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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


Really?...so it has been explained to detail how it is possible for a hydrogen bomb to detonate without reaching critical mass?...

Hydrogen bombs are composite weapons, you need for the temperature to be high enough, about 50 million degrees, to overcome the natural repulsion and fuse of hydrogen nuclei, hence you need a fission reaction in order to get a fussion reaction.

I am very interested to find out exactly how, according to you and whoever else, 50 million degrees were reached without a fission reaction.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Muaddib]


hehe.. Are you even reading these posts correctly? Earlier I stated this:


]Originally posted by ME

I have already been here a few times and i am not prepared to repeat myself much longer as next you will probably ask me about critical mass, EMP and fusion/fission triggers. Well search and ye will find.. Check out the hydrogen bomb hypothesis brought down the WTC thread as it is all there already.



fine, very briefly I will repeat h-bombs leave different fallout like tritium. Have you heard of red mercury, anti-matter induced fusion triggers both of which are 40 year old concepts, and the use of High powered lasers to trigger fusion? How about cold fusion too. Critical mass is different with a h-bomb and they can be minaturized unlike an atomic bomb.

I refer you to this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Insolubrious]




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I really don't understand how anyone can look at the videos of WTC7's perfectly vertical collapse and not realize it's a controlled demolition.
I don't understand how you guys hear Silverstein come right out and state that they made the decision to "pull it" (not "pull out" or "pull away" but just "PULL IT") and think that it can mean anything other than the controlled demolition. I don't understand how each and everyone of us remembers exactly how we felt when we learned of the attacks, where we were and what we were doing at the time yet Bush comes right out TWICE stating ON VIDEO that he saw the first tower crash live on TV when that is impossible because there was no live coverage of the first strike.

Knocking down a building perfectly onto it's own footprint without damaging the surrounding buildings takes a lot of skills, patience, careful calculations and precision with exacting amounts of explosives yet you guys think a building can come down the same way by a few fires here and there and a few columns knocked down on a single side.
Why pay a real fortune to demolition experts? I could do it myself with a single Bic lighter, hmm?

But so long as your TV keeps talking about Britney Spears and Jacko's trial and never even mentioning the WTC7, then you guys would reject any logic and loose yourself in so-called x-spurt opinons.
I mean come on, look at this picture for crying out loud:
www.waronfreedom.org...
Look at how it comes down so perfectly vertically.
Look at how the penthouse collapsed in first, typical controlled demolition technique.
For Christ's sake, look at that and tell me box cutter terrorists did this?

For crying out loud, 9 of the 19 terrorists were found alive. some have identified their pictures and stated that they were not involved and even the FBI has come out twice and stated that the real identity of the terrorists could be unknown at this time yet the 9/11 commission kept those same names of those very terrorists who stated they are alive and kept them as the official perp.

Why can't you just think for yourself with simple logic instead of posting a zillion links of people who are only too happy to promote the stupid pancake ridiculous theory?

"The broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."
- Adolf Hitler



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Hey Cameron, this is what the "hand picked" engineers had to deal with:

On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse:

“Interviews with a handful of members from the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..." 8

They made their concerns known publicly. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s past. Manning wrote:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Read on:

www.saveourwetlands.org...



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Way too much speculation...how about some PEER REVIEW PAPERS from REAL ENGINEERS...


Here is a list of REAL peeps as well, back at ya:

Dr. Thomas Eagar - MIT Professor of Materials Engineering 911research.wtc7.net...

Danny Jowenko - Controlled Demo Expert
www.911blogger.com...

Von Daniele Ganser - Swiss Engineering Expert
tagesanzeiger.ch...

Van Romero - Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
st12.startlogic.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Jim Hoffman - Scientific Visualization of Mathematics
en.wikipedia.org...

Swiss Experts: 'WTC 7 most likely explosives'
jultra.blogspot.com...

William F. Baker - in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Dr. Barnett - professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Silvian Marcus - executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer
David Davidowitz - vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison
www.wtc7.net...

Lifting the Fog
The Scientific Method Applaied to the World Trade Center Disaster
liftingthefog.org...

Steven Jones, PhD - www.journalof911studies.com...

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse? [PDF]
worldtradecentertruth.com...

Jim Hoffman, M.F.A. - 911research.wtc7.net...

