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.

 

If 911 is viewed as a crime instead of a terrorist attack, it becomes clear...

page: 15
102
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Of course I know what you are getting at but have you ever read about the Reichstag Fire?

After watching the fraud that was the ramp up to the illegal and immoral attack and invasion of Iraq and seeing how propaganda could so easily turn a blatant lie into something that seems true to millions or billions I srarted to question everything that I thought was true and ran into the deatils of the Reichstag Fire incident.

Check it for yourself. Don't allow my view to cloud your investigation.

Let me say this, though, they have lied to us about everything.


Originally posted by comprehension
reply to post by nh_ee
 


heh...isn't that like asking the SS to investigate the Reichstag fire?




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 



How bout let's stop derailing the thread into whether an engine can bounce in a plane crash onto land.


In other words its OK to lie as long as you are trying to impeach someone else's character. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You want to know WHY but apparently you're still stuck on what.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

If you think UA 93 was shot down and broke up in the air how do you account for the fact that the recovered flight data recorder shows all systems functioning up to impact ?

How about the cockpit voice recorder, also recovered, giving the desperate hi-jacker voices talking of putting the plane in ?



Hang on hoss ... the flight recorder? hi-jackers? cell phone at 38000 feet?

Are we talking about a hollywood movie here, Die Hard 9.5 ?

ROFL

I can see it in my mind, bruce willys saving the day ... by turning on his cell phone. So that's why the plane crashed ... isn't it forbidden to use cell phones, because they interfere with the flight systems? And isn't the cell phone call, relayed through the com system of the plane? the one they turned off?

So, this case of 93 was a typical hi-jacker history ... not like the other two, where the hi-jackers were actually flying the planes. They went in with box cutters, and said "fly into capitol hill and kill the president, or we will cut your with these boxcutters", with a bad german accent?

Guys ... I don't care what happened to flight 93, shot down or not ... but that story is really really funny. Because what it basically states, is that the hi-jackers were morons, with boxcuttors ... but all these morons, just magically happened to be able to get 75% of their targets hit. Now, if all of the planes were similar stories ... then maybe this story was a big clue, but in light that in pentagon they made an impossib le maneuver ... and in new york they hit the twin towers like that ... it makes this sound, like a bad B movie. It is so totally off mark, it is painting the terrorists in a totally different manner than what is otherwise known ... if the story of flight 93 is true, then all the rest ... is not because of terrorism, but because the entire US military, airforce, personell are incompetent morons ... and if you wanna punish anyone, you should send them to the electric chair for incompetense.

are they? hell, from what I've heard ... they were actually promoted? The president promoted the staff, for their incompetense? Now, that sounds like a true conspiracy theory to me ...


edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


All you are doing is flapping around expressing your personal incredulity without addressing the fdr or cvr or the fact that witnesses saw ua 93 at low level, and in one piece, before impact.

Which cell phone call at 38,000 feet are you referring to ? Have you seriously looked at the calls from ua 93 at all ? Are you even aware of the airfone calls ?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Bjarn,

Just a few hours after the event one of my friends who was a master sargeant in the Air Force at the time said, "The story is that 'we' shot down that plane."

Rumsfeld states clearly that the plane over PA was shot down.



Dick Cheney states that he gave the order to shoot down the plane.



Then lies about everything else.

Bjarn - notice that the same few members argue with every point made about 9/11 no matter what the point is. They are not interested in a real discussion they are just trying to obfiscate the issue.

Reading one of the posts that is not obvious but reading a dozen or so you start to see the pattern.

Notice - they defend Israeli Apartheid and refuse to admit that Israelis were arrested on 9/11 on suspicion of involvement in the crime of 9/11.

We should accept each person's contribution to a given argument based on its merrit but we can not ignore the fact that some members are on here to block real discussion insteasd of promoting discourse.

FOX News report on Sept 11, 2001 claims F-16 from the DC US National Air Guard ordered to respond to plane.

CNN says debris field six miles away from so-called main crash site. Small parts and an engine. Witness talks about plane aircraft seen after impact and air force testimony that it was shot down.








Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Alfie1

If you think UA 93 was shot down and broke up in the air how do you account for the fact that the recovered flight data recorder shows all systems functioning up to impact ?

