC evidence for explosive residue. The pied pipers of the 'Truth Movement' are leading their flock on a merry dance through meadows and fields. Testing the debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill will be the end of debate and the beginning of justice, bringing us all back to boring reality.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Kester because: typo




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 



They don't mention the rest of the debris most of which is on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Regardless of the percentage of evidence that can practically be tested can anyone tell me why the steel should be singled out for testing?

Thank you for confiming my point. Your hardcore conspiracist will never be satisfied. Always looking for some absurd crack thinking that if they pick at it long enough the whole dam will coming pouring through.

All I did was just suggest that they test .5% of the steel and there are already objections.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Well, is it absurd? The buildings "looked like" they were exploding so that is sufficient cause to test millions and millions of pieces of debris for explosive residue? Sounds truly absurd to me.


You are truly clutching at straws here.
Nuff said.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Kester because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Thank you for confiming my point. Your hardcore conspiracist will never be satisfied. Always looking for some absurd crack thinking that if they pick at it long enough the whole dam will coming pouring through.

All I did was just suggest that they test .5% of the steel and there are already objections.


I must withdraw here. This is beneath me.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 






When I looked I was struck by the number of photographers who said, "I missed the plane but I caught the explosion."



Yeah, the lack of photographs of the second strike was a big "tell" for me too. Also, there are more images of the second plane hitting the building than there are of the damage to the buildings. There are no tight, telephoto shots of the damage, or the interior of the buildings. Just a handful of blurry images.

The OS faithful, and even the Truthers being led around by their noses by operatives like Alex Jones like to talk about the "thousands" of witnesses who watched the planes slice steel with their own eyes, yet there is no evidence to back it up. Every one of the dozens of shots that include a "plane" can and have been proved fraudulent. Had there been thousands of witnesses, there would be dozens if not hundreds of cameras, had there been hundreds of cameras, there would be thousands of images of the damage; had there been thousands of images, investigators would have been able to scrutinize the damage, thereby discounting the possibility it being caused by a plane.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


that's certainly a possibility, and i'm not ruling it out, not by any means, i'm just saying that it seems unlikely.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by hooper

Thank you for confiming my point. Your hardcore conspiracist will never be satisfied. Always looking for some absurd crack thinking that if they pick at it long enough the whole dam will coming pouring through.

All I did was just suggest that they test .5% of the steel and there are already objections.


I must withdraw here. This is beneath me.




Again, thank you soooo much for so completely proving the point that no matter what is offered it will never be sufficient to deflate a good conspiracy. This is now a matter of record, and pretty funny at that.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RicoVig
reply to post by septic
 


that's certainly a possibility, and i'm not ruling it out, not by any means, i'm just saying that it seems unlikely.


Why do you think its unlikely? An exception to the rule would be for them to tell you the truth.

Edward Bernays, the Father of Modern Propaganda, was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, the Father of Modern Psychology:


“To-day, however, a reaction has set in. The minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing majorities. It has been found possible so to mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction. In the present structure of society, this practice is inevitable. Whatever of social importance is done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government”


Source


...Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence foreign media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great; "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[4] Wisner referred to this apparatus as a "Mighty Wurlitzer", referencing the theater organ capable of controlling diverse pipes, instruments, and sound effects from a central console.[5]

Source


“The use of propaganda as a means of controlling information flow, managing public opinion, or manipulating behavior is as old as recorded history. The concept of persuasion is an integral part of human nature, and the use of specific techniques to bring about large-scale shifts in ideas can be traced back to the ancient world. Many artifacts from prehistory and from earliest civilizations provide us with evidence that attempts were being made to use the equivalent of modern-day propaganda techniques to communicate the purported majesty and supernatural powers of rulers and priests. In a largely preliterate age, dazzling costumes, insignia, and monuments were deliberately created symbols designed to evoke a specific image of superiority and power that these early propagandists wished to convey to their audience.