Mickey S. Huff, M.A. - retropoll.org...

Janette MacKinlay – Fortune Magazine
www.theneedtoremember.com...

Nate Mudd, J.D.
SimmonsCooper, LLC (The office of the attorney who specializes in asbestos litigation for victims' compensation and rights)
www.simmonscooper.com...

Jenna Orkin, M.A., J.D.
World Trade Center Environmental Organization
wtceo.org...

Peter Phillips, Ph.D. - www.projectcensored.org...

Paul W. Rea, Ph.D. - www.peaceproject.com...

Albert Terry - The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City
st12.startlogic.com...

Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd. - www.saveourwetlands.org...



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Last one Cameron, since we are to only listen to engineers' points of view.....

Jerry Russel (MS in Engineering):

"As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.

The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds...."

Read More: wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...

Kid makes a valid point!!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How about explaining this to me...


That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?

I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.

What that tower did was physically impossible without help from some other force causing the columns in the lower undamaged part of the building to fail equally.

What should have happened is the top should have continued to topple off taking part of the lower structure on the pivot side with it. A chaotic, non-symmetrical collapse, just like every building in history that has been damaged or bombed (non-demo).


i believe your photo has been edited, and poorly i might add
look at the left side of the top half, it has a slight kink in it, probably where the photo editor selected part of the building and rotated it using photoshop or somehting.
the right side of the building also has a slight kink at almost the same spot

almost ironically, at the center of the picture you can see a face that is remarkably simular to cameron's avatar pic of dick cheney


so there you have it, your evidence has been explained and is more than likely a fraud/hoax

at least now you cant say NONE of us have tried to explain


:edit:
forgot to mention, in none of the videos does the tower bend like it did in your picture
that is actually one of the key factors in believing it was a CD, the lack of bending and the straight down CD like demolition of both buildings

the very fact that the picture shows the tower bending at all should be a red alert that something is wrong. either the picture is fake, or all the videos i've seen and the live coverage were.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by wondernut]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut
i believe your photo has been edited, and poorly i might add
look at the left side of the top half, it has a slight kink in it, probably where the photo editor selected part of the building and rotated it using photoshop or somehting.
the right side of the building also has a slight kink at almost the same spot


Wow! This is quite a claim. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but what I'm going to ask of you is that if you think you're really right would you please contact NIST and demand to know why they used a photoshopped picture in part of their analysis?

From page 65 (page 115 of the pdf file) of NIST Report on Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components I provide a screencap where they actually indicate the "kink" and verify that is an important aspect of the collapse they take into consideration.

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE THE WHITE ARROW IS FROM THEIR PHOTO.





the very fact that the picture shows the tower bending at all should be a red alert that something is wrong. either the picture is fake, or all the videos i've seen and the live coverage were.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by wondernut]


Then something is wrong (even if the photo is photoshopped because then - as I point out above - the NIST is using faked photos). And I cannot help you on why you have not seen this before. The bizarre break-over and then vertical correction of WTC 2 has been discussed on this board with accompanying photos for some time now.

[edit on 11-26-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
If WTC7 had a huge whole in the side, why did it fall straight down? Wouldn't it collapse first on the side that it was weakened?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by texaspike

Originally posted by CameronFox
Way too much speculation...how about some PEER REVIEW PAPERS from REAL ENGINEERS...


Here is a list of REAL peeps as well, back at ya:


Are you SERIOUSLY thinking your list has ANY credibility...did you think i WASNT going to look at them?? Well.. surprise, I am stuck in my office today and its quiet in here...so I have some time to kill....

911research.wtc7.net...
Ok, WHAT IS THIS? There is an interview with Dr. Thomas Eagar (Engineer) when he AGREES with the NIST report? Because someone disagrees? Can you please tell me who added the red text? What are their credentials?

Jim Hoffman – Smart guy. He is known as the “lead conspiracy theorist” I will get back to him since my follow up with him will take up all my space on this one post.

Swiss Experts: 'WTC 7 most likely explosives'
DUDE, this is the SAME article as above!!!

Danny Jowenko - Controlled Demo Expert
www.911blogger.com...
This is building 7. NIST is still investigating this. I will watch this video when I have some more time,and get back to you

Von Daniele Ganser - Swiss Engineering Expert …um…Do you have the ENGLISH translation ???

