A question for believers or 'OSers'....

Originally posted by JesusLives
It is pointless to discuss 911. Those responsible left so much evidence of their crime that it is obvious that they wanted us to know. This fact alone should tell you that you need to just walk away and take care of those you love. Think about what it all means. There is no one to tell. Can you see the kind of world you live in? It is unfixable.

I hear you, when I first joined ATS I posted almost exclusively in the 9/11 forums, but at that point, I was just learning about it all. Now I agree with what you said, but what is unfixable by man and his governments, doesn't hold true for the higher power that has been prophesied to step in and fix it in the near future.

I don't believe the written commission report, there are too many people trying to mold that story to meet a specific end for me to accept it 100%.

I believe 4 planes were hijacked and 3 hit their targets.

I'm open to the mission being either allowed to happen or that there may have even been cooperation at some levels of the US gov't however

I do not belive in the missile, hologram, shot down theory

.02

reply to post by pshea38

This is of course impossible in real life, where immediately upon impact, a hugh
fireball should be observed, with most of the wreckage plummeting to the ground,
with the much weaker aluminium plane unable to penetrate the hardened steel columns

Just like wooden planes couldn't penetrate steel ships in WW2?

Plus you had better check your facts about 'hardened steel'. They wanted the building to flex with the wind and hardened steel has a greater tendancy to break with flexing.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pshea38

 

You're looking at all of the wrong "evidence". Who cares about whether or not the videos were faked (I don't think they were), that's not important, and that's sure as hell not enough to convince official story believers of anything.

Focus on the facts dude.

I am focusing on the facts. The images of the towers collapsing were generated from
computer demolition software, which is why there are so many impossible aspects
to the collapses, as described by you in your own threads. Fakery ticks all the boxes
and answers all the impossible questions. What we saw happening was impossible in
reality because we were watching virtual cartoons, where the laws of physics don't necessarily
have to apply. Who gives a damn about convincing OS believers about anything.
If they are not convinced of foul play by now, they never will be. Again as you said
yourself, most of the consistent OS posters here are probably disinfo agents, paid to
keep alive the BS OS narrative. Do you not want the truth, and the whole truth?
Anyone who dismisses 9/11 fakery out of hand is a fool or something else, as there is
just too much evidence openly available to discount it. The faux truth movement has many
layers of deception and it is very interesting how so many in the 'movement' just will not go
anywhere near the whole completely valid notion of 9/11 media fakery. Alex jones.
Dylan avery etc.
I imagine that you of all people, with such in-depth threads and extensive posts replys,
will have gone through all the evidence on SeptemberClues with a fine tooth comb, and if
you can honestly say that there is nothing to anything said there, I will most certainly view you
in a different light. And Yes it does matter if the videos were Faked, and Yes it does matter if
the vast majority of victims were Faked. It opens our eyes to the real perpetrators Modus
Operandi in 9/11 and many other proclaimed terrorist atrocities.

Originally posted by pshea38
I am focusing on the facts.

No, actually you are avoiding the facts and focusing on one of the silliest conspiracy theories ever.

The images of the towers collapsing were generated from
computer demolition software,

So no one saw the collapse with their own eyes, everybody watched it on tv...

Do you not want the truth, and the whole truth?

You obviously avoid the truth here!

it is very interesting how so many in the 'movement' just will not go
anywhere near the whole completely valid notion of 9/11 media fakery.

That is because even to them your conspiracy theory is just so stupid.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

I do not belive in the missile

I'm not sure about that yet. There's evidence that supports both theories so I need to do some more research before I'm 100% sure.

hologram

I've never even bothered looking into that theory, planes hit the twin towers and thousands saw it. I don't think that's really up for debate, and I've always thought that the hologram theory was used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and make us all sound insane.

shot down theory

I assume you're referring to Shanksville. This one I do believe, because members of the military have strongly suggested that it was shot down:

We received a report from the FAA that Flight 93 had turned off it's transponder, had turned, and now was heading towards Washington DC. The decision was made to try to go in and intercept Flight 93...It was about 10:03 that the fighters reported that Flight 93 had crashed.

--Brigadier General W Montague Winfield

The words that I remember as clear as day was 'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground'...United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington DC

--Colonel Bob Marr

From this thread.

While this does go against the official story that we witnessed an act of heroism, I don't believe that it was a part of the original inside job plan, because 4 planes hitting 4 targets would put America into a state of total chaos and complete fear and I believe that's what was wanted. I think our military finally got it's s*** together after being diverted and confused by the training exercises all day.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by pshea38

 

Different nose, different cheeks, different ears and different lips. Yep, that's the same guy. Good grief.

I know your take on things viper so i won't waste my time too much.
But is it possible to take an original photo of Manny, make a few subtle alterations
on a computer and come up with victim Robert? Yes it is. It is more than possible and
indeed very probable that this has happened in order to produce quite a few of the
generated 9/11 vicsims.

