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.

 

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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Interesting twist, I imagine that the 9/11 conspiracy will be with us for a long time and perhaps just like many other conspiracies as long as the people believe in them is all that is needed to feed them.

Until this day the 9/11 is still shadowed by the lack of information about how it happen and why was allowed to happen.

Sometimes I wonder if that is how our government wants to keep it.




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

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

O.K., Andreas von Bulow might have decided to toss his professional creds completely out the window for the opportunity to pocket some easy Euros. However, I didn't intend to discuss whether or not the author is a goof, huckster, or opportunist.

Fact is, he was a high level German official who should have some inside knowledge of the intelligence and international community.

None of the mainstream media is willing to investigate his, nor anyone else's claims about] this event. Why? And can the public generate enough noise to get someone involved.

I would genuinely be happy if an investigation by an independent agency found that 19 hijackers did in fact perform exactly as described and caused several buildings to collapse and murdered thousands. But we have to take the word of an administration that is demonstrably incompetent, and liars to boot.

And it seems that any other theory gets shouted down

NC



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I did some researche about Andreas von Bülow and what came up makes this person a very credible and convincing source. Here it is his profile:

Andreas von Bülow (born 1937 in Dresden) is a German writer, lawyer and former SPD politician. He has been working on books about intelligence agencies, including In the Name of the State (German:Im Namen des Staates) and The CIA and September 11 (Die CIA und der 11. September), which have tended towards conspiracy theories. He possesses a doctorate degree in Jurisprudence.

Political career

He served as state-secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defence (1976-1980) and Minister for Research and Technology (1980-1982), both during the Chancellor Helmut Schmidt administration, and was regarded for a while as a "rising star" of German politics. He also served for 25 years as an SPD member of the German parliament (1969-1994). Since commencing his writing career, he has largely left the SPD's political loop. During his time in the Bundestag, he served on the parliamentary intelligence committee.
This work led him into his subsequent writing career.

9/11

He has written a book called The CIA and September 11 (German: Die CIA und der 11. September), in which he alleges US government complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry." Tagesspiegel, 13. Jan. 2002.

He told The Daily Telegraph at his home in Bonn.

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars" and "They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence - that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda - in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation" .

He has expressed his views on the September 11, 2001 attacks in various media, including Germany's Der Spiegel, Dutch television, together with Michael Meacher, and in Alex Jones's popular talk radio program.

Affiliations

He is a member of:

* Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
* Axis for Peace Conference.

References

1. ↑ a b c Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 9, 2003
2. ↑ Tagesspiegel, January 13, 2002 contained an interview in which von Bülow was asked whether he still kept in contact with old SPD companions, and replied "There are no close contacts any more. I wanted to go to the last SPD party congress, but I was sick."

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Telos]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
As a Socialist, you don't think he has ulterior motives?

He's a hack, trying to make a euro.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As a Socialist, you don't think he has ulterior motives?

He's a hack, trying to make a euro.


Oh for crying out... just when I thought I'd seen it all! That's even worse than trying to discredit the man because he's written a *gasp* book!


How on earth would being a socialist give you "ulterior motives" that anyone else, be they capitalist, communist, fascist or anarchist, not have?

You do realize that a great majority of the free world's great democracies are socialist or have heavy socialist representation in their parliaments or other representative bodies, right?

Once again the guy could well be a hack (although given the positions he has held, this is unlikely), but come on, if you're going to discredit him, you've got to do better than that!

[edit on 25-4-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I have to say that it makes sense to me that the operation should have been run from that building. Tiny fires break out mysteriously... and then, whoosh, the whole thing comes down.

And of course when I saw the 'bunker' was on the 23rd floor, oh dear... it's not evidence but it does sway me a bit...

And I love this from HowardRoark:


At least he's making a ton of money selling his book to conspiracy theorists.

HR, who do you think uses this website? Is the loaded phrase 'conspiracy theorists' going to be an insult for people here? It's not a phrase one might wish to use on oneself but why do people look at this board in the first place? It's because they consider seriously the possibility that things are not as they seem, or as the authorities would like us to believe.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotClever
...............
Fact is, he was a high level German official who should have some inside knowledge of the intelligence and international community.
.............


it must be the same intelligence from the international community which Barbara Boxer used to claim that Communism is dead...

