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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:55 PM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

LMAO. No, the owner did not confirm any such thing. You are again relying on a half truth. And YES, missing an entire corner of a building AND damage to the support over the cantilevered section of the building can allow a brief free fall.

But, tell me, in your world, what team of Supermen ran into a heavily damaged, burning building and wired it for demolition in under three hours, without incorporating any known building demolition techniques?

And why would I want to stop working for the social networking company I do? THAT would be silly
No one said that the demolition wasn't set up prior, but any thinking person can see it was demolished in some fashion. Doesn't mean I have the details on how it was wired, or when.

I thought better about the rest and removed it. Wish I could say it on here. Your posting record is strange and suspicious.

edit on 20-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:27 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And now you rely on having a building pre-rigged for demolition. Which then suffers severe damage and burns for several hours and yet, the demolition rig performs flawlessly? You seriously believe that?

Then the rest of your post... You only post on 9/11 Threads....You must work for the gubmint....You are paid to come here...blah blah should have went ahead and posted it.

The only strange and suspicious thing about me posting mainly in the 9/11 area, is that you think its strange and suspicious. Other than really doesn't mean squat.

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 10:02 AM

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Um, I don't repeat "government statements". I repeat facts.

That must be most difficult, assuming that you quote 'facts' offered to the 911 Commission by the Pentagon. Several members were considering bringing charges of perjury against some Pentagon Officials for their constant changing of previous testimony.

Like it or not, your claims are government statements.

The facts actually contradict your claims.

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 10:08 AM
a reply to: Salander

And again you get confused. I would suggest that you go to some reliable sources and research again what you just claimed. Then you might discover the reality behind who they wanted to charge with perjury and why. Again, reality is not what you think.

posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:31 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 03:11 PM

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

Let's focus on Building 7, The official story has never been able to explain its collapse,

That's funny, cuz they published a report that did just that. Guess you didn't hear?

A chunk of corner of the building missing, and failure of some part of the steel frame, and Fire damage, DOES NOT allow for a free fall, for even a split second.

Sure it does. You just don't understand why it does, therefore it means 9/11 was an inside job to you.

It is not even conceivable that all of the steel support could fail at once. To suggest that is just silly.

It failed over the course of a 7 hour fire.

Only truthers spew that it failed in an instant.

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I'm not confused.

It is true that I was confused and utterly deceived for a number of years, but not no mo'.

I was tricked but finally figured it out, thanks to many private citizens who have studied and investigated the events of the day.

You also were fooled (we all were), but it appears that you have not yet discovered that.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:33 AM
a reply to: Salander

If you believe the theories you post, then I am sorry to tell you that you are confused. But that is okay.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 10:58 AM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

If am sorry that what you believe is a series of lies, and a blatent cover story. Any of these 10 points should be enough, alone, to provide doubt regarding the official story.

The Official Story: The official 9/11 story goes something like this: Nineteen fundamentalist Arab hijackers, who had a liking for coc aine, alcohol and strippers, led by a man on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, took control of four airplanes, penetrating the most guarded airspace in the world. They were able to overpower military trained pilots, fly unharmed for up to an hour without the hint of a military jet, and crash into three buildings, damaging one, and for the first time in history, toppling of three skyscrapers, including one that they didn’t even hit with a plane. Bin Laden was somehow able to escape capture, running for cave to cave, for a decade, with this dialysis equipment (if he even lived much past 2001, his kidney problems were highly unlikely to have just gone away), until tracked down by Seal team 6 in 2011, some ten years later. If Bin Laden was alive, then he had to be the most valuable source of intelligence available. Yet, rather than capture him alive, he was shot and dumped at sea. Many of the Seal team then, shortly after, died in helicopter task. End of 9/11 story? Not a chance.