Van Romero - Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
YES…these were his comments …on SEPTEBER 11,2001 He later recanted these remarks!

www.wtc7.net...
Very impressive list of engineers….did you check out the DATE that this article was written??New York Times, November 29, 2001

liftingthefog.org... This is the Paper from Jim Hoffman same as above.( I will use a different post for him)

Steven Jones, PhD - www.journalof911studies.com...
Jones does not have any background in structural engineering .His research and 9/11 paper has never been through a rigorous peer review that is the de facto standard in science. Because of these and other problems, Jones was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area. Six weeks later, before the review would have been made, Jones elected to retire from BYU. On October 20, 2006 Steven Jones and BYU finalized a retirement package.

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse? [PDF]
Why did you not post that this was Steven Jones Paper…???

Jim Hoffman, M.F.A. - 911research.wtc7.net... um…this is the THIRD time you posted his name

Mickey S. Huff, M.A. - retropoll.org... I’m curious about this “poll”. What Am I reading here?

Janette MacKinlay – Fortune Magazine
www.theneedtoremember.com...
This is a site to buy her ARTWORK that she put together for 911!

Nate Mudd, J.D.
SimmonsCooper, LLC (The office of the attorney who specializes in asbestos litigation for victims' compensation and rights)
www.simmonscooper.com...
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but WTC2 did not have asbestos. WTC1 had asbestos up to the 38th floor.

wtceo.org...
Best site so far actually.. there is a conspiracy here. EPA was WRONG in allowing people back home. Please look into WHO was in charge of the EPA at Ground Zero…and who’s husband was in charge of the largest insurance company. However this has nothing to do with a controlled demolition.

www.projectcensored.org... Looks like another Steven Jones site.

www.peaceproject.com... I can actually Buy a BUTTON on this site!!!! Whoopeee Oh and FRISBEES !!

Albert Terry - The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City
st12.startlogic.com... this is the SAME site as above



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by texaspike
Hey Cameron, this is what the "hand picked" engineers had to deal with:

On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse:

“Interviews with a handful of members from the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..." 8

They made their concerns known publicly. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s past. Manning wrote:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Read on:

www.saveourwetlands.org...



December 25th 2001. Can you please tell me if ALL evidence had been gathered by then?

Oh...this saveourwetlands..... I went there... who is Dr. Albert D. Pastore ? The research I have found... says there is no such person... Amazon Books that is selling his 911 book ...claims it is a "Penname" ...hmmmmm



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Ok since you want to be a smart ass, let me put it to you here..

Since you have time and all to look at articles now..

I will bring up 2 that was presented to you earlier in this post and you neglected to look at..

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

And

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)

I want you to strongly debunk the 1st one more than the 2nd one for i have still no clue about it yet...

And another thing I have noticed, most of the links you have posted leave me to a decision about you..

!) You are a complete idiot and only take your side to things.
2) You are some shill pushing those 2 crap sites Debunking911 and 911myths.com.

Trust me, no answer from this post here I will leave no option to tell you what I really think.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I will go to the sites you posted...and I will get back to you, I am trying to answer EVERYONE 'that has asked me questions....
not all of my info is from those two that you mentioned. There is however AMPLE material to gather from there.

Name calling does not get to me.. call me what you want
Seems EVERYTIME I post FACTS...thats when the names are called.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Dick, you really aren't all there if you look at this picture and don't see extremely strange similarities with a controlled demolition job.
www.911research.com...

Than we have Silverstein stating he "pulled it",
Of course, Silverstein would then come back and correct himself and state that that's not what he meant but didn't want to explain what it is he really meant. Only later on did his office issue a statement that explained Silverstein got a call from the firefighters in the afternoon and that they decided to pull out the firefighting efforts in order to save lives.

The only problem with this explanation is that there were no firefighters in the building at that time. All people, including the firefighters have been evacuated in the morning around 11 o'clock according to Gulliani. So how can you "pull out" a team of firefighters that just wasn't there?
It's obvious that Silverstein''s explanation that by "pull it" he meant "Pulling out the firefighters contingency" is a lie, a whitewash.
What does that tell you?

Very simply, WTC7 collapsed in a perfectly vertical manner, no way a fire or "sub-basement damages" from the towers did this. No way fuel fires did this. You know what is the truth, you have it in your face and you just refuse to see it.