How about the cockpit voice recorder, also recovered, giving the desperate hi-jacker voices talking of putting the plane in ?



Hang on hoss ... the flight recorder? hi-jackers? cell phone at 38000 feet?

Are we talking about a hollywood movie here, Die Hard 9.5 ?

ROFL

I can see it in my mind, bruce willys saving the day ... by turning on his cell phone. So that's why the plane crashed ... isn't it forbidden to use cell phones, because they interfere with the flight systems? And isn't the cell phone call, relayed through the com system of the plane? the one they turned off?

So, this case of 93 was a typical hi-jacker history ... not like the other two, where the hi-jackers were actually flying the planes. They went in with box cutters, and said "fly into capitol hill and kill the president, or we will cut your with these boxcutters", with a bad german accent?

Guys ... I don't care what happened to flight 93, shot down or not ... but that story is really really funny. Because what it basically states, is that the hi-jackers were morons, with boxcuttors ... but all these morons, just magically happened to be able to get 75% of their targets hit. Now, if all of the planes were similar stories ... then maybe this story was a big clue, but in light that in pentagon they made an impossib le maneuver ... and in new york they hit the twin towers like that ... it makes this sound, like a bad B movie. It is so totally off mark, it is painting the terrorists in a totally different manner than what is otherwise known ... if the story of flight 93 is true, then all the rest ... is not because of terrorism, but because the entire US military, airforce, personell are incompetent morons ... and if you wanna punish anyone, you should send them to the electric chair for incompetense.

are they? hell, from what I've heard ... they were actually promoted? The president promoted the staff, for their incompetense? Now, that sounds like a true conspiracy theory to me ...


edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Bravo, Bravo!

That's not the only thing that Rummy slipped up about.

".....and the missile that hit the Pentagon...."

This being the largest conspiracy site on the web, there is no doubt in my mind that some of the posters here are on the OWO's payroll. That is to be expected. But some people actually fight tooth and nail denying the obvious for free, because their subconscious mind will simply not wrap itself around the idea that there could be a conspiracy so huge. It requires a person to reassess everything that forms the basis of their worldview. Not an easy thing to do, but yet these same people have no problem with the idea of a Mafia.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949

Notice - they defend Israeli Apartheid and refuse to admit that Israelis were arrested on 9/11 on suspicion of involvement in the crime of 9/11.


Who is doing this? Who said this in this thread or for that matter, anyone here on these threads? Stop making up crap and expecting no one to notice.



We should accept each person's contribution to a given argument based on its merrit but we can not ignore the fact that some members are on here to block real discussion insteasd of promoting discourse.


Couldnt agree more.


FOX News report on Sept 11, 2001 claims F-16 from the DC US National Air Guard ordered to respond to plane.



Yes, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept, but NONE had weapon systems armed or ready. One was only ready to do use his jet as a battering ram to knock a hijacked plane out. But none had shot any planes downm.




CNN says debris field six miles away from so-called main crash site. Small parts and an engine. Witness talks about plane aircraft seen after impact and air force testimony that it was shot down.


The second debris field was located DOWNWIND of the crash site, and it consisted of light materials like papers, magazines, letters, mail, nylon, insulation, shred of cloths. An engine BOUNCED from the crash site 300 yards, but this is not evidence of any shoot down.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


More deception.....


Why is it necessary to deceive and distort? I know why and it's not related to a so called search for "the truth" at all. It's related to promoting the conspirator's agenda.

Why are the words from Rumsfield clipped just prior to the "shot down" comment? I know what he said and the context in which he was speaking. It was not WE "shot down" the aircraft over Pennsylvania. It was in reference to the terrorists who hijacked the aircraft. I guess they used a Surface to Air missile, huh? Or did they also hijack a fighter and that is being cover-up. Anyone with a lick of common sense would readily recognize what he's talking about instead of trying to turn it into "This is proof that we shot down UA 93." Unfortunately, there is NO INTEGRITY or ACCOUNTABILITY for someone who would post this in an attempt to deceive the gullible.

Cheney DID NOT say we shot down UA 93. He said he authorized a shoot down, which is already well known. It is not and was not ever a secret. The posting of this clip is simply another effort to deceive the gullible.

