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.


Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:01 AM
Andreas Von Bulow, former German cabinet minister, parliamentarian, and terror expert, gives his views on the 9/11 World Trade Center attack and an explanation for the delay in Tower 7's alleged demolition. Offering the possiblity that Tower 7 was used to coordinate the attacks from Mayor Guiliani's specially built command center.
Von Bülow referenced the command bunker in Building 7, calling it the "optimal place" to run the attacks using remote control technology to guide the planes in and then destroying the crime scene by imploding the building.
"There were two procedures, one was flying in the aircraft the second was the explosions," he said.
When asked precisely which parties carried out the attack Von Bülow said it must have been a "very small group" within the CIA with the help of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani secret service intelligence.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

If there were only one source for a legitimate opinion on the possibility of a conspiracy and subsequent cover-up of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, this is one I can get behind. This is an opinion from someone with some professional weight.

The related news link is specifically about the major media's silence about this issue. There is nothing in the major media online outlets about this particular story, at the time of its posting here.

Why is mainstream media apparently ignoring the questions and theories circulating about 9/11? And, how does the public get them interested?

Warning, links to may return warnings from some anti-virus packages of JavaScript exploits. Please make sure your Windows computer is patched and up-to-date.

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Was Flight 93 targeted for WTC 7?
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
Question about the agents reaction at the school on 9/11

[edit on 21-4-2006 by NotClever]

[edit on 21-4-2006 by UM_Gazz]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by NotClever]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by NotClever]

mod edit, title fix

[edit on 24-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:31 AM
This guy is full of it. All he is doing is what politicians have been doing once out of office. Capitalizing on their notariety to make money. And what do you know he is using another old trick. At least as far as europeans are concerned. He is capitalizing on the current amount of anti-americanism in europe to sell his book. He's apparently also written this book while keeping in mind the essential political grace of plausible denyability. His book as full of cop outs strongly suggesting that these are plausible possibilities. This of course with the current environment that has developed in europe his arguenments are taken readily and willingly while leaving him able to say he's not anti-american just anti-bush.

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:03 AM
It sounds a lot more likely than most grossly exaggerated theories because it actually involves a realistic number of involved people and a realistic cross section of likely parties involved.
Bearing in mind the CIAs involvement with organising and funding the mujahideen who we now refer to as 'Al-Qaeda' in the past, I still think it's likely that the 'remote control' was actually the terrorists.
It is quite easy to manipulate and brainwash people, especially using religon, the real reasons and organisers behind the attack would more than likely have been kept secret from even the frontline operatives (the hijackers) and as far as their motivation was concerned it may genuinely be thinking they were fighting a fight for God.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:09 AM
At least he's making a ton of money selling his book to conspiracy theorists.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:11 AM
Oh he has a book? I didn't notice - should have guessed..

How noble of him, but I guess if he had an opinion on the subject and wasn't making money from it he would be a Government shill. LOL

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:19 AM
I've never felt it was necessary (or even possible) to prove the full story about "what really happened" on 9/11 to know that the official story was chock full of holes. But perhaps it is possible to come to a reasonable sequence of events and probabilities. Much more reasonable that the official story, anyway.

This seems to me like just one more piece of the puzzle in answer to why building 7 was prepared for demolition. It's makes perfect sense. And it happened at 5 PM, when the rest of the operation had come off without a hitch and Bin Laden was on the tongues of every American.

I love it when a plan comes together!

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:23 AM
This is a stupid theory. Let's say they did have a command post where they ran the operation and flew the planes from. Does anyone honestly think that command post would be so close to the intended target? Any miscalulation and they are dead. Bldg 7 was damaged quite extensively as it is from the crashes into the WTC. This guy's just trying to make a buck. Complete garbage.

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:21 AM
i have to say this theory is the wackiest i have ever encountered including the world trade center being blown up by the u.s. government. The simple reason is if people found out or if the supposed information ever got declassified how would you react. If you found out one of youre loved ones got killed by the government would you trust democrocy again? and as for the plane turning at a weird angle just before it hits it is modern areodynamics not fire wire controlls
and as for the flash of light i suppose it could be any number of things light reflecting off the wtc to the airoplane or a bomb on the plane exploding prematurely??