1. Steel-framed buildings do not collapse like this without “help”. The skyscrapers were built to withstand multiple 707 impacts. While its painful, watch the twin towers collapse again. If you look close, you will see steel beams ejected up to a football field away. You will see squalls being pushed out below the collapse, which is an indication of some sort of demolition. Reliable city employees (fire fighters) testified of “bombs going off” before the first plane strike. Molten steel was found at the bottom of the towers. Steel melts at about 2600 degrees, and jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1600 degrees. It is impossible for steel to melt, unless some other technology was used. Fire could not do this. Concrete likewise was pulverized, and guns were found imbedded in concrete. This is impossible with a jet fuel/office fire. A rock like object, called the “meteorite” was found that contained molten remains of steel and concrete. That again is impossible with fire alone.
2. Building 7 is absolutely the smoking gun. The official story indicates that it suffered tremendous fire damage and collapsed on its own. Watch this video again. It literally, and the NIST report reluctantly agrees, fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds. This is impossible without demolition. Think about it. It’s mass beneath had to be removed for it to free fall. The ridiculous theory offered by NIST is that all of its steel beams failed at the same time, causing the symmetrical collapse. Further, the building owner admitted the building was “pulled” (industry speak for demolition). Yet, the official story remains supported by most, even with its incredible implausibility.
3. The other successful target, the Pentagon, is just as suspicious. Start with the impossible maneuver where a pilot, Hani Hanjour, who “could not fly at all”, “lacked basic flight skills and motivation”, and could not rent a single engine Cessna, engineered a 270 degree descending turn, and flew into the Pentagon at more than 500 MPH. It is impossible for a 757 to travel this fast at sea level, much less with any control. Further, the debris, nor the entry/exit holes, match that of a 757. There is no evidence, at all, for example, that the wings hit the buildings. The theory is that the wings folded, and that the plan vaporized. Yet, there is an exit hole for the fuselage, which holes again do not match a 757. A few parts of loose “airplane skin” were picked up and quickly removed by men in suits. The strangest thing to me is the lack of video evidence. In spite of the fact that some 85 cameras recorded the event, and the FBI scooped up video from hotels and gas stations nearby and warned them never to discuss this, all we got were four shots from a distance, none of which clearly shows what hit the building. We can only tell something hit it, but we knew that.
4. Actions of Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld. On the morning of 9/11, Bush was reading to school kids about a goat, even after the second plane hit the tower. No fear that the school might be attacked? Rumsfeld was playing paramedic and could not be located, and Chaney was ordering our jets to stand down. Leon Meneta, White House transportation secretary, testified that Chaney ordered a “stand down” even as the “jet” was approaching the Pentagon. Meneta’s testimony was stricken, but it is very interesting and everyone should watch it.
5. Ten of the nineteen “hijackers” were found either alive, or having no part of the activities that day. The first one got an apology, the others were ignored by the administration.
6. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are a CIA creation, that is a fact. So, please review the evidence carefully. OBL, shortly after 9/11, denied any involvement in 9/11, and in fact said it was probably an act of the CIA. His later “confession”, if you look closely, appears to be from what is likely a “CIA double”. OBL was in very poor health, receiving dialysis (in a CIA facility) prior to 9/11. Short of a remarkable healing by Allah, if anyone has ever known someone with massive kidney failure, it is impossible for him to have lived ten years, moving from cave to cave, without medical treatment.
7. Suspicious securities trading leading to 9/11. I wrote on this yesterday, so I will quickly summarize. The 911 report acknowledged very suspicious trading in the run up to 911, and traced 95% back to an institutional investor (Deutchebank). The commission determined that since it didn’t trace back to Al Qaeda, it was irrelevant. Who did it trace back to? Buzzy Krongard, who had been a senior executive at the bank, and was now #3 in the CIA.
8. Project for a New American Century. This report was a pre-911 neo-conservative piece that called for a massive military build-up, and aggressive military action in the Middle East. Its famous statement was that “a New Pearl Harbor” was needed to get Americans behind this military build-up.
9. Known lies and conspiracy warnings. Following 9/11, Bush told the UN that “we must never tolerate conspiracy theories”, except for apparently for the one the government (the Official Story) created. Bush also told us that “no one imagined flying planes into buildings”, which is a total lie as the Pentagon and NORAD, who was performing drills on this very premise on September 11, 2001 complicating efforts of air traffic controllers to determine what was happening that day.
10. History of false flags. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Lithuania sinking, Northwoods, and now 9/11. Do you own research. Its not pretty, but its necessary to understand the evil that was in charge that day.
edit on 24-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:50 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Posts like yours, are why so many people believe the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11/01. The problem is, your ten points are mostly male bovine excrement.

