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.

 

Why don't you believe the official story?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   



WTC 7 was one that took me a loooong time to come around on, but the facts are there is you read the reports more than once and try to understand how it could have happened, rather than just dismiss it as a government conspiracy and run with the pack.



esdad71 you have your opinion and that is fair enough - you want to believe the official story

However, you state that WC7 has been explained but the building's owner stated that the building was brought down with demolitions.

For many many people, 911 is a conspiracy too far. I am hoping this is what brings their 'agenda' into open view

For example:


Concentrate! Focus like a LASER on the pieces of unassailable evidence. For me that is the controlled demolition of WTC7.

There is absolutely no question that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled way. It was witnessed by thousands of people, video recorded from a dozen different angles complete with sound recordings of the explosions. Even the building's owner, Silverstein, says on camera in a documentary that the building was "pulled".

It takes WEEKS at a minimum, to plan and implement a controlled demolition of skyscraper. That means the explosives in WTC7 were installed well in advance of 9/11. That is a fact. There is no way around it and the implication which follows from that fact is inescapable: 9/11 was an inside job.

Everything else is just detail.


Source




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Double Post due to browser lag - sorry

[edit on 5/4/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
i cant remember them all now, but in order of importance the questions i raised which now = doubts were

1. how did these aircraft do what they did without some sort of defense
2. why are they only 48 hours later so sure they know who did this. How can they know until an investigation is done? lets face it, Bush aint Columbo.
3. Towers collpasing and building 7 collapsing. Did Osama, if he did it, know they would collpase? i doubt it. Its strange they collapsed and 7
4. reports of passport hijackers being found, how did they know he was a hijacker for example.
4. numerous other questions after the event like Silverstein acting like he wass in charge of the firemen and pulling the building. etc. etc.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by AdamJ]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Lies aside, why didnt the military jets on standby for any attack whatsoever scramble and intercept this?

Anyone who watched that day knows at least of this, and beleive me, not only is this highly UNUSUAL, its down right impossible for the government to have "missed" this.

Then you have everything else. And the lies to top it off.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Anyone who watched that day knows at least of this, and beleive me, not only is this highly UNUSUAL, its down right impossible for the government to have "missed" this.


There is someones sig around here that says the 9/11 and London bombings had drills the same day.

in this persons sig it says there is like a trillion chances in 1 that this would ever happen...

Makes someone kinda think about the odds...

Not only that there was 1 person in both places when this happened... Giuliani. interesting?? perhaps.. Conspiracy.... I think so.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
You would have thought the errant airlines would have been dealt with earlier -



"If you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency"

(Taken from FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide To Basic Flight Information And Air Trffic Control Procedures)


When such an event occurs, fighters are scrambled to intercept the aircraft, which, incidentally, does not equate to shooting the subject down, it effectively means go up and take a look.

Interceptions apparently occur routinely -



Interceptions evidently occur, in fact, about 100 times a year. The FAA reported, for example, that there were 67 interceptions between September 2000 and June 2001.

(FAA News Release, August 9 2002)


I have yet to see any data indicating the response times for the previous intercepts, but it does strike me as odd that the relevant authorities had experience of 'rogue' aircraft but they somehow slipped through the net on that day.

Of course the commision puts it down to poor chain of command procedures et al., but the inability of US forces to intercept these planes strikes me as somewhat odd.

(Edit: Spelling)

[edit on 5-4-2006 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Flight 93 was the only one that we could logistically take down, and did.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I am still amazed to read things like " oh the buildings shouldnt have colpased"... for Heaven sake and the love of pupiies... the buildings were HIT BY PLAINS !!!! JET PLAINS !! the Top of the building was cut off and than fell on top of the rest ...like a domino effect... is this so hard to see ?? is this place so full of geniouses, that they're all blinded by their own inteligence ?

UNREAL !



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

I am still amazed to read things like " oh the buildings shouldnt have colpased"... for Heaven sake and the love of pupiies... the buildings were HIT BY PLAINS !!!! JET PLAINS !! the Top of the building was cut off and than fell on top of the rest ...like a domino effect... is this so hard to see ?? is this place so full of geniouses, that they're all blinded by their own inteligence ?

UNREAL !


This is funny as hell if you ask me.