Another example:

LUKASZ MILEWSKI (2001) 9/11 'victim'
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc4b36805ddf.jpg[/atsimg]

LUKE RUDOWSKI (2009) 'We Are Change' 9/11 'Truth' Movement.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4417e1afeaae.jpg[/atsimg]

More co-incidence, right?


Check this link: www.morphases.com...
to see how easy face morphing really is!!
(Perhaps you won't because it won't gel with your (feigned) delusions).

reply to post by pshea38

I am focusing on the facts. The images of the towers collapsing were generated from
computer demolition software, which is why there are so many impossible aspects
to the collapses, as described by you in your own threads.

What are you talking about dude? The impossibilty of the collapse that I always suggest isn't explained by video software, it's explained by controlled demolitions. What is your evidence backing this computer demolition software that was used on every single one of the dozens of videos of the collapse of the twin towers?

Fakery ticks all the boxes
and answers all the impossible questions. What we saw happening was impossible in
reality because we were watching virtual cartoons, where the laws of physics don't necessarily
have to apply.

No....controlled demolitions explain it, not a computer generated video of the towers collapse that was captured in dozens of videos/images and witnessed by thousands.

Who gives a damn about convincing OS believers about anything.
If they are not convinced of foul play by now, they never will be.

I agree with you there, I've never had a discussion with somebody over 9/11 where they began as an official story believer, viewed the evidence, and changed sides and concluded that it was actually an inside job.

Anyone who dismisses 9/11 fakery out of hand is a fool or something else, as there is
just too much evidence openly available to discount it. The faux truth movement has many
layers of deception and it is very interesting how so many in the 'movement' just will not go
anywhere near the whole completely valid notion of 9/11 media fakery.

Dude, what is this evidence for video fakery that you're mentioning? Are you talking about the videos of planes hitting or the videos of the towers collapsing? Because I think all of those videos are legit and don't see how faking them could be beneficial in any way, nor do I see how videos of planes could be faked, but real planes could have hit the buildings causing the damage. The same goes for the collapse, why would the videos of the real collapse be covered up, and videos of the fake, CG collapse released? It doesn't make any sense, and you're focusing on the wrong aspects of the 9/11 cover-up.

I imagine that you of all people, with such in-depth threads and extensive posts replys,
will have gone through all the evidence on SeptemberClues with a fine tooth comb, and if
you can honestly say that there is nothing to anything said there, I will most certainly view you
in a different light.

I haven't seen those, because I'm not worried about potential video-fakery of the footage aired on media, the planes hitting, or the towers collapsing, I don't see that as important, practical, or beneficial to those behind the inside job.

I focus on the facts, and the details that match up with controlled demolitions, and the impossible parts of the official story.

But if you want to focus on the involvement of the media, don't worry about some video that looks weird, worry about the fact that the BBC aired the story of WTC7 collapsing before it happened. Predicting that a sky-scraper would collapse completely based on fire/falling debris damage, an event that has never occured in history, by sheer luck based on some firemens testimonies that the structure looked bad is not possible IMO, and proves that the media was being handed scripts that day.

Then they followed up their failure with "technical difficulties", because somebody probably realized that they screwed up and pulled the plug.

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

I would like to know what the benefit of hoaxing said video would be, and what point it intends to prove, as far as I can see it seems very legitimate, how and why could/would you try to fake such a video? There is so much footage available it doesn't seem clever to even attempt this. And what would be the point? To prove some holographic theory??


I'm confused as to what you are trying to illustrate by your post....

Thank you though, I let nothing slide. My eyes are wide open and asking for some answers. I have always been awake, just haven't craved such a stimulating wake up call....[

I won't say much as you haven't had time to go through the links, but it was easier for
the real perpetrators to fake everything and pass a failytale narrative off as truth to an
unsuspecting public using computer generated imagery, hired actors and a complicit
main stream media. I did tell you that your worldview would be susceptible to dramatic
change. I am pretty sure that you will see things clearer after going through the links.
No offence and good luck.
pshea.

reply to post by TupacShakur

planes hit the twin towers and thousands saw it. I don't think that's really up for debate, and I've always thought that the hologram theory was used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and make us all sound insane.

I don't buy the hologram hypothesis, and I have found it is used to discredit no planes hypotheses by lumping us all together.

But I also don't buy thousands saw it. They saw it on TV, just like the rest of us. There are plenty of people who claim otherwise:

I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT

We didn't know what had happened because we didn't
see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what
happened I got this weird feeling across my body that I can't describe..."

From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers:
"...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...."
Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..."
Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane)
www.911closeup.com...

Don Dahler vs. ABC
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...

Witness: NO second plane, it was a bomb....

Pilot Witness:
www.montclair.edu...
"... I saw a flash and fireball from the top of the World Trade Center.
....Due to the angle and altitude of our flight, I have sometimes experienced the optical illusion of something appearing to hit a building.
We then flew south to the Battery to see if whatever had hit it had gone out the other side. We saw heavy damage on the south side of Tower 1, but saw nothing of substance on the ground or on Tower 2, so we decided to go back north again, all the while just on the water's edge on the Manhattan side at about 900 feet. Ninety seconds after leaving the Battery, in the spot where we had just been looking, the second plane hit the second tower. We never saw the plane, but I could see the flash of the impact from behind us.:

www.911closeup.com...

reply to post by pshea38


Those are not the same people dude.