Strangely, the mass corporate media is very keen on mentioning that we are all kooks and "tin foil hat conspiracy theorists" but they make sure to never mention WTC7 and when they do, they sure don't show any clips of it coming down. You know this, you understand this but cmprehending with this idea that your media is hiding the truth from you is so painful to admit that you would rather bury yourself in x-spurts papers rather than looking at it from a purely logical point of view .... I've been there, I know how you feel.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
your 2nd post above mine and last post above mine wasnt fact, it was being a smart ass and calling the person who posted what he did an idiot.

Take the medicne or gtfo. Thats all I have to say.. now get wit the proof.. and stop BS'ing.. You wanna back up some half ass research done by NIST and FEMA fine.. its the same we are doing just not some governement agency.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
What Dick is saying is, "Anyone outside the government" is a kook and doesn't hold the truth to anything. That is why I ask again, do you work for the government, Dick?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Oh, and Dick, I mean Cameron....Maybe, while you are on the research panel, give me some more answers to a few more valid questions or issues...

1. Why did the interviews of 500 fire department personel, not go public?
2. Why did Kissinger, promptly step down from the investigation panel?
3. Why did Bush, hire "only" DC insiders to head the investigation panel?
4. Why were boxes upon boxes of omissions and reports, left unopened by the inv. panel and never reviewed?
5. Why was only a top Bush aid, Zelikow, allowed access to the super important documents in the investigation, and not his whole inv. team?
6. Why did YOUR BELOVED MEDIA, begin to unconnect the dots to the real questions during the investigation period? Easy one there Dick!
7. Why has Paul Thompson's, Timeline, been taken more seriously than YOUR BELOVED 9/11 Commision Report?
8. Why did we not do anything when 14 NATIONS WARNED US OF THIS WEEKS BEFORE IT HAPPENED?
9. Why, in August, when Britian warned us 3 times, did your BELOVED GOVERNMENT not do anything?
10. Why, on August 8th, did we not take the Daily Press Briefing more seriously?
11. What about the warnings given at the G-8 Summit meetings!!
12. Why did your BELOVED OFFICIAL, Ari Flesher, state, "We did not receive any advanced warning".
13. Why were their, "surface to air missles", placed at Bush's Florida Resort location the night before 9/11?
14. Why did ALL of the Pentagon Brass cancel their flights the morning of 9/11, BEFORE the event took place!!
15. If had warnings, why didn't we strengthen security. Why was YOUR BELOVED GOVERNMENT protected, but the SECRETS weren't revealled to the public???
16. The 9/11 Report, it states that the person who funded this attack, "Is of little importance". Why??
17. Funding is said to have come from a Pakistan Official (ISI Official), so can I ask why THAT VERY OFFICAIL WAS IN WASHINGTON THAT DAY???
18. On 9/10, that very official wired $100K to Atta, why did YOUR BELOVED GOVERNMENT allow this???

Rebecca Abrams, FROM YOUR BELOVED MEDIA, ABC News, stated, "Reporting nowadays, is used with EXTREME CAUTION". Isn't that wonderful? Gotta be careful what you say, huh?

Because of a repeated pattern of broken protocal, laws, etc., one cannot call all of the events of 9/11 simple luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Tex ~
If you are in agreement with THICH that I called you an IDIOT...that was not my intention... I was stating that the list of links you gave me did not match up to the list of Engineers I gave you.MANY were repeats and only ONE was an actualy Engineer. The list that was given was NOT government issued.
Remember although NIST is a government agency, of the 200+ memebers that researched the WTC collapses... 125 of them were NOT from NIST. NIST hired them for their services. ( i could be off on the specific numbers, but its pretty close)

