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.

 

Some last questions about 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I have recently been doing alot of reading about 9/11.To be honest with you at times I think it is a big gov coverup and at times I think that it is just an idea by a bunch of crazies.I see how some of the evidence just does not fit one way or the other.I'm sorry if some of this was answered on other threads but I just want to Know the truth.There is alot to read on the subject but somethings I have not found.

People have said that it may of been a missle that hit the Pentegon.There had to be someone that saw exactly what hit the Pentegon.If it was a missle why don't they speak up?

Also some thing I was curious about.Why was the rubble from the WTC cleaned up so quickly?The WTC was a crime scene and the gov did no investigating on site yet they Knew who had done it.

If it is a gov coverup how many people would have to be involved?It seems that alot of people would have to be involved in the coverup and how would they keep everyone quiet?

Probably the biggest question of all.Why would the gov kill so many of it's own people?I don't believe too many people could kill so many for oil,power or money.I really can't accept that it is to put fear in people either.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Looking back at this and trying to put myself in the mind of a terrorist, I'm wondering. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the first two planes were not known to be highjacked, right? So why the WTC and the Pentagon?

If I have control of a 757, and know that the fact I have hijacked it isn't out yet, it would seem to me that they would have picked better targets. If the terrorist were dead set on killing as many of us as possible, didn't care if they died, why didn't they take out a nuclear power plant? IMO, this would have cased more wide spread death and distriction then the WTC?


SNAKE



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The reason no one has come forward with the missile story is because it wasn't a freaking missile it was a plane. Full of people. Where did the people on that flight go if it wasn't a plane?

WTC was picked up quick for several reasons. There were people in that 7 story high pile of rubble. They tried to find survivors. Number 2, NYC is an extreamely busy place, you can't just leave a rubble pile THAT large lay there. Do you realise just how large that site is?

THOUSANDS of people whould have had to be in on his. No way could they all keep quiet.

The government didn't do it. Anyone who thinks different is retarded beyond repair.

Why the Pentagon and WTC? Easy, WTC is the finacial capital of the whole planet. It is a symbol that is hated by the scumbag terrorists. The were the largest buildings in NYC.

The Pentagon, reason is obvious no?

They were also headed for the Capitol.

Nuclear plants are hardened against aircraft, the hijackers knew that.

Kill the most people, damage large targets in VERY famous places for Publicity.

Simple.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomastro

THOUSANDS of people whould have had to be in on his. No way could they all keep quiet.


Explain that pleae?
Do you not understand how government works? Ever hear of compartmentalization, or "need to know"?
Not enough ppl in gov know enough of the whole program to know all that went on. Very few know the full story on anything the gov does.
Those that do know "something" speak out (some have) and get fired, or keep their mouths shut cause they got families to feed and motgages to pay.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by puffadder_17
Looking back at this and trying to put myself in the mind of a terrorist, I'm wondering. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the first two planes were not known to be highjacked, right? So why the WTC and the Pentagon?

If I have control of a 757, and know that the fact I have hijacked it isn't out yet, it would seem to me that they would have picked better targets. If the terrorist were dead set on killing as many of us as possible, didn't care if they died, why didn't they take out a nuclear power plant? IMO, this would have cased more wide spread death and distriction then the WTC?
SNAKE


not known to be hijacked? dink the planes just flew by itself with the passengers behind? and y the Pentagon and the World Trade Center....easy because its symbolic. to Al Qaeda u are attackin the infidels Economic power, military power, and wat the fourth plane was suppose to attack possibly the White House which would represent America's politcal power and influence. very symbolic. anithing symbolic to destroy or hurt infidels arrogant power for propaganda purposes. its like hey dis is wat we did against the Americans u can participate as well and be martyrs and known in the history books who attacked and hurt or destroyed the most powerful nation in the world and its all to Islam and especially Allah.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Depending on the theories one believes, a cast of thousands might be necesary for some of the craziness I have heard.

I think it entirely possible that the government had knowledge that the attacks were coming and they let them happen. They might not have known the scale or the targets, but their behavior suggested that they wanted or didn't care to stop such an attack.

I do not believe that it was masterminded by the US or that bombs were used in NY that day, unless you count airplanes as makeshift bombs.

And gobucks, yes this has been covered.

Try the entire forum dedicated to it.



[edit on 27-10-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomastro
The government didn't do it. Anyone who thinks different is retarded beyond repair.