But, lets take a look shall we?

1. "Steel Framed Buildings do not collapse like this without help"

Yes, actually they do. Below is a case study of a high rise fire, of particular interest is that it used a truss style similar to the Towers in parts of its construction.

Of particular note is that the top 11 floors of the building had the structural steel of the perimeter of the building, fail, and collapse. FROM FIRE ALONE. So, yes, steel framed buildings can collapse, from fire alone. The steel at the WTC was fire rated for three hours of exposure to fire before there was a risk of a collapse...and that was with an intact structure with intact fireproofing.

As has been noted on many occasions, there are explosions in EVERY large fire such as we saw that day. Severed gas lines cause gas pockets, electrical panels...they all explode in fires and they all sound like a bomb going off. I've heard both and you cannot tell them apart. In addition, MOST of the firefighters who are routinely quoted as saying bombs went off, are taken out of context along the lines of.... "I heard what sounded like bombs going off.............later I realized I was hearing the collapse of the South Tower" Funny how truthers rarely use the complete quotes.

Molten this day, no one can show WHAT the make up of the supposed molten pools of metal were. There were easily a dozen different metals in the Towers, and most of them had a melting point well within that of a normal office fire, let alone a burning underground fire. And again, it is pointed out that the steel did not have to melt, just soften, which is starts to do at 540 degress F and loses 50% of its strength around 1,100 degrees F...well within the temperatures of the fires that day. And to be honest, finding a pool of molten metal, would require a constant heat...which rules out thermite, TNT, RDX, Semtex, C-4, thermonuclear devices....all of them. And, since in a confined space a jet fuel fire can reach 3,000 degrees F, there is NO reason why an underground fire could not burn hot enough to keep aluminum, zinc, copper etc... in a molten state, and stay hot enough to cause pieces of steel to be softened and glowing red.

The "meteorite" shows a CONSTANT high heat, not the relatively quick heat of an explosion.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:01 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

2. Building what happens when you leave a heavily damaged and burning build alone. It is not a smoking gun of anything else.

The building, was heavily (and fatally) damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. The damage, the fires and the unique construction over the ConEd substation led to the collapse. And we know from the testimony of the FDNY that chunks of the buildings lower floors were either missing after WTC1 or falling off early on. The brief 2.5 seconds of free fall, is the upper portion of the building dropping until it hit resistance. The primary indicator of this is the collapse of the Penthouse. before the main collapse...for the penthouse to have fallen in the way it did, indicates a massive failure beneath it.

You mention that there had to be a removal of support for the "free fall" to happen. There was. We know this, photos and FDNY reports state that the southwest corner of the building was GONE from the lower ten floors after WTC 1. So, one corner of the building is gone, and then the Penthouse on the other side yes, the building had fallen apart to the point that there was VERY little underneath the South side of WTC 7, until it hit the ground/debris from WTC 1.

The building owner's statements are irrelevant. He had no control or authority over what happened that day. That, was the responsibility of FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro (ret) the surviving onscene commander who PULLED the FDNY Engine company out of 7 and the area around it.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:15 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

3. The Pentagon and Hani Hanjour....

The Flight Instructor who refused to rent a Cessna to Hani, was a gent named Marcel Bernard. And he did so over a concern of Hani's approaches to take off and landing. Mr. Bernard, has stated that Hani had MORE than enough skill to pilot a 757 into the Pentagon.

The 757 at sea level....yeah, there are any number of a dozen videos on Youtube showing airliners flying at or above 500 MPH at sea level.

The entry hole, is over 90 feet wide, and approximates the width of a 757 at that angle. You should buy the Pentagon Building Performance Report, it has plenty of photos of the damage caused by the wings/tail impacting the building....then there is the 757 sized hole in the chain link fence which would have been the right engine, and a crescent shaped chunk out of the first floor slab of the building right about where the LEFT engine would have hit.

The wreckage, there was PLENTY of wreckage recovered and identified as belonging to a Boeing 757, and a few pieces that had serial numbers showing that they BELONGED to the 757 known as Flight 77.