Give me a minute, I will absolutely go through the links, I have a girlfriend to please also who has taken priority for the last 3 hours. Be with you very soon man.

reply to post by spoor


While I respect opinions, ie your opinion about 9/11, you seem to be resorting to tactics not usually appropriate in a debate. You are flat out refusing to address the issues you are being presented with. Which means that your comments don't tend to contribute anything in the least bit meaningful to the thread, or the debate. Can you please respond with something that isnt laced with negativity and bias? Please address the points here.

I believe the official story yeah because it seems like Truthers don't like to think that people can attack their country in such a blatantly arrogant way. Now the US government MAY have had prior knowledge and didn't act on it, either because they didn't believe something so blatantly arrogant could actually happen on their soil or because they figured it could be a good excuse to finally get rid of Saddam Hussein (Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks but look where the world's troops went after invading Afghanistan) so the Bush legacy wouldn't be tarnished by the fact that George H Bush not being able to get a man who in the early 90s was one of the world's most wanted men for genocide of his own people amongst other war crimes.

Great questions OP, but lets face it people hear and see what they want to. Building 7 alone should be reason for there to be another investigation but it will never happen. Just like the JFK assassination time will pass and eventually we will be left with theories but nothing will ever be done to find the real truth. Just goes to show you what our government can get away with and the majority of the people will just let it happen.

reply to post by TupacShakur


September Clues is a must-watch. I'm not saying Shack is 100 percent correct, but there are some pretty damning sequences in there...the reversing of the second impact video, where the wide pan of the towers is zoomed in on just before impact is hard to grok, but it was an eye opener for me.

Might I also suggest the Naudet 911 film and the Leslie Raphael "Jules Naudet's First Shot Was Staged" study guide. Essential info. Raphael is not a no planer, so it will be easier for plane huggers to stomach.
www.frankresearch.info...

Finally, for another perspective on the motive, read the below link. Again, not a no planer, so easier to digest for normal folk:

Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by EP Heidner

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.

www.scribd.com...

They hate our freedom.

That's it. Move on people. USA! USA! USA!

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by spoor

 

While I respect opinions, ie your opinion about 9/11, you seem to be resorting to tactics not usually appropriate in a debate.

This one must be new to the interwebz . Sadly the anonimity of the internet is seen by some people as an excuse to not be on their best behaviour. All you need to know is that in 3 major attacks at the exact same time training exercises were carried out whose scenario coincided exactly with the "terrorist attacks". That of course is so unlikely, you cant even take chance into consideration.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I won't comment on all your points individually but if you are not aware of the
video fakery aspect of 9/11, you are automatically going to find what I have to say bizarre.
I suggest you go through Septemberclues and judge for yourself the evidence
accumulated indicating complete video fakery in the broadcasted images, including all
personal videos submitted by private individuals.
Of course the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but it was done
in private, the footage of which the public are not privy to.
The perpetrators couldn't risk damage to the bath-tub, which would have inundated
most of manhattan, and this alone tells us that what we saw could not have
represented reality.
Most observers would have just seen the top of the towers collapse as they would have
been moved a considerable distance from the area beforehand. And that's all they would
have seen.
We know that a plane cannot cut through steel and leave a cookie-cutter impression
through the towers facade as observed in video, so the veracity of videos showing planes
doing this has to be automatically questioned.
They fed us cartoons, which some have spent 10 years trying to unravel and come up
with a realistic mechanism and explanation to describe what is observed.
Plus, looking at the collapse videos released of the two towers, It can harly be described
as controlled demolition. More like uncontrolled demolition with all the ejected material.
The perpetrators foresaw and even courted controversy by specifically designing and
incorporating blatant contradictions and impossibilities into released footage, with the
certain knowledge that it would tie investigators in knots and stifle any real progress
into discerning the true nature of events that day.
Their plan has worked apparently as it seems as if absolutely no progress has been made
in bringing the real perpetrators to justice and in getting to the bottom of their hoax.

p.s. The twin tower collapse footage is remarkably similar to the collapses seen in the
1990's blockbuster movie Independance Day, of the Empire States Building and the White House.

reply to post by pshea38


Nicely summarized.

I think the biggest problem I had was getting over the fact the media were complicit.

Most folks don't know about Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's ongoing disinformation program, or that Director Casey stated in 1981 they'd "know our disinformation program is complete when everything the american public believes is false".

Seems they succeeded because like me, most folks can't get over the fact the media are complicit.

On a serious note, if you think the US government is not "evil enough" to do something like 9/11, remember back in the early 1960s Operation Northwoods was going to plan a bunch of terror attacks and blame them on Cuba.