People in government are "people" and they also have different opinions and beliefs, which doesn't mean they must be right, if there is any information to back what he says, why is it that it is not mentioned in the article?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Does anyone know how much "profit" this guy is making from this book? If we can see that, we might be able to say he's in it for the profit. I would think his political career is more important to him than some profit from a book. But that's just me.

But wait till Bush comes out with his memoirs. I can't wait to say "yeah, he's just in it for the profit". What a painfully dishonest arguement.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
BTW, even the thread started said it...



Originally posted by NotClever
.............................
This is an opinion from someone with some professional weight.


Opinion does not equal truth.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
But, would you take say a structural engineer's opinion about how a building collapses over say a custodial engineer's opinion on the same building collapse? The same goes for here, this man knows things that we as average joes don't. So, I say, I believe his opinions over yours.

Edit: No need to quote the post above me


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
But, would you take say a structural engineer's opinion about how a building collapses over say a custodial engineer's opinion on the same building collapse? The same goes for here, this man knows things that we as average joes don't. So, I say, I believe his opinions over yours.

Edit: No need to quote the post above me


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Griff]


Really? Would you believe Barbara Boxer's opinion's, over the opinion of the millions of people who still live under Communist regimes?.....

Barbara Boxer is a U.S. official, she is supposed to know more than the average joe, as you put it, yet her ignorance on Communism shows clearly....unless you are one of those people who also believes Communism was never a threat, it never existed/it doesn't exist etc, etc...

Same thing with this man... he is expressing his opinion without giving any evidence except publicizing his book...opinions do not make anyone right, facts do, and there are no facts given in the article to prove this. Do you know why? the only people that will buy his book, are those who already believe what he is saying, these people don't need evidence...such as yourself.

If he were to freely give the information that is in his book, he wouldn't be making money of course, and his theory would be read by more people, including people that need proven facts to believe in a theory, and not opinions...

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As a Socialist, you don't think he has ulterior motives?


You guys still use propoganda material from the Cold War? A lot of Europe is socialist by now. So what? That's how these people choose to live; it works for them and has absolutely no bearing upon their character. Not everyone is American, I'm happy to say. There is still cultural diversity over in Europe.

I also notice that every time someone important says 9/11 was a conspiracy, ie an emeritus professor of phyics, and now this Defense Minister (among many others, these just being the two that stick out in my mind as far as you coming around just to bash the person rather than the info), you just try to discredit the person rather than address anything they say. That's a disinfo tactic.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
............................
ie an emeritus professor of phyics, and now this Defense Minister (among many others, these just being the two that stick out in my mind as far as you coming around just to bash the person rather than the info), you just try to discredit the person rather than address anything they say. That's a disinfo tactic.
...........................


You mean a Nuclear physics professor.....there is a difference, and a nuclear physics professor doesn't necessarily know anything at all about structural engineering and the physics behind skyscrappers....and you know we have discussed before that even not all structural engineers know everything about the physics behind skyscrappers, there are structural engineers who specialize in certain structures. The structural design of a ship, or of a 7 floor building, is not the same as the structural design of a skyscrapper of over 100 floors.....

But again, you like to keep this quiet so those that don't know this immediately believe that since "he is a physics professor", as always you try to leave out the specialization of the professor in nuclear physics, he must know about skyscrappers.....

Who is using disinformation tactics?.... you seem one of the people who is doing so...

BTW, yes, it is true that him being a German official, or ex-official, doesn't make him an expert on what happened in 9/11....anyways, even the poster of the thread said that what this German ex-official is saying is based on opinion not facts...

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
It strikes me anything that discredit's someone or something that we choose to believe in is a 'disinfo tactic', the specifications for what make something a 'disinfo tactic' appear to be so broad they can be made to encompass just about anything. At the end of the day unless you have a huge amount of knowledge in the relevant area you have to assess other aspects such as the integrity and motivations of the individual peddling an idead. As Muaddib says, he isn't even qualified in a relevant area, all his qualification says that is relevant is that he is obviously (one hopes) an intelligent person... But so what? Would you let Stephen Hawking design a building? One would hope not....