What if you believe people at the top allowed it to happen/prevented investigations into al Qaeda to ensure it went through, and or believe the neocons have used 9/11 as a magic genie and were glad it happened...is that retarded beyond repair to say?



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Ill try to answer the original questions.

First of all, I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job and engineered and mastermined by the shadow government. It was done to start a war on terrorism that would be used to bring about the New World Order, on the ashes of all freedom and national sovereignty.

Why did no one report a missle? Because there was none. A lot of theories regarding 9/11 are disinformation designed to discredit 9/11 skeptics. The disinformants create a convincing, yet false, claim and spread it on the internet. Then they get something like Popular Mechanics to debunk these claims and then say that there was no conspiracy. What hit the pentagon was a 757, piloted not by arabs, but by the built-in remote control mechanism.

The rubble was not only cleaned up, it was melted down. The mayor of New York tried to get rid of, and melt down, as much of the rubble as possible. This was done to ensure that no investigation of the evidence would be available. I believe the towers and building 7 were brought down with strategically placed explosives.

How many people were involved? Probably hundreds. How do they keep people quite? It's simple. The military uses a policy called need-to-know. There may have been hundred of people, but each person was only given the information necessary to do their job. For example, they got NORAD to stand down by just having war games on that day. NORAD was intimately involved, but most of the personell had no idea what they were doing. By using this need-to-know policy you can have hundreds people doing something horrible, and they wont even know they're doing it. Only a core of people would know what was actually happening.

Why would they do this? First of all it was not the government. The government is a puppet, a mere public relations figure to give the illusion of democracy. The mastermind behind this attack was the shadow government. They did this to further the cause of the New World Order. After 9/11 they passed the Patriot Act which destroys many of our freedoms, they invaded Afghanistan and took control of the opium fields, they invaded Iraq to install a puppet government and expand UN control, and now we are in a never-ending war that will lead us into tyrannical world government. 9/11 was the catalyst for everything, and I assure you, these shadow-government people are willing to murder every single person on earth to get their way.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
911 was and will be a history of questions.with no bright finish line.movies will be made about it.do you get the feeling that nothing truthful has come out of it at all.no closure for the families of victims from it.people want facts about it and nothing has been done to cool the fire.think about if that happened somewhere else in the world instead of the u.s.do ya think they would confuse there people.i think not......

[edit on 5-11-2005 by flukemol]

[edit on 5-11-2005 by flukemol]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xFalconx
Ill try to answer the original questions.

First of all, I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job and engineered and mastermined by the shadow government. It was done to start a war on terrorism that would be used to bring about the New World Order, on the ashes of all freedom and national sovereignty.

Why did no one report a missle? Because there was none. A lot of theories regarding 9/11 are disinformation designed to discredit 9/11 skeptics. The disinformants create a convincing, yet false, claim and spread it on the internet. Then they get something like Popular Mechanics to debunk these claims and then say that there was no conspiracy. What hit the pentagon was a 757, piloted not by arabs, but by the built-in remote control mechanism.

The rubble was not only cleaned up, it was melted down. The mayor of New York tried to get rid of, and melt down, as much of the rubble as possible. This was done to ensure that no investigation of the evidence would be available. I believe the towers and building 7 were brought down with strategically placed explosives.

How many people were involved? Probably hundreds. How do they keep people quite? It's simple. The military uses a policy called need-to-know. There may have been hundred of people, but each person was only given the information necessary to do their job. For example, they got NORAD to stand down by just having war games on that day. NORAD was intimately involved, but most of the personell had no idea what they were doing. By using this need-to-know policy you can have hundreds people doing something horrible, and they wont even know they're doing it. Only a core of people would know what was actually happening.

Why would they do this? First of all it was not the government. The government is a puppet, a mere public relations figure to give the illusion of democracy. The mastermind behind this attack was the shadow government. They did this to further the cause of the New World Order. After 9/11 they passed the Patriot Act which destroys many of our freedoms, they invaded Afghanistan and took control of the opium fields, they invaded Iraq to install a puppet government and expand UN control, and now we are in a never-ending war that will lead us into tyrannical world government. 9/11 was the catalyst for everything, and I assure you, these shadow-government people are willing to murder every single person on earth to get their way.


The "new world order" has been in place for at least the last hundred years. the corrupt federal reserve act of 1913 was perhaps the true start of American enslavement on a financial manipulation front.