The history of propaganda is based on three interweaving elements: first, the increasing need, with the growth of civilization and the rise of nationstates, to win what has been called “the battle for people’s minds”; second, the increasing sophistication of the means of communication available to deliver propagandistic messages; and third, the increasing understanding of the psychology of propaganda and the commensurate application of such behavioral findings. Throughout history, these three elements have been combined in various ways to enhance and encourage the use of propaganda as a means of altering attitudes and for the creation of new ideas or perspectives. Only in comparatively modern times, however, have scholars and scientists begun to understand and assess the role of such mass propaganda techniques as an aspect of the social process.

The history of propaganda does not develop as a clear linear progression, but certain significant historical benchmarks are worth examining as illustrations of how propaganda has been used at different times. In each case, those wishing to control or manage others (the propagandists) have made maximum and intelligent use of the forms of communication (the media) available to them while also accurately gauging the psychological susceptibility of their audiences so that their messages could be tailored to ensure the best possible reception. The successful propagandist is able to discern the basic beliefs, needs, or fears of the audience and to play upon those.”

cct.georgetown.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source



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 Colby - CIA Director, 1981

Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
The reason the NIST conclusions are called the official story is because NIST is a government agency. Official means relating to a public body. There is no definition of official that I'm aware of that simply means 'best'.


When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation. That is probably also a source of confusion for many truthers.


I'm at a loss as to how the T shirt salesmen euphemistically referred to as the 'Truth Movement' could have any responsibility for testing WTC evidence for explosive residue. The pied pipers of the 'Truth Movement' are leading their flock on a merry dance through meadows and fields. Testing the debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill will be the end of debate and the beginning of justice, bringing us all back to boring reality.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Kester because: typo


So the truth movement does not have the responsibility to get the truth out, so truthers can just sit down arms crossed doing nothing. Interesting "movement". Just don't expect anyone to care.
edit on 21-12-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This thread tops most other threads in delusional madness and despicable accusations. If ATS has any courtesy they would ban that fool of a septic.

I think the ATS staff and moderators are complicit in 911 and are liars and mass murderers. Their behavior should tell us enough.

(Just testing the moral standards on this forum)




Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.


Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This thread tops most other threads in delusional madness and despicable accusations. If ATS has any courtesy they would ban that fool of a septic.

I think the ATS staff and moderators are complicit in 911 and are liars and mass murderers. Their behavior should tell us enough.

(Just testing the moral standards on this forum)





These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.


A few witnesses?????


Lower Manhattan. Tuesday morning. Bright sunny day. A few witnesses? Borough of Manhattan population as of 2010 = 1,585,000. Each and every one a potential witness. So maybe he meant a few million witnesses. And since we're counting - the event "takes place" about 800 feet in the air which means we now have a potential witness list in the 10's of millions.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.


A few witnesses?????


Lower Manhattan. Tuesday morning. Bright sunny day. A few witnesses? Borough of Manhattan population as of 2010 = 1,585,000. Each and every one a potential witness. So maybe he meant a few million witnesses. And since we're counting - the event "takes place" about 800 feet in the air which means we now have a potential witness list in the 10's of millions.


You're an expert at repeating the propaganda, that's for sure.




(A debate excerpt)
by Gerard Holmgren

Because the plane huggers always lie about my position, I will make it quite clear before I start with the documentation. (The planehuggers will still lie anyway about what I said, but it will be easier to catch them at it, if I say this clearly right here)


I'm not claiming that the witness evidence proves any particular kind of object. What I'm pointing out is that it does *not* confirm a large jet. I am posting this in response to the endless cries of “thousands of witnesses” from plane huggers who can't supply any, and who make wild reckless claims like


[[can you provide proof of *ONE* individual that said they saw a missile ?]]

[[But in this case, you cannot name ONE witness who says he saw a missile ?]]



The witness evidence doesn't tell us a whole lot about what it was, but what it tells us plenty about what it wasn't.

My position on this is the same as when I wrote the Pentagon witness article in June 2002.

members.iinet.net.au...