Examining the background of an information source is a vital piece of reearch in helping determine the motivations and significance of what they are saying, not a 'disinfo tactic'... Otherwise, are we supposed to excuse the Intelligence services for making drastic decisions over, say, the WMDs in Iraq for getting their information from an unreliable source? He claimed he was reliable, so that's OK huh? And he kind of worked in the area, errr. they think or something.. So that's good enough to base a whole idea set on with the consequences that we all live with today.
That's what you are saying...

Of course anyone who dared to question the authenticity of the information due to his background was a disinformationist, luckily we didn't listen to them, ay comrades! Let the good times roll.....................



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
From what I understand the "Bunker" ran on generators, and in the event of an emergency to allow for the generators to run for extended periods of time there were huge tanks of fuel stored on the floors either below or above. I thought it was the tanks that blew up that caused the building to come down. At least thats what the word was here in nyc the days following 9-11. It made sense to me..explosions and then the building comes down. Didn't even think there was a conspiracy on that one.


Pie



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You guys still use propoganda material from the Cold War?


do you think we deserve more recent propaganda? i think the royalties on the newer stuff would carry a hefty price tag.... paid by the US taxpayer, of course, be glad they're still using the old stuff, makes it easier to spot, too.

btw, i can't see the significance of such minor details, establishing the command centre so close is kind of cunning, but since it's all been pulverized, it's all assumption and no facts.


[edit on 29-4-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
The theory is by no means new, but I'm sure this German guy has no supporting evidence for WTC7 being used as the control center for an inside job, because if he did have, then 9-11 would have blown wide open by now. However, his theory can only be disregarded as pure speculation based on the lack of any evidence to support his statements; NOT because he has produced a book. What are the motivations of NIST who is employed by the USG, and what are the motivations of Eagar and Co whose careers have benefited enormously from their publications on 9-11? This is a weak argument at best, and a logical fallacy at worst.

The only thing that speculating about motivation provides us is a reminder to be aware of possible bias, alteration of data, or spin. After that, upon examination the facts will simply speak for themselves. Motivation has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute accuracy or inaccuracy of an individual statement, data, or hypothesis. Period. This a no-brainer, kiddies. The, "he wrote a book so he must be a lying conman", and the, "he's religious so he must be a nutter" arguments hold zero merit and are truly old, feeble, and tired; it is a technique deliberately used by HR as a thought-stopper for the weak of mind. And I see it's catching.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill.



[edit on 2006-4-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You mean a Nuclear physics professor.....there is a difference, and a nuclear physics professor[...]


No. You're probably confused because of his cold fusion work. He does work with nuclear physics, and also energy, but his Ph. D. is just in plain old physics.

If you think I'm wrong then please post some sources, because all the searching I've done has only returned that his Ph. D. is in physics.

Also keep in mind that the only thing structural engineers have to do with the WTC buildings is in regards to what NIST is spewing about where the columns failed. When it comes to how hot the fires would've had to have been and everything that entails, or problems regarding the actual collapses, physicists come to the forefront.

Structural engineers don't have expertise there. They may when you're making all these assumptions on where the trusses failed and etc., but it be more in line for a physicist to be the one to say, "that shouldn't have happened to begin with, and the collapse itself raises issues you can't explain with your current model." And that's exactly what Steven Jones has done in his paper, which revolves around the physics of the collapses.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Muaddib
You mean a Nuclear physics professor.....there is a difference, and a nuclear physics professor[...]


No. You're probably confused because of his cold fusion work. He does work with nuclear physics, and also energy, but his Ph. D. is just in plain old physics.


A nuclear physicist does not know anything about skyscrapers...

The people that would know about skyscrapers and brainstorm everything that could happen to such structures are architecs, engineers (such as structural engineers with knowledge and experience in building skyscrapers), not physics professors.

Jones just throws around his physics degree trying to sound like he must know what happened to the WTC...

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
A nuclear physicist does not know anything about skyscrapers...


Of course not:

Everyone knows that physics doesn't apply to falling skyscrapers.


Btw, I'll throw out again that his doctorate is not in nuclear physics specifically, since you ignored that and refused to offer any sources to back up your assertions.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join