Now..to answer you questions ....
1. Why did the interviews of 500 fire department personel, not go public?I've Read SEVERAL . Can you point me to where this is mentioned.
2. Why did Kissinger, promptly step down from the investigation panel? GREAT question! I agree!
3. Why did Bush, hire "only" DC insiders to head the investigation panel?Bush KNEW he was not doing his job up until 911! (and still isnt)
4. Why were boxes upon boxes of omissions and reports, left unopened by the inv. panel and never reviewed? Another GREAT question. Bush only allowed 13 million and a very limited time!
5. Why was only a top Bush aid, Zelikow, allowed access to the super important documents in the investigation, and not his whole inv. team? Go back to #3
6. Why did YOUR BELOVED MEDIA, begin to unconnect the dots to the real questions during the investigation period? Easy one there Dick! My beloved Media?The didn't unconnect them...lots of them were hushed.
7. Why has Paul Thompson's, Timeline, been taken more seriously than YOUR BELOVED 9/11 Commision Report? Where have I stated that i agreed with the 911 Report?????
8. Why did we not do anything when 14 NATIONS WARNED US OF THIS WEEKS BEFORE IT HAPPENED? Go back to #3
9. Why, in August, when Britian warned us 3 times, did your BELOVED GOVERNMENT not do anything? #3 again
10. Why, on August 8th, did we not take the Daily Press Briefing more seriously? #3
11. What about the warnings given at the G-8 Summit meetings!! #3
12. Why did your BELOVED OFFICIAL, Ari Flesher, state, "We did not receive any advanced warning". BELOVED OFFICAL???? WTF ??
13. Why were their, "surface to air missles", placed at Bush's Florida Resort location the night before 9/11? I read that some time ago...was that a fact?
14. Why did ALL of the Pentagon Brass cancel their flights the morning of 9/11, BEFORE the event took place!!
15. If had warnings, why didn't we strengthen security. Why was YOUR BELOVED GOVERNMENT protected, but the SECRETS weren't revealled to the public???
16. The 9/11 Report, it states that the person who funded this attack, "Is of little importance". Why??
17. Funding is said to have come from a Pakistan Official (ISI Official), so can I ask why THAT VERY OFFICAIL WAS IN WASHINGTON THAT DAY???
18. On 9/10, that very official wired $100K to Atta, why did YOUR BELOVED GOVERNMENT allow this???

TEX... with all these question dude...your preaching to the choir! I am a LEFT LIBERAL....I totaly agree with you on the 911 investigation. This Thread is about CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!! I believe ( i cant 100% prove it) that Bush knew at LEAST SOME of what what going to happen and FAILED to protect us... THATS WHY I AM HERE... I am trying to learn and gather the TRUTH. Just becasue I don't believe the towers were brought down by BOMBS or NUKES or THERMITE. Does not make me a shill, and idiot, a Bush lover.
For you to say "MY BELOVED" is just bull s^%&! I have NEVER spoken in favor of the 911 report or the Bush Administration. If ANYTHING I have asked for there to be ANOTHER investigation. The NIST team was NOT all government officals. Look it up! Was it perfect? Probably not...but im not qualified to make that statement. I will however look at what is presented.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Are you SERIOUSLY thinking your list has ANY credibility...did you think i WASNT going to look at them?? Well.. surprise, I am stuck in my office today and its quiet in here...so I have some time to kill...


I think you are missing the point here, Dick. I was just proving to you, myself and everyone else, that everything you send are THE FACTS, and everyone else is discredited and ridiculed. Thank you, you proved the point!

You gotta understand this. You send your NIST and FEMA info, along with reports from Newsweek and Time and ABC, etc., but doesn't it sink into your brain, that these reporters for these top Media and Government companies, have to be extremelly "CAREFUL", in what they report? Dick, they could lose their J-O-B over reporting something AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT!! Wow, got it now?

Follow the herd....go ahead.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Remember those large amounts of put options against the two airline companies that were bought just before 9/11?
The commission only stated, upon investigation, that it was all coincidences and those who bought those put options had no connection to Alqueada, in other words: don't follow the money and disregard any evidence not pointing to Alqueada.
But still, business men would have to have a very specific reason to want to buy ten times the usual amount of put options, they would have a reason for it. An inside tip, a market change, a prediction, what was the tip the put option buyers were acting on and why haven't they yet cashed in their profits? Just who are these people who bought put options against the airlines involved and would make a killing after 9/11? Who are they? Why didn't the commission name them?

And then about who financed the terrorists, as my college pointed out, the 9/11 commission simply stated those aren''t important. But I'll tell you why they decided that it wasn't important, because if you study the question of Alqueada finances, that will take your focus away from the terrorist responsibilities, that will make you question what's really going on so they don't mention it, they simply declare that they will not follow the money once again.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
texas,

Stop calling him dick, please.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join