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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


So, a Royal Family that is capable of summoning terrorism to its enemies, and is involved in the payment of the 9/11 hijackers. No holograms, no crisis actors, no controlled demolitions, no dummy aircraft, no missiles - just a corrupt oligarchy to whom no-one dares stand up, because they are armed to the teeth and (as demonstrated in the 1970s) could bring the world to a virtual standstill within a month just by turning off the oil supply.


I disagree with your "opinion".




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: audubon


So, a Royal Family that is capable of summoning terrorism to its enemies, and is involved in the payment of the 9/11 hijackers. No holograms, no crisis actors, no controlled demolitions, no dummy aircraft, no missiles - just a corrupt oligarchy to whom no-one dares stand up, because they are armed to the teeth and (as demonstrated in the 1970s) could bring the world to a virtual standstill within a month just by turning off the oil supply.


I disagree with your "opinion".


You are entitled to disagree with my opinion, but these words: "A Royal Family that is capable of summoning terrorism to its enemies, and is involved in the payment of the 9/11 hijackers [...] a corrupt oligarchy to whom no-one dares stand up, because they are armed to the teeth and (as demonstrated in the 1970s) could bring the world to a virtual standstill within a month just by turning off the oil supply" - are fact, not opinion.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


are fact, not opinion.


Yet, you failed to provided any proof to back your "opinion."

Do you have any credibal sources to back your allegations?

If not then it is your "opinions and nothing more. I have no problems of anyone given their "opinions," but do not call your "opinions" facts, when you cannot back them up with some credibility.

When I write I have an "opinion," I make it clear, it is my "opinion".
edit on 18-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Here are the withheld "28 pages" of the 9/11 Commission's report, for you to read in their original form.

Here is a piece of serious analysis of those 28 pages, undertaken by one of Britain's most authoritative newspapers, so you can judge for yourself whether what those 28 pages say is being reported fairly.

Here is a 2003 New Yorker profile of Prince Bandar, which goes into some detail about his closeness to the Bush family in general and both presidents Bush in particular.

Here is the original investigative story about Tony Blair being blackmailed (with threats of terrorism) by the House of Saud, in the person of Prince Bandar, into dropping the defence procurement fraud investigation that led to the Saudi Royal Family.

When you have read the above material, you will see that what I have stated as fact is indeed fact. It's your responsibility to read it, no-one else can do it for you.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Yet, you failed to provided any proof to back your "opinion."

The member was kind enough to provide you evidence, can you truthfully say that you will look at it?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Thank you.


You did provide enough evidence to support your argument.

Can I ask, is Prince Bandar the Royal Family you are speaking of? Its my "opinion" that family doesnt have the the money, the power, and the insiders to control, to pull off 911.

Now the rest you provided is true.


I will give you my "opinion" to whom, I believe financed and helped carry out 911 if you are interested?
edit on 18-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I think the "28 pages" show that it was a Saudi-Bin Laden co-production, rather than being attributable to just one of the two.


I will give you my "opinion" to whom, I believe financed and helped carry out 911 if you are interested?


Go ahead, that's what I'm on ATS for!



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


Go ahead, that's what I'm on ATS for!


This is only my "opinion' and not a proven fact. However there is enough facts on the internet if compiled correctly by someone with enough time on his, or her hands, can put together a very credible, and convincing argument that can substantiate my "opinion".

The most Powerful family on this planet is the Rothschild family. The fact is, one of the Rothschild sits on the board of the Federal Reserve.

They are the owners of many UK central Banks. They control most countries monetary systems world wide.


Rothschild family is worth more than the top 8 billionaires in the world


www.hangthebankers.com...


Rothschild Family


1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power.


The history of this family starts in 1743, to our currant time.


At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9 of this year, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild) made the following statement, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practised in past centuries." 1992: In March, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Paul A. Volker became Chairman of the European banking firm, J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn and Co.



2001: On September 11th the attack on the World Trade Center is orchestrated by Israel with the complicity of Britain and America, under the orders of the Rothschilds as a pretext for removing the liberty of people worldwide in exchange for security, just as happened with the Reichstag fire in Germany where the citizens were lied to in order to give up liberty for security.

They also will use the attacks to gain control of the few nations in the world who don’t allow Rothschild central banks and so less than one month after these attacks, US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don’t have a Rothschild controlled central bank.



It is revealed that prior to the attack millions of dollars of put options on both American Airlines and United Airlines, were traded. The FBI have promised to followed the purchasers up, but have never revealed their findings.
That is because this would lead directly to Israel, the state behind the 911 attacks.



One week prior to the WTC attack, the Zim Shipping Company moves out of its offices in the WTC, breaking its lease and costing the company $50,000. No reason has ever been given, but Zim Shipping Company is half owned by the State of Israel (The Rothschilds).


illuminati.wikia.com...

It is my belief that the Rothschild's have the means, the motives, the finance, the know how, and the Power to orchestrate 911.