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:28 AM
I think Von Bulow is probably very close to the truth, if not more. This theory is very convincing and makes sense.

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:58 AM

In a related move, in 1999, Giuliani opened a $15 million emergency management center at 7 World Trade Center. The city boasted that the command center's walls could withstand 200 miles per hour winds, and the ventilation system was designed to blow out chemicals or germs. Although it was on the 23rd floor, critics assailed the center as "Rudy's bunker." Michael Daly of the Daily News likened it to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's shelter. "Of course, the mayor's inner circle will not have the cozy security of the traditional underground setting. They will be in the first-ever aerie-style bunker, a 46,000-square-foot expanse on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center."

Link here

All that underground infrastructure available in New York City and they choose the 23rd floor of a building for a command center? I have to admit, I'm not sure how just the 23rd floor can be made to withstand 200 mph winds and not the 22nd or 24th?

There were government offices in the building, so it wasn't unusual to see official 'types' hanging around. Seems like it would be a good place to conduct an operation that is occuring in the air, (with the possible visibility requirements), and makes it handy to destroy the scene of the crime. Kind of like burning the car with the victim in the trunk.

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:51 PM
Alex Jones is becoming more of a clown everyday...

Prisonplanet being used as a source for a thread... What has happened to ATSNN?????...... and no...people are not waking up..they are falling asleep...

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:58 PM
I agree with what he says and he probably has reason to know what he speaks about. But the source is not as clean as one would like all the same.

it would be great if some Arabs can come forward that were involved and spill the beans.

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh he has a book? I didn't notice - should have guessed..
How noble of him, but I guess if he had an opinion on the subject and wasn't making money from it he would be a Government shill. LOL

Yeah man, because if you believe the government is covering up 9/11 and you put out a book about it, you must not really believe it, you're just in it for the money! Why, by George, I think you've got it! That's why all these Ph. D.'s put their careers on the line, too! So they can sell a book! And a lot of the time, it's books they haven't even written! Brilliant!

For God's sake, can no write a freaking book anymore without being immediately discredited by you sad weights as being in it for the money? Is that really how sad it's gotten for you all? Because last I checked, books are a major medium for getting out information, since, wouldn't you know it, not everyone sits around reading conspiracy websites. And, oh gosh golly-gee you have to PAY for BOOKS! And a small portion of it goes to the AUTHOR! Oh noes, they must be writing whatever they can pull out of their behinds to make a few cents on the side of being former German Defense Minister!

I suppose he would have to mail you free copies or refrain from writing anything at all to maintain your most valuable trust. Except for Howard, I suppose; Howard wouldn't put on trusting him anyway just because it's in his financial interests no to. But how much money do you seriously think authors make from such books sales when there's so much information, videos and all, available for free online? This guy used to be Germany's Defense Minister. I seriously doubt he's that bad off. And I really pity some of the sad, blindered reasoning I'm seeing.

As far as WTC7 being a command center, that would be the obvious locale considering Giuliani had his bunker there, and so many agencies ran out of it to begin with, including the CIA itself. I still think there would've had to have been other reasons to totally blow it, though, as it seemed a bit drastic. For all I know, it could've been absolutely necessary to the operation, but I've yet to see how.

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:59 AM
I can address concerns with the source by pointing out that the book and the author are the source. is the conduit. Regardless of the url, the content is the same; a discussion of the book and its author.

There are some subjects where the authorship of a book immediately throws a red flag for me (the Queen Mum's a reptile, the Earth is hollow, etc.). This is not one of them. His writing the book no more diminishes the message than Landscape Turned Red : The Battle of Antietam by Stephen W. Sears, somehow alters what happened in that battle. Nor does George Tchobanoglous writing Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse discredit the field of wastewater treatment. Both books are important to their respective fields.


posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 10:55 AM
Excellent point NC. And isn't his book like 3-4 years old? It's not like he's trying to advertise a new book.

Off Topic: Is anyone having trouble with the link in the first post? The Prison Planet link to this story? I tried to access it today and my Kaspersky went nuts and now it won't let me access PP at all. I cleared my cache and cookies and still no luck.