The 85 videos the FBI took, encompassed ALL of the sites that day, New York, Pennsylvania, and Arlington.

Here is a link showing the FOIA request/response about the videos.

"56 of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

"Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon"

"Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 Only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

So there was ONE videotape (the parking lot camera)

Also, the CITGO tape...showed the CITGO station, and while there was not a tape from the Sheraton, there WAS one from the Doubletree hotel....which showed the hotel.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:26 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

4. The actions of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Bush...the Secret Service was already a bit on edge because a "TV News Crew" attempted to access the place where Bush was staying that morning. So, rather than rush off and do something stupid, like run the President out of the school at the second crash, the Secret Service took a few minutes, re-scouted the area and after the President made some preliminary calls, THEN they took him to Air Force One.

Cheney...was taken to the PEOC. The order that Mineta heard Cheney give, was that the order still stood to take out Flight 93 if it got close to DC. The timeline that Sec. Mineta gave that day, was physically impossible for him to accomplish without the aid of a Star Trek transporter to get him from where he was, to the PEOC in the time he testified to.

And, quite frankly, when you read his testimony, it is clear that Mineta thinks that it is an order to SHOOT DOWN the aircraft, not to STAND DOWN>

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:34 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

5. The "alive" hijackers

Waleed As-Shahri is alive....hijacker Waleed M. Alshehri, is one, has seen any of the men listed on the official list released on September 27, 2001 alive since before 9/11.

Saudi Government, agrees/confirms the identities of the Saudi hijackers

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:48 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

6. Al Qaeda/ Osama Bin Laden a CIA creation... not hardly.

Osama Bin Laden, the wealthy son of an Saudi Construction magnate, led a flood of Arab Muslims to Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion. Some of them did indeed fight alongside Afghans who received money/aid from the US through Pakistan. However, even then, Osama was preaching hatred of the United States and saying the next war would be against the Great Satan. He had no need or want for assistance from the United States. The idea he worked for the CIA came from a disgraced former FBI agent. And he would have told you all about it for 29.95, along with his ideas of Satanism and child sex rings.

And, his health. According to the internet rumors...I am sorry, according to the story planted by French Intelligence in Le Figaro stated that he was treated in the American Hospital in Dubai and that a CIA agent spoke with him there. A copy of an article from the International Herald....

"Copyright 2001 International Herald Tribune
The International Herald Tribune

November 1, 2001 Thursday


LENGTH: 537 words

HEADLINE: Dubai Clinic Denies Report Bin Laden Met With CIA

BYLINE: Joseph Fitchett

SOURCE: International Herald Tribune


BODY: A wave of skepticism and outright denials greeted a French newspaper report Wednesday that Osama bin Laden had been hospitalized in a Dubai clinic for kidney care for 10 days in July and met there with a U.S. intelligence operative -- just weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The report, published as the main story in Le Figaro, a leading conservative newspaper in Paris, suggested that the CIA had maintained direct contacts with Mr. bin Laden ever since the agency first extended covert assistance to him in the 1980s, when he was a Saudi volunteer for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

At the time of the alleged meeting, Mr. bin Laden was being sought in a worldwide manhunt in connection with U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998. The United States was offering a $7 million reward for information leading to his capture.

The newspaper offered no independent confirmation for its story, which was based on a leak from someone "associated with the management team" of the American hospital in Dubai, where Mr. bin Laden allegedly underwent treatment.

"Osama bin Laden has never been here," Bernard Koval, the head of the hospital, said in Dubai.

The story -- of hospitalization and a visit from the local CIA chief -- is "utterly implausible," according to an Arab diplomat in Paris. Never, he said, would Mr. bin Laden have run the risks of prolonged medical treatment in Dubai, a free-wheeling Gulf city-state with an underworld of smugglers and mercenaries easily recruitable to assassinate the man listed as U.S. public enemy No. 1.

"If he had needed treatment, he would have chosen a place where he could count on draconian security like Baghdad or Damascus," the Arab official said.

According to the Figaro story, the head of the CIA post in Dubai "was seen" going into Mr. bin Laden's room. But the 100-bed clinic's boss, Mr. Koval, told reporters in Dubai that "this is too small a hospital for someone to be snuck through the backdoor" -- a phrase apparently applying both to Mr. bin Laden and the local CIA station chief.