Read and learn
killtown.911review.org...
oldmanjoe.tripod.com...

There are more than just the buildings falling that is odd.

I know... Those 2 links are selling books... right???

No reason to believe those places.....

Get wit it.. 9/11 is a sham and we all know it.. think outside the box for 5 seconds.. I know its scary but you can do it.

[edit on 4/5/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

I am still amazed to read things like " oh the buildings shouldnt have colpased"... for Heaven sake and the love of pupiies... the buildings were HIT BY PLAINS !!!! JET PLAINS !! the Top of the building was cut off and than fell on top of the rest ...like a domino effect... is this so hard to see ?? is this place so full of geniouses, that they're all blinded by their own inteligence ?

UNREAL !


Ok lets say thats true. But what happened to WTC 7.?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Ever known someone who is such a compulsive liar, you no longer believe anything he/she says?


This is why I don't belive the "official" stories.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
is this place so full of geniouses, that they're all blinded by their own inteligence ?

UNREAL !


Some are blinded by their self perceived intelligence.

Others are blinded by ideology.

Others are blinded by their worship of authority.

Others are blinded by their fear.

Others are blinded by self imposed blinders.

Some are blind drunk!!

Just because others have a different opinion from yours doesn't mean they are the blind ones.

to keep with the thread topic: One of the reasons I dont believe the official story is because officials keep telling me to believe, but they withhold the information that might convince me of their story.




[edit on 5-4-2006 by whaaa]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
^Exactly. Why hasn't the pentagon plane crash footage been released? It would prove the skeptics wrong, instantly. And of COURSE building #7. It wasn't hit by a plane, or nearly as much debris as the other WTC buildings, and they didn't collapse until they were pulled within the next week or so. There are WAY too many incosistancies to ignore it.

Also operation foxwoods is VERY suspect.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Barcs]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Gee reasons why I don't believe in the 911 story?

Lets see now: JKF assasination, Rockefellers/Rothschilds, Isreal, International Bankers, Waco TX, Yalta, Federal Reserve, Roswell NM, and pages more of reasons why I DON"T BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL 911 story.

Now let me ask you a question: if someone believes in the official 911 story then why does such a person hang around here?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Rightwingpatriot, are you one of those who think Bush is the savior of America or something? Because I'm acquainted with some of that type, and you can't reason with them. I used to think that way...then I took the red pill.


I admit, it's easier, more convenient to believe that 9/11 was caused by Muslim hijackers. Who wants to believe that their own elected (or selected) government would kill people for their own agenda?

Governments have done this over the ages. Hitler and his bunch did it with the Reichstag Fire. And oh, btw, the Nazis were funded by W's grandfather...so the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree!



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I belive that we are lied to constantlly..and that evidence has piled up from many sources indicating that the official story is a cover...its just facts presented....granted ..some do concur with the official story..but when balancing out the diffrences in accounts...i just get more evidence on one side then the other...i had a discussion with my wife about the downed plan in penn..she pretty much buys the story of the "lets roll" guys forcing the plane to crash...i think there is overwhelming evidence that it was shot down in a planned unocupied field... and there certainlly is no question of motive there ...think of the potentiol flack of us government ordering 200 or so US citizens to be shot down to protect the whitehouse....



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
For those of you who cite the collapse of WTC 7 as your reason for disbelieving the official story, I have to ask you this:

Why don’t you believe the firemen who have stated that the building was severely damaged and showing showing signs of potential collapse well before it actually fell?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why don’t you believe the firemen who have stated that the building was severely damaged and showing showing signs of potential collapse well before it actually fell?


No one's denying that there was damage to the building. The problem is the amount of damage.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Howard:

this company owns that publication that has the glowing reviews from firefighters on 911...

Follow the money...

they look like the man errr I mean the 'brotherhood' to me...

I know that lots of firemen also had conflicting comments about what happened on 911 too.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why don’t you believe the firemen who have stated that the building was severely damaged and showing showing signs of potential collapse well before it actually fell?



Why don't you believe the Firemen that state it looked like a controlled demolition?

hell even the police and people said that.

Next??

I know Howard those Firemen and Police don't have a clue what they are talking about right?

And Howard read my sig PLEASE. I want you to disprove anything on those 2 sites.


[edit on 4/5/2006 by ThichHeaded]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join