The Fox News report DOES NOT say we shot down UA 93 either. It merely indicates that an F-16 from the Andrews ANG piloted by Major Billy Hutchinson flew a few miles in that direction before he had to return to Andrews due to low fuel. This all happened prior to UA 93's crash in PA and the F-16 was no where near it's position. This is all recorded on radar and on ATC transcripts, so again it's no secret.

ETA: The object that hit the Pentagon was a "missile" known better as AA 77, a B-757 operated by American Airlines. I'm surprised that had to be stated in plain words for those too dumb to realize it....
edit on 5-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

The second debris field was located DOWNWIND of the crash site, and it consisted of light materials like papers, magazines, letters, mail, nylon, insulation, shred of cloths. An engine BOUNCED from the crash site 300 yards, but this is not evidence of any shoot down.


If the aircraft had been shot down the debris field would have been upwind of the crash site, not downwind. That alone proves it wasn't shot down...

BTW, that was only a portion of an engine that landed about 300 yards downwind, not an entire engine... This is not surprising at all and it means nothing except the aircraft crashed at a high rate of speed.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


replying to track this thread ..

yes.. as I thought the very day and the next week it should have been bordered off by full military division !!! as SOP should have been if I was the mayor!!!!!!!

USE the military to secure evidence !!!!! and flush out the rats..



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


ETA: The object that hit the Pentagon was a "missile" known better as AA 77, a B-757 operated by American Airlines. I'm surprised that had to be stated in plain words for those too dumb to realize it....
edit on 5-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Why did the FBI confiscate the surveillance tape from the Citgo station across the Interstate within minutes of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon?

With literally dozens of videocams at one of the world's most secure buildings, why can't they give us more than one frame from an obscure angle (that shows a trail of white smoke) and nothing large enough to be a 757?

If you think a 757 can sheer off five lightpoles on the Interstate and then continue at 500+ mph without disturbing a blade of grass and still hit its target with an idiot who couldn't even fly a Cessna at the controls, YOU are the gullible one. There is not a single pilot in the world who could have pulled off those maneuvers.

Navy veterans in the building testified of smelling cordite at the 911 commission hearings. All incriminating testimony thrown out, State Secret Privilege. How convenient. The missile blew threw six walls and made a 16-foot round hole as it exited the C-ring. We may not get all our facts exactly right but we're not lobotomized bozos. Get real.
edit on 5-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


I have to earn my pay for today, so one last comment on the "banned" CNN footage.


There have been plenty of folks who have stated they saw no bodies at the crash site. Why would this be strange or "banned" footage. It is perfectly normal for a crash of this nature.

If the aircraft was shot down there would have been wreckage and debris (perhaps even bodies too) for miles in the area leading up to the crash site. i.e. along the flight path. Where was it? Oh, I know, it wasn't there = NO SHOOT DOWN. [/subject closed]



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
We may not get all our facts exactly right but we're not lobotomized bozos. Get real.


Source,
please.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


All you are doing is flapping around expressing your personal incredulity without addressing the fdr or cvr or the fact that witnesses saw ua 93 at low level, and in one piece, before impact.



I don't care one way or the other ... I love the Die Hard movies ... and the "bad german accent" of all the bad guys

LOL



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



There is not a single pilot in the world who could have pulled off those maneuvers.


Except, this is false. It was shown on a Dutch TV program, a fairly inexperienced pilot in a full-motion flight simulator. THREE times they did it, nearly exactly as happened on 9/11. (***) Videos below:

The American 77 Flight Recorder is further proof. As is the physical damage path. The DNA from the victims, the passengers and crew. The wreckage that was nothing BUT from a Boeing 757.

Based on the comments in your post, you seem to have been improperly influenced by the tons of very very old and very very WRONG claims that still persist on the Internet, and numerous websites. Because, it is the very nature of the Internet that any incorrect claim, once made< never goes away. But, that's not much different from similar examples of books......horrible, horrible books also full of lies and half-truths, that still exist, and continue to be written.