Mr. Kovel said that no trace of the terrorist's presence had emerged from discussions with all members of the clinic's staff, including Dr. Terry Callaway, Canadian-born specialist who allegedly treated Mr. bin Laden.

"He's never been a patient here, he's never been treated here," Mr. Kovel said.

Officials in Dubai have not reacted to the report, and the U.S. Embassy in Paris said that it had a policy of never commenting on intelligence matters.

"Disinformation may have been planted on the paper to suggest a continuing covert linkage between the CIA and bin Laden," according to a French intelligence source.

Such collusion -- based on Mr. bin Laden's role in the CIA-backed campaign against the Soviets in the 1980s -- has been a leitmotif of reservations voiced by some people in France about the U.S.-led military offensive in Afghanistan. French leftists often depict Mr. bin Laden as a fundamentalist fanatic manipulated by the CIA with the aim of creating conditions in which the United States can exploit terrorist violence to expand the U.S. military presence in Central Asia."

So, from the outset, the only people that have ever bought that story were 9/11 truthers, and French trying to prevent the US from going into Iraq.

edit on 24-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

7. The "put options"

Based on the news releases from the airlines in late August/early September, if I were an options trader, I would have been placing options against them. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that even without 9/11, certain stocks were going to take a hit.

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: Jchristopher5

8. PNAC. You haven't read it.

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

The words, Pearl Harbor" occur twice...

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

and here....

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The only people who think that the PNAC was calling for war against Iraq or for a New Pearl Harbor and that 9/11 was the way from them to get what they wanted, have not bothered to actually read the document.

posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You will always win the battle of number of words. Your NIST and official documents give you plenty of material. Plenty of lies to work with.

I love the way you discount the molten steel, which came from so many authoritative sources. You write it off molten steel as "no one knows", and mix the other metals into the equation. What you conveinently ignore is that steel melts at 2600 degrees. A Jet fueled office fire would reach no more than 1600 degrees.

Melted steel is a big deal. No matter how you wrap words around it.

Further, the link you sent me shows the Madrid fire. Look at the force of that Fire compared to the 9/11 fires. No comparison. And, it DID NOT topple over like the twin towers. A steel structure was left standing. That's why you use steel in sky scrapers, and not wood. It is much stronger and resists fire.

I will restate what I said. Steel framed buildings do not fall like this without help.

edit on 25-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:13 AM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

BS, building 7 is the smoking gun. Your point about Silverstein is your typical nonsense. He definitely said, on the PBS interview that the building, not firefighters, were being pulled. You are so two faced. I have seen you argue that he didn't mean that, then I hear you argue thet his opinion doesn't matter. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Your point about damage to the building causing freefall for 2.25 seconds is beyond ridiculous. For the building to fail like it did, each of its steel supports would have had to fail at once. That is not possible.

What is funny is NIST's original argument was that it was not a free fall, which they were forced to revise. Now, they admit that it was free fell but don't really know why.

Your excuse for a total and symmetrical collapse is beyond stupid. Get a clue.
edit on 25-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:23 AM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

LOL. If you think that the four, impossible to decipher shots of the object hitting the Pentagon is the best they have, you are hopeless. 85 cameras and a blurry, distant shot, where you can't make out an object, is a very convenient answer.

You recite numbers like they are fact and you have reviewed the camera images yourself. You are again relying on a government report, of a total cover ip, and stating it as fact.

Let me ask you this smart guy, how did a plane that instantly vaporized, and magically folded its wings to avoid breaking a single window in the path of its wings, emerge from the other side?

Your point about Hani is just your usual reciting of garbage. He could not fly. Every instructor he had said that.

Also, I challenge you to produce "dozens" of examples of 757s flying 500 MPH at sea level. It is designed for a top speed of s bit over 400 MPH, and that is at 30,000 feet. It doesn't travel 500 MPH at sea level unless it's in a deep nose dive. Yet, this plane was perfectly controlled, by a pilot who couldn't fly.

It's either the miracle of the century, or your story is a lie. I will go with the latter.

new topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in