I never claimed that the witness evidence proved one thing or another . I just said that it did *not* confirm a large jet. This is also what I'm saying here. Now lets watch the planehuggers lie again “Holmgren claims that the witness evidence proves it was a missile…”

Planehuggers ,being the sort of people who believe in 767s with 90 degree angle wings which do snapping karate strikes on buildings, are unable to distinguish between “proves the opposite” and “doesn't prove anything”. Or if their plane addled brains can manage to come to terms with this concept then they just lie about what I wrote.

billstclair.com...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.

LIN: Jeanne, we are continuing to look at pictures of this devastating scene, according to Sean Murtagh, vice president of finance, who witnessed what he described as a twin-engine plane, possibly a 737. e was almost absolutely sure it was a large passenger jet that went into that.

Jeanne, you are saying you didn't see anything initially. You didn't see a plane approach the building?

YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange….

…LIN: Fortunately so. When you say a sonic boom, did you feel anything? Were things shaking in your apartment?

YURMAN: Yes, you could feel it. It was a gigantic sonic boom. The TV went off for a second and went back on. And the windows -- you felt the vibrations on the windows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What kind of passenger jet makes a sonic boom, apart from the concorde ? And she heard it well before the impact. In time to look out the window before the impact. And saw no plane and had “no idea” that a plane was involved. Why would a passenger jet cause a power disruption – before the impact ?

www.andovertownsman.com...

"There was a power surge. The lights flickered. I looked outside and I looked at the towers and all of a sudden the whole top of the North Tower just burst into flames," she says.

I wasn't even sure it was a plane initially. I thought it was a missile attack. Most of the time you hear a plane at an airport they're landing or taking off and they're not at full throttle.

Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



You're an expert at repeating the propaganda, that's for sure.

So what's your response? There were potentially millions of eye witnesses, the event took place in one of the most densely populated places on earth. That's not propaganda that's just a simple fact. Or do you think there is no one in New York City?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
@Septic

More than half the links in that 9/11 closeup link you just posted don't even work. It was an interesting read but when an articles sources are wiped off the Internet it is usually a bad sign in regards to authenticity...



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



You're an expert at repeating the propaganda, that's for sure.

So what's your response? There were potentially millions of eye witnesses, the event took place in one of the most densely populated places on earth. That's not propaganda that's just a simple fact. Or do you think there is no one in New York City?


Ah yes, the old yarn, and increasing the number to millions only reinforces the inconsistency of the claim. That many people witnessing it first hand would produce THOUSANDS of videos and photographs, many on negatives which could be used to remove any doubt the images are genuine.

There are only a meager handful of blurry images of the damage. Folks standing there for an hour, 1.5 million of 'em, according to you, yet no one took any clear shots of the damage or the insides of the buildings.

It's like the firemen who talk about rivers of molten steel weeks after 911...yet there's not one single image of these rivers. No proof, only official hearsay. You're repeating old wives' tales.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You should go back and read the posts. Your posts stipulates that in the planning stages it would be better to consider faking the planes because real planes would leave a lot more tangible evidence then the "few witnesses" that would be available. It is this conjecture that I am taking objection to. The idea that there are only a few potential witnesses in one of the most densely populated places on earth to an event that would be done in plain sight is just, well, stupid.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCJustJ
@Septic

More than half the links in that 9/11 closeup link you just posted don't even work. It was an interesting read but when an articles sources are wiped off the Internet it is usually a bad sign in regards to authenticity...


The links aren't necessary to understand the rationale, but the sources for the quotes are available elsewhere. The dead links don't necessarily mean bad sources; for example the link to the NYPD molten concrete exhibit is still valid, but it is clearly false. If anything, it's the bogus information they keep on the Internet that should give one pause.

Analysis of the NYC "First Responder" Accounts of FDNY and EMS Personnel on 9/11/01



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 


You should go back and read the posts. Your posts stipulates that in the planning stages it would be better to consider faking the planes because real planes would leave a lot more tangible evidence then the "few witnesses" that would be available. It is this conjecture that I am taking objection to. The idea that there are only a few potential witnesses in one of the most densely populated places on earth to an event that would be done in plain sight is just, well, stupid.


All you do is deflect and mock. You are not to be taken seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join