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.


9/11 Suspects

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:33 PM
a reply to: firerescue

Did you just manage to completely misunderstand every single strike? Read the citation from historycommons again, but slowly, compare that content with your 'correction' I replied to and you'll have a hint on what was actually wrong.

Geez dude. Seriously?

Meanwhile sam is pondering his upcoming court appearance... you guys are funny, I'll give you that.

a reply to: samkent

It's enough for a second investigation and no, there's probably no judge willing to take the full scale of repercussions for such a political decision. Having enough material doesn't imply someone is willing to give it a try, we all remember what happened to Kennedy.

edit on 9-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 10:23 AM
Another vid interview with James on the 911 ..
as well as the new suspect

edit on 10-9-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 11:14 AM

originally posted by: samkent

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Tellurian

That's a good one! Well said.

I must have missed that vid, looks like a great addition as well. Watching it right now, thanks.

Does the video contain any proof?
Or is it more speculation ?

You know proof is something that will stand up in court.

You mean like the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission?

No "investigation" in 9/11 would stand up in court so I fail to see what possition your arguing from.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 11:30 AM

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Guess you missed part where the "dancing Israelis" spent next few months in jail getting 3rd degree from FBI/CIA

After interrogating them for weeks determined have nothing to contribute - were expelled from country as
FBI had nothing to charge them with

What's your opinion of them admitting on a popular Isreali TV show that they were sent there to document events.

Do you still deny Israeli foreknowledge? In their defense they weren't the only ones in on it too...

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 08:49 PM

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: PublicOpinion

From Christine Todd Whitman's Wikipedia page:

Whitman appeared twice in New York City after the September 11 attacks to inform New Yorkers that the toxins released by the attacks posed no threat to their health.

More than 1,100 have cancer after 9/11

Marcy Borders, "The Dust Lady"
Wrong again lady! EPA fails again.. slimeball politicians win again.. the people lose.. again. I'm disgusted by this bunch of jackals.
Christine Todd Whitman Dodging Any Blame (Of Course)

That was the one thing that really got me in the aftermath, not right away..but when I read online about the twin towers having used asbestos, (at least up to a point) that shook me to the core, since I had watched so many episodes of the rescue workers day in and day out working in ground zero with minimal protection, never mind all those people covered by the dust, no longer just asbestos, right after the collapse. The towers should have only been built with something at least as dynamic in effectiveness as asbestos, when the hazards of asbestosis were well known from lab testing since at least 1935 in the US and elsewhere. Therein lies a big problem, since it is fundamental to the twin towers collapse all according to who you talk to since it could be argued that the asbestos had it been used fully, might have stopped the towers collapse using the official version of the collapse as per NIST, which only required the steel used to get a bit bendy...however, the witness reports talk about rivers of molten steel, (caveat molten metal by some critics) which doesn't matter as far as NIST was concerned because they saw no evidence of molten anything, because they weren't looking for it.
However the argument about asbestos saving the building, is dependant on the asbestos itself not being blown off the girders in the airplane collision, as was stated is what happened to the fire protection that was used.
But, that won't deal with any fire retardent that was used in cement walls likely a percentage of asbestos, or gypsum in boast walls, and God knows what else was in the mixture of the dust cloud, just so as to realise that the fire retardent was just one of a more than possible many applications of asbestos in the building, and all them becoming unstable and toxic by the collapse.
Now, here's a report from the BBC 24th December 2001,
'According to the US newspaper New York Times, the US Environmental Protection Agency recently analysed 97 air samples from 11 sites in Lower Manhattan and four sites in New Jersey. It stated:
'Seven samples at or near the World Trade Centre attack site had marginally higher levels of asbestos, which exceeded the E.P.A.'s level of concern for long-term exposure. Rescue workers in this restricted area have been provided with respirators.'
The time stamp for when those workers were given respirators in the article is not clear, but there are many, many pictures of rescuers, at ground zero not having even the most minimal protection like a Martindale mask, which is basically a piece of crap.
That should have been the case, before anybody went anywhere near ground zero immediately....period.
As for the towers collapse, it is most certainly an event in the core columns, supposedly the strongest part, though the cores themselves didn't collapse immediately, or at least still had a stance momentarily when everything else was gone, that is the wierd part.

Oh! as for suspects, Kissinger was brought in for oversight, and got kicked out by popular press opinion, (AKA client disclosure)
but you see how that worked.
Philip D. Zelikow brought in as hatchet man. EPA, FAA, damage limitation. Federal Government/secret back me up, I'll back you up. Not much makes sense at all, [fill this space] but what is clear in the defining moments after 9/11, damage limitation had set in, disgusting.

edit on 10-9-2016 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:26 PM
Well its all over for this year . Thank you James for these very important vids that speak to the truth of 911 .

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:31 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What about the Rockefellers? I made a 1,5 hour during movie explaining the Rockefellers rigged the building from start and mocked the public before, during and after the attacks.

Check it out and forward to 911 truthers:

The first ten minutes are general information, but then the # hits the fan, Hulk Hogan also plays a prominent role...

edit on 14-9-2016 by Manus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2016 by Manus because: you tube video was not embedded

edit on 14-9-2016 by Manus because: video still doesn't work

edit on 14-9-2016 by Manus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:09 PM
a reply to: Manus

Welcome on board! You chose this thread for your fist reply, how awesome is that?

I've embedded the vid for you:
just copy everything behind the = from your ytube link and add that to the ATS ytube code like this:

I'm looking into the vid right now, thanks.
You're from France or is it just me listening to your voice?

edit on 14-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: forget about it, that one doesn't like to be embedded ...

edit on 14-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Just dropping this piece of as it has other suspects . Mostly to do with the money .

According to a report from the New York Fed, an “unprecedented” amount of liquidity was pumped into the system. The Congressional Research Service quantifies the “unprecedented” amount as “$100 billion per day” over a three-day period beginning on 9/11. But the idea that the bailout lasted only a few days or weeks is misguided. The consolidated annual reports of the Federal Reserve Banks show that the Fed’s balance sheet grew from $609.9 billion at the end of 2000 to $654.9 billion at the end of 2001 to $730.9 billion at the end of 2002 and $771.5 billion as of December 31, 2003. According to the 2001 Annual Report of the Chicago Fed, one unnamed bank was so grateful for the largess flowing from the Fed that it sent “a thousand packages of LifeSavers candy to each of the 45 Fed offices.” A report prepared by Stacy Panigay Coleman for the Federal Reserve’s Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems indicated that the flood of money took various forms on and after 9/11:
The Untold Story of 9/11: Bailing Out Alan Greenspan’s Legacy

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in