Anyone else get some kind of infection from trying to access that link?? This is the text of the warning I got:

Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal

Attention! A potentially dangerous program detected.
Access to the object C:\...\Cache\D1DBA0F1d01 is blocked. Object is a potentially dangerous program Exploit.JS.CVE-2006-1359.p. You are advised to delete this object

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:31 AM
bsbray and NC said it best.

I don't think much of Alex Jones, and this ex-minister has not presented any proof (to my knowledge- someone will of course correct me if I'm wrong) of his claims. I do think it's interesting he mentions the ISI- a lot of bogus conspiracy angles fail to mention the Pakistani link, which raises some of the most interesting 9/11 questions of them all and has been mentioned in other threads here.

BUT- really, people. I've seen it so many times on ATS. Every time someone has anything to say in the public eye, God help their credibility if they should actually have taken the time to write a book detailing their position and their research, because of course, they'll get hounded as just trying to make a profit. (Perhaps even by people who have no problem accepting news with commercials every five minutes.)

Doesn't anyone buy books anymore? Even if you don't want to give the guy your money because you think he's a con artist, then check it out from a library, read it, and then comment. That's a valid form of attack. It's also fair to say that there a lot of BS and worthless books out there. But discrediting the guy solely on the basis of the fact that he has a book, on the other hand, is sheer ignorance.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by koji_K]

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:34 PM
Writting a book doesn't discredit him. His arguement does or rather the lack of a convincing arguement backed up by some hard evidence. Like I said he's trying to have it both ways strongly suggesting that this could possibly or that this is how it probably happened. He's using that arguement to capitalize on the anti-american feeling that is rife throughout europe and than saying to the media he's not anti-american. Thats all. Come on were are the double agents and the secret sources. He probably did his research on sites like prison planet. Sites that will publish virtually any hint of a conspiracy as fact.

And why is it that when someone around here questions the publishing and spread of such nonsense that has never been back up by anyone they gety jump on. Yeah the guy may have a Ph. D so what! Its not like you have to be a member of an elite club to get one. Most of the garbage that is published in this country is written by people with Ph. D's.

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by NotClever
His writing the book no more diminishes the message than Landscape Turned Red : The Battle of Antietam by Stephen W. Sears, somehow alters what happened in that battle. Nor does George Tchobanoglous writing Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse discredit the field of wastewater treatment. Both books are important to their respective fields.

Come on man you can't be serious. If an author writes a book about the Battle of Antietam he can't go on spewing unsubstantiated garbage that he heard about. You know why because his book wouldn't sell. If I want to read about the history of the Civil War I want what I'm reading to be fact. And do you know how I know what fact is. The battle of Antietam was fought between two massive armies there is countless information from the participants involved in the battle that can be used to verify the information contained in the book. From the lowliest union private wounded at Burnsides Bridge or Confederate Gen. Hood seeing his division annihilated in the corn field and it goes right on up to Gen. Lee and McClellan to Presidents Lincoln and Davis.

But this brings me back to my original point. Why did Von Bulow write this book. Let me guess [sarcasm]to get the truth out and wake people up[/sarcasm]. No he wrote the book and targeted an audience that would have been very receptive towards his ideas regardless of whether the book presented a factual account back up by evidence or just a very thinly vieled attempt to stir up more anti-american feeling.

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:41 PM
Question....everybody is immediately believing this is true, yet noone is asking why exactly is it that "Alex Jones" is the only person making this claim about this man?... ( my bad, it seems as if every conspiracy site now has this story, must be true right?...)

When a meteorologist made a claim that he was leaving his job and was going to research into his theory that the Chinese mafia (?) was behind one theory or another (can't recall which one it is right now) it made it to the news....

Yet, supposedly a former German official makes this claim and only Alex jones gets the story?.... The same Alex Jones who went to Chavez trying to back his claims about 9/11?......

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:46 PM
BTW, what are the facts to back this claim?

it is not like officials do not make whacky claims at all right?....

I can name at least a couple...

1. Barbara Boxer claiming that Communism is dead....

2. The Mayor of NO claiming that the CIA will try to kill him after he failed to follow the procedures to evacuate people from NO, which he obviously did to try to get sympathy from some people....

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in