It is a fact, that most American politicians are controlled by the PTB behind our government. That Power is the Federal Reserve.

There was 7 countries that the Rothschild do not control, no I am wrong, there are 5 countries that the Rothschild do not control left.

They now have Afghanistan, and Iraq now. My "opinion" is the Rothschild needed a Pearl harbor to get the ball rolling.

The Pentagon wrote a paper before 911 called: Project for the New American Century.

The Neocons’ Project for the New American Century: “American World Leadership” – Syria next to Pay the Price?

www.globalresearch.ca...

So a plan was hatched.

The goal of 911 was to get the United States in endless wars and suppress as much of American freedoms under the guise of terrorism, ( fear! ) A good way to control a nations population.

The EPA order the Port Authority to do an abatement asbestos program to remove all the asbestos in the WTC.

My "opinions" is there was many problems with the WTC and they were an eye sore. Evidence has already been proven, plans were already made to rebuild one of the WTC before 911 happened.

9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks

www.mintpressnews.com...

I believe the WTC were used as a SHOCK & AWE. A very clever plan, leaving the tax payers to pay for the clean up of ground zero.

To Get the Port Authority off the hook, so no finger would point in their direction, they decided to lease the WTC out on a 99 year lease to Larry A. Silverstein.

Silverstein takes out terrorist insurance out, on all three WTC, 3 months before the 911 attacks. In my "opinion" Silverstein had inside information to what was going to happened.

Why has no one taken out any terrorist insurance out on any building before 911? Only someone who had inside information in my "opinion".

Is any of this possible? I say yes, it is. Seeing how there was no 911 investigation, and there is plenty of evidence of a mass cover-up by our government and their agencies.

The end game for the Rothschild is world domination, NWO.





edit on 18-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

So what if there was a new design for a building.

Is this wrong? Often for a plan for a piece of property zoned and drawing in high tax revenue to move forward, a plan must be drawn up, submitted, and voted on before moving forward.

So? if there was new plans for WTC 7, they would be drawn up, submitted, and voted on before the property would be repurposed.

Conspiracists always acting like the ordinary is abnormal to push a false narrative.....
edit on 18-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Can you prove the owners of the WTC were not required to increase their insurance against terrorists because of past history and increased chance of attacks.

If Aegis had a hint of credible evidence of sabotage in their lawsuit to prevent payout to the WTC 7 owners, don't you think the lawsuit would have focused on sabotage by the owners. Not negligent and improper building design by Aegis's independent investigation of WTC 7.

Conspiracists always ignoring the obvious....
edit on 18-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Why has no one taken out any terrorist insurance out on any building before 911? Only someone who had inside information in my "opinion".
Where's your proof of this?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

In fact, didn't the owners lose money by the time you account for lawsuits and lost rent for WTC 7. So what good was the insurance payout if they lost money and the payout had to go to building a building that would generate tax revenue?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I think that reply was meant for Informer1958, I'm not concerned with the redevelopment of the WTC site.

In response to Informer's post, my thoughts are: I can well believe that the Mossad got wind of what was coming, and that some folk with Israeli intelligence connections were tipped off accordingly (and yes, some of them might have profiteered from that knowledge). I think the 'dancing Israelis' episode speaks for itself - Israeli intelligence knew.

As for the Rothschilds, they're a sort of big bad bogeyman, like the Bilderbergers, and for some people there is no outrage so unexpected that it cannot be laid at their door. They might have capitalised on 9/11, and if they received any tip-off then they probably did. But it just seems unrealistically disproportionate that the wealthiest dynasty on the planet would hatch what is basically being proposed as the biggest insurance job in human history (for someone outside their family, into the bargain). To be blunt: I don't believe it at all.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

So the Rothschilds are your boogeyman. So? Are the conducting corporate wars with other family empires and the Chinese. How do they assert their power over other rival empires?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

What part of "opinion" do you not understand?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Quite right, I apologize.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

What part of "opinion" do you not understand?


You don't want your opinion questioned to prove its validity......

Sad



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Why has no one taken out any terrorist insurance out on any building before 911?


Where is your proof of this?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon


As for the Rothschilds, they're a sort of big bad bogeyman, like the Bilderbergers, and for some people there is no outrage so unexpected that it cannot be laid at their door. They might have capitalised on 9/11, and if they received any tip-off then they probably did. But it just seems unrealistically disproportionate that the wealthiest dynasty on the planet would hatch what is basically being proposed as the biggest insurance job in human history (for someone outside their family, into the bargain). To be blunt: I don't believe it at all.


Thank you for your honest opinion.


I respect your opinion, and of course we all have a right to our beliefs. Nerveless, I am convinced the Rothschild's are behind 911.

They are the only people who have the real motives, and the Powers to do it. We all know most wars are "bankers" wars.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958
According to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident.
Link
edit on 18-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join