(***) Here, is "Part 3".....the "Part 2" had the actual flying at the end, and unfortunately for YouTube was broken up in the middle of the demonstration portion:




Now, "Part 2", where the flying in the simulator is shown at the end....but this part opens with some of the crap footage from that crap "Loose Change" piece of junk, and destroys the nonsense spewed from Dylan Avery, who was the narrator in his own "film":



Even as the above (^ ^ ^) opens, Dylan Avery lies, can't even get his facts straight. The flight profile of the "330°" descending turn-around was NOT flown at "530 MPH". It was (per the FDR) at an average of 280 knots, or so.....typical airspeed in a descent, in the manner it was flown.

The utter nonsense spewed by so many who can't even get basic facts correct ..... and the fact that so many are hard-wired to just believe ANYTHING anyone says as long as it conforms with their willing desire to "believe" in a "conspiracy"? Shows that some will just reject logic and facts and evidence in favor of the fake claims.


Finally, in terms of Hanjour and the place that wouldn't rent him a 172?? Blown out of proportion, by people who do not understand how to fly, nor how it works when you seek to rent an airplane from an FBO that doesn't know you......he was obviously a crap pilot, especially in terms of what is looked for...proper procedures, obeying the rules, etc. They don't rent to people who might be so bad that they will crash the airplane.

Oh wait....he crashed the airplane. Which is actually MUCH easier than demonstrating skill and finesse and proper procedure.........



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
If the aircraft had been shot down the debris field would have been upwind of the crash site, not downwind. That alone proves it wasn't shot down...

BTW, that was only a portion of an engine that landed about 300 yards downwind, not an entire engine... This is not surprising at all and it means nothing except the aircraft crashed at a high rate of speed.


I know! Every time I ask them where was the second debris field, they seem to space out and forget that if the plane was shot down, heavier debris would have been raining down "upwind" or "up stream" of the plane's flighpath. I take it physics and common sense is also not relevant in truther-world. Let's see, we now have math, geography, physics, reading comprehension, critical thinking skill, so far lacking in the Truther-world. How can this ignorance go on?

Remember truthers! If you believe the plane was shot down, please point out any heavier debris that landed along the flight path prior to impact, and where it landed. If that is the method you want to go, then show us the evidence.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Here are the Citgo gas station security tapes from 9/11. They were released years ago and I am sure you will find them very revealing.

www.youtube.com...

What's with the "smell of cordite" ? That is an obsolete British propellant that hasn't been used in donkeys years and has absolutely nothing to do with a 2001 US missile.


edit on 5-1-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Here are the Citgo gas station security tapes from 9/11. They were released years ago and I am sure you will find them very revealing.

www.youtube.com...

What's with the "smell of cordite" ? That is an obsolete British propellant that hasn't been used in donkeys years and has absolutely nothing to do with a 2001 US missile.


edit on 5-1-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)


You're right about cordite, technically, but alot of people still use the term when they think they are smelling explosives or any kind of black powder, mainly blackpowder. I sincerely doubt that the conspirators, in the 21st century, were using blackpowder.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
How about the bad...

HEBREW ACCENT on flight 11?



According to reports, the lead hijacker spoke Hebrew and the accent the 9/11 Commission played and associated with Flight 11 is of a native Hebrew speaker which ties into the FACT that a former member of an Israeli commando unit was onboard the plain and was killed before the flight attendants called HQ.

This tied in with the claim that the lead hijacker was on one of the ultra-Zionist Jack Abramoff's casino boats and the hundreds of Israelis arrested just before, the day of and just after 9/11 means one thing - Israel did it and the Neo-Con freaks like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld covered it up with help from the ultra-Zionist Philip Selikow.

Now the angry people who accept the official fable hate to face the fact of Israeli involvement but it is spread around like bagel crumbs everywhere you look in the 9/11 evidence.

Not like they have not attacked us in the past or that they can be trusted in anyway - of course.


Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


All you are doing is flapping around expressing your personal incredulity without addressing the fdr or cvr or the fact that witnesses saw ua 93 at low level, and in one piece, before impact.



I don't care one way or the other ... I love the Die Hard movies ... and the "bad german accent" of all the bad guys

LOL



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


Yes Bravo, we know your answer to everything by now:- The Joos dun it.



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join