Whether 9/11 was an inside job or cordially invited to happen; the goal as Cheney spelt out for all to see a year prior to 9/11 is clear.

These guys are so cavalier, they openly will say what's going on if you pay attention. rumsfeld saying they shot down a plane, Bush saying he saw the first WTC hit on tv. Are these slipups?

What's really sad is how the so called open minded liberals and youth of America will defend the right winger side by saying 'there was no 9/11 coverup. Sadly, both the right and the left have no idea how truly deep the rabbit hole goes.

Who created and trained al Qaeda and Osama, who spelt out that they wanted a 9/11 like event, and who stood to gain? These are questions the majority of America is ignoring. Follow the money trail of the 9/11 hijackers, and it will lead straight to the CIA or CIA related organizations.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomastro
The government didn't do it. Anyone who thinks different is retarded beyond repair.


The government did it. Anyone who thinks different is a moron.


Whoa! Look at that. Now we have both made these generalizing statements that totally compromise each other. Guess people will have to look into the facts and figure things out for themselves now.


Also, anyone that thinks that everyone who was involved on making 9/11 happen knew what they were doing, or knew the entire plot, isn't thinking realistically.

"Hey there, John. How's the cable upgrade going on the WTC?"

"Oh, it's not really a cable upgrade. My boss told me that an elitist faction within our government that's hellbent on war in the Mid-East is having us put C4 around some beams so we can blow down the WTC buildings later and blame it on Osama for war."

"....Oh."

And thus, thousands of people were involved and knew about the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Ah yes, the great cable upgrade story.

Has anyone ever verified that story? Do you know that there is just one source for said story?


Why is it that such a huge closure of the building was only remembered or noticed by one guy?

Here is his version of events, which has been accepted without question by many people.

www.serendipity.li...


On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...



Thirty six hours on every floor above 50 and only this guy knew about it.

Likely.


Only one tower had this stealth upgrade done, so it really leaves no oppurtunity to wire up both towers. So not only is his story questionable, but using it as proof of demolition only works for one tower. Leaving the second tower to be destroyed with what? Mini-nukes? C-4 built into the building in the 1970's? Or maybe a conspiracy of terrorists flying a passenger jet into it.



But let's pretend that such a powerdown did happen. 36 hours to set up a controlled demolition seems kind of quick.

www.controlled-demolition.com...


In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.


And this was for a 33 story building, with no need to hide their work.


This story is even called a hoax by those who want to reopen the investigation.

911review.com...



After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.



Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.


I think it's time to dismiss this story as the nonsense it is.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
the WTC explosives question has no bearing on who truly benefited from 9/11.
I don't believe William Rodqiguez is lyign when he saw and felt massive explosions in the sublevels of WTC 1 before the first plane hit. But I also really wouldn't care if no explosions are ever proved. It's in PNAC's own damning statement, the CIA connection to both al Qaeda and the financial backing of the attacks, and other things that paint 9/11 as one big coverup.

I mean Able Danger alone should at least raise some eyebrows in the mainstream, but isnt. Why, because the corporate controlled media is on a tight leash and muzzle.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Well, until how the explosives were planted, here's an example especially modified just for LeftBehind:


"Hey there, John. How's the [insert excuse here] going on the WTC?"

"Oh, it's not really [insert excuse here]. My boss told me that an elitist faction within our government that's hellbent on war in the Mid-East is having us put C4 around some beams so we can blow down the WTC buildings later and blame it on Osama for war."

"....Oh."

And thus needless thousands were involved.



Or maybe a conspiracy of terrorists flying a passenger jet into it.


Kind of eye-opening to see people that frequent this part of ATS still believe this line.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Or maybe a conspiracy of terrorists flying a passenger jet into it.


Kind of eye-opening to see people that frequent this part of ATS still believe this line.


Well, review some of the threads here on 9-11.

Anyone who disagrees with the demolition theory is ridiculed and called a government disinfo agent.

But the terrorist conspiracy is the one that is supported by evidence. It requires no leaps of faith that basically make up the demolition theory.

Does this mean I buy everything Bush has to sell?

No.

I believe it entirely possible that they had prior knowledge of some kind and let it happen. They might not have realized how big the attack would be, and they might have welcomed such destruction. But I think that there is no evidence of the thousands of manhours required to wire those two buildings for demolition.

There is ample evidence of planes hitting the building. But there is no opportunity for wiring the explosives, no evidence of demolition, and IMHO I don't see what the purpose of doing so would be, why not just use conventional bombs if they wanted to destroy it so bad.

To me, I still post against demolition because to me it is like arguing with people who don't believe the moon landing happened. I won't ever convince them, but I can't let bad science be accepted as truth.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Two things, LeftBehind,


But the terrorist conspiracy is the one that is supported by evidence.


I'd like to know what exactly this evidence is. I'm sure you can find plenty of circumstantial evidence, but last I heard, there's no meat to the governments claims at all.

And...


I can't let bad science be accepted as truth.


You've never quite explained to me what bad science is being used. I know you posted once, trying to blow off the loss of angular momentum by saying there was no possible way the tops of the buildings could have fallen off sideways in full (which is a ridiculous attempt at rebuttal anyway), but you have not offered any serious scientific rebuttals to any of these such facts. I have pressed a professor of structural physics on the matter of the loss angular momentum and he could not explain it, so what makes you think that your naively simplistic answer has absolutely any relevance to what I'm even addressing? No one has properly addressed such an issue, because there's nothing to rebutt: the buildings leaned, and then stopped; they also fell symmetrically, they seemed to lose no momentum despite the vast amounts of energy that would have been used, etc. But please stop calling these things "bad science" when you yourself, aside from not being able to properly rebutt these things, support crackpot ideas like air being rocketed down collapsing buildings almost triple the speed of the actual falling floors to cause the squibs.

Just because you are utterly convinced of the facts of an issue does not mean you are correct in your thinking, or that any "science" you put forth to support is right - that is WRONG. And before you unthinkingly spout the same thing back to me like a smart-aleck child, try to remember who it is between us that actually references scientific laws, and explains in detail why things are not possible, and does not just imagine up why he thinks something must be so and post it as if it has any credibility simply because he thought it, and without posting references. I'll give you a hint: it isn't you. And neither have you ever explained why you think the laws I reference are "bad."



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Tomastro

THOUSANDS of people whould have had to be in on his. No way could they all keep quiet.


Explain that pleae?
Do you not understand how government works? Ever hear of compartmentalization, or "need to know"?
Not enough ppl in gov know enough of the whole program to know all that went on. Very few know the full story on anything the gov does.





Anyone who use the terms “compartmentalization,” “need to know,” and “government” in the same breath and who does not burst out in laughter has no idea how the government really works. They have no idea of the powers that can be wielded by an entrenched bureaucracy. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing; it’s how they protect their turf. In real life, the government does not work like a cheap, paperback novel.



Originally posted by ANOK
Those that do know "something" speak out (some have) and get fired, or keep their mouths shut cause they got families to feed and motgages to pay.


The typical conspiracy theorist response. So all of these people are such craven cowards, that they are only concerned about money, right?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
the WTC explosives question has no bearing on who truly benefited from 9/11.
I don't believe William Rodqiguez is lyign when he saw and felt massive explosions in the sublevels of WTC 1 before the first plane hit.



How about this guy who was in the 6th sub basement when the plane hit:


Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.


He was deeper in the basement than the janitor, yet he didn’t see or feel any explosions.

www.chiefengineer.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

So all of these people are such craven cowards, that they are only concerned about money, right?


You are aware that all the policemen, firemen, etc. involved with the response on 9/11 were ordered to not discuss what they had seen, correct? A gag order upon them, as well as FAA personnel?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have pressed a professor of structural physics on the matter of the loss angular momentum and he could not explain it, so what makes you think that your naively simplistic answer has absolutely any relevance to what I'm even addressing? No one has properly addressed such an issue,


I saw the thread were you asked a proffesor about this problem and to me his response looked more like a polite blow off than anything else.

Simplistic answers are usually the best. That's why many people like to use something called Occam's razor.

I'll give you a good example.


Jets of air from the 9-11 collapse:

They could be air being pushed out the window by the collapse,

or


They could be the explosives planted in the building while no one noticed, involving a team of engineers and carpenters(to put back the ripped out walls) that left no explosive residue behind, and was put there by the US government.


Occam's razor would pick the first.



I don't know why you are stuck on these two strawman issues. You have picked two things that are hard to explain in laymans terms, and because no one answers to your satisfaction you think it proves something.

Please explain how and when the buildings were